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