Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: free trade Message-ID: <20@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 00:19:01 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.20 Posted: Tue Sep 24 00:19:01 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 10:18:32 EDT References: <2518@watcgl.UUCP> <13@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2530@watcgl.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Distribution: can Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 84 Summary: In article <2530@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >An example for B.C. : the US economy takes nose dive; industries >start shutting down; house building slacks off :---> BC economy >takes a nose dive since it depends so heavily on exports of mining >lumber to the US. > >Were our export markets more evenly spread around it would not be >such a problem. Our economy was doing quite well compared to almost >every other country in the world except the US (perhaps I should >say currency rather than economy); however since so much of our >economy is tied to the US their performance made ours look bad. This assumes that an economic downturn in the US won't affect the rest of the world. Given the sheer size of the US economy I find this hard to believe. I think it's merely a case of "pay me now, or pay me later". >Because as you point out below we already have a HUGE percentage >of our trade with the US- far too much for us to consider ourselves >as having a diversified export market. We should reduce our trade >with the US and increase it with as many different countries as we >can. As I understand it Trudeau and Co. tried to develop this "third option" and failed. I believe it has something to do with the fact that many (most?) of the countries that we'd like to do business with already belong to trading blocs (e.g. EEC) and they don't take too kindly to member countries making special deals with nations outside of the bloc. The other reason is that it's probably cheaper and easier to sell those pesky widgets to a country inside the bloc since, presumably, no tariffs are involved and, therefore, no real negotiations are necessary. The notion of *deliberately* reducing our trade with the US seems rather strange to me. Certainly we should attempt to promote trade with other countries. But, we should do this by increasing our exports, not merely redirecting them. This would result (if it could be accomplished) in growth in our export industries *and* reduction in the percentage of exports that go to the US. I also suspect that redirection of trade would not be without costs - lower profits for export industries and higher prices for imported goods (since if trading widgets with country X was more profitable than trading with the US it would already be a fact). This would result in a lower standard of living and in the long run probably cost jobs. >> >Finally, how much political autonomy will we have once 80% or more >> >of our trade is with the US? They will easily be able to control >> >our political policies through economic pressure. >> >> Since currently about 77% of our exports go to the US I'd say we'd >> have exactly the same political autonomy as we have now. In fact, > >Hmmm, perhaps that explains our glorious prime ministers toadying >to the US. Our fearless leader has also toadied(?) to every other SIG in Canada that has shown just the slightest amount of organization. Remember, (it seems like eons now) when it was PC policy to sell Air Canada and Petrocan? How about the strong stance he took on the de-indexation of pensions? And let's not forget how he bravely charged ahead with the "debate" on universality. Then, there's the $100 million 10 year interest-free loan to Domtar - a company that had profits of $96 million last year, but since it was located in Quebec...... well you get the drift. So it's not like his US toadying is anything special. The man does it for any and everyone. >> we may end up with more since it would be necessary for the US to >> actually renege on a formal agreement (usually not a popular move) > >Check the ABM treaty and the UN nonmilitarization of space treaty >to which the US is a signatory. The US also has several agreements/ >treaties to not interfere militarily in other countries (they even >have a domestic law against it) but it doesn't stop them from, for >example, mining nicaraugan ports. The US has not as yet violated the ABM treat and opponents of Star Wars are more than happy that the treaty exists since it makes things just that much more difficult for Ron and the boys. True, the US violates treaties, and for this reason adequate safeguards would have to be devised. However, I am reasonably confident that something suitable can be arranged, and I am positive that we won't know until we try. J.B. Robinson