CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7774
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:54 pm
 


Why is NAFTA bad for Canada?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_NAFTA_bad_for_Canada

· One of those concerns is how NAFTA has cost workers their jobs:

Instead of increasing, Canada has lost 398, 837 jobs ever since NAFTA began, from 1994 to 2001.

· Canada is too dependant on United States as Canada's source of economy.

The United States is Canada's largest trading partner; this is a concern because close relationship between the economy trades of two countries resembles a double edged sword. Although Canada's economy will become more powerful when United State's economy becomes powerful, there is always a chance of the opposite results occurring.

· Canadian Industries and companies are becoming less competitive:

It increases employment in those profiting companies (ie auto), but it decreases those little small companies (ie refrigerator companies in Canada) because the ones in the US overpower them.

Canada is losing its culture:

Laws/bans are breaking down

Environment gets damaged

NAFTA has caused huge amounts of toxic waste to be dumped into Countries with weak environment laws, Canada that is. This increases the risks of contaminating the drinking water in Canada. Because of NAFTA, Canada is now importing four times the hazardous waste from the United States.
NAFTA has also increased the traffic movement between borders. The pollution from caused from traffic, contributes to the rising temperatures of global warming.
80 per cent of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the American border. (Traffic congestion and delays along the border causing pollution to release in the air)

NAFTA allows United States to take advantage of Canada and its resources:
For years and years now, Canada has been trading other countries with their advantage of many natural resources. Now that NAFTA came into affect, USA also has the advantages with Canada's natural resources. This will cause more clear-cutting and natural areas to be destroyed.

· One of those concerns is how NAFTA has cost workers their jobs:

Instead of increasing, Canada has lost 398, 837 jobs ever since NAFTA began, from 1994 to 2001.

· Canada is too dependant on United States as Canada's source of economy.

The United States is Canada's largest trading partner; this is a concern because close relationship between the economy trades of two countries resembles a double edged sword. Although Canada's economy will become more powerful when United State's economy becomes powerful, there is always a chance of the opposite results occurring.

· Canadian Industries and companies are becoming less competitive:

It increases employment in those profiting companies (ie auto), but it decreases those little small companies (ie refrigerator companies in Canada) because the ones in the US overpower them.

Canada is losing its culture:

Laws/bans are breaking down

Environment gets damaged

NAFTA has caused huge amounts of toxic waste to be dumped into Countries with weak environment laws, Canada that is. This increases the risks of contaminating the drinking water in Canada. Because of NAFTA, Canada is now importing four times the hazardous waste from the United States.
NAFTA has also increased the traffic movement between borders. The pollution from caused from traffic, contributes to the rising temperatures of global warming.
80 per cent of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the American border. (Traffic congestion and delays along the border causing pollution to release in the air)

NAFTA allows United States to take advantage of Canada and its resources:
For years and years now, Canada has been trading other countries with their advantage of many natural resources. Now that NAFTA came into affect, USA also has the advantages with Canada's natural resources. This will cause more clear-cutting and natural areas to be destroyed.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15894
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:20 pm
 


Vote NDP...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42517
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:45 pm
 


Redundancy in a post is redundant.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2928
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:16 pm
 


Its not.

Quote:
In 1988, the average Canadian tariff rate against the United States was 8.1 percent. The corresponding effective tariff rate was 16 percent. Perhaps most importantly, tariffs in excess of 10 percent sheltered one in four Canadian industries. Given that these industries were almost all characterized by low wages, low capital-labour ratios, and low profit margins, the 1988 tariff wall was indeed high.

... Employment losses of 5 percent translate into 100,000 lost jobs and strike me as large, not least because only a relatively small number of industries experienced deep tariff concessions. Indeed, most of these lost jobs were concentrated in the most-impacted, import-competing industries. For this group, with its 12 percent job losses, one in eight jobs disappeared. This number points to the very large transition costs of moving out of low-end, heavily protected industries. It reflects the most obvious of the costs associated with trade liberalization.

It is difficult to be sure whether these transition costs were short-run in nature. However, two facts drawn from the most recent seasonally adjusted data suggest that they probably were short run costs. First, the FTA had no long-run effect on the Canadian employment rate which was 62 percent both in April 1988 and April 2002. Second, Canadian manufacturing employment has been more robust than in most OECD countries. [Emphasis added.] For example, between April 1988 and April 2002, manufacturing employment rose by 9.1 percent in Canada, but fell by 12.9 percent in the United States and by 9.7 percent in Japan. This suggests, albeit not conclusively, that the transition costs were short run in the sense that within 10 years the lost employment was made up for by employment gains in other parts of manufacturing.

... the Canadian tariff concessions raised labour productivity by 15 percent in the most-impacted, import-competing group of industries. This translates into an enormous compound annual growth rate of 1.9 percent. The fact that the effect is smaller and statistically insignificant at the plant level suggests that much of the productivity gain is coming from market share shifts favouring high productivity plants. Such share shifting would come about from the growth of high-productivity plants and the demise and/or exit of low-productivity plants.

... The plant-level numbers indicate that the FTA raised labour productivity in manufacturing by 7.4 percent or by an annual compound growth rate of 0.93 percent. The industry-level numbers are about the same. These numbers, along with the 14-15 percent effects for the most-impacted importers and exporters, are enormous. The idea that an international trade policy could raise labour productivity so dramatically is to my mind remarkable.

... The Canadian tariff concessions raised Canadian imports from the United States by 54 percent. ... The Canadian tariff concessions lowered Canadian imports from the rest of the world by 40 percent.

...There is modest evidence ... that the FTA reduced import prices by 7 percent for the most-impacted import-competing products.

... Most commentators expected Canadian wages to fall in response to competition from lessunionized, less-educated workers in the southern United States. ...For all workers, the tariff concessions raised annual earnings. For example, the total FTA impact is a rise of 3 percent at both the industry level and the plant level. ... At the plant level, earnings rose for both production and non-production workers. At the industry level, earnings gains were concentrated among production workers. ... a 3 percent rise in earnings spread over 8 years will buy you more than a cup of coffee, but not at Starbucks. The important finding is not that earnings went up, but that earnings did not go down in response to competitive pressures from the U.S. South.

... unionization does not offer an explanation of modestly rising earnings.

... There is a presumption in the popular press that anything to do with globalization will worsen income inequality. It is thus reassuring that there is absolutely no evidence that the FTA worsened income inequality.

... Several strong conclusions emerged from the analysis. First, the FTA was associated with substantial employment losses: 12 percent for the most-impacted, import competing group of industries and 5 percent for manufacturing as a whole. These effects appear in both the industry- and plant-level analyses. Second, the FTA led to large labour productivity gains. For the most-impacted, export-oriented group of industries, labour productivity rose by 14 percent at the plant level. For the most-impacted, import-competing group of industries, labour productivity rose by 15 percent with at least half of this coming from the exit and/or contraction of low-productivity plants. For manufacturing as a whole, labour productivity rose by about 6 percent which is remarkable given that much of manufacturing was duty free before implementation of the FTA. Third, the FTA created more trade than it diverted and possibly lowered import prices. Thus, the FTA likely raised aggregate welfare.


http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~trefler/fta.pdf


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4327
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:32 pm
 


Huge productivity gains! Now both of you have to serve three times as many burgers, work twice the hours and get less benefits as you did when there was just you at that damned unproductive union assembly plant and the old lady stayed home.
Productive for WHO?

Let the bankers and bean-counters eat shit for a change.
Think of YOU and YOUR FAMILY at the ballot box.

NAFTA: the north AMERICAN free trade act

see anything Canadian in there?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.