re: fair trade vs 'free' trade (no regulation)
deep integration is going to be the suck... www.integratethis.ca the 'security and prosperity partnership' read 'fear-mongering and greedy rich project for bipassing democratic debate
I want to say more about this on here, or discuss it, because this is totally really important and stuff.
hmm maybe quickly 3 points which are problems with the CURRENT NAFTA vs the EXTRA problems that will come with SPP.
-when you open a 'weak' or developing industry to the world market, big companies can undercut and 'destroy' your own industry for being self-sufficient, forcing you to become dependent on outside goods, and perhaps 'recreating' their monopoly on the goods, at which point they can charge whatever they want/ and/or 'save money' by cutting costs and descreasing quality so that you in fact are paying for cheap garbage instead of something good [ref planned obsolescence in production ie to maintain a continuous lifecycle flow and demand for 'new' and 'better' products - ie rushing to market with not the best product so you can sell something slightly better, and slightly better than that, when the technology exists to make something good that lasts but would undercut demand and decrease sales because of this)
-companies become open to foreign ownership, so big companies will buy major companies, whether competition or otherwise, possibly running them into the ground while stripping them of all their value to get rid of competition in that company, gaining control over sensitive essentials to functioning of the country, funnelling money and profits the country makes to outside ownership, as well as possibly either 'moving' the company elsewhere, or else outsourcing jobs in such a way as to pay the least, ie not in the benefit of the people, so either the jobs stay, wages and benefits and conditions decrease, or they go somewhere where that is already the case and the jobs are lost from that country to another one
-losing control of governmental decisions, especially at the lower governmental levels, when a company can sue for 'lost potential profits' if a company or project is blocked 'for the public good', ie because of environment, health, etc. and nearly bankrupt said community -> exacerbated by courts being in one of the two countries of the partnership (US) and similiarly often favouring their interests, or at least the big company can 'pay' for more expensive, for all intents and purposes 'buying' the verdict when such legal resources are not in balance.
-locked in energy supply: once you start producing and exporting a certain amount of 'raw' material to the us, in the form of oil bitumen etc, the taps 'can't be turned off', regardless of other considerations, like our own energy needs (Canada now has to import oil for our own needs, partially because we have to export more than 50% of our supply to the US. The refining, and jobs and added income that comem with the finished product, does not occur in Canada; they only want our resources, and basically the pipelines, go straight across the border to the US, and then start going cross directions, south of the great lakes, rather than having distribution networks in Canada, where we could share our own oil etc, within our own country.
That's 4 points.
Anyways, 'tax free trade' can have some benefits, but the policy we currently have is a swindles, it's so good, other countries are 'exporting' this model to be used as the new template for deals to 'subjugate' partner nations; except water rights and other newer modifications
To talk about the SPP, 'harmoniazation of regulations', to touch on that, it means military and environmental policy, immigration, trade embargoes, who is a wanted criminal where and why/ ie getting to decide who is getting deported where and when based on "american" intelligence, with whatever inaccuracy or other agendas may in fact be fuelin this, for us would be determined in the states, without parliamentary debate, and we would be expected to stay in line with decisions made there. If they make an environmental law in the States, our regulations need to fall in line. Basically it undermines our sovereignty, and this is clearly why they are trying to have 'business and commerce executives' have these meetings in secret, rather than bring it up for public debate: most of the public has known better for a long time - Chretien won the PM office on a promise of no free trade, which he then promptly broke.
Welcome to the suck. It's time to stand up and not allow this shit to be dumped on the people.
haha there, is that cliche enough? SPP really scares me, and angers me. But I also see it as a rallying point; if people realize what it means, they will be forces to have the wool pulled from over their eyes, and they will see what is going on in the world, why, and how, and by whom; and knowing this, oppose it. m_G
I want to say more about this on here, or discuss it, because this is totally really important and stuff.
hmm maybe quickly 3 points which are problems with the CURRENT NAFTA vs the EXTRA problems that will come with SPP.
-when you open a 'weak' or developing industry to the world market, big companies can undercut and 'destroy' your own industry for being self-sufficient, forcing you to become dependent on outside goods, and perhaps 'recreating' their monopoly on the goods, at which point they can charge whatever they want/ and/or 'save money' by cutting costs and descreasing quality so that you in fact are paying for cheap garbage instead of something good [ref planned obsolescence in production ie to maintain a continuous lifecycle flow and demand for 'new' and 'better' products - ie rushing to market with not the best product so you can sell something slightly better, and slightly better than that, when the technology exists to make something good that lasts but would undercut demand and decrease sales because of this)
-companies become open to foreign ownership, so big companies will buy major companies, whether competition or otherwise, possibly running them into the ground while stripping them of all their value to get rid of competition in that company, gaining control over sensitive essentials to functioning of the country, funnelling money and profits the country makes to outside ownership, as well as possibly either 'moving' the company elsewhere, or else outsourcing jobs in such a way as to pay the least, ie not in the benefit of the people, so either the jobs stay, wages and benefits and conditions decrease, or they go somewhere where that is already the case and the jobs are lost from that country to another one
-losing control of governmental decisions, especially at the lower governmental levels, when a company can sue for 'lost potential profits' if a company or project is blocked 'for the public good', ie because of environment, health, etc. and nearly bankrupt said community -> exacerbated by courts being in one of the two countries of the partnership (US) and similiarly often favouring their interests, or at least the big company can 'pay' for more expensive, for all intents and purposes 'buying' the verdict when such legal resources are not in balance.
-locked in energy supply: once you start producing and exporting a certain amount of 'raw' material to the us, in the form of oil bitumen etc, the taps 'can't be turned off', regardless of other considerations, like our own energy needs (Canada now has to import oil for our own needs, partially because we have to export more than 50% of our supply to the US. The refining, and jobs and added income that comem with the finished product, does not occur in Canada; they only want our resources, and basically the pipelines, go straight across the border to the US, and then start going cross directions, south of the great lakes, rather than having distribution networks in Canada, where we could share our own oil etc, within our own country.
That's 4 points.
Anyways, 'tax free trade' can have some benefits, but the policy we currently have is a swindles, it's so good, other countries are 'exporting' this model to be used as the new template for deals to 'subjugate' partner nations; except water rights and other newer modifications
To talk about the SPP, 'harmoniazation of regulations', to touch on that, it means military and environmental policy, immigration, trade embargoes, who is a wanted criminal where and why/ ie getting to decide who is getting deported where and when based on "american" intelligence, with whatever inaccuracy or other agendas may in fact be fuelin this, for us would be determined in the states, without parliamentary debate, and we would be expected to stay in line with decisions made there. If they make an environmental law in the States, our regulations need to fall in line. Basically it undermines our sovereignty, and this is clearly why they are trying to have 'business and commerce executives' have these meetings in secret, rather than bring it up for public debate: most of the public has known better for a long time - Chretien won the PM office on a promise of no free trade, which he then promptly broke.
Welcome to the suck. It's time to stand up and not allow this shit to be dumped on the people.
haha there, is that cliche enough? SPP really scares me, and angers me. But I also see it as a rallying point; if people realize what it means, they will be forces to have the wool pulled from over their eyes, and they will see what is going on in the world, why, and how, and by whom; and knowing this, oppose it. m_G