 |
|

08-15-2006, 11:10 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,054
|
|
MexAmeriCanada!! Whoopie!!!
|

08-15-2006, 12:43 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts
MexAmeriCanada!! Whoopie!!!
|
Think about the possibilities, Americans drinking Canadian beer on a Mexican beach. No passport, no barriers, hell you could prolly buy land there for a few bucks. LOL!
|

08-15-2006, 09:53 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,054
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman
Think about the possibilities, Americans drinking Canadian beer on a Mexican beach. No passport, no barriers, hell you could prolly buy land there for a few bucks. LOL!
|
Okay (LOL). Now you really got me thinking here. Ya see what happens when you watch too much cable news...you stagnate. Nice Roman...very nice.
|

08-16-2006, 10:49 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,884
|
|
Interesting discussion, but I don't see what Canada would have to gain from an economic union with the US. Wouldn't it just lock us permanently into being your exclusive natural resources supplier? If anything, we're already tied too closely to the US... something like 85% of our trade goes South.
From a purely Canadian perspective, I figure that means we've got too many eggs in one basket... what we ought to do is strive to diversify our trade - make a "T" instead of an "I". Canada is well-suited to trade with Europe and Asia as well as the US... if the US economy is slumping, odds are that either Asia or Europe might be going stronger. If we seek to diversify instead of unify, we can hedge our economy to keep it on an even keel regardless of where the US is in it's economic cycle. Won't we get a much better price for our goods by having a world of customers than by just having a single buyer?
Aside from that, I figure it's in Canada's best interest to focus on value-added industries... instead of just shipping out our natural resources, we ought to process them here and ship out the finished goods. That's not going to happen by getting closer to the US, let's face it... if we get together, you're just going to want to take our resources for your industries.
Lastly, wouldn't a North American Economic Union just be dominated by the US anyway? You've got the population and the economic clout... if every other country on the continent got together in opposition to the American viewpoint, there's no way we could all out-muscle you. The US vote would be the only one that counted... why would we all want to submit to that??!? Because, and I say this with all due respect, you guys are an economic basketcase. You run chronically massive trade, budget, and personal spending deficits that are unsustainable and extremely counter-productive to America's long-term interests. You're all a country of debtoholics. You don't think that's going to come back and bite you? Why should we sacrifice our long-term economic interests to bail you out of that?
|

08-16-2006, 07:43 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SW Oklahoma
Posts: 15,639
|
|
Hmm, you say dominated by the US? What did NAFTA do for the Canadians? I think all it did for the US is allow companies like Ford to go after cheaper labor, but then again I was never in favor of NAFTA. The Mexician goverment needs to find ways of strengthing their own ecomony and their people first before looking to others for help. 
|

08-16-2006, 11:28 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,884
|
|
Rob - I'm all for Free Trade - if a country can make a superior product at a lower price, I figure they deserve to reap the rewards from that... survival of the fittest. That being said, I don't have a problem with NAFTA, per se... if the Mexicans can build Fords of the same quality as workers in Detroit do, but at a more competitive price, well, more power to'em - they deserve the right to work too, don't they?
My problem with NAFTA isn't so much with Mexico - with you guys in the way, we don't get to do a whole lot of direct trade with them - the Canada-Mexico trade is pretty much negligible for us. My problem is with the US attitude... it seems like you're all for Free Trade down there, but only so long as the playing field favors US industry - the moment your trading partner starts to gain an competitive advantage through their own hard work and sacrifice, the US seems all too willing to slap on countervailing duties to slap them down. How fair is that?
Take the Softwood Lumber dispute going on between the US and Canada right now, for instance. Canadian softwood producers have been investing heavily in bringing their mills up to date... their American competitors have stuck to their old, inefficient mills. So as the Canadian producers started gaining market share, the American producers cried foul and convinced the Bush Administration to slap on punitive duties in 2001. Canada responded by suing the US under the NAFTA mechanisms and has won ruling after ruling... and yet the US still refuses to abide by the decisions.
Instead of hiding behind the courts and then refusing to abide by their rulings, wouldn't the US industry have been better off to take their lumps and deal with the Canadian competitive advantage by investing in their own plant? You all talk about free market economics down there, but when push comes to shove, you don't seem to practice it all that well.
|

08-17-2006, 10:56 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Interesting discussion, but I don't see what Canada would have to gain from an economic union with the US. Wouldn't it just lock us permanently into being your exclusive natural resources supplier? If anything, we're already tied too closely to the US... something like 85% of our trade goes South.
From a purely Canadian perspective, I figure that means we've got too many eggs in one basket... what we ought to do is strive to diversify our trade - make a "T" instead of an "I". Canada is well-suited to trade with Europe and Asia as well as the US... if the US economy is slumping, odds are that either Asia or Europe might be going stronger. If we seek to diversify instead of unify, we can hedge our economy to keep it on an even keel regardless of where the US is in it's economic cycle. Won't we get a much better price for our goods by having a world of customers than by just having a single buyer?
Aside from that, I figure it's in Canada's best interest to focus on value-added industries... instead of just shipping out our natural resources, we ought to process them here and ship out the finished goods. That's not going to happen by getting closer to the US, let's face it... if we get together, you're just going to want to take our resources for your industries.
Lastly, wouldn't a North American Economic Union just be dominated by the US anyway? You've got the population and the economic clout... if every other country on the continent got together in opposition to the American viewpoint, there's no way we could all out-muscle you. The US vote would be the only one that counted... why would we all want to submit to that??!? Because, and I say this with all due respect, you guys are an economic basketcase. You run chronically massive trade, budget, and personal spending deficits that are unsustainable and extremely counter-productive to America's long-term interests. You're all a country of debtoholics. You don't think that's going to come back and bite you? Why should we sacrifice our long-term economic interests to bail you out of that?
|
Why would it stop Canada from trading with anyone it would like? It would just make trading between NA easier. The U.S. has tons of resources why would we need Canada's? Please explain how Canada cold bail out the U.S.n or why we need it? BTW, our economy is growing fine, we have increased rates dramatically in order to balance inflation. As far as long-term interests, its for the benefit of all. It helps move resources much faster with no taxes or physical barriers. As far as the votes, it would depend on how the governence would be structured, I doubt your and Mexico's g-ment to allow the U.S. to dominate them in this Union, if that was the case why would they join. I'm sorry but your viewpoint seems to be sweeping generalizations with little fact. I should note though I love you country, I visit Niagara Falls about twice a year to add to your economy. 
|

08-17-2006, 11:02 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Rob - I'm all for Free Trade - if a country can make a superior product at a lower price, I figure they deserve to reap the rewards from that... survival of the fittest. That being said, I don't have a problem with NAFTA, per se... if the Mexicans can build Fords of the same quality as workers in Detroit do, but at a more competitive price, well, more power to'em - they deserve the right to work too, don't they?
My problem with NAFTA isn't so much with Mexico - with you guys in the way, we don't get to do a whole lot of direct trade with them - the Canada-Mexico trade is pretty much negligible for us. My problem is with the US attitude... it seems like you're all for Free Trade down there, but only so long as the playing field favors US industry - the moment your trading partner starts to gain an competitive advantage through their own hard work and sacrifice, the US seems all too willing to slap on countervailing duties to slap them down. How fair is that?
Take the Softwood Lumber dispute going on between the US and Canada right now, for instance. Canadian softwood producers have been investing heavily in bringing their mills up to date... their American competitors have stuck to their old, inefficient mills. So as the Canadian producers started gaining market share, the American producers cried foul and convinced the Bush Administration to slap on punitive duties in 2001. Canada responded by suing the US under the NAFTA mechanisms and has won ruling after ruling... and yet the US still refuses to abide by the decisions.
Instead of hiding behind the courts and then refusing to abide by their rulings, wouldn't the US industry have been better off to take their lumps and deal with the Canadian competitive advantage by investing in their own plant? You all talk about free market economics down there, but when push comes to shove, you don't seem to practice it all that well.
|
There would be no more barriers if the NAU was established. Like the EU, the NAU would have no trade barriers between member states. Wouldn't that take care of the problem? Again, why would the Mexican and Canadian Governments be eager to join if the U.S. would not abide rules they help implement. I'm a complete free trade advocate as long as there is a level playing field on all sides, it only benefits everyone in the long-run. The idea of the union is to create a barrier free trade agreement, increased security, and self-sufficient economy in a worse case scenerio. Of ocurse, no plan is perfect especially when politics are involved but it would be a big improvement in my opinion.
|

08-18-2006, 08:02 AM
|
 |
AWE Subscriber
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Within reach of a Cold beer.
Posts: 8,034
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
if the Mexicans can build Fords of the same quality as workers in Detroit do, but at a more competitive price, well, more power to'em - they deserve the right to work too, don't they?
|
My wife has a Ford Focus (built in Mexico). Worst piece of garbage excuse for a car. We like to refer to is as the "Recall monster". Dont buy garbage assembled in Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress unconstitutionally transferred control of the U.S. monetary system to a consortium of twelve private banks collectively known as the Federal Reserve System or “The Fed”. This system allows The Fed to print money This means that a group of private banks are authorized to create money out of nothing, and lend it to the government with interest that has to be repaid by the American people through the income tax.
|

08-18-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman
Would a North American Union be a bad thing?
With all the talk of a NAU, I wonder if it would neccessarily be a bad thing?
It has worked out pretty well for the EU. What would be the pro's of a NAU?
I would say:
1. Better security throughout NA.
2. Trade barriers brought down.
3. Self-sufficiency. This is very important especially in worse case World War Scenerio.
4. More opportunity with Monetary policy. Amero's could be the stable currency traded on the market while local currencies such as the dollar oculd be inflated to stimulate the economy.
5. Jobs would stay in NA rather than moving less stable parts of the world.
6. Increased resources. Mexico's oil & Labor, USA'a agriculture, finance, & Technology, Canada's Beer!
What are the cons?
1. Wages. It's a possibiity wages would go down but not certain. If companies outsourced to a more stable Mexico rather than Asia this would be reduced.
2. More Beuracracy. One more layer to go through and more potential conflicts or gridlocks.
3. It's possible our consititution could be overridden although this hasn't happened in the EU.
All in all, I would have to say there are more pro's than con's and most of the con's are circumstantial. I think ultimately it would have to come down what kind of legislation they decide to bring with it. If it was ran like the EU, I would likely support it.
I await your opinions. . . . 
|
Yea and NAFTA was supposed to be a good thing. I say no, we would loose or soveriegnity. Many of your pros are theoretical. A union would be Un-American. But Diebold will make sure it passes.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|