Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (12282)	12/1/2001 4:48:49 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi, teevee - "You just never know when those Canadians might unilaterally put on an export tax on gas, create a foreign pipeline tax, or threaten to cut off the flow of gas as a counter measure to American economic warfare currently being waged on the lumber front." That phrase, "as a counter measure to American economic warfare currently being waged" really bugs me. You are implying that the recent success of a group of American lobbyists represents American policy towards Canada. I say that is not the case: not yet. The continuation of these practices would substantiate your implication, but it is just as likely that, in the long view, the US will decide that this is, on balance, the wrong way to do things. Part of the justification for NAFTA lay in the international development of trade blocs: part (though not all) of the intent was to make North America an efficient competitor. Will the Bush administration begin to dismantle NAFTA, piecemeal? Is this, as I asked earlier, "the thin edge of the wedge"? Because if it is, and the Softwood Lumber Dispute is representative of the future course of events, then this headache is nothing, compared to what will follow. In the meantime, despite the real pain that is being caused in Canada, I am hoping that both sides will refrain from inflammatory descriptions of the event such as "economic warfare". It is far from that. If "economic warfare" does come, and we see a return to protectionism, Canada will be badly hurt. So will the United States. Regards, Jim

To: teevee who wrote (12282)	12/1/2001 7:06:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Ever heard of an American company called Nike? Yep... and they did that because they were unable to compete for less expensive labor used by other manufacturers. But they also came under considerable criticism for their labor practices. I'm all for US sanctions, tariffs, against EVEN US COMPANIES, that exploit labor resources around the world, having them work in unsafe conditions. And it's funny that you brought up Nike. Every sense I heard they were utilizing sweat shop labor in Vietnam, I haven't owned another pair of them. But that's not to say that I believe they should be paid the same as US workers either, since obvious the cost of living in both societies are quite different. The key here is to pay a middle class wage to these people so they can upgrade their lifestyle to the point where they can engage in bilateral trade with the US, purchasing products that Americans manufacture. After all, the middle class is what drives an consumer based economy. Without it, the end result HAS TO BE lost US jobs that are never replaced. Either that, or we're forced to keep wages low ourselves, in order to compete (even with higher productivity and automation). As for energy.. I would prefer the US were more self-reliant, as we discovered during the California power outages. But as a secondary scenario, I would rather we diversify our sources of supply, as we've been doing over the past 10 years. And given that it's likely non-renewable resources are going to grow even more scarce over the coming decades, it only makes sense that we engage in a public energy infrastructure upgrade, including greater use of the newer, and much safer nuclear technology. Hawk