• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question about trade with Canada

cutterone

Well-known member
Now first of all I'm not trying to start something here. I just got curious just what do were trade back and forth?
Oats, hay cubes, autos and parts, naturally lumber materials, and fish come to mind for me that I purchase but on my trips to Canada I can't remember much that I saw that was American. (I know it sure as heck wasn't cigarettes!)
What do you guys use that comes from us and what else from you comes here?
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
cutterone said:
Now first of all I'm not trying to start something here. I just got curious just what do were trade back and forth?
Oats, hay cubes, autos and parts, naturally lumber materials, and fish come to mind for me that I purchase but on my trips to Canada I can't remember much that I saw that was American. (I know it sure as heck wasn't cigarettes!)
What do you guys use that comes from us and what else from you comes here?


If you follow this link it should take you to a list of the individual states and by clicking on each State, it will tell you exactly what and how much that State exported to Canada and what was imported from Canada

http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/state_trade_2007/default-en.asp
 

Kato

Well-known member
Excellent link!

Here's a few tidbits.

Home Trade and Investment State Trade Fact Sheets 2007

State Trade Fact Sheets 2007

"Our Shared Border: Key to Security and Prosperity" is a state-by-state look at the world's largest trade and security relationship.


* 36 states have Canada as their leading export market.
I find it very interesting that North Dakota, home of the king of protectionists Sen. Dorgan is one of those states.

North Dakota

PDF Format


North Dakota’s
Exports to Canada
2006, in millions of U.S. dollars

Machinery ($257)
Agriculture ($194)
Transportation ($69)
Energy ($46)
Chemicals ($36)
Metals ($24)
Equipment ($13)
Telecommunications ($9)
Personal & Household Goods ($9)
Other ($33)

North Dakota’s
Imports from Canada
2006, in millions of U.S. dollars

Energy ($361)
Chemicals ($310)
Agriculture ($284)
Transportation ($133)
Machinery ($132)
Metals ($73)
Equipment ($50)
Forest Products ($41)
Personal & Household Goods ($28)
Other ($64)

North Dakota’s
Leading Exports to Canada
2006, in millions of U.S. dollars

Power shovels ($74)
Vegetable oils & fats ($74)
Front end loaders ($47)
Crude petroleum ($45)
Shelled corn ($34)
New wheel tractors ($34)
Soil preparations, seeding & fertilizing machinery ($20)
Tractor engines & tractor parts ($19)
Organic chemicals ($19)
Motor vehicle parts, except engines ($16)

North Dakota’s
Leading Imports from Canada
2006, in millions of U.S. dollars

Petroleum & coal products ($216)
Canola ($185)
Fertilizers ($134)
Motor vehicle parts, except engines ($104)
Electricity ($73)
Crude petroleum ($59)
Mining machinery ($29)
Live animals ($19)
Soil preparations, seeding & fertilizing machinery ($17)
Metal fabricated basic products ($17)

Canada–U.S. trade supported 7.1 million U.S. jobs
Total Canada–U.S. merchandise trade: $489 billion
18,750 North Dakota jobs are supported by Canada–U.S. trade
Canada is North Dakota’s largest foreign export market
Canadians made more than 495,700 visits to North Dakota, spending $95 million
North Dakota residents made more than 51,500 visits to Canada, spending $14 million

And Senator Dorgan has made a career out of keeping evil Canadians from shipping grain and cattle south.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kATO, "....king of protectionists Sen. Dorgan..."

Again the "P" label is used incorrectly. If you're not a "Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead" Free Trader, you're a protectionist. :roll:
 

Kato

Well-known member
How come the only time we hear his name in the news is when he's signed yet another protest against Canadian exports, especially beef?

Note: half of what North Dakota sends out of state to anywhere goes to Canada. Doesn't that make us North Dakota's best customer? Is this how you treat your best customer? Not in any business I've ever seen.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
How come the only time we hear his name in the news is when he's signed yet another protest against Canadian exports, especially beef?

Note: half of what North Dakota sends out of state to anywhere goes to Canada. Doesn't that make us North Dakota's best customer? Is this how you treat your best customer? Not in any business I've ever seen.

He can see through the USDA's lies about Canadian beef so he's a protectionist? I'd say the man is exhibiting common sense and hasn't sold out to the "contribution" dollar. I also admire the man for standing up for what he believes is right, even though it may cost his state money. It ain't all about the almighty dollar to some folks, Kato.
 

Kato

Well-known member
What if "what he believes" is incorrect?

The state of North Dakota also seems to subscribe to the notion that treaties are to be only adhered to if they suit the sentiment of the day. Why else would they totally ignore the International Boundary water treaty against the wishes of Canada and neighbouring Minnesota in order to drain Devil's Lake into the Red River, potentially damaging the fisheries in the Lake Winnipeg drainage system all the way to Hudson Bay?

Sorry OT, but I don't see this guy as someone with a halo over his head and a choir singing in the background.

He will do what it takes to get votes. Simple as that. We've seen it time and time again. Sign an agreement, but if you change your mind later, that's OK. It doesn't matter. :? If it becomes inconvenient, you can forget you ever signed it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato, we've got a contract that I deliver a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk to you every Wednesday. All of a sudden, half of the eggs I deliver are rotten and the same with the milk. Are you going to keep taking delivery per the agreement?
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
cutterone said:
Now first of all I'm not trying to start something here. I just got curious just what do were trade back and forth?
Oats, hay cubes, autos and parts, naturally lumber materials, and fish come to mind for me that I purchase but on my trips to Canada I can't remember much that I saw that was American. (I know it sure as heck wasn't cigarettes!)
What do you guys use that comes from us and what else from you comes here?
Just walking across the yard I see John Deere Case IH Gleaner Heston all made in the U.S.A. . In the tractor cabs are the signatures on the model no. stamp of the proud Americans that built them and did the final inspections. My corn and sunflower seed comes from the U.S.A. and my electric fencers come from there also. My neighbors semi just come back with cornmeal. Most of the guys with flatdecks around here haul heavy Equipment from U.S.A. to Northern Alberta. One of Dads friends hauls newsprint south and picks up newsprint from an American plant and hauls it back up here :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Kato, we've got a contract that I deliver a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk to you every Wednesday. All of a sudden, half of the eggs I deliver are rotten and the same with the milk. Are you going to keep taking delivery per the agreement?

I take it you got my point.
 

Kato

Well-known member
No, you take it I don't spend all day at the computer. :wink:

If there is a legally signed agreement, then both parties are expected to live up to it. If one party does not live up to the agreement, that does not make it void. The proper and legal way to deal with one party not living up to the agreement is to LEGALLY set up a renegotiation.

Why bother signing a contract if you have no intention of abiding by it? To do so constitutes fraud.

If one party is not happy with an agreement that is not grounds for not fulfilling their part of the bargain. It is grounds for negotiating a different agreement, in a proper and legal manner. If you don't like NAFTA then open it up for renegotiation! Until then, live with it. You guys signed it too, and we'd probably be happy to set up a new one that pays us better.

As this thread started out discussing the trade between our two countries, to get back to that, Canada is America's top trading partner. As such, we deserve to be treated in a manner that reflects that.

I'm getting very tired of this "kick them when they're down and then blame it on them" attitude.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Part of any deal I've been involved with includes delivering a quality product, unless specified otherwise. If we had the agreement I described above, you would not continue to pay me for bad goods. Me delivering you poor quality and even dangerous product would not of been in the spirit of the agreement, yet you demand that the US do exactly that. That's not right.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
No, you take it I don't spend all day at the computer. :wink:

If there is a legally signed agreement, then both parties are expected to live up to it. If one party does not live up to the agreement, that does not make it void. The proper and legal way to deal with one party not living up to the agreement is to LEGALLY set up a renegotiation.

Why bother signing a contract if you have no intention of abiding by it? To do so constitutes fraud.

If one party is not happy with an agreement that is not grounds for not fulfilling their part of the bargain. It is grounds for negotiating a different agreement, in a proper and legal manner. If you don't like NAFTA then open it up for renegotiation! Until then, live with it. You guys signed it too, and we'd probably be happy to set up a new one that pays us better.

As this thread started out discussing the trade between our two countries, to get back to that, Canada is America's top trading partner. As such, we deserve to be treated in a manner that reflects that.

I'm getting very tired of this "kick them when they're down and then blame it on them" attitude.

KATO-- How about the agreement for US cattle to go north unresticted... After the agreement was signed- then Canadian cattlemen screamed "defective product" - "ALL US cattle are to be considered diseased" and put up all kinds of border barriers and restricted the northward movement of our cattle (even when many Ag scientists said it was unwarranted)....

So if I read you right-- that was just hunky-dory when you did it--- but when we put up barriers to what we think is a defective (and dangerous) product we're the EVIL AMERICAN again.....

BULLPUCKEY!!!!!!!!!

How do you sleep nights when you're such a HYPOCRITE -Eh :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato, You back up and take a look at how things really are, and Canada was the one that violated the spirit of the agreement when you suddenly became unable to sell a product that could not be assured to be safe - just as I would of violated our agreement by delivering sour milk. The US closing the border was retaliation for that violation as you would retaliate by not paying me for that sour milk.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Diversion diversion.... here we go with that old bluetongue thing again.

Cattle from the U.S. were never kept out of Canada because of that. They were just required to be tested and imported during certain times of the year. They could still come in. Even between states there are testing requirements, so please don't dwell on this one.

Kato, You back up and take a look at how things really are, and Canada was the one that violated the spirit of the agreement when you suddenly became unable to sell a product that could not be assured to be safe -

Our product is no more unsafe than yours whether you like it or not. We're not talking about BSE here, either, so that's just another diversion.

We're talking about whether or not your country thinks it can discard agreements it has signed just because someone changes their mind instead of doing things in a proper legal manner.

Is it considered proper procedure in your country to disregard agreements that you have signed?

Yes or no?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
According to the CDC, your product definitely is "more unsafe". Until you can explain why your opinion should be condidered better than theirs, I will believe them.

When you can't deliver a product that can be assured as safe, YOU are the one breaking the agreement. All of a sudden, you've got a rash of BSE cases and it's just supposed to be business as usual? That's not how it works in the real world.

Are you going to tell me that you would continue to buy my sour milk and rotten eggs every week?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
According to the CDC, your product definitely is "more unsafe". Until you can explain why your opinion should be condidered better than theirs, I will believe them.

You're using a finding that the CDC made several years ago. Have they done anything more recently? And why is the CDC's opinion the only one that you'll listen to? Because its the only one thats saying what you want to hear? Have you worked any of the stats Sandhusker? You'll understand why the US is considered equal risk to Canada.

Hint: We've tested approximately 20 times the number of at-risk animals, when adjusting for herd size, that the US has, but only found 8 times the number of infected animals.

The OIE states that US and Canada are equal risk. The USDA feels we're equal risk. Most of the world feels we're equal risk. That leaves the CDC and R-Calf as the only ones still insisting the earth is flat.

Kato's right. We've watched all of our industries be hurt by the free trade agreement, while the US modifies the agreement with illegal border closures based on bullshit politcal reasons. Its time that free trade was truly free trade, with no restriction on ANYTHING and no pet polical projects being allowed to interfere.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
According to the CDC, your product definitely is "more unsafe". Until you can explain why your opinion should be condidered better than theirs, I will believe them.

You're using a finding that the CDC made several years ago. Have they done anything more recently? And why is the CDC's opinion the only one that you'll listen to? Because its the only one thats saying what you want to hear? Have you worked any of the stats Sandhusker? You'll understand why the US is considered equal risk to Canada.

Hint: We've tested approximately 20 times the number of at-risk animals, when adjusting for herd size, that the US has, but only found 8 times the number of infected animals.

The OIE states that US and Canada are equal risk. The USDA feels we're equal risk. Most of the world feels we're equal risk. That leaves the CDC and R-Calf as the only ones still insisting the earth is flat.

Kato's right. We've watched all of our industries be hurt by the free trade agreement, while the US modifies the agreement with illegal border closures based on BS politcal reasons. Its time that free trade was truly free trade, with no restriction on ANYTHING and no pet polical projects being allowed to interfere.

Rod

The only thing that has changed recently is your feed ban, and that takes a while to set in IF it is being followed. Thus, if nothing has really changed, what warrants another study?

I believe the CDC because I don't know of any reason why I shouldn't, do you? Disease is their business, and they don't have a financial interest like the other sources. I'll throw your comment back at you and ask why you folks believe the USDA now when you wouldn't believe their conclusions on our BSE rate and/or testing procedures? Is it because you now like hearing what they are saying?

Adjusting for herd size, you've found 45 times the number we have here (1 positive for every 1MM head vs 2 in 90MM). You're going to have to bring me hard numbers to make me believe your testing is 40 times better.

We've seen the OIE can change their tune with a little arm bending. Their BSE protocol they have now is considerably watered down from what it was to what we have now - yet both protocols were supposed to be based on science - but the science never changed. We also see half the countries of the world ignoring the OIE's recommendations. That shows the degree of credibility others give them.

Kato's wrong. She wouldn't touch my example for obvious reasons, so I'll ask you to put yourself in her place and tell me what you would do if I started delivering you sour milk instead of good? Would you continue to honor our agreement as before and keep paying me?

Another question on the legalities of the agreement: OT has pointed out that it is not a treaty under our laws because it didn't go through the proper proceedures to become a treaty. Also, NAFTA grants a panel authority to essentially veto Congress, which under our constitution can't be done. Thus, what you have is really an unenforceable fragment of wall paper. I would have to think that your officials who signed the document should of known that. One of the first things done when trading property is confirming ownership and, in the case of trusts and corporations, authority. Either they didn't do that or, most likely, they're playing the same game our "leaders" are doing; ignore the laws of the land and do it anyway - if nobody squaks then you're only breaking the law if you get caught.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Here's an idea. How be we renegotiate NAFTA? There are a lot of people here who are not happy with the way it's written regarding water and oil. There are people up here who would love to redo NAFTA in such a way that water is off the negotiating table.

Note: We are the source of 60% of you oil, and our country contains about twenty percent of the world's fresh water.

You guys don't need any of that do you? :wink:

This is why NAFTA will not be tossed out. :!:
 
Top