NAFTA has helped Canada
Toro @ Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:44 pm
Scape Scape:
Interesting papers, thanks. But they don't really come to the conclusion that NAFTA has been bad, or at least that's the conclusion in the narrative. In fact, one of the papers, that you quoted further below
Scape Scape:
Perspectives on North America Free Trade Series came out in December. It was a consolidation of several reports.
is by the Professor Daniel Tefler, the author of the original paper in the first post in this thread who came to the conclusion that NAFTA has been good for Canada.
I read all the narratives and I will get around to reading the entire reports.
Scape Scape:
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.
Again, one of the purposes of econometrics is to isolate the variables which effect the economy so we can understand causality. The fact that growth was anemic up until that time is not due to NAFTA, as Prof. Tefler demonstrates. Without knowing for sure, it seems to me that the most obvious answer would be declining aggregate demand as the government reigned in spending.
Scape Scape:
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.
I will get to this argument in a day or two since I've had a few too many glasses of Russian home made wine tonight.
hamiltonguyo @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:10 pm
The concept of free trade is a good one...NAFTA is not. Let me explain most countries would not consider allowing so much non-national investment in them. Basically allowing this we have sacrificed control of our own economy. Not only that we garuntee the Americans Oil and Gas even if WE OURSELVES need it. Again we also put our elected government's environmental regulations under threat by some of the chapters in NAFTA for example
"In 1996 the Parliament of Canada passed a law prohibiting the importation into Canada, or the distribution within Canada, of methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl(MMT) a manganese based gasoline additive. The reason given was that it posed a hazard to human health. The Ethyl Corporation, of Richmond, VA, filed a $250 million (US) suit against the Government of Canada.
When the Government received legal advice to the effect that it might lose the case it caved in to corporate pressure and settled out of court for 13$ million(US), ($19-20 million canadian). But this was only the beginning. Parliament had to repeal the law under the terms of the settlement"the author then rants about how this is undemocratic
"Equally obnoxious, the terms of the settlement required two cabinet ministers to stand in their places and read statements to the effect that MMT was not harmful either to the environment or to health. And this at the precise moment when the latest scientific evidence indicated that it was indeed harmful to the health, especially of children."
- the above was taken from One Big party by Paul hellyer
Another company(i'm too tired to write word for word anymore sued and recieved 5 million plus interest and damages for a 15-month ban on PCBs.
Toro @ Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:52 pm
Here's an article for Scape. Opinions from ministers of the UK and India and the popularity of regional trade agreements and the WTO.
$1:
RTAs can build upon WTO rules, says UK Trade Minister
Our Bureau
Kolkata , Jan. 19
FREE trade agreements (FTAs) can build upon WTO rules and can enable partners to go further and faster than is sometimes possible at the multilateral level.
But the core issue for the future will be how to recognise the existence of regional trading arrangements (RTAs) and impose discipline so that they are complementary to the WTO system.
Speaking at the CII Partnership Summit 2006 on `FTAs, RTAs: Limiting WTO goals', Mr Ian Pearson, Minister for Trade, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK, said: "As traditional trade barriers are reduced, FTAs can provide the framework to tackle non-tariff barriers in areas such standards and investment, and in encouraging conformity assessment and regulatory co-operation."
According to the Union Commerce Minister, Mr Kamal Nath, India has always stood for an open, equitable, predictable, non-discriminatory and rule-based international trading system.
"It is our view that RTAs are building blocks towards the overall objective of trade liberalisation and can actually support and facilitate WTO's multilateral trading system."
He, however, added that it was clearly recognised now that RTAs are here to stay and have become a reality in the international trading system.
While maintaining that the multilateral rules-based system under the WTO was the most effective and legitimate means of managing and expanding trade relations, the UK Trade Minister said: "I believe that comprehensive and well-designed agreements can actually complement the wider, multilateral process."
In his opinion, regional agreements are a reality and not in direct conflict with the multilateral system.
FTAs, he said, are widely used by many WTO members to pursue their economic, political, and developmental objectives, "and indeed form a significant part of EU trade policy within the framework of our WTO participation."
According to him, the EU, perhaps more than any other major trading bloc, has favoured trade agreements on a region-to-region basis.
"And of course, intra-regional trade within the EU has grown rapidly and not just as a result of the EU's expansion but because of the tariff and quota-free access between countries and the growth of the single market."
Evidence, the Minister said, suggests that the most successful RTAs are those that have a large and diverse membership, low external most favoured nation tariffs, and a comprehensive coverage of sectors and products, with few exceptions.
He added that the EU was committed a challenging programme of trade negotiations with a number of regional groups outside Europe such as Mercosur and the Gulf Co-operation Council, as well as Economic Partnership Agreements with 79 countries of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific regions.
Our Bureau
Kolkata , Jan. 19
FREE trade agreements (FTAs) can build upon WTO rules and can enable partners to go further and faster than is sometimes possible at the multilateral level.
But the core issue for the future will be how to recognise the existence of regional trading arrangements (RTAs) and impose discipline so that they are complementary to the WTO system.
Speaking at the CII Partnership Summit 2006 on `FTAs, RTAs: Limiting WTO goals', Mr Ian Pearson, Minister for Trade, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK, said: "As traditional trade barriers are reduced, FTAs can provide the framework to tackle non-tariff barriers in areas such standards and investment, and in encouraging conformity assessment and regulatory co-operation."
According to the Union Commerce Minister, Mr Kamal Nath, India has always stood for an open, equitable, predictable, non-discriminatory and rule-based international trading system.
"It is our view that RTAs are building blocks towards the overall objective of trade liberalisation and can actually support and facilitate WTO's multilateral trading system."
He, however, added that it was clearly recognised now that RTAs are here to stay and have become a reality in the international trading system.
While maintaining that the multilateral rules-based system under the WTO was the most effective and legitimate means of managing and expanding trade relations, the UK Trade Minister said: "I believe that comprehensive and well-designed agreements can actually complement the wider, multilateral process."
In his opinion, regional agreements are a reality and not in direct conflict with the multilateral system.
FTAs, he said, are widely used by many WTO members to pursue their economic, political, and developmental objectives, "and indeed form a significant part of EU trade policy within the framework of our WTO participation."
According to him, the EU, perhaps more than any other major trading bloc, has favoured trade agreements on a region-to-region basis.
"And of course, intra-regional trade within the EU has grown rapidly and not just as a result of the EU's expansion but because of the tariff and quota-free access between countries and the growth of the single market."
Evidence, the Minister said, suggests that the most successful RTAs are those that have a large and diverse membership, low external most favoured nation tariffs, and a comprehensive coverage of sectors and products, with few exceptions.
He added that the EU was committed a challenging programme of trade negotiations with a number of regional groups outside Europe such as Mercosur and the Gulf Co-operation Council, as well as Economic Partnership Agreements with 79 countries of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific regions.
The Hindu Business Line
Scape @ Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:51 pm
I find that article amusing considering its source. Indian bureaucracy is world renown and synonymous with corruption. However, bureaucracy is the instrument for implementing the policy laid down by the political leadership. Reform can be used as a weapon against the fundamentals of democratic economies. To go further and faster may seem well and good but it may also be reckless. IE trucks on the highway may be more profitable if they were given there own speed limit but if they still have to travel on the same public roads everyone else has to travel on, the roads would become dangerous for all.
Toro @ Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:46 pm
Scape Scape:
I find that article amusing considering its source. Indian bureaucracy is world renown and synonymous with corruption.
The Liberal Party is becoming world renown and synonymous with corruption too.
However,
The source is an Indian newspaper.
Does that mean something printed in that Liberal mouth piece, the Toronto Star, is to be discounted because the Liberal Party engaged in the most brazen corruption this country has seen in our lifetimes?
Scape @ Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:34 pm
No, it means that the place where the strongest advocates for reform are going to be where the most noise from the squeaky wheels of bureaucracy are to be found. IE the reformist bastion against the expanding bureaucracy front lines will be seen here most prominently. The Canadians liberal party corruption is something that does not outshine the heights of the corruption that has made satire like Borat world renown, they barely get attention on their neighbors media.