Why is there no "consumer" free trade?

[dumpthemonarchy]

When Canada and the USA signed the Free Trade Agreement in 1989, many Canadians supported it because they thought they could shop in the US, buy goods and bring them home, duty free. This was not the case of course as free trade means free trade for corporations only. Why can't consumers cross the US or any other border and buy in unlimited amounts any product they want and can carry into Canada?

Why are there limits on products we can buy and bring into Canada?

 

[Kreskin]

When Canada and the USA signed the Free Trade Agreement in 1989, many Canadians supported it because they thought they could shop in the US, buy goods and bring them home, duty free. This was not the case of course as free trade means free trade for corporations only. Why can't consumers cross the US or any other border and buy in unlimited amounts any product they want and can carry into Canada?

Why are there limits on products we can buy and bring into Canada?

My understanding is if it's made in North America it can be bought duty free. I bought a guitar from the US (made in Mexico) and was not charged duty.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I started a small business and imported T-shirts from the US and the duties were frightful.

 

[jwmcq625]

Both the FTA, and NAFTA were not meant for consumers they were the result of intensive lobbying efforts by multinational corporations whose wish it was to have the ability to transport goods and services across international borders without government regulation or interference. This was never about the end consumers, but simply about corporations being able to maximize corporate profits. Why do you think that when G-8 Summits are held, representatives from the corporate elite are included at the table while, consumers and the public are kept away by riot squads, and fences?

 

[Toro]

When Canada and the USA signed the Free Trade Agreement in 1989, many Canadians supported it because they thought they could shop in the US, buy goods and bring them home, duty free. This was not the case of course as free trade means free trade for corporations only. Why can't consumers cross the US or any other border and buy in unlimited amounts any product they want and can carry into Canada?

Why are there limits on products we can buy and bring into Canada?

Because in times like these, the border towns would get killed with all the Canadians going to shop across the border.

 

[Toro]

Both the FTA, and NAFTA were not meant for consumers they were the result of intensive lobbying efforts by multinational corporations whose wish it was to have the ability to transport goods and services across international borders without government regulation or interference. This was never about the end consumers, but simply about corporations being able to maximize corporate profits. Why do you think that when G-8 Summits are held, representatives from the corporate elite are included at the table while, consumers and the public are kept away by riot squads, and fences?

The FTA was not a result of "intensive corporate lobbying." It was deemed beneficial by the ruling government of the time.

And, with a few exceptions, they have been correct.

 

[Zzarchov]

I'd have to agree, its crap.

If border towns get screwed, oh well. Lower prices. The current system is set up for abuse. You can play workers off against each other, making Canadian workers work for Mexican wages or factory ships and the town dies (Smith Falls and Hersheys)

And I could deal with that if it worked both ways. But as a consumer you can't play different companies off against each other for lower prices they way they can play you for lower wages.

Anyone mind telling me why a car Made in Canada and then shipped to the USA, is 40% more expensive here than there?

Its called gouging, because they know you can't do dick about it. If the Canadian value was the real value, then it wouldn't be sold in the US because it would be a loss, so its that the US cost is correct and they are gouging.

Its brutal.

 

[Said1]

I'd have to agree, its crap.

If border towns get screwed, oh well. Lower prices. The current system is set up for abuse. You can play workers off against each other, making Canadian workers work for Mexican wages or factory ships and the town dies (Smith Falls and Hersheys)

And I could deal with that if it worked both ways. But as a consumer you can't play different companies off against each other for lower prices they way they can play you for lower wages.

Anyone mind telling me why a car Made in Canada and then shipped to the USA, is 40% more expensive here than there?

Its called gouging, because they know you can't do dick about it. If the Canadian value was the real value, then it wouldn't be sold in the US because it would be a loss, so its that the US cost is correct and they are gouging.

Its brutal.

There are far more goods available to consumers and hit our markets faster than pre-NAFTA. We also jumped in, father up the ladder with respect to product and technological life cycles, meaning that we are at a higher end of production and manufacturing and that's financially beneficial, although it does require higher skill levels.

Difference in car prices might have had something to with the value of our dollar at the time. Presently, Canadians are crossing the boarder to buy cars, I'm not sure where they're made though.

Plants close because it's not economical to run a factory at that location. It should stay open when operating at a loss? I don't understand your point about people playing against each other or employers for wages.

 

[gopher]

Americans should have the right to buy airline tickets for Cuba as part of the free trade agreement. After all, we should have the right to contract to buy or sell as we please.

Who needs the goddamn government to tell us what to do or not do????

 

[Zzarchov]

When people say "the factory is not economical" Said1, it rarely means it wasn't making money. What it means is that it could make MORE money if people worked for less wages. So they tell the workers, "Mexican labourers with their weak currency will work for far less, either work for what they work for or we ship the factory down there to make more money".

And that is all well and good. Welcome to Capitalism.

The problem is when the shoe is on the other foot, and we can tell the Corporation "Sell us the car for what its sold at in America or we will just buy it there to save money" all of a sudden the rules change.

Toyota just refuses to sell to Canadians in their American plants.

 

[Zzarchov]

Americans should have the right to buy airline tickets for Cuba as part of the free trade agreement. After all, we should have the right to contract to buy or sell as we please.

Who needs the goddamn government to tell us what to do or not do????

You can, and when you return to US soil you will be arrested. But you can still buy them. Canada can do what Canada wants, and the US can do what the US wants. Thats how sovereignty works.

 

[gopher]

``you will be arrested.``


What's so ''free trade'' about that???

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Screw the border towns, they, as in merchants mde a killing when the dollar was low and now consumers are cleaning up yay. About time. Life is a business, it's all about the money all the time. To "protect" towns is absurd.

People here whine "they" control politics, how about letting ordinary people get a piece of the action and be make some money on what everybody wants, cheaper prices. Canada can be so quaint.

 

[Said1]

When people say "the factory is not economical" Said1, it rarely means it wasn't making money.

You know this, how?

What it means is that it could make MORE money if people worked for less wages. So they tell the workers, "Mexican labourers with their weak currency will work for far less, either work for what they work for or we ship the factory down there to make more money".

You're missing the bigger picture. The Fordist idea of the factory town is a thing of the past. Small towns that are one industry dependant always run the risk of factory/plant closures. These closures are not a direct result of cheaper wages elsewhere, (admittely, they are part of procduction costs and do affect profit). What this is more than likely directly related to plant and factory closures is the product or technologies life cycle (- see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_lifecycle), which is one huge factor in that determines pricing. As I already mentioned, Canada has moved up the ladder with respect to this. Unfortunately, this means people either have to up-grade their skills or sink, for the most part. Many perfer to sit around and brood about it, while others go back to school and find work elsewhere. It's a matter of choice.

And that is all well and good. Welcome to Capitalism.

Yes, it's a part of free markets. In most cases, markets dictat prices (note, I said most cases, not all cases) Are you of the opinion that corporations etc don'thave the right to maximize profits? Should they continue to produce something that will eventually cost them money? Keep in mind, with a little enginuity and investment, those empty plants could be used for other things.

The problem is when the shoe is on the other foot, and we can tell the Corporation "Sell us the car for what its sold at in America or we will just buy it there to save money" all of a sudden the rules change.

Toyota just refuses to sell to Canadians in their American plants.

I'm not following, what rules?

Toyota refuses to export cars to Canadian dealers?

 

[YoungJoonKim]

If border towns get screwed, oh well.

My hometown is border town...but thanks anyway

 

[s243a]

The current free trade agreements just goes to show that conservatism is not about economic freedom.

 

[Zzarchov]

You know this, how?

Because part of my job for some time was developing software to lay off skilled workers and replace them with cheaper unskilled point and click morons. Not because the business wasn't making money, but because it could make more firing expensive skilled workers and replacing them with high school dropouts willing to work for $8/hr.

You're missing the bigger picture. The Fordist idea of the factory town is a thing of the past. Small towns that are one industry dependant always run the risk of factory/plant closures. These closures are not a direct result of cheaper wages elsewhere, (admittely, they are part of procduction costs and do affect profit). What this is more than likely directly related to plant and factory closures is the product or technologies life cycle (- see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_lifecycle), which is one huge factor in that determines pricing. As I already mentioned, Canada has moved up the ladder with respect to this. Unfortunately, this means people either have to up-grade their skills or sink, for the most part. Many perfer to sit around and brood about it, while others go back to school and find work elsewhere. It's a matter of choice.

That is unfortunately simply not the case. That only applies when a factory changes to a better location to deal with higher technology and needs a more educated workforce, less of a workforce (So lays people off) or a factory itself is made obsolete.

It does not deal with when a factor moves kit and kaboodle, uses the same machinery and goes to an area with a less educated workforce. Especially not when it point blanks tells the union "We are leaving if you don't work for less".

See Hersheys and Smith Falls.

That the "Factory Town" is dead is just smoke and mirrors. Its the same garbage people speak about how Canada should bid farewell to manufacturing because our future is high tech.

The problem is the same areas taking our manufacturing are also investing in high tech while we do not. They have better training facilities (IIT is far better than MIT in all but status symbol) and grow faster.

Yes, it's a part of free markets. In most cases, markets dictat prices (note, I said most cases, not all cases) Are you of the opinion that corporations etc don'thave the right to maximize profits? Should they continue to produce something that will eventually cost them money? Keep in mind, with a little enginuity and investment, those empty plants could be used for other things.

I agree, and Im all for it. As I said, welcome to capitalism. You are under the mistaken impression there was sarcasm there. There was none, I agree this is how things should work.

The problem is the double standard (which breaks the system) discussed below.

I'm not following, what rules?

Toyota refuses to export cars to Canadian dealers?

No, you as a Canadian, will not be sold an automobile if you go into an American Toyota dealership and attempt to purchase one.

They will simply say "No, go to Canada, and pay 40% more for the same car"

Im all for not having socialist laws forcing companies to keep plants stationed in high cost labour areas. But then I expect those companies to keep the concept of fair competition. If I can buy the same thing cheaper someplace else, I expect you not to force that place to refuse my patronage so I HAVE to buy your overpriced version.

 

[s243a]

The FTA was not a result of "intensive corporate lobbying." It was deemed beneficial by the ruling government of the time.

And, with a few exceptions, they have been correct.

I understand this but are you presenting a false dichotomy? Were the only two choices between no free trade and our current agreements. If consumers are able to look for the lowest prices and play companies against each other then they don’t need to earn as high a wage. The libertarian party of Canada’s position of free trade is just to allow people to trade with whoever they want and scrap all these free trade agreements. Free trade agreements take away soveranty from the people and give that power to unelected foreign bodies.

 

[Said1]

Because part of my job for some time was developing software to lay off skilled workers and replace them with cheaper unskilled point and click morons. Not because the business wasn't making money, but because it could make more firing expensive skilled workers and replacing them with high school dropouts willing to work for $8/hr.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense and it doesn't prove much either. Why would someone need a software program to figure out how to get maximue outputs and profits in exchange for minimum inputs? Can you give a specific example of where this programming was applied - hire a college grad instead of a university grad?

That is unfortunately simply not the case. That only applies when a factory changes to a better location to deal with higher technology and needs a more educated workforce, less of a workforce (So lays people off) or a factory itself is made obsolete.

Yes. Plants often close to take advantage of new technologies, elswhere. I thought I stated as much. This, again is related to technnology life cycle, as I've already pointed out.

It does not deal with when a factor moves kit and kaboodle, uses the same machinery and goes to an area with a less educated workforce. Especially not when it point blanks tells the union "We are leaving if you don't work for less".

Yes, in some cases it does. Also, I didn't claim this to be the case in all situations, but it is signficant in many, many plant closures, relocations or whatever. Why would a plant need their union workers to work for less? How much do they need? I wonder what the lowest paid employee at Hershy's made? $19 - 20? Geez, I can get a Reese's at Giant Tiger for less than a buck. :lol:

Why are plants obligated to stay in one town when they can relocate and make more money? The goal of most coporations is to maximize profits. It's unfortuante when people are out of jobs, but a corporation has no soul, what do you expect?

See Hersheys and Smith Falls.

I'm very closely connected to Smith Falls as I live about 40 mins away. I've been to Hersheys many times. What's your point? That the union rep says it's profitable, now? That reps said they had to work for less, or else? With no explaination? Got a link? Plants often close based on projected profits, or lack thereof, meaning that the plant may be making a substantial profit now, but won't in the future because production costs are too high ie: outlandish union wages. I don't know the exact reason as to why the Hershy Plant closed, only what the media reported - mostly stories about all the people who will be unemployed, because they were a 'factory' town, dependant on one industry.

That the "Factory Town" is dead is just smoke and mirrors. Its the same garbage people speak about how Canada should bid farewell to manufacturing because our future is high tech.
The problem is the same areas taking our manufacturing are also investing in high tech while we do not. They have better training facilities (IIT is far better than MIT in all but status symbol) and grow faster.

Fordism is dead, so much so that there is something called 'post-fordism' :lol: - although I've never heard anyone say Canada should eliminate it's maunfacturing sector, altogether. The idea is to be involved at higher ends of manufacturing, which include development - not just building and assembling.

I'm sure you know this, but there are several cities with thriving tech sectors, as well. Who's doing most of the investing? Does it matter?

No, you as a Canadian, will not be sold an automobile if you go into an American Toyota dealership and attempt to purchase one.

They will simply say "No, go to Canada, and pay 40% more for the same car"

Im all for not having socialist laws forcing companies to keep plants stationed in high cost labour areas. But then I expect those companies to keep the concept of fair competition. If I can buy the same thing cheaper someplace else, I expect you not to force that place to refuse my patronage so I HAVE to buy your overpriced version.

Even though I'm not following with the auto industry analagy, I won't argue that the auto industry is given special protections, across the board. I

 

[s243a]

No, you as a Canadian, will not be sold an automobile if you go into an American Toyota dealership and attempt to purchase one.

They will simply say "No, go to Canada, and pay 40% more for the same car"

Im all for not having socialist laws forcing companies to keep plants stationed in high cost labour areas. But then I expect those companies to keep the concept of fair competition. If I can buy the same thing cheaper someplace else, I expect you not to force that place to refuse my patronage so I HAVE to buy your overpriced version.

I'm sure you know this, but there are several cities with thriving tech sectors, as well. Who's doing most of the investing? Does it matter?



Even though I'm not following with the auto industry analagy, I won't argue that the auto industry is given special protections, across the board. I

I’m not sure what the original posters point is but why are we subsidizing auto workers. For instance why should people in say Nova Scotia pay higher prices for cars to support Ontario auto workers?