The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread!

[notyoueither]

No, but the Government of Alberta sure as hell does own the gas that's in the ground, and damn well could turn off the tap.

Are you dumber than Tredeau?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're not explaining what 'fair' trade means.

The US 'outsources' a lot of jobs to Canada. That's because we have a large, educated population that will work for less than many Americans.

According to Kerry, he's going to erect a curtain along the 49th to stop that from happening.

How do you think that will work?

I believe you are confusing two different policy issues here. One is the "fair trade" mantra which dems have been calling for over the last decade and the other is the outsourcing issue. The democrat's version of fair trade is to make trading partners have the same worker, enviromental, wage, and union rights as 1st world countries have; which in my mind is not a good thing. The other is the claim that Bush gives tax breaks to companies which move opporations over seas.

Most of the moves over seas are due to market forces so they aren't likely to be motivated by a small tax break but it is stupid to encourage factories to shut down. Thus Kerry will repeal this minor tax loop hole and everyone will keep on outsourcing like nothing has happened.

[notyoueither]

I'd like to hear about our trade inconsistencies, btw.

[Drachasor]

"Fair Trade" is a common term, that you can easily find referenced and explain via google.

Basically it means that if a place has a lot of human rights violations, then Kerry is against giving prefered trade access with that country. Similar if the country exploits the workers (slave labor, lower wages then they ought to be getting given the economic clime there, etc), or exploits the environment too much.

There is give and take in this, but overall it isn't a bad idea necessarily.

-Drachasor

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, but the Government of Alberta sure as hell does own the gas that's in the ground, and damn well could turn off the tap.

Are you dumber than Tredeau?

Fair enough. However, I seriously doubt any government would get reelected by torpedoing one of the biggest industries in one of the few providences to give more tax money then they get from the national government.

There is also the issue of workers being laid off and getting their faces on the CBC nightly news, oil companies going bankrupt, and old folks losing their pensions because they’d invested their life savings into those companies’ stock, etc...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe you are confusing two different policy issues here. One is the "fair trade" mantra which dems have been calling for over the last decade and the other is the outsourcing issue. The democrat's version of fair trade is to make trading partners have the same worker, enviromental, wage, and union rights as 1st world countries have; which in my mind is not a good thing. The other is the claim that Bush gives tax breaks to companies which move opporations over seas.

Most of the moves over seas are due to market forces so they aren't likely to be motivated by a small tax break but it is stupid to encourage factories to shut down. Thus Kerry will repeal this minor tax loop hole and everyone will keep on outsourcing like nothing has happened.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm identifying an ideology that thinks Yanks are assured jobs by some divine right of God, or something.

You know, that Chinese worker has some disadvantages too. Sure he works cheap, but he or she is not so good with more advanced technology, by and large. Those jobs go to Yanks.

OTOH, he is paying to consume CocaCola, Charles Bronson, and Big Macs.

It's a big wide world, with a big wide economy, and the sooner Yanks adjust to the very thing they profess to want to have created the better off we all will be.

I don't see Kerry, or many other Democrats, as having adjusted.

[Dinner]

Well, for starters we can talk about the softwood issue you already brought up. I know that back in January 2004 the WTO ruled against Canada and said that BC was indeed selling timber to local lumber mills at 67%-75% of their real market value. That's a 25%-33% subsidy for Canadian producers which isn't exactly very fair thus the continuing hubub with the US. Add in that their's over capicty at lumber mills in the US and it's an election year and you see why obscure soft wood processing laws become major international disputes.

[Dinner]

I'd also like to bring up Canada's rather BS cultural purity laws which prevent US media outlets from rebroadcasting or even creating Canadian editions of their programs. This is clearly just a protectionist measure for the Macleans and CBC type corporations north of the 49th. With cable and satillite its not like spectrum space is at a premium any more so why is the Canadian government blocking broadcasting of networks like FOX News?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Fair enough. However, I seriously doubt any government would get reelected by torpedoing one of the biggest industries in one of the few providences to give more tax money then they get from the national government.

There is also the issue of workers being laid off and getting their faces on the CBC nightly news, oil companies going bankrupt, and old folks losing their pensions because they’d invested their life savings into those companies’ stoke, etc...

Somehow, I think it would take less than a week to get your attention when gas prices in Chicago went up 10 fold in a few days.

Maybe it's just me, but...

Never underestimate the pershncikityness of an Albertan when he or she thinks they are on the right side.

In a few years, the gas will still be in the ground, and should be more valuable than it is today.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Well, for starters we can talk about the softwood issue you already brought up. I know that back in January 2004 the WTO ruled against Canada and said that BC was indeed selling timber to local lumber mills at 67%-75% of their real market value. That's a 25%-33% subsidy for Canadian producers which isn't exactly very fair thus the continuing hubub with the US. Add in that their's over capicty at lumber mills in the US and it's an election year and you see why obscure soft wood processing laws become major international disputes.

http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/itr.nsf/0/d04ba212dbe7b85685256e620000772b?OpenDocument

The panel ruling--preliminarily issued in December--found that the U.S. determination, which was based on the U.S. International Trade Commission's assessment of an imminent and likely surge in imports, could not have been reached by an objective and unbiased investigating body, upholding Canada's arguments that the U.S. softwood lumber case is unwarranted, Peterson said in a statement (21 ITR 35, 1/1/04). "The WTO panel's message is clear. The countervailing and antidumping duties imposed by the United States on Canadian softwood lumber exports are baseless," he said.

[Dinner]

But the company who bought the rights to that gas in good faith and who paid to develop that field will have gone bankrupt. Not good economic policy.

[Dinner]

http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/can_usa/trade_softwoodlumber_011904.pdf

PDF article entitled "US Wins Key Issues in WTO Softwood Lumber Appeal." which is dated in Jan, 2004. I believe your article from Dec, 2003 is a bit dated now. Hmmm.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd also like to bring up Canada's rather BS cultural purity laws which prevent US media outlets from rebroadcasting or even creating Canadian editions of their programs. This is clearly just a protectionist measure for the Macleans and CBC type corporations north of the 49th. With cable and satillite its not like spectrum space is at a premium any more so why is the Canadian government blocking broadcasting of networks like FOX News?

Split run magazines were upheld by the arbiters of trade. We abide by their rulings. They are allowed.

[Dinner]

In any event the soft wood issue has been around for 20 years and it's not going to change. The WTO keeps issuing conflicting rulings one says antidumping laws are bad then the next says antidumping laws are ok if the other guy is unfairly using subsidies. I don't see an end to thing unless BC states selling it's trees at market price.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
But the company who bought the rights to that gas in good faith and who paid to develop that field will have gone bankrupt. Not good economic policy.

Tough.

They didn't buy the gas. They paid for a license to extract it.

It still belongs to the people of Alberta.

And somehow I doubt that Amoco is gonna go bankrupt because Klien tells them to turn off the tap from Alberta for a week or two.