$274M for Canadian military vehicles to be built in U.S

[Tyr]

Remember too that the US spends much more on the military than Canada does, so it's only natural that their military technology will be a little more advanced than ours. So perhaps we should focus on developing other technologies that we could produce more efficiently than the US. Some examples might include arctic technologies that we could export to Alaska. Or owing to our thinly spread population, we could further develop online education technologies such as educational software, teacher-student teleconferencing technologies, etc. Who knows. I'm just throwing ideas out there, but instead of competing (which guarantees one side will lose), why not collaborate by letting each nation produce what it produces best (which is bound to lead to a much more efficient economic system than a competitive one could. Previous posts from others have already pointed out how inefficient a competitive system can be).

In theory, that would be perfect. Unfortunately in practice it's not the case.

Canada does excel in certain technology - telecommunications, antenna, optics, raster and satellite technology. I won't comment on products outside of my knowledge base (I'm a scientist and a techie), so I'll limit it to that.

National Defence falls into a somewhat unique category and as such has unique requirements.

I wouldn't propose we would sole source Canadian on say aircraft carriers or submarines. We have no basis in that industry.

The truck deal. We had and still ahve that capabilty and we should have bought Canadian. Simple as that

 

[Machjo]

You're right. You are taking it to non-sensical extremes. We are not talking about extremes, we are talking about protection for our defence manufacturing base which by extension is our ability to protect ourselves

Are you proposing that the US will be our unilateral ally for time immemorial? That very prescient of you.

Can we use the example of Russia being our ally in 1944 and Germany being the enemy? That's really not that long ago and I don't believe that's the situation today.... only 64 yrs later. In fact Germany went from enemy to ally in ten short years

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about economics, not defence, here. So which are we talking about, because they're two different things? If we're talking about economic policy, then certainly it would make more sense to just go with the best offer, domestic or foreign, as has happenned here. If we're talking about national defence, then of course it would make sense to ensure all military products be produced in Canada, even if it is more inefficient and thus more expensive. Then we could swallow the costs through tax hikes or reduced spending on other government programmes to compensate. But I thought the argument of this thread was economic, not military. Make up your mind. Depending on what your argument is, I might or might not agree with you. So make up your mind and then get back to me, and I'll let you know whether or not I agree with you.

However, to adopt a strict policy of domestic military consumption only would also send a signal to our allies that we don't trust them. So then we have diplomatic repercussions too. Do we trust them or do we not? If we do, then we should buy from the most efficient producer. If we don't, then why are we cting like hypocrits by entering an alliance. Let's make up our minds already. How can we get ahead in a discusison when the aims of the discussion keep changing on us. Consistency, please.

 

[Machjo]

In theory, that would be perfect. Unfortunately in practice it's not the case.

Canada does excel in certain technology - telecommunications, antenna, optics, raster and satellite technology. I won't comment on products outside of my knowledge base (I'm a scientist and a techie), so I'll limit it to that.

National Defence falls into a somewhat unique category and as such has unique requirements.

I wouldn't propose we would sole source Canadian on say aircraft carriers or submarines. We have no basis in that industry.

The truck deal. We had and still ahve that capabilty and we should have bought Canadian. Simple as that

Well, if Canada has an advantage in tellecommunications (which I wouldn't be surprised was at least partially propelled by our need for it owing to our low populaiton density and extensive land mass), then by purchassing US military products, we're contributing to a lower Canadian dollar, thus making what Canada does best more accessible to the US market.

Now as for the trucks, I don't know. If they could have been produced at lower cost for the same quality, then I agree. I don't know the details on that, but then before we could argue any further, we'd have to investigate which company truly had the best product at the lowest price, without nationalistic bias.

 

[Tyr]

Dear Cousin Spade (odd name??? But hey it's probably a Canadian pronunciation)

Thank you so much for the kind words and support.

Please do remember to forward it to Gov. Blagojevich (Governor of Illinois where Navistar is based) as it was his dilligent efforts and "unique salesmanship" that made it all possible.

Looking forward to you and the missus dropping by for the inaugeration thing. It outta be a hoot.

ps. You might want to write the governor post haste as there is a rumour he may be stepping down soon due to poor health and/or..... well, we'll just leave it as poor health. He's been under alot of stress lately and has taken to muttering Kipling's "If" in the oddest places...

Regards Obama

ps. You might want to write the governor post haste as there is a rumour he may be stepping down soon due to poor health and/or..... well, we'll just leave it as poor health. He's been under alot of stress lately and has taken to muttering Kipling's "If" in the oddest places...

"
"The House's action today wasn't a surprise," said Blagojevich said today. "

He ended the news conference by quoting a poem from "Ulysses" by Lord Alfred Tennyson, ending with: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

Dear Cousin Spade

You may just want to "fax" the thank-you note to Rod TODAY (I had mentioned time was of the essence). He's taken to spouting Tennyson and I fear that if it comes down to Coleridges "Kubla Khan" he will have left us

Regards

Obama and Michelle

 

[Tyr]

Well, if Canada has an advantage in tellecommunications (which I wouldn't be surprised was at least partially propelled by our need for it owing to our low populaiton density and extensive land mass), then by purchassing US military products, we're contributing to a lower Canadian dollar, thus making what Canada does best more accessible to the US market.

Now as for the trucks, I don't know. If they could have been produced at lower cost for the same quality, then I agree. I don't know the details on that, but then before we could argue any further, we'd have to investigate which company truly had the best product at the lowest price, without nationalistic bias.

"....without nationalistic bias"

Ones National Defence is a "nationalistic concept." Therin lies the crux of the matter

Do you think that say, the US would buy it's jet fighters, attack helicopters, subs and aircraft carriers from China if they were "the best product at the best price?"

 

[Tonington]

What kind of trucks are we talking about here? These ones:

Only new models.

There are plenty of companies that I'm sure could build these. My small home town of 8000 people has a company called Tri-Star industries, that manufacture ambulances, command post vehicles, and all sorts of other vehicles. In the past they've turned Hummers into AT ambulances for the jungle down in Columbia or Brazil or something like that.

I'm sure there's other companies like this around the country.

How McKay can talk about this helping our economy is beyond me. Anyone remember the contract for military knives that left the company in MacKay's riding, for a company in China?

Bull****, and more bull****. Par for the course I'd say...

 

[Machjo]

"....without nationalistic bias"

Ones National Defence is a "nationalistic concept." Therin lies the crux of the matter

Do you think that say, the US would buy it's jet fighters, attack helicopters, subs and aircraft carriers from China if they were "the best product at the best price?"

Again, Tyr, I can neither agree nor disagree with you because I don't know the direction you're going in.

In your first posts, I got the impression that your objective in opposing military imports from the US was to create jobs for Canadians (an economic argument). I countered that importing from the US can also create jobs for Canadians indirectly and save money in the process by ensuring an efficient military industry that can exploit economies of scale that cannot be effectively exploited in a country with a small population like Canada.

Now you've switched the argument to national military defence. If that's the argument, then I fully agree with you. But first you must decide what you're argument is, because you weren't using the same arguments at the beginning of the thread as you are now. So I take it you're switching the argument to fit the point.

Bear in mind though that I'm more of an economist than a militarist. As such, I'd rather trust other nations, build relations with them, and save money in the process than always playing military brinksmanship with my tax dollars. In fact, I'm a decentralist world federalist who'd be more than happy to share a UN military force if it could save money to provide basic literacy to more kids in Africa. It's kind of hard to care about your country when your country cares more about fighting for a piece of dirt than it does about educating the poor. What does that say about the character of this nation we're supposed to care about?

 

[Machjo]

Same with knives in China. If we consider that the Chinese are much poorer than we are, this is a chance to help them develop. We are wealthier. We'll survive. The curse of materialism.

 

[Machjo]

Then again, I've sometimes considered voting Libertarian. I figure if our money is just going to be spent on naitonalistic and militaristic endeavours, then perhaps it's best to just cut taxes, let the government but out, and let us share our wealth as we wish to do it.

 

[Tyr]

What kind of trucks are we talking about here? These ones:

Only new models.

There are plenty of companies that I'm sure could build these. My small home town of 8000 people has a company called Tri-Star industries, that manufacture ambulances, command post vehicles, and all sorts of other vehicles. In the past they've turned Hummers into AT ambulances for the jungle down in Columbia or Brazil or something like that.

I'm sure there's other companies like this around the country.

How McKay can talk about this helping our economy is beyond me. Anyone remember the contract for military knives that left the company in MacKay's riding, for a company in China?

Bull****, and more bull****. Par for the course I'd say...

I believe it's a replacement for the M35 2 1/2 tone MWLV. Some like this

 

[EagleSmack]

Enjoy the trucks!

 

[Praxius]

Same with knives in China. If we consider that the Chinese are much poorer than we are, this is a chance to help them develop. We are wealthier. We'll survive. The curse of materialism.

There have already been complaints to the original Canadian company who originally designed them, on how low a quality they were and how they were breaking or shoddy.

Call me old fashion, but I don't like the thought of our troops jumping out of a plane, getting trapped in a tree, the knife fk'n up on them, and then they're stuck hanging while they wait to be shot by the enemy.

Just seems the extra bit of money put into knowing that you're getting a tried and tested product would be worth it.

But what does Peter McKay know? Sure he's from a community that has a long history of military blood in it...... But I come from the exact same community, and he doesn't know jack about the military.

He only got his position because of his daddy's history in the Community and because he comes from a community with the proper type of background for defense minister......

That doesn't mean he friggin learned much of that background.

But hey, I guess I don't really know the guy personally, so I'm just being a jerk..... but his actions sure as hell don't make sense in the overall spectrum of things, and the community sure as hell didn't like him selling out their decades old contract to some cheaper company over seas....

.... esspecially in a time of war, and esspecially in a time when people are looking for jobs...... it was a dumb decision on his part.

 

[Tonington]

I believe it's a replacement for the M35 2 1/2 tone MWLV. Some like this

Canadian Forces getting 1,300 new trucks for use at bases across the country - Yahoo! Canada News

McKay said the order was for MilCOTs. Medium sized trucks, not large trucks. The picture I posted is an older MilCOT.

 

[#juan]

Lets just say that $274,000,000.00 was the best price for these vehicles. What about the cost of welfare or U.I. for the workers we just put out of work? If we add that to the cost of these trucks, the price per unit goes up considerably.

 

[Cannuck]

Juan

Can you post a link or something to back up your suggestion that somebody is going to lose their job....and BTW, so what if they do...there isn't Pratt and Whitney engines on every plane that is bought and sold in Canada nor should there be. It's called free enterprise.

 

[Machjo]

There have already been complaints to the original Canadian company who originally designed them, on how low a quality they were and how they were breaking or shoddy.

Call me old fashion, but I don't like the thought of our troops jumping out of a plane, getting trapped in a tree, the knife fk'n up on them, and then they're stuck hanging while they wait to be shot by the enemy.

Just seems the extra bit of money put into knowing that you're getting a tried and tested product would be worth it.

But what does Peter McKay know? Sure he's from a community that has a long history of military blood in it...... But I come from the exact same community, and he doesn't know jack about the military.

He only got his position because of his daddy's history in the Community and because he comes from a community with the proper type of background for defense minister......

That doesn't mean he friggin learned much of that background.

But hey, I guess I don't really know the guy personally, so I'm just being a jerk..... but his actions sure as hell don't make sense in the overall spectrum of things, and the community sure as hell didn't like him selling out their decades old contract to some cheaper company over seas....

.... esspecially in a time of war, and esspecially in a time when people are looking for jobs...... it was a dumb decision on his part.

If indeed the knives are of poorer quality, then I agree with you. But I still oppose the economic argument. If the knives had been of the same quality, why waste tax dollars buying a more expensive knife. Then I'd say let the Chinese do what they do best, and let us do what we do best. Instead of cometing, let's co-operate to make all of our industries as efficient as possible. Besides, increased imports from China will eventually push the value of the RMB up in relation to the Canadian dollar, thus decreasing imports over time and increasing exports. It all balances out in the end. Because if we start playing silly economic games, it could backfire and end up hurting everyone. It might create plenty of jobs, but make the economy much more inefficient in the process, leading to higher costs for everthing, inflation, and so a higher poverty line.

 

[EagleSmack]

Lets just say that $274,000,000.00 was the best price for these vehicles. What about the cost of welfare or U.I. for the workers we just put out of work? If we add that to the cost of these trucks, the price per unit goes up considerably.

So this contract just put Canadians out of work?!

Talk about short term planning.

 

[Machjo]

Lets just say that $274,000,000.00 was the best price for these vehicles. What about the cost of welfare or U.I. for the workers we just put out of work? If we add that to the cost of these trucks, the price per unit goes up considerably.

The simple solution to that is to lower interest rates right down to 0% if we have to. Let the value of the dollar fall on the international stage and stop trying to maintain an artifically high value on the market with high interest rates. As the value of the dollar falls, the result would naturally be fewer imports and more local jobs. If it's serious enough and we start suffering from deflation, then and only then might I support printing just enough money to counter the deflation, along with either a tax cut or at least more charitable donations being tax deductible.

 

[#juan]

Juan

Can you post a link or something to back up your suggestion that somebody is going to lose their job....and BTW, so what if they do...there isn't Pratt and Whitney engines on every plane that is bought and sold in Canada nor should there be. It's called free enterprise.

There have already been thousands of jobs lost in the motor vehicle industry. Many of these lost jobs could have been regained if we kept this order in Canada. Free enterprise rarely has anything to do with the purchase of military hardware.

 

[Machjo]

As for welfare and U.I., instead of maintaining jobs that produce products that the American can produce more efficiently, let those jobs fall and retrain the laid-off for jobs that produce products and services that Canada can produce more efficiently than the US. If we aim at making our companies more competitive, then both sides lose because they're wasting precious resources not actually producing anything but rather trying to undermine each the other. Competitiveness does not necessarily equal efficiency.

If on the other hand we adopt a more co-operative approach and let the US do what they can do more efficienty and we focus on what we can do more efficiently, then both sides benefit from such united action. Of course such restructuring risks displacing people, but a simple solution to that would be to make education more universal so that the laid-off can get retrained for the new jobs.

ANd where do we get the money for this retraining? Two alternatives:

1. Charitable contributions, or (if Canadians care too little about their compatriots),

2. Increased government spending on education.

Personally I'd prefer option 1 however because it usually involves less buraucracy, is more grass-roots,a nd so more responsive to the needs of each person in need. Government buraucracy is usually based on a one-size-fits-all approach which leads to inefficient wastage along with some of the needy not getting the help they really need.

One simple solution to this would be for the govenment to make more of our charitable contributions tax-deductible. This way, if we think the government isn't spending the money wisely, then we can decide where the money can help most.