(Miami Herald – Andres Oppenheimer)
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada summit earlier this week was almost universally described in the media as a photo-op, with no substantive results. I don’t think so: It may have been a major step in helping to convince President Barack Obama about the need of greater North American integration. […]
Among the things that Obama heard from his counterparts in Guadalajara:
• Canada and Mexico together buy eight times more U.S. goods than China. While North American trade has tripled since NAFTA went into effect 15 years ago, the growth rate of regional trade has slowed since 2001, largely because of increased border restrictions.
• U.S., Canadian and Mexican exports are losing market share in the global economy. While the three North American trade partners together accounted for 19% of world exports in 2000, they made up only 12.7% in 2008. The U.S. share alone dropped from 12% to 8% over the same period.
• Asian and European countries have signed new free trade agreements and strengthened existing ones in recent years. In North America, meantime, no new roads or border crossings have been built over the past seven years, which is increasing transportation costs along the border and making North America less competitive globally.
• To become more competitive and get out of the economic crisis sooner, NAFTA members should build new border crossings, ease obstacles to trade and harmonize production and labeling rules. If U.S., Mexican and Canadian companies could produce goods with labels that are valid in all three NAFTA member countries, they reach 450 million people living in North America instead of being confined to their home markets.
Read more here.
Showing posts with label North American Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North American Economy. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obama May Have Learned from Summit: Opinion
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
North American Leaders’ Summit Yields No Concrete Steps on Trade
(Video: Voice of America • Story: World Trade Interactive)
As expected, a weekend summit among the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico yielded no concrete measures on trade. The U.S. and Mexico did discuss their ongoing dispute over access for Mexican trucks but there was no indication as to when or how the two sides might resolve it. A joint statement following the meeting focused primarily on the need for further trilateral cooperation on trade and economic issues.
With respect to trade, President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon pledged to “abide by our international responsibilities and avoid protectionist measures.” They also reiterated their commitment to “reinvigorate our trading relationship and to ensure that the benefits of our economic relationship are widely shared and sustainable.” The three leaders sidestepped the issue of a possible renegotiation of NAFTA to include enforceable provisions on labor and the environment, saying instead that they will engage in a “continuing dialogue to address the functioning of the Labor and Environmental side agreements.” The joint statement cited work in a number of other trade-related areas as well, including modernizing border infrastructure to facilitate trade and the smooth operation of supply chains, strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure, cooperating in the protection of intellectual property rights and reducing unnecessary regulatory differences.
Read more here.
As expected, a weekend summit among the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico yielded no concrete measures on trade. The U.S. and Mexico did discuss their ongoing dispute over access for Mexican trucks but there was no indication as to when or how the two sides might resolve it. A joint statement following the meeting focused primarily on the need for further trilateral cooperation on trade and economic issues.
With respect to trade, President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon pledged to “abide by our international responsibilities and avoid protectionist measures.” They also reiterated their commitment to “reinvigorate our trading relationship and to ensure that the benefits of our economic relationship are widely shared and sustainable.” The three leaders sidestepped the issue of a possible renegotiation of NAFTA to include enforceable provisions on labor and the environment, saying instead that they will engage in a “continuing dialogue to address the functioning of the Labor and Environmental side agreements.” The joint statement cited work in a number of other trade-related areas as well, including modernizing border infrastructure to facilitate trade and the smooth operation of supply chains, strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure, cooperating in the protection of intellectual property rights and reducing unnecessary regulatory differences.
Read more here.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bush Touts Mortgage Plans, Offshore Drilling
(CNN)
Under the backdrop of a deteriorating economic picture, President Bush said Tuesday he is taking action to help people with falling home values and high gas prices.
Bush highlighted plans to stabilize the mortgage lenders Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) and lift the ban on offshore oil drilling as two steps his administration is taking to address some of the nation's economic ills.
On the gas price front, Bush reiterated his call for more drilling off the East and West Coasts and in Alaska.
“The only thing standing between these vast resources and the American people is action from Congress,” he said. “The sooner Congress lifts the ban, the sooner we can get these resources from the ocean floor to the refineries to the gas pump.”
There were two bans restricting drilling off most of the U.S. coast - one from the President and one from Congress.
On Monday Bush lifted the executive ban, putting pressure on the Democratic-controlled Congress to do the same.
So far, the Democrats have resisted calls for more drilling, arguing the amount of oil it would bring to market would have little effect on prices, and the nation's efforts would be better spent developing alternatives to oil and focusing on conservation. Complete article here, and more on lifting of the offshore drilling ban here.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Is NAFTA Road About Trade — Or Treachery?
(Gabriela Rico — Arizona Daily Star)
It is a steel and concrete corridor that will run right through the Old Pueblo, connecting Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta.
Its purpose is to facilitate trade among the three countries and minimize traffic and congestion for residents. Or is it evidence of a move afoot to intertwine the three North American countries and blur the lines of sovereignty? That’s a matter of opinion.
The transportation portion calls for the development of a continuous four-lane roadway from Mexico through the U.S. into Canada.
There are two other trade corridors: One runs from the southern Mexico city of Manzanillo, Colima, through Laredo, Texas, to Canada’s Prairie-to-Ports Gateway & Inland Port, anchored by Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Regina in Saskatchewan. The other corridor veers east from Laredo through Kansas City up to Winnipeg, Manitoba.
As officials in all three countries grapple with the logistics of creating such thoroughfares, there is growing concern that the so-called “superhighways” are a visible step toward the blending of economies, cultures and resources. Read more.
It is a steel and concrete corridor that will run right through the Old Pueblo, connecting Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta.
Its purpose is to facilitate trade among the three countries and minimize traffic and congestion for residents. Or is it evidence of a move afoot to intertwine the three North American countries and blur the lines of sovereignty? That’s a matter of opinion.
The transportation portion calls for the development of a continuous four-lane roadway from Mexico through the U.S. into Canada.
There are two other trade corridors: One runs from the southern Mexico city of Manzanillo, Colima, through Laredo, Texas, to Canada’s Prairie-to-Ports Gateway & Inland Port, anchored by Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Regina in Saskatchewan. The other corridor veers east from Laredo through Kansas City up to Winnipeg, Manitoba.
As officials in all three countries grapple with the logistics of creating such thoroughfares, there is growing concern that the so-called “superhighways” are a visible step toward the blending of economies, cultures and resources. Read more.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
America Weighs In on the Future of Prince Rupert Super-Port
(Vancouver Sun – Miro Cernetig)
The dreamers behind Canada’s Pacific Gateway, a 21st-century version of the St. Lawrence Seaway now taking shape on the West Coast, got a bit of a scare a few days ago.
Barack Obama, the man who might very well be the next man to occupy the White House, seemed to be trying to kill the dream of transforming Prince Rupert into a truly global port. Obama is speaking out against a $300-million deal designed to extend the Port of Prince Rupert’s reach deep into the U.S. industrial heartland.
The Illinois Senator is throwing his weight behind a small village outside of Chicago that doesn’t want Canadian National Railway Co. to buy up the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway. The intent is to avoid the bottleneck of Chicago by going through Barrington Village, and get the trains to Memphis, Tenn., cutting 17 hours of travel time. But that would dramatically expand train traffic through the area.
Obama, known for both his protectionist sentiment and grassroots politicking in Chicago, had this to say about the project: “Cities and towns ... along the EJ&E line must be assured their commerce and their safety are not imperilled by slow-moving trains that could be as much as two miles in length.”
Other members of Congress are weighing in with their opposition as well, hoping to derail the $300-million deal, which is now before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. The crux of their argument is that the 198-mile railway includes 130 crossings and creates a safety hazard, and will alter the nature of the community.
With trains as long as two miles in length constantly trundling through Chicago suburbs, it’s also expected that billions of dollars will need to be spent on new infrastructure, such as underpasses and bridges. Senator Obama and others want CN to foot the bill.
Click here for the complete article.
The dreamers behind Canada’s Pacific Gateway, a 21st-century version of the St. Lawrence Seaway now taking shape on the West Coast, got a bit of a scare a few days ago.
Barack Obama, the man who might very well be the next man to occupy the White House, seemed to be trying to kill the dream of transforming Prince Rupert into a truly global port. Obama is speaking out against a $300-million deal designed to extend the Port of Prince Rupert’s reach deep into the U.S. industrial heartland.
The Illinois Senator is throwing his weight behind a small village outside of Chicago that doesn’t want Canadian National Railway Co. to buy up the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway. The intent is to avoid the bottleneck of Chicago by going through Barrington Village, and get the trains to Memphis, Tenn., cutting 17 hours of travel time. But that would dramatically expand train traffic through the area.
Obama, known for both his protectionist sentiment and grassroots politicking in Chicago, had this to say about the project: “Cities and towns ... along the EJ&E line must be assured their commerce and their safety are not imperilled by slow-moving trains that could be as much as two miles in length.”
Other members of Congress are weighing in with their opposition as well, hoping to derail the $300-million deal, which is now before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. The crux of their argument is that the 198-mile railway includes 130 crossings and creates a safety hazard, and will alter the nature of the community.
With trains as long as two miles in length constantly trundling through Chicago suburbs, it’s also expected that billions of dollars will need to be spent on new infrastructure, such as underpasses and bridges. Senator Obama and others want CN to foot the bill.
Click here for the complete article.
Monday, March 17, 2008
There Must Be No Turning Back on NAFTA – McGuinty
(The Financial Times – Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty)
For the past few months, we Canadians have had our ears pressed to the border, listening with great interest as our American friends discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement.
As a partner in the agreement, we have a tremendous stake in how this conversation plays out, of course. But we also have a unique perspective on the agreement. For us, NAFTA works. That is because NAFTA allows trade to flow more naturally and fluidly across our shared border and has helped turn the Great Lakes region into one of the largest concentrations of economic might in the industrialised world.
The numbers are significant. The eight Great Lakes states plus Ontario account for 30% of North America’s employment and output and a healthy 36% of its manufacturing employment. Every day, about $900m worth of goods travels between Ontario and our Great Lakes partners. At the Detroit-Windsor gateway alone – the busiest in the world – $122.8bn worth of goods, 6.5m trucks and 6m cars cross each year. This has helped create an integrated Great Lakes economy where products are made – not on the Canadian side, or the American side, but together as a region.
For example, a part produced in Ohio could find its way into a car assembled in Ontario, which in turn could be shipped to Europe. Resources produced in Ontario can be sold in the U.S., turned into products and sold again in the Canadian market.
Canada is the largest trading partner for 36 of 50 U.S. states. Pennsylvania exports more to Canada than its next seven markets combined. Cross-border trade supports 221,500 jobs in Michigan alone. The regional trade relationship is complex, dynamic and, ultimately, good for our shared economy.
A 2004 study in the American Economic Review concluded that, while there was short-term job loss in manufacturing in the early days of NAFTA, the lost employment was offset by employment gains in other parts of manufacturing. Overall, wages increased, as did productivity. In fact, labour productivity in manufacturing increased by a remarkable 0.93% annually. Overall, Canada and the U.S. increased their trade with each other, forming a more cohesive North American market.
Since NAFTA was introduced, merchandise trade between Canada and the NAFTA partners has increased 122%, to $597bn in 2006. In a world where greater economic integration is the order of the day, NAFTA has helped preserve competitiveness by pooling our shared strengths and resources.
However, manufacturing across the Great Lakes region continues to face challenges from low-cost competitors in China and India. The current oil price shock is accelerating the adjustment. In Ontario, we face the added pressure from a high Canadian dollar and a struggling U.S. economy, which has cost us jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Ontario remains strong because we have a modern, diversified economy. We have chosen to capitalise on the opportunities provided by NAFTA. For example, we have chosen to invest in infrastructure so that we can speed up the flow of goods and services across the Great Lakes region.
We have cut taxes, invested in innovation and partnered with key industries. But our biggest and most important investments have been in education. We have committed ourselves fully to strengthening our greatest competitive advantage – skills and education. Ontario now has the highest percentage of people with a post-secondary education in the western world.
Our choice has been to invest in our people – so the next BlackBerry, the next breakthrough in biotechnology or the next big thing in green technology happens in the Great Lakes region. When it happens the entire region will benefit. We will ship parts across the border, exchange information, ideas and labour and share the opportunities among workers and their families.
We are interdependent. What is good for one is good for all. To go backwards, when competitors in the European Union and South Asia are becoming increasingly integrated and productive, would be a mistake. Canada and the U.S. are joint stewards of a valuable economic partnership. But we are also stewards of something far more valuable – one of history’s great political friendships. For a century and a half, that friendship, in spite of the odd crack, has been a rock-solid example to the world. I believe our choice – the only choice – must be to deepen and strengthen our relationship so that we continue to grow, together. We owe nothing less to businesses and families on both sides of the border.
For the past few months, we Canadians have had our ears pressed to the border, listening with great interest as our American friends discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement.
As a partner in the agreement, we have a tremendous stake in how this conversation plays out, of course. But we also have a unique perspective on the agreement. For us, NAFTA works. That is because NAFTA allows trade to flow more naturally and fluidly across our shared border and has helped turn the Great Lakes region into one of the largest concentrations of economic might in the industrialised world.
The numbers are significant. The eight Great Lakes states plus Ontario account for 30% of North America’s employment and output and a healthy 36% of its manufacturing employment. Every day, about $900m worth of goods travels between Ontario and our Great Lakes partners. At the Detroit-Windsor gateway alone – the busiest in the world – $122.8bn worth of goods, 6.5m trucks and 6m cars cross each year. This has helped create an integrated Great Lakes economy where products are made – not on the Canadian side, or the American side, but together as a region.
For example, a part produced in Ohio could find its way into a car assembled in Ontario, which in turn could be shipped to Europe. Resources produced in Ontario can be sold in the U.S., turned into products and sold again in the Canadian market.
Canada is the largest trading partner for 36 of 50 U.S. states. Pennsylvania exports more to Canada than its next seven markets combined. Cross-border trade supports 221,500 jobs in Michigan alone. The regional trade relationship is complex, dynamic and, ultimately, good for our shared economy.
A 2004 study in the American Economic Review concluded that, while there was short-term job loss in manufacturing in the early days of NAFTA, the lost employment was offset by employment gains in other parts of manufacturing. Overall, wages increased, as did productivity. In fact, labour productivity in manufacturing increased by a remarkable 0.93% annually. Overall, Canada and the U.S. increased their trade with each other, forming a more cohesive North American market.
Since NAFTA was introduced, merchandise trade between Canada and the NAFTA partners has increased 122%, to $597bn in 2006. In a world where greater economic integration is the order of the day, NAFTA has helped preserve competitiveness by pooling our shared strengths and resources.
However, manufacturing across the Great Lakes region continues to face challenges from low-cost competitors in China and India. The current oil price shock is accelerating the adjustment. In Ontario, we face the added pressure from a high Canadian dollar and a struggling U.S. economy, which has cost us jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Ontario remains strong because we have a modern, diversified economy. We have chosen to capitalise on the opportunities provided by NAFTA. For example, we have chosen to invest in infrastructure so that we can speed up the flow of goods and services across the Great Lakes region.
We have cut taxes, invested in innovation and partnered with key industries. But our biggest and most important investments have been in education. We have committed ourselves fully to strengthening our greatest competitive advantage – skills and education. Ontario now has the highest percentage of people with a post-secondary education in the western world.
Our choice has been to invest in our people – so the next BlackBerry, the next breakthrough in biotechnology or the next big thing in green technology happens in the Great Lakes region. When it happens the entire region will benefit. We will ship parts across the border, exchange information, ideas and labour and share the opportunities among workers and their families.
We are interdependent. What is good for one is good for all. To go backwards, when competitors in the European Union and South Asia are becoming increasingly integrated and productive, would be a mistake. Canada and the U.S. are joint stewards of a valuable economic partnership. But we are also stewards of something far more valuable – one of history’s great political friendships. For a century and a half, that friendship, in spite of the odd crack, has been a rock-solid example to the world. I believe our choice – the only choice – must be to deepen and strengthen our relationship so that we continue to grow, together. We owe nothing less to businesses and families on both sides of the border.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Canada, US Trim Cross-Border Taxes
(Associated Press)
Canada and the U.S. formally agreed Friday to eliminate the so-called withholding tax on investment interest that businesses have long said curtails investment between the two countries.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the initiative, which they said had been 10 years in the making, saying it will further trade as well as investment.
The change eliminates the 10 percent tax on interest paid by borrowers in one country to lenders across the border in arm’s-length transactions.
“We share not only a 5,500-mile border, we share a commitment to trade and open investment,” Paulson said. “By further reducing barriers to cross-border activities for U.S. and Canadian taxpayers, this updating of our treaty enables to us to move even more swiftly in the dynamic global economy.”
The update to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty was promised in Canada’s last federal budget and estimated to cost Ottawa $70 million in the current fiscal year and $180 million in 2008-2009.
The withholding tax in non-arm’s-length arrangements — usually between corporate subsidiaries — also will be phased out over three years.
Canada and the U.S. formally agreed Friday to eliminate the so-called withholding tax on investment interest that businesses have long said curtails investment between the two countries.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the initiative, which they said had been 10 years in the making, saying it will further trade as well as investment.
The change eliminates the 10 percent tax on interest paid by borrowers in one country to lenders across the border in arm’s-length transactions.
“We share not only a 5,500-mile border, we share a commitment to trade and open investment,” Paulson said. “By further reducing barriers to cross-border activities for U.S. and Canadian taxpayers, this updating of our treaty enables to us to move even more swiftly in the dynamic global economy.”
The update to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty was promised in Canada’s last federal budget and estimated to cost Ottawa $70 million in the current fiscal year and $180 million in 2008-2009.
The withholding tax in non-arm’s-length arrangements — usually between corporate subsidiaries — also will be phased out over three years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
