Raise tariffs on America

[DanS]

Well, they would settle for the two sad sack "solutions". I would settle for Canada subsidizing our consumers by way of their producers. If you all are stupid enouh to do it, then we should be smart enough to take advantage of you.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DanS:

Look at some of the protectionist Democratic presidential candidates. They make the exact same argument I just gave.

Sadly, public figures have made arguments about NAFTA having a detrimental effect on employment. But if you'll read my earlier posts you'll see why its not true.

[Spiffor]

DrSpike:
Don't get me wrong about Soth Korea. SK profited hugely from exports, like Japan did in the past. But, like Japan, Korea's internal market was rather protected from foreign products, especially from products that competed with SK's emerging industries (steel, shipyards). At least that's what I understood in my textbooks: SK profited from the openness of others as well as its relative closeness from others.
As such SK, had a huge part of trade in its GDP, but those were exports (or at least, those were definitely NOT imports of foreign steel and other products competing with Daewoo/Hyunday)

OTOH, North Korea had almost no commercial relations with other countries, both for exports and imports, and being two-way-closed is a reason of its doom.

[Spiffor]

NYE:
Shall we trade? You guys join the EU, and we give the Brits to NAFTA

[el freako]

**** that!

I don't want to be in NAFTA!

[Spiffor]

EL Freako:
Well, I can understand you, but see how useful that's be: after a few years of suffering from NAFTA, the Brits could finally come back to Europe, ready to really take part of it at last !

[el freako]

Not a chance in hell Spiffor,

We took too long getting on the train the first time - why should we get off it only for the destination to change again whilst we are gone?

[DanS]

Suffering from NAFTA.

[Spiffor]

Because if you leave the train for some time to take it back, you won't be in the locomotive pulling the breaks for some time

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Suffering from NAFTA.

The French-German arrogance in the EU is nothing compared to the American arrogance in NAFTA. France and Germany are more or less forced to consider its most important partners as equals. The US is not, and does not.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Spiffor
DrSpike:
Don't get me wrong about Soth Korea. SK profited hugely from exports, like Japan did in the past. But, like Japan, Korea's internal market was rather protected from foreign products, especially from products that competed with SK's emerging industries (steel, shipyards). At least that's what I understood in my textbooks: SK profited from the openness of others as well as its relative closeness from others.
As such SK, had a huge part of trade in its GDP, but those were exports (or at least, those were definitely NOT imports of foreign steel and other products competing with Daewoo/Hyunday)

OTOH, North Korea had almost no commercial relations with other countries, both for exports and imports, and being two-way-closed is a reason of its doom.

I can't find the piece I mentioned before.......I'm sure it's in my office somewhere, but so are lots of other papers.

I did find the reference though. The paper is called The East Asian Miracle: Economic growth and public policy (edit: [1993], damn sloppy referencing ). It may be on the World Bank site; if not you may be able to track it down elsewhere.

Reading your last point I think what you remember from any articles/books you read before is that South Korea is famous for strategic trade policies. These are policies aimed at promoting a certain export sector, and were implemented after trade as a proportion of GDP started to grow. These policies are generally viewed with scepticism, since they usually do more harm than good. South Korea is a good example since they spent oodles of resources on promoting certain chemical industries in the 70s, resources that were essentially wasted.

Overall the reason I addressed your earlier posts was that you incorrectly corrected Shi, who made a valid point. And it is certainly true that the driving force behind development in many countries such as South Korea, was openness to trade, not some benefit from closed markets that occured before they began to open up, or later through strategic trade policies. The benefits of such policies are nearly always (as IIRC in the paper I referenced) estimated as being outweighed by the costs, at least in the Korean example.

[DanS]

About a third of Canada's entire economic output is shipped south to the US. And they have the second highest per capita GDP in the G7.

No, they aren't benefitting from a free trade agreement at all.

[notyoueither]

That was true before NAFTA, Dan. However, before NAFTA we would have felt more free to ***** slap your politicians with some tactics of our own to get them where it hurts. With NAFTA we would be breaking the treaty to do anything that really hits where it hurts, so I would imagine we won't do it until provoked beyond where we have been now.

[Whoha]

Dan, in 1880 Great Britain had 1/4 of the world steel production. This was around the time that a group of their economists succeeded in getting free trade. By world war 1 they had around 1/7th, and The US and Germany both had around 1/4th.

Today the Japanese are the world's largest producer of steel.

There is trade that is harmful, like selling out native/critical to defense industry right before a world war.

[DanS]

Today the Japanese are the world's largest producer of steel.

Good for them. We have 1/2 of the world semiconductor production. Having US workers produce steel, which anybody can produce, would be a collosal waste of time.