Comment 39647

By alrathbone (registered) | Posted April 10, 2010 at 13:42:32

"NAFTA has not benefitted everyone, certainly not the working people."

I did not claim it benefitted everyone, but rather than Canada was a net beneficiary. Listen, its all very well what you believe, but the real world is not a zero sum game. If companies benefit, it does not mean that workers suffer; if the US benefits it does not mean Canada can not also benefit. While I don't like all aspects of NAFTA, that doesn't mean that access to larger market places has meant economic growth, and more jobs. Everyone is so quick to blame NAFTA for job losses, yet it seems to me that its not the free trade within North America that's costing jobs, but the unequal, unfree trade between North America and Asia.

"Maybe it is you that needs to learn more. The multinational INBEV, owns many brands, thus the market is becoming an oligolopy. It is competeing against inself, not the competition that you are going on about."

What about Molson-Coors. What about Sapporo? What about microbreweries and other independents which seem to pop up a whole heck of a lot faster than the big companies are buying them up? What about other alcoholic beverages?

I agree there are problems with the beer market in ontario. Part of it has to do with the Beer Store and the LCBO which artificially restrict competition. But this shutdown doesn't decrease competition in any way. Perhaps the purchase should have been blocked by the competition bureau. But please tell me where NAFTA led to the closing of this plant.

"Lakeport was not bought out by a Canadian company,it was bought out by a foreign company and it has closed plants in Canada. So much for jobs staying in Canada."

Jobs leaving Hamilton to go to a expanded London plant. Last time I checked London was on this side of the border.

"So what the big guy cannot compete with the little guy, so they gobble them up, to ensure no real competition, then dismantle the plants, those jobs gone forever."

Until someone else opens an independent brewer, and through the magic of capitalism does well. Who knows, maybe they won't start one with inefficient equipment and limited potential. Perhaps we should be removing the obstacles to entrepreneurship, rather than blaming a company for making a good business decision. Unless Labbatts is outright lying and the Hamilton plant was not the least efficient, I wonder if it could have sustained itself as an independent business anyways.

"Gee was that not the reason why the telephone market opened up, so that Bell could no longer hold the monolopy on the market."

Labbatts (InBev) does not hold a monopoly. Brewers Retail and the LCBO do, and I think that should change, but that doesn't change the fact that this whole thing has nothing to do with NAFTA.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools