The Cheap Labor Cons are everywhere

[DainBramaged]

They're coming out from under their rocks. You know who they are, the one's who want to keep bringing in imported crap and stop American manufacturing from participating in the stimulus package, while the countries they represent wouldn't import ten cents of our steel or construction materials because they have one way fair trade, what's fair for them is fair for everyone.

Cheap labor Cons, appearing in a thread near you.

[ogneopasno]

1. Why don't you want other people to have good jobs?

:sarcasm:

[OhioChick]

2. Yep.....

Same with the pro-globalization outsourcing of tech job cons.

[Oregone]

3. Canada doesn't "import ten cents of our steel or construction materials"?

[DainBramaged]

5. We import more from Canada than they import from us

U.S.-Canada trade gap shrinks to $3B

America’s trade gap with Canada shrank dramatically in November, according to a new federal report, but it nonetheless topped $3 billion for the month.

U.S. companies exported $19.21 billion of goods to Canada in November, but American consumers purchased $22.55 billion of Canadian goods. The result was a deficit of $3.34 billion, as tabulated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Only three countries ran up a larger trade imbalance with the United States in November -- China ($23.06 billion), Japan ($4.97 billion) and Mexico ($3.52 billion).

The good news was that the U.S.-Canadian trade gap was much smaller in November than in October, when it reached $5.86 billion. And it was even smaller than the average for the first 11 months of 2008, $6.49 billion per month


http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/01/12/daily34.html?surround=lfn


Any questions??

[Oregone]

6. Yes a question....Canada doesn't import 10 cents from us?

Are they a bastion of Cheap Labor?

Is this cheap labor:
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081130.wcanauto1130/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

Auto wages to cost $27 an hour more in Canada versus U.S.

[DainBramaged]

8. Split hairs I don't give a shit, Canada should NOT be allowed

to participate in our stimulus unless we cannot supply our own product, and then because of the proximity, they'd get first crack.

We can end trade with you guys and you can get your food elsewhere?

[Oregone]

14. You keep talking about "our" stimulus

That includes people from Washington to Washington, DC right (or sea to shining sea I suppose). You know, there are many in the blue states who are perpetually tired of seeing their federal tax dollars drained and siphoned to red states (much further away than Canada) to fund their failed policies of the right-wing governments in charge. I'm not sure how this same argument can't be applied for those in Washington who are sick of seeing their federal tax dollars sent to New Mexico, Montana, or Arkansas. The reality is they probably have more in common culturally, economically and politically with their British Columbian counterparts. Its funny how people keep sticking to arbitrary definitions of "us" and "our" based on drawings on a map made 100s of years ago. This is just a general observation, you know, something I was thinking about while on a stroll around Victoria.

BTW, just to let you know, Canada didn't include a "Buy Canadian" in their own budget, which is proportionally sizable and bigger than reported (as provincial budgets are also running stimulant based deficits and they must match the federal to receive infrastructure spending). Wouldn't it of been nice if the US simply had some decent communications and negotiations to allow a cooperative global "Buy only" clauses (and no one felt slighted), or better yet, if the US just canceled/renegotiated their shitty trade deals so tariffs could take care of this mess. I'm annoyed that they went about this with the go-it-alone attitude again.

And to clear things up, this provision wont create a single long term job in America, sadly. Hows that for stimulus?

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Canada didn't need to include a Buy Canadian clause

Because they already protect so many of their industries

While the United States (only) safeguards its preferences for domestic iron and steel used in federally funded state transportation projects, Canada simply carves out steel, motor vehicles and coal altogether (for all provinces, for all sectors), and also carves out all construction contracts issued by the Department of Transport. The EU carved out of its WTO procurement obligations all EU members’ country contracts awarded by federal governments and subfederal governments in connection with activities in the fields of drinking water, energy, transport or telecommunications. (On the links, just click on Appendix I, Annexes I-II, and the general notes. Some bits will be easy to read, other bits less so.)


Translated out of trade lingo, both Canada and EU give their nations' companies products much more generous preferences than Congress is even considering giving ours. While current U.S. laws (merely extended in the stimulus bill) give U.S. iron and steel a leg up over the foreign competition for transit projects, Canada and the EU give their firms products a leg up over American companies and products on EVERY aspect of transit funding, and many other government purchases besides.

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/02/harper-gets-hypocritical-about-hypotheticals.html

[Oregone]

17. Aren't you worried you are having orgasms about something that wont create any long term jobs?

Was that a news source you are quoting?

[Hello_Kitty]

23. If you go to the links you will see that Public Citizen is very thorough

The articles have links to trade organizations themselves and cite the actual statutes.

And as to your insulting little barb about me "having orgasms over something that won't create any long term jobs" you might want to ask why high ranking government officials in both the U.S. and Canada, along with companies like Caterpillar, are freaking out over the Buy American clause, to the extent that they are willing to lie about trade pacts to get it stripped from the stimulus package. Why is something that is, according to you, no big deal such a big deal to them?

[Oregone]

25. Its a big deal to them on 2 fronts...

1) There are agreements and this creates a large procedural precedence. If people determine this is alright to do within the agreements, that creates a serious amount of instability in the future. If it is in violation, that begins a question of what the status of the agreements are in the first place, and also undermines the US ability to more favorably negotiate these agreements (without threatening to drop them).

Regardless, it creates turbulence that many people are worried about.

2) While the funds are there, temporary jobs will be created (IF AND ONLY IF the current capacity cannot meet the demand, which is also questionable). Of course people want the current business. But as for the long term, when the funds dry up, so do the jobs because the economy and trade system is still unsound.

Now I realize it can be a big deal to you because you want that temporary "stimulus" (if it attributes much is up for debate), but to be going balls-out on this one is questionable, being that the jobs are not long term. It doesn't fix anything. Thats why its silly for me to see people swinging to madly about this.

You know, a lot of times I am playing Devil's Advocate against the nationalism and irrational nature of this entire mess. It most certainly is not being driven completely by a logical mass.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. You clearly have not bothered to read the links

You are still working off of your own assumptions about what is in the trade agreements, rather than what is actually in them.

[Oregone]

32. Look, this is getting tiresome...

My first point included a double hypothetical of if they were violated or not, and the apparent implication in either case. Its apparent you didn't see that. Im not claiming what is in them, but I am saying that regardless of what is in them, this creates turbulence.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. It IS getting tiresome

I linked you to a source that showed the agreements are not being violated. I also produced a link that showed that Canada has gone much farther in protecting its own industries in the actual agreements than we have, which for some reason doesn't trouble your quixotic notion of "fairness".

I have demonstrated to you that government officials and companies are deliberately distorting what is in trade agreements in order to create the perception that a Buy America/n clause in the stimulus violates them. Which is, quite frankly, appalling but for whatever reason not a big deal to you, despite with your handwringing over "implications". And finally, you dismiss and belittle the concerns of people who want the clause to remain in the stimulus, claiming "it doesn't fix anything", while at the same time giving full weight to the arguments of the people (proven to be liars) who want to strip it.

[Oregone]

37. As I mentioned, even if they are not being violated...

it still creates an important major precedence from the US (unilaterally at that), which creates uncertainty as to how future procurement issues will be handle, thereby leading to tensions (which aren't beneficial in the scenario of renegotiating these things to not suck so much). And in fact, there is never a definite knowledge (despite your links) about these complicated messes until cases are actually ruled upon.

Hey, maybe if I can see the US actually doing things that will fix these problems and create long term jobs, other than just giving hand jobs to the Lou Dobbs fanclub, I would not be so critical.

[Romulox]

45. Aren't you the same guy who said, "Why should my taxes go to help someone in Michigan"?

And then had nothing to say when I pointed out Michigan was a net tax donor?

But now you want your taxes to go to Canadians? Er, ok. :crazy:

[Oregone]

50. Maybe. I'm a guy who likes being facetious and controversial

Its always a technique to stimulate critical thought. Why does someone in Washington have more absolute loyalty to give tax money to someone thousands of miles away based on an arbitrary line, than someone they are more culturally, economically, and geographically similar to (like British Columbia)? Its a decent question, and it goes above and beyond this issue. No, I am not advocating giving tax money everywhere, or much less anything. Maybe small regional government systems would be superior than one mass of heterogeneous states that have a ton of differences. Maybe not. But people are talking about this in absolute terms, as if its being read from a book of morality. Its actually a very convoluted issue and there isn't a real good answer for the nationalism that justifies this line of thought.

People sit here and bitch in normal times about their money flying to the back wards, right winger states, and some of that animosity is built on a general xenophobia. Yet even those feelings ebb when they could possibly go to, oh my, oh my, another country (which some Americans have more similarities to). Its almost ironic.

BTW, I always felt the cheap labor nations were the problem when it came to these agreements. You know, the ones that create that race to the bottom. Never did I think Canada and the EU were the enemy of the American worker. This has all been revealing

[Romulox]

52. A yes would've sufficed. It seems you like to provoke then retreat. when facts prove you wrong.

I don't tend to waste time on these sorts of games. :hi:

[Oregone]

54. So people should say "Yes" and be held guilty by their sarcasm?

There is a great question I brought up actually. By not wasting time and addressing it, it may be you retreating.

"Plato was a bore"

[Romulox]

55. LOL. Now any factual mistatement is "sarcasm"? I don't think so.

I can see that you are looking for attention. Look elsewhere.

[Oregone]

59. Factoids are void of context.

Look, if I state "Why should my taxes go to help someone in Michigan" sarcastically to make a point, you should look at the context in which it is said. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous. Hell, if people held Jon Stewart accountable to what he said on face value, he wouldn't have a show, nor a liberal fan. Posting something hardly makes it a fact that I support that line of thinking.

Earlier today, I took the opposite approach to dryly bring this up when I posted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3724201&mesg_id=3724665

"Why can't we stimulate our economy alone? Why should someone's taxes from Blaine, WA...go to fund workers in White Rock, BC, Canada?"


This is getting tit-for-tat. Perhaps if you dig, you can discredit me ad hominem style, and never worry about a word I post.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. It's mind fucking, that's what it is.

Bullies like this keep pestering you and dissecting everything you say, then changing the rules. Once they've gaslighted you to the point where you can't take it anymore they claim they're "joking".

[Oregone]

70. If you mind fuck someone long enough, its posible their brain will give birth to a new idea.

[PassingFair]

90. Or you just give them a case of brain herpes. . . n/t

[Oregone]

104. Haha...one of the dangerous of unprotected thought.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. Because of the Constitution that's why.

Gives Congress the authority to collect federal taxes and appropriate them.

Section 8.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So the tax they collect has to be uniform, but it gets distributed according to the "common defense and general welfare".

Edit to add: You can look all through the Constitution but there's nothing there about being obligated to support Canada with our taxes.

[Oregone]

63. But the Constitution is a failable, arbitrary document,

only relevant in as far as the People continue to support it. If it alone creates a justification for this "tax morality", we must recognize such as merely another relative morality system (much like NAFTA is in itself, which presents "right" and "wrong" was to engage in trade). And beyond such a system, if there is no further justification, it leaves it little to stand on. And further, if there is an justification to an alternative and opposing "tax morality" (such as distributing based on merit and need (ex, the workers), or geographical proximity, or cultural identity), it presents a problem as to which one is more important in the long run. Remember, you are still arguing within a relative, and not universal context when basing the righteousness of your systems upon what the constitution says.

To many the common man, the workers, the constitution represented part of a social contract, which is in considerable breach.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. Okay, now you're just getting on my nerves.

See ya.

[Oregone]

66. I aim to please

Im not sure why its so scary for people to just think outside the box they were born into

[DainBramaged]

75. We all think outside the box, we're trying to protect AMERICAN JOBS pal

We are TIRED of them going outside the Country to cheap labor CONS, WHO would bring us back to the DARK AGES TO MAKE AN EXTRA NICKLE AND KILL THE MIDDLE cLASS.

[Oregone]

78. Then worry about things that make a difference

Like NAFTA, WTO. This isn't creating one damn long term American job, pal.

[DainBramaged]

79. I worry about PROTECTING American jobs, and I hope we quit the WTO

and shitcan NAFTA. I'm tired of OUR jobs going to OTHER COUNTRIES like CANADA because you will work cheap and crap on our standard of living.

[Oregone]

80. Crap on your standard of living?

I guess you haven't been to Canada, huh? You think they don't having running water and sewage systems or something? Their standard of living is arguably higher than the US (Canada ranks #4 on the UN HDI, and US is falling fast at #12). I can barely afford to live here to tell you the truth. My wife is making an easy 20 bucks an hour at a small job that she would be barely making 10 in the US. I think you have a misconception about what is going on north of the border. Their Liberal government, before Martin was finished, spent a decade revolutionizing that country.

Im no fan of "free trade" agreements at all, and I think if NAFTA is reworked (int NATA), it should entail reasonable tariffs abilities and worker/environmental protections. But another thought...we are on the brink of a global environmental catastrophe. With proper trade contracts in place (that are not dis-advantageous), we have a means to influence others environmental practices. Without them, well, its every man for themselves. This is a tough thing to think through really (determining what is 'right' and 'wrong'), and thats not even talking about how those workers are treated too.

In the end, this whole thing is causing a whole lot of hubbub about "protecting" and "creating" American jobs, when its just going to end up being a worthless clause in the bill to make people's hearts feel warm.

[Owl]

81. K&R

[acmavm]

87. Hey, your 'Oregone' moniker says it all. Didn't you scoot when it was

tough? And now you want to bitch and gripe about Americans who want jobs and a healthy economy.

Worry about Canada. Let American workers worry about American jobs.

[Oregone]

97. A big reason was the massive wave of anti-intellectualism and nationalism

It seems like that hasn't changed in just a while, has it? This is just a great display; people are going hog-wild about a pretty insignificant provision that has been watered down to the point of impotence (which people argue was legal in the first place, and hence, not needed). This whole thing was mental masturbation for Bill O-Reilly's fan base.

[PassingFair]

89. You left out "fatuous".

No one is accusing Canada of being
a source of cheap labor, leading
to a "race to the bottom" on wages.

You do not seem to realize that the
industrial US is in a MELTDOWN, and
we NEED to both protect and create
jobs, AND to increase the flow of
money.

President Obama was NOT KIDDING when
he spoke yesterday of
ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE for the US.

Canada has been making out like a
bandit with NAFTA, as have many of
our corporate executives, while the
industrial BASE of our country has
been decimated.

This MUST be addressed, and if Canada
has to go back to pre-NAFTA trade
status to do it, so be it.

[pampango]

92. Well, I wouldn't say that "no one is accusing Canada of

being a source of cheap labor ..."

"79. I worry about PROTECTING American jobs, and I hope we quit the WTO

and shitcan NAFTA. I'm tired of OUR jobs going to OTHER COUNTRIES like CANADA because you will work cheap and crap on our standard of living."

But you are right that's a rare complaint about Canada. People get used to using that argument against Third World countries and use it against Canada and Europe out of habit.

When we can't use low wages, poor working condition and weak/no unions as our argument against trade with another country, we fall back on other arguments. We can't trade with countries that have high wages, strong unions, and high levels of social services, because they have an unfair advantage like national health care or something else on a case-by-case basis. While most support international trade in theory and more support the concept of "fair trade", for others there is always some reason that trade is not "fair". We would have to find a country that is a something like a clone of the US for the trade to ever be "fair".

I agree with you that we need to renegotiate NAFTA because times have changed since 1994 or withdraw ("shitcan" from the other post) from it altogether. I think we need some kind of international body in which to discuss trade and to help regulate it, like we have the UN to try to serve as a forum for countries to discuss political issues and at least try to deal with them and, hopefully, Kyoto to discuss environmental issues and coordinate world action. There does need to be a major revamp of what we have today.

[PassingFair]

93. I think that poster is from my state.

We have been hit the hardest and for the longest.

Blame the auto executives all you will, the pResident
wouldn't even MEET with them until the LAST MONTH OF
HIS LAST TERM.

We have been getting the shaft for EIGHT YEARS, and
it will NOT be contained to Michigan.

Seriously, our OFFICIAL unemployment rate is 10%,
but hundreds of thousands are underemployed, long-
term unemployed or independent contractors/self-
employed people making less than poverty wages
and getting NO social services.

His reaction to NAFTA is not typical, but
entirely understandable.

I think he has lost nearly everything, with no
National Health or Canadian-style welfare on
which to rely.

THIS is the kind of situation we have in Detroit:

[pampango]

94. I'm from Ohio and we're not far behind you in that sense. n/t

[PassingFair]

95. Rust Belt blues.

:hug:

[Oregone]

98. Ad hominem, no doubt...

If the US was in a MELTDOWN CATASTROPHE mode, then why are they passing a mental masturbation provision rather than addressing NAFTA and WTO? That is a large part of my qualms with this.

Believe it or not, this provision, which some say was never needed, has been watered down to include a clause that it will not violate trade agreements. The only thing this does in the end is make the "America, Fuck yeah" crowd's heart feel warm. It wont create long term jobs, it wont fix the shitty agreements, it wont rebuild Americas manufacturing sector.

Everyone keeps screaming about their cheap labor complaints but the problem is this doesn't address any of them. At all.

[acmavm]

100. Well, that's okay with you isn't it? Like I say, you scooted. We

didn't. So with you it's a Canada first thing, which is your business. But considering the circumstances I rather think you have a lot of nerve bitching at anyone here at all.

[Oregone]

101. It really isn't a Canada first thing at all with me...

You have to understand I don't have a home. I don't belong to anyone or anything. Yes, I choose to live in a region with the 4th highest HDI in the world, with the highest intergenerational mobility among developed nations, etc, but it doesn't mean I am essentially an automatic slave to the area. If I were a slave to any area I lived in, I could never choose to leave it and goto another one, now could I? I am free to think how I wish, and go where I wish.

Remember, you are attacking me, not my message. These are the tactics the left has supposedly deplored for a decade. What, I ask you, is wrong with this picture?

[DainBramaged]

82. Thread shitter

One who comes into a thread to shit it up with nonsense and large mounds of smelly crap

[The2ndWheel]

18. How far would you be willing to go with that?

"Its funny how people keep sticking to arbitrary definitions of "us" and "our" based on drawings on a map made 100s of years ago."

[Oregone]

22. Not far really. Its just a basic observation...

But it should get you thinking. You know, I just moved here from the Oregon a few months ago. Its very comfortable and I have no issue integrating. The culture is nearly identical in many aspects. I had a much tougher time when I went to college in the south, among the American Aristocracy. That was a culture shock.

We all know that blue state dollars constantly get drained into areas that are, in so many ways, foreign cultures and economies to ours. And we justify it with a "us" and "them" approach. Is the US too big to accommodate for its mass heterogeneous makeup of culture and ethics? How can we justify funding thousands of miles based on nationalism, and not hundreds of miles because of nationalism (Canada for example)?

Its just a strange thing I was thinking of while walking around and observing the area. Its so strange that BC is in many ways what many Oregonians/Washington people would desire, and is only a car ride for them, but cannot reach because they are being pulled down back into the depth of an ocean by the right-wingers a world away from them (but not a country away). Its just food for thought.

Remember, "our stimulus" isn't going to a homogeneous "us".

[pampango]

29. You seem to imply that there is not much difference between Canadians and Americans. Well, OK.

You have a point. I suppose that by most measures we are remarkably similar. But, by God, there is a line drawn on the map of North American and it has to stand for something! It must mean that one group is better, more deserving or that I have more in common with than the strange people to the north. If not, why bother to have a line at all. Ahh, perhaps to serve as an invisible wall to keep us apart. Otherwise it would be very difficult to tell us apart.

For the past 8 years Canada and Europe have been held in high regard here at DU for their national health care systems, more egalitarian societies and more collaborative and peaceful foreign policies. In the past week Canada, in particular, and Europe, to a lesser extent, have been turned into the "enemy" who is out to steal "our" money and jobs. Canadian DUers' heads must really be spinning. Their country has gone from the place to which many disillusioned DUers talked about moving to the bad guy.

[Oregone]

33. No. Im implying there is not much of a difference between SOME Canadians and SOME Americans

And further, there is a huge difference between SOME Americans and others.

"But, by God, there is a line drawn on the map of North American and it has to stand for something!"

That seems to be the most reasoned thinking I could get out of raising this. :) Its a very difficult issue to really look at honestly. And it gets really sticky when were talking about "our" tax dollars (especially considering where they normally go: red states).

"Canadian DUers' heads must really be spinning. Their country has gone from the place to which many disillusioned DUers talked about moving to the bad guy."

I don't mean to be the Debbie-Downer now, but for anyone regularly reading Canadian papers (and their online comments), the US has gone from being redeemed to being the same old "Bush's America". Barack Obama was highly esteemed by Canadians up until last week, and now, he is seen as a president of a foreign country (neither good nor bad, and rather realistic).

I guess this is just how people handle things naturally. Everyone sees things through their own selfish prism. I don't really feel I have much of a country or home, so I try and avoid it when I can, but its seemingly impossible.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Some of us don't appreciate when Canadian officials lie about trade pacts

Like Canadian Trade Minister Stockwell Day did. Some of us also think that Americans deserve to know that Canada protects many of its own industries in gov't contracts while accusing America of "protectionism" for simply following our own rules, which are much less far-reaching.

An editorialist for the Toronto Star agrees with me: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/581342

[Oregone]

38. Jack Layton agrees with you that rules are being followed

Canada should pursue 'Buy Canadian' strategy: Layton

Canada should adopt a "Buy Canadian" strategy in response to the "Buy American" clause included in the proposed U.S. stimulus package, NDP Leader Jack Layton urged Tuesday.

During question period in the House of Commons, Layton said that there's a "golden opportunity" to boost slumping domestic sales with a "perfectly legal and appropriately designed 'Buy Canadian' strategy."

"The United States has had a 'Buy American' act for 76 years," Layton said. "It's perfectly legal under the World Trade Organization, and, in fact, under NAFTA, governments are allowed to buy at home in order to use taxpayers' money to create jobs for workers and to support communities and their industries.

"Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, they all have national procurement policies, and it would be a good idea for Canada. Can the prime minister tell us what's wrong with a 'Buy Canadian' policy as permitted under continental and global trade rules?"

More at Link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/03/layton-trade.html

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Um, Canada has already HAD that strategy in place, as I've pointed out to you repeatedly

What Layton is doing is nothing but a show. Now before you pounce on me with, "See! It's creating turbulence and instability!", let me just say that as political activists, it is your and my responsibility to cut through the b.s. and politial theater in order to speak the truth. The facts of the matter are: The Buy America/n provisions are merely extensions of existing rules and violate no trade agreements. The same goes for any "Buy Canadian" provision.

And of course you realize this has little nothing to do with trade between the U.S. and Canada. This Buy American/Canadian thing is little more than a red herring. Multinational corporations flexing their might and whipping elected officials into doing their bidding.

[Oregone]

43. "it is your and my responsibility to cut through the b.s. and politial theater"

This thing is only BS and political theatre in the first place! Its ability to make any fundamental change to the American economic system is zilch. It is only design to make, well, you for example, happy. Its working. This is how They see it: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090203.WBSteele20090203133845/WBStory/WBSteele

And as far as I am aware, BTW, government procurement exceptions in the trade agreements may only apply if the governments are the ones going to be doing to procuring. Halliburton is probably going to land these contracts, as a private company (full of foreign nationals no doubt), so them being forced to Buy American could be problematic actually. Regardless, when Iraq was busy doing their rebuilding contracts, they used foreign labor and materials (we damn well forced them to!). Hell, if its good enough for them, its good enough for us....

[DainBramaged]

77. Beer hey?

Stay out of our jobs and manufacturing, we'll stop sending food.

[pampango]

40. I don't appreciate it when American officials lie about anything (well particularly wars).

And I don't like it when Ohio officials lie about stuff. I doubt any of us can find any American trade or other type of officials who have not lied.

Are you saying that it is unfair that Canada "protects many of its own industries in gov't contracts" in its international trade agreements to which we are a party. In the course of NAFTA or WTO negotiations I would imagine that there are hundreds of trade and economic issues and disputes that get discussed and resolved. In most complicated negotiations there will be give-and-take in different areas. One topic may be important to us than it is to Canada, so they give us a little there. Another topic is more important to them (perhaps government contracts) and we give a little there. If we want to revisit the issue of Canada getting a better deal with their government contracts, they will probably want to reopen some aspect of the agreement where they now feel they gave too much.

We should renegotiate NAFTA and WTO, but in the meantime we should honor our commitments that we made as should the Canadians.

[Oregone]

44. ouch

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Jesus christ on a pogo stick

For the 10,000th fucking time, we ARE honoring our commitments to Canada.

Are you saying that it is unfair that Canada "protects many of its own industries in gov't contracts" in its international trade agreements to which we are a party. In the course of NAFTA or WTO negotiations I would imagine that there are hundreds of trade and economic issues and disputes that get discussed and resolved. In most complicated negotiations there will be give-and-take in different areas. One topic may be important to us than it is to Canada, so they give us a little there. Another topic is more important to them (perhaps government contracts) and we give a little there. If we want to revisit the issue of Canada getting a better deal with their government contracts, they will probably want to reopen some aspect of the agreement where they now feel they gave too much.

Yeah right. :eyes: NAFTA and WTO were designed by multinational corporations for multinational corporations. America got the short end, in terms of openness of our markets, because those corporations wanted unfettered access to our consumers and government projects. That worked out to the benefit of, guess who? That's right, multinational corporations.

[pampango]

67. I understand that we are honoring our commitments now.

I thought you were complaining that Canada got a better deal than the US regarding protections in the area of government procurement. My response was that in any agreement that covers many issues, the components of the final agreement will not involve identical treatment of every single issue. Canada might have gotten a better deal concerning government contracts. We might have gotten a better deal in some other area. We can complain about the good deal they got in one area and they are free to complain about what they perceive as a good deal that we got in another area. That's when renegotiating, or withdrawing from, an agreement is the thing to do, if the complaints are significant enough.

Any international agreement that Obama negotiates in the future, unless it deals with just one issue, will involve give and take involving many issues. Whatever agreement is finally reached will undoubtedly involve us giving the other side something they want and them giving us something we want. Down the road we may complain about whatever we gave them, but it was a part of an overall deal.

I agree that NAFTA and the WTO were drafted by MNC's, but most of them are based in the US (a few in Canada and very few in Mexico) and already had total access to our market. They wanted access to consumers and government projects in Canada, Mexico and all of the WTO countries.

[DainBramaged]

21. Glad you are an expert on OUR economy............

Why are you here?

[Oregone]

24. Why not be here?

You know, I pay US taxes. This is "my money" too, you know. My job depends on the US economy. Of course this all concerns me.

[Kalyke]

91. But we Southerners are still Americans.

You're not.

BTW, the South's issues are as a result of low pay, not necessarily right-wing government. We've had a mixture over the past 30 years.

[Oregone]

96. Yes I am

And my point was, is the definition of American (defined by arbitrary lines on a map) a justification in itself for this tax distribution scheme rather than geography, economy, and culture? The fact of the matter is, this is a very complicated issue, and as long as no one really thinks about it, no one has to worry about it.

[Oregone]

109. BTW, just looking around...but I realized...

If it wasn't for our insatiable demand for petroleum and energy, we would be running a trade surplus with Canada. That being, we would be exporting more than importing. Thats a fact. Until you can come up with some other reasonable place to get that energy (like offshore and ANWR drilling), then its probably a pretty beneficial trade relationship. Canada doesn't import ten cents from us? Thats just bullshit.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Remember that debate we were having the other day about trade pacts?

Turns out protecting U.S. iron and steel doesn't violate any.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/offshoring/government/federal/articles.cfm?ID=18343

And it seems that Canada is a tad more protectionist about its own industries than it wants us to be about ours.

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/02/harper-gets-hypocritical-about-hypotheticals.html

[DainBramaged]

19. Cheap Labor Cons are everywhere

Thanks for the links, I'm at work, so it's tough getting more than a minute to defend US from THEM.

[Oregone]

26. Yes, I am one of them!

Every condo in Canada comes with 8 chinese workers in the closet to create widgets for your entrepreneurial business. So while the Canadian auto laborer gets paid more than the US counterpart, you ought to know who is really doing the work. Yes, we have nice smiles and good comedians, but the skeletons in our closets are real indeed from us underfeeding our labor base. This is an incredible secret you must keep to the grave.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Canada pays better wages because they protect their industries better than we do.

As I've tried to point out to you via links that you are not bothering to read.

[Oregone]

31. The issue I am referring to has much more to do with the effectiveness of the CAW

And healthcare is a major factor too.

[FreakinDJ]

4. the LaborCons are every where

[Deja Q]

7. How about nicely made not-so-much-crap?

Other countries aren't seemingly capable.

We keep hearing about how bad and evil regulations are, and yet without regulations people aren't going to give a damn anyway... at least the regulations put deterrents -- suggest potential repercussions for doing misdeeds.

[DainBramaged]

9. Cheap concrete in construction around the world

kills thousands, yet our regulations are too strict.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Oh but dontchaknow if we require that the toys be lead-free

China won't sell them to us as cheaply. Erin Burnett of MSNBC told me so.

:sarcasm:

[Romulox]

10. A lot of people who claim to be Dems in 2009 were Republicans in 2003. nt

[DainBramaged]

12. You bet, and they wound up here.

Economic geniuses all.......

[pampango]

11. Discuss ideas and opinions or call people names? You get to decide. It's your thread.

......... Never mind. Upon further review, your whole OP is about blasting other DU'ers and putting people in boxes that fit your preconceptions. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is not only wrong, but must have the most evil of motives, right? I just love the open discussion and exchange of ideas on DU, don't you?

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Well gee, pampango, when people discuss the ideas and even present facts to you

You just deny them and/or keep making up your own.

[pampango]

30. Such as. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

35. Such as

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4983574#4984859

[pampango]

39. What did I deny or make up in that thread?

You found out that "U.S. steel and iron ... used for federal and state transportation infrastructure projects ... the Buy America of 1982" is an exception to the NAFTA provision that government procurement procedures cannot favor Canadians or Americans.

"I assume that when NAFTA was agreed to in 1994, everyone knew about the 1982 Buy America Act. The latter's provisions are either explicitly excluded from NAFTA or are "understood"(gentleman's agreement?) to not be covered, so following its provisions does not violate any international agreement." I specifically acknowledged that US steel and iron used in transit projects is not covered by NAFTA (nor by the WTO).

I took the quote ""White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama supported Buy American provisions already in U.S. law that give preferences to domestic manufacturers in public works projects, but wanted to avoid an expansion that violates trade commitments" to mean that Obama supports maintaining the 1982 Act ("already in US law") in the spending of the stimulus. The provisions in NAFTA would only apply only to stimulus funds that don't involve steel and iron used in transit projects.

What was I denying? That the 1982 Act was an exception to NAFTA? Something else? And what's with "making stuff up"?

[Hello_Kitty]

42. You then went on to speculate about what happened during the NAFTA deal

Going so far as to suggest that the U.S. may have been less than honest with Canada. To finish your quote:

...(The alternative possibility would be that we agreed with Canada to let each other bid on government procurement projects, then got home and said "Thanks for your concession allowing us to bid on your projects, but we have a 12 year old law that we didn't tell you about that gets us out of doing what we conceded, so you aren't bidding on ours*.") I prefer to think that we were honest with them and that the 1982 is a mutually agreed exception to NAFTA provisions.

Nice.

I took the quote ""White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama supported Buy American provisions already in U.S. law that give preferences to domestic manufacturers in public works projects, but wanted to avoid an expansion that violates trade commitments" to mean that Obama supports maintaining the 1982 Act ("already in US law") in the spending of the stimulus. The provisions in NAFTA would only apply only to stimulus funds that don't involve steel and iron used in transit projects.

There's nothing in the proposed Buy American clause that violates any agreement. Gibbs either really doesn't know that or he's using spokesman-ese to obfuscate the issue. And it's particularly ironic that much of the debate over this, both here on DU and in the MSM, focuses on iron and steel which is so clearly excluded.


*Ignoring the fact that Canada has it's own, more far-reaching, protections in place.

[Oregone]

46. "There's nothing in the proposed Buy American clause that violates any agreement"

Look, you are getting a little too lawyer on us. You must understand that without specializing in foreign trade law for many years at a post graduate institution, we can not be so keenly aware of this as you are. You should water it down for the layman without the specific omniscience, such that we can grasp your credible and definite claims.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. People who do have this expertise have gone over them and determined they are not

The Buy America/n rules have been in place for over 70 years and were specifically excluded from NAFTA and the WTO. Now, there may be legitimate cause to revise them since so many things are manufactured overseas that it might be difficult to follow them to the letter. But to suggest that they violate trade pacts is demonstrably false.

[Oregone]

56. The only people who have the expertise to answer this are arbitrators,

right when they finish ruling on it. In the meantime, "experts" pop up on all sides to support their own personal agenda, and Google, our friend, allows us to usurp their knowledge in our own arguments (if not always correctly).

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Well then certain U.S. and Canadian officials really should shut their pieholes then, huh?

They're the ones who set this whole controversy off by running their mouths about "trade wars" and "violating agreements".

[Oregone]

60. Shut their mouths? But my, this is their job

To whip the masses up into fury and rage. Whatever side is angrier is apt to win. But in the end, it just reduces the people to tools of some political ploy, and apparently isn't aimed at actually emancipating such tools. Why would anyone want to free that which is working for them?

[pampango]

65. I think I see what you mean. Tell me if I am on the right track now.

The Buy American clause in the House bill is essentially a restatement (and extension) of the 1982 Act which is already an acknowledged exception to the provisions of NAFTA.

I suppose that Gibbs meant that Obama supports "Buy American provisions already in U.S. law that give preferences to domestic manufacturers in public works" (the 1982 Act which applies to iron and steel used in transportation infrastructure projects), but opposes "an expansion that violates trade commitments" (into areas beyond iron and steel which would be covered by NAFTA presumably?).

If I've got it right now (probably not), there are some questions. 1) Why even put the Buy American clause in the House bill since the 1982 Act that it extends is and agreed upon exception to NAFTA, has been in effect for 27 years and has governed how contracts for iron and steel in transit projects have been awarded for such a long time? Was the 1982 Act expiring? Was it just pandering to "extend" an Act that didn't need extending because it was doing just fine? 2) What's all the brouhaha about if it is not really changing anything and doesn't violate any agreements? Just because "Buy American" is in there, even if it doesn't actually change anything? Did our trading partners "misunderstand" (intentionally or not) that the "Buy American" clause only extended an existing law, not expand preferences to any new areas?

Your post from Public Citizen was very helpful, though it has unfortunately taken me a while to process it after rereading it several times. If I understand it now (and I think I do), I'll admit I was wrong before.

[Oregone]

69. 3) Why are they watering down the bill with...

a clause specifying that the 'Buy American' provision will not violate existing trade agreements, if it never did in the first place?

Those are all good questions BTW. I think there is a lot of gray area creating a confusing situation.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Exactly.

Although we're both making the mistake of using Buy America and Buy American interchangeably. Buy America refers to the steel and iron and is completely exempt from NAFTA and WTO. Buy American covers other products and is subject to trade deals, to a certain extent (the Public Citizen post cites the statute and the limitations). This is where the dishonesty (or possibly ignorance) of those gov't officials comes in: conflating Buy America with Buy American to suggest that giving preference to American steel and iron violates trade deals, which it does not. As far as the corporations like Caterpillar and GE are concerned, you know they are just lying their asses off and trying to pull a fast one.

I agree with you that it probably shouldn't matter whether or not Buy America/n laws are put in the stimulus since they should be in effect regardless, so I'm wondering why politicians on both sides of the border are so hellbent on removing them. Makes me think they might want to go on and repeal them entirely.

[pampango]

73. Thank you. I feel better now. n/t

[Romulox]

48. Yup. nt

[Romulox]

47. Like you read and understand any reasonable link provided to you.

Still claiming that NAFTA "must" require US stimulus dollars go to Canada, even though you can find no support in the actual treaty for this position?

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Now he's concerned that the U.S. might have lied to Canada during NAFTA negotiations

Like we conveniently "forgot" to mention our Buy America laws.

[Romulox]

57. Don't be fooled by this guy. He is a cheap labor shill no matter what the subject. nt

[DainBramaged]

76. He shows up as IGNORED to me, oh well I guess I don't have to see the bullshit

[Romulox]

83. Talking to pampango is like doing the "Who's On First?" routine in slow motion. nt

[Oregone]

102. Is attacking people, instead of addressing their concerns, in the "liberal" SOPs?

That last time I checked, it wasn't. Yes, you are in a majority, it would seem, with this opinion here, and can form a mob to derail someone's character. But the left should deplore these tactics, not promote them.

[DainBramaged]

107. What promoting American jobs first is attacking people? Give me a break.

I've had just about enough of your Faux-American economics. We're done, and you made my ignore list. The jobs of my Union brothers and sisters come before cheap labor Con Scabs in other countries.

[Oregone]

108. There are constant attacks here. Example: "Talking to pampango is like doing the "Who's On First?""

You can promote something with tearing down people that do not agree with you. If your argument is strong enough, it will stand on its own.

[Romulox]

110. Congrats. You've made an exclusive list (one). CLICK. nt

[pampango]

111. Most of the attacks and name-calling comes from a relatively few posters. You could "ignore" them

and DU would be a much more mature board, but shutting out their views is not what open discussion is all about, so you have to just put up with it, I suppose. Most treat DU like the discussion board it is meant to be.

Most are passionate about their opinions and will make every effort to convince you they are right, but they leave the name calling and labeling at home. In this thread I put Hello Kitty in that category. She (I assume) and I have had long exchanges in which we try to convince each other. I found her to be responsive and factual without calling names. I learned a lot about the "Buy American" provision of the stimulus thanks to her.

I take it that you are an American living in Canada. Up until the past couple of weeks (certainly for much of the past 8 years) you would have been the envy of many at DU, as Canadian society has been admired by many here. Your observations of the differences you see comparing life in the two countries would have been very welcome. Times they are a changin".

[Romulox]

112. You don't debate honestly. Neither does Oregone. That's why you two get called names.

[Oregone]

114. To be honest...

It seems like most of my responses here revolve around tearing down straw man arguments and responding to ad hominem attacks.

I am more than willing to talk about this issue honestly, in a variety of different ways. I don't know where to start or finish anymore at this point though.

[pampango]

115. If by not debating honestly you mean I don't end up agreeing with you, that's true.

I have changed my mind at times after exchanges here, but not with you, AFAIK. I find that your style is more a "win the debate" style than a "search for the truth" style. That's fine. Everyone has a style. IMHO, yours is to sell your point of view and you have the ability to stay focused on that quite well.

My guess is that you don't see my style as "search for the truth". Fair enough I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. I do think that is Hello Kitty's style, even though I did not initially agree with her. I am willing to admit I am wrong when convinced of it. Perhaps you are, too (in the unlikely event that should ever be the case ;) ).

I admitted I could not find the clauses in NAFTA that you were focused on. I said so at the time. When later events proved that my interpretation of NAFTA applicability to the stimulus was correct, I posted that as well. If that is dishonest, you'll have to explain why. Or perhaps you are referring to something else I posted.

[Oregone]

113. Yes, but I also don't do the "ignore" thing

I understand people are passionate, but sometimes raw emotional feelings can stand in the way of objective reasoning. This is an admitted annoyance of mine, and a lot of my problems is that this entire provision seems to come from an illogical place, tugging at people's hearts (rather than accomplishing anything significant in terms of trade). The fact of the matter is, Canada consumes far more of our manufactured goods than we consume of theirs, and they are anything but an enemy to the American worker. Rather than lashing out in a time of crisis with a single universal world-view of protectionism, we should realize that each region can and should be treated very differently from others. This was a nationalistic (useless, and watered down to be more useless) provision meant to appeal to people imbittered by this crisis. But pandering to those who are hurt, even if hurt by good reason, doesn't always make sound policy and diplomacy. Treating Canada like China is juvenile.

Yes, I am an American living in Canada. Being so, I really don't have a home or loyalties. I would hope that helps me to see things while being a bit less emotionally attached. The world is very nuanced. Its hard for me to really create a box to fit in my own political views anymore.

[pampango]

74. More that the multinational corps that drafted NAFTA might have been

trying to pull a fast one. I wouldn't put it past them.

[pampango]

72. I couldn't find it, but apparently someone else did.

"Senators, on a voice vote, approved an amendment requiring the Buy American provisions be "applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements ."

"The United States has made commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization to provide trading partners such as Canada , Mexico, Japan and the EU with access to its government procurement market and has received similar commitments in exchange."

"The change gives Canada , Mexico, the European Union and certain other major trading partners some comfort they would be exempted from a strict requirement in the bill that all public works projects funded by the stimulus package use only U.S. -made iron, steel and manufactured goods."

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5135MN20090205

Certainly NAFTA does not require that "US stimulus dollars go to Canada". It only requires that Americans and Canadians be treated equally in the bidding of government procurement contracts (yes, even the stimulus) except in the case of iron and steel used in transportation infrastructure projects which is exempted under the 1982 Buy America Act. It sounds now like even that exemption, based on the quote above, may be removed so that Canada can bid on the iron and steel used in stimulus projects, as well.

I am a lousy treaty reader (so don't ask me to look through it again :) ), but there must be some good ones working in DC, Ottawa and elsewhere, because they found what I couldn't.

[LanternWaste]

62. Self delete

Self delete. No point. Everyone knows what everyone else thinks these days... or so I'm told.

[eilen]

84. Interview with Canadian international trade attorney on NPR last night

about the hue and cry among Canadian trade minister as well as international outcry and the upshot is this:

NAFTA and all other international trade treaties allows for the longstanding "Buy American" US law, it is legal. All nations have, within the trade treaties, mechanisms for economic development within their own countries. The US is able to preferentially purchase 60% of their own domestically in order to stimulate their own economy. He said that the only reason he could assume the Canadian leadership is making so much noise about it is perhaps to throw a smokescreen up to obfuscate that fact that Canada has no such law or mechanism to support Canadian industry within these trade agreements while every other nation in the global economy does.

He did allow for the possiblitiy of pressure applied by multinationals but could not verify or testify to that as fact.

China's is 70%, Japan's is totally closed, 100%, most European nations range from 60-70% if not more.

As far as the rest of the world? Well, he says it is probably anger at the US. The United States is viewed as producing this economic crisis, which has become a world wide crisis, and they are mad and lashing out. They know it is legal and practice it themselves.

So, I guess the language within the bill that qualifies that the "Buy America clause" not violate any treaty--they know it doesn't so is it to placate?

edited to correct a spelling mistake.

[Romulox]

85. Thanks for the update. So much misinformation on this subject. nt

[DainBramaged]

99. Notice the thread shitters are silent.........

[treestar]

86. Then if our stimulus stimulates other economies by the way, it's

a good thing. Some people seem to think any other country getting any benefit out of anything we do is anathema. But we do dominate and affect other countries, for the past 8 years we've been assholes.

Buying some Canadian steel for the infrastructure does not seem so much to ask.

Though I wonder why Canada doesn't have such laws for itself.

[eilen]

88. Honestly, our economic engine

stimulates the economies everywhere. That is why when we sneeze, the rest of the world gets a cold. That's because the American Consumer is the spendiest most impressionable creature with disposable income. Since that is changing, the world will adjust or pick up the slack.

[Oregone]

103. The whole issue is incredibly complicated at this point

And no one is also pointing out that no matter how protectionist we get about this bill, the minute the consumer get their hands on stimulus derived money, its going to be out the door and sent across the world to stimulate other economies (no matter how you slice it). The only way to prevent that is to completely restructure the economic trade model the US uses, and to do it in such a way, at such a pace, that it doesn't cause an instant international and domestic collapse. Yes, the world will adjust, but it may not be able to happen instantly (and the US also may not be able to adjust instantly). Id like to see people devise a well thought plan to phase in tariffs, which would be infinitely better than this reach around to the right.

The bottom line is now, with our trade agreements, any government stimulation of our economy will directly stimulate oversea production.

[eilen]

106. Canada had/has a leadership that is very

free market oriented.

[Orsino]

105. The cheap labor con precipitates a national/global crash...

...for which the cure, of course, is cheaper labor. Just like the tax cuts con. :eyes: