The Commonwealth is booming – it's time to embrace free trade with the Anglosphere


Hoid
#31
how do you compare a place with no natural resources to a place that has them?

there is literally nothing to compare between the two countries so why are you trying to do it?
 
MHz
#32
They are a gateway to all the products 'made in China'. Due to the past that is as close as 'the West' is allowed to get to the mainland. NK is the 'break-away State' that would go to war with the US 'before China became involved'. Once the US Navy leaves both SK and NK will be protected by China and become the new port as volume will increase that much. Iron ingots and NG will allow them to build the delivery ships 'in-house'.

If we don't deliver the same goods to South America that Africa has access to via China and India they will do it rather than SA are left out.
 
White_Unifier
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

how do you compare a place with no natural resources to a place that has them?
there is literally nothing to compare between the two countries so why are you trying to do it?

Wouldn't a country with access to resources even enjoy an advantage over one that doesn't? In other words, if Canada adopted a policy parallel to Hong Kong's or Singapore's, Canada should easily outperform them. Given how they are outperforming us in spite of our advantage should embarrass us.
 
MHz
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

how do you compare a place with no natural resources to a place that has them?

there is literally nothing to compare between the two countries so why are you trying to do it?

Think of it as China's version of Amazon shopping. When it says 'China' it has been purchased in that location and the warehouse is elsewhere in China.
 
Hoid
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Wouldn't a country with access to resources even enjoy an advantage over one that doesn't? In other words, if Canada adopted a policy parallel to Hong Kong's or Singapore's, Canada should easily outperform them. Given how they are outperforming us in spite of our advantage should embarrass us.

there is no comparison social/economically/geographically/politically or in any way between Canada and Hong Kong or Singapore.

there is no logical basis to believe that something that works in one would work in the other.

your conjecture is ridiculous
 
White_Unifier
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

there is no comparison social/economically/geographically/politically or in any way between Canada and Hong Kong or Singapore.
there is no logical basis to believe that something that works in one would work in the other.
your conjecture is ridiculous

Fifty years ago, both Hong Kong and Singapore were much poorer than Canada on a per capita basis. Now they're both much wealthier and with few resources to speak of to boot. We most certainly can learn from their example.
 
Hoid
#37
nothing they do applies to us. nothing we do applies to them.

apples and oranges
 
White_Unifier
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

nothing they do applies to us. nothing we do applies to them.
apples and oranges

I never said our situations are identical, but we can still learn from them. After all, they still eat, sleep and shit like the rest of us. The basic laws of economics still stand. We can still observe that countries with more open borders tend to prosper more whereas more protectionist ones tend to stagnate more.
 
Hoid
#39
Many countries are richer than Hong Kong and Singapore.

Why not look at those?
 
White_Unifier
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Many countries are richer than Hong Kong and Singapore.
Why not look at those?

With regards to wealth per capita, the International Monetary Fund ranks Singapore fourth; the World Bank, third, and the Central Intelligence Agency, fifth.

The International Monetary Fund ranks Hong Kong tenth if it were an independent state; The World Bank, tenth; and the CIA,twelvth.

sure some states are wealthier, but generally either because they have oil resources (Qatar), they exploit the gambling industry (Macao), or have more land resources (Luxemburg).

Might there be a better model than Hong Kong and Singapore? We can always debate it, but they certainly rank high up there. Canada ranks 22nd, 22nd, and 25th respectively, and that's in spite of our natural resources, land resources, and legal gambling industry.

Hong Kong and Singapore both allow gambling, but regulate it far more strictly through self-exclusion rules than Canada or Macao do for example.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

So what? If we say that it's not worth developing trade relations with a country unless it's our main trading partner, then we might as well trade only with the US and close our borders to the rest. If the goal is diversification, then we could lower trade barriers to even our most insignificant trading partners and even potential trading partners.

Looking at it that way, not only should Canada promote closer trading ties with Australia, but also with the 191 countries in the world including even North Korea to the degree that UN sanctions will allow it.




I'm in favour of increasing trade with everyone, but I don't think Australia and New Zealand are going to add much in either imports or exports.
 
White_Unifier
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I'm in favour of increasing trade with everyone, but I don't think Australia and New Zealand are going to add much in either imports or exports.

Sorry if I misunderstood you there. I absolutely agree that even if Canada dropped all tariffs, quotas, and other intentional trade barriers against Australia, it wouldn't improve Canada's economy radically, just because of the transportation costs. My attitude though is that doing so would be an easy way to improve Canada's economy at no cost to the taxpayer.

I think one error is for the government to focus exclusively on the big fish while ignoring the little fish. In fact, sometimes the big fish can be arrogant and so difficult to negotiate with. focus on the little fish first, they're more pragmatic and realistic with less ego. That means less effort in trade negotiations and so quick ratification. The reward might be smaller, yes, but it's a quick. That would improve the Canadian economy little, but still would improve it, which in turn then gives Canada a little bit more clout to then negotiate with the big fish. Maybe not much more, but every little bit helps. Let's not overlook the little fish in the pond.
 
MHz
#43
We import too many things from the US to do anything but what they tell us to do.