Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

This is absolutely false. There is zero, zip, nada evidence that this is the case. In fact, trade increases prosperity, growth and jobs, as many, many studies have demonstated. It certainly has not in Canada, as evidenced by the paper I posted to begin this thread. These are economic issues, and the economists say this is usually false!

This is an enormous leap in logic by the opponents of free trade - governments want to be a part of something that is so obviously bad for their populations. 150 governments in fact! It doesn't make any sense.



It still is.

The WTO incorporated the GATT and further reduced trade barriers. And again, the same people making the same arguments against GATT are doing so today about the WTO (though not Scape).



I totally agree with this last statement. But the reason why we codify such rules into agreements is to establish a rules-based system to establish stability in the trading system and make it more difficult for nations to errect trade barriers.

Now that doesn't mean the WTO is perfect, because it can be better. Tariffs should come down more poorer countries, and those horrible farm subsidies should be eliminated. But scrapping the WTO would be a huge step backwards.

   

what you wrote is more doomsday than doomsday himself and you're right , sad isn't it .

   

No job loss?

I am sure the farmers got jobs...somewhere and they might pay but likely not as much as what they once made. Their careers as farmers were lost and in exchange they got jobs as...telemarketers? All the training and hands on experience they had... gone. Can you eat telemarketers? This is the bumper crop we are producing.

WTO is the UN of world trade. GATT had next to nothing from an institutional standpoint and was largely static in growth but growing in membership. WTO has been growing in power and rules as more members sign on. It has become what it was intended to disband, bureaucratic redundancy.

Some argue the US should pull out of the UN and cite corruption and a hijacked itinerary by the special interests of member states. I argue the same logic for pulling out of the WTO and FTA as trimming the fat.

We are in the WTO and FTA serving two masters of trade. One wants us to open markets to as many world markets as possible and the other wants more access to currently opened markets (US). A servant can not serve two masters and in the case of Canada the two extremes of trade can be played off against the centre. The WTO and FTA are being used as a bludgeon against the middle class and middle powers such as Canada. We need market access but we are already connected to US markets on a very intimate level yet we also need access to world markets as well. The WTO demands we remove all subsidies so we can trade with the other 149 members but at the same time free trade has us locked in a battle to the economic death with the US, Mexico and now Latin American countries for a total of 34 nations. So which voice has more clout the 1 in 150 or the 1 in 34?

While we try to appease the WTO we must also appease FTA as they are two separate markets they are used to play off against each other to weaken Canada's position with the end result being skilled labour loss being replaced with short term employment. Our saving grace is resources in a buyers market but we have bargained control of that away at the FTA table so we lose BOTH ways.

When the WTO sits it has 150 nations that voice concerns but are they equal or are they listening to them in accordance to their trade volume? Ultimately this is what is calling the tune at the WTO, not opening markets.

   

This is incorrect Scape. GATT had several rounds as it lowered tariffs over a 40 year span. The WTO was a follow-on to the GATT.



Trade agreements are not "masters", and thus, cannot be "served." NAFTA and the WTO are just like any other international agreements - they are sets of rules that countries agree to abide by for mutual benefit. And Canada has benefitted greatly since Canada is so reliant on trade.

Also, its difficult to see that both are "extremes" since both are trying to get to the same place. The reason why there are bilateral and multinational trade agreements is because the binational parties believe that there is a benefit to signing such an agreement that isn't incorporated into the multinational agreement. Bilateral arrangements usually arise because the multinational negotiations are not going fast enough. This is what is occuring today as the Doha Round drags on and countries in regional blocs grow impatient with the process.



This is false. On a national level, unemployment is lower than it was when free trade was signed. Also, as stated in the study, NAFTA has caused a rise in wages, albeit a minor one. So you cannot say its damaging the middle class.

On an international level, its also false to say that its a bludgeon against middle powers since middle powers have the most to gain since they are able to access bigger markets and requires the large parties to abide by rules, making it less likely that the smaller parties will be subject to the whims of domestic politics.



Again, trade isn't "death". Its odd rhetoric from someone who wants to go back to the GATT. Here is a good link on the nature of trade and why its so important to economic growth, as David Ricardo first demonstrated a couple hundred years ago. Free trade between nations is good (most of the time), just like free trade is between provinces, between cities, between city blocks, and between people.

This imagery of the WTO being an all-encompassing power is, again, false. The WTO isn't "demanding" anything. The WTO is an international trade agreement by which countries freely sign. Countries negotiate the terms and provisions of the agreement then agree to follow the final compromise. Saying that the WTO is demanding a reduction of all subsidies not only mis-characterizes the nature of the WTO, its also incorrect. The problem isn't that subsidizes are going away. The problem - which you identified correctly in another post Scape - is that they are not.

   

This was the argument against the looming machines 200 years ago when the Luddites went rampaged through the Midlands because they believed technology was bad for jobs, when in fact techological progress is perhaps the most important factor in the increase in wealth and living standards.



I agree that how the system of a trade agreement is implemented is very important. But if you look at the arguments of the poor countries, they are arguing that the rich countries are not opening up their economies enough - and I fully agree with that assertion. That's an argument for free trade, not against.

   

in much the same way the Black Plague increased home & farm ownership opportunities in Europe in the 1600's.

   

Oh come on, it hasn't been that bad....yet.

   

So issues of development are not discussed at the WTO? Better check your facts again.



Simple question, how can they possibly be impatient IF the stated objectives are identical? If it truly is identical is this not also redundant?





We had a net loss of nearly 300,000 jobs. Check where the losses were from. Our economy is booming because we have energy and it's a buyers market. This has NOTHING to do with FTA.



Softwood has shown how weak that gain truly is. While the bickering is happening there we still allow access to our markets and we must hand over 2/3 of oil and gas production. You can say whatever you like about it but the fact remains this is a long standing grievance at the expense of Canada while we have done next to nothing in retaliation. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, to want out of this beggars court is only natural.





The WTO aims to encourage smooth and free trade by promoting lower trade barriers and providing a platform for the negotiation of trade and to resolve disputes between member nations, when they arise. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.source

World=all-encompassing power. Demanding=promoting. The somatics highlighting the problems of what the WTO has become may be heresy to you but it does not change the basic fact that if you want access to markets WTO is now a necessary step. Remember the point about membership of communist satellite state in Communism not being voluntary? To say the WTO is an international trade agreement by which countries freely sign is a great attempt at spin Toro.

   

Nafta cost me my good paying manufacturing job, as I'm sure it has many others, when LaZBoy Canada closed down in December. There is no doubt that the North American economy is moving away from manufacturing and into more service based jobs. Lately the factory closings have been coming fast and furious.
Soon everyone will have to start a home business.

   

No what I'm telling you is that all the members of the GATT came to the conclusion that they needed a forum to deal with non-tariff trade distorting barriers, and a more efficient mechanism to deal with disputes. The formation of the WTO was the next step after the GATT.



Because objectives are just that, objectives. That doesn't mean you will get to where you want to be at the pace you want to move at. For example, if the WTO is being held up by an agricultural dispute between Europe and the US, and SE Asia wants to get a deal done to lower barriers in its region, why would they wait around for something that is taking way too long to close?



Well, first, I never said the economy was booming from the FTA. I posted the results from a study at the beginning of this thread that didn't make that conclusion. Instead, the conclusion from the study was that it made manufacturing more productive, it had raised aggregate wages a bit, it did not increase inequality, and its did not increase unemployment. It also makes the point that manufacturing employment has slid less in Canada than other countries in the West. Is that because of NAFTA? The author doesn't make that conclusion. However, and I'll say this again, there is nothing special about manufacturing jobs. What matters is aggregate income and utility for the country, not for a subset of workers.

As for the linked article by Bruce Campbell, I'll hope that if you're using something from the Center for Policy Alternatives, you won't call out my postings from the Fraser Institute as being politically biased.

After reading the article, the first thing that jumps out at me was that Campbell pinned the blame on stagnant growth in Canada on free trade as opposed to cuts in government spending. He makes the case that the cuts were due to free trade. What he doesn't mention at all was that by the mid-90s, debt to GDP in Canada was 100%! (Reference OECD, Table EO78.) Today, the US is at 67%. You have written that America is facing economic apocolypse because of this debt level, yet the US is in a much, much better position today than Canada was a decade ago! So those government cuts were because of free trade, eh? Or were they because Canada was close to hitting a wall like New Zealand? I suggest everyone read Janice McKinnon's excellent book about what happens when government becomes too indebted.

Finally, I didn't pursue the footnotes Campbell references at the bottom of the article, but the study by Prof. Teffler on NAFTA at the beginning of this thread uses statistical methodologies to isolate the effects of multiple variables on the economy, i.e. government spending, NAFTA, productivity, etc. It appears that Mr. Campbell has not as it appears he was drawing inferences based solely on the data without doing such multi-variate analyses, though admitedly, I may be wrong.



Canada has not "handed over" 2/3 of oil and gas production. Capital has been invested by foreign companies to invest in Canadian energy. That's not "handing over".



World does not equal "all-encompassing power". "Promoting" is not demanding. All the WTO dispute settlement mechanism does is adjudicate disputes by the rules laid down by the signatories.

Its hardly spin. If the WTO was so damaging as you've argued, 150 countries wouldn't have joined. China joined a few years back. China never joined GATT. China is the biggest thing to hit the global market perhaps in the last century. China didn't have to join. But it sees the benefits of doing so since it benefits enormously by being part of the global trading system.

   

Public sector spending and employment have declined sharply, and publicly owned enterprises in strategic sectors such as energy and transportation have been transferred en masse to the private sector. Real incomes declined except for the top fifth of society. Employment is more insecure as benefits such as pensions are in doubt and the social safety net has frayed.

Our system is being 'americanized' under the liberals, under Harper he will step on the gas. Social programs are seen differently in Canada then they are in the US. Example: are fire and ice So the interest and motivation of the government was different. The very fundamentals upon what this nation was built upon were being changed.

Like Dungan and Murphy?

Industry Canada commissioned a series of reports.

Source

Sourcewatch:Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

The report may be used by Mr Campbell but the conclusions drawn upon are the same as the reports authors.

See more here: Focus Canada Their intent was to report the data and project what the possible results. It was 1999, before 9/11, that the reports were completed. At that point inflation was 1.7%, in 2005 it hasn't gone below 2%. Meanwhile real GDP has barley made 0.2%, anemic. We are losing the race on the treadmill vs inflation. We can see where it is going by the look at the TSX that has gone from 4,000 to 11,000 since 1995. With ownership majority foreign owned/invested.



Perspectives on North America Free Trade Series came out in December. It was a consolidation of several reports.

No worries. I must apologize for a tardy response, it was not lack of interest I did not even see your retort until 2 days ago.

If they are the majority investors they would have a vested interested in the control of their investments and that control will not be wrested away by their domestic counterparts.

Do you suggest Joe Canadian invest in Timmies? I would, but you know the majority of investors and interest in Tim's will not be Canadian. Ultimately that lack of control can, in the foreseeable future, be used as a weapon vs our own economy. The camels head of unlimited foreign investment in our own market means it is Canadian in name alone. There should not be a limit to foreign investment but it should be tied directly to developing domestic investment IE on a quid quo pro basis. This is the basis of the critique of the WTO and the argument to go back to GATT. WTO allows larger countries, such as China, to use political as well as economic clout more effectively whereas under GATT China was just another member with just one voice in the end it was fair for all members. The evolution of WTO is not necessarily one that needs to progress but was used as a motivator for economic reforms between nations. I see no reasons for creating agreements that can effect the way water purification is handled by municipalities for fear of being sued. Such considerations must always be regional, not multi-national, in scope.



It was the GATT before hand, that was the reason they joined not what the WTO has become but that snowball has rolled.

   

WTF??

They allow yanks here??

   

They make for engaging conversation.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next