From NAFTA to CETA: Canada-EU Deep Economic Integration

[virgil47]

there will always be jobs--to suggest otherwise is to engage in the lump of labor fallacy---China can't specialize in everything, nor can all the other countries, even if they have an absolute advantage over every single thing America does (which I'd put forth is not the case), we'll still have a comparative advantage in something, which ultimately means that we will have jobs which are in high demand.

You are correct! There will always be jobs of some sort just as there are in all third world countries. They will be low skill low paying jobs that cannot support the normal American life style. As more and more of our skilled decent paying jobs are sent overseas we become a nation of burger flippers manufacturing hamburgers instead of manufacturing high tech items like TVs and such. What is next are you going to advocate that we become a nation of rag pickers and that we should be thankful for having so many jobs? Becoming a third world nation and striving for mediocrity should not be a goal.

 

[Fox McCloud]

You are correct! There will always be jobs of some sort just as there are in all third world countries. They will be low skill low paying jobs that cannot support the normal American life style. As more and more of our skilled decent paying jobs are sent overseas we become a nation of burger flippers manufacturing hamburgers instead of manufacturing high tech items like TVs and such. What is next are you going to advocate that we become a nation of rag pickers and that we should be thankful for having so many jobs? Becoming a third world nation and striving for mediocrity should not be a goal.

First off, you've provided no evidence that high paying jobs have left or are leaving the US in a mass wave; Cavalier and I, however, have provided statistics that show that compensation has gone up, while the prices of good have gone down--a double win. Furthermore, if you restrict TVs or whatever to only being made here, it'll just increase the post by an unknown factor and less competition...which means there will be stagnation in television advances and it will mean higher prices...thus fewer people will have TVs and they won't have as many features, either--that doesn't sound like a very good world to live in.

Lastly, even if total compensation were to drop because of free trade (again, it has not), we'd still have to compare it to how much the price of goods drop: if wages declined, on average, 5%, but the cost of goods, on average, dropped, say, 8%. then it'd still be a win for consumers, as they'd still have 3% more income to spend elsewhere or to save/invest.

 

[specialK]

By Dana Gabriel

Canada and the European Union (EU) have already held five rounds of negotiations towards a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) which will go beyond NAFTA. With the sixth round of talks scheduled to take place in Brussels, Belgium from January 17-21, Canadian and EU officials remain optimistic that a deal could be finalized by the end of 2011.

Harper government offends Vaclav Havel, undermines CETA talks
By Brent Patterson
| January 19, 2011

STRASBOURG, 11:30 pm (5:30 pm ET) - The attached photo shows a poster that one can see in the halls of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. It asks, ‘why can Vaclav Havel not enter Canada freely?'. Havel, of course, is a world-renowned playwright, human rights activist, former president of Czechoslovakia, and, oh, also a member of the Order of Canada. So what's this all about?

In 2009 Canada imposed new visa requirements for Czech citizens entering Canada. The National Post reported that, "Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Canada reluctantly imposed the new visas because refugee claims from the Czech Republic have skyrocketed in recent years. Czech asylum seekers to Canada may be on the rise, because increasing numbers of ethnic Roma have been subjected to persecution and violence from neo-Nazi skinheads and other racists, say advocates."

In September 2010, further controversy emerged because, as reported by Postmedia News, Kenney agreed to attend a France-hosted meeting that was linked with, "President Nicholas Sarkozy's controversial initiative to expel (almost 1,000) Roma migrants."

In December 2010, the Canadian Press reported that, "Sources have said the Czech Republic responded by linking the visa issue to free-trade negotiations between Canada and Europe, a move that could slow progress towards a deal. Canadian trade negotiators are anxious to secure an agreement by 2011, fearing that prolonged talks could endanger their bargaining position. If talks become onerous, there is concern Europe will focus on other markets."

More on the Roma and CETA talks at http://www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=5795

 

[cavalier973]

So you are telling me that the Walmart items made in China are of a higher quality than U.S. made quality and they are of a higher quality because of their lower wages? Wow have you ever bought into the one worlders line. Oh and by the way fair competition does indeed help improve quality but slave labor and government subsidies always lower quality.

Competition increases the quality and lowers the price of goods and services. That's basic free-market theory, verified by historical data, not a "one-worlders' line". Increased competition doesn't mean lower wages for the industry in question, which should be self-evident, as more entrants into the market will be bidding up the price for labor. This may mean increased wages for Chines laborers rather than U.S. workers, until the Chinese firms have bid up the price of labor to an extent that the price of U.S. labor becomes competitive again in those industries in which China has a comparative advantage.

China and slave labor: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-5.html
Imposing economic sanctions on China for using slave labor would be a legitimate course of action, but it would not be without consequences. We could ban all imports from China, but that would hurt U.S. consumers and businesses. It was announced recently that General Motors sold more cars in China than it did in the U.S. last year. Is it worth losing all of GM's sales in China so that we can keep cheap plastic toys out of domestic retail stores?

Speaking of slave labor, imposing protectionist policies would be an action that itself imposed a form of slave labor; anyone who doesn't work in the protected industry would be forced to subsidise the higher wages in that industry through paying artificially, government-imposed prices for the goods of that industry.

 

[virgil47]

Competition increases the quality and lowers the price of goods and services. That's basic free-market theory, verified by historical data, not a "one-worlders' line". Increased competition doesn't mean lower wages for the industry in question, which should be self-evident, as more entrants into the market will be bidding up the price for labor. This may mean increased wages for Chines laborers rather than U.S. workers, until the Chinese firms have bid up the price of labor to an extent that the price of U.S. labor becomes competitive again in those industries in which China has a comparative advantage.

China and slave labor: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-5.html
Imposing economic sanctions on China for using slave labor would be a legitimate course of action, but it would not be without consequences. We could ban all imports from China, but that would hurt U.S. consumers and businesses. It was announced recently that General Motors sold more cars in China than it did in the U.S. last year. Is it worth losing all of GM's sales in China so that we can keep cheap plastic toys out of domestic retail stores?

Speaking of slave labor, imposing protectionist policies would be an action that itself imposed a form of slave labor; anyone who doesn't work in the protected industry would be forced to subsidise the higher wages in that industry through paying artificially, government-imposed prices for the goods of that industry.

You are a one worlders dream. You are advocating the stagnation of U.S. salaries until the third world countries catch up. It is much faster if you simply force high paying jobs overseas and then let our economy stagnate until the third world catches up. Competition in order to be effective at lowering prices and raising wages must be on a level playing field without government subsidies or the use of slave labor. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

 

[Fox McCloud]

You are a one worlders dream. You are advocating the stagnation of U.S. salaries until the third world countries catch up. It is much faster if you simply force high paying jobs overseas and then let our economy stagnate until the third world catches up. Competition in order to be effective at lowering prices and raising wages must be on a level playing field without government subsidies or the use of slave labor. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

actually if other countries use slave labor or subsidies, it just makes it even more beneficial for us and provides us with even more money to spend on even more products---I'm not support subsidies or slave-labor, but it will still help us out, as it'll mean even lower prices for us, on the whole.

You're just making the same point over and over again, but you're not backing it up with a logical premise or any evidence; you're merely trying to use guilt by association to belittle our position...well, sorry, but just saying it's so doesn't make it so--I've already demonstrated that compensation has been rising and prices of goods have been falling, which, again, is a double win for everyone in the US economy.

 

[cavalier973]

You are a one worlders dream. You are advocating the stagnation of U.S. salaries until the third world countries catch up. It is much faster if you simply force high paying jobs overseas and then let our economy stagnate until the third world catches up. Competition in order to be effective at lowering prices and raising wages must be on a level playing field without government subsidies or the use of slave labor. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

I am not advocating the "stagnation of U.S. salaries"; real wages will increase because the increase in goods and services will bump up the purchasing power of each dollar. It's better to earn $3 an hour when milk is a nickel a gallon than earn $200 an hour when milk is $100 a gallon.

Competition does not need a "level playing field" to effect lowering prices and rising (real) wages. Who's to decide when the playing field is level and when it's not, anyway? I have a sneaking suspicion it's the government, an institution that makes decisions based on political considerations rather than market considerations, and therefore is a force for waste, fraud, and economic disruption. The "level playing field" you argue for cannot be achieved by political means.

I understand perfectly what you are advocating. I just reject your arguments as ones that have been made and refuted, by argument and practical reality, continually since the days of Adam Smith.

It's hard to have a "one world government" when there are severe restrictions on what powers the governments that exist do have. Free Trade is a restriction on government power, not a boon to it.

 

[virgil47]

Restrictions on governments make it much easier for a one world government to arise. If governments are weak they simply do not have the means to resist. You are correct in saying that a level playing field is not necessary to lower prices and increase wages. What you do not understand that the lowering of prices and raising of wages applies only to those using slave labor and government subsidies. This does indeed have a way of equalizing pay and prices throughout the world. It also reduces the effectiveness of our economy making it possible to roll us into a one world entity.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Restrictions on governments make it much easier for a one world government to arise. If governments are weak they simply do not have the means to resist. You are correct in saying that a level playing field is not necessary to lower prices and increase wages. What you do not understand that the lowering of prices and raising of wages applies only to those using slave labor and government subsidies. This does indeed have a way of equalizing pay and prices throughout the world. It also reduces the effectiveness of our economy making it possible to roll us into a one world entity.

Not only is this a strawman, but you logically contradict yourself. Those who use slave labor and government subsidies are the ones who have lower prices and increased wages? This is incomprehensible; the definition of slave labor means the only "wage" they are provided is enough to keep them going and prodding at the point of a gun--that would have a downward push on wages, not upward. Secondly, subsidies artificially lower the price of a good at the cost of lower consumption/higher prices of other goods, so that's not even a valid point.

Thirdly, the US does not engage in widespread slave labor nor does it subsidize everything under the sun, and yet we have increasing compensation, per hour, and decreasing prices of goods--I've addressed this about four separate times now, and I have provided empirical data that disproves your point, yet you continue to state the same thing, over and over, with no basis, logic, or evidence--if you're going to try to attack free trade, then you must have reasons and data that shows it is detrimental...yet you haven't done this.