to fitone:
Isn’t the stance of the rest of the world that Tawian is still part of China, and is rogue province?
I would have to agree that the reason why Canada does not spend heavily on military defense is because of it’s close relation to the United States.
However, I would have to say that it has more to do with the United States presuring Canada ‘not to develop’ militarily rather than Canada simply deciding to rely on the military power of the United States. AND as strange as this sounds, at one point the United States were actually ‘scared’ at what technology Canada could develop and how it could affect ‘the balance of power’ in the world from an American perspecitve.
In the 1950’s, the Canadian government invested heavily in military technology and developed an airplane that was easily more than 20 years ahead of it’s time. The Avro Aero could fly at Mach 2 and was the envy of every military in the world.
Unfortunately, the Canadian Government was persuaded by the United States that Canada could be better protected from a Soviet Invasion by the new technology of ‘cruise missiles’ and the government scrapped the program, destroyed the planes and designs and never thought about investing in technology again.
The United States feared that Canada would sell their planes to European nations (to offset the cost of the program) which would give nations an advantage over the United States.
Many of the engineers that worked on the Avro Aero eventually joined Nasa and ended up putting people in space. The strange part is that the Space Shuttle design does have a resemblance to the Aero proto-type’s.
This is just one example which illustrates why Canada is so reliant on the United States now, and why some countries (and people) might have Anti-American feelings.
to DuffMan:
No, Tawain is not part of China. It has is own goverment and is backed by the United Nation and the US. Tawain has is a democrate state. It is not a Communist Nation.
to Duffman:
No, Tawain is a independent country. It has its own goverment which has a democratic ruling like the United States. Tawain is also suppose to be backed by the U.N. and the United States.
I think if your first language is French, you are automatically a pussy. I loved France, " No don’t do this don’t do that". Then some one hits them…“ooooo help me!!!”. I say fuck you to france and Quebec.
Duffman, what on earth would be the purposing of keeping an unprofitable store artificially afloat by funneling money from another location to that one?? It makes zero sense. If you’re losing money on a store, you get rid of it. If you’re making money on a store, you keep it open. If you’re thinking, “Hey, we had a bad first month in this new location, but if I pump some money into it temporarily, I think it will be in the black in another month or two,” that could make some sense. But if the store continues to lose money after a few months because the locals ain’t buying from it, it will be SHUT DOWN, because the owner or parent company is LOSING MONEY on it. That’s why a boycott could work, if it’s done with broad support and in a determined fashion.
To say that, “Technically, the USA is not a trading nation,” with all due respect, is patently absurd. Do you know of a MORE actively trading nation? According to the link below (at the very bottom of this post – click on Table 54), the US alone (ONE country) accounted for 12.3% of the world’s exports in 2000. Guess what – that’s HUUUUUGE. And the fact that we import more than we export (see Table 1 – we imported $358 billion more than we exported in 2001) speaks to the very point I was making, which is that our trading practices are not in the least bit “imperialistic,” since, in the aggregate, we import far more from other people than we sell to them (even though – remember – if the tables were turned, we’re still not FORCING whatever we sell on people; they’re BUYING it). Like I said, we put up with a LOT more trade restrictions and tariffs imposed on our goods by other countries (Japan is a great example) than we impose on them. Trying to look at our imports as a percentage of our GDP is simply an irrelevant exercise – GDP includes all kinds of things (government spending, taxes, investment, etc. – net exports are only a small part of the equation). Remember, we – this ONE little country – are responsible for TWELVE POINT THREE PERCENT of the world’s exports (in 2000, anyway).
You’re right about one thing: I am VERY lucky to be born in this country, and to not be living in some poverty-ridden area of sub-saharan Africa, or something. I count my blessings every day. As for Nike or other companies operating sweat shops I would make two points. (1.) It’s morally reprehensible, and makes me wish that more people knew about it (if it’s completely true, but let’s assume it is), so that the American people would boycott Nike’s products in a big enough way to get them to change their practices. (2.) The people in Africa, Asia, or wherever Nike supposedly operates these sweat shops apparently have two options, both of them shitty. They can (a.) not work at the Nike plant and make, let’s say, 3 cents a day farming or doing whatever else they can do in their area, or (b.) work their tails off under slave-like conditions at the reprehensible Nike plant and make 6 cents a day. Although I think Nike should not operate plants under such conditions, as it is morally reprehensible and makes our nation look bad to be involved with such awful labor conditions, the workers apparently felt that working like dogs for 6 cents per day was preferably to the alternative (making 3 cents per day doing other things). It is their choice to work there. Now, the government of that country could try to impose a minimum wage, but if they did so Nike would likely just move their plant somewhere else (and the people there would be back to making 3 cents a day). Of course, ALL countries (in a fantasy world, anyway), could theoretically agree to a worldwide minimum wage, but that would lead to huge economic indescrepencies of all kinds, not the least of which would be HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT. (In the end, trying to artificially fix prices, whether the prices of goods or the price of labor, is always an exercise in futility, and does nothing but CAUSE problems). Thank you. Anyone for Econ. 201? 
(Oops, in the first sentence of my last post I meant to say “purpose,” not “purposing.” Oh well). 
to damici:
Business can run at a loss and do so everyday. It’s about the recovery of varible costs in the short run, which means that they don’t lose anymore money and can possibly reduce the amount they owe.
And in the long run, the recovery of average total costs. However, if they fail to recover these total costs, hence lose money, they will be alright provided that they are meeting varible costs, ie/ overhead, or staff.
For funneling money or operating at a loss, think public goods like the post office. They aren’t making money at doing that, or for example think conglomorates, like microsoft throwing aways millions on X-box each quarter, or co-ops. The bottom line is that losses happen and funneling happen, sometimes for marketshare/penetration or other times cause they lose less staying open.
The america thing was a joke. Poorly done one too. The fact the that 5% figure is used to include the usa, yet exclude the other nation, it’s name eludes me at the moment. Hence why i attempted to explain it. And now as the USA is involved less in global trade, see your figures provided, it probably doesn’t qualify under the formula anymore…make sense now?
Not to sound like a jerk but price fixing works, think OPEC, cd prices and gas at the pumps. I'm excluding monopolys, due to the fact that this depends on the nature of the product.
Your arugment for higher unemployment makes sense but only in the part-time aspect. Places like McDonalds have the need for a fixed number of staff and to be blunt have their balls in a vice when it comes to minimum wage. They would have to accept it. true they would employ less workers but one worker working for say $10, is just the same as two workers for $5.
Highly skilled labor already makes more than minimum wage thus this would not affect them.
If the third world was making more they'd consume more. How could that cause economic problems? Everbody wins, as we all know that when income goes up, so does spending. Maybe I'm missing something here.
But I don't think it is a fanasty to have equal pay for equal jobs. The consitution states that are men are created equal. Being in a third world country doesn't give me the right to eploit my fellow man because I can get away with it. That why business eithics should be enforced...
Um, I think the Hopi Indian Nation would be the better alternative for a world superpower.
But I like America just fine, despite my criticisms of it too.
Duffman,
I had a whole, multi-paragraph reply almost finished yesterday and I accidently closed out of Explorer before I finished it. (Dammit)! I will try to reply in the next couple days. Just been busy. Take care.
yeah damici, i know what you mean. The new forums have swallowed some posts of mine along with IE issues added in there too. Take your time getting back to me I’m not gonna be going anywhere.