Anybody want some wood?
August 14, 2005 2:39 AM Subscribe
Is NAFTA in danger? The United States has ignored the latest ruling on the Softwood Lumber dispute. A NAFTA panel has ruled unanimously against the duties. This is the third ruling on the matter, the previous two, supposedly binding, also being in Canada's favor. The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, a lobby group financed by International Paper and Georgia Pacific, are behind this belligerent assault on the world's largest bilateral trade partnership. The National Association of Home Builders is calling for compliance, but protectionism still looks to be winning.
well proectionism is just a response to government subsidies - giving canadian lumber an "unfair advantage". Id say the best answer would be to proportionally tax American imports which are subsidised by the US gov't.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:46 AM on August 14, 2005
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:46 AM on August 14, 2005
No, protectionism is a rhetorical ploy used by a country that has a lesser hand in a given case. Bush talks a big game about free trade but his administration has done its damndest to duck and cover when it comes to actual economics. The free market ain't free, and never will be.
Remember steel?
How bout agriculture?
Open bids on Iraqi reconstruction?
No. No. No.
For a clusterfucked administration, I get particular delight out of them rolling out the old canards of Adam Smith (I doubt many of them have actually read him). Son, it has a lot more to do with who you've golfed with than it has to do with you merits and abilities.
posted by bardic at 5:27 AM on August 14, 2005
Remember steel?
How bout agriculture?
Open bids on Iraqi reconstruction?
No. No. No.
For a clusterfucked administration, I get particular delight out of them rolling out the old canards of Adam Smith (I doubt many of them have actually read him). Son, it has a lot more to do with who you've golfed with than it has to do with you merits and abilities.
posted by bardic at 5:27 AM on August 14, 2005
bardic, that is a pretty good argument for why Canada should never have gotten involved in Free Trade with the USA in the first place.
[expletive deleted], I'm told Canada has tried to diversify its export customer base though, several times. Apparently it doesn't work very well, Americans just have so much money, and they are so close.
I had a discussion with a friend about how Canada could protect its sovereignty in a world of American empire a couple of months ago... I suggested that allowing Chinese investment in Canadian companies might be the only practical tactic. The truth is I hate the idea of foreign ownership, but while thinking strategically with him I couldn't come up with anything else. Other than the current strategy that is: Encourage international agreements and the United Nations, etc., and then cave whenever you have to because, you know, we want the money...
posted by Chuckles at 6:35 AM on August 14, 2005
[expletive deleted], I'm told Canada has tried to diversify its export customer base though, several times. Apparently it doesn't work very well, Americans just have so much money, and they are so close.
I had a discussion with a friend about how Canada could protect its sovereignty in a world of American empire a couple of months ago... I suggested that allowing Chinese investment in Canadian companies might be the only practical tactic. The truth is I hate the idea of foreign ownership, but while thinking strategically with him I couldn't come up with anything else. Other than the current strategy that is: Encourage international agreements and the United Nations, etc., and then cave whenever you have to because, you know, we want the money...
posted by Chuckles at 6:35 AM on August 14, 2005
See, this is what I think free trade is all about. Countries have these disputes. Three years of wrangling is not much time at all and this will end up coming to a peaceful agreement. I think Canada will come out on top. Apart from economic disputes, our countries go through these types of things from time to time, even pre-1867.
It reminds me of my father and one of his friends. Close for decades, they've had disagreements, angry disputes, haven't spoken to each other for vast lengths of time, are unfair to each other; yet still they come out of it at the end. Nationalism on either side of the 49th will certainly colour (and has) the way this situation is viewed, but it'll come out clean in the end.
Tangentially to that, this whole system of international free trade is relatively new. It's not going to work smoothly in all cases. You have situations arise which only the most arcane economist could predict that just aren't accounted for yet. I'm confident these will be overcome.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:49 AM on August 14, 2005
It reminds me of my father and one of his friends. Close for decades, they've had disagreements, angry disputes, haven't spoken to each other for vast lengths of time, are unfair to each other; yet still they come out of it at the end. Nationalism on either side of the 49th will certainly colour (and has) the way this situation is viewed, but it'll come out clean in the end.
Tangentially to that, this whole system of international free trade is relatively new. It's not going to work smoothly in all cases. You have situations arise which only the most arcane economist could predict that just aren't accounted for yet. I'm confident these will be overcome.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:49 AM on August 14, 2005
No reference for this, but supposedly what the Europeans have practiced in trade dispute cases is picking a small but influential set of American exports that happen to be important in key marginal US congressional districts (not that there are many of those, thanks to gerrymandering), and tariffing those. So, they might impose tarrifs on disco balls from Congressman Dickhead's district, rutebaga extract from Congressman Buddyboo's district, etc. Trivial overall, but targeted, and effective.
Anyway, what infuriates a lot of the world about the US (and probably a lot of USians as well) is the gap between the loud, highfalutin' rhetoric (free trade, free markets, freedom fighters, "all men are created equal" blah blah) and the cynical actions that accompany and undermine that rhetoric, like this case.
Captaintripps: this case has already been decided by the highest authority designated under the free trade agreement. There is no need for eventual "peaceful agreement". The decision IS the peaceful agreement, and the US is explicitly saying they will not respect the treaty and process to which they agreed. It is unilateral bad faith, and your anecdote about your father is thus meaningless in this case.
posted by Rumple at 9:22 AM on August 14, 2005
Anyway, what infuriates a lot of the world about the US (and probably a lot of USians as well) is the gap between the loud, highfalutin' rhetoric (free trade, free markets, freedom fighters, "all men are created equal" blah blah) and the cynical actions that accompany and undermine that rhetoric, like this case.
Captaintripps: this case has already been decided by the highest authority designated under the free trade agreement. There is no need for eventual "peaceful agreement". The decision IS the peaceful agreement, and the US is explicitly saying they will not respect the treaty and process to which they agreed. It is unilateral bad faith, and your anecdote about your father is thus meaningless in this case.
posted by Rumple at 9:22 AM on August 14, 2005
My hope is that the lumber companies in Canada finally figure out that there is a global market for their product, and that there arefar better trading partners for their product, who will actually pay for the product.
The less we rely on trade with the USA, the better off Canada will be.
There is no need for us to put up with theft.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:53 AM on August 14, 2005
The less we rely on trade with the USA, the better off Canada will be.
There is no need for us to put up with theft.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:53 AM on August 14, 2005
If you've been following this in the news, you'll know that trade disputes between Canada and the U.S. tend to end with the U.S. basically saying nah-nah-nah-boogers to the entire legal process designed to arbitrate these disputes. This, combined with the increasing drift in social policy, spells a future that could be very harsh for Canada economically. I wish we (Canada) would vigorously seek trade elsewhere in the world - with the EU, with Asia, whoever. The more we tie ourselves to the U.S., the more we get tied down and the more we get dragged down with the seemingly inevitable decline of our Southern neighbours. We never should have agreed to free trade in the first place (thanks Mulroney!), but it's still not too late to start carving out a different course.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:06 AM on August 14, 2005
posted by stinkycheese at 10:06 AM on August 14, 2005
The US is just doing what the US already does -- embrace free trade except whenever it doesn't suit its purposes, and if that causes an upset issue threats of sanctions.
This is not something new with the Bush administration either, lumber has been an issue since the beginning of NAFTA.
posted by clevershark at 10:43 AM on August 14, 2005
This is not something new with the Bush administration either, lumber has been an issue since the beginning of NAFTA.
posted by clevershark at 10:43 AM on August 14, 2005
Living in B.C., I've seen a few articles in local papers about companies trying to diversify their output to different countries, but the US is right there.
Currently, I find the most interesting thing about this issue is the sudden backing away of Alberta and some of the other provinces over holding back or tariffing their resources as a retaliation. I'm assuming that the states have about the same attitude when it comes to inter-state/country trade disputes?
Canada is like a big family - everyone has some issue with somebody at the dinner table. That's what makes holidays so fun ..
Quebec, don't smoke in here! Only outside! You want Nova Scotia to get lung cancer? Sheeesh!
posted by concreteforest at 11:09 AM on August 14, 2005
Currently, I find the most interesting thing about this issue is the sudden backing away of Alberta and some of the other provinces over holding back or tariffing their resources as a retaliation. I'm assuming that the states have about the same attitude when it comes to inter-state/country trade disputes?
Canada is like a big family - everyone has some issue with somebody at the dinner table. That's what makes holidays so fun ..
Quebec, don't smoke in here! Only outside! You want Nova Scotia to get lung cancer? Sheeesh!
posted by concreteforest at 11:09 AM on August 14, 2005
I finally joined Mefi in order to make a comment in this thread.
The NAFTA panel that recently unanimously ruled that the United States should repay $5b plus interest in illegally imposed duties was the final appeal. Canada has been much more than patient, going through the legal process for many years. And the United States has ignored their international commitments.
If I don't pay the rent to my landlord and ask for a "negotiated settlement", he is going to throw me out on my ass.
The time for negotiation is over. Its war.
Canada should immediately block all energy exports to the United States. This means all oil, hydroelectric, natural gas and uranium exports should be halted at the border. And the Alaska pipelines should be closed as well.
This would make the 1970s oil shock seem like a cakewalk.
posted by angrybeaver at 11:13 AM on August 14, 2005
The NAFTA panel that recently unanimously ruled that the United States should repay $5b plus interest in illegally imposed duties was the final appeal. Canada has been much more than patient, going through the legal process for many years. And the United States has ignored their international commitments.
If I don't pay the rent to my landlord and ask for a "negotiated settlement", he is going to throw me out on my ass.
The time for negotiation is over. Its war.
Canada should immediately block all energy exports to the United States. This means all oil, hydroelectric, natural gas and uranium exports should be halted at the border. And the Alaska pipelines should be closed as well.
This would make the 1970s oil shock seem like a cakewalk.
posted by angrybeaver at 11:13 AM on August 14, 2005
Newfoundland! Fer christ's sake, put on a clean shirt!!
posted by Quartermass at 11:16 AM on August 14, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 11:16 AM on August 14, 2005
BC, stop smoking that joint!! You wanna the DEA to invade us?
posted by angrybeaver at 11:17 AM on August 14, 2005
posted by angrybeaver at 11:17 AM on August 14, 2005
five fresh fish: British Columbia forest companies have been expanding into the Japanese and Chinese markets for the past ten years or so. New and retrofitted mills constructed in British Columbia are turning out Japanese-sized dimensional wood products. As I recall, Japanse dimensions for plywood are 0.9m x 1.8m (approx 3' x 6').
posted by angrybeaver at 11:39 AM on August 14, 2005
posted by angrybeaver at 11:39 AM on August 14, 2005
I hate to say it and it may be very ugly for awhile, but I think angrybeaver (love that name) is correct. This is a bully who is taking our lunch money and five billion dollars is a lot of lunch. If we don't put our foot down very soon, we're just going to get obliterated.
And hey Alberta, close the damn door! Were you born in a barn?
posted by stinkycheese at 11:43 AM on August 14, 2005
And hey Alberta, close the damn door! Were you born in a barn?
posted by stinkycheese at 11:43 AM on August 14, 2005
In a few years, when the US military has been destroyed by an alliance of freedom fighters from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Mexico and Syria, maybe Canada will finally be able to invade, bringing freedom and democracy.
Given the Diebold situation, I can't see any other way to get rid of Bush.
Glorious visions of Mounties riding through cheering throngs, ticker-tape parades in Manhattan...
posted by cleardawn at 12:37 PM on August 14, 2005
Given the Diebold situation, I can't see any other way to get rid of Bush.
Glorious visions of Mounties riding through cheering throngs, ticker-tape parades in Manhattan...
posted by cleardawn at 12:37 PM on August 14, 2005
angrybeaver has it. Canada's only barganing chip is its oil, etc. NAFTA is pretty pro-US energy-wise right? Why not just declare NAFTA void due to various US violations? Or do so when China will pay $100 per barrel. Then use energy exports to negotiate a more favorable treaty.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:43 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by jeffburdges at 12:43 PM on August 14, 2005
angrybeaver, you provide an excellent example of why no nation or federation will ever have direct democracy. Relax. I know people loosing their jobs, but Canada is still a net exporter to the US, a full trade war is not in Canada's interest, let alone a military venture.
Furthermore this was not a "final appeal". There will be more rulings and disputes for a long time to come.
Canada has lost some rulings.. why where they not final?
Both sides are not happy, and the bickering via NAFTA and WTO trade panels have not solved the problem. Will they ever?
The last deal which had some stability provided a quota. It is not a desirable position but AFAIK it is the fall back position of the current round of bargaining.
In the fall back scenario, Canada would agree to a quota for a fixed period of time, and the Canadian gov't would collect a duty on everything above the quota.
On the Canadian side, a quota is not great there is more wood there than you can shake a stick at. You're drowning in the stuff and it is possibly the cheapest source of wood in the world. You want to make as much profit off of it as possible, but when you take up around 34% of the US market, protectionism chimes in.
Economic efficiency is obviously not the desired goal of the US. It would leave many places jobless.
But Canada is doing the prudent thing. It is attempting to convince the US gov't and people that the economically prudent option, and an unfettered market, is in everyones' best interest. Considering the majority opinions of both populations this is actually comical.
It may succeed, Canada may win the ability to dominate the US market, but the fall back position is yet another detente AKA quota, which would not be final.
As for how Canada goes about getting the $5B back. That IMHO is what NAFTA and WTO are for. Canada can (and likely will) impose duties equal to the amount lost. Not to start a war, just to retrieve what was taken.
posted by ecco at 12:46 PM on August 14, 2005
Furthermore this was not a "final appeal". There will be more rulings and disputes for a long time to come.
Canada has lost some rulings.. why where they not final?
Both sides are not happy, and the bickering via NAFTA and WTO trade panels have not solved the problem. Will they ever?
The last deal which had some stability provided a quota. It is not a desirable position but AFAIK it is the fall back position of the current round of bargaining.
In the fall back scenario, Canada would agree to a quota for a fixed period of time, and the Canadian gov't would collect a duty on everything above the quota.
On the Canadian side, a quota is not great there is more wood there than you can shake a stick at. You're drowning in the stuff and it is possibly the cheapest source of wood in the world. You want to make as much profit off of it as possible, but when you take up around 34% of the US market, protectionism chimes in.
Economic efficiency is obviously not the desired goal of the US. It would leave many places jobless.
But Canada is doing the prudent thing. It is attempting to convince the US gov't and people that the economically prudent option, and an unfettered market, is in everyones' best interest. Considering the majority opinions of both populations this is actually comical.
It may succeed, Canada may win the ability to dominate the US market, but the fall back position is yet another detente AKA quota, which would not be final.
As for how Canada goes about getting the $5B back. That IMHO is what NAFTA and WTO are for. Canada can (and likely will) impose duties equal to the amount lost. Not to start a war, just to retrieve what was taken.
posted by ecco at 12:46 PM on August 14, 2005
Yes jeffburdges, there are two clauses of interest here...
The "energy" clause states that Canada cannot reduce exports to the United States without a corresponding reduction in domestic comsumption. This also applies to all other exports, which is why Canada has refused to permit bulk water exports to the United States. NAFTA is one of the United States' strongest guarantees of a secure oil supply which makes their current actions look incredibly stupid.
The Chinese look like better trade partners with each passing day. They've purchased tar sands in Northern Alberta and are negotiating to build a pipeline over the Rockies to the coast.
The other clause is that any party to NAFTA may cancel the agreement with six months notice to the other parties. But it would be nice for Canada to get their money back first.
And hey Ontario, can we please have some more gruel here out west?
posted by angrybeaver at 1:01 PM on August 14, 2005
The "energy" clause states that Canada cannot reduce exports to the United States without a corresponding reduction in domestic comsumption. This also applies to all other exports, which is why Canada has refused to permit bulk water exports to the United States. NAFTA is one of the United States' strongest guarantees of a secure oil supply which makes their current actions look incredibly stupid.
The Chinese look like better trade partners with each passing day. They've purchased tar sands in Northern Alberta and are negotiating to build a pipeline over the Rockies to the coast.
The other clause is that any party to NAFTA may cancel the agreement with six months notice to the other parties. But it would be nice for Canada to get their money back first.
And hey Ontario, can we please have some more gruel here out west?
posted by angrybeaver at 1:01 PM on August 14, 2005
Warning! Canadian speaking, adjust your bias filters accordingly.
I don't know. Perhaps it's the Canadian media bias but I never hear about those times when Canada ignores international treaties and does whatever the hell it wants (Yes, yes the US is not ingoring the ruling but appealing it yada yada yada. I was thinking out loud in a more generalized context). But I digress.
This will continue up the chain of possible apeals, as defined by NAFTA, until there is no more apealing to be done. Those who hate NAFTA, on either side of the boarder, will use this as an example of why it's wrong|evil. Those who never liked their neighbours to the north|south will continue to complain about those neighbours to the north|south. People who don't like the goverment will blame DC|Ottawa for screwing over their state|province. Politicians who claim they will get though on the issue will ride the issue into office for many a year to come.
If I use my psychic powers to predict the outcome I get a hazy vision of Canada getting the short end of the stick, as usual.
Just remember USA, it's always the quiet ones that snap and we live just next door. When you call up your good bud England and tell then Canada just invaded they won't believe you. Then it will be too late.
posted by cm at 1:08 PM on August 14, 2005
I don't know. Perhaps it's the Canadian media bias but I never hear about those times when Canada ignores international treaties and does whatever the hell it wants (Yes, yes the US is not ingoring the ruling but appealing it yada yada yada. I was thinking out loud in a more generalized context). But I digress.
This will continue up the chain of possible apeals, as defined by NAFTA, until there is no more apealing to be done. Those who hate NAFTA, on either side of the boarder, will use this as an example of why it's wrong|evil. Those who never liked their neighbours to the north|south will continue to complain about those neighbours to the north|south. People who don't like the goverment will blame DC|Ottawa for screwing over their state|province. Politicians who claim they will get though on the issue will ride the issue into office for many a year to come.
If I use my psychic powers to predict the outcome I get a hazy vision of Canada getting the short end of the stick, as usual.
Just remember USA, it's always the quiet ones that snap and we live just next door. When you call up your good bud England and tell then Canada just invaded they won't believe you. Then it will be too late.
posted by cm at 1:08 PM on August 14, 2005
Rumple: ecco pretty much countered that last paragraph of yours and I wouldn't add to it. It's not meaningless and this is certainly not at the end of the process, fitting in with my view of it quite nicely.
posted by Captaintripps at 1:19 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by Captaintripps at 1:19 PM on August 14, 2005
When you call up your good bud England and tell then Canada just invaded they won't believe you.
Sorry, lovely try, but you don't have nuclear weapons, therefore, you don't count. If you did actually start making gains (which would be easy, with the northern tier of states loving the idea of running away from Jesusland.) then BushCo would, quite simply, start nuking Canadian cities until you signed over the oil.
Remember this: Canada is civilized. Angry, but civilized.
We are not. If you want to play games with oil, the answer will be either take over Canada, or destroy it.
There's a simple answer, but you're too decent to follow through. Simply make a few dozen nukes, and suddenly, you can tell the US to fuck off with impunity.
It's the same reasons liberals keep losing here. You insist in being decent and fair. The US doesn't. Therefore, you'll keep losing.
So, expect nothing for Canada from this, and if you try to push things, you'll be given a very not polite notice that you need to shut up and play ball, or you'll be destroyed.
Personally, I wish you'd build the nuclear weapons.
posted by eriko at 1:20 PM on August 14, 2005
Sorry, lovely try, but you don't have nuclear weapons, therefore, you don't count. If you did actually start making gains (which would be easy, with the northern tier of states loving the idea of running away from Jesusland.) then BushCo would, quite simply, start nuking Canadian cities until you signed over the oil.
Remember this: Canada is civilized. Angry, but civilized.
We are not. If you want to play games with oil, the answer will be either take over Canada, or destroy it.
There's a simple answer, but you're too decent to follow through. Simply make a few dozen nukes, and suddenly, you can tell the US to fuck off with impunity.
It's the same reasons liberals keep losing here. You insist in being decent and fair. The US doesn't. Therefore, you'll keep losing.
So, expect nothing for Canada from this, and if you try to push things, you'll be given a very not polite notice that you need to shut up and play ball, or you'll be destroyed.
Personally, I wish you'd build the nuclear weapons.
posted by eriko at 1:20 PM on August 14, 2005
Heh heh. They were always such [i]nice neighbours[/i]. They were quiet and pretty much [i]kept to themselves[/i]. No one ever saw this coming.
Oh, and Captaintripps?
[i]Three years of wrangling is not much time at all and this will end up coming to a peaceful agreement. I think Canada will come out on top.[/i]
Three years is a very long time if you're in the industry. A peaceful agreement? What does that mean, you won't invade us? On top? Huh? The U.S. government wanted free trade, they saw an opportunity to make a lot of money for American industry. Canada signed on and now we're getting a very sore ass out of it. The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here. That's hardly surprisingly anyone anymore I realise, but there's a big different betwen slapping someone around, and asking them to smile about it and say you're still friends.
I don't even get it anymore. I mean, usually you apply the carrot occassionally as well as the stick. Where's our carrots? All I see is a big stick and it keeps hitting Canada in the face.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:27 PM on August 14, 2005
Oh, and Captaintripps?
[i]Three years of wrangling is not much time at all and this will end up coming to a peaceful agreement. I think Canada will come out on top.[/i]
Three years is a very long time if you're in the industry. A peaceful agreement? What does that mean, you won't invade us? On top? Huh? The U.S. government wanted free trade, they saw an opportunity to make a lot of money for American industry. Canada signed on and now we're getting a very sore ass out of it. The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here. That's hardly surprisingly anyone anymore I realise, but there's a big different betwen slapping someone around, and asking them to smile about it and say you're still friends.
I don't even get it anymore. I mean, usually you apply the carrot occassionally as well as the stick. Where's our carrots? All I see is a big stick and it keeps hitting Canada in the face.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:27 PM on August 14, 2005
Well eriko, given that Canada has nuclear reactors that were originally designed to refine weapons grade material, you could one day get your wish. Plus we have all that empty space in which to hide nuclear labs. Heck, that underground pot form thing sounds fishy to me. Maybe it's really a nuclear facility?
Then again, watch me be all Canadian and offer you a civilised counter proposal. We'll take California. You guys keep whining about that immoral Hollywood, we'd be happy to take it off your hands. We'll take Washington and Oregon just so we can have access. In return, we'll trade you Alberta with all that sand-oil goodness you like. Alberta never liked Ottawa, I'm sure they'd be happy to join. How's that strike you?
posted by cm at 1:27 PM on August 14, 2005
Then again, watch me be all Canadian and offer you a civilised counter proposal. We'll take California. You guys keep whining about that immoral Hollywood, we'd be happy to take it off your hands. We'll take Washington and Oregon just so we can have access. In return, we'll trade you Alberta with all that sand-oil goodness you like. Alberta never liked Ottawa, I'm sure they'd be happy to join. How's that strike you?
posted by cm at 1:27 PM on August 14, 2005
Canada would not invade the USA as they have too much respect for international law. But I could easily imagine the United States invading Canada if we were to block all energy exports. In that case, "bring it on!" The USA would make themselves an international pariah, the Commonwealth would back Canada up and guerilla warfare would make the Americans flee back south of the 49th.
ecco, cm - all possible appeals have been exhausted. There are no more appeals. It's over. Canada now has the right to impose punitive tariffs in order to retreive the $5b, and those tariffs will be highly selective (ie, a 100% tariff on American wines). But why should California wine producers and Canadian oenophiles suffer for the actions of protectionist southern timber interests?
Canada has lost some trade rulings, but the overwhelming majority of the trade rulings have come down in favour of Canada. Yet Canada continually caves in to negotiated settlements, export tariffs and quotas. NAFTA was supposed to end all this garbage, but the USA has a strong disregard for the law if it does not go their way.
cm, there has been media attention wrt Canada's loan guarantees to Bombardier in their battle with Brazil's Embraer.
posted by angrybeaver at 1:33 PM on August 14, 2005
ecco, cm - all possible appeals have been exhausted. There are no more appeals. It's over. Canada now has the right to impose punitive tariffs in order to retreive the $5b, and those tariffs will be highly selective (ie, a 100% tariff on American wines). But why should California wine producers and Canadian oenophiles suffer for the actions of protectionist southern timber interests?
Canada has lost some trade rulings, but the overwhelming majority of the trade rulings have come down in favour of Canada. Yet Canada continually caves in to negotiated settlements, export tariffs and quotas. NAFTA was supposed to end all this garbage, but the USA has a strong disregard for the law if it does not go their way.
cm, there has been media attention wrt Canada's loan guarantees to Bombardier in their battle with Brazil's Embraer.
posted by angrybeaver at 1:33 PM on August 14, 2005
eriko: I'm starting to think Canada should build nuclear weapons too. But that means there's more nuclear weapons in the world, and that's not a very good solution really. Do you seriously think BushCo would "start nuking Canadian cities until (Canada) signed over the oil"?
Because, let me tell you, if the States ever did anything remotely like that, it would the U.S. versus Everyone Else.
I need to get away from this discussion for awhile. Nuking Canadian cities? That's just absurd. Honour your treaties or you'll find yourself in a big empty room called The World.
Can someone remind me why the United Nations HQ is even [i]in[/i] the United States?
posted by stinkycheese at 1:35 PM on August 14, 2005
Because, let me tell you, if the States ever did anything remotely like that, it would the U.S. versus Everyone Else.
I need to get away from this discussion for awhile. Nuking Canadian cities? That's just absurd. Honour your treaties or you'll find yourself in a big empty room called The World.
Can someone remind me why the United Nations HQ is even [i]in[/i] the United States?
posted by stinkycheese at 1:35 PM on August 14, 2005
Ooops wrong link in original post. It should have been there is more wood there than you can shake a stick at.
Thank you cleardawn for such a lovely image, "Glorious visions of Mounties riding through cheering throngs, ticker-tape parades in Manhattan..." :)
posted by ecco at 1:37 PM on August 14, 2005
Thank you cleardawn for such a lovely image, "Glorious visions of Mounties riding through cheering throngs, ticker-tape parades in Manhattan..." :)
posted by ecco at 1:37 PM on August 14, 2005
ecco >>> "You're drowning in the stuff and it is possibly the cheapest source of wood in the world."
Well, yes. But for some odd reason we're not quite as interested in clearcutting the fuck out of everything as some other countries are. So having lots of wood isn't entirely germane.
eriko >>> "Sorry, lovely try, but you don't have nuclear weapons, therefore, you don't count. If you did actually start making gains (which would be easy, with the northern tier of states loving the idea of running away from Jesusland.) then BushCo would, quite simply, start nuking Canadian cities until you signed over the oil."
Were you drunk when you wrote that? Nuclear fallout is reason #1 why BushCo would never nuke Canada. Don't be so fatuous.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:53 PM on August 14, 2005
Well, yes. But for some odd reason we're not quite as interested in clearcutting the fuck out of everything as some other countries are. So having lots of wood isn't entirely germane.
eriko >>> "Sorry, lovely try, but you don't have nuclear weapons, therefore, you don't count. If you did actually start making gains (which would be easy, with the northern tier of states loving the idea of running away from Jesusland.) then BushCo would, quite simply, start nuking Canadian cities until you signed over the oil."
Were you drunk when you wrote that? Nuclear fallout is reason #1 why BushCo would never nuke Canada. Don't be so fatuous.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:53 PM on August 14, 2005
ecco, from your first link:
"On July 29, 2003, it seemed as if there might be a breakthrough in the dispute when officials on both sides announced a draft deal. As part of the draft, Canada had agreed to cap lumber exports to account for 30 per cent of the U.S. market, down from 34 per cent. If the quota was exceeded, Canada would have to pay a penalty. The plan was nixed two days later when U.S. producers said Canada needed to make more compromises."
Canada has tried to go for a negotiated settlement many times, but it has been COFI, led by International Paper and Georgia-Pacific, that has pulled out the rug from such agreements. It is far more profitable for IP and GP to protract this dispute for as long as possible instead of coming to an agreement.
posted by angrybeaver at 1:54 PM on August 14, 2005
"On July 29, 2003, it seemed as if there might be a breakthrough in the dispute when officials on both sides announced a draft deal. As part of the draft, Canada had agreed to cap lumber exports to account for 30 per cent of the U.S. market, down from 34 per cent. If the quota was exceeded, Canada would have to pay a penalty. The plan was nixed two days later when U.S. producers said Canada needed to make more compromises."
Canada has tried to go for a negotiated settlement many times, but it has been COFI, led by International Paper and Georgia-Pacific, that has pulled out the rug from such agreements. It is far more profitable for IP and GP to protract this dispute for as long as possible instead of coming to an agreement.
posted by angrybeaver at 1:54 PM on August 14, 2005
Actually dirtynumbangelboy, it looks like British Columbia will be cutting down practically every tree in the province over the next twenty years in order to fight the pine beetle epidemic. The USA is absolutely terrified of this huge wall of wood coming towards them.
posted by angrybeaver at 1:57 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by angrybeaver at 1:57 PM on August 14, 2005
angrybeaver: I agree that the particular judgment about the current US tariffs/levies/duties is final inasmuch as any such judgment is final.
But when Canada sets duties against the US, the US will appeal. The appeal is either an entire new dispute, or just a continuance of this dispute. Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to. The semantics of finality are inconsequential. The dispute will continue.
It takes a lot of arguing and probably some back room pressure to get a trade ruling in your favour, esp. against the US. So take a great deal of pride in being right. The levies are not justified.
But the grain of salt is that new different levies on the exact same products might be, in a future process, ruled justified. Plus ca change...
posted by ecco at 1:57 PM on August 14, 2005
But when Canada sets duties against the US, the US will appeal. The appeal is either an entire new dispute, or just a continuance of this dispute. Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to. The semantics of finality are inconsequential. The dispute will continue.
It takes a lot of arguing and probably some back room pressure to get a trade ruling in your favour, esp. against the US. So take a great deal of pride in being right. The levies are not justified.
But the grain of salt is that new different levies on the exact same products might be, in a future process, ruled justified. Plus ca change...
posted by ecco at 1:57 PM on August 14, 2005
it would the U.S. versus Everyone Else.
Do you think BushCo would care? To them, that's what the world already is. If they can scam some country into helping them, that's fine, but if not, well, they're not America, thus, They Don't Matter.
Here's a hint. Bush just appointed a person who's stated goal is the destruction of the UN as ambassador to the UN. He's appointed someone who's stated that the President isn't bound by any treaty as Attorney General.
He doesn't care what you think. As long as you shut up and give him the money, he'll ignore you. Start complaining, and suddenly, you'll get noticed. Stop the oil, and he'll destroy you. Rules are for people who lose. Remember: They define reality, and the reality is that the US always wins trade disputes, and they'll do whatever they want to make that the reality.
It's that simple.
Nuclear fallout is reason #1 why BushCo would never nuke Canada. Don't be so fatuous.
Where do you think the fallout will go? Hint. It won't be the red states, and if a few Northeastern "libruls" die while were wiping out the evil Canucks, oh well. Heck, there are those Quebec guys -- they're almost French! Libruls and Frogs, in one fell swoop! There's no downside!
And, you know, even if it did hit the red states, so what? BushCo doesn't care. They get the money and power, it is good. They don't, it is bad. End of story.
You keep assuming that there's a limit to BushCo's depravity. Remember: Some of the biggest supporters of the regime hold as sacred truth that the end of the world is a good thing.
posted by eriko at 4:39 PM on August 14, 2005
Do you think BushCo would care? To them, that's what the world already is. If they can scam some country into helping them, that's fine, but if not, well, they're not America, thus, They Don't Matter.
Here's a hint. Bush just appointed a person who's stated goal is the destruction of the UN as ambassador to the UN. He's appointed someone who's stated that the President isn't bound by any treaty as Attorney General.
He doesn't care what you think. As long as you shut up and give him the money, he'll ignore you. Start complaining, and suddenly, you'll get noticed. Stop the oil, and he'll destroy you. Rules are for people who lose. Remember: They define reality, and the reality is that the US always wins trade disputes, and they'll do whatever they want to make that the reality.
It's that simple.
Nuclear fallout is reason #1 why BushCo would never nuke Canada. Don't be so fatuous.
Where do you think the fallout will go? Hint. It won't be the red states, and if a few Northeastern "libruls" die while were wiping out the evil Canucks, oh well. Heck, there are those Quebec guys -- they're almost French! Libruls and Frogs, in one fell swoop! There's no downside!
And, you know, even if it did hit the red states, so what? BushCo doesn't care. They get the money and power, it is good. They don't, it is bad. End of story.
You keep assuming that there's a limit to BushCo's depravity. Remember: Some of the biggest supporters of the regime hold as sacred truth that the end of the world is a good thing.
posted by eriko at 4:39 PM on August 14, 2005
This means all oil, hydroelectric, natural gas and uranium exports should be halted at the border. And the Alaska pipelines should be closed as well.
this should have happened a long time ago anyway. not to mention no water exports, and shut down the mckenzie valley pipe as well.
if people can't sustain themselves on their own local resources, they'dbetter damn well change the way they live, not just take everyone else's. plus i don't like the idea of the US having any more uranium than they already have.
the same goes for canada, too - we're actually the biggest per-capita energy consumer in the world, if i remember correctly. but at least we keep it (mostly) within our own (abstract and arbitrarily defined) national borders.
oh - and it's not a bilateral trade deal when it's for a continent that has three countries. < /nitpick>
posted by poweredbybeard at 4:54 PM on August 14, 2005
this should have happened a long time ago anyway. not to mention no water exports, and shut down the mckenzie valley pipe as well.
if people can't sustain themselves on their own local resources, they'd
the same goes for canada, too - we're actually the biggest per-capita energy consumer in the world, if i remember correctly. but at least we keep it (mostly) within our own (abstract and arbitrarily defined) national borders.
oh - and it's not a bilateral trade deal when it's for a continent that has three countries. < /nitpick>
posted by poweredbybeard at 4:54 PM on August 14, 2005
Thanks for joining the party, angrybeaver. I for one was glad to see your comments, particularly:
The "energy" clause states that Canada cannot reduce exports to the United States without a corresponding reduction in domestic comsumption. This also applies to all other exports, which is why Canada has refused to permit bulk water exports to the United States.
You know this is going to be about water sooner or later, and the first time that bulk purchase is made, we won't be able to (legally) refuse, even if a shortage at home means supplying our trading partner before we supply ourselves. But back to softwood...
Alberta is backing off because they finally have a toe-hold in the almost-as-outrageous double standards on beef. I don`t even want to imagine what our PM and the secretariat want to do with this one.
I could easily imagine the United States invading Canada if we were to block all energy exports.
Could happen, worst-case scenario, for energy, but I honestly can't see us pushing it to that point. When it comes time for water, though, all bets are off.
posted by dreamsign at 4:55 PM on August 14, 2005
The "energy" clause states that Canada cannot reduce exports to the United States without a corresponding reduction in domestic comsumption. This also applies to all other exports, which is why Canada has refused to permit bulk water exports to the United States.
You know this is going to be about water sooner or later, and the first time that bulk purchase is made, we won't be able to (legally) refuse, even if a shortage at home means supplying our trading partner before we supply ourselves. But back to softwood...
Alberta is backing off because they finally have a toe-hold in the almost-as-outrageous double standards on beef. I don`t even want to imagine what our PM and the secretariat want to do with this one.
I could easily imagine the United States invading Canada if we were to block all energy exports.
Could happen, worst-case scenario, for energy, but I honestly can't see us pushing it to that point. When it comes time for water, though, all bets are off.
posted by dreamsign at 4:55 PM on August 14, 2005
Canadian here.
First thing we need to do is to impose selective tariffs on US luxury exports much as the Europeans do. We'll need to collect about $10B to recover the $5B, what with interest and administrative costs.
Once that's been collected, we need to pull out of NAFTA and start selling the oil that the treaty has required that we provide to the US (at under market prices) to the open market at market prices.
The US needs to learn: Canada is a resource-based economy. The US needs our resources more than we need their luxuries. Once we pull out of NAFTA, the US can raise all the tariffs they like on lumber. And we'll impose export tariffs on raw logs.
Adversity drives innovation. We'll find other markets, because we'll have to. When the US is paying just as much for gas as we are, they'll be begging to come back to the table.
And we'll say "you had your chance; you needed that treaty more than we did."
posted by solid-one-love at 5:16 PM on August 14, 2005
First thing we need to do is to impose selective tariffs on US luxury exports much as the Europeans do. We'll need to collect about $10B to recover the $5B, what with interest and administrative costs.
Once that's been collected, we need to pull out of NAFTA and start selling the oil that the treaty has required that we provide to the US (at under market prices) to the open market at market prices.
The US needs to learn: Canada is a resource-based economy. The US needs our resources more than we need their luxuries. Once we pull out of NAFTA, the US can raise all the tariffs they like on lumber. And we'll impose export tariffs on raw logs.
Adversity drives innovation. We'll find other markets, because we'll have to. When the US is paying just as much for gas as we are, they'll be begging to come back to the table.
And we'll say "you had your chance; you needed that treaty more than we did."
posted by solid-one-love at 5:16 PM on August 14, 2005
You know, you Canadians already have enough enriched uranium for two Hiroshima-style bombs (11th 'graph). I say just go and make 'em--at the least, it'll keep Bush from invading you.
posted by MikeKD at 5:42 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by MikeKD at 5:42 PM on August 14, 2005
I could easily imagine the United States invading Canada if we were to block all energy exports. In that case, "bring it on!"
The Canadian guerilla action against a US invasion would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. It would cover the gamut, from sniping to poisoning their food supply, and beyond. And what with us Canucks not being all so conveniently brown and swarthy, the US army would have it's work cut out trying to figure out who's on their side and who is not.
Even if the USA were to somehow succeed in taking power, our citizenry would be pretty damned determined to throw monkeywrenches into machineworks at every opportunity. There are just so many ways to make life a living hell for an invading force, without even killing them outright.
The USA's best bet is not to invade Canada, but to hope that another cocksucker like Brian Mulroney gets into power. Ol' Brian just loved chowing down on that meaty red-white-and-blue schlong. Is that bastard dead yet? I sure hope so.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:08 PM on August 14, 2005
The Canadian guerilla action against a US invasion would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. It would cover the gamut, from sniping to poisoning their food supply, and beyond. And what with us Canucks not being all so conveniently brown and swarthy, the US army would have it's work cut out trying to figure out who's on their side and who is not.
Even if the USA were to somehow succeed in taking power, our citizenry would be pretty damned determined to throw monkeywrenches into machineworks at every opportunity. There are just so many ways to make life a living hell for an invading force, without even killing them outright.
The USA's best bet is not to invade Canada, but to hope that another cocksucker like Brian Mulroney gets into power. Ol' Brian just loved chowing down on that meaty red-white-and-blue schlong. Is that bastard dead yet? I sure hope so.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:08 PM on August 14, 2005
the same goes for canada, too - we're actually the biggest per-capita energy consumer in the world
I should think we are also the biggest per-capita energy producer, too.
Hell, one of the biggest power-generating dams in the world exists for the sole benefit of a single aluminum refinery. That's got to skew the statistics!
It's worth noting that the majority of Canada's electrical production is via "non-polluting" hydroelectricity and nuclear. Coal-burning isn't such a biggie here as it is in the USA and China.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:14 PM on August 14, 2005
I should think we are also the biggest per-capita energy producer, too.
Hell, one of the biggest power-generating dams in the world exists for the sole benefit of a single aluminum refinery. That's got to skew the statistics!
It's worth noting that the majority of Canada's electrical production is via "non-polluting" hydroelectricity and nuclear. Coal-burning isn't such a biggie here as it is in the USA and China.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:14 PM on August 14, 2005
And what with us Canucks not being all so conveniently brown and swarthy, the US army would have it's work cut out trying to figure out who's on their side and who is not.
Not really, it would just have to ask people to pronounce "out and about". :)
posted by MikeKD at 6:20 PM on August 14, 2005
Not really, it would just have to ask people to pronounce "out and about". :)
posted by MikeKD at 6:20 PM on August 14, 2005
SSHHHH!!! The CAFTA countries will hear. And the ink isn't dry yet.
posted by Balisong at 7:11 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by Balisong at 7:11 PM on August 14, 2005
[thread jack]
Has anyone here read John Ralston Saul's new book,
The Collapse of Globalism: And the Reinvention of the World?
I caught an interview on the CBC last Sunday where Ian Soloman asked JRS about the collapse of globalism, and couldn't help but laugh at the message presented on my Chinese TV while I ate off of American plates and drank from glasses made in Poland.
But given the foreseeable states of trade within NAFTA, and the mood of this discussion, he may just be right.
FWIW: While googling I found this 1999 transcript which may provide similar conclusions to his book, but is gratis.
For anyone starting to read JRS I recommend "the doubter's companion" as light material before you try to delve into his more well known tomes.
posted by ecco at 7:13 PM on August 14, 2005
Has anyone here read John Ralston Saul's new book,
The Collapse of Globalism: And the Reinvention of the World?
I caught an interview on the CBC last Sunday where Ian Soloman asked JRS about the collapse of globalism, and couldn't help but laugh at the message presented on my Chinese TV while I ate off of American plates and drank from glasses made in Poland.
But given the foreseeable states of trade within NAFTA, and the mood of this discussion, he may just be right.
FWIW: While googling I found this 1999 transcript which may provide similar conclusions to his book, but is gratis.
For anyone starting to read JRS I recommend "the doubter's companion" as light material before you try to delve into his more well known tomes.
posted by ecco at 7:13 PM on August 14, 2005
Perhaps it is, if one is in the industry, whatever that means. However, the industry is not the sum total of the population.
A peaceful agreement means jus that. It does not necessarily imply military action at all, merely a state without rancor between the two nations. This is still eminently possible at the current stage. As I said before, this whole system is relatively new.
What are the government's own rules on this? I'm not sure what you mean.
Quoth stinkycheese: "Three years is a very long time if you're in the industry. A peaceful agreement? What does that mean, you won't invade us? On top? Huh? The U.S. government wanted free trade, they saw an opportunity to make a lot of money for American industry. Canada signed on and now we're getting a very sore ass out of it. The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here. That's hardly surprisingly [sic] anyone anymore I realise, but there's a big different [sic] betwen [sic] slapping someone around, and asking them to smile about it and say you're still friends.
I don't even get it anymore. I mean, usually you apply the carrot occassionally [sic] as well as the stick. Where's our carrots? All I see is a big stick and it keeps hitting Canada in the face."
posted by Captaintripps at 7:17 PM on August 14, 2005
A peaceful agreement means jus that. It does not necessarily imply military action at all, merely a state without rancor between the two nations. This is still eminently possible at the current stage. As I said before, this whole system is relatively new.
What are the government's own rules on this? I'm not sure what you mean.
Quoth stinkycheese: "Three years is a very long time if you're in the industry. A peaceful agreement? What does that mean, you won't invade us? On top? Huh? The U.S. government wanted free trade, they saw an opportunity to make a lot of money for American industry. Canada signed on and now we're getting a very sore ass out of it. The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here. That's hardly surprisingly [sic] anyone anymore I realise, but there's a big different [sic] betwen [sic] slapping someone around, and asking them to smile about it and say you're still friends.
I don't even get it anymore. I mean, usually you apply the carrot occassionally [sic] as well as the stick. Where's our carrots? All I see is a big stick and it keeps hitting Canada in the face."
posted by Captaintripps at 7:17 PM on August 14, 2005
I was suprised when someone told me Canada was the largest single supplier of oil to the U.S., by a considerable amount - I knew we were the biggest trading partner, but not about the oil. I wonder what would happen if the oil just wasn't traded? It would defy NAFTA, but so does the U.S.'s actions.
posted by jb at 8:06 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by jb at 8:06 PM on August 14, 2005
It's worth noting that the majority of Canada's electrical production is via "non-polluting" hydroelectricity and nuclear.
True, but as of a few years ago, I recall us being the world's worst energy waster. Nowadays, I believe that Belgium has that honour, and we may even be third or fourth.
It would cover the gamut, from sniping to poisoning their food supply, and beyond.
It's funny. Well, not ha-ha. But for ages now, at least in days past when I could be bothered to get into a usenet ruckuss, and someone goes shooting their mouth off about what terrorism is all about, I'd occasionally get so riled I'd tell them to invade my country and I'd show them what it was all about. I mean really. Against an occupying force? Should we just line up, readily identified by military uniforms, and be shot? Don't think so... But terrorism has become the new boogey-man as communism was not sooo long ago, such that the word is near-meaningless except as a scare tactic. And of course, the good guys would never dip into that well...
posted by dreamsign at 8:38 PM on August 14, 2005
True, but as of a few years ago, I recall us being the world's worst energy waster. Nowadays, I believe that Belgium has that honour, and we may even be third or fourth.
It would cover the gamut, from sniping to poisoning their food supply, and beyond.
It's funny. Well, not ha-ha. But for ages now, at least in days past when I could be bothered to get into a usenet ruckuss, and someone goes shooting their mouth off about what terrorism is all about, I'd occasionally get so riled I'd tell them to invade my country and I'd show them what it was all about. I mean really. Against an occupying force? Should we just line up, readily identified by military uniforms, and be shot? Don't think so... But terrorism has become the new boogey-man as communism was not sooo long ago, such that the word is near-meaningless except as a scare tactic. And of course, the good guys would never dip into that well...
posted by dreamsign at 8:38 PM on August 14, 2005
What perplexes me about this issue is that this dispute hurts America more than Canada. There are few substitutes for the softwood lumber we export, and southern yellow pine is not one of them. The US does not produce enough structural softwood lumber to satisfy the housing market, and substitutes such as engineered wood products, concrete and steel frame houses are more expensive (if you have ever done traditional concrete forming, you realise how much lumber is used regardless). The National Assosication of Home Builders sides with Canada because this dispute is adding $4000 or more to the cost of building the average new home.
This money is going straight into the coffers of International Paper and Georgia-Pacific, two companies that produce very little structural lumber (think paper towels and popsicle sticks). Homebuilders in the US are justifiably outraged by this because it is just like the steel tariffs. The steel tariffs were bad for Americans because American industry needs steel imports. Toledo's gain is Detroit's loss. Hmm, Ohio 2004 anyone? I bet all those who lost auto industry jobs were happy to pay for those valuable swing votes. With softood lumber, it's pork for red states. GP and IP (the south) win, and Weyerhaeuser (Washington) lose. That's right, the biggest corporate loser in this game isn't even Canadian, just a blue state firm heavily invested in Canadian softwood. 40% of cross border trade is intra-firm, and you can bet Weyerhauser contributes alot to that statistic.
poweredbybeard: oh - and it's not a bilateral trade deal when it's for a continent that has three countries. < /nitpick>
I was refering to the US - Canada relationship, which even before NAFTA and a tripling of trade was still the world's largest bilateral trade relationship.
SSHHHH!!! The CAFTA countries will hear. And the ink isn't dry yet.
So what, all the CAFTA signatories are already used to being raped by American trade policies. It's business as fucking usual for them. 'Banana Repubic' anyone? CAFTA is just the rapist making pillow talk, and Central America loves that soothing baritone.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:45 PM on August 14, 2005
This money is going straight into the coffers of International Paper and Georgia-Pacific, two companies that produce very little structural lumber (think paper towels and popsicle sticks). Homebuilders in the US are justifiably outraged by this because it is just like the steel tariffs. The steel tariffs were bad for Americans because American industry needs steel imports. Toledo's gain is Detroit's loss. Hmm, Ohio 2004 anyone? I bet all those who lost auto industry jobs were happy to pay for those valuable swing votes. With softood lumber, it's pork for red states. GP and IP (the south) win, and Weyerhaeuser (Washington) lose. That's right, the biggest corporate loser in this game isn't even Canadian, just a blue state firm heavily invested in Canadian softwood. 40% of cross border trade is intra-firm, and you can bet Weyerhauser contributes alot to that statistic.
poweredbybeard: oh - and it's not a bilateral trade deal when it's for a continent that has three countries. < /nitpick>
I was refering to the US - Canada relationship, which even before NAFTA and a tripling of trade was still the world's largest bilateral trade relationship.
SSHHHH!!! The CAFTA countries will hear. And the ink isn't dry yet.
So what, all the CAFTA signatories are already used to being raped by American trade policies. It's business as fucking usual for them. 'Banana Repubic' anyone? CAFTA is just the rapist making pillow talk, and Central America loves that soothing baritone.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:45 PM on August 14, 2005
The saddest thing about the whole situation is that there is barely any mention of NAFTA in the United States media. The American people are barely aware that they are alienating themselves from the rest of the world.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:37 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by angrybeaver at 9:37 PM on August 14, 2005
nah-nah-nah-boogers
posted by TurdBlossom at 10:18 PM on August 14, 2005
posted by TurdBlossom at 10:18 PM on August 14, 2005
Ecco sayeth: I caught an interview on the CBC last Sunday where Ian Soloman asked JRS about the collapse of globalism, and couldn't help but laugh at the message presented on my Chinese TV while I ate off of American plates and drank from glasses made in Poland.
Tom Friedman? You're here, too?
It wasn't supposed to be all about the products.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:52 PM on August 14, 2005
Tom Friedman? You're here, too?
It wasn't supposed to be all about the products.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:52 PM on August 14, 2005
Oh knock it off already. Sheesh.
angrybeaver: "The saddest thing about the whole situation is that there is barely any mention of NAFTA in the United States media. The American people are barely aware that they are alienating themselves from the rest of the world."
posted by Captaintripps at 6:25 AM on August 15, 2005
angrybeaver: "The saddest thing about the whole situation is that there is barely any mention of NAFTA in the United States media. The American people are barely aware that they are alienating themselves from the rest of the world."
posted by Captaintripps at 6:25 AM on August 15, 2005
Tripps, what on earth are your messages supposed to mean? You keep quoting people but then not actually commenting on what they are saying.
Unless you are bizarrely putting your response before the pullquote. You shouldn't do that: this isn't usenet/email. People will simply quit reading your messages if you don't follow standard practice.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:11 AM on August 15, 2005
Unless you are bizarrely putting your response before the pullquote. You shouldn't do that: this isn't usenet/email. People will simply quit reading your messages if you don't follow standard practice.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:11 AM on August 15, 2005
hackly_fracture: I haven't read Lexus.. nor his current Flat World book but thank you for drawing my attention to him.
What I gather from this New York Times review he seems to promote the illusion the US promotes open markets and free trade.
From this discussion (and the quote below) it seems more like the US wants other markets to be open, while they maintain barriers to their own. AKA "bait and switch" and "double standard".
Granted, there may be one.. but I cannot think of nor can I google-discover one US industry which is dominated by foreign companies, whereas I'm under the impression that every sector in Canada is dominated by US subsidiaries.
A quick googling turned up this article printed "The Globe and Mail" by Mel Hurtig,
"Today, most manufacturing and oil and natural gas operating revenues in Canada already go to foreign owners. Dozens of key sectors of the Canadian economy are majority foreign-owned and controlled. As I have indicated in the past, in the United States there’s not one single industry majority foreign owned. Not one!"
posted by ecco at 12:45 PM on August 15, 2005
What I gather from this New York Times review he seems to promote the illusion the US promotes open markets and free trade.
From this discussion (and the quote below) it seems more like the US wants other markets to be open, while they maintain barriers to their own. AKA "bait and switch" and "double standard".
Granted, there may be one.. but I cannot think of nor can I google-discover one US industry which is dominated by foreign companies, whereas I'm under the impression that every sector in Canada is dominated by US subsidiaries.
A quick googling turned up this article printed "The Globe and Mail" by Mel Hurtig,
"Today, most manufacturing and oil and natural gas operating revenues in Canada already go to foreign owners. Dozens of key sectors of the Canadian economy are majority foreign-owned and controlled. As I have indicated in the past, in the United States there’s not one single industry majority foreign owned. Not one!"
posted by ecco at 12:45 PM on August 15, 2005
I can live with that.
five fresh fish: "Unless you are bizarrely putting your response before the pullquote. You shouldn't do that: this isn't usenet/email. People will simply quit reading your messages if you don't follow standard practice."
posted by Captaintripps at 1:45 PM on August 15, 2005
five fresh fish: "Unless you are bizarrely putting your response before the pullquote. You shouldn't do that: this isn't usenet/email. People will simply quit reading your messages if you don't follow standard practice."
posted by Captaintripps at 1:45 PM on August 15, 2005
Captaintripps illustrates the need for a detailed Mefi style guide. I suggest we coöpt that of the New Yorker.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:37 PM on August 15, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:37 PM on August 15, 2005
Captaintripps: What are the government's own rules on this? I'm not sure what you mean.
What I refered to by my statement "The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here" were the rules of the NAFTA agreement. That's what this thread is about - the fact that the U.S. is breaking the rules of the NAFTA treaty, as the followup comment by jb indicated.
What I meant by "the industry" was the logging industry, although of course there are many, many other related industries affected by this decision.
Three years of wrangling is not much time at all
There's been a problem with the U.S. over softwood lumber for about twenty years. NAFTA went into effect in 1994 and was supposed to prevent just these sorts of problems. This drawn-out wrangling and attempts to "renegotiate" or whatever you want to call it, combined with the recent "mad cow" fiasco, has made many Canadians very angry at the bare-faced protectionism the U.S. government is consistently evoking when U.S. companies don't come out on top in trade disputes. Of course, people like eriko would say that's all to the good because - as I read your comments - Might Makes Right.
Which brings us back to the U.S. invading or bombing Canada. Frankly, I'd prefer to see such naked aggression to the sort of back-room chicanery that's currently in its place. It's getting so you'd hardly notice the difference between military and commercial occupation anyways, as far as how truly independent or free we are here in the Great White North. At least if tanks were rolling through our streets, it would very clear to everyone what's really going on.
And finally, hey Captain, if you were going to correct my sloppy spelling, you might have also noted that I was screwing up my italics tagging as well.
posted by stinkycheese at 2:51 PM on August 15, 2005
What I refered to by my statement "The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here" were the rules of the NAFTA agreement. That's what this thread is about - the fact that the U.S. is breaking the rules of the NAFTA treaty, as the followup comment by jb indicated.
What I meant by "the industry" was the logging industry, although of course there are many, many other related industries affected by this decision.
Three years of wrangling is not much time at all
There's been a problem with the U.S. over softwood lumber for about twenty years. NAFTA went into effect in 1994 and was supposed to prevent just these sorts of problems. This drawn-out wrangling and attempts to "renegotiate" or whatever you want to call it, combined with the recent "mad cow" fiasco, has made many Canadians very angry at the bare-faced protectionism the U.S. government is consistently evoking when U.S. companies don't come out on top in trade disputes. Of course, people like eriko would say that's all to the good because - as I read your comments - Might Makes Right.
Which brings us back to the U.S. invading or bombing Canada. Frankly, I'd prefer to see such naked aggression to the sort of back-room chicanery that's currently in its place. It's getting so you'd hardly notice the difference between military and commercial occupation anyways, as far as how truly independent or free we are here in the Great White North. At least if tanks were rolling through our streets, it would very clear to everyone what's really going on.
And finally, hey Captain, if you were going to correct my sloppy spelling, you might have also noted that I was screwing up my italics tagging as well.
posted by stinkycheese at 2:51 PM on August 15, 2005
Which brings us back to the U.S. invading or bombing Canada. Frankly, I'd prefer to see such naked aggression to the sort of back-room chicanery that's currently in its place.
Uh, no. I'd prefer back-room chicanery. Looked at the pictures of Iraq lately, have you?
Besides that, we're good at back-room chicanery.
posted by jrochest at 3:12 PM on August 15, 2005
Uh, no. I'd prefer back-room chicanery. Looked at the pictures of Iraq lately, have you?
Besides that, we're good at back-room chicanery.
posted by jrochest at 3:12 PM on August 15, 2005
jrochest: Obviously I don't want Canada to look like Iraq. I have always assumed that if such a thing ever were to really happen, they're be a series of high-level phonecalls followed by the Canadian border being opened to U.S. troops. That's not a pussy move or anything, it's just common sense. And then, once those troops feel safe...we begin Operation Screech. Ho ho.
My point is really that when treaties are ignored in this way, it's tantamount to being invaded in some very limited senses. No dead bodies, no smouldering buildings, but no respect for our sovereignty or rights either. Just a slow erosion of same to the point where it makes no difference.
And yeah, the Liberal Party at least are masters of back-room chicanery. I still can't believe they came out of the whole Quebec ad scandal with Harper looking like an idiot. That should stand as one of the all-time political shellgames. It was like "Yes, Prime Minister" come to life. As good as they are though, I don't trust their chicanery to keep Canada "strong and free" in any meaningful sense of the term.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:32 PM on August 15, 2005
My point is really that when treaties are ignored in this way, it's tantamount to being invaded in some very limited senses. No dead bodies, no smouldering buildings, but no respect for our sovereignty or rights either. Just a slow erosion of same to the point where it makes no difference.
And yeah, the Liberal Party at least are masters of back-room chicanery. I still can't believe they came out of the whole Quebec ad scandal with Harper looking like an idiot. That should stand as one of the all-time political shellgames. It was like "Yes, Prime Minister" come to life. As good as they are though, I don't trust their chicanery to keep Canada "strong and free" in any meaningful sense of the term.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:32 PM on August 15, 2005
And, if so, Canada caught them out and is taking them to task through the processes allowed for by NAFTA. If you don't believe Canada will prevail, will in fact agree to a judgement against their favour in any appeal, you're entitled to your pessimism.
stinkycheese: "What I refered [sic] to by my statement 'The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here' were the rules of the NAFTA agreement. That's what this thread is about - the fact that the U.S. is breaking the rules of the NAFTA treaty, as the followup comment by jb indicated."
What problem? Protectionism? What agreements were in effect 20 years ago which the U.S. ignored, causing a problem? If there are two nations without agreements in place and they do whatever they want, it can hardly be considered a problem of the same kind you're describing happening now.
"There's been a problem with the U.S. over softwood lumber for about twenty years."
Interesting.
"NAFTA went into effect in 1994 and was supposed to prevent just these sorts of problems. This drawn-out wrangling and attempts to 'renegotiate' or whatever you want to call it, combined with the recent "mad cow" fiasco, has made many Canadians very angry at the bare-faced protectionism the U.S. government is consistently evoking when U.S. companies don't come out on top in trade disputes."
Pretty much false.
"Of course, people like eriko would say that's all to the good because - as I read your comments - Might Makes Right."
No, no it doesn't, but if you want to have a bogey man scenario, again you're entitled.
"Which brings us back to the U.S. invading or bombing Canada..."
You were screwing up your italics tagging.
"And finally, hey Captain, if you were going to correct my sloppy spelling, you might have also noted that I was screwing up my italics tagging as well."
posted by Captaintripps at 5:01 PM on August 15, 2005
stinkycheese: "What I refered [sic] to by my statement 'The U.S. government is not even abiding by its own rules here' were the rules of the NAFTA agreement. That's what this thread is about - the fact that the U.S. is breaking the rules of the NAFTA treaty, as the followup comment by jb indicated."
What problem? Protectionism? What agreements were in effect 20 years ago which the U.S. ignored, causing a problem? If there are two nations without agreements in place and they do whatever they want, it can hardly be considered a problem of the same kind you're describing happening now.
"There's been a problem with the U.S. over softwood lumber for about twenty years."
Interesting.
"NAFTA went into effect in 1994 and was supposed to prevent just these sorts of problems. This drawn-out wrangling and attempts to 'renegotiate' or whatever you want to call it, combined with the recent "mad cow" fiasco, has made many Canadians very angry at the bare-faced protectionism the U.S. government is consistently evoking when U.S. companies don't come out on top in trade disputes."
Pretty much false.
"Of course, people like eriko would say that's all to the good because - as I read your comments - Might Makes Right."
No, no it doesn't, but if you want to have a bogey man scenario, again you're entitled.
"Which brings us back to the U.S. invading or bombing Canada..."
You were screwing up your italics tagging.
"And finally, hey Captain, if you were going to correct my sloppy spelling, you might have also noted that I was screwing up my italics tagging as well."
posted by Captaintripps at 5:01 PM on August 15, 2005
sppirtniatpaC: And, if so, Canada caught them out and is taking them to task through the processes allowed for by NAFTA. If you don't believe Canada will prevail, will in fact agree to a judgement against their favour in any appeal, you're entitled to your pessimism.
You're missing the point - Canada has already taken the USA through the processes allowed by NAFTA. It's happened, it's done, it's over with. And the USA ignored the results. What is Canada supposed to do now? The past twenty years have shown that negotiated settlements and quotas and export tariffs don't mean a damn thing to the Americans.
So yeah, Canada needs to make the United States realize that there are consequences for ignoring NAFTA.
As stinkycheese said, naked aggression is a lot more honest.
posted by angrybeaver at 5:39 PM on August 15, 2005
You're missing the point - Canada has already taken the USA through the processes allowed by NAFTA. It's happened, it's done, it's over with. And the USA ignored the results. What is Canada supposed to do now? The past twenty years have shown that negotiated settlements and quotas and export tariffs don't mean a damn thing to the Americans.
So yeah, Canada needs to make the United States realize that there are consequences for ignoring NAFTA.
As stinkycheese said, naked aggression is a lot more honest.
posted by angrybeaver at 5:39 PM on August 15, 2005
To play devils advocate WRT nukes:
Canada should build those neutron bombs listed in the other article. If the U.S. ever invaded, it could take out U.S. troops. Would the U.S. escalate to city killers from tactical troop killers? Maybe, maybe not, but its not hard to have some of your own city killers siting around.
As to more nukes being a bad thing. Religion is a bad thing. Politics of fear is a bad thing. Nukes are just political tools. As the neutron bomb article mentioned, keeping small battlfield nukes unconscionable is benifitial to U.S. defense contractors, and ensures that the military bully is the one who spends the most. World power would shift if small nukes were consionable.
Plus, neutron bombs need to be detonated in the air to have the desired effect, making them far less useful to terrorists, not that terrorists are serious threat anyway.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:40 AM on August 20, 2005
Canada should build those neutron bombs listed in the other article. If the U.S. ever invaded, it could take out U.S. troops. Would the U.S. escalate to city killers from tactical troop killers? Maybe, maybe not, but its not hard to have some of your own city killers siting around.
As to more nukes being a bad thing. Religion is a bad thing. Politics of fear is a bad thing. Nukes are just political tools. As the neutron bomb article mentioned, keeping small battlfield nukes unconscionable is benifitial to U.S. defense contractors, and ensures that the military bully is the one who spends the most. World power would shift if small nukes were consionable.
Plus, neutron bombs need to be detonated in the air to have the desired effect, making them far less useful to terrorists, not that terrorists are serious threat anyway.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:40 AM on August 20, 2005
« Older Ben & Jerry got nothing on these guys. | "initial claims have all turned out to be false" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:26 AM on August 14, 2005