Now EU is mad about it too. They are threatening to take it to WTO. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7866900.stm
But this isn’t about the bailout money. It’s about infrastructure work, and more specifically the main issue seems to be steel. If the US can employ beggar-my-neighbour policies with respect to steel then should Canada be allowed to do the same? See also the quote earlier in the thread regarding the amount of steel that's traded back and fourth between the two countries. This is a completely different subject, but there was a time when Canada was developing cutting edge military technology. In the 50s we were developing a cutting edge fighter plane called the Avro Arrow before it was suddenly cancelled and the planes, parts, and all information relating to it destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-105_Arrow There are many who feel that the US, especially in those cold war times, did not want anyone else developing and controlling this kind of military technology, and that they may well have pressured the Canadian government to kill the project, and that there may well have been other agreements as part of that deal. It’s true that the US spends a huge amount more, even on a percentage basis, on its military than we do, but your military related industries also pump a huge amount of money into your economy through sales to other countries. I suspect that the US very badly wanted to control that industry and did not want Canada, or anyone else for that matter, to be the ones deciding which countries to be sell cutting edge fighter aircraft to. Whatever did happen, from then on we have not been a major player in the global arms race, and we left the job of defending the continent against the Soviets up to the US . Fadaway would be a good person to ask about this since he is, or was, in the military.
I don't think I'm following your point. I would have assumed that our banks manages to avoid the sub-prime losses somehow.
Actually, they ended up making it, or at least used it as the launching point for a more advanced plane. Just in a different country, thanks to the guy on the design team who was funneling all the design data to the Russians. Here's another reference. The reason Avro shut down the Arrow had nothing to do with paranoid conspiracies of secret pressure from the US Military-Industrial Complex to stifle honest competition, but rather paranoid conspiracies of a different sort, which unfortunately were also true.
-To a certain extent. -Yes. -In theory, no. In theory free trade benefits all parties involved. There are some notable qualifiers, but in general allowing every country and region to produce what it is best at producing, and then having free trade between these regions, is better for everyone. If one country puts up barriers to free trade then other countries will do the same, and the result is inefficiency that hurts everyone.
I think you’re overreaching with that comment. I knew of the rumours that the Soviets had infiltrated the project, but I didn’t know to what extent. I’ll have to look that up a little more. Even if true, however, why would that be a reason for cancelling the project? I think there’s a logical disconnect there. The Soviets infiltrated a lot of American military projects too, including the Manhattan Project, and I don’t think the solution for the Americans was to kill the project. The American military was very paranoid back then, and not without reason. Do you honestly believe they wouldn’t have had a problem with Canada developing this kind of fighter plane?
The RCAF was the one who officially ordered the destruction. But since all of the following super-high tech fighters and bombers made by US Allied countries weren't killed off by jealousy of the USA at roughly the same time, the answer is pretty clearly yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 Not to mention that the USA put tons of money into other Canadian Avro projects like the Avrocar and its offshoots, which would have made the Arrow look like antiqated technology had they worked. A quote from the second link says it best: [rquoter] Over the last few years the Arrow has been in the limelight on a regular basis. It has been one of our enduring legends, the Canadian equivalent perhaps to the events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. [/rquoter] And just like the JFK assassination, people love to come up with twisted, Byzantine conspiracies that are long on paranoia and innuendo, and short on fact.
I have to say, the way you’re conducting your argument makes me believe it even less. Here you list five “super-high tech fighters and bombers made by US Allied countries”, but after a closer look this doesn’t hold up. The first aircraft was developed by the UK, West Germany and Italy, but its first flight was in 1974 and it wasn’t introduced until 1979. It’s from a completely different era, at least 15 years after the Avro Arrow. The next four were all developed by the UK, so you’ve only listed aircraft developed in 1 country, not multiple countries, and that country is one the US would not have had nearly the same bargaining power with. Also note that the UK itself was very interested in buying Avro Arrows for quite a while, which suggests that they felt it was a significantly better aircraft than their own. You’ve also already mentioned that the Soviets based their MiG-25 on the Arrow. “From 1955 onwards, the UK had shown considerable interest in the Arrow; in April 1956, the UK's Air Council[12] recommended a purchase of 144 Arrows for the RAF to serve alongside the Saunders-Roe SR.177 mixed power interceptor, instead of the "thin-wing" Gloster Javelin then under study.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-105_Arrow#Foreign_interest It is true that there are a lot of people here who are misty eyed about the Avro Arrow, but I’m not one of them. Developing that kind of technology would have brought many good things to our economy, but I’m just as happy that we did not end up in the weapons business. Canada is a very large and relatively sparsely populated country and aircraft are a natural fit for us, but I’m just as happy with Bombardier and passenger aircraft being our industry of choice. I’m not committed to the theory that US pressure led to the abrupt end of the Avro Arrow, but circumstances around that decision and the ensuing destruction of everything related to the Arrow were very unusual indeed, and they certainly warrant questioning.
Back to the topic of the thread, there are still lots of differing opinions on what the trade rules allow, and what the impacts might be. Here's a new one.
I heard a comment on NPR this morning that said that lawmakers were backing off of the buy American clause in the stimulus package so it may not survive in the Senate bill. I haven't seen another article confirming that though.
The issue now seems to be that while NAFTA applies to federal governments it doesn’t apply to state governments. This leaves open the question of how to classify state projects that are funded by federal money. We could end up with individual states trying to use beggar-thy-neighbour policies against Canadian businesses, and Canada retaliating against individual states. Apparently 35 US states have Canada as their #1 trading partner, and I believe that that includes most of the steel producing states, so hopefully that will give them something to think about. And if they go that route then there seems to be essentially unanimous support here for hitting back, and hitting back hard. I think the feeling here is that a good sharp wakeup blow might make some of these people realise that you can’t beggar-thy-neighbour and not expect that he’ll turn around and beggar you, and in that case we'll all lose. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123380102867150621.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Protectionism on the Rise in Europe? http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1876944,00.html By Bruce Crumley / Paris Wednesday, Feb. 04, 2009 Just how protectionist will Europe get as the recession bites? So far, there's no obvious answer to that important question. Some European leaders have expressed concern about the region's protectionist reflexes, while others are already talking about ways to fence in their economies. In a few special cases, leaders appear to be doing both. What's likely is that there will be at least some reversal of the relatively free-flowing trade and movement of workers of the past few years. The extent of that could be determined by just how bad the region's economies get. "We've already seen the rescue of finance sectors bleed into industries like automakers and construction at an extremely rapid rate — one that's accelerating further as frightened publics demand protection from national leaders," says Karel Lannoo, CEO of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. "This is undermining something the world learned in the past two decades, and a lesson the European Union learned in particular: everyone benefits when you decrease the boundaries and divisions in international markets and trade to a minimum, and allow things to flow as freely as possible." (See pictures of the global financial crisis.) But it's hard to stay loyal to liberal markets when voters are demanding action in the middle of an economic meltdown. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Britain — long the European Union's most enthusiastic cheerleader of American-style deregulation and free trade. On Monday, U.K. unions held a repeat of last week's wildcat strikes protesting a decision by a French-owned oil plant to bring in 300 Italian and Portuguese contract laborers. British workers at the refinery in northeast England say they want jobs to go to locals, not to cheaper foreign workers. The move sparked rare oil-worker walkouts across the U.K. Workers want Prime Minister Gordon Brown to make good on his 2007 pledge that his government would impress upon businesses the need to create "British jobs for British workers." (See pictures of London's financial crisis.) Officials have come under similar pressure in Ireland. Irish workers want construction companies to give precedence to Irish laborers over foreigners. Some 300,000 Polish workers flocked to Ireland's once booming building sector after Poland joined the E.U. in 2004. But the real estate market in Ireland has collapsed over the past year. Thousands of Poles have returned home, but many remain — leading to rising tensions as local and foreign workers compete for fewer jobs. But calls for labor protection pose a problem for European leaders: they run counter to E.U. rules that ensure the free flow of goods, services and workers. Worse yet, notes U.K. Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, such moves risk beginning a chain reaction of protectionism that could make the economic slowdown even worse. "It would be a huge mistake to retreat from a policy where, within the rules, U.K. companies can operate in Europe and European companies can operate here," Mandelson said on Jan. 31. "Protectionism would be a surefire way of turning recession into depression." That's unlikely to prevent the protectionist winds blowing elsewhere, though. Last week's massive strikes in France, for example, were motivated by demands that the government do more to protect public- and private-sector jobs threatened by both recession and economic reforms. Polls showed that nearly 70% of the public supported the demonstrations; new surveys show that more than 61% of people back renewed strikes this month. In Germany, a recent study by Ernst & Young indicated that 78% of small- and medium-size companies favor the state embracing "protectionist measures" to shield them from the global recession — up from 43% a year ago. The cause of concern is clear: despite the government's passage of a $65 billion stimulus package, Germany entered its third straight quarter of recession in January. This month, German unemployment shot to 8.3%, from 7.4% in December. (See which country has the best bailout plan.) Still, many in Europe remain wary of the potential ramifications of a shift back to protectionist policies. When the U.S. House of Representatives added a protectionist clause to President Barack Obama's proposed $819 billion stimulus package last week, Europe cried foul. The clause would require infrastructure projects covered under the plan to use American-made steel. Moves are also afoot in the Senate to extend that "buy American" steel requirement to other construction materials covered by the package — causing tempers to flare in Europe. "A dangerous new steel war is looming, and we need to counter it with strong and decisive actions," warned Italian Trade Minister Adolfo Urso on Monday. The problem with that, Lannoo advises, is not only that European retaliation would risk setting off an escalation of protectionist sparring with the U.S.; the powerful forces of protectionism could wind up dividing the E.U. itself.
