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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (117298)	2/2/2009 3:24:59 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206113

The Smoot-Hawley myth doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Export trade accounted for only 0.4% of the U.S. GDP when the Great Depression occurred, and imports 5.4%. (underlined in red below) You can't cause an economic depression by reducing your GDP by 0.4%. It's complete nonsense.

To: marcos who wrote (117298)	2/2/2009 5:08:01 AM
From: axial	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206113

Hi marcos - I'm deliberately staying away from discussing extremes, especially with extremists (*not* meaning you). There are too many hotheads misusing data and history; inevitably, discussions decay into pointless nationalism, even chauvinism. --- Beltrame's piece isn't bad, considering the ground it attempts to cover. Canada-US bilateral relationships and accords are rich and complex. Among Canadians, I find few who really understand the genesis and realities of NAFTA, for instance - and the finer points are the province of experts. I just concluded a fascinating discussion with a member of labor; we talked about possible ramifications of new developments for Canada/US auto workers. Whew! Wage parity? The possibility of (eventual) GM bankruptcy? The effect on companies like Toyota and Honda? Harmonizing cross-border agreements between companies and labor unions? This is NOT simple stuff. In general, there are many aspects to agreements, not least of which is whether they still make sense in their original form. After all, things change. When NAFTA was negotiated, the United States' primary concern was security of access to oil (Yom Kippur embargo '73, Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq war, OPEC price hikes, and so on). In exchange for security of supply Canada negotiated offsets, among which was a place for Canadian auto manufacturing. It's fair to say that global warming wasn't even considered, then. Another aspect to such agreements is the degree of compliance. Without going into particulars (because it serves no useful purpose) there's a legitimate question whether NAFTA doesn't deserve to be updated. In respect of the whole matter, Canada has made one crucial mistake: despite warning signs, it has failed to diversify, and expand its markets so that it is not reliant on the US. We have a good relationship. Despite occasional public bad-mouthing, most Canadians like Americans, a lot: as seen when thousands of US citizens were grounded 9/11. Canadians took them into their homes, fed them, and treated them like brothers and sisters, as acknowledged by Condy Rice in her Thank You visit. Over all these years, it's inevitable that there will be disagreements. Despite the friendship, the US doesn't owe anything to Canada, and Canada doesn't owe anything to the US. --- Though I see your point about North Korea, I'm reluctant to use that country as an example of self-sufficiency, or anything humane. That said, though Canada can conclude agreements with the US, its best protection is always self-reliance. However, building anything that lasts is difficult; destroying is easy. Both countries have grown tremendously from what we've shared, and we should think hard before we undo all the good that's been done. Jim