[Toro]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I realize that. I used to work there. Suncor is owned by Sunoco. 'Suncor' might be based in Calgary, but it is only the Canadian arm of a US company.

I believe this is incorrect. There is no mention of this investment in Sunoco's 10K, which you can find here. Scroll down to pages 23-25 under the heading Financial Condition and Capital Resources and Liquidity where it describes all of Sunoco's investments. There is no mention of Suncor. I do believe though that Suncor has a joint venture to market gasoline using Sunoco's name, but that's not Sunoco owning Suncor.

I also skimmed Suncor's annual report - since I didn't know that Sunoco owned Suncor and that was of interest to me - but there was no mention in the 112-page document about Sunoco owning Suncor. Not only that, but there was no one on the board of Suncor who was from Sunoco. This wouldn't be if Sunoco owned the company.

[Scape]

Toro Toro:

...if Canada chooses not to comply with America's increased security measures, commerce will slow.

We know our troops are in Afghanistan for more than just that countries future. In other words there is more than one way to play the game of trade. Why is it that we MUST play the game by the rules of an administration that is rock bottom in the polls?

Scape Scape:

At no point does returning to the GATT equate to shutting down the boarder. You have got to be kidding that government does not have a direct effect on business. $5B in illegal softwood tariffs says your wrong.

Toro Toro:

Using the GATT framework would raise tariffs, since each round of the GATT and the WTO lowered tariffs. You cannot "go back" to GATT without raising tariffs and restricting trade.

You say this an yet we are clearly seeing that tariffs are just taking other forms that are even more expensive that the tariffs we had under the GATT THAT WERE AT LEAST LEGAL. How is this version of 'free trade' to be peddled as anything but collusion to a foreign power? Argentina had a warm welcome to that idea. I have said that NAFTA is not a trade deal it is a resource grab. It has made passing laws by domestic government suspect to lawsuits by companies based in foreign soil, thus they have say over the people of the land that voted in the government. Is that democratic? Is it even a 'free market' worthy of Hayek?

Toro Toro:

Government creates the regulatory framework and passes the laws which effect commerce. And if governments pass laws to discourage selling of oil to the US for markets elsewhere, the net effect be less income for Canadian producers and thus make Canadians poorer than they otherwise would be. And for what? To make a point?

Ok, lets say we remove all ownership restrictions and for the sake of argument China finds out about this and buys EVERYTHING because they can. Explain how Canada becoming a puppet to a communist regime on the US doorstep is a good thing.

Scape Scape:

Non sequitur. Canada is still not getting the return on its investment. If America truly wants the products it will pony up.

Toro Toro:

But those countries are "ponying up." And that's why Canadians sell primarily to Americans, because Americans give Canadian businesses the most profits. Simple as that. These are not "crumbs" and there is no imaginery "loaf" elsewhere. Of course Canada should pursue commerce anywhere Canada is able - for example, I read yesterday that Canada is pursuing a free trade deal with Japan. That's great. The more free trade the better. But the natural flow of export commerce for Canadians is into the United States.

We do not have free trade with Asia or China or the EU...yet. Even if we did the close proximity of the US will still be a powerful advantage but as I said, the war on terror requires compliance that the other countries simply will not be asking for. As the 'anti-terror' laws add to the problem of terror like swatting a fly with a wrecking ball this will make trade more expensive and create more opportunities in other markets.

Scape Scape:

Dear god man, what do I have to say? National ID,BMD, DHS, Smart Regulation Action Plan, Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement. All this security is code for BIGGER and more invasive government.

Toro Toro:

Scape, I live in the United States. Do you know how my (and pretty much everyone I know) life has changed because of all these actions towards the police state the CAP goes on and on about? I have to get to the airport a little earlier and endure the hassles of going through increased security before I board my plane. Also I have to get my drivers liscence renewed every time I recieve a new visa. Yup, we're in a police state !

Fine, be the frog boiling in water if you wish. You can not argue that Bush has spent more than every other president before him combined. He has ruined a superpower. Do you believe the terror laws will be repealed or do you think they will compound? It is a snowball rolling down the hill, but hey life is good now right? You don't have anything to worry about as long as you have nothing to hide right? That is a far different than innocent until proven guilty as the onus is on you to prove innocence rather than the government to prove guilt. Would you like to tour the 'black sites' from the inside?

Toro Toro:

Hayek and the Austrians are ardent supporters of minimal government involvement in the economy. They are ardent supporters of free trade. They would not scrap NAFTA or the WTO. But they would scrap Medicare. (And they probably wouldn't support the CAP's monetary proposals either.)

They would scrap NAFTA and WTO in a heartbeat because they have nothing to do with free trade or at least their brand of it as much as you wish it to be otherwise. As for healthcare you are correct that they would not be in favor of it but that is a whole other thread. I have no illusions about the CAP monetary policies. Do you see Martin or Harper using the BOC? No? Didn't think so. My option for change of the money game is the same then.

Toro Toro:

But its good people read Hayek, even if one doesn't agree with all of it. My offer still stands Scape, even if you have read the book!

Thanks for the offer but no. I will take rum, rye, whiskey, bourbon, beer...

[Toro]

Scape Scape:

We know our troops are in Afghanistan for more than just that countries future. In other words there is more than one way to play the game of trade. Why is it that we MUST play the game by the rules of an administration that is rock bottom in the polls?

But our troops are not in Iraq, are they?

Scape Scape:

You say this an yet we are clearly seeing that tariffs are just taking other forms that are even more expensive that the tariffs we had under the GATT THAT WERE AT LEAST LEGAL. How is this version of 'free trade' to be peddled as anything but collusion to a foreign power?

You make a really interesting point because nontariff barriers are a large hinderance to trade. But that's why there have been multiple rounds of negotiation by the GATT and the WTO. By scrapping the rounds of the WTO, you again increase those nontariff barriers. The tariffs you rightly decry as being more expensive become even more expensive.

Saudi Arabia just became the 149th member of the WTO. You have to ask yourself Scape that if the WTO is merely obsequious collusion to an imperial America why virtually the entire planet is part of it? Surely to goodness everyone isn't selling their birthright, are they?

And Canada loses its appeal at the WTO on softwood lumber which is why you need NAFTA. So those tariffs that are illegal under NAFTA are legal under the WTO and would have been at the GATT.

Scape Scape:

Argentina had a warm welcome to that idea.

You mean a warm welcome to too much borrowing at the provincial and national level, and an unrealistic currency peg brought about by decades of hyperinflation due to the nationalistic and wealth re-distribution policies of the Argentine government designed to promote domestic industry and to lift people out of poverty?

Scape Scape:

I have said that NAFTA is not a trade deal it is a resource grab. It has made passing laws by domestic government suspect to lawsuits by companies based in foreign soil, thus they have say over the people of the land that voted in the government. Is that democratic? Is it even a 'free market' worthy of Hayek?

ABSOLUTELY!

Adherence to contract law is paramount to the functioning of a market and is critical to economic growth. By codifying laws pertaining to commercial transactions, be it internally or externally, the economic agents understand the bounds by which they are held, and are able to seek redress if contracts are violated. This is most beneficial to the weaker party, which in this case is Canada. Otherwise, Canadian interests are subject to the vagaries of the American legal and political system, of which Canada will lose 49 times out of 50.

Before NAFTA and the WTO - and this includes under the GATT - if the United States slapped tariffs on Canadian goods, the only thing a Canadian company could do was to sue in American courts or try to get American law changed. Good luck! But now, Canada can go to a body to argue its dispute, and if it favours Canada, the United States must (or is supposed to) abide by that decision. Now, obviously, the retort is "softwood lumber." And you are absolutely correct - the Americans are being jackasses over this decision and are in the wrong. However, without NAFTA, Canada has no leg to stand on at all. The softwood lumber issue is done, finished, over. At least with NAFTA, Canada has leverage.

Scape Scape:

You can not argue that Bush has spent more than every other president before him combined.

Well, that's an exageration, but I agree with the point you are making.

Scape Scape:

He has ruined a superpower.

No he has not. I'm not sure if he's helped it though.

Scape Scape:

Do you believe the terror laws will be repealed or do you think they will compound?

The egregious laws will be repealed. America, despite its historical contradictions, puts more emphasis on individual liberty than any other nation on the planet (that I can think of.) The ideals of America are, IMHO, the most noble in the world, even if the United States has trouble applying them at times. Those ideals are pervasive and strong in American culture, and the force of those ideals will eventually beat back these intrusive government laws.

Scape Scape:

Thanks for the offer but no. I will take rum, rye, whiskey, bourbon, beer...

Any time Scape.

[Thematic-Device]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:

Suncor (its publicly traded of course, but based in canada)


Suncor wasn't a typo, I wasn't referring to Sunoco, I was referring to suncor the company, headquartered in calgary, which is involved in mining tar sands, and which is involved in erecting massive solar farms. Which similiarly makes up nearly 40% of some mutual funds investments in the sector.

I realize that. I used to work there. Suncor is owned by Sunoco. 'Suncor' might be based in Calgary, but it is only the Canadian arm of a US company.

No... No it isn't

$1:

Please note, Sunoco in Canada is unrelated to Sunoco in the United States
which is operated by Sunoco Inc. of Philadelphia, PA.
This page is maintained by Suncor Energy Products Inc.,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Suncor Energy Inc.

http://www.sunoco.com/

$1:

Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:

How so? Almost every single one of the arrangements has been for trade, the rest have been about increased mobility between the nations.

There are also the issues of Border Integration, harmonization of security, and laws. Read the Vive links, or Mel Hurtig's "The Vanishing Country".

Yes, thus mainly the reduction of customs between the nations. The security bit is something almost all countries have been doing with each other for a long time, particularly in the area of airports. Yet no country has lost its sovereignty over it.

[American]

I remember as a kid that my dad would get free drinking glasses at Sunoco when he would fill up. They had about four or five different kinds of gasoline too, kinda funny.

[DrCaleb]

Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:

No... No it isn't

Please note, Sunoco in Canada is unrelated to Sunoco in the United States

Yes, something has changed since I worked there, which I don't understand yet. The whole time I was there, it was common knowledge (perhaps incorrect) that Sunoco owned Suncor. Perhaps Suncor was split off . . .

But I did find:

Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
7800 E. Orchard Rd., Suite 300, Greenwood Village,
Colorado 80111, U.S.A.
tel: (303) 793-8000 fax: (303) 793-8003

I don't know if it's a branch or what.

[Toro]

That's Suncor's American subsidiary. No relation to Sunoco.

Its confusing, I know.

[Thematic-Device]

The fact that their are two sunocos, with nearly identicle logos, one in canada, one in the states, which are completely unrelated is bad enough.

[Scape]

Toro Toro:

Saudi Arabia just became the 149th member of the WTO. You have to ask yourself Scape that if the WTO is merely obsequious collusion to an imperial America why virtually the entire planet is part of it? Surely to goodness everyone isn't selling their birthright, are they?

And Canada loses its appeal at the WTO on softwood lumber which is why you need NAFTA. So those tariffs that are illegal under NAFTA are legal under the WTO and would have been at the GATT.

As WTO was the preamble for FTA I would remove it (and so would Heyak purists) as well. There is a disconnect between political globalization and economic globalization. This book: Globalization and Its Discontents explains it well. There is currently a 55% tariff on Mexican cement, however there is a cement shortage right now. Why? Mexico should be able to sell to the US but it seems NAFTA has failed it as well. How do you define insanity?
The WTO is trying its hand at an age old game called monopoly. Want trade? Trade by WTO (and then FTA, NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA etc, etc) rules or your not allowed to play. This is an entirely different animal than the free market Hayek is talking about. This is old boys club cronies and the fact that the WTO has taken so long to get this this many members means they are not about free markets at all. If they were the whole world would have joined shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Scape Scape:

Argentina had a warm welcome to that idea.

Toro Toro:

You mean a warm welcome to too much borrowing at the provincial and national level, and an unrealistic currency peg brought about by decades of hyperinflation due to the nationalistic and wealth re-distribution policies of the Argentine government designed to promote domestic industry and to lift people out of poverty?

You mean the terms that the world bank imposed upon them? Co-op hotel's have sprung up from the ashes of cut and run robber barons. I am not saying governments in south America are not corrupt or inept but rather overwhelmed and given only Faustian solutions via the world bank that had them liquidate the countries riches. The Privatization of Water is not the yellow brick road solution here and that is essentially the exit strategy the rich countries are offering the people of Latin America and that is why they riot.

Scape Scape:

I have said that NAFTA is not a trade deal it is a resource grab. It has made passing laws by domestic government suspect to lawsuits by companies based in foreign soil, thus they have say over the people of the land that voted in the government. Is that democratic? Is it even a 'free market' worthy of Hayek?

Toro Toro:

ABSOLUTELY!

[rtfm]

Toro Toro:

Adherence to contract law is paramount to the functioning of a market and is critical to economic growth. By codifying laws pertaining to commercial transactions, be it internally or externally, the economic agents understand the bounds by which they are held, and are able to seek redress if contracts are violated. This is most beneficial to the weaker party, which in this case is Canada. Otherwise, Canadian interests are subject to the vagaries of the American legal and political system, of which Canada will lose 49 times out of 50.

Contracts, at the most basic level are based on TRUST. If party A knows he is being exploited he will not deal with party B in the 1st place. This is why it is paramount to unify the disconnect between economic and political globalization or it will fail. If a country such as Canada can't get the US to agree to terms under NAFTA how is a country like Belize going to deal? Bargaining in good faith is an investment in future markets. The economic globalization is bargaining on expediency alone and is short sighted in scope. If Globalization is to work the way it is supposed to then the trust that the contracts are based upon must never be swept aside as some ideological dream.

Toro Toro:

Before NAFTA and the WTO - and this includes under the GATT - if the United States slapped tariffs on Canadian goods, the only thing a Canadian company could do was to sue in American courts or try to get American law changed. Good luck! But now, Canada can go to a body to argue its dispute, and if it favours Canada, the United States must (or is supposed to) abide by that decision. Now, obviously, the retort is "softwood lumber." And you are absolutely correct - the Americans are being jackasses over this decision and are in the wrong. However, without NAFTA, Canada has no leg to stand on at all. The softwood lumber issue is done, finished, over. At least with NAFTA, Canada has leverage.

This is akin to saying that the US with the tariffs performed a suplex on Canada and a cop (Chapter 11) said it was criminal but couldn't do anything and then the US gets a WWF referee (WTO) to come in and say that it was a legal wrestling move. C'MON! This is utter horse shit! Do you really believe anyone is taking good faith bargaining by the US seriously anymore?

[BeaverBill]

http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca/nafta/ ... _2001.html

"OPEN LETTER TO MUNICIPALITIES RE: PRIVATIZATION OF SEYMOUR WATERSHED
GVRD POISED TO JEOPARDIZE CONTROL AND SAFETY OF OUR WATER SUPPLY

DECISION WILL IMPACT ON ALL MUNICIPALITIES DUE TO INTERNATIONAL TREATIES


To All Municipal Councillors:

Consistent with an Agreement on Internal Trade between provinces and our federal government, and due to the federal governments promises via international treaties, there is an unhealthy expectation and attitude swallowing the administrative arm of all levels of government. That attitude is that Canada’s historic successful practice of public responsibility for certain essentials such as our water protection must be ended and handed over to private control and ownership. The tragic deaths from contaminated water in Walkerton Ontario we now know had everything to do with the cessation of public control of the water protection, i.e., deregulation and privatization.

The GVRD is well advanced in its plan to privatize the operation of water systems in the lower mainland (the Seymour Watershed) which has been under public control and protection since the 1930's. (Final decision apparently set for July 2001.) A recent Ipsos Reid Poll shows that 91% of people in the lower mainland are unaware of the GVRD’s plans and of those who did know, 64% were opposed.

Existing international treaties like NAFTA, the GATS and the WTO already do impact municipal authority. The companies shortlisted to design, build, and operate the Seymour project are all transnational, i.e., foreign. They are sophisticated players familiar with the international rules. Already they have had great advantage in other countries in overwhelming the local authorities. Their work to design build and operate the Seymour project will be considered an “investment” under NAFTA. They are“Investors” under NAFTA able to invoke Chapter 11 discipline of NAFTA for compensation to them of any municipal action or decision that diminishes their profitability. This puts them into a privileged position via NAFTA and disadvantages the authority of the municipalities. Any step to ensure safe drinking water standards, any remedial orders of health officials, any effort by the municipalities to provide local economic benefits are all subject to damage awards in millions of dollars if not billions by a NAFTA Tribunal for loss of profit. Even a decision to terminate the contract for sound public interest reasons can result in an outrageous compensation package in the millions or billions due to the NAFTA Tribunal rulings in definition of expropriation as applied under NAFTA........ "

[DrCaleb]

BeaverBill BeaverBill:

Even a decision to terminate the contract for sound public interest reasons can result in an outrageous compensation package in the millions or billions due to the NAFTA Tribunal rulings in definition of expropriation as applied under NAFTA........ "

Now *that's what I'm talking about!

[Scape]

That is the extortion, not trust, that the deal is based upon and why it must be scrapped.

[Toro]

Scape Scape:

As WTO was the preamble for FTA I would remove it (and so would Heyak purists) as well.

Hayek purist would say that we should open all our borders immediately, even if other countries do not. Read about trade at Cafe Hayek.

Scape Scape:

There is a disconnect between political globalization and economic globalization. This book: Globalization and Its Discontents explains it well.

I've read part of that book and plan to finish it. Here are two books that offer a counter-argument, Why Globalization Works, which is a terrific compendium of data, and In Defense of Globalization.

Scape Scape:

There is currently a 55% tariff on Mexican cement, however there is a cement shortage right now. Why? Mexico should be able to sell to the US but it seems NAFTA has failed it as well. How do you define insanity?

So you think that all tariffs should come down? I agree with you. Unfortunately, political interests get involved in negotiations either for economic or political reasons, and not everything is always a desirous outcome. That's the political process. But to argue that we shouldn't have trade agreements because everything isn't perfect is surely fatuous.

Scape Scape:

The WTO is trying its hand at an age old game called monopoly. Want trade? Trade by WTO (and then FTA, NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA etc, etc) rules or your not allowed to play. This is an entirely different animal than the free market Hayek is talking about. This is old boys club cronies and the fact that the WTO has taken so long to get this this many members means they are not about free markets at all. If they were the whole world would have joined shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Again, wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in a perfect world. But politics doesn't work that way because what's perfect for me isn't necessarily perfect for you. What matters is what can be accomplished in the real world, not some fantasist argument about a perfect utopia. Then, to argue that we shouldn't move towards an optimal solution because we cannot attain this fantasy utopia is silly to say the least.

And its utterly false to say that there is a monopoly on trade because there will be trade nonetheless, but less of it if nations do not sign these trade treaties. Or the arguer of the point doesn't understand the practical political processes and problems inherant in negotiating any treaty or any contract. At its heart, trade negotiations are mercantilist since its about trade-offs. But by trading off concessions towards less trade restrictions, nations move towards better solutions. To argue otherwise is to accept the notion that Canada should not retaliate in the softwood lumber dispute (which is the correct economic, if not political, response) because it hurts our interests to do so.

Scape Scape:

You mean the terms that the world bank imposed upon them? Co-op hotel's have sprung up from the ashes of cut and run robber barons. I am not saying governments in south America are not corrupt or inept but rather overwhelmed and given only Faustian solutions via the world bank that had them liquidate the countries riches.

Are you kidding me? The problem with what happened in Argentina was not "forcing" debt on Argentina. Argentina kept coming back for more and more and the IMF didn't have the balls to tell Argentina to take a hike earlier - which ironically would have been a better solution since the negative outcome that followed certainly would have been less if Argentina had been cut off. A good book on Argentina that takes Argentina, Wall Street and the IMF to task.

Scape Scape:

The Privatization of Water is not the yellow brick road solution here and that is essentially the exit strategy the rich countries are offering the people of Latin America and that is why they riot.

Well, since you brought up water

$1:

More than a billion people worldwide lack access to clean, safe water. Some 12 million people die annually as a result, and millions more are struck by diseases associated with the lack of sanitary water. Those afflicted live mainly in poor countries where water distribution is run by inefficient public providers—97 percent of all water distribution in poor countries is public.

In recent years, a small number of developing country governments have turned to the private sector for help. Swedish activist and author Fredrik Segerfeldt shows how millions of new households in places as diverse as Argentina, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Morocco, have been connected to water networks as a result of private investment.

But “privatization” of water distribution has met with stiff resistance. A coalition of NGOs and special interests argues that water is a human right and that the private sector would hike rates beyond the ability of the poor to pay. Segerfeldt reviews cases of privatization and shows that most claims of the anti-privatization lobby are unfounded.

The very poor who are not connected to any water network have the most to gain from privatization since the rates they pay -- 12 times more on average than the price of network water -- fall dramatically when private companies connect them to the network. Using statistical data Segerfeldt warns against the tragic consequences of paying heed to those who are driven by an anti-business ideological agenda rather than a desire to try policies that actually help the poor.

Scape Scape:

Contracts, at the most basic level are based on TRUST. If party A knows he is being exploited he will not deal with party B in the 1st place.

Contracts are most definitely NOT based on trust. That's the reason why you sign the contract in the first place! If it was all about trust, then you wouldn't need the contract. The reason why you sign the contract is to ensure that the opposite party undertakes the terms negotiated.

Scape Scape:

This is why it is paramount to unify the disconnect between economic and political globalization or it will fail. If a country such as Canada can't get the US to agree to terms under NAFTA how is a country like Belize going to deal? Bargaining in good faith is an investment in future markets. The economic globalization is bargaining on expediency alone and is short sighted in scope. If Globalization is to work the way it is supposed to then the trust that the contracts are based upon must never be swept aside as some ideological dream.

Again, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a perfect world. But its not. Its messy. And that's why countries sign agreements like the WTO and NAFTA. These agreements allow for an institutionalized response when contracts are violated, a quasi-court if you will, where the terms of the contract are enforced. These are breakthroughs, and generally work. The opponents say "Well, they don't ALWAYS work." Again, wouldn't it be nice if the real world didn't always intrude. But surely, its better to go to an international body in an attempt to resolve a dispute than be left to the vagaries of the American political and legal process. To say that we should scrap these agreements is tacitly accepting that Canada is better off fighting in the American system than the international system. Surely, no one thinks this to be the case.

[Scape]

Toro Toro:

But to argue that we shouldn't have trade agreements because everything isn't perfect is surely fatuous.

I do not expect perfection, I aim for it and I expect the same of trade agreements. I do not consider trivial errors as something to ditch a trade pact I expect the forces of negation and give and take to hammer out an agreement that to the best interest of all involved. I do consider major breaches of protocol a different matter. Categorizing it as 'not perfect' is fatuous. I would hope that if the US was to sell it's third largest energy producer to another country that the congress and senate would raise hell and it would be considered sacrilegious to even consider if Exxon was to be sold to Yukos for example. So why is the bar so much lower when you consider Terasen gas being sold to Kinder Morgan without even a public discussion? Sorry. Private water may be your idea of paradise, I don't buy it. It costs way more that your admitting to and that's a sin and infringes upon a countries industries ability to compete on the world stage. Imaging if health care was privatized and we had a hospital on every street we would not be a healthy society, we would be a fleeced one that would be sold sickness for profit. I find the very idea of auctioning off the country to the highest bidder repugnant at best and treason at worst.

Toro Toro:

To argue otherwise is to accept the notion that Canada should not retaliate in the softwood lumber dispute (which is the correct economic, if not political, response) because it hurts our interests to do so.

Ok, so like I said, if Yuko's bought Exxon... looking strictly via an economic lens we should be trading more with slave labour and no one should be paid more than a nickle a week. There is more to this of course but as water travels to the path of least resistance so too do markets. Imagine if the big three decided to make hybrids instead of SUV's where they would be today? In hind sight we can say, yep bad move. If they could make a car that could last longer than the warranty they wouldn't have to worry about Toyota and Hyundai. But that is not the reality why? Massive bungling by the workers? CEO's snorting too much coke? They have a vested interests in the energy industry? Well how about the Occam's Razor idea that it hurt our interests to have gas guzzlers as 'cool' in the 1st place? Ever hear of a lemming? You know what they are famous for right? This privatization of water idea has the same sent of a lemming pack...

Toro Toro:

The problem with what happened in Argentina was not "forcing" debt on Argentina. Argentina kept coming back for more and more and the IMF didn't have the balls to tell Argentina to take a hike earlier - which ironically would have been a better solution since the negative outcome that followed certainly would have been less if Argentina had been cut off.

Lemmings could have seen that one coming so why was was the IMF lending in the 1st place? Do they really have to live with the mistake? Of course not, and in the liquidation they get even more money. The IMF/World Bank/Wall Street has every reason to keep the debt tread mill running as long as someone else is footing the bill. THEY don't have to clean up after do they? They were simply following the flow of free market thinking. If debt was water...

Toro Toro:

Contracts are most definitely NOT based on trust. That's the reason why you sign the contract in the first place! If it was all about trust, then you wouldn't need the contract. The reason why you sign the contract is to ensure that the opposite party undertakes the terms negotiated.

Criminal probation is a form of a contract in that sense but that is not what I am arguing. An agreement based upon trust is the basis of a good and mutually beneficial contract between both parties. Example M.A.D. We are alive today because we TRUST that if the USSR fired anything we would fire back so no one fired a shot. Both parties could shoot at each other and there was a slim chance one side could have won but there was a much larger and far more certain chance that by abiding and trusting in that agreement the stability could be reached. In your dog eat dog world we will end up with no middle powers and only one or two major powers and many minor powers that will lined up to be gobbled up one by one. In other words, no compromise, total tyranny of the minority and a monopoly. That is not a recipe for a healthy free market system it is a disaster and a lemmings cliff. Markets are at their healthiest when there is give and take, but right now all the cards (all the important ones at least) are held by one player and that's been the plan all along.

Toto Toto:

To say that we should scrap these agreements is tacitly accepting that Canada is better off fighting in the American system than the international system.

I am saying the agreements are fixed to hamstring us all along and have been designed to do that from the beginning. That resistance to such trade practices are healthy in the long run for all parties because they will ensure self sufficiency and not dependency to a system that will be like an economic narcotic. Diversity is strength. Right now we are not trading partners we are cut throat competitors that want to kill each other. Not healthy! (unless we were at war, are we?) We need to build on collaborative, not competitive agreements.