quotes Phins will agree to
03-11-2009, 06:40 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by phinsup' post='918151' date='Mar 10 2009, 07:10 PM
We started taking your wood because it was cheaper, in fact many of the mills in washington and oregon that had shutdown due to the cheap canadian lumber have reopened. We also have some of the largest natural gas deposits in the world, we just prefer to use others and hoard ours, yes we also have some of the largest coal deposits in the world. The reality of it is, we import your resources not because we have ran out of them, but because they are cheaper then mining or harvesting our own. Plain and simple.
Mining and harvesting and updating our machinery to do so would also provide us with one of other things we desperately need..... jobs.
On to oil, we import oil from countries right now that we are not entered into a free trade agreement with. We want it, they want to sell it my guess is canada and the US will be more then happy to enter into an agreement regarding the import of oil, it seems that oil is almost always the exception to every rule doesn't it?
That's a much simpler question to answer then you might think. What could possibly drive us to use the rest of the worlds oil resources before we use our own?
Rest assured Max even without NAFTA we will find a way to relieve you of your pesky natural resources!
Mining and harvesting and updating our machinery to do so would also provide us with one of other things we desperately need..... jobs.
On to oil, we import oil from countries right now that we are not entered into a free trade agreement with. We want it, they want to sell it my guess is canada and the US will be more then happy to enter into an agreement regarding the import of oil, it seems that oil is almost always the exception to every rule doesn't it?
That's a much simpler question to answer then you might think. What could possibly drive us to use the rest of the worlds oil resources before we use our own?
Rest assured Max even without NAFTA we will find a way to relieve you of your pesky natural resources!
It isnt a simple US needs it, we will bend over for them anymore dynamic like 10 years ago when it comes to energy. The Chinese have entered the market for our oil and have started buying up some of our largest operators, and it isn't to just sell to the US, its to secure their own energy interests. If the US wants some special trade agreement on oil, why would we cut our price when we have so many other willing customers that will pay full price? The goodness of our hearts? this is world economics and capitalism here.
Beleive me, we are just sitting up here licking our chops waiting for Obama to pull the plug on Nafta, the main reason for Canada signing was our manafacturing base in the east that is now completely dead, so it doesnt really matter to us anymore. Nafta just makes us pay what you are willing to for our own energy, the public doesn't profit from it here when we have to pay the inflated price.
As for softwoods, the fact is when you have large disasters down there, you need the wood from here, when Katrina happened, they were trucking down inventory from the retail level from here. Look at our position, we have 10 times the resources, 1/10th the population, and the whole world lined up to buy. If we make you go elsewhere, and suffer a shortage, it wil drive world price up, which just improves our position again.
03-11-2009, 07:28 AM
#22
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 5,425
Originally Posted by phinsup' post='918153' date='Mar 10 2009, 11:14 PM
Like I said they are clear cutting as we speak in washington and oregon as the cost of canadian lumber became more expensive it became economically feasible to being cutting and milling our own trees.
As far as our exports go, good info can be found here:
U.S. Exports to World (Total) from 2004 to 2008
Semiconductors! But I'm guessing we import all the raw material for the semiconductors.
03-11-2009, 09:52 AM
#23
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
Originally Posted by Maxt' post='918175' date='Mar 11 2009, 07:40 AM
And as I said, to use those resources puts your products out of pricing contention with the rest of the world, and to expensive to even think about exporting to increase GDP. Your population cant even afford its own resources internall.So your population is left with just "servicing" each other with intangible assets, like "high quality flexable investment vehicles", AKA investment bubbles with dodgey practises.
It isnt a simple US needs it, we will bend over for them anymore dynamic like 10 years ago when it comes to energy. The Chinese have entered the market for our oil and have started buying up some of our largest operators, and it isn't to just sell to the US, its to secure their own energy interests. If the US wants some special trade agreement on oil, why would we cut our price when we have so many other willing customers that will pay full price? The goodness of our hearts? this is world economics and capitalism here.
Beleive me, we are just sitting up here licking our chops waiting for Obama to pull the plug on Nafta, the main reason for Canada signing was our manafacturing base in the east that is now completely dead, so it doesnt really matter to us anymore. Nafta just makes us pay what you are willing to for our own energy, the public doesn't profit from it here when we have to pay the inflated price.
As for softwoods, the fact is when you have large disasters down there, you need the wood from here, when Katrina happened, they were trucking down inventory from the retail level from here. Look at our position, we have 10 times the resources, 1/10th the population, and the whole world lined up to buy. If we make you go elsewhere, and suffer a shortage, it wil drive world price up, which just improves our position again.
It isnt a simple US needs it, we will bend over for them anymore dynamic like 10 years ago when it comes to energy. The Chinese have entered the market for our oil and have started buying up some of our largest operators, and it isn't to just sell to the US, its to secure their own energy interests. If the US wants some special trade agreement on oil, why would we cut our price when we have so many other willing customers that will pay full price? The goodness of our hearts? this is world economics and capitalism here.
Beleive me, we are just sitting up here licking our chops waiting for Obama to pull the plug on Nafta, the main reason for Canada signing was our manafacturing base in the east that is now completely dead, so it doesnt really matter to us anymore. Nafta just makes us pay what you are willing to for our own energy, the public doesn't profit from it here when we have to pay the inflated price.
As for softwoods, the fact is when you have large disasters down there, you need the wood from here, when Katrina happened, they were trucking down inventory from the retail level from here. Look at our position, we have 10 times the resources, 1/10th the population, and the whole world lined up to buy. If we make you go elsewhere, and suffer a shortage, it wil drive world price up, which just improves our position again.
So just we're clear, 5 posts ago you said we no longer export anything, now you are saying that if back out of NAFTA, we won't be able to export anything that other nations can afford. Seems like a different equation with the same sum doesn't it? If we stop importing cheap goods from China how much oil will the need? There already appears to be a worldwide slowing of demand for oil, look at the prices, look at the OPEC cut backs.
In one post you said the problem is we don't produce anything, now you seem to be suggesting that our producing of things would also be a problem, I'm confused. If we produce nothing for export and import everything, what is the solution? Prior to NAFTA we still traded with other nations, why would that be impossible without a free trade agreement? It would simply make imported products more expensive and us made products similar in cost and thus able to compete. If the import cost on a chinese screwdriver makes it similar to the cost of the us screwdriver, then it would make the us screwdriver competitive. The wages paid to people manufacturing the screwdriver might actually make it so they can buy a screwdriver. My crazy idea is that we would employ americans building and manufacturing the very things they consume.
The US imposed a 27% import tax on softwoods and low and behold the american mills fired up, they began cutting trees in washington and oregon and we began employing us citizens to provide lumber. (yes canada got PISSED) I am suggesting that we apply that logic strait across the board. I am suggesting that put americans to work producing, we level the trade playing field, we raise our GDP, we stop trying to buy everything we consume on the open market and quite simply we do without the things we can't produce. Am I suggesting we end trade with other nations all together? Not at all, I am simply suggesting, much like prior to NAFTA we produce what have the resources for and we use those items that we produce to export and trade for items we don't have the resources produce.
It's the North American Free Trade Agreement, however it's really just the North American Import Agreement, we take resources from Canada for next to nothing, then we have it manufactured in Mexico for next to nothing and bring it into the US and sell it to our citizens that are quickly running out of any job they can work to buy the items. We manufactured our way out of the first depression, how will we dig ourselves out of the next one?
Personally I oppose NAFTA because I feel it and the NWO violate our sovereignty and further pick away at our constitution it violates yours as well. I can't help but agree with ron paul on this one either, why does free trade require over 1,000 pages of junk that have nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with violating our constitution. I quick look at Chapter 11 of the NAFTA charter will tell you whom the agreement is engineered for and who is rapes.
03-11-2009, 10:23 AM
#24
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1993, we were told it would create 200,000 jobs in the first year alone. According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA has eliminated 766,030 actual and potential U.S jobs. By 2000, the trade deficit with both Canada and Mexico had increased by 378 percent to $62.8 billion.
03-11-2009, 08:28 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by phinsup' post='918184' date='Mar 11 2009, 06:52 AM
So just we're clear, 5 posts ago you said we no longer export anything, now you are saying that if back out of NAFTA, we won't be able to export anything that other nations can afford. Seems like a different equation with the same sum doesn't it? If we stop importing cheap goods from China how much oil will the need? There already appears to be a worldwide slowing of demand for oil, look at the prices, look at the OPEC cut backs.
In one post you said the problem is we don't produce anything, now you seem to be suggesting that our producing of things would also be a problem, I'm confused. If we produce nothing for export and import everything, what is the solution? Prior to NAFTA we still traded with other nations, why would that be impossible without a free trade agreement? It would simply make imported products more expensive and us made products similar in cost and thus able to compete. If the import cost on a chinese screwdriver makes it similar to the cost of the us screwdriver, then it would make the us screwdriver competitive. The wages paid to people manufacturing the screwdriver might actually make it so they can buy a screwdriver. My crazy idea is that we would employ americans building and manufacturing the very things they consume.
The US imposed a 27% import tax on softwoods and low and behold the american mills fired up, they began cutting trees in washington and oregon and we began employing us citizens to provide lumber. (yes canada got PISSED) I am suggesting that we apply that logic strait across the board. I am suggesting that put americans to work producing, we level the trade playing field, we raise our GDP, we stop trying to buy everything we consume on the open market and quite simply we do without the things we can't produce. Am I suggesting we end trade with other nations all together? Not at all, I am simply suggesting, much like prior to NAFTA we produce what have the resources for and we use those items that we produce to export and trade for items we don't have the resources produce.
It's the North American Free Trade Agreement, however it's really just the North American Import Agreement, we take resources from Canada for next to nothing, then we have it manufactured in Mexico for next to nothing and bring it into the US and sell it to our citizens that are quickly running out of any job they can work to buy the items. We manufactured our way out of the first depression, how will we dig ourselves out of the next one?
Personally I oppose NAFTA because I feel it and the NWO violate our sovereignty and further pick away at our constitution it violates yours as well. I can't help but agree with ron paul on this one either, why does free trade require over 1,000 pages of junk that have nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with violating our constitution. I quick look at Chapter 11 of the NAFTA charter will tell you whom the agreement is engineered for and who is rapes.
In one post you said the problem is we don't produce anything, now you seem to be suggesting that our producing of things would also be a problem, I'm confused. If we produce nothing for export and import everything, what is the solution? Prior to NAFTA we still traded with other nations, why would that be impossible without a free trade agreement? It would simply make imported products more expensive and us made products similar in cost and thus able to compete. If the import cost on a chinese screwdriver makes it similar to the cost of the us screwdriver, then it would make the us screwdriver competitive. The wages paid to people manufacturing the screwdriver might actually make it so they can buy a screwdriver. My crazy idea is that we would employ americans building and manufacturing the very things they consume.
The US imposed a 27% import tax on softwoods and low and behold the american mills fired up, they began cutting trees in washington and oregon and we began employing us citizens to provide lumber. (yes canada got PISSED) I am suggesting that we apply that logic strait across the board. I am suggesting that put americans to work producing, we level the trade playing field, we raise our GDP, we stop trying to buy everything we consume on the open market and quite simply we do without the things we can't produce. Am I suggesting we end trade with other nations all together? Not at all, I am simply suggesting, much like prior to NAFTA we produce what have the resources for and we use those items that we produce to export and trade for items we don't have the resources produce.
It's the North American Free Trade Agreement, however it's really just the North American Import Agreement, we take resources from Canada for next to nothing, then we have it manufactured in Mexico for next to nothing and bring it into the US and sell it to our citizens that are quickly running out of any job they can work to buy the items. We manufactured our way out of the first depression, how will we dig ourselves out of the next one?
Personally I oppose NAFTA because I feel it and the NWO violate our sovereignty and further pick away at our constitution it violates yours as well. I can't help but agree with ron paul on this one either, why does free trade require over 1,000 pages of junk that have nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with violating our constitution. I quick look at Chapter 11 of the NAFTA charter will tell you whom the agreement is engineered for and who is rapes.
As for Softwood, the US still owes Canada a pile of money on the Nafta rulings it lost in the courts..
I am all for the end of Nafta to, domestically we can pay 1.50 gallon for gas then and the US can pay 4.00/gallon, but right now they use your demand as the pricing schedule for us since we ship gasoline south of the border to.
03-11-2009, 11:29 PM
#28
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
Originally Posted by Maxt' post='918197' date='Mar 11 2009, 09:28 PM
As for Softwood, the US still owes Canada a pile of money on the Nafta rulings it lost in the courts..
And leads me back to my point, I feel NAFTA violates our sovereignty, why do we need a 1,000 page document to trade with other nations? You yourself said it, we have no free trade agreement with Chavez and yet somehow we were able to purchase his oil. Yet we sign into this agreement which allows us to be sued for things like the "buy american" program obama wanted to include in his latest stimulus. canada and mexico had a shitfit that we want to use our own borrowed money to encourage buy american and I don't feel that has anything to do with free trade. I'm not a NWO fan and although I don't have an issue with free trade amongst nations I do have an issue with agreement itself. I simply believe that NAFTA is a violation of our sovereignty and while I may agree that we are currently dependent on imports I can't for life of me figure out why we need a 1,000 page agreement in order to trade with Canada or Mexico.
From chapter 11:
Chapter 11
Another contentious issue is the impact of the investment obligations contained in Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.[41] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) have adversely affected their investments.
This chapter has been invoked in cases where governments have passed laws or regulations with intent to protect their constituents and their resident businesses' profits. Language in the chapter defining its scope states that it cannot be used to "prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter."[42]
This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,[43] Mexico,[44] and Canada[45] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental[46] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level,[47] and have subsequently appealed.
Methanex, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a California ban on MTBE, a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. However, the claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs.[48]
In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of the alleged environmental concerns.[49]
Another contentious issue is the impact of the investment obligations contained in Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.[41] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) have adversely affected their investments.
This chapter has been invoked in cases where governments have passed laws or regulations with intent to protect their constituents and their resident businesses' profits. Language in the chapter defining its scope states that it cannot be used to "prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter."[42]
This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,[43] Mexico,[44] and Canada[45] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental[46] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level,[47] and have subsequently appealed.
Methanex, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a California ban on MTBE, a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. However, the claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs.[48]
In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of the alleged environmental concerns.[49]
What I don't understand is why such provisions are necessary for free trade? Why should the US or Canada for that matter not be allowed to protect their constituents and their residents businesses profits? What does that have to do with free trade? We are separate nations and Chapter 11 is a clear violation of our sovereignty and yours. While their may be some merit to your argument regarding resources, my argument is that I simply don't understand what the various provisions in NAFTA have to do with trade free of import tax? And while I do agree a great deal with what you are saying in regards to americas independence from foreign resources, or rather the lack there of I don't understand why we have to agree to the many provisions in the agreement to trade with Canada, nor do I feel Canada should have to agree to them in order to trade with us. If we continue to operate with the staggering trade deficit we have now with no concern to balancing our imports vs exports we will ultimately go bankrupt. Furthermore, if we are faced with such a dependance on foreign nations would it not behoove us to come up with alternative energy sources?
None the less Maxt you are pleasure to spar with and appreciate you giving your two cents! You make some very good points and i think from the sounds of it to some degree we may both agree on the fact that we should not have to punish our citizens in order to establish trade with neighboring nations?? Were you aware that there is also a provision that once a NAFTA nation sells something as a commodity it cannot stop the sale of that item in the future? Also I have had quite a bit to drink tonight so if there are sentences that make no sense or spelling errors I cannot be held liable for such occurrences, although under Chapter 11 it appears that if I were to encourage the use of the word Hello instead of "Aye" I could be in some trouble
