[seldom_seen]

Is work being done to contruct this highway now? Or is it currently just a cornucopian wet dream?

[pea-jay]

Is work being done to contruct this highway now? Or is it currently just a cornucopian wet dream?

Wet dream. If you want to get anything built in this country road wise you MUST go through Congress first. Thats where the money is. Look through the authorizations and earmarks for actual information. Maybe a few portions of road that the corridor would use would be upgraded as part of other projects but by and large this effort strikes me as a lobbying effort with no real funds and no other attention (other than by the WorldNutDaily crowd).

I've worked in transportation planning. Highways dont happen over night. They take years and decades to be built and even in Texas, it would still be opposed by folks.

Find other things to worry about folks

[wisconsin_cur]

Link

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- Hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged central Mexico City Thursday with their slow-moving tractors, protesting the entry of cheap imported corn from the United States and Canada.

On January 1 Mexico repealed all tariffs on corn imported from north of the border as part of a 14-year phaseout under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

The farmers want the government to renegotiate the 1994 free trade agreement, which removed most trade barriers among Mexico, Canada, and the United States, saying livelihoods are at stake.

"NAFTA is very bad, very bad for Mexican consumers and for Mexican producers," said Victor Quintana, head of Democratic Farmers Front, which organized the protest.

The farmers complain that U.S. and Canadian grains are heavily subsidized and therefore undermine Mexican products.

[MrBill]

Yes, Canada that country in The Great White North that except for a tiny sliver of land around The Great Lakes - south of the 49th parallel - has neither the heat units nor the water to grow corn properly. Enough to feed a few dairy cows and make a few fizzy drinks for local consumption, but hardly enough for export. Nevermind that Canadian exporters do not have access to the Mississippi for direct access to the Gulf of Mexico like the Mid West has.

The Economist goes so far as to attribute Canadian corn production to Saskatchewan, which is even funnier, as the one thing corn needs is lots of water and The Palliser Triangle that encompasses much of S. Saskatchewan gets less than 43 cms of precipitation per year as compared to Iowa that gets between 63 and 94 cms per year. Plus there is very little ground water for irrigation. Such a cold, dry climate with a short growing season is more suitable for cereal grain production of wheat, oats, barely and canola.

As a kid growing up on the Prairies I never even saw a corn crib until I moved to SW Ontario. But whatever, the Press just wants us to believe that this is all somehow tied to ethanol production and the price of corn getting more expensive. Except this time it is not Mexican consumers complaining, but farmers. So what is it? Are prices too high for consumers or too low for producers?

Despite the long transition to free trade, little has been done to prepare small-scale farmers. Procampo, a government programme meant to provide a minimum income for every farmer, was hijacked years ago by agribusiness, with a big slice of its annual budget of $1.4 billion going to large-scale farmers in the north. Four-fifths of farmers have fewer than five hectares (12 acres), according to the ministry of agriculture. Most are subsistence farmers who rely on maize—a “recipe for poverty”, according to Luis de la Calle, who was one of Mexico's NAFTA negotiators. The ministry estimates that only 6% of farms are “highly efficient and profitable”.

Source: Tariffs and tortillas

[wisconsin_cur]

Re: the confusion as to whether the price of corn was too high or too low, I thought of that too. Everyone needs someone to look down on I guess.

I know in some parts of the world "corn" is used as a generic to name all grains. I have no idea if that dynamic is at work here or not but it is one alternative explanation.

[MrBill]

The Economist article specifically talks about sweet corn and feed corn. But as I said they got the Canadian corn information wrong as Canada is actually a net importer and not an exporter, so there is no subsidized Canadian corn going to Mexico.

Ironically, in another post on the end of cheap food the poster suggested that it was lack of access to western markets that were keeping farmers poor and lacking the capital to invest in better production methods. This is obviously a counter-claim to such arguments as Mexian farmers do have barrier free access to US - and Canadian - markets through NAFTA.

Worryingly, Hillary - the populist - wants to re-examine NAFTA. That would be very bad for Canada as the US takes about 3/4 of our exports, and despite NAFTA the Americans have hassled us over hogs, lumber, fresh water and soft winter wheat. Not only are those claims long and expensive to fight by the time they wind their way through X number of appeals, but even when Canada wins it is hard to get full payment or in fact to get that payment back to the companies and towns that were hurt by such unfair tariffs and non-trade barriers in the first place.

Without the protection of NAFTA that trade protectionism could multiply very quickly if there is a severe US slowdown and a Democrat controlled White House.

WASHINGTON, DC—After nearly nine years of construction, the Mexi-Canadian Overpass, the controversial $4.3 trillion highway overpass linking Guadalupe and Winnipeg, was finally completed last week, drawing harsh criticism from U.S. citizens and officials alike.

Source: U.S. Protests Mexi-Canadian Overpass

[wisconsin_cur]

I have often wondered how long this period of globalization will last. Even before I was aware of peak oil I would tell people who argued either side of the issue (pro or con) that they should just enjoy it while it last since I was convinced that I (being in my early 30's at the time) would live to see it's demise. I was always amazed at the look of shock on the other's face... they had never even entertained the idea that the trend would not be eternal.

I see the collapse of NAFTA as unavoidable, the live questions are one's of timing and method. I'll have to lead it to the professionals to figure out if one time or one method is less destructive than another.

I have a hard time believing that Hillary would really act against NAFTA unless history had already turned against it. For what it is worth I would hope that we could retain some level of openness with Canada. They are just such nice people , kindof like a second cousin. There not at Christmas or Thanksgiving and you can't remember the names of their kids or even what they do for a living but they are family.

[aahala]

Corn trade is one of the few areas the US got the better deal
relative to Mexico due to NAFTA. It was Mexico however that
wanted a distinction between yellow and white corn and its
trade treatment.

Apparently Mexico thought they could produce white corn
cheaper than the US and the national preference would
continue for white corn just as strong as before. Neither
belief has turned out correct. So Mexico got what they
wanted. (Be careful what you wish for.)

[Ache]

Don't mess with Canada!

Question: Who is the largest supplier of energy resources to the United States?

Answer: Canada.

Canada exports more crude oil to the United States than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. All of that oil, along with a gusher of natural gas, comes free of any kind of export controls or tariffs, courtesy of NAFTA. In fact, the United States consumes almost 100 percent of Canada's energy exports.

Which undoubtedly puts Canada in the driver's seat should a new president of the United States decide he or she wanted to "renegotiate" NAFTA.

David Emerson, Canada's trade minister, took some pains to remind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of U.S. dependence on foreign (Canadian) oil on Thursday, according to a Globe and Mail story a reader kindly forwarded to me.

Americans' privileged access to Canada's massive oil and gas reserves could be disrupted if Washington cancels the NAFTA accord as Democratic presidential candidates threaten, Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson warned yesterday.

"There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," he said.

In other words, if you Yankees think you can wave a magic wand and "renegotiate NAFTA" so as to be more beneficial to Americans at the expense of Canada's interests, think again, because we'd be happy to close off the oil spigot and sell our crude, to, oh, I don't know, China.

Don't mess with Canada!

[RdSnt]

Canada is likely going to re-open NAFTA anyways.
Currently our nafta obligations are in direct conflict with our need to cut greenhouse gases (and comply with Kyoto).
Have you noticed that the major oil companies in the tar sands have suggested that there be no new development there for awhile?
If that were to occur there is a good chance it would conflict with nafta.

As peak oil progresses the whole concept of global trade is going out the window, which includes shipping widgets from Mexico to Canada to fit into bigger widgets that we then ship back to Mexico.

To survive the US would be smart to tear up all its international trading agreements and start rebuilding their local manufacturing base. We'll ship you the raw materials but you should be processing them locally.

[PopeGideon]

Don't mess with Canada?

Why not? Have they got tanks for the Mounties now?

Canada is America's great natural resource supply to the North. The fact that Canadians happen to live there is immaterial.

Don't mess with Canada?

It's like Calvin saying to Moe - "I've got a lunch and you don't Moe, so you better not mess with me or I won't let you have any of my lunch."


Nafta was horrible for Canada. If there was any doubt that Canada was just another American whore, that residual doubt was removed with the signing of NAFTA, which hugely benefited the United States because it forces Canada to sell Natural Gas and Oil to the U.S.. What it does is give the legal pretext for the invasion when some idiot Canadian premier, or whatever they call the president up there, gets voted in under the premise of "not giving away our natural resources to the U.S.." Whatever goon Prez in the U.S. is in power then holds up Nafta and says, "if you breach your NAFTA obligation, that's a terrorist attack on the U.S.".

Sucks to be Canadian. Not only are you the owners of your own natural resources only in a nominal sense, you also have to deal with the cold and snow.

[timbo]

And Joe Sixpack will be there cheering the Prez on. Fargin' Canucks how dare they stop him from drivin' his SUV.

[Kingcoal]

And Joe Sixpack will be there cheering the Prez on. Fargin' Canucks how dare they stop him from drivin' his SUV.

Actually, there's probably more SUVs and big trucks in Canada per capita, than in the US.

[dissident]

This is blackmail I tell you. Canada is an unreliable energy supplier throwing its politically motivated weight around trying to intimidate the cute and cuddly US.

[FoxV]

"There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," he said.

Yeah, just look at the last time we re-negotiated the Free Trade Agreement with our list of priorities. We Canucks really stuck it to you yanks and created NAFTA

All of this is just more preamble into the North American Union. The really sad part is that both of our two main political parties are going for it with both fists.

For the NAU road map we have
FTA: Mulroney, Conservative
NAFTA: Chretien, Liberal
NASPP: Harper, Conservative

So unless the NDP (socialist party) or the Greens (Environmental party) get in ( ) we're all going to end up part of the Bush's big happy family

[Cid_Yama]

Haven't you seen Canadian Bacon. Canada has the Hacker Hailstorm! Rue the day the US tries to take on Canada.

[Kristen]

Well Canada has to be getting something out of it. Perhaps the answer is water. The great lakes account for 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply. The border between the two nations gives the U.s. about 60-70 percent ownership. Water is essential for life.

[Chesire]

Operation Icebox

[FairMaiden]

I have yet to hear about water being an issue here so far.

NAFTA doesn't mean anything at all. Most of our major resource industries have been bought up by US companies. We have even gone as far (if I believed in conspiracies theories - I'd see this as the only rational reason for this)...as to sell off public companies that have reached the point of profitablilty. Most of the major infrastructure was paid for by taxpayers...then when they can actually give some back, they sell to a US company so they can stick us with higher bills instead. Contrary to what anyone says "capitalism" does not exist...anymore than real socialism every did. Like socialism gave power to a small few administrators (instead of the people) - capitalism gives power to a small few corporations. If they make profit, they become rich off our backs. If they don't make profit, they get bailed out by the gov't and get rich off our backs.

[timbo]

And Joe Sixpack will be there cheering the Prez on. Fargin' Canucks how dare they stop him from drivin' his SUV.

Actually, there's probably more SUVs and big trucks in Canada per capita, than in the US.

Got a suspicion that the difference in total numbers can be considered in terms of orders of magnitude however.