Well it seems the Dem contendors have now started a lot of news stories up here about life in North America post-mortem. What do you guys’ state-side think? Would a President really be stupid enough to potentially disrupt (in the long run) energy and even day water supply to the US just to kick a stink up about jobs that Joe Sixpack wasn’t going to keep regardless of NAFTA. We all know Congressmen and even some Senators are short-sighted and provincial enough to do so, but what about POTUS.
Any question that starts with “Would a President really be stupid enough to…” can safely be answered “Yes” given historical record.
I think it’s all the pre-election rhetoric that will never crystalize into a concrete action. Anyway, it’s just another reason not to vote democrat (socialist).
That horrible sucking sound again.
Yes…of the pipelines sending crude to from Alberta to Texas!
As long as my Equity Research job doesn’t get shipped off to some mexican worker, I’m not really too concerned with NAFTA.
North America post-mortem?
Your equity research job will be shipped to Canada. In return you will get some oil and maybe a drop of water. pimp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As long as my Equity Research job doesn’t get > shipped off to some mexican worker, I’m not really > too concerned with NAFTA.
“Mr Bush, you know Gasoline prices can be $4/gallon this summer?” Really thats high, I never knew that, good thing I know now. Right and Obama is going to clean up this guy’s mess?
Withdrawal from NAFTA would be a step back. I agree with CFA_Halifax, joesixpack was going to loose that job anyway. Many of these companies were forced to export jobs because of unions etc… Unions were and still are choking businesses. Also, really what jobs were shipped abroad that are so crucial??? Telemarketing? Some manufactoring jobs? If we were to bring these jobs back its not really clear who would actually benefit. I can tell you that you and I are going to pay for it though. Freakin socialists. The problem is that its all to easy to rally people in these industries who can’t distinguish ergonomics from economics. Because its so easy to, these people can actually make a significant impact. The wider population will buy into their argument b/c on the surface it sounds legitament and just too easily “makes sense.” I can’t stand hearing Obama’s and Hillary’s speeches on anything to do with the economy. Simply terrible. I hope your right highparkcfa that is just pre-election babble. Otherwise our country, which has been at the front of free trade is going to be sending a lot of mixed messages… O ya, what do they (the future presidents) think? That these countries are going to just take our actions and not react???
CFABlackbelt, I’m with you. I don’t oppose every Democratic idea, but listening to Democrats talk about economics is one of two things: infuriating or hilarious. Liberals–as a group, not necessarily individual presidents–really have not grasped economics in the last 70 years.
It’s funny because in America and now to a large degree in Canada, the socialists have basterized the term “liberal” in an economic sense into a statist economic ideology. However historically speaking, and still today in Europe, Australia etc. “liberal” in the economic sense means what it should FREEDOM and a FREE MARKET.
“Liberal” in America is synonymous with lazy, pot-smoking hippie.
I guess it’s a matter of the perverted semantics.
kkent, not from what I hear. Liberal, as it is often portrayed, is “correct” I don’t disagree though that liberals are often lazy… “let the govt. solve our problems” “we can’t actually take responsibility for ourselves.” “I NEED welfare, healthcare, blah blah blah, and YOU should pay for it b/c I NEED it.” CFA_Halifax I totally agree with you. The socialists have totally hijacked the term liberal. And kkent im w/ you as well. There are a lot of things I do like about the dems. I dunno for sure, but I feel there is serious momentum for a middle ground b/c honestly both the far right and left scare the crap outta me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450985647506721.html?mod=economy_lead_story_lsc NAFTA debate just politics then? I’m originally from Ohio, lots of these ppl are loosing jobs simply b/c they are paid way too much and produce crappy products. Interesting read if you have WSJ access.
Well they’re playing with fire. I think this political dynamite, and the folks up here in govt in Ottawa would LOVE a pissing contest with a left-wing US administration next year (new President would be innagurated in Jan) as it is an election year. Hello Peking, we have some crude for ya!
Halifax did you see the CTV report that supposingly someone from the Obama camp called Flathery and company the very next day saying, “and its just all politics, Obama would never try such a thing”. Pretty reckless of Mr. Obama to do such a thing just for votes though and pathetic I must add. Couldn’t he just aim to win Texas, if he lost Ohio? Flathery in general is a crazy man and one not to be reckoned with, look at what hes doing to BC and Ontario, McGunity camp really screwed up with their letter today. This is looking bad for everybody in Ontario except the PE and banking firms.
I’ve heard that they contacted Ambasador Wilson in DC yeah. I mean, this is gold for Harper et al. The US desperatley needs our energy and other resources, and obviously can’t afford to lose many more allies in the War on Terror. If they open this baby up, there will be hell to pay for sure. I’m a very big supporter of the CPC government, and have a very pro-American worldview I think, but if Obama or Clinton wants to rip up NAFTA I say we build us some pipelines to China and let Joe Sixpack in Akron, Ohio or Lubbock, Texas pay $5 a gallon for gas. I mean afterall when is manufacturing job comes back from Gudlaharja and his call centre job comes back from Gander, he’ll obviously be able to afford it.
“Liberals–as a group, not necessarily individual presidents–really have not grasped economics in the last 70 years.” i don’t think its an issue of whether or not they grasp economics but of whether or not they care. obama’s senior economics advisor is austan goolsbee from u of chicago. the guy isn’t an idiot. instead, its about getting votes and getting elected. why do you think nafta’s all over the news when they’re in ohio but nowhere when they’re in texas (like blackbelt shows in the wsj article)? why has hillary all of a sudden changed her mind, despite what she says, about nafta?