Free Trade vs. Protectionism (which is better)
tritium @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:35 pm
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
Canada has lost many of it's manufacturing base to the United States and 3rd world countries since the implementation of Free Trade & NAFTA.
Now we are about possibly about to lose something far more precious to us all, our water.
Large corporations under NAFTA have had an increese in earnings of 45% while the average Canadian workers has only seen a 3% increase in wages.
Protectionism would not hurt the oil industry in Alberta. The United States id deperate for oil and will buy it from anyone who will supply it to them.
What is your opinion on NAFTA and should Canada rip up the deal and return to a protectionist economy and protect our resources, manufacturing base, and insure Canada is not dependant on other nations to supply us our goods.
Add your link of plant closings in your town, city or community.
PM promises aid as Cornwall devastated by closing of Domtar
Toro @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:22 pm
There is no developed nation on the planet that has benefited from protectionism. Certain sectors benefit from protection, but that is at the expense of everyone else who is forced to pay a higher price for goods than they otherwise would.
Of course, if protectionism were a good thing, then it would be a good thing for Alberta vis-a-vis the rest of Canada. Thus, Alberta should protect itself from competition from the rest of Canada. And if it were good for Alberta, then it would be good for Calgary, and Calgary should set up trade restrictions with the rest of Alberta. And if its good for Calgary, then it must be good for the neighborhoods in Calgary. And so on.
Its an especially curious assertion given that unemployment is at a 30 year low and the economy is as strong as it has been in my lifetime.
DerbyX @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:36 pm
tritium tritium:
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
Canada has lost many of it's manufacturing base to the United States and 3rd world countries since the implementation of Free Trade & NAFTA.
Now we are about possibly about to lose something far more precious to us all, our water.
Large corporations under NAFTA have had an increese in earnings of 45% while the average Canadian workers has only seen a 3% increase in wages.
Protectionism would not hurt the oil industry in Alberta. The United States id deperate for oil and will buy it from anyone who will supply it to them.
What is your opinion on NAFTA and should Canada rip up the deal and return to a protectionist economy and protect our resources, manufacturing base, and insure Canada is not dependant on other nations to supply us our goods.
Add your link of plant closings in your town, city or community.
PM promises aid as Cornwall devastated by closing of Domtar
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
Canada has lost many of it's manufacturing base to the United States and 3rd world countries since the implementation of Free Trade & NAFTA.
Now we are about possibly about to lose something far more precious to us all, our water.
Large corporations under NAFTA have had an increese in earnings of 45% while the average Canadian workers has only seen a 3% increase in wages.
Protectionism would not hurt the oil industry in Alberta. The United States id deperate for oil and will buy it from anyone who will supply it to them.
What is your opinion on NAFTA and should Canada rip up the deal and return to a protectionist economy and protect our resources, manufacturing base, and insure Canada is not dependant on other nations to supply us our goods.
Add your link of plant closings in your town, city or community.
PM promises aid as Cornwall devastated by closing of Domtar
Where were you when the usual CPC hacks were extolling the virtues of NAFTA and the good Mulroney did for Canada in enacting it?
tritium @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:47 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Where were you when the usual CPC hacks were extolling the virtues of NAFTA and the good Mulroney did for Canada in enacting it?
Los Angeles, California.
It was good for me then, I lived in the United States.
We get all of Canada's resources without having to invade. Cool.
DerbyX @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:56 pm
tritium tritium:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Where were you when the usual CPC hacks were extolling the virtues of NAFTA and the good Mulroney did for Canada in enacting it?
Los Angeles, California.
It was good for me then, I lived in the United States.
We get all of Canada's resources without having to invade. Cool.
The US got a couple of million Mexicans who make their lives miserable.
Works out in the end I guess.
tritium @ Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:14 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
tritium tritium:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Where were you when the usual CPC hacks were extolling the virtues of NAFTA and the good Mulroney did for Canada in enacting it?
Los Angeles, California.
It was good for me then, I lived in the United States.
We get all of Canada's resources without having to invade. Cool.
The US got a couple of million Mexicans who make their lives miserable.
Works out in the end I guess.
Not at all.
Could you image the cost of vegetables, fruit and some services if it wasn't for the cheap labor market in the U.S.
Let's face it. If they got rid of all the illegals in the United States tomorrow:
1. they would NOT be able to fill all the jobs available.
2. the price of vegetables, fruit and many other services would skyrocket.
Yakima, WA apple growers pay 5 dollars a basket for back breaking labor. Do you think some white dude is going to pick apples for $5 bucks a basket?
...and they are still making more than they would in Mexico.
DrCaleb @ Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:41 pm
How about C) None of the Above?
NAFTA is about protectionism. I'd like to try free trade, if we could find such a beast.
"Hiring gains were mostly in the private sector following three months of gains in the public sector, although losses in the manufacturing sector continued, with 16,000 jobs lost and factory employment declines now totalling 98,000 for the year_-_most of the losses in Quebec and Ontario.
The biggest employment growth was in British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick."
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/natio ... d9b5&k=779
So, we lose manufacturing jobs, we get bigger government . . go NAFTA!
dog77_1999 @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:50 pm
Free trade is better because it allows a country to specialize in what it can do best. Resources are allocated more efficiently resulting in a better lifestlye than otherwise attainable.
DrCaleb @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:24 am
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Free trade is better because it allows a country to specialize in what it can do best. Resources are allocated more efficiently resulting in a better lifestlye than otherwise attainable.
I'll get the word out to all the increasingly crowded homeless shelters and children living in poverty . . .
Fair trade is better than Free trade - too bad we haven't tried ether yet.
themasta @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:34 pm
I can't believe this is really a topic, but here we go anyway. First off, there needs to be an understanding that free trade is different than the Free Trade Agreement. Once that's done, go take a first year econ course and learn why trade makes us all better off. Contrary to ignorant opinion, trade is not a zero sum game. If you like prosperity, free trade is the way to go (again to clarify, not NAFTA), if you like high prices low output (read "reduced incomes") then advocate for protectionist policies. There is no serious debate among academics behind the benefits of free trade. Only the unwashed masses and their demagogue leaders think that their are any gains to be made from protectionism.
Again, NAFTA is not free trade. Now go help yourself to a fucking textbook.
Proculation @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:29 pm
It the last days, the Quebec govt decided to implant a program style "Buy from Quebec". 14 millions will be injected to promote this program.
Quebec is well known for protectionism (milk, butter, other agriculture goods). That's very bad news.
As themasta said, adopting protectionism is just a lack of economics. Or, it's a political thing to buy votes.
dog77_1999 @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:23 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Free trade is better because it allows a country to specialize in what it can do best. Resources are allocated more efficiently resulting in a better lifestlye than otherwise attainable.
I'll get the word out to all the increasingly crowded homeless shelters and children living in poverty . . .
Fair trade is better than Free trade - too bad we haven't tried ether yet.
And I look at Canada's unemployment rate and see that there are jobs that need to be filled. You may have to move and go into a different industry, but they are their.
And tell the homeless that there is work out in Alberta for them.
Though I suspect they won't go. At least in Houston, 9/10 homeless people chose to stay homeless and beg rather than earn a honest day's pay.
DrCaleb @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:16 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Free trade is better because it allows a country to specialize in what it can do best. Resources are allocated more efficiently resulting in a better lifestlye than otherwise attainable.
I'll get the word out to all the increasingly crowded homeless shelters and children living in poverty . . .
Fair trade is better than Free trade - too bad we haven't tried ether yet.
And I look at Canada's unemployment rate and see that there are jobs that need to be filled. You may have to move and go into a different industry, but they are their.
And tell the homeless that there is work out in Alberta for them.
Though I suspect they won't go. At least in Houston, 9/10 homeless people chose to stay homeless and beg rather than earn a honest day's pay.
So (being in Edmonton) what do we tell the homeless here, who have jobs+kids and no where to live? Go to Houston?
Scape @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:19 pm
Dumb poll, might as well put one up : Breathing (which is better) Inhaling or exhaling?
Thanos @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:08 pm
There probably was a happy medium that could have been reached in terms of these trade agreements where the participants could have conceivably received most of the benefits of free trade while simultaneously keeping as many domestic manufacturing jobs as possible. Too bad the ideologues on both sides of the aisle made damn sure that it couldn't happen this way.
Look at it this way while you're happily shopping for Christmas toys at Wal-Mart: instead of paying a slightly higher price and having to occasionally put up with some whiners in our domestic unions, we farmed out most of our manufacturing to asshole places like China and Mexico. In return we got increased shareholder value, but we also get products laced with dangerous contaminants like lead and mercury (have fun with you Mattel and Fisher-Price toys kids!), the absolute knowledge that we've destroyed a significant portion of our own middle-class that used to be employed in manufacturing, and the minor moral annoyance of knowing that these items from overseas are manufactured by what is, more-or-less, slave labour.
We can all do what we want. It's our right as individuals to do so. And don't think that for a second I'm a slave to the neo-Marxist hyper-protectionist horse-shit promulgated by Maude Barlow or Naomi Klein. We shouldn't conveniently forget, though, that our so-called "right" to be able to buy cheap consumer goods costs a lot more than we let ourselves believe. Rewind to the 1988 election. If I knew then what I know now about what free trade would have done then I most likely would have ended up voting "No".