Chrétien to step down

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Even as the "Eastern bastards", as it were, sent your company into Chapter 11 and fed you a pink slip? That's where the attitude comes from, you know.

No that remark comes from the attitude: "I'm all right jack, screw you." It has nothing to do with any Eastern Bastard laying off people in Alberta.

Originally posted by Asher
You're the one who brought it up and said we deserved it. You bring it up, expect an earful.

Your comment has nothing to do with my comment.

Originally posted by Asher
You don't think they're justified for leaving the price regulated by the market? Most people wouldn't agree with you that have a clue how economics works...

Well, if you knew anything about economics, you would realize that your comment is completely naive.

In times of high inflation, governments routinely step in to bring prices down (what should be done to bring prices down is extensively debated). No one leaves it to the market.

For example, in 1988 inflation hits about 5 per cent in Ontario (in the rest of the country, it is running at a managable 2-3 per cent). The Bank of Canada jacks up interest rates in an effort to push down prices. The result is a made-in-Canada recession, which would be quickly followed by a global recession.

This, by the way, is a prime example about how the idiots in Ottawa screwed the rest of the country for the sake of Ontario. And those of us in Ontario who were hit by the recession were more than empathetic to the complaints from out west.

Originally posted by Asher
Was it understandable for Albertans to want the market to regulate the market, rather than an outsider step in and strip away profits and drive away foreign investment on top of setting artificial pricecaps to help out people far away?

The market does not regulate itself in times of major upheaval. See: the Great Depression in England 1890s, the Great Depression in the 1930s, the oil crisis and stagflation in the 1970s, the Asian Crisis 1997, and so on.

Edit: of course it was understandable because most Albertans were benefiting from the upheaval created by massive oil price hikes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
No that remark comes from the attitude: "I'm all right jack, screw you." It has nothing to do with any Eastern Bastard laying off people in Alberta.

Not exactly. The reason why they actually said that was because of Trudeau forcing them to sell the oil substantially below market costs, while at the same time literally putting 100s of Alberta businesses out of business at the same time.

They certainly weren't alright by the time they said this, they were hurting and hurting badly. That's why they were mad.

It's like when you're swimming with someone and suddenly the person next to you can't swim anymore and starts sinking, and his solution is to grab onto you and pull you down with him.

Well, if you knew anything about economics, you would realize that your comment is completely naive.

In times of high inflation, governments routinely step in to bring prices down (what should be done to bring prices down is extensively debated). No one leaves it to the market.

You'll be very hard pressed to find an economist who will be enthusiastic of putting artificial price caps on a hot commodity and an attempt to close off your country from outside economy's in that very market.

Find me another example where a non-Liberal government (they clearly don't understand economics ) steps in to "bring the price down" and it helps everyone involved.

The entire's world oil market was pricey at the time, it was a stupid, stupid move to cap the price and discourage foreign investment as well as forcing oil producers to sell to certain people.

The market does not regulate itself in times of major upheaval. See: the Great Depression in England 1890s, the Great Depression in the 1930s, the oil crisis and stagflation in the 1970s, the Asian Crisis 1997, and so on.

The reason why the market didn't regulate itself in the case of Canada in the late 70s and early 80s is only because the government step in, the general consensus among economists (and at the very least the PhDs) was that trudeau's NEP did more harm than good. His heart may have been in the right place but he made a huge mess out of it.

[blackice]

Only to one such as you with no clue what so ever.

more harm than good.

Just in one article in one magazine you continue to use.
Your simply wrong and Alberta today is reaping the benifits of the harm he did.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, I don't need to live through the times to see what happened. In this modern world of ours we keep documents and records of what happen.

I don't need to understand the background, because it's irrelevant. Anyone with an economics degree could have told you what Trudeau was planning was economically unsound and could have predicted it'd lead to economic disaster -- and it did. Whether he meant good by it and thought he was doing everyone a favor is totally irrelevant.

If you don't understand the background, you won't understand the events.

The study of history requires historians to take into account the background of events and how people thought at the time. This is something that amatuer historians routinely forget.

For example, it is easy to question the behaviour of French and British politicians towards Hitler in the 1930s now that we know what Hitler did. But at the time, these politicians were strongly influenced by the fact that millions of their countrymen had died in a war that didn't accomplish anything.

Another example: To understand why the Americans ended up creating the Vietnam War, you need to understand what was happening throughout the world and how Americans viewed the world at that time.

As for the idea that economists could have predicted the results of the NEP, you obviously don't know the old joke that economists have predicted 10 of the last five recessions.

For every economist who predicted doom and gloom, there were other economists who predicted that the country would be better off with the NEP (not that they would admit that now).

There were no obvious answers at that time.

[Asher]

If there's no obvious answers, why was there an obvious need to do something?

Everyone knows the economy works in cycles, the problem would have simply gone away on its own, it was foolish to interfere, especially when the government appeared to be so clueless (or perhaps they didn't care) of the effects on the Alberta oilpatch.

[notyoueither]

Musical interlude...

http://lyrics.lipetsk.ru/search.html?band=Showdown

What do you think? Jean... Johnny?

Or is Johnny the RL name of blackice?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Not exactly. The reason why they actually said that was because of Trudeau forcing them to sell the oil substantially below market costs, while at the same time literally putting 100s of Alberta businesses out of business at the same time.

I can't recall when that phrase first started being heard, but I believe it was in 79 based on personal recollection. You say it was after the NEP was in place. Any links to prove that or is this an assumption.

Originally posted by Asher
You'll be very hard pressed to find an economist who will be enthusiastic of putting artificial price caps on a hot commodity and an attempt to close off your country from outside economy's in that very market.

The general consensus today is that creating price caps doesn't work, but that reflects the swing towards the right and the Chicago School. I can tell you that when I did an economics degree in the 1980s, there was still a lot of argument about it.

Even today, there is disagreement about placing controls on the market place. China has strict control over its currency markets, a policy that has been routinely attacked by economists, businesspeople, politicians in the west. Yet, China was able to survive the Asian crisis with little damage because of these controls.

China also has strict control over its market (although these controls are being reduced) and yet China's economy has boomed for the past 20-odd years.

Things are not as clear cut as you suggest.

Originally posted by Asher
Find me another example where a non-Liberal government (they clearly don't understand economics ) steps in to "bring the price down" and it helps everyone involved.

During the 1970s (in 74 I think), the conservative Ontario government introduced rent controls. Landlords and property developers screamed bloodly murder and predicted the economy would collapse. It did not. Millions of Ontarians benefited from the controls while landlords were still able to make money.

Originally posted by Asher
The reason why the market didn't regulate itself in the case of Canada in the late 70s and early 80s is only because the government step in

Wrong. The oil price hikes during the 70s was caused by OPEC and then by the the chaos in Iran that significantly reduced the supply of oil to the west. This was a global phenomena and it cannot be blamed on PET.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
If there's no obvious answers, why was there an obvious need to do something?

The answer to this question can be found by understanding what was occuring at that time, the stuff that you describe as irrelevant.

You have suggested that you have studied the NEP extensively and implied that you have taken courses about it. I'm surprised you were not taught about the background to the NEP.

Originally posted by Asher
Everyone knows the economy works in cycles, the problem would have simply gone away on its own, it was foolish to interfere, especially when the government appeared to be so clueless (or perhaps they didn't care) of the effects on the Alberta oilpatch.

Everyone knows that everyone doesn't know or agree upon the same thing.

No one in the world leaves the markets alone to work through a cycle.

The U.S. Federal Reserve routinely steps into the market to manage these cycles. When the economy is booming, interest rates are increased to prevent the economy from overheating. With the U.S. economy in a recession, the Feds step in by lowering interest rates in an attempt to spark economic growth.

Central banks throughout the world do the same thing.

Governments try to influence cycles by raising or cutting taxes and spending.

EDIT: Conservatives love to talk about leaving the market place alone. The reality is government always interfere in the marketplace, and every economist would agree that some form of intervention is required (the level of intervention is extensively debated).

[Asher]

Why don't you look at the rent caps the NDP did in BC recently, Tingkai, that failed miserably as well.

And I never said PET caused the problem, he just made it worse.

And what exactly do you mean it reduced the supply of oil to the west? The west is a producer of Oil...

It was a global phenomena, PET simply amplified the problem a great deal with his closed-market price-capped policies.

I feel like I'm repeating myself and still you misunderstand me? I'll say it again.

PET didn't cause the global recession during that time. PET did make it far worse for the West than it needed to be.

PET probably didn't do it to intentionally harm the west, it was just a really dumb idea. Honestly I'm hearing you tell me they didn't know it was a bad thing to do at the time, but I have a really hard time seeing it. It goes against economic theories suggested by Adam Smith way way before the 70s, so I don't know why they thought it might have been a GoodThing^TM way back then. It seems boneheaded to me. You may be right, but it doesn't matter to me -- the NEP was very bad for the west, and it's very poor taste for you to say the West got their "just deserts" since we didn't protest en masse when Trudeau (who was elected by central/eastern Canada for the most part) did the War Measures Act.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Governments try to influence cycles by raising or cutting taxes and spending.

How often do these governments take an open market and close it off while it's booming?
How often do these governments place a massive pricecap and mandate producers sell to certain other people?

Questions...Questions...

I realize you're talking about general government intervention, and I do agree the market needs it to some limited extent, but nowhere near the extent PET did.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


I can't recall when that phrase first started being heard, but I believe it was in 79 based on personal recollection. You say it was after the NEP was in place. Any links to prove that or is this an assumption.

There was no reason to say it earlier.

It had something to do with a televised address where Lougheed mentioned the possibility of shutting down production from existing wells and preventing transit to the East. 'Turn off the taps' I believe he said.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/com/Room...+Pipelines.htm
BTW, did I ever say that you should not annoy the citizens of Edmonton? Could be bad.

Nothing ever came of it of course. It was the shoot from the hip reaction of a leader dealing with a situation without many precedents. It isn't often the federal government roles back the BNA act and many subsequent acts and agreements by saying 'we want to'.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Why don't you look at the rent caps the NDP did in BC recently, Tingkai, that failed miserably as well.

In your opinion. Care to post some information that backs up this claim? (I'll check whatever you post later. I've got to sign off soon).

Originally posted by Asher
And what exactly do you mean it reduced the supply of oil to the west? The west is a producer of Oil...

Ah, I see the problem. In the context of my comments, West referred to Europe and North America, not western Canada

Originally posted by Asher
It was a global phenomena, PET simply amplified the problem a great deal with his closed-market price-capped policies.

The global phemonena was massive hikes in oil prices, high inflation, and high interest rates. NEP did not affect any of these global factors.

Originally posted by Asher
PET didn't cause the global recession during that time. PET did make it far worse for the West than it needed to be.

Maybe for Alberta, but not for the rest of the country. And if we look from a national perspective, did the NEP create more benefits to the country as a whole than detriments to the country as a whole? I don't have the answer to that one off hand.

Originally posted by Asher
PET probably didn't do it to intentionally harm the west, it was just a really dumb idea. Honestly I'm hearing you tell me they didn't know it was a bad thing to do at the time, but I have a really hard time seeing it. It goes against economic theories suggested by Adam Smith way way before the 70s, so I don't know why they thought it might have been a GoodThing^TM way back then.

Based on the context of the reference to Adam Smith, I would have to assume that you believe Smith was in favour of a completely free marketplace with no trade barriers. That assumption is incorrect. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued in favour of having some controls over certain industries. One example being any industry related to national defence.

Originally posted by Asher
It seems boneheaded to me. You may be right, but it doesn't matter to me -- the NEP was very bad for the west, and it's very poor taste for you to say the West got their "just deserts" since we didn't protest en masse when Trudeau (who was elected by central/eastern Canada for the most part) did the War Measures Act.

Are you still whining about that. You have repeatedly said that you think it was in bad taste. That's your opinion. I disagree. Either way, enough already. You have persistently whined about this for weeks and weeks. Get over it, move on, not everyone in life is nice. Since you know I don't really care about it, you should have take a humorous approach or ignored it altogether. It's not worth everyone's time to keep whining.


EDIT: Gotta go. Talk to you guys later.

[blackice]

What do you mean Asher taking American owned, controled oil industry 83% at the time and making it Canadian owned? 43% by 1980. That was bad? Or was it taking the linkages to the oil field which Alberta nor Canada saw and returning it to Alberta's and Canada's hand.

The Nep was far more reaching as a policy than robbing Albertans.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In your opinion. Care to post some information that backs up this claim? (I'll check whatever you post later. I've got to sign off soon).

Again, it was a case study in an economics class I took last year. I'm sure there's lots of stories on the internet about it, but it's weird to search for and I'm really not in the mood. Feel free to disregard the comment since I'm being too lazy to substantiate it though.

The global phemonena was massive hikes in oil prices, high inflation, and high interest rates. NEP did not affect any of these global factors.

Didn't say it did. It simply amplified the local factors in Alberta substantially.

Maybe for Alberta, but not for the rest of the country. And if we look from a national perspective, did the NEP create more benefits to the country as a whole than detriments to the country as a whole? I don't have the answer to that one off hand.

I don't see how anyone could say it overall benefitted the nation more than it hurt it. He castrated the only region that wasn't being really hurt by the recession for minimal and very temporary benefits to eastern Canada, and severely hampered foreign relations and scared US corporations from potential foriegn investment for years after (maybe this was part of the plan all along? )

Based on the context of the reference to Adam Smith, I would have to assume that you believe Smith was in favour of a completely free marketplace with no trade barriers. That assumption is incorrect. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued in favour of having some controls over certain industries. One example being any industry related to national defence.

Oh, I completely agree. In fact in the archives I'm sure there's a thread about that very topic I posted a while back when doing research for an essay I wrote on Smith. Few people was in favor of unionized workers, for instance.

Are you still whining about that. You have repeatedly said that you think it was in bad taste. That's your opinion. I disagree. Either way, enough already. You have persistently whined about this for weeks and weeks. Get over it, move on, not everyone in life is nice. Since you know I don't really care about it, you should have take a humorous approach or ignored it altogether. It's not worth everyone's time to keep whining.

Touche, except I was responding to your posts which have routinely blasted both my and nye's participation in this thread, since you still don't seem capable of understanding exactly what you did wrong.

Some people take longer to learn than others, it seems.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
What do you mean Asher taking American owned, controled oil industry 83% at the time and making it Canadian owned? 43% by 1980. That was bad? Or was it taking the linkages to the oil field which Alberta nor Canada saw and returning it to Alberta's and Canada's hand.

Why don't you come back and play with real figures rather than market share percentages? When you drive away all of the American interests, the Canadian market share will increase but the reality of the situation is you haven't helped the Canadian businesses one bit, you've simply driven away billions of dollars of potential foreign investment.

The Nep was far more reaching as a policy than robbing Albertans.

Yeah, it was. As I've said repeatedly, it did some good things, mostly bad. The net effect was a negative one, which is why it's treated as a case study as a "what not to do" in even introductory economics textbooks now.

[notyoueither]

It's the buggering of Albertans that was and is our concern.

[blackice]

I don't see how anyone could say it overall benefitted the nation more than it hurt it.

Becuase it did look at the facts as a nation not just Alberta.

maybe this was part of the plan all along?

No but it was partly to do with keeping the country here secure, and the Americans free hands off or natural resources at the time.

you've simply driven away billions of dollars of potential foreign investment.

Foriegn ownership of a countries natural resources is not such a good idea is it.

case study

The nep or the other policies Pet did. I think you are confusing the two.

It's the buggering of Albertans that was and is our concern.

All to clear, Canada can fvck themselves as far as you two are concerned.

[Asher]

Foreign ownership isn't such a bad thing, the world is getting to be such a globalized force, US foreign ownership in Canada shouldn't be such a critical threat that thousands of jobs are expendable simply so we can have a nice percentage so you feel more independent.

All to clear, Canada can fvck themselves as far as you two are concerned.

Ever heard of a thing called the Golden Rule?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by blackice

All to clear, Canada can fvck themselves as far as you two are concerned.

No. But you can.

[Loif]

Originally posted by blackice
Loif I think you missed the point I was making.

Please do elaborate on what you meant then because the way you worded it means that whoever Ontario votes for will win federal elections.

after edit: what is it with blackcie? Whenever he starts to slip a little in the debating department he resorts to calling people names and telling them to do things that are anatomically impossible.

[blackice]

I would like to address your continued comment on exploration dropping with the NEP Asher.

Look at the major players at the time 1973-1980 and what they invested.

Imperial (Esso) Foreign ownership, Revenue in the millions 4,211 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 178 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 4.23


Shell Foreign, Revenue in the millions 2,391 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 69 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 2.89

Gulf Foreign, Revenue in the millions 2,193 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 104 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 4.74

Texaco Foreign, Revenue in the millions 1,641 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 0 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 0.00

British Petroleum Foreign, Revenue in the millions 650 Expenditure on exploration in the millions0 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 0.00

Petro-Canada* Canadian, Public Revenue in the millions 525 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 311 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 59.24

Dome Canadian Private, Revenue in the millions 512 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 229 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 44.73

* Because Petro-Canada was not operational for the entire period covered, its figures are for 1977 to 1980. Source: Means calculated from figures in James Laxer, Oil and Gas: Ottawa, the Provinces and the Petroleum Industry (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1983), p. 195 (Table 3) and p. 196 (Table 4).

So you see Asher your wrong again in fact exploration went way up after NEP... Some of the things you say are honestly come by. As I said they did and still do teach these things out there but they are wrong...

Not only did it go way up as a result of the NEP but the companies investing the money were Canadian companies not foreign as would have us believe.

Now a small Canadian company's shares of operating revenue retained went from 74% before NEP to 102% after NEP.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
I would like to address your continued comment on exploration dropping with the NEP Asher.

Look at the major players at the time 1973-1980 and what they invested.

So you see Asher your wrong again in fact exploration went way up after NEP... Some of the things you say are honestly come by. As I said they did and still do teach these things out there but they are wrong...

You're not seriously saying this, right? Somebody pinch me...

First of all, look at the dates for that. Then look at the exploration numbers. What point were you trying to make?

I say this because both of my parents worked in oil&gas exploration and both of them for major US oil companies at the time, and there was without a doubt a major cutback in US exploration. In fact, you've said it yourself as one of the major points of the NEP...

Now a small Canadian company's shares of operating revenue retained went from 74% before NEP to 102% after NEP.

102% eh?

[blackice]

Foreign ownership isn't such a bad thing, the world is getting to be such a globalized force, US foreign ownership in Canada shouldn't be such a critical threat that thousands of jobs are expendable simply so we can have a nice percentage so you feel more independent.

Again as Taki vainly tries to point out to you NOT back then and not at that time..

Please do elaborate on what you meant then because the way you worded it means that whoever Ontario votes for will win federal elections.

CA will win in the west, PC in Ontario but doubt if Harris is in they will get much in the west or Quebec or the East coast. That leaves a lot of room for Liberals and a very interesting election.
Now this should be clear to a guy who's party did well with a guy who was liked in his province no? Seemed to go right over his head.

after edit: what is it with blackcie? Whenever he starts to slip a little in the debating department

Slip a little do explain...

he resorts to calling people names and telling them to do things that are anatomically impossible.

By singling me out in this area is rather shallow...

Notintellegenteither shouldn't you be getting to bed? Daycare starts in a few hours, you don't want to miss Barney do you?

[Asher]

I think this is a good read for you (and Tingkai): http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~carman/courses/nep.html

Just one tiny quote from it:

The third goal of Canadianization was the most controversial. Its primary purpose was to increase Canadian participation in the oil and gas industry by reducing foreign ownership and gaining Canadian control over large foreign owned firms.10 To do this, the NEP would restrict permits for production in Canada to only those companies with at least 50% Canadian ownership. Moreover, grants would be given out to Canadian firms in a program called the Petroleum Incentives Program (PIP). The PIP would give out subsidies to oil and gas firms based on their percentage of Canadian ownership. All firms would also be required to purchase Canadian goods and services for oil and gas production and exploration. This aspect of the National Energy Program would leave Ottawa in complete control over the industry. Crown corporations such as Petro Canada were labeled to take a more active role in this industry and a special tax was to be created to help Ottawa purchase foreign-owned firms. A Crown Interest provision was also introduced which calls for any company holding an oil or gas lease, whether Canadian or foreign owned, to pay 25% interest on the lease to Ottawa.11 The controversial part of this interest provision was the fact that it applied to both future and current developments. Developments that were already discovered, but not in production would still be subject to the interest.

The US took its strongest stance against the third policy goal of the NEP, Canadianization. They felt not only did items such as the PIP grants and the purchasing of Canadian goods and services discriminate against US firms, but it more importantly violated international standards concerning foreign investment as set out in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Canadian suppliers of goods and services would be favored and the principle of national treatment would therefore not be applied. The US government regards "the principle of national treatment as an absolute prerequisite for a stable international investment regime."12 Canada, it advocates, did not fully take into account its obligations under the GATT and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which clearly outline the role of national treatment. A fear existed that Canadianization may spill across the border into the US or set a precedent for discriminatory treatment of foreign investors in other Canadian industrial sectors. The US also strongly disagreed with the Crown Interest provision and its retroactive nature. Essentially, they felt that Canada was changing investment rules in the middle of the game.13 The US argued that this provision would lessen the value of holdings for existing shareholders and that it should not be applied to lands not yet in production. The Crown Interest itself could not be properly argued by the US because it applied to both Canadian and foreign firms. Once again, the NEP's third goal did not take into account the interests of the US and furthermore, in this instance failed to comply with previous international agreements. More emphasis was placed on the national interests of Canada than that of joint interests with the US.

[blackice]

You're not seriously saying this, right? Somebody pinch me...

No about thirty or more firms and other experts I have counted so far did. Write the author tell him about your dad.

First of all, look at the dates for that. Then look at the exploration numbers. What point were you trying to make?

The one you missed

I say this because both of my parents worked in oil&gas exploration and both of them for major US oil companies at the time, and there was without a doubt a major cutback in US exploration. In fact, you've said it yourself as one of the major points of the NEP...

Yes foriegn exploration was cut back so was everything else, the gobal economy did most of that.

102%

Source: Energy,Mines and resources Canada, Do Governments take Too Much? An Examination of pre and post NEP Fiscal Regimes (Ottawa : Government of Canada, 1982), p.20 (Table 13)

Maybe you have a better source to disprove this post the link please.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
No about thirty or more firms and other experts I have counted so far did. Write the author tell him about your dad.

The author is a student at the University of Regina, somehow I don't think she'll know more about it than someone who was part of the nitty-gritty first hand.

Yes foriegn exploration was cut back so was everything else, the gobal economy did most of that.

Oh really?
So why was the US government so pissed off? Why were US firms so up in arms that they lobbied the government to do something about it? Why did the US threaten to rewrite the AutoPact over it?

Canada muscled US firms out of Canada and companies didn't exist with the capacity to replace them, which is why it was economically so bad for Alberta. The hostile takeover attempts by Canada on foreign owned companies didn't exactly go over well either.

Quote:

102%

Source: Energy,Mines and resources Canada, Do Governments take Too Much? An Examination of pre and post NEP Fiscal Regimes (Ottawa : Government of Canada, 1982), p.20 (Table 13)

Maybe you have a better source to disprove this post the link please.

I can see the figure, and I also saw the sharp drop in about 4 other fields in that chart. Next time you can show the link to the PDF, since I found it myself. Citing the bibliography from the link to make it look like you did the research is academically irresponsible.

[blackice]

Asher read it a long time ago, whats your point?

There are more complete studies done and better ones that deal with the entire picture not just that aspect of it.

[Asher]

Look blackice, why don't we just give it a rest. You're not changing my opinion, I'm not changing yours, and this is getting hopeless.

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that, okay?

[blackice]

The auther is a student at the University of Regina, somehow I don't think she'll know more about it than someone who was part of the nitty-gritty first hand.

I guess the source for the information is once again with the wave of your wand dismissed.

Oh really?
So why was the US government so pissed off? Why were US firms so up in arms that they lobbied the government to do something about it? Why did the US threaten to rewrite the AutoPact over it?

You have to understand the timelines and the dynamics of the world political arena at the time. Taki and I keep trying to get you to understand this aspect.

Living next to you," Trudeau told an American audience in a speech to the National Press Club in 1969, "is like sleeping with an elephant; no matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." It was a colourful description of Canada's position in North America as the bilateral tensions that had plagued Canada-U.S. relations in the 1960s spilled over into the 1970s and 1980s. Trudeau and American President Richard Nixon, who met for the first time in 1969, did not like each other, though Trudeau did respect the President's intelligence and admired his chief foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger.

Trudeau was too much of a pacifist and a leftist for the Americans, some of whom considered him little more than a communist. He did nothing to change this perception when he said, during a visit to the Soviet Union in 1971, that the overwhelming American presence posed "a danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view." The Americans were amused neither by the comment nor by the locale where it was delivered.

As usual, however, the United States loomed far more dramatically on the Canadian horizon than the reverse. This was too clearly illustrated by Nixon's mistaken belief that Japan, not Canada, was the United States' largest trading partner. Nor did Nixon think of Canada when he attacked a U.S. balance of payments crisis in August 1971 by slapping a surcharge on imports. This measure profoundly threatened Canadian trade and employment, and the damage would have been magnified had the Auto Pact been cancelled, as very nearly happened.

The magnitude of the crisis prompted Trudeau to visit Nixon in December to plead Canada's case. Helped by Kissinger, he was successful. But the elephant's twitch had nearly been devastating.

The United States was apparently growing tired of giving Canada special treatment to protect its economy, especially while Ottawa seemed anxious to withdraw bit by bit from NATO and the American alliance system. During his visit to Ottawa in 1972, Nixon declared that the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead. "It is time for us to recognize," he stated, "that we have very separate identities; that we have significant differences; and that nobody's interests are furthered when these realities are obscured." While the United States recognized Canada's independent existence and concerns, Canada could not expect to continue to receive exceptional treatment.

Canada muscled US firms out of Canada and companies didn't exist with the capacity to replace them, which is why it was economically so bad for Alberta.

And where was Alberta? Seems like a nice industry to get started also look at the time lines by 1973 Canadian owned companies filled the gap nicely. Now look at the benifits to Alberta today because of it. All those linkages are now major Albertan companies an exports. Man look at the big picture...

The hostile takeover attempts by Canada on foreign owned countries didn't exactly go over well either.

Countries? When Ok really while the Americans were doing it all over the world including in Canada.....Unreal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Asher
Look blackice, why don't we just give it a rest. You're not changing my opinion, I'm not changing yours, and this is getting hopeless.

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that, okay?

Please?