From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: NAFTA (and a bit on Northern Telecom)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:05:17 GMT

hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>> 
>> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>> >
>> >Northern Telecom,  a Canadian comapny which has many factories in 
>> >the United States has closed several recently,  because they can 
>> >now more easily do business with the United States from Canada,  
>> >while paying working less.  
>> 
>> Northern Telecom actually has expanded much more in the US and abroad
>> than in Canada since the FTA as it becomes one of Canada's few
>> successful global high tech companies.  It's CEO is actually now
>> an American who spends most of his time in Northern Telecoms'
>> Washington, DC office (actually it might be No. Virginia).
>
>When I talk to people who have worked at plants in Northern Illinois
>I hear a differnet story.  NT has closed a several plants that is
>bought in the United States before FTA, moving the production
>operations to Canada.  Amoung workers the company has a reputation 
>as a corporate pirot, buying up plants with no desire to keep them
>in operation.

One thing you should notice, though, is that their new switches are
smaller by the grace of higher levels of integration for their chips,
and a retooling of NT's domestic Canadian plants (on home soil) made
certain U.S. plants obsolete.  They were lucky to close a few junker
plants and sell the real estate while the land still had some value.
Research through their Bell-Northern Research subsidiary and NorTel
support engineering sites are still going great guns here in America.
Besides, now that they're able to service the (gringo) North American
market by manufacturing in Canada, the company is now freed to follow
their European strategy -- besides their sites in the UK, recently
forming alliances with a major French concern (Hachette).

>These are the realities of Free Trade for "unskilled workers".

Plants with all sorts of nationalities of ownership are opening and
closing all over the place.  We could get into mudslinging and say
"what about American concerns, say, consolidating their toothpaste
manufacturing in Kentucky and closing down a Toronto plant?" but it
would not be productive ... nobody can deny that these things won't
happen without pain.  (I agree with your statements following this
sentence, though.)

>> As a result, in NAFTA, the US went after a lot of Canadian
>> industries that were more successful because of the original
>> FTA, and Canada had to accept greater American protectionism
>> in certain sectors like textiles and clothing for example.         
>
>How can an agreement which gives preference to one side be called
>free trade?

The Canadian actions in NAFTA were primarily defensive, acknowledged
as such by the New York Times on Thursday.  Within this depression,
the Bush Administration's minions have taken upon themselves to mount
as close to trade war with partners as law allows, pushing those
boundaries to the breaking point and bursting (e.g., two beer wars
this year ...  it started out with an earnest request to get Canada to
conform to an old GATT ruling, but spiralled outwards with the U.S.
losing out on later escalated claims and now declaring not to end the
current dispute at GATT, for which it is the prime motivator).

>Bush has made zero effort to sell NAFTA to the American people, next
>to nobody understands what its benefits might be, the US is facing a
>serious period of restructuring which will in the short run hurt alot
>of people as it makes other rich.  Personally I stand to gain alot
>from NAFTA and Free Trade in general, being in a field where the US
>has a vast competetive advantage.  But alot of people stand to lose,
>they don't understand why they have to lose and they amay demand more
>trade restrictions in the future.

I think that NAFTA will have a rough ride, but for different reasons
than the US-Canada FTA had a bad one (and is still very negatively
perceived, even in the next breath after acknowledging the latest
Canadian success due in part to it).  Borrowing the German term of a
"social market" system, Canada spent a lot of time with the social
side but neglecting the market side ... the wake-up call had to come
and with the FTA, sooner is better than later.  In the case of the
U.S., it is already leaner and faster and the most capitalistic.  The
benefits of opening borders with Mexico are not so obvious as with 
the Canadian case.

A survey of Canadian business relayed in UPI Clarinet pointed out that
Europe was considered ahead of Mexico in importance, but there is no
action going on between the EC and Canada (we failed to become an EC
associate in the mid-70's and nothing has been followed up upon since
... my preference would be to see NAFTA fail ratification and Canada
link up with the EC in one way or another, serving as a transatlantic
bridge).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40404 talk.abortion:32301 alt.politics.bush:1986