Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: free trade Message-ID: <2530@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 14:18:21 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2530 Posted: Thu Sep 19 14:18:21 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:17:03 EDT References: <2518@watcgl.UUCP> <13@ubc-cs.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 117 . . > > I'd say that the US's economy is in much better shape than Canada's. > Consider: > unemployment - US: 7.0% CDN: 10.3% > budget deficit - US: $200 billion CDN: $36 billion > national debt - US: ~$2 trillion CDN: ~$240 billion * > taxes - significantly lower in the US > > In all fairness I'll include: > trade deficit - US: >$100 billion CDN: $20 billion *surplus* (for now) Well I know the two trillion $ figure is in US funds so I assume the rest of your figures for the US are also in US funds. Similarily the canadian figures seem to be in canadian funds. Lets be fair and use the same currency for comparisons. Current exchange rates seem to be about 1.38 Can. per US $ which gives: budget deficit - US $276 billion CDN $36 billion national debt - US ~2.76 trillion CDN ~240 billion trade deficit - US >$138 billion CDN $20 billion surplus inflation - US ???? CDN ~4% taxes? who knows Seems to me that when you adjust these figures for the aprrox. 10:1 population ratio we come off looking just as good or better than the US. According to the news a few nights ago the US deficit doubled during Reagans term(s) as president - you sure can make an economy look good (temporarily) when you *borrow* $1 trillion US dollars to pump into it. How long can they keep inflating the balloon before it collapses? > > Due to the fact that the US is a country of extremes, comparing a > Harlem to an East Vancouver makes as much sense as comparing Beverly > Hills to The British Properties. I.e. the variation found in the States > is undoubtedly higher, but that says nothing about the mean or median. It sures does make sense; it says that our economic and social system does not allow the type and extent of grinding poverty that the US does. This seems to me to be something we ought to be proud of and willing to protect - it sure sounds a lot more civilized to me. > > >Another point I'd like to make is that one of the reasons we > >have been having such economic problems in the last 10-15 yrs > >is precisely because of the large percentage of our exports > >that are to the US coupled with the unstable US market/economy. > > Elaboration on this point would be appreciated. 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. > > >It was a long time ago but it seems to me my economics teacher > >told us that diversity is a much wiser course (don't put all > >your eggs in one basket as my mom used to say). Why don't we > >develop our markets & make trade agreements with as many other > >countries as we can so as to minimize the effect of any single > >country's economy on our own. > > Makes sense to me. However, I don't see why we shouldn't cash in > on our proximity to the US *as well* as diversify our markets. 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. > >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. > 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. > in order to deny us access to their market, as opposed to the > present situation whereby they could "legally" deny us this access > if, for example, we refused to outlaw the NDP. > > J.B. Robinson > > * I'm not absolutely sure about this figure but I am 99% positive > that it is higher than the US's, on a per capita basis. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.