"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:49:04 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Udie" youdeetwothreethree@ victoriadotteecee.ca wrote in message
...
The oil exports hardly count.

I agree, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt by pointing them out.
The
point is that Canada's exports to the US are not mostly raw materials.
They're mostly manufactured products.

BTW, Canada is currently running a trade deficit with every other
trading partner (smaller ones grouped) except the US. It's
particularly large (percentage-wise) with respect to the UK and the
rest of the EEC. It's probably just about what you'd see if you
analyzed the internal vs. external trade of a grouping of US states
with similar population and industry. California is probably more
economically independent of the US than Canada. Alaska surely is.

That's an interesting point, and the EU sometimes tries to draw parallels
between the countries of Europe and the states of the US. They do that when
it helps support one specious argument or another. g

But this is one country, albeit a large one. There are no trade barriers of
any kind between the states -- 'never have been. The specialization and
comparative-advantage issues are built right into our industrial- and total
economic structure. We all operate under the same government and the same
set of federal taxes and laws. The only variations are in local taxes, and
that's only a marginally competitive issue among the states, used to attract
business or not. So there aren't many meaningful parallels that can be drawn
between the states of the US and separate countries that trade with each
other.

Whether the EU will ever achieve that level of economic integration is
questionable. As you know, there are strong proponents on both sides.

I think the important underlying points are that there is no free trade;
there is no fair trade; each country engages in trade for its own advantage;
and the operating theory, around the world, is that trade is good for
everyone's economy.

So everyone tries to get as much trade going as they can, without paying any
more than they have to for it. When you look at the totally free trade
between the states of the US, you can draw the conclusion that there *is* no
price to be paid for free trade. But, in fact, that isn't the case. In the
US, the costs are invisible, and are built into the structure. We see only
the benefits, which are considerable. The situation isn't necessarily the
same between nations. Trade has a powerful influence on a country's social
structure. Internal trade in the US is going on all within a single country.
Different situation.

Ed Huntress