Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: org.whodat
I never intended to get into a big spat about this on Free Republic. I was just trying to interject a few important facts and considerations.

So long as California, for instance, refuses to do anything to meet its own energy needs, there will be a market. Hydro electricity in Canada is generated by Crown Corporations — and, therefore, our domestic prices for electricity are far lower than market prices. Electricity prices have barely risen, while the world price of oil has more than quintupled. Under NAFTA, electricity is sold into the U.S. market at the Canadian domestic price. Based on the cost of alternative sources of power, the actual market price would be far more. By “market” price, I mean the price at which a willing buyer is willing to buy from a willing seller.

Here's another consideration — NAFTA started life as the Canada-US FTA, during Reagan's term. Bush Sr. started the expansion to NAFTA, and did most of the heavy lifting. W. J. Clinton sealed the deal on NAFTA — despite the same objections from within the Democrat Party as you're seeing today.

During the CAFTA, and then the NAFTA negotiations, Canadian trade opponents (AKA: socialists, “nationalists”, “environmentalists”, and anti-American moonbats) warned us of dealing with “sharp Yankee traders”. They warned that there was no way that Canadians could win anything from such Yankee traders as Reagan and Bush.

Do you really think that Reagan and Bush were pushovers? Or that their negotiators weren't some of the sharpest “Yankee traders” walking the planet? Do you think that they missed something you would have noticed?

IMHO, I think that NAFTA was a reasonable agreement at the time. Chapter 6, the Energy chapter, seemed to be a fair price to pay. That was then — the difference now is that we have more than ten times the known oil reserves, and over three times the exports that we did when NAFTA was signed. If anything, Chapter 6 has become far more valuable to the U.S. That's fine by me — because I think that freer trade benefits everyone, and because I don't mind seeing Americans benefit too. I also think that a deal’s a deal.

When you add in the current geopolitical situation; you can only conclude that Reagan was a farsighted genius to negotiate such an energy-security deal for the U.S. — when the future benefits were no where as clear as they are now.

39 posted on 03/06/2008 3:33:51 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Whatever you have pointed out is bunk, first it was oil, well oil is a free world market and because of no transportation cost Canada is getting a honey of a deal. As to electrical supply, if Canada dose not want to sell it to the united states at market they are free to ship it to mars.(as a hint to you, there is no one else they can sell their electricity to) And to say that Canada will raise the price is nothing but blackmail.


40 posted on 03/06/2008 6:31:08 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson