I wouldn't worry about it the dems aren't gonna win anyways Because the americans don't want either a Black president or a woman president so I wouldn't worry and MaCain is way More experienced like Harper versus Dion. so I wouldn't worry much yet.
Posted at 2008-02-27 20:31:02 [PermaLink]It gets worse. A lot worse:
[External Link]
Pure cynicism with the voters since both are too intelligent to believe NAFTA is the problem. I believe there are two countries called China and India that they may want to pick a fight with first. This reminds me of someone bullied at school who comes home to beat up on his little brother and kick the dog.
Someone should whisper the word oil in their ears as well since Canada is their primary source of imported oil and under NAFTA the U.S. is guaranteed access equal to that of Canadians.
Mark: Speaking of left wing idiots, someone has found a new home. The irony.
"Ex-CBC host Avi Lewis joins Al Jazeera"
[External Link]
John B.,
If NAFTA were flat our revoked, I think that we revert to our previous free trade agreement would come back into play and I don't think either side has an interest in messing with the energy situation. The equal access idea only comes into play on the downside of the production peak which is a long way away for the oil sands.
But you are right, they should be fighting China instead but that would not be as obscure a goal as going after NAFTA. When everyone's underpants cost 25% more, it won't be as popular as impotent hand waving about Mexicans and "lost" jobs.
If anyone wants to "find" these jobs, they simply need to follow the "Made in..." labels on the goods they purchase.
Dara:
I too thought about the previous free trade agreement, but who knows what would happen when they (i.e. Hillary and Obama) start playing politics. If elected I expect the cold dose of reality will hit right away. I expect an advisor somewhere along the way will whisper "ah, Mr. or Mrs. President, there's an elephant in the White House called China".
I would expect the equal access aspect to come into play in the event of another OPEC style embargo. Remember Canada imports about 850,000 barrels of oil per day (but exports more to the U.S.).
John,
From what I understand about the American side of the equation, there are two bills that were signed by Congress. The NAFTA bill had the effect of suspending the prior agreement, but it was never taken off the books and should be back in play "post-NAFTA".
As far as embargoes, I would think that any attempt to cut off oil from the West would result in a Pyrrhic victory at best. Consumer oil shocks in the near future will drive an increasingly feasible (not to mention inevitable) move away from oil dependence and drop the value of the remaining oil. A steady climb has more potential to keep people with options in the game longer.
Anyone who could afford to keep filling their tanks until the bitter end could probably also afford an earlier strategic investment so that they didn't have to. Especially if market conditions, like a premature artificial price spike, justified it. This would have the effect of taking the most elastic consumers out of the market early as they adopt pricier technology with a more stable (read locally determined), operating cost.
That being said, Saudi Arabia still prosecutes people for witchcraft and I doubt Hugo really cares if his people starve, so perhaps hoping for sanity and preparing for asshattery would be a good plan.