Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: free trade Message-ID: <822@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 09:40:14 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.822 Posted: Tue Oct 1 09:40:14 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 11:46:47 EDT References: <2518@watcgl.UUCP> <13@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2530@watcgl.UUCP> <19@ubc-cs.UUCP> <819@lsuc.UUCP> <31@ubc-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Distribution: can Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto Lines: 81 Summary: Good points all. In article <31@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <819@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> >> The US government and State governments subsidize industry in the >>US. Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't been looking (deliberately?). >>When jobs are at stake, the Fed. Gov. can and often does give tax >>relief to industries and sometimes actual funding. Canada, from what >>I've heard does *less* of this. Some of the best places to locate >>industry right now are the US Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama). >>Get in touch with various Chambers of Commerce and State industrial >>commissions and find out why. This sort of card stacking works. Many >>industries *are* locating south of the boarder *specifically* due to >>the insentives. You can look at border import duties as a similar >>card stacking attempt on a national scale. I see no moral difference. > >I was under the impression that companies (both US and foreign) were >relocating to the sun-belt due to the existence of right-to-work >legislation in those states. I know of at least one major *Canadian* >company that intends to expand its sun-belt plant(s) at the expense of >its Canadian plants for just this reason. It already has access to the >Canadian market, and probably figures that it can kill two birds with one >stone by using the aforementioned strategy - i.e. not only will it benefit >from looser (more realistic) labour laws, but also it will demonstrate >that it is a good "corporate citizen" by employing Americans thus helping >to dull the newly found protectionist tendencies of the US. Good point. I know of companies (plural) who are going there for the reasons I've stated. It may be that facts are therefore inconclusive. It's also hard to get frank and open discussion from people on this point so all "facts" are probably tainted. Let's just say that the insentives exist. > >>............................ The US people feel it is their duty to >>buy American when the chips are down. Currently, this may have >>some effect on our sales. If you don't believe me take a trip through >>the US and talk to people. Listen to what they say to each other. >>My father spends the winter in Florida and his American friends >>berate *him* (a Canadian!) for not buying US products! > >I am yet to hear anyone reconcile the "buy American" tenet (myth) attributed >to US citizens with the fact that the US has a projected trade deficit >of $150 billion (US). Doesn't sound like them Yankees are buying American >to me. [And let's not forget California (pop. 25 million) where one out of >every two new cars bought is an import.] Note that we have a trade *surplus* >(~$20 billion) thus implying that Canadians "buy Canadian" (even if it is >because we're coerced into doing so). > >J.B. Robinson Also a good point. However, that trade deficit is, as far as I under- stand it a fairly new aberation in their economic history (I'd like to see a 100 year analysis on the topic and haven't). Also, it also makes it more likely that they have now increased their incentive to press for "hidden" trade discrimination, something like Japan. I will accept that this point may be relatively empty. It's another where the facts are at best weak and possibly the stats prove your point. None of this addresses the other problems I've stated. The manipulation of our economy via influence of business conduct of multinationals and the desire to influence our legal structure. You know, I frankly find the US concern with our Copyright and Patent laws surprising. There really isn't all that much difference. The basic fundamentals both originate in the Statute of Monopolies and the Statute of Anne in England, and have been modified to an extent by the Berne Conventions and other Treaties. Some of the details differ, but nothing irreconcilable at this stage. Now, if the Canadian government were to do what *I* would like them to do, then we'd have a substantially different set of laws, but I think they'd be much better than what currently exists in either country. But a lot of people would disagree with me on this (mainly Patent lawyers I should think). -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6