I would have hoped you were bright enough to figure out that was humour. But alas...
Buy nationally vs buy locally
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I would have hoped you were bright enough to figure out that was humour. But alas...
Hey, if your eggs are subsidized by the American taxpayer, why not take advantage of it?
Now you might say that gives the US egg farmer an unfair advantage. True. But seeing how all other American industries would have to pay more taxes to subsidize the US egg farmer, that just puts all the other US industries at a disadvantage. Again, it balances itself out.
There you have it. So the US would keep its egg farmers and Canada would keep its industries.
Or better yet. Stop subsidizing Canada's big industries and just treat all industries equally. Then while the US would get to keep its egg farmers, we'd get to keep our small and medium enterprises too.
I take multiple things into consideration.
Shipping distance (I try to avoid large shipping distances when I can). Price. Locale of the production (I support Canadian business where I can). To name a few.
I think it's irrational to choose based solely on one thing.
Shipping distance (I try to avoid large shipping distances when I can). Price. Locale of the production (I support Canadian business where I can). To name a few.
I think it's irrational to choose based solely on one thing.
Not entirely. The American farmer is the most subsidised animal in the civilized world. By paying the extra twenty cents, the man has thwarted yet another attempt by Americans to screw Canadians, and he has helped a Canadian farmer.
Another thing I could support would be reducing income taxes and increasing gas taxes. Reducing income taxes would help local companies, like a subsidy really. But the gas tax would penalize companies from farther away, As a result, Southern US companies would have a hard time competing in the US market, while Northern US companies would have a hard time competing in the Northern Canadian market, simply owing to the upward pressure the gas tax would place on them. And all of that without subsidies or tariffs, thus perfectly in accordance with trade rules, and not protectionist at all since Canadian companies would be equally subjected to this tax.
Reduce income taxes and increase the gas tax, and suddenly the income tax cut becomes like a subsidy to the Canadian farmer, while the gas tax automatically gives the advantage to the local farmer over a distant one. And the Americans can't cry foul over NAFTA since this would not be a tariff nor a subsidy, and Canadians would be subject to the same law as the American, whereby Canadian farmers from farther afield would have to pay more tax too, thug giving the local farmer an advantage not only over the American farmer, but over all other farmers including other Canadian ones.
so....you're suggesting that both Canada and the u.s. put the same tax on fuel....is that right? any other tax you want to amalgamate with the americans? Maybe put our incone taxes together and harmonize gov't spending? Are you sure you're not an american trying to undermine Canadian sovereignty?
To support closer ties with our neighbours is not the same as wanting Canada to become a 51st state. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what how else I can explain it to you. But I certainly do not support a Fortress Canada mentality.
As for the gas tax, I could see a number of scenarios. One would be as you suggested, that we coordinate our taxation policies, which might be tricky but not impossible owing to the difference in the debt load of the two countries.
Another would be for Canada to act unilaterally with its own gas tax. While this would not have much of an impact on Canadian border towns, it would have an impact on Canadian towns farther north as US truckers, etc have to pay for highly taxed Canadian gas. Meanwhile, Canadian export companies might decide to relocate farther south to those same Canadian border towns so as to avoid the Canadian gas tax. The fact that those companies would be paying less income tax than their US counterparts would act as a kind of subsidy, and since they'd be near the border, they could avoid most of the Canadian gas tax.
Sooner or later the US would have no choice but to follow suit. After all, to compete against those Canadian companies paying such low income taxes, the US government would have no choice but to lower US income taxes. But then they have to get their money from somewhere, and NAFTA restricts protectionism, so they'd turn to a gas tax of their own as a way of discouraging Canadian imports without violating NAFTA. As a result, in the end, while the Northern US might import from Southern Canada and vice versa, we'd likely not see much Canadian trade in the Southern states or US trade in northern Canada. Subsidies would not help much here either in the face of a high gas tax.
Other protections I could see would be, with regards to a free labour movement agreement, that US citizens wishing to work in Quebec must pass a French test or otherwise prove knowledge of French. Of course the US would likely respond in kind to Quebec residents, expecting them to prove a knowledge of English. Fair enough. But at least those Quebecer who do know English could benefit from the US market just as Americans who know French could benefit from the Quebec market.
No, I'm not intent on destroying the trucking industry for the sake of destroying the trucking industry. However, I'm not interested in creating trucking jobs for the sake of creating trucking jobs either. We ought to have as many truckers as we need to promote economic growth, no more, no less. I'm for full employment in the economy both for economic reasons (meaningful jobs produce goods and services which contribute to the GDP) and for social reasons (people who are employed and contributing to the community can feel happier and better about themselves). However, as valuable as work is, it ought never, ever be a goal in and of itself, otherwise it's just a make-work job.
I could create plenty of trucker jobs quite easily. First, ban imports. The US would retaliate and, Bingo! suddenly a Vancouverite who used to buy a certain product from Seattle might have to buy the same product from Halifax if it's not produced anywhere else in Canada. Suddenly, the trucker who needed to transport the product between Seattle and Vancouver now has to transport it from Halifax to Vancouver. I'd just have created a boom in the trucking industry. But not only that. The increased traffic would also mean higher taxes to higher more labourers to build more highways. Sure the cost of the product would rise, taxes would go up, government spending would have to increase, but hey, more jobs, right?
Or how about a better alternative? Open up our borders, allowing the economy to function more efficiently by allowing for more localized trade. Sure it might cost a trucker or two their jobs, but on the other hand, the money saved by the company would allow it to drop the price of the product, thus helping to combat inflation. Reduced traffic would also mean less government spending on highway construction. The money saved from this would be redirected towards retraining the truckers for other trades and professions that are actually of benefit to the community rather than just plain make work jobs. While make-work jobs give someone a job at everyone else's expense, value-added job creation creates not just jobs, but wealth (be it material or spiritual) to boot, which after all ought always to be the ultimate purpose of a job beyond just keeping busy at others' expense for its own sake, which is then nothing more than masked welfare. If we blocked international trade just to create trucker jobs, even if they are private sector jobs, they would still essentially be nothing more than masked welfare since it would essentially be government protectionism that would be creating these valueless jobs paid for by the poor consumer.
That's what it was like when we were there, yes. A lot of orchardists have turned over from tree fruits to ginseng, grapes, etc. simply because they were priced out of tree fruits (as well as growing populations crowding the orchards out).
Speaking of shipping, getting rid of a lot of railway was pretty stupid. Rail is a lot cheaper, safer, and better for the environment at hauling large quantities of goods than trucking those goods. Same goes for transporting people.
Last edited: