Jill (jillyanjiggs) wrote,


I was looking stuff up on NATFA
and realized how horrible of an argreement it is.
I mean any agreement that allows corporations to use the Investor by State law that says a country cant infringe on a company's profits or its owes the company compensation.
Y must we pay polluters to stop polluting?
I seriously think canada should re think this whole agreement deal and the whold concept of trade is based on a theory:

Assumptions made for Heckscher Ohlin (HO) Theory Model

1. There are two countries using two factors of productions, capital and labor, to produce two goods.

2. Identical production functions exist in both countries.

3. Production functions in both countries display constant returns to scale.

4. One of the commodities is capital intensive at all input prices, the other is labor intensive.

5. Perfect competition in both commodities and factor markets, as well as full employment of resources exists in both nations.

6. Both nations have identical tastes.

7. There are no transportation or similar costs and no barriers to free international trade.

8. Perfect factor mobility exists within each nation but not between nations.

9. Neither country has complete specialization in production.

These are false and assuptions and I seriously think Canada should look at what we must compromise with this agreement.
Our laws can be overturned by the fact that it infringes upon corporations rights to make profits and encourage trade. So any environmental or health rule can be overturned.
But then again nothing is perfect. It would just be nice if the agreement could focus on environmental and social issues as well.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded