From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:43:43 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>>
>>No you haven't said it, that I know of. That was directed to the wider
>>"audience," who is welcome to jump in at any time. Especially the
>>NAFTA proponents, be they libertarian, free market conservatives,
>>or corporatives. Perhaps you do side with them on the matter?
>
>i still don't know about free trade. i have seen what it has done
>to canada, but then that was going to happen anyway due to all the
>things i talked about in that thread. one of the main reasons that
>i think NAFTA has been put into place is that if we make the mexicans
>richer, they will form a bigger market for us to sell to, and they
>will stop trying to illegally immigrate.

The idea of freer trade behind GATT, the existing US-Canada Free Trade
Agreement and (supposedly) NAFTA is that industries on a level playing
field should be let loose to the market without any kind of government
interference from tariffs and other protectionism (as defined in the
treaties).  Economies of scale have resulted in recent Canadian plant
closures; why keep a small Crest toothpaste plant open in Ontario when
you can consolidate it with the excess capacity in Missouri with the
attendant profits gained from economy of scale?  By the same token, new
markets emerge for existing industries -- a plethora of Canadian food
products have arrived on NYC supermarket shelves alone since the time
that I commenced grad school at Columbia.  Since the last GATT round
was concluded more than a decade ago, the FTA has to be the reason ...

>>I have to admit in browsing the canadian thread that, I found
>>several points interesting. The one that comes most strongly to mind
>>was made by the socialist I think, oddly enough, who observed that
>>what works in Canada (socialism-wise) may not in America due to
>>size. I take this for granted, first as a simple extension of
>>information theory.  

Just a clarification: I do NOT consider myself a socialist, Charles
does (and he's welcome to) and by the American measures that I see in
USENET.  I'm currently a Conservative supporter.  I have been Liberal
... as in the UK party of Disraeli, Churchill and now Paddy Ashdown
(but I won't go back 'til they take more fiscally responsible policy,
a hopeful sign being the rise of Paul Martin, Jr. to their policy and
planning committee -- Paul is a self-made millionaire who rejected his
silver-spoon heritage from his father (the writer of the Canada Health
Act), moved to Montreal, became bilingual and founded companies like
Canada Steamship Lines (CSL)).

>but it *doesn't* work, as i have pointed out.  even the health
>insurance system will eventually collapse. don't believe the 
>bull about "we spend less on health care per capita than the US". 
>i don't. it will come tumbling down too.

You have not pointed out anything, with all due respect.  You just
don't like the government taking care of the insurance fund.  And
you have avoided that our private health insurance approves because
the non-market basic care portion entails too great risks to achieve
universal coverage.  Since they funded Paul Martin, Sr., who wrote
the Canada Health Act, you should be cynical enough to realized that
they had a hand in things.  (You know how beholden our politicians
are to political bagmen from Establishment interests, right?)

gld, the tory socialist (-;
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:63885 talk.politics.drugs:7906