Is Obama Ready To Bail On NAFTA

[Liberalman]

When times are good free trade agreements work but when time are bad then free trade agreements become obstacles.

During the AFTA years Canada saw a lot of jobs go south of the border because Americans Companies owned most manufacturing businesses.

During the NAFTA a lot of the American manufacturers moved their businesses down to Mexico because labour was so much cheaper.

Looking at the global economy exercise poorer countries pick up more business at the expense of bigger countries that have a better economy.

Those poorer countries then can sell their products at a lower price to the bigger countries with good economies.

With factory jobs going to the poorer countries from the bigger countries with the better economies people are losing their jobs and there is mass unemployment.

The bigger country has a poorer economy and can only afford cheap goods made by the poorer countries with the growing economies.

Then the cycle starts all over again.

The businesses wins because they can just close shop and move the companies to other countries and leave workers with reduced or no incomes.

The government loses because of a reduced tax revenues and more money has to be paid out in unemployment and welfare payments.

Most of Obama’s experience came from working as a community activists working with poor people with little education.

Obama has four years to fix the economy and since he is a simple man he has to use simple strategies so people will understand on what he is doing.

On a number of occasions he has said that jobs have to come back to America.

I feel that Obama will borrow a phrase from Canada before AFTA and NAFTA, which was a simple phrase.

The Phrase is “If You Want To Sell It Here You Got To Make It Here”

This is the only way America and Canada and the rest of the world will get out of their economic crises.

When this is achieved then everybody will have money to better themselves.

 

[Zzarchov]

That makes no sense, why not take it a step further:

"If you wanna sell it in this town, you have to make it in this town" and keep the economies of small towns going rather than fueling big cities?

because its more red tape of course. A better solution would be to allow workers to follow jobs.

 

[Kreskin]

His approach will likely focus mostly on the creation of jobs that can't be shipped off, like alternative energy and other infrastructure. He's in a bit of a bind because protectionism would be inflationary and possibly counterproductive.

 

[Liberalman]

Yeah I agree build it in the country where it will be sold.

The only way to solve the economy is to take people off unemployment and welfare and put them to work.

Government bailouts should be going to Canadian companies with the catch that no moving of the company outside of Canada if they do they would pay a heavy fine.

The government should bring in laws for retail businesses to stock at least 50% of Canadian made products and the jobs will come back to the manufacturing sectors.

This worked back in the 1970s for the music industry up to that point Canadian musicians had to make it in America first.

A lot of radio stations complained but eventually they came around and now Canada has a music industry.

If Harper had the stones to pass a law that all retail stores have to sell at least 50% Canadian made goods then jobs will come back to Canada and our economy would be saved.

 

[barney]

With factory jobs going to the poorer countries from the bigger countries with the better economies people are losing their jobs and there is mass unemployment.

Look at the logic: if the factory is producing a product that only we can buy, then why would it move to a poorer country and impoverish its buyers (the workers)? It only makes sense if the company doesn't need the worker's dollars because there are still enough of the population that can buy plenty (their jobs/businesses are not dependent on that factory). In short, the only incentive to stay here is if the workers' wages were lowered to compete with those of the workers in poorer countries, and that is impossible because you can't survive on that here.

As for NAFTA (trade between a "rich" country and and an f-ing uber-rich and powerful country), it has very little to do with labour and everything to do with the USA getting Canadian raw goods real cheap.

The argument is that Canadians gain from the deal by getting American goods and services cheap.

But outside of fruit and other perishables that can't stand our winters, most goods can be produced here just as well (i.e. Canada has the necessary infrastructure, or at least potential for it).

As to what benefits the USA gains by ending NAFTA, I have no idea. Wage standards are very similar in both countries so we aren't taking Americans' jobs (unlike the poorer countires above that lack such standards), we're still more than eager to destroy our local ecosystem while selling off our resources (which are the closest foreign sources they can get), and Canada is nowhere near losing its 'little brother' (god I hate that term) status, so it's a real mystery to me.

The businesses wins because they can just close shop and move the companies to other countries and leave workers with reduced or no incomes.

You could always add a new law that required foreign companies to keep their assets in place and functional for a minimum duration of 5 years for example and give a 2-year notice of plant closure, so that you'd have time to make necessary adjustments to the local economy. ...Oh but that would be against free trade deal rules right? Yeah, free trade is definitely the way to go...

"If you wanna sell it in this town, you have to make it in this town" and keep the economies of small towns going rather than fueling big cities?

Not the same thing because unless you're talking Ancient Greek city-states, municipalities have the same wage standards as everywhere esle in the country. The problem with free trade is that trading partners have different economic and legal standards, thus you have problems like IT jobs going to Indians programmers rather than Canadian ones just because India has much low wage standards (proportional to the much lower living standards). The only way to counter this a bit is to set very high quality standards so that the bad quality products produced in poor countries couldn't be sold here, thus forcing the factories back to the rich countries. Aside from--again--being against free trade law, it still woudln't solve the problem between rich countries. (Wouldn't happen anyway becasue Canadians have no problem buying crappy products and so wouldn't push for that.)

A better solution would be to allow workers to follow jobs.

All the way to Indonesia? That's another issue: just because there is a job somewhere and I need it for the money, why should I have to go and live in another province (or even another country)? It's ridiculous. I say the jobs should follow workers (i.e. go where they live--within reason fo course). Enough bending over backward for the private sector.

He's in a bit of a bind because protectionism would be inflationary and possibly counterproductive.

Hasn't stopped the USA before (hint: the USA is the world's top rice exporter and obviously imports little rice, yet most of USA is hardly ideal climate for growing of rice which is highly inefficent to grow there; just a minor historical fact: Vietnam was world's top rice producer before the USA Agent Orange-d it out of the market).

Personally I think the link between economic downturn (assuming inflation is symptomatic of that) and protectionism is a myth created to disuade dependent countries from pursuing policies of self-sufficiency.

The only way to solve the economy is to take people off unemployment and welfare and put them to work.

That is already being done and those jobs are a waste of everybody's time. I totally disagree that people should be given jobs just to make them work (i.e. work for work's sake).

If there is a need then make 'em work. If not, either create more real jobs or make with the welfare cheques. If the companies don't want to hire but are doing well, charge 'em more taxes. If they leave because to much of their profit is going to taxes, create new companies to replace them. Making people act like they're being productive just for appearances seems like a way of making an irresponsible government look less so.

The government should bring in laws for retail businesses to stock at least 50% of Canadian made products and the jobs will come back to the manufacturing sectors.

Gross violation of free-trade rules there. Funny, in our present economic system if you want to be self-sufficeint, you need wealth but you need your trading partners to create wealth. If you don't trade you can't get wealthy and so you can't be self-sufficient (beyond a peasant society). Isn't free-trade fun?

This worked back in the 1970s for the music industry up to that point Canadian musicians had to make it in America first.

First, that was before NAFTA and dependence on international free-trade schemes was not as rampant as it is today and second, the music industry isn't exactly what I would call an strong example of Canadian economic independence. (And personally I find much of the 'Canadian content' to be wanting--face it, we're not a very musically creative country, Celine Dion proves it.)

[By the way Liberalman, must you post in large bold letters? It takes up a lot of room and makes your longer posts somewhat tedious to read through (for me at least). That's putting aside that it gives the impression you have ego issues. Unless you have vision problems--or are doing it for the benefit of people with vision problems--of course, in which case know that there is a magnification feature in Windows and all browsers that enlargens all text.]

 

[Liberalman]

Barney

I have vision issues and very old equipment and I find the magnifier very tedious to use.

I was going to cash in some of my stocks to get a better computer but the economy tanked and the stocks went down.

Welfare for jobs does work it gives people incentive to find a real job.

They are getting paid the money anyways if they stay home or not.

50% retail content to create jobs for Canadians violation of free trade rules then it’s time to bail on free trade,
This is why we have a music industry and more Canadian programming.

When I was young I knew more about the American way of life than Canadian all because of the American media.
According to free trade rules you cannot restrict a company to be here for a number of years.

If you had the 50% Canadian products rule you would still be able to trade 50% foreign made goods.

Softwood lumber is an example that America never followed or took seriously the NAFTA to begin with.

 

[JLM]

That would NOT be good for Canada, now Harper should take the opportunity to prove himself and talk Obama out of it.

 

[Tyr]

That makes no sense, why not take it a step further:

"If you wanna sell it in this town, you have to make it in this town" and keep the economies of small towns going rather than fueling big cities?

because its more red tape of course. A better solution would be to allow workers to follow jobs.

One of the caveats attached to the massive American economic bailout (it's at 3 trillion and counting) is that if you want federal US money you must buy American. The seems a tad contrary to the "spirit" of NAFTA

 

[Zzarchov]

Oh, I got all kinds of problem with their system.

They need people to be able to receive loans at reasonable rates, so they give the banks money hoping they will then give loans.

Why not simply offer loans at reasonable rates with the same money, and force banks to either compete or die.

 

[taxslave]

The government should bring in laws for retail businesses to stock at least 50% of Canadian made products and the jobs will come back to the manufacturing sectors.

That is fine assuming we can afford to by these products. WE have a small population base and there are problems related to economies of scale in manufacturing everything here. One sawmill in B.C. could supply the entire Canadian market in a couple of months, then what? Not to mention the cost of having them built by CAW members.