Ceili wrote:
I have rarely had a bad encounter with an american. I have visited many places throughout the US and alway had a great time. I find most americans are just like me, my friends and family and so on. But, as a people, as a government, as a force to be reckoned with, you are rather domineering.
The government decides they don't like a policy of a trading partner they throw a embargo. This throws local economies into turmoil.
This is silly case but a highly recognizable case of american protectionism, the implications are bothersome, don't you agree? Shwarzenager(sic) (can't be bothered) decides canada - a major consumer of hollywood glitz shouldn't share in the production profits, the only? substantial agenda of his political agenda, and he gets elected.
I can readily agree with all of that. It should also be evident that I have found this thread of yours very engaging, and I appreciate the openness and intent of all the posters here. If I have offended anyone in my perhaps too vigorous defense, I apologize.
I run an environmental engineering company that employs engineers, scientists and a variety of construction folks. All very nice, amiable people. However the business we operate in remains very competitive, and some of our competitors are much larger that we. If I allow or costs to get too high or our people to lose their focus, we will lose business to our competitors and they will loose their jobs. The economic relations among free nations are like that too.
There is no doubt that U.S. companies attempt to influence our government to take actions favorable to their interests, and that sometimes they succeed, You cite a good example concerning media production in BC and Hollywood. The Californians are fairly spooked at the prospect of losing lots of production business to lower cost operations in BC, and their reactions have been decidedly protectionist (as opposed to free trade). This stuff cuts two ways too. Canada has a National health care system and has made government agencies the single buyer of pharmaceutical products as a way to leverage their buying power to the greatest effect. The results are reduced profits for the producers and manufacturers and lower prices for Canadians. This is a major distortion of a free market and a result is higher prices for everyone outside Canada. If everyone took the Canadian solution then we would soon have a socialist or government directed pharmaceutical industry - and experience shows this would soon choke off innovation, investment, and progress, harming everyone. We must deal with the consequences of your choices in this matter just as you must deal with ours in others.
There are indeed real issues on both sides of our trade disputes, and I do concede the great potential for harm that our mere size inevitably entails. (Not much we can do about that.) However the fact remains that overall Canada has for a long time been winning the trade game with the United States, and doing so by a wide margin. I believe that basic fact is too often omitted from your public discourse on trade issues.
There are other economic aspects of these trade issues as Thomas has pointed out. (I am a student of his in macroeconomics). However it remains a fact that for the trade issues in dispute, Canada, not the U.S., is the overall winner.
One could readily make a long list of defects in an admittedly dominating (or at least increasingly ubiquitous) American culture. Coarsening standards in the media, excesses by businesses, a pervasive self-preoccupation manifest in both governmental and popular actions, and much more. It's all quite visible, and I won't attempt to defend it. However, overall, I believe these attributes are more often a result of free expression, and therefore universal things, than they are a manifestation of some perverse national neurosis ('though I don't fully exclude that).
True....I imagine in both our cases, they believed the information they had was from a good source too!
