kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
As I said JC2 - free trade rules are fine so long as they work for North America but the idea that it might have to actually compete under the same rules is a no-no.
US loses trade dispute with Canada - refuses to pay up.
- Thread starter Johnny Canuck3
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
kyser_soze said:
What do you mean 'for north america'?
Canada and US are both in north america. Seems like they aren't working in this instance.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Sorry, US of A.
Pedant.
Or thick. It's always hard to tell with you JC
Pedant.
Or thick. It's always hard to tell with you JC
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
kyser_soze said:Sorry, US of A.
Pedant.
Or thick. It's always hard to tell with you JC
We just want our five billion.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Johnny Canuck2 said:
isnt that amount the entire yearly education budget for the us?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
tangentlama said:
According to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/education.html the request for the DOE in 2006 will be $56bn.
US GDP for 2004 is estimated at £11.74 TRILLION dollars. IN comparison the UKs is $1.782 trillion (2004 est.)
$5bn is peanuts in the US budetary hole...
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
cos they can so easily get away with it?Johnny Canuck2 said:
I mean, who's gonna really say to the US "pay up or else"?
c'mon, there's a power reality there. They just gulled you into thinking you were their bezzie mate
G. Fieendish said:
Oddly enough, last week's Economist ran an "Is the WTO actually of no use at all to free traders?" essay.
I think they think the US going to lose
Didn't they lose one just recently?
And has the banana decision come out yet? news.google.com doesn't seem to be throwing it at me...
(Gawd that one's been going on for a long time. Banner a friend made in the mid-90s:
Deutsche! Eßt nur Deutschen Bananen!
)
Well it's kind of looking as if it's going to become standard governmental policy for some governments to ignore legal rulings when they want to until they can get a different legal ruling at least, or change the law.
It's a handy thing being a government, though, you can make the law, and enforce it, but it's very difficult for people to enforce it against you.
(But an interesting case in point once was how the English Civil War started.)
It's a handy thing being a government, though, you can make the law, and enforce it, but it's very difficult for people to enforce it against you.
(But an interesting case in point once was how the English Civil War started.)
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Red Jezza said:
...maybe they gulled us, but they only got money.
With you, they got the lives of some of your soldiers.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
yeah, if Brit soldiers believe, they fight, whilst you just scream for others to do so, from the safety of the ol' armchair.Johnny Canuck2 said:
chickenhawks are 'go' tonight...., a few thousand miles away.....
CAREFUL JOHNNY! A Baghdadi might be angry with you! from 3000 miles away! better start running and hiding now!
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Red Jezza said:
We were talking about bezzie friends.
We gave our 'bezzie friend' some cash.
You gave your army.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Johnny, please acquire a brain.
'we' gave an army' - like you thoroughly approved to the extent that you, personally, would run away from crying with terror - because the Brit PM is an idiot, and believed in all that balls, and it has ruined his reputation for good. Bush actually offered him an exit
And who is 'we'? You line up thoroughly with Ye Authorities, invariably, me against them. Kindly be more careful with your use of pronouns.
you gave cash and have given up any chance of its' recovery - because you don't have the choice,, IMHO.
Now how about quitting the weaselling, and actually answering the serious question?
'we' gave an army' - like you thoroughly approved to the extent that you, personally, would run away from crying with terror - because the Brit PM is an idiot, and believed in all that balls, and it has ruined his reputation for good. Bush actually offered him an exit
And who is 'we'? You line up thoroughly with Ye Authorities, invariably, me against them. Kindly be more careful with your use of pronouns.
you gave cash and have given up any chance of its' recovery - because you don't have the choice,, IMHO.
Now how about quitting the weaselling, and actually answering the serious question?
what is the serious likelihood of Canada doing this?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I'm thinking he did.ZWord said:
i think his decision-making was based on 3 things.
1) The Labour Party is historically terrified of seeming less 'patriotic' than the Tories, and 'Patriotism' transmutes in FCO-speak into 'crawl up Yanqui back end and stay there' (as recently confirmed by Sir Christopher Meyer, KCMG - that's good enough for me!)-so they'll be worse than the oppo
2) Christian crusader zealotry over evil anti-HR bogeymen
3) desire to leave A StatesMan's Imprint On The Pages Of History.
god knows what else went through his mind.
Someone told me that a while after the war proper, someone in the house of commons asked Blair where the WMD were, and apparently, Blair just laughed -like the question was just stupid-. I didn't see it myself though.
These days I tend to think B & B just play the part of bogeymen to set the stage for the return of the messiah. Well, possibly.;
These days I tend to think B & B just play the part of bogeymen to set the stage for the return of the messiah. Well, possibly.;
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Red Jezza said:
The serious likelihood is that canada will take the us to court, or will apply its own trade sanctions.
Is that what you mean by 'or else'?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
ummm....kinda...ye-ess.Johnny Canuck2 said:
ummm...which court?
don't get ye at all. do elucidate.
and in your view what sanctions - if any - could Canada apply which would make serious impact in the US?
(I ask cos I can't think - offhand, and without trying hard - of one).
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Um, oil perhaps?Red Jezza said:ummm....kinda...ye-ess.
ummm...which court?
don't get ye at all. do elucidate.
and in your view what sanctions - if any - could Canada apply which would make serious impact in the US?
(I ask cos I can't think - offhand, and without trying hard - of one).
I have no idea what a bbl is, but i doubt the US would apreciate losing 1.6 million of them every day...
I agree with your general point, but making flawed statements doesn't help.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
but you apply trade dispute sanctions to people wishing to sell you things, not to what you want to sell them! given the diff that would make to CXanada's BoP, that would surely be cutting one's nose off...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Good point, guess that flawed statement comment is the thing nibbling on my backsideRed Jezza said:
However it would certainly screw the US of A over in a most spectacular manner, unlikely to happen but true. (Sorry old chap but we've sold it to china this month, we'd love to help you out but you know what the market is like these days..)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Bob_the_lost said:Good point, guess that flawed statement comment is the thing nibbling on my backside
However it would certainly screw the US of A over in a most spectacular manner, unlikely to happen but true. (Sorry old chap but we've sold it to china this month, we'd love to help you out but you know what the market is like these days..)
Yep, especially when you factor in that Mexican and Canadian oil incurs less transportation costs for the US oil companies than stuff shipped from Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, the Pacific Rim etc etc.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Red Jezza said:ummm....kinda...ye-ess.
ummm...which court?
don't get ye at all. do elucidate.
and in your view what sanctions - if any - could Canada apply which would make serious impact in the US?
(I ask cos I can't think - offhand, and without trying hard - of one).
Well, at least you're admitting you don't know much about NA, or about US/Canada relations.
Google US Canada trade.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Bob_the_lost said:
bbl means barrel.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
US trade with Canada, i.e. sales, is about 450 billion per year, which is more than it trades with all the EU combined.
Similar threads
