Import tax? No import tax if it's a qualified vehicle (ie, built in Canada/Mexico/US).
That's what NAFTA is all about.
Do some research - you can save a bundle on certain cars.
Should we lock the Canadian Dollar with the U.S.?
- Thread starter theconqueror
- Start date
Import tax? No import tax if it's a qualified vehicle (ie, built in Canada/Mexico/US).
That's what NAFTA is all about.
Do some research - you can save a bundle on certain cars.
Not disputing what you say as you live in a different province. Here, however, we were told to stay away from purchasing from the USA because warranty stuff is not covered.
That depends on the make of car, different brands have different rules. Much of that is fearmongering by the existing dealer networks, who are terrified that people will catch on to the ridiculous difference in price between the two markets.
And if you're buying a 2 year old lease-return, warranty isn't really an issue.
I think you are right; warrantee is covered for many makes and models. But one has to live close to border to buy a car in USA. If you live three or four hours away from the border, are you really going to take your car across the border if something goes wrong with it? That will be a major project. What you save in money you pay back big time in convenience.
If one lives close to the border, no problem. Incidentally it is not only cars where warrantee is valid. I remember 15 years or so ago we bought a treadmill from USA. A month after we bought it, something went wrong. We took it back across the border and got it fixed by the store (I think it was Target) for free. Of course, I wouldn’t’ try that today; it is too much hassle to take it across the border.
Not necessarily. About three posts after the one you'd quoted, I'd mentioned that, thinking about it again, I'd exaggerated the amount of time it took and divided by 3. So overall you'd spend about 2.5 minutes a day on that task. Obviously it's not worth hiring someone for 2.5 minutes a day. Also, even if there was someone on site already, it would take longer to pass that task on to him than to just do it yourself. to take an example, imagine a planner busy at work drawing some complex plan, and among his work is one calculation requiring him to add one and one. Would it make more sense for him to just add the two together himself, or e-mail a junior colleague and explain to him that he'd like that equation calculated with the answer e-mailed back ASAP so he can continue on with his work? I think the answer is obvious.
Now, as for 2.5 minutes of the day wasted, again, it might not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but that can still add up a couple hours a year. Again, it might not seem like much, but multiply that by the number of Canadians involved in this task each day nationwide.
Even if a person were paid 10.00 an hour, the point is that this is extra work that could be eliminated by simply adopting and sharing a common currency
And as for the argument that other countries might not look out for our best interests, remember that if we're sharing a common currency, it's in their best interests to maintain the value of that currency too. Following your logic, Calgary ought to adopt its own currency since it can't be sure that the rest of the country is looking out for its best interests.
Just to clarify something: a rise in the value of the currency is not all that matters here.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that currency X is worth .5 of currency Y, but people in country x are paid on average half of what those in country y get of their currency. On that front, the two countries would be just as expensive. Now let's say that currency y goes up to eventually par with currency x, but salaries drop by 75%. In spite of the rise in the currency, costs will have gone down and exports will have gone up.
To look at it strictly in terms of a rise in the currency is oversimplifying it. Let's suppose that the Canadian dollar rises in relation to the US dollar, but US salaries rise faster than Canadian ones. That's not going to help the US at all. There are more complex issues to consider than just the rise in the currency itself.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that currency X is worth .5 of currency Y, but people in country x are paid on average half of what those in country y get of their currency. On that front, the two countries would be just as expensive. Now let's say that currency y goes up to eventually par with currency x, but salaries drop by 75%. In spite of the rise in the currency, costs will have gone down and exports will have gone up.
To look at it strictly in terms of a rise in the currency is oversimplifying it. Let's suppose that the Canadian dollar rises in relation to the US dollar, but US salaries rise faster than Canadian ones. That's not going to help the US at all. There are more complex issues to consider than just the rise in the currency itself.
Not necessarily. Though it's true that inflation an growth often coincide, they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Inflation is only the illusion of growth.
I'm certainly not convinced that tying our dollar to the U.S. dollar would be beneficial. Listening to a couple of financial experts lately it would seem that a high Canadian dollar is more beneificial than previously thought. For one thing it would seem that our natural resources are more highly valued and secondly it gives us an advantage of being able to import the latest technical innovations which helps us reduce the costs of manufacturing products for export.
Again, juding by domestic inflation figures, the Canadian dollar isn't rising, but falling. All that's happening is that other currencies are falling faster than the Canadian one is. As an example, if you're sitting on a train facing the front and the train is moving backward slowly, but the train in your sight to you is moving backward at ful speed, if you focus on that train instead of the ground under yours, you might get the false impression that your train is moving forward.
And as for Canada and the US adopting a common currency, I think it would be beneficial in that it would remove currency speculation between our countries. I would hope though that the new central bank adpts a conservative policy with regards to inflation, etc.
Cheap relatively I should have said. The situation is worse in other coutnries who do not produce oil. Nothing is cheap, but Canada is slightly better positioned as the price of oil rises. There is likely to be higher prices in the future as the world economy improves and demand rises. I remember bring told 30 years ago that we'll conserve oil when it runs out. Oil is never going to run out, but at $3-9 litre we're going to live much differently.
In Burnaby gas is $1.12 a litre.
Sure sometimes, but Canada didn't have a Great Recession like in the USA. Demand was still there and now it has improved enough that companies feel confident enough to raise prices. Good times are back!
Tell me about it, gas here is also $1.07, but the cost of bread is criminal, big loaves are $1.99 at Safeway most other places more. Of course we have Walmart and Superstore, but they are way out at the other end of town, so just not worth running out there unless you are getting a big order. I sure get a laugh out of the morons who think we should be paying more tax. I'm ready to sign Vanderzahm's petition- how about you? Could you imagine us signing anything instigated by Vanderzalm 20 years ago? Of course he's a lot smarter now............:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
A small amount fo inflation (1 to 2%) is good for the economy, that is about the inflation you get during the times of good growth. Higher inflation is of course bad for the economy. But zero inflation (or even worse, deflation) is equally bad.
Here's the thing. Inflation can stimulate grown by encouraging people o race against prices and spend what they have. Yes, that promotes grown until people have spent themselves dry, and then we end up in recession. Such growth is fleeting, unsustainable, an results in recession sooner or later. Of course deflation is equally harmful but in reverse. It encourages people to save money in the hopes of further dropping prices, pushing the country into recession. Ideally you want 0 inflation, which thus encourages people neither to save nor to spend. This way, people feel no pressure to save or spend in accordance to price fluctuations, and instead spend according to their own needs. This may or may not promote growth, but any growth created under such conditions, though likely to be more moderate than inflation-induced growth, is also likely to be more sustainable and long-lasting, not as likely to lead to severe recession down the road. I'd rather slow but sustained growth over fast growth leading to meltdown later.
Any inflation is bad. Think about it. If you're dealing with a poor person trying to save whatever he can for his future, even 1% inflation hurts and waters down his hard earned money, forcing him to make harder decisions between saving now and spending before prices rise.
The only real difference between 1% and 10% inflation is the degree of the pressure put on him. The only money one can hedge against inflation is what one earns beyond what is required for his sustenance. As such, the poor, who have no spare money to hedge against inflation, take the full brunt of it, whereas the rich who can hedge against it with their spare money cake a lesser brunt of it. On that front, we could even argue a moral front against inflation.
As for deflation, I agree that it is equally harmful and for similar reasons. A rich person can save some of his money and wait while prices go down, while a poor person has no extra cash to spare. Either way, inflation of deflation, the poor take the majority of the brunt of it, even if it's moderate.
Now please explain why moderate inflation is 'good'?
I think the reason some think inflation is good is owing to the short-term 'benefits'. It certainly does encourage spending, which in turn promotes economic growth. The problem though is that it does not encourage saving. And so in the long term it can only hurt.
Inasmuch as i'd be opposed to pinning the Canadian dollar to anything, I would be in favour of aiming (for lack of a better term) the dollar towards gold.
The problem with pinning a currency involves legislating an exchange rate, making it legally binding to exchange at the set rate. If the real market value does not match the set rate, then you have an illegal black currency market.
If you simply aim the currency, then it's still free to float on the free market. For example, let's say the government decides to aim 1.00CAD to X grams of gold, then whenever 1.00CAD is worth more than x grams of gold, the government would take action to inflate the currency back towards x grams of gold. And when the dollar value fall to below x grams of gold, then the government takes action to deflate the currency back up to x grams of gold.
So 'aiming' the currency would be different from pinning it in that ulike pining it, the government would still leave us the freedom to exchange the two at market rate, but would simply try its best to manipulate the currency to always bring it back to the aimed value. This way, any inflation must be met with deflation to bring it back to its original value, and likewise vice versa. This would mean that if the dollar value is less than the aimed at value, you know the government will deflate it, and so you can wait before spending it. And same vice versa. This would certainly benefit the poor in that they will be able to actually predict the long-term value of their money, and would feel no pressure to spend it prematurely since they'd know the government will preserve its value over the long term.
Also,inasmuch as I'm not in favour of minimum wages, if we are going to have minimum wages, then putting a stop to inflation would be the only way to ensure it has any effect.
Another option would be to adopt a currency similar to the gold dirham, whereby the value of the currency is intrinsic to the gold content of its coins. I don't now if that would be feasible, but it certainly would have the advantage of being suf-sustaining (i.e. not vulnerable to the whims of inflation) since its value would be intrinsic to the gold content within it.
The problem with pinning a currency involves legislating an exchange rate, making it legally binding to exchange at the set rate. If the real market value does not match the set rate, then you have an illegal black currency market.
If you simply aim the currency, then it's still free to float on the free market. For example, let's say the government decides to aim 1.00CAD to X grams of gold, then whenever 1.00CAD is worth more than x grams of gold, the government would take action to inflate the currency back towards x grams of gold. And when the dollar value fall to below x grams of gold, then the government takes action to deflate the currency back up to x grams of gold.
So 'aiming' the currency would be different from pinning it in that ulike pining it, the government would still leave us the freedom to exchange the two at market rate, but would simply try its best to manipulate the currency to always bring it back to the aimed value. This way, any inflation must be met with deflation to bring it back to its original value, and likewise vice versa. This would mean that if the dollar value is less than the aimed at value, you know the government will deflate it, and so you can wait before spending it. And same vice versa. This would certainly benefit the poor in that they will be able to actually predict the long-term value of their money, and would feel no pressure to spend it prematurely since they'd know the government will preserve its value over the long term.
Also,inasmuch as I'm not in favour of minimum wages, if we are going to have minimum wages, then putting a stop to inflation would be the only way to ensure it has any effect.
Another option would be to adopt a currency similar to the gold dirham, whereby the value of the currency is intrinsic to the gold content of its coins. I don't now if that would be feasible, but it certainly would have the advantage of being suf-sustaining (i.e. not vulnerable to the whims of inflation) since its value would be intrinsic to the gold content within it.