[DrJones]

herbie herbie:

Ja, Herr Doktor. We'll just take your word on that, Evidence visible to everyone else is meaningless.
Go rant on a Republican board if you want to use "Pshaw! He's a socialist" as a valid argument.

Ah, so you concede we need evidence to make valid points? Try this:

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-ag ... px?lang=en

Canada’s NAFTA exports have grown substantially, and have been particularly successful in high value–added sectors such as automotive equipment(trucks, cars and parts), machinery and parts and industrial goods.

Since the implementation of the NAFTA, Canada’s trade with the United States has risen 80%, while trade with Mexico has doubled.

Or how about this?

http://www.naftanow.org/facts/default_en.asp

One in five jobs in Canada is linked to international trade, and Canada’s prosperity is built on its openness to international trade and investment. As such, the North American continental partnership is without a doubt an important competitive advantage for Canada. Canada is using this continental platform as a way to help Canadian business embrace commercial opportunities around the world.

Since NAFTA came into effect, job growth has been strong in all three partner countries. Across North America, total employment has grown by almost 40 million jobs since 1993.

[Proculation]

Fact:

Every country in NAFTA has benefited from it.
Mexico the first, Canada and third is USA.

[Ripcat]

DrJones DrJones:

Ripcat Ripcat:

Canada should focus on eliminating internal trade barriers and stopping trade with nations that have substandard or no employment, safety or enviromental standards.

I appreciate the concerns behind this statement but in my view you are dead wrong.

How many people are already dead because of unsafe Chinese products? Products that are unsafe, not because of ignorance, but to further reduce manufacturing costs.

$1:

These countries with very poor standards (by our nation's yardstick) are still in development. They are not as advanced as us, in terms of economic progress. With time, they will be.

China is sending people into space. China can reverse engineer almost anything and have much of it on the market within days.

The government of China and the owner/operators of manufacturing companies(which in many cases is one and the same) are in a symbiotic relationship. They need each other for survival. Only bad publicity causes the communist regime to bite the hand that feeds it.

It's a Chinese farmer's patriotic duty to live in poverty to support the extremely low wages of those in the cities.

$1:

But you don't force a nation to have high environmental, etc, regulations or laws and then watch them develop. That's putting the cart before the horse.

Rather, you help their economy grow, and then, with time, they start to achieve these high standards that we have. In other words, higher economic growth leads to enhanced social welfare standards, not vice versa.

It's the same with us. 50 or 100 years ago, we had a far worse environment. Today things are better overall. You might cherry pick contrary examples (global warming?) but the trend is clear.

Fifty or 100 years ago we polluted out of ignorance. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Things may be better overall but we in the 'developed' world, Canada included, still knowingly pollute the enviroment so we can compete with the 'developing' world.

Standards such as hours worked in a day/week, vacation time, adequate breaks, access to clean water at work, personal protective equipment, machine guarding, fresh air, the right to refuse unsafe work, the right to know do not need to take a back seat to development.

$1:

The best thing we can do is to open up trade with developing nations. Better for them - higher economic growth - better for us too - cheaper goods from them.

The fact it costs more to produce a good in Canada is of no consequence, because our superior work force and infrastructure, etc, mean that companies will want to set up shop in Canada for the goods and services where we have the comparative advantage. Which are industries typically associated with higher paying jobs.

First you say that cheap goods from developing nations is good for us. You then go on to say that higher production costs in Canada are of no consequence....

I can't buy a decent can-opener anymore because the crap that is being brought in is designed to fail. When I was a kid can-openers worked well for years. Now, that 'same' can-opener lasts several weeks at best due to low quality steel and lack of choice.(Yes, Wal-mart sells 15 different can-openers, but they are all made in China with the same low quality soft steel.)

Our "superior" infrastructure serves to get these cheap goods to our stores faster keeping the shipping and handling costs to a minimum. This is also good for shipping out our raw resources mined by foreign owned companies.

Much of our superior, highly skilled workforce is set to retire. Re-training 50 year old people to replace 65 year olds is a stop gap measure at best. Intelligent youth will not train in the skilled trades if they don't see a future in it, the work appears hard and dirty, or there is no glamour in it.

$1:

Who cares if the textile mills etc move to the developing world. Are those the jobs of the future here?

Not everyone is as smart as you and there aren't enough Tim Horton's or McDonald's jobs to sustain them. They also need full-time employment so they have disposable income so they can buy luxury manufactured goods and not just get by on necessities. They need earnings high enough to buy homes, go golfing, see a movie, or go out to dinner, all things that keep wealth in Canada.

[DrJones]

Well Ripcat, my response to you is this - what do you propose we do? Are you suggesting we stop trading with China etc?

I disagree with many of your points but rather than do some mindless back and forth I'd rather skip right to the chase. What are you proposing?

[Ripcat]

DrJones DrJones:

Well Ripcat, my response to you is this - what do you propose we do? Are you suggesting we stop trading with China etc?

I disagree with many of your points but rather than do some mindless back and forth I'd rather skip right to the chase. What are you proposing?

I believe I stated, in basic terms anyway, what we should do in my first post.

At a minimum we make nations that want to trade with us meet our employment and operating standards. They still have the low wage advantage to continue their development. Force them to compete on a more even footing with our manufacturers.

[herbie]

Thank you for returning to proper argument.
I'm actually a supporter or NAFTA. I'd use a highlighter on it, hold it under Obama's nose and run the Softwood Lumber Agreement through the shredder in his presence.
I'd also be negotiating one with the EU, so we could be a corridor between trading blocs. And promote a "Commonwealth Trade Policy" to give that former glory some meaning.
No problems at all trading fairly with near equal partners, and I will include kicking Mexico's ass uphill until it is one in the effort.

My gripe is who relegates a job as lesser and unnecessary? Who dismisses those hundreds out of work when a shirt factory closes? A sawmill? etc... etc...
Those people are not "the highly skilled workforce", and should they attain any skills they expect even more benefit.
In the meantime, they still have to feed themselves and I personally need them to have 'disposable income'.

At this time all my employees are laid off. Few sales. The majority of customers out of work for over a year, EI run out, and no end in sight. Should things pick up, I will rehire but the starting wage will be only a little above minimum.
Then I can address the issue that my suppliers in China have offered to assemble our product FOR $5.00 Cdn extra! A worker here can earn $5.00 taking a dump during work hours.
If I post jobs at half the minimum wage and benefits, no one will apply. If I don't the spiral will continue and there will be fewer buyers for the products and the service it delivers.

[Sapio]

The problem is we are all still talking about government agreements and trading blocs. We need true free trade. Take the government out and let people trade. This would help all parties involved. For example Fair Trade items, which is a great idea, would be easier for us to find and easier for the producers to sell. Government involvement gets in the way of thing like Fair Trade.

[DrJones]

Well I disagree with this idea that we export our standards onto other nations in exchange for trade. That's really protectionism in disguise. Obviously they will never be able to meet our "employment and operating" standards, among others. We are trying to force them up to our level of development which we can't.

And I am sympathetic to those workers whose industries are eliminated or displaced by trade patterns and who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. But the answer to that problem is that offer retraining or relocation funding, not to blame the countries we trade with.

[Bibbi]

There are aspects of NAFTA as pointed out that are not in Canada's best interests, but the unfortunate consequence of any renegotitation is ADDING to the list of irritants on the Canadian side and further protectionist measures for the Americans. Besides the US ignores NAFTA when it is not in their interests in any event.