printPresident Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met for their North American summit. Yes, it’s their get-together; not ours. They spoke a lot about “trade,” managed trade, or, in this context, the “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which seeks to more closely integrate the economies of the three countries.”
When people are herded by stealth into a supranational arrangements (the EU, or North American Union, for that matter), it is with a vision predicated on rigid central planning, homogenization of laws throughout the continent, and heavy taxation and inflation of the money supply.
Moreover, what was written on April 1, 2006, in the Ottawa Citizen—about a previous Summit in which Vincente Fox and his buddy George Bush officiated—stands.
… state-managed trade is never really free. And NAFTA is nothing but a mercantilist, centrally planned maze of regulations. Whenever I cross into Canada to visit my daughter, I’m compelled to declare and pay taxes on every paltry purchase. That’s NAFTA for you! Governments have only ever ‘freed’ trade by providing law and order, enforcing contracts—and then vamoosing.
… The free flow of goods across borders is not to be confused with that of people across borders. Over 40 percent of Mexicans live below the poverty line, compared to America and Canada’s 13 and 16 percent, respectively. This means that the U.S. is flooded by torrents of unskilled, illegal aliens. The costs to the nation’s schools, hospitals, and environment; health, safety and security are incalculable.
…So long as the U.S. and Canada remain relatively high-wage areas with tax-funded welfare systems, they will experience migratory pressure from a low-wage country such as Mexico.
Naturally, protectionist policies worsen this pressure. If people can’t sell their wares into foreign markets, they’re more inclined to relocate in search of better economic prospects. Unhampered trade, not NAFTA, might diminish this pressure.
UPDATE I: Huggs, Canadians are as socialist as Americans, maybe more. But their leaders are less treacherous than ours. Because of this, “Canada’s balance sheet is healthier than those of other developed nations,” the US included. naturally, Canadians prefer Obama to Harper, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re doing quite well as we struggle.
From the Frontier Center comes news that in Canada, private property rights are better respected than in the US.
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, along with the International Property Rights Alliance, today released the 2012 International Property Rights Index (IPRI). The 2012 Index, measures the protection of property rights in 130 countries. …On a worldwide ranking of one to ten—the higher scores reflecting a greater protection of property—IPRI scores ranged from Finland with 8.6, to Yemen with a score of just 2.8. In 2012, Canada maintained its position as the highest ranking country in the Western hemisphere and is seen as a model of stability, with increased scores in the Access to Loans sub-component of its Physical Property Rights (PPR) score. Overall, Canada was 10th. (The United States was 18th.)
In Brief:
* 130 countries were surveyed in 2012 IPRI.
* Finland scores highest in protection of property; Canada defeated by Netherlands for 9th place by only 0.1
* Canada, at 12th place, scores higher than the United States (at 18th)
UPDATE II: Canada’s center-right government plans to implement and austerity budget, raising “the retirement age and making major public service cuts. “Ottawa’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations. Canada is one of only two G7 nations to have recouped all the jobs lost during the global recession.” …
UPDATE III (April 3): CANADA IMPERILED BY US ‘PROTECTION.’ ‘Derek’s argument, below, about Canada not having the burdens of defending itself and the world because saintly Uncle Sam carries the load for her is a bogus argument, the premise of which is that American interventions protect Canada and the world from harm and reduce costs for beneficiaries of this ‘protection.’ To the extent that Canada has been our lap dog in war—to that extent it has harmed its standing and safety in the world. By the way, this false argument is routinely made at National Review too.
“Unhampered trade, not NAFTA, might diminish this pressure.”
And the odds of that happening are …..
Somehow these three don’t leave me with very much enthusiasm. My experience with Canadians is they are usually nice people but are pie-in-the-sky socialists. Mexican Presidents preside over a third world disaster of a country whose major economic credentials are a flourishing narcotics trade and coercing stupid Americans into feeding millions of Mexicans that the Mexican economy would never be able to feed. Obama, of course, is an open book. An anti American socialist who would sell us down the river in an instant if it fits his leftist agenda. Maybe some day we’ll grow to see international meetings attended by American Presidents or State Department representatives who actually are pro American.
Good article Ilana.
On a similar note, look at this Link (you may get a splash screen, just wait 30 seconds and it will forward)
The link describes how bho is teaming up with the EU and Japan (mirroring the three amigos) and are using the world trade organization to strong-arm China into lifting the export limits of rare earth elements…bho goes on to say:
“Now, if China would simply let the market work on its own, we’d have no objections.”
How’s that for hypocritical – bho telling China to implement a (free) market. Further, the demand for these minerals are artificially inflated by the insatiable appetite that the (government subsidized/enforced) “green technologies” have for rare-earth minerals. These minerals are copiously used in hybrid cars, compact fluorescent bulbs, and the wind power turbines, and the only way China can stave off this artificial demand is to limit their exportation.
Basically, the american government calls for the foreign countries to behave in a free-market way (towards government contractors of course) while effectively strip-mining them using the limitless tax dollar.
To make it even worse, the compact fluorescent bulbs and hybrid car batteries are disposable applications. 30 years from now these minerals will be gone…and all that we’ll have to show for it are the carcasses left from the government’s love affair with hoax technologies.
If governments are not eliminated from the world stage, humanity will eventually be driven back to a hunter gatherer society, only this time there will be no technological ladder to climb up on.
(oops – over 200 words – sorry, engineers generally have poor literary skills)
I like Canada, care for them about as much as I do for the fifty US states, but think one should acknowledge two big keys helping them when praising their economy. Namely, they benefit from demographics and defense.
Canada, though importing non-westerners, still doesn’t have anything like our black and hispanic populations, and is lucky the US is a buffer between her and Mexico.
Second, Canada gets to skimp on defense because she is protected by the US. Canada only has around 140 fighter jets, which is far less than a smaller nation like Israel. The US Marine Corps alone has more fighters planes than Canada. In fact the US Marine Corps not only has more aircraft than the Canadian Air Force, but it also has more infantrymen and tanks than the Canadian Army. [See Post Update.]
One wonders what Canada’s balance sheet would look like if they shared a border with Mexico and actually had to pay for defense.
The US should not pay for the “benefits” of US protection either. The concept of the Taliban in Peoria is as absurd in 2012 as the concept of the Vietcong in Peoria was in 1967 – or, for that matter, Saddam Hussein or Baby Doc Duvalier or Manuel Noreiga in Peoria. These idiotic wars as as much about “defending” the US as I am Sophia Loren.
Derek’s argument, below, about Canada not having the burdens of defending itself and the world because saintly Uncle Sam carries the load for her is a bogus argument, the premise of which is that American interventions protect Canada and the world from harm and reduce costs for beneficiaries of this ‘protection.’
I did not refer to worldwide interventions. I referred to the fact that Canada is bordered by a large, friendly nation that has the most capable military in the world and would never allow anyone else to touch her. As a result Canada does not have to maintain much of a defense.
As I pointed out, the USMC alone has more air power and land power than the entire Canadian Defense Forces. If Canada lived in the Middle East like Israel, she’d have to spend a heck of a lot more on defense. As it is now, Canada with almost 4 times the people of Israel, has less planes and tanks than our ME friend.
Mexico also benefits from this arrangement and as a result only has 10 aging F-5 fighter jets in its entire air force. Think about that. A nation of 100 million, the 10th largest economy in the world, and it only has ten 35 year old fighter jets.
Canada should be complimented on making the most of this unique situation. Mexico should do as well, but doesn’t.
Don’t be too quick to compare our defense forces to the Canadians. Give Obama one more term in ofice and we probably won’t outnumber the Pope’s palace guard in the Vatican.