But not all is gloom and doom. The collapse of Doha is being cheered by some opponents of globalization.

We have defeated the WTO

quote:

---

We have defeated the WTO. The talks have collapsed after years of teetering and delay.

Ok, you may say that “we” did not directly cause the collapse. But there was five years in the streets and in people's consciences that we fought and slowly changed the way the world saw this exploitation. We started small in out towns and with friends. In 1999 we hit them hard in Seattle at the peak of their faith in “globalization” free trade, privatization and capitalism in general. The words “We are winning” appeared on walls and we felt it in our hearts even as tear gas filled our lungs and days were spent in jail. As the world economy ran into more and more problems and their neoliberal ideas failed time after time to deliver what was promises, or anything at all, public opinion shifted.

The WTO lied and said it was all for the poor while rich countries refused to budge an inch while trying to take a mile. The rich countries and corporations thought they could grab it all and become lords of everything. We exposed their lies. Poor country's governments slowly gained courage and now the WTO has been crushed.

Some people feel like we never win victories. Today it is clear - it was worth it - we won. It wasn't easy or quick and all the same forces are still at work to suck that last drop of blood from a starving child - and we must continue the fight. Problems are everywhere but this is a huge victory for everyone in the world and we should celebrate!

---

quote:

---

The collapse of World Trade Organization talks is a wake-up call to Canada and the developed world that the free trade agenda is a failure.

“By now, Canada should know better than anyone that free trade deals are hopelessly lopsided,” says Jean-Yves Lefort, trade campaigner with The Council of Canadians. “Despite NAFTA, Canada was forced to capitulate to the U.S. lumber industry.”

Similarly, compromise was never an option for the U.S. at the so-called Doha development round of WTO negotiations. Without huge market access to Europe and the developing world for America's biggest corporations, it was obvious there was never going to be a deal.

“The WTO collapse actually represents the best scenario for developing countries, despite what you will hear from trade ministers and WTO officials,” says Lefort. “The negotiations were so far removed from what one would call real development for the world's poor that they were destined to fail. Developing countries are simply no longer prepared to accept rules set by big business for big business.”

“Canada should develop a trade strategy that improves the quality of life in Canada and around the world, instead of one that promotes the limited interests of the richest multinational corporations,” says Lefort. “A better trade model is needed - now more than ever.”

---

quote:

---

No tears should be shed by small developing countries over the collapse on Monday, July 24, 2006 of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). There was very little in it for them.

Although trumpeted as a “development” round since November 2001 when the negotiations began, the talks have been nothing more than a tussle between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) to get an advantage over each other for agricultural exports to the world market.
....
The result would have been the annihilation of farmers in many small countries, such as those in the Caribbean and Pacific, who would have been unable to compete with imports from the US and the EU.

Rural communities in Africa would also have been devastated since, because they can not compete globally with heavily subsidised EU and US agricultural exports, they rely heavily on sales in their domestic market, and they would have been severely undercut by US and EU products on which tariffs were reduced.

---

quote:

---

The collapse of talks is good news for the developing world. Assessments of the outcome of the Doha Round, from a variety of institutions, including the World Bank and the EU's own Sustainability Impact Assessment, have already predicted that the Round would have adverse impacts on the poorest countries, particularly countries in Africa. Both the US and the EU have been aggressive in demanding for market access in industrial products, and the US for more access in agriculture. Yet despite being the prime culprits for dumping their agricultural products on the world market, causing destruction to the livelihoods of subsistence farmers, both these giants have only offered cosmetic cuts in their agricultural domestic supports.

---

quote:

---

The charity War on Want today welcomed the collapse of the Doha round of global trade talks, and called on the international community to build towards a fair set of rules for the global economy.

War on Want blamed the collapse of the talks on wealthy nations pressing for concessions which would have harmed millions of people in poor countries, and welcomed the fact that such efforts have been resisted.

---

quote:

---

A range of civil society groups has called Monday's collapse of the WTO Doha Round trade talks as the best possible outcome that the WTO can deliver to the world's poor.

The civil society groups were speaking at a press briefing Tuesday following the suspension of the Doha negotiations following the collapse of a meeting among the Ministers of the G6 countries (the US, EU, Japan, Brazil, India and Australia) on 23-24 July.

---

quote:

---

“Canada should develop a trade strategy that improves the quality of life in Canada and around the world, instead of one that promotes the limited interests of the richest multinational corporations,” says Lefort. “A better trade model is needed - now more than ever.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Canada is one of the few countries that has the resources,both material and human to succeed.We are capable of surviving in spite of the certain withdrawl of capital from the global corporate entities.

---

Yes-yes. Imagine Japan - that country relies on importing most of what it needs to survive. And yet they are a rich country. If every other country dropped off the face of the map, Japan might dry up and blow away.

Canada has everything imaginable to be a self-sustaining nation, and yet we let the Yanks hold a gun to their heads in Ottawa over softwood lumber trade. And we're the ones being held to ransom for our own stuff. And now, it's as if they're telling Steve Harper to hold that gun while they punish us. It's a free market soap opera, and a bad one at that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]

Canada has everything imaginable to be a self-sustaining nation, and yet we let the Yanks hold a gun to their heads in Ottawa over softwood lumber trade.

---

So, Fidel, I expect that you support the Harper government's moves to beef up the Canadian Forces so that we do not have to negotiate with a gun to out collective heads?

[ 29 July 2006: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MacD:
Why should we have to "negotiate" at all? The FTA (then NAFTA, and free trade more generally) is supposed to provide us guaranteed (i.e. no "negotiating" required) access to the markets of our trade partners. The softwood lumber dispute and disputes over agricultural subsidies show that "free trade" is a cruel joke that forces developing countries -- and apparently Canada -- to abandon protectionist policies while the more powerful players (i.e. the US and EU) continue to protect their industries while demanding unimpeded access to other counties.

---

Canada would have won the softwood lumber case eventually. The problem is that it takes years of legal battles to do so. You have to first win in the NAFTA tribunals, then fight out the full appeals process, then go to US domestic courts to get the NAFTA decision to have force, then fight out even more appeals, until the US government no longer has an option. This can take close to a decade.

Domestic laws are the same way, though. In corporate litigation, the most effective tactic is to delay and delay and delay until the other guy runs out of money. So usually a settlement is forced to avoid the millions of dollars in legal fees. This is essentially what happened on the softwood lumber case -- the government decided the compromise deal was better than 2 or 3 years of having no deal at all, even if a better deal would have come at the end.

As for WTO 'negotiation', NAFTA only applies to trade with US and Mexico. We trade with a lot more countries than that. And NAFTA doesn't cover everything we produce, food being an important case in point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I really think the failure of Doha is tragic, predictable though it may have been. This was the chance to at last allow third world countries to engage in profitable trade with the first world. The only thing they can produce in large quantities and at competitive cost is food, but most industrialized countries heavily subsidize agriculture, so it's very difficult for a third world farmer to make a living.

---

Instead they should be encouraged to develop sustainable, "green" forms of agriculture, becoming self-sufficient in food production, and develop industries to meet their other needs.

quote:

---

Heavy dependency on foreign trade is a recipe for perpetual global serfdom

---

Foreign trade encourages agricultural products valued for trade rather than products valued domestically.The exodus from agriculture to the manufacture of cheap crap for export exacerbates the problem as the country has to hold foreign reserves,exchanged into American dollars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Heavy dependency on foreign trade is a recipe for perpetual global serfdom.

---

Development is very expensive. The question is, who is going to pay for it?

Canada is heavily dependent on foreign trade. Are we global serfs? On the contrary, I would argue that heavy dependence on foreign aid is a recipe for serfdom.

Not that I'm against aid, but it is way to relieve short term suffering, not much good for building long term self-sufficiency.

Opening up to world markets means they can bring in capital with which to build an economy. Exporting food and resources fuels a service industry, and this in turn means the government starts getting good tax revenues which can be invested in things like infrastructure and education.

With the status quo, third world economies are suppressed. Not only can they not export most of what they produce, but cheap subsidized imports often mean they have trouble competing in their own local markets.

All about how the poor countries of the world need to open their doors to international capital investment, change their laws so as to privatize public utilities and natural resource ownership, remove tariffs and taxes, abolish protective labour laws, and bend fiscal policies to meet the dictates of the World Bank and the IMF. Meanwhile, they have to rely on foreign sources for basic food while their own food production is geared to meeting the needs of the imperial powers.

quote:

---

and this in turn means the government starts getting good tax revenues which can be invested in things like infrastructure and education

---

Your premise is flawed in that tax revenues do not benefit social development,they are required to pay interest on foreign debt and prop up local currency via foreign reserves held in American dollars.

quote:

---

The Doha Round of talks officially collapsed on Monday in Geneva at a meeting among representatives of the G6 countries (Australia, Brazil, the European Union, Japan, India and the

United States) and the WTO director general Pascal Lamy when the US refused to bring down subsidies for its farmers

The EU was willing to make substantial cuts, but much time was spent discussing the key US demand - the lowering of import duties on agricultural as well as non-agricultural products.

---

web page

Surprise,surprise...its not "western countries", it is the US alone.

quote:

---

The U.S. is being identified by all as responsible for the collapse of talks, by its refusal to reduce its agricultural subsidies. The US and its corporations were the driving force behind two agreements of the Uruguay Round, which have the highest impact on the poor of the Third World. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement has increased the cost of seeds and medicine by promoting monopolies. Thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicides due to debts resulting from a new dependence on costly yet unreliable hybrid and Bt cotton sold by Monsanto and its Indian partners. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) has destroyed agricultural livelihoods of millions of peasants and food security of the world's poor.

The willingness of the US to allow the Doha Round negotiations to grind to a halt by showing inflexibility in offering to reduce distorting farm subsidies in exchange for increased market access is not because agricultural market access is no longer of interest to the US. The US does not have to give up anything multilaterally because it is getting market access bilaterally, often with "non-agreements" like the US - India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, which is promoting GMOs, agricultural imports and the entry of US grant Walmart in Indian retail. Monsanto, Walmart and ADM are on the board of the US India Agriculture Initiative.

---

quote:

---

WTO is clearly an inappropriate institution for making decisions on what farmers grow, and what people eat. These issues are best left to local, regional and national democracies. This is the content of food democracy and food sovereignty. That is why WTO must stop messing up with our food and agriculture systems.

Similarly, the WTO TRIPS agreement that forces countries to patent seeds and life forms, promotes biopiracy of traditional knowledge, and creates monopolies in seeds and medicines needs to change. A trade institution has no business to impose far reaching patent rules, which are denying people access to seeds and medicines. These issues too need to be returned to national democratic decision-making.

People’s power and developing countries won in Seattle and Cancun. The moral and political failure of WTO needs to be translated into the creation of alternatives at local, national and international levels.

Beyond Hong Kong, we will either go deeper down the road to democracy or the road to dictatorship. Which road is taken will depend on how successful movements are in building creative alternatives to WTO based on economic democracy and economic justice. Vandana Shiva

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
All about how the poor countries of the world need to open their doors to international capital investment, change their laws so as to privatize public utilities and natural resource ownership, remove tariffs and taxes, abolish protective labour laws, and bend fiscal policies to meet the dictates of the World Bank and the IMF. Meanwhile, they have to rely on foreign sources for basic food while their own food production is geared to meeting the needs of the imperial powers.

I say again that for "third world" countries heavy dependency on foreign trade is a recipe for perpetual global serfdom.

---

Most of that stuff is nonsense. I suspect public ownership of utilities is a lot better for them at least in the short term, for supporting stable growth.

Yes, they should open up their markets, but not unilaterally. That's the whole point of this WTO round. It's to get the rich countries to agree to open up their markets to the poor countries a the same time. The Doha round collapsed because the rich countries are refusing to adopt fair rules that would allow poor countries to compete.

The bottom line is that there has to be a capital inflow through trade if poor countries are going to substantially improve their standard of living. If they're happy with the status quo, then that's fine enough for them, but I don't think that's the case. No country has developed a prosperous modern economy without building strong trade ties with other such economies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Your premise is flawed in that tax revenues do not benefit social development,they are required to pay interest on foreign debt and prop up local currency via foreign reserves held in American dollars.

If Western countries were sincere,they could simply allow developing countries market access without screwing them over with the IMF,World Bank and WTO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Surprise,surprise...its not "western countries", it is the US alone.

As Uncle Sam's mother is wont to say: Look,everyone is out of step except my Sammy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Development is very expensive. The question is, who is going to pay for it?

---

Well apparently Canada isn't getting it from direct foreign investment since FTA and NAFTA, so I guess we're stuck in the mud while corporate profits, energy and timber are exported from Canada at a frenzied pace 24/7/365.

quote:

---

Canada is heavily dependent on foreign trade.

---

Nonsense. The majority of our GDP is accounted for by goods and services produced in Canada for Canadians.

quote:

---

Are we global serfs?.

---

No we're not. And it's a good thing we have unparalleled natural wealth being carted off by foreign-based multinationals, or we'd be another Puerto Rico only a lot colder in winter.

quote:

---

On the contrary, I would argue that heavy dependence on foreign aid is a recipe for serfdom

---

quote:

---

Nonsense. The majority of our GDP is accounted for by goods and services produced in Canada for Canadians.

---

'The majority' means something like two thirds. So a major disuption in trade has the potential to chop off about one third of our GDP. Such a sudden economic catastrophy would probably start another Great Depression. Only worse.

We heavily rely on international trade in that it would be devastating if it was no longer available.

quote:

---

No we're not. And it's a good thing we have unparalleled natural wealth being carted off by foreign-based multinationals, or we'd be another Puerto Rico only a lot colder in winter.

---

We also don't do too badly exporting manufactured goods, and to a lesser extent technology and services.

quote:

---

I don't have a link handy right now, but Europe and Japan are being similarly intransigent. In Europe, France is the most adamant opposition to cutting agricultural subsidies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Well then, let's just ignore the fact that those who disagree with you have substantiated their facts.

---

The information is just a bloody Google search away, but if you insist, I'll do the work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
'The majority' means something like two thirds. So a major disuption in trade has the potential to chop off about one third of our GDP. Such a sudden economic catastrophy would probably start another Great Depression. Only worse.

---

It's the U.S. economy that would shrivel up and die if our leaders grew spines and decided to pull out of NAFTA. We've been their biggest recipients of their exports for the last 47 years. But you know something, I believe we could make own toilet paper from our own old growth timber, and striped toothpaste because Canadians are more clever than our weak and corrupt two old line parties give us credit for.

quote:

---

From 2004: Philip Cross, Chief of Current Analysis at Statistics Canada, in two recent issues of the Canadian Economic Observer, explains that, if double and triple counting is removed, the real value-added contribution of exports is less than half the GDP figures so often quoted.

---

So if free traders have been saying 45 percent of our GDP is exports, then we're really looking at about a fifth of GDP, not 45 percent or even a third. I like Mel Hurtig's next comment on who's dependent on who in N. America

quote:

---

This said, then, just how vulnerable are we should we decide not to toe the American line in the future? Vulnerable? When 54% of our entire trade surplus with the U.S. comes from our exports of oil, natural gas and electricity? Anyone who thinks we’re vulnerable here must be living in a cave. We supply 99% of U.S. electricity imports, 94% of their natural gas imports, 17% of oil and 35% of their uranium used for power generation.

---

We should have Yankee corporations over a barrel for our stuff instead of them demanding that our lap dogs to hold a gun to our collective heads over softwood lumber. It's ridiculous.

quote:

---

We also don't do too badly exporting manufactured goods, and to a lesser extent technology and services.

---

We'll be hemoraging manufacturing jobs like the Americans have been for decades before too long. I believe auto sector jobs will be the first to go if our dollar remains high. A low dollar in the late 80's made our natural resources that much cheaper for American's to cart away at affordable prices. But Brian Baloney ran around telling everyone our increased exports were due to FTA.

But you're right, Canada sucks at exporting high tech goods as a percentage of total exports. Canada is way down the list of countries that cultivate home-grown high tech innovation. And I believe it has something to do with direct foreign investment in Canada not translating into research and development jobs. If our two old line parties sell-off Canadian corporations to foreign interests at firesale prices, and with Canadian banks financing the liquidation of Canadian companies, those multinationals will typically choose to spend on R&D in their own countries while pumping profits out of Canada.

Some sober thought:

quote:

---

And why choose to integrate with a country that is, among the 30 OECD countries, consistently in the bottom three with the worst records in terms of poverty, economic inequality, CO-2 emissions, infant mortality, homicide, health care coverage, teen pregnancy and voter participation--a country projecting combined federal budgetary deficits for 2003 and 2004 of at least $930 billion dollars, and, in the words of U.S. economist Paul Krugman, “deficits of $300 billion a year as far as the eye can see.”

And why would we want to integrate further with a country where states are going bankrupt, discharging criminals from their jails and penitentiaries prematurely, not prosecuting criminals, cancelling drug plans for the mentally ill and child care and other child support services, cutting back on the school year, laying off prison guards and police officers across the country?

---

quote:

---

It's the U.S. economy that would shrivel up and die if our leaders grew spines and decided to pull out of NAFTA.

---

It's nice to see that some people aren't at all troubled by small quibbles like reality. They would suffer, but their pain would be an order of magnitude less than our own.

quote:

---

Philip Cross, Chief of Current Analysis at Statistics Canada, in two recent issues of the Canadian Economic Observer, explains that, if double and triple counting is removed, the real value-added contribution of exports is less than half the GDP figures so often quoted.

---

Some nice weasel words. The link you posted in there contains some huge factual and logical errors. Since the quote is not really referenced, I strongly suspect Cross is being taken out of context. It doesn't say what 'often quoted' figures Cross is talking about.

Approximately 32% of our production is consumed by people and companies in other countries. This is from Statistics Canada, as of 2005. 81% of our exports go to the United States. I don't see how you can possibly argue that the vapourization of nearly a third of our economy's market wouldn't be devastating.

quote:

---

'The majority' means something like two thirds. So a major disuption in trade has the potential to chop off about one third of our GDP. Such a sudden economic catastrophy would probably start another Great Depression. Only worse.

We heavily rely on international trade in that it would be devastating if it was no longer available.

---

Ahhh...the usual scaremongering boogyman appears.

If Canada loses a third of our economy,it will firstly be the overconsumption on useless Maomart crap.

The underlying fault with the scary economy scenario should Canada not assist with its own rape is that Canada still owns the resources and can export on its own terms,rather than have those terms dictated by corporate America.

It is the investors in multinationals that will bear the burden.Canadian pension funds and mutuals included.

While there will be job losses,Canada's growth is such that there are many jobs unfilled.

"Give us control of your resources and the profit thereof or there will be a global recession and you won't be able to afford overconsumption of the useless crap we import to sell you."

Empty threats.Do you really propose that the US won't buy our oil and gas outside of NAFTA?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
It's nice to see that some people aren't at all troubled by small quibbles like reality. They would suffer, but their pain would be an order of magnitude less than our own.

---

The U.S. economy would be crippled without our energy and raw materials. So I don't understand how the pain would even be tolerable for them. We can think up cute sayings and print greeting cards without Hallmark. That Yanks can't fill their needs for electrical power from Mexico or Puerto Rico. Canada has the ability to be a self-sustaining nation, the U.S. is dependent on imports - a lot moreso than Canada.

quote:

---

Some nice weasel words. The link you posted in there contains some huge factual and logical errors. Since the quote is not really referenced, I strongly suspect Cross is being taken out of context. It doesn't say what 'often quoted' figures Cross is talking about.

---

Sure it does. He quotes Paul Tellier, Sherri Cooper and Anne Golden, and all of them claiming 45 percent of our GDP is exports. Except that real GDP is arrived at by including "net exports", or by subtracting imports from, and hopefully, a positive value for exports.

quote:

---

Approximately 32% of our production is consumed by people and companies in other countries. This is from Statistics Canada, as of 2005. 81% of our exports go to the United States. I don't see how you can possibly argue that the vapourization of nearly a third of our economy's market wouldn't be devastating.

---

And if we don't include U.S. surpluses in services, and going to what are mainly US branch plants operating in Canada, and subtract the sizable $30 billion or more annual U.S. investment income surplus with Canada, "our overall surplus with the U.S. becomes less than 1 percent of our GDP."

quote:

---

The rest of this is off-topic. I made the point that Canada is dependent on foreign trade.

---

quote:

---

The underlying fault with the scary economy scenario should Canada not assist with its own rape is that Canada still owns the resources and can export on its own terms,rather than have those terms dictated by corporate America.
...
Do you really propose that the US won't buy our oil and gas outside of NAFTA?

---

This is where these kind of hypothetical scenarios tend to go off the rails; because people don't usually define exactly the scenario they are talking about.

I assume we are talking about withdrawal from NAFTA.

The most obvious consequence is that the US is now going to institute heavy import tariffs on Canadian goods and materials. Some on resources, like lumber and steel, other on manufactured goods, especially cars, and auto and airplane parts. These Canadian industries lose tens of thousands of jobs, but that's okay, because the Americans are still buying our oil?

But we are exporting it on 'our terms'. What does that mean, exactly?

The only thing we can do is stop selling it to them. We can't offer it at a higher price (export tariff?), because if we sell to other countries at world market price it will just take a roundabout route back to the US. So we reduce our total oil exports by instituting an export quota (NEP II?). The world market price of oil goes up, and Canada is shutting down excess production, resulting in thousands of lost jobs. This is magnified by the fact that there is no more investment in Canadian oil production, meaning the industry is permanently hobbled.

Yes, the US is suffering. They are paying more for oil and that is a drag on their economy. American companies have lost access to a market one tenth the size of their own domestic market, so their bottom line suffers a bit.

But our own economy isn't looking very good, either. We've done enormous harm to pretty much every export industry, including energy. We have soaring unemployment, and the recession has taken a huge bite out of government revenue, reducing its capacity to help out the jobless.

quote:

---

But our own economy isn't looking very good, either. We've done enormous harm to pretty much every export industry, including energy. We have soaring unemployment, and the recession has taken a huge bite out of government revenue, reducing its capacity to help out the jobless.

At least it was on 'our terms'.

---

When you claim our own economy isn't looking very good,I must assume that you refer to the GTA or Ontario because the economy in the west is booming.
Fast food joints paying $12/hr to start and having to close at night because they can't get enough employees.

What recession? The feds are in surplus because federal revenues are increasing.

Unemployment? Where? The only unemployment demographic is the guys who won't move out of Mommy's basement and get a job.

We have done harm to export industry? The rising loonie is harming exports because the Canadian dollar is more attractive to investors than the US dollar.

US housing starts are down,there is a 150 day surplus of condos on the market,consumer debt is rampant,US homeowners have mortgaged hundreds of billions of dollars of home equity to squander on consumption and the government is in a potentially explosive debt position.

Canada's economy will slow when the US tanks but the reason for that is due to dependence on US trade.When the loonies was in the 60-70 cent range,Canada depended on US trade rather than developing new markets.Now that the loonie is at 90 cents,exports are suffering.

If Canadian exporters had made the effort to develop new markets,the diversification of export markets could mitigate the effects of a US slowdown.

In the real world, where we are a member of NAFTA and the WTO, the Canadian economy is doing great.

The reason the Canadian dollar is in the 90 cent US neighbourhood is because money is pouring into Canada. Exchange rates are driven by supply and demand, and right now our dollar is in high demand.

Edited to respond to this part:

quote:

---

If Canadian exporters had made the effort to develop new markets,the diversification of export markets could mitigate the effects of a US slowdown.

---

People always say would should diversify, but it just isn't practical. Logistics matter. The reason there is a vast amount of trade between Canada and the US is because there is a gigantic open border between us. We are trading as much as we can with other countries, but it's just never going to be practical to have a trading relationship worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year with a country that is thousands of miles away. You can reduce the amount of trade between us and the US, but that won't somehow magically increase the amount of trade between us and other countries.

[ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
No, you misunderstood. I said the Canadian economy isn't looking good in the hypothetical scenario where we withdraw from NAFTA and start restricting energy exports.

In the real world, where we are a member of NAFTA and the WTO, the Canadian economy is doing great.

---

And in the real world, Canada's growth rates are below global averages. The truth is that we're not creating the number of full-time payroll jobs that we once did before Brian Baloney saddled us with a lemon of a trade deal FTA.

And keep in mind how many billions of dollars in profits leave Canada through tax evasion cons like transfer pricing. And no developed country has sold-off its economic sovereignty to foreign interests to the degree that Canada has. Our two old line parties have made Canada a weak dependent on American colonialism.

here it's interesting to see the impact on our imports as a result of the high degree of foreign ownership and control that we have in Canada. Here's a recent look at imports as a percentage of GDP in G7 countries:

Japan---------------9 per cent
United States-------13 per cent
Italy---------------24 per cent
France--------------24 per cent
United Kingdom------27 per cent
Germany-------------28 per cent

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And in the real world, Canada's growth rates are below global averages. The truth is that we're not creating the number of full-time payroll jobs that we once did before Brian Baloney saddled us with a lemon of a trade deal FTA.

---

*sigh*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

*sigh*

Fidel, I don't know how many times you've made this claim, but I do know that I've corrected you at least twice. Just how many times do I have to quote the same StatsCan data before you'll stop making the same mistake?

---

Stephen, you never responded to me in that thread. I remember you dumping raw job creation numbers over 25 years in that thread, but they actually showed that Canada created more total full-time payroll jobs in the 14 years before FTA than for the same period after 1989. You did correct me on the job numbers, however, but they're still not a ringing endorsement for FTA/NAFTA by any means. We were doing better before FTA, and when our exports of raw materials to the states were less, and when there were fewer Canadians entering the job market every year.

If I remember your StatsCan numbers on FTP jobs correctly, in the 14 years before FTA, Canada created over 2.3 million FTP jobs.

In the 14 years after FTA, Canada created 1.81 million full-time payroll jobs. Pathetic!

Stephen, Industry Canada said that in a comparison of aggregate economic performance among 30 developed nations during the same period after 1989, Canada's economy performed about the worst.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! - Brian Mulroney on the benefits of his government's free trade agreement with the U.S. after campaigning on a promise not to open free trade talks with Washington.

[ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]