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

Why the US needs future free trade with Canada

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
At the present growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population will double to more than half a billion people within the next 60 years. It is estimated that approximately one acre of land is lost due to urbanization and highway construction alone for every person added to the U.S. population.

This means that only 0.6 acres of farmland would be available to grow food for each American in 2050, as opposed to the 1.8 acres per capita available today. At least 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current American dietary standards. Food prices are projected to increase 3 to 5-fold within this period.

If present population growth, domestic food consumption and topsoil loss trends continue, the U.S. will most likely cease to be a food exporter by approximately 2025 because food grown in the U.S. will be needed for domestic purposes.

Since food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually, the loss of this income source would result in an even greater increase in America's trade deficit.

Considering that America is the world's largest food exporter, the future survival of millions of people around the world may also come into question if food exports from the U.S. were to cease.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Considering the fact that you don't need "Free Trade" to trade a dang thing and that Canada imports more food from the US than exports, I have to ask what the heck does the article you pasted have to do with your headline?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
A fundamentally incorrect view of economic élan vital: the economist sees economic activity as a function of infinite "money creation", rather than a function of finite "energy stocks" and finite "energy flows". In fact, the economy is 100% dependent on available energy -- it always has been, and it always will be

put your thinking cap on Sandhusker, try to figure this out.

Hint, which country has more capacity to turn raw resources into energy?

Is there any benefit to buying the raw and turning it into finished products?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
A fundamentally incorrect view of economic élan vital: the economist sees economic activity as a function of infinite "money creation", rather than a function of finite "energy stocks" and finite "energy flows". In fact, the economy is 100% dependent on available energy -- it always has been, and it always will be

put your thinking cap on Sandhusker, try to figure this out.

Hint, which country has more capacity to turn raw resources into energy?

Is there any benefit to buying the raw and turning it into finished products?

The article you posted was on the future capacity for the US to meet their food needs.
 

don

Well-known member
you'll have to explain this thoroughly in order for the nebraska whizkid to get it. he's the victim of too much american propaganda.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
you'll have to explain this thoroughly in order for the nebraska whizkid to get it. he's the victim of too much american propaganda.

Why don't you try it don? What does the article have to do with the headline?
 

don

Well-known member
because the usa is continually outgowing its depleted resources and you may have to rely on other countries to make up the shortfall. are we there yet?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
because the usa is continually outgowing its depleted resources and you may have to rely on other countries to make up the shortfall. are we there yet?

You missed the fact that "food" was mentioned in every paragraph except the introductory - and was the only "resource" mentioned? Do you think that might just be a clue to what the article was about?

If we are going to need to look for other sources of food, do you think that a country that imports food from us is the answer as the headline suggests?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

don

Well-known member
i just can't believe someone as simple as you has a job with any responsibility. what do you do at the bank?
 

don

Well-known member
so if your population doubles and you take more land out of agriculture you may end up eating more canadian (and other) beef and grain and needing more canadian lumber, etc. are you getting close to wrapping you mind around the consequences of half a billion people yet or are you too busy preparing your arguments for the supreme court to give this any serious thought? give up on the emoticons; the laugh's on you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
i just can't believe someone as simple as you has a job with any responsibility. what do you do at the bank?

Old lawyers cheap trick- when you can't challenge or discredit the message/facts- challenge and try to discredit the messenger....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If we are going to need to look for other sources of food, do you think that a country that imports food from us is the answer as the headline suggests?

Except that by the dates in the article, the US will not have the excess food to export!

no exports, less income to purchase the oil needed to run the economy.

Maybe a trade deal with Iran would work!

See any other benefits to Nafta?

Pretty big picture, eh? But I didn't have enough room express that all in the title of this topic, sorry!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
so if your population doubles and you take more land out of agriculture you may end up eating more canadian (and other) beef and grain and needing more canadian lumber, etc. are you getting close to wrapping you mind around the consequences of half a billion people yet or are you too busy preparing your arguments for the supreme court to give this any serious thought? give up on the emoticons; the laugh's on you.

I see, we're going to need more food in the future, so we're going to look to Canada - a country that relies on us for much of their food today. That begs the questions; What is going to change up there that will enable you to go from a net importer of food to a net exporter? Tundra oranges? Hybrid spruce trees that grow tomatos? Maybe the Earth is going to tilt on it's axis and double your growing season?

If Canada has the capacity to feed us tomorrow, why aren't you doing it today?

If you guys could understand the article, it is saying that between the US's population growth and the ongoing loss of farmland, we will someday be a net importer of food. That doesn't mean that we need a Free Trade agreement so we can buy more food from Canada - that means that BOTH the US and Canada will need other suppliers for food as the US is one of Canada's current suppliers. If we need all our food and then some, Canada loses a supplier, not gains a customer.

I can't believe I've got to explain a simple article to grown men.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
that means that BOTH the US and Canada will need other suppliers for food as the US is one of Canada's current suppliers. If we need all our food and then some, Canada loses a supplier, not gains a customer.

Better check the amount of arable land per capita of each country.
 

Silver

Well-known member
gcreekrch said:
I nominate Sandhusker for Prime Minister :D . We sure don't EVER want him to be the US President. :lol: :lol: :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It would probably end up like that molson commercial a few years back where the hot shot American tv guy comes into the NHL board room talking down to all old boys describing how the cameras from his network would show a blue streak behind the puck on slow shots, and a red streak behind the fast ones so folks would know what was happening. The next scene was the hotshot flying out the boardroom doors with a red streak behind him.
 

gcreekrch

Well-known member
Silver said:
gcreekrch said:
I nominate Sandhusker for Prime Minister :D . We sure don't EVER want him to be the US President. :lol: :lol: :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It would probably end up like that molson commercial a few years back where the hot shot American tv guy comes into the NHL board room talking down to all old boys describing how the cameras from his network would show a blue streak behind the puck on slow shots, and a red streak behind the fast ones so folks would know what was happening. The next scene was the hotshot flying out the boardroom doors with a red streak behind him.

Ya got to give ol' Sandhusker credit Silver, there ain't no stopping him when HE knows he's right. If we had a PM that was that worried about his country's pocketbook and was as hardheaded,bullheaded,blockheaded, and tenacious as ol' Sandy we'd have it made! :shock: :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How about it Sandy?
 
Top