Canada launches talks with India for comprehensive free trade deal

In real terms, India isn't even in the top ten economies of the world, and are still behind Canada.

I fear for what is left of our manufacturing capacity.

When a "rich" country trades with "poor" country, wages in the rich country rise and wages in the poor country fall. How is that bad for Canada?

When a "rich" country trades with "poor" country, wages in the rich country rise and wages in the poor country fall. How is that bad for Canada?



That seems counter intuitive... one would expect wages in the rich country to drop or stagnate due to the unfettered competition from lower cost Indian companies.

But I didn't take economics post secondary, so I'm no expert.

Competition from whom? When we ship our shit jobs to Mexico (or India), we don't do them here anymore, so we're not competing. Watch the video that I posted.

What Lemmy neglects is that wages in the rich country might rise for a few, but thousands of people working in manufacturing lose their jobs and wind up as servants. And in the mean time we keep importing those Indians to depress servant wages here even more. Great deal for the techno-elite, not so much for Canadians as a whole, nor for creating a harmonious Canadian society. And the Fraser Institute has shown that immigration actually depressed professional wages by 6% as well - as we don't want to train them here but find it cheaper to import them. So I'm not sure anybody wins except to excecs and such. And the politicians.

Great scheme - we send them our jobs, they send us their surplus people.

andy, andy, andy. We're talking about international trade and you want to change the topic to immigration. Apples and oranges, mate. Try to follow along.

How can you separate the two as far as effects on the economy are concerned?

Exactly how will Canada be richer? We're not a dominant high-tech power, we're sending our mid-tech manufacturing offshore to countries like India. Meanwhile we keep importing people, depressing the labor market. Selling basic resources is all good, but I don't think can sustain us. And look at what happened to other oil economies like Holland - that didn't seem to have worked out so well for them. If we were to follow Norway's model it would be a different thing.

I we were to stop importing people, what you say might actually work out. We could be a rich, small country. But it looks like we're never going to stop, just increase immigration because we've reached critical mass and there are too many votes to be had from immigrants who want to bring half their country with them.

"free trad"?

I have to pay for my weekly case of "trad", if India wants some, make those cheap basterds pay for it!

I'm all for greater economic links with India.

Because they're different things. Your logic is like: "I'm not going to quit drinking (even though I know it'd be good for me) because I already smoke (and know that that's bad for me)".

I can't teach you a four-year degree in economics on one thread.

Sure, we're a high-tech power and we're becoming more of one each day, thanks in large part to our commitment to free trade. We WANT to send mid-tech jobs offshore. That means some short-term pain, but now, 20 years into NAFTA, we KNOW it's working. Yes, there have been costs, but we are absolutely net better-off.

I agree that our immigration policies need work. That's not a justification for throwing up a protectionist wall. You're deviating way off topic into discussions that, while interesting, are not logical arguments against free trade.

Like I said, if we drastically cut immigration, maybe this would work. All I see now is that we send more jobs to India than we get out of the deal, plus they keep sending us more people.

Who knows, maybe you're right and the trade will increase our economy. But if we wind up with a few people making out like bandits, while many people suffer, start looking more like India in terms of economic inequality, I don't think that's a good thing. Economics, which only looks at the numbers might say it's a great idea. But a broader view about what kind of country we want to live in, one that takes people's well being into account, would reveal a different picture. That's what's wrong with "it's about the economy, stupid." It's about a lot more than that.

Except that this has not been the case in China, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Jamaica, or etc.

Out of curiousity then where, exactly, does this principle of yours actually apply?

Except that this has not been the case in China, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Jamaica, or etc.

Out of curiousity then where, exactly, does this principle of yours actually apply?

Textbookistan

Except that this has not been the case in China, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Jamaica, or etc.
You're absolutely wrong. You think the wages of unskilled labour in those countries have risen as a result of trade with the west? Is that the premise you're starting from? Where the hell did you get your misinformation?


My mistake for giving you a chance to not be a troll. Back on ignore with you, this time permanently.