You wouldn't invoice us and if you did we would rip it up. If you aren't prepared to be our bitch, we will shut down the pipelines from Alaska and you can ship it all.
Canada talks tough on 'Buy American'
- Thread starter Tyr
- Start date
You wouldn't invoice us and if you did we would rip it up. If you aren't prepared to be our bitch, we will shut down the pipelines from Alaska and you can ship it all.
You would shut down the pipeline from Alaska? :lol:
Ummm... you are aware that the Alaskan Pipeline does not go through Canada right? That the oil from the Alaskan pipeline is shipped anyways.
You knew that right?
I doubt it.
Try again.
Thats the great thing about US competitors though, they do have merchant fleets.
You think anyone cares who loads it onto the boat? many countries have FOB refinery or manufcature point.
In a trade war, Canada won't lose. We have far too many resources to know what to do with, low population with alot of land. And as long as other countries keep popping out babies like there is no tommorow and try in vain to modernize (or even stay fed) every scrap resource we have will have a buyer willing to pay the same prices we get now.
After all, if you yankees have to buy somewhere else (more expensive than us), then all those folks who bought from that supply, will also be forced to buy from us (even with new shipping overhead).
We simply have too many resources to take out of the global economy.
Two crooks? You better get your boots off Smack and have another go at the crook counting.:smile:
If they have them...you will pay dearly.
Some do
So you say because your Canadian.
I doubt that because they don't have the money we do and we are right next door! Funny that Canada has not done that already. They just talk about it a lot on forums.
The need for Maple Syrup is in not too much of a demand.
At any rate... there won't be a trade war so you can put it down and stop rubbing. You will sell and we will buy and that will be that. You will whine and moan and we will all have a nice chat and we will remain the best of trading partners.
Trade wars are conducted for resources as a rule Zzarchov, I know you must know this. You wrote, "In a trade war, Canada won't lose." Why continue to buy resources from a dope smoking nest of socialist terrorists when white phosperous and DU can be liberally applied to drive the price down to nothing? All the posturing and babblespin coming out of Canada has no military backing whatever therefore we are eventually going to be raped,pillaged and burnt following the natural history of contracting empires. Our only partial escape is to become second class Americans which in fact is what busy little Steve Harpercon has been all about. All our useless wealthy have already given thier blessing long ago.
I'm aware of it. I thought you, being a dumb American, weren't. It would appear I have misunderestimated the foe....do you have any ideas on how we can stick it to you?
I fully agree with your on that. You see how nationalism makes people blind to logic? I always try to go about it by asking what's best for us (but with 'us' comprising all men, not just our in-crowd). Common sense dictates that if we focus on a them vs us attitude, the they will react in like manner against the us, resulting in both sides not working together to each other's and their own advantage, but rather trying to undermine one the other. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Tit for tat.
A simple solution to that would be for the government to sell its unexployed resources at higher cost. This would bring the cost of gas up for both Canadians and Americans, or anyone else who wants to buy our resources for that matter. On the positive side, the money goes to the government, so it can use it to develop our country. On the negative side, higher gas prices would reduce Canadian resource exports. But another positive side is that the added revenue the government gets from higher gas prices could be offset by lower taxes, making Canada's labour industry cheaper. This would naturally discourage the export of raw material and consequently the import of finished products.
We could also throw a carrot to the US by showing willingness to negotiate labour-mobility agreements with the WTO.
I'm not sure why this turned into a "My Dad is bigger than Your Dad" sort of
thing, when it should be a "How do we avoid flushing each other further down
an economic toilet."
A trade war might start out as advantageous for one Nation or another, but that
is a very temporary situation in that trade wars are a tool to try and gain at the
expense of your trade partners....and thus the retaliation...and a further flushing
down the economic toilet for everyone.
In a recession, the value of natural resources depresses, as available credit runs
dry and fewer customers can afford less of the natural resources. Oil a year ago
was close to being priced at four times what it is now as an example. That's us,
Canada. By the same token, America doesn't have the money it thinks it does
due to monstrous IOU's that will be recalled on top of further foreign credit
evaporating if a trade war ensues. A trade war will scr#w us all up, very badly.
Just following all of us (myself definitely included) opinionated blowhards and in
watching how our discussion and debate had deteriorated to the point that it has,
it's easy to see how trade wars start once Protectionism begins. The key is, "how
do we avoid Protectionism in the first place so that trade wars don't start?"
I have to say that Eaglesmack is a very good sport for taking on all comers in a
thread like this, and forcing many of us to think beyond Protectionism to a solution
to try and avoid it in the first place.
thing, when it should be a "How do we avoid flushing each other further down
an economic toilet."
A trade war might start out as advantageous for one Nation or another, but that
is a very temporary situation in that trade wars are a tool to try and gain at the
expense of your trade partners....and thus the retaliation...and a further flushing
down the economic toilet for everyone.
In a recession, the value of natural resources depresses, as available credit runs
dry and fewer customers can afford less of the natural resources. Oil a year ago
was close to being priced at four times what it is now as an example. That's us,
Canada. By the same token, America doesn't have the money it thinks it does
due to monstrous IOU's that will be recalled on top of further foreign credit
evaporating if a trade war ensues. A trade war will scr#w us all up, very badly.
Just following all of us (myself definitely included) opinionated blowhards and in
watching how our discussion and debate had deteriorated to the point that it has,
it's easy to see how trade wars start once Protectionism begins. The key is, "how
do we avoid Protectionism in the first place so that trade wars don't start?"
I have to say that Eaglesmack is a very good sport for taking on all comers in a
thread like this, and forcing many of us to think beyond Protectionism to a solution
to try and avoid it in the first place.
The taxpayer has the right to tell the government how they want their taxes to be spent.
In a sense, I agree, but it's still not wise. It provokes protectionism. Add to that, that it makes for an inefficient economy. For example, let's say we have one steel plant in New York and one in Vancouver. With US protectionism, a US company in Seattle would have to buy steel from New York, plus pay shipping costs on top of that. This would create make-work jobs for truckers, but also inflate the economy. But it would produce nothing of value to the economy.
Add to that, that the inflation caused by this would also mean that the Seattle company that produces things with New York steel that it used to buy from Vancouver now has to jack up the price for its product too to make up for it. As a result, if there is no protectionism on that industry, Canadian businesses will jump in and kill it. Why? Because if you have a Canadian company in Montreal, it can just as easily buy steel from the New York plant, at least in the short term but I'll get to that in a minute, thus allowing it to produce its goods more cheply than the Seattle plant that must buy the steel from New York, produce its stuff in Seattle, and then ship it back to New York. The Vancouver company has no problem, obviously. So while both Montral and Vancouver can be competitive, New York and Seattle have a bunch of overhead costs imposed by tariffs.
Now this seems rosy for Canada, but then there's another problem too. With the New York plant suddenly becoming busy selling to the Seattle plant, the Vancouver plant sees prices increase, leaving it to debate whether to buy from New York or Vancouver. In this respect, US protectionism would hurt not only the US, but Canada too.
So what we'd find for the most part is that Canadian companies in the industries the US decides to protect will suffer. But the resultant inflation and inefficiencies this causes in the US would also result in those US companies not protected by the protectionism to fall to more efficient Canadian companies that would take their place. So essentially, the stimulus money would still come to Canada, just through a different channel.
If the government buys manufactured goods from another country it’s defeating the purpose of stimulus program.
Not at all. If much of the US stimulus money eds up buying Canadian dollars, that would push the value of the US dollar down relative to the Canadian dollar, thus making US products more attractive to Canadians. In that sense, protectionsim is like squeezing a balloon. When you squeeze here, the air goes there. When you sqeeze there, the air comes here. So essentially, US protectionism will benefit some US industries at the cost of others. That's why protectionism is pointless? It just makes things more inefficient.
The governments of the world entered into global economy agreement that says no protectionism.
In America, President Obama has a stimulus bill going through the Senate that has a Buy America clause in there that is ready to spark a trade war against America.
If President Obama wanted to avoid a trade war he just has to change the wording of the bill to 85%-90%
Buy America that will take this bill out of the protectionist territory.
Ridiculous. Whether it's 1% or 100%, protectionism is protectionism.
The government also has to enforce their anti-dumping laws which according to the United Steelworkers China breaks on a regular bases.
Fair enough, but do it through the proper channels, through the WTO. Another point is, if you want to dump your goods onto Canada, be my guest. Why shoudl Caandians complain if we get things subsidized by the US government, or the Chinese government?
Think about it for a minute. The only way a country could dump a product on us is through subsidies of some kind. Well, that costs their government, thus taking money away form other areas. As a result, they're essentially dumping on us by burdening their other industries. This can only go on for so long. If we really stopped to think about htis, we should feel blessed that other countries are subsidizing our goods at the expense of their taxpayers! Has no one every stopped to think about that?
I hope our Prime Minister can bring in a provision on their stimulus when they are bailing out Canadian businesses that includes an 85%-90% Buy Canada, which will bring jobs back to Canada.
Great, so while a Vancouver company is now buying its raw resources from Washington state, it will then have to buy them from PEI? Sure it will create trucker jobs, but who will pay for it?
I'm all for the society creating jobs, but let's make them profitable jobs and not make-work jobs, shall we? Or is our voting public too dumb to vote for MP's who are smart enough to be able to think outside the box?
With the Conservative government one can only hope.
I can agree with that, but are the other parties any better? I'm starting to lean Libertarian quite honestly. The people are too stupid. Sometimes I wonder about democracy. Technocracy seems tempting sometimes.
[merged by admin from a new thread]
[/quote]
In a sense, I agree, but it's still not wise. It provokes protectionism. Add to that, that it makes for an inefficient economy. For example, let's say we have one steel plant in New York and one in Vancouver. With US protectionism, a US company in Seattle would have to buy steel from New York, plus pay shipping costs on top of that. This would create make-work jobs for truckers, but also inflate the economy. But it would produce nothing of value to the economy.
Add to that, that the inflation caused by this would also mean that the Seattle company that produces things with New York steel that it used to buy from Vancouver now has to jack up the price for its product too to make up for it. As a result, if there is no protectionism on that industry, Canadian businesses will jump in and kill it. Why? Because if you have a Canadian company in Montreal, it can just as easily buy steel from the New York plant, at least in the short term but I'll get to that in a minute, thus allowing it to produce its goods more cheply than the Seattle plant that must buy the steel from New York, produce its stuff in Seattle, and then ship it back to New York. The Vancouver company has no problem, obviously. So while both Montral and Vancouver can be competitive, New York and Seattle have a bunch of overhead costs imposed by tariffs.
Now this seems rosy for Canada, but then there's another problem too. With the New York plant suddenly becoming busy selling to the Seattle plant, the Vancouver plant sees prices increase, leaving it to debate whether to buy from New York or Vancouver. In this respect, US protectionism would hurt not only the US, but Canada too.
So what we'd find for the most part is that Canadian companies in the industries the US decides to protect will suffer. But the resultant inflation and inefficiencies this causes in the US would also result in those US companies not protected by the protectionism to fall to more efficient Canadian companies that would take their place. So essentially, the stimulus money would still come to Canada, just through a different channel.
If the government buys manufactured goods from another country it’s defeating the purpose of stimulus program.
Not at all. If much of the US stimulus money eds up buying Canadian dollars, that would push the value of the US dollar down relative to the Canadian dollar, thus making US products more attractive to Canadians. In that sense, protectionsim is like squeezing a balloon. When you squeeze here, the air goes there. When you sqeeze there, the air comes here. So essentially, US protectionism will benefit some US industries at the cost of others. That's why protectionism is pointless? It just makes things more inefficient.
The governments of the world entered into global economy agreement that says no protectionism.
In America, President Obama has a stimulus bill going through the Senate that has a Buy America clause in there that is ready to spark a trade war against America.
If President Obama wanted to avoid a trade war he just has to change the wording of the bill to 85%-90%
Buy America that will take this bill out of the protectionist territory.
Ridiculous. Whether it's 1% or 100%, protectionism is protectionism.
The government also has to enforce their anti-dumping laws which according to the United Steelworkers China breaks on a regular bases.
Fair enough, but do it through the proper channels, through the WTO. Another point is, if you want to dump your goods onto Canada, be my guest. Why shoudl Caandians complain if we get things subsidized by the US government, or the Chinese government?
Think about it for a minute. The only way a country could dump a product on us is through subsidies of some kind. Well, that costs their government, thus taking money away form other areas. As a result, they're essentially dumping on us by burdening their other industries. This can only go on for so long. If we really stopped to think about htis, we should feel blessed that other countries are subsidizing our goods at the expense of their taxpayers! Has no one every stopped to think about that?
I hope our Prime Minister can bring in a provision on their stimulus when they are bailing out Canadian businesses that includes an 85%-90% Buy Canada, which will bring jobs back to Canada.
Great, so while a Vancouver company is now buying its raw resources from Washington state, it will then have to buy them from PEI? Sure it will create trucker jobs, but who will pay for it?
I'm all for the society creating jobs, but let's make them profitable jobs and not make-work jobs, shall we? Or is our voting public too dumb to vote for MP's who are smart enough to be able to think outside the box?
With the Conservative government one can only hope.
I can agree with that, but are the other parties any better? I'm starting to lean Libertarian quite honestly. The people are too stupid. Sometimes I wonder about democracy. Technocracy seems tempting sometimes.
[merged by admin from a new thread]
[/quote]
Low population and alot of land is NOT an advantage. That's one reason we pay so much in taxes. So few people to pay for so much infrastructure?
Of course we can solve the problem through immigration, but only if we can break the language barrier.
Good point. That reminds me of a story. I Japanese farmer at a market accidently touched the sword of a Samurai one day. This samurai was a bit of a bully and decided according to tradition that he had the right to fight the farmer at an appointed time a few days later.
The farmer, not knowing how to wield a sword, went to a sensei to teach him. Owing to the time constraint, the sensei taught him but one move. On the day of the fight, the farmer went into the position the sensei taught him,and the Samurai kep walking around him trying to find a vulnerable point. After a few minutes of walking in circles, the Samurai expclaimed: "with the position you took, I could kill you easily, but only by exposing myself at the same time." On that, valueing his life, the Samurai decided to call a truce.
It's not just a question of who can screw whom. It's also a question of being able todo it without getting screwed ourselves. Sure the US can screw Canada, and sure Canada can screw the US. But can we do so without getting screwed in return?
Another dope that gets his butt handed to him and tries to say
"Oh I knew that."
So transparent. You have no clue what you are talking about.
That doesn't help. More people just require more infrastructure. Less people more land is a huge advantage. Thats why every nationalist group out there has tried to reduce the number of people and increase the amount of land.
Even if you cram the people into hives, that just requires even more infrastructure to replace things nature used to do for free, like provide clean air.
Well China actually, cause you know those "people" work for nothing and that is good for the bottom line! :lol:
Canadians, all they want is more money money money!
I'm thinking we could charge them 3X the cost like we did when California suffered "brown outs" and had to buy extra capacity from BC Hydro
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is exclusively a crude petroleum reserve, not a stockpile of refined petroleum fuels, such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Although there are small-scale (2 million barrels) heating oil reserves in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey under the aegis of the Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal government maintains no gasoline reserves on anything like the scale of the SPR. Consequently, while the US enjoys some protection from disruptions in oil supplies, it would have to depend on other stockpiling members of the International Energy Agency for relief from any major disruption to refinery operations. Since no new refineries have been constructed in the US for thirty years, there is little reserve capacity] This was illustrated during Hurricane Katrina, when many of the Gulf coast oil refining complexes were disrupted for some time.
Cannuck
I believe these are the pipelines you're referring to. You are from Alberta are you not?
Is there some sort of airborne contagion going around? More stupidity from the unions in Canada
Two of Canada's largest unions are urging the federal government to adopt a Buy Canadian policy similar to the proposal that has been criticized in the United States.
At a joint press conference on Tuesday morning, the Canadian Auto Workers and the United Steelworkers said Ottawa should adopt a procurement policy that ensures the majority of public funds are spent on goods and services made in Canada.
“Every year more than $500-billion is spent by governments at all levels in this country and yet, year in and year out, billions and billions are spent on goods and services from other countries when they could have sourced from Canada,” CAW president Ken Lewenza said.
He pointed to buses, subways, streetcars, ferries, ships, aircraft, defence equipment, uniforms, office equipment and steel for bridges and other infrastructure projects that have been bought abroad with Canadian tax dollars. With $12-billion in economic stimulus promised in last month's federal budget, the unions want that money spent in Canada.