US Dumping Corn in Canada?

[Charles Anthony]

Why is a tariff that protects producers from a subsidy more immoral than the subsidy that made the tariff necessary in the first place?

Immoral?

Let us be careful: the words immoral or moral have never been mentioned in this thread nor does this thread in the Moral & Religious Issues category. Is that a mistake or is it bait?

The words "taking away the consumer's choice" and "supporting our local economy" and "geneticly modified" and "dumped and subsidized" have been mentioned, to name a few.

Identify exactly what you mean by immoral.

[Wilber]

Why is a tariff that protects producers from a subsidy more immoral than the subsidy that made the tariff necessary in the first place?

Immoral?

Let us be careful: the words immoral or moral have never been mentioned in this thread nor does this thread in the Moral & Religious Issues category. Is that a mistake or is it bait?

The words "taking away the consumer's choice" and "supporting our local economy" and "geneticly modified" and "dumped and subsidized" have been mentioned, to name a few.

Identify exactly what you mean by immoral.

Don't get your knickers in a knot, I wasn't being devious. How about "less ethical" or "more serious". I don't see the difference between subsidies and tariffs. They both have the same objectives. The question is do you believe in the objective? Personally, I believe a country's ability to provide food for it's citizens is pretty darn important. The idea that another government's subsidies can threaten that ability is serious business.

[Charles Anthony]

How about "less ethical" or "more serious". I don't see the difference between subsidies and tariffs. They both have the same objectives.

Good. We can work with that.

CAVEAT: The trouble is that some people believe it is ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Some people even steal from the poor to give to the rich! They get around the immorality of theft by denying people's rights to their own property or by imposing a sense of charity that we must all have. Of course, they determine who is on the receiving end! Other people think that any instance of genetically modified agriculture is immoral.

The question is do you believe in the objective?

I will say that "forcing something upon a person against their will and stealing their property" are objectively immoral.

Personally, I believe a country's ability to provide food for it's citizens is pretty darn important.

Not every country has the same resources and some countries have amicable relationships with neighboring countries who can provide you food for cheaper. Think of what you are foregoing. The local citizens can look at it this way:

The US taxpayers are subsidizing Canadian consumers. That means we can buy ethanol, corn oil, corn sugar and meat and chicken more cheaply - all thanks to American taxpayers.

A subsidy forces local citizens to pay extra (through taxes) to give money to local producers so that they may continue to produce locally -- without the ability to opt out.

A quota reduces supply to local citizens -- without the ability to opt out.

A tariff forces local citizens to pay more directly through a markup -- without the ability to opt out.

What is moral about forcing a local citizen to buy local?

If a "local" farmer figured out how to produce coffee beans or bananas and his uncle was Prime Minister of Canada, would it be moral to subsidize his "local" greenhouse? would it be moral to raise tariffs and set quotas on imported coffee and bananas? so that our "local" farmer can make us self-sufficient in our coffee consumption? to encourage more people to get into the expensive business of producing "local" greenhouses? to pass on higher prices to local citizens?

[Wilber]

How about "less ethical" or "more serious". I don't see the difference between subsidies and tariffs. They both have the same objectives.

Good. We can work with that.

CAVEAT: The trouble is that some people believe it is ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Some people even steal from the poor to give to the rich! They get around the immorality of theft by denying people's rights to their own property or by imposing a sense of charity that we must all have. Of course, they determine who is on the receiving end! Other people think that any instance of genetically modified agriculture is immoral.

The question is do you believe in the objective?

I will say that "forcing something upon a person against their will and stealing their property" are objectively immoral.

Personally, I believe a country's ability to provide food for it's citizens is pretty darn important.

Not every country has the same resources and some countries have amicable relationships with neighboring countries who can provide you food for cheaper. Think of what you are foregoing. The local citizens can look at it this way:

The US taxpayers are subsidizing Canadian consumers. That means we can buy ethanol, corn oil, corn sugar and meat and chicken more cheaply - all thanks to American taxpayers.

A subsidy forces local citizens to pay extra (through taxes) to give money to local producers so that they may continue to produce locally -- without the ability to opt out.

A quota reduces supply to local citizens -- without the ability to opt out.

A tariff forces local citizens to pay more directly through a markup -- without the ability to opt out.

What is moral about forcing a local citizen to buy local?

If a "local" farmer figured out how to produce coffee beans or bananas and his uncle was Prime Minister of Canada, would it be moral to subsidize his "local" greenhouse? would it be moral to raise tariffs and set quotas on imported coffee and bananas? so that our "local" farmer can make us self-sufficient in our coffee consumption? to encourage more people to get into the expensive business of producing "local" greenhouses? to pass on higher prices to local citizens?

I agree with most of what you say. I don't believe in subsidies, tariffs or other trade restrictions. I do say that a country has every right to impose tariffs on foreign goods if those goods are subsidized to a point where they are a threat to the security of that country and the livelihood of its citizens. Volutarily giving more and more control of a country's food supply to a foreign government and that country's special interest groups is a potential threat. We already know that the price of oil is driving up the price of food because of the cost of transportation. We allow our own farmers to be driven out of business because of foreign subisidies and we will be left with no choice but to buy goods that are grown to standards set by other countries and at their prices.

About 1% of BC is viable farm land. I live right in the middle of the most productive region in BC if not Canada. The farmers here are not subsidised and are profitable. Allowing it to dissapear into urban sprawl because those farmers are driven out of business by foreign subsidies would be just plain stupid.

[Charles Anthony]

I agree with most of what you say.

No, you do not.

I don't believe in subsidies, tariffs or other trade restrictions.

Yes, you do.

I do say that a country has every right to impose tariffs on foreign goods if

No, you do not.

Yes, you do.

No, you do not.

Sorry, I am just being silly. I could not resist.

I will be serious now.

What you call "threat to the security of that country and the livelihood of its citizens" is a political way of euphemizing protectionism. What makes protectionism (tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc.) wrong transcends anybody's responsibility to security or livelihood of other people. Thus, even if the tariffs or quotas or subsidies were in the interest of combatting threats to security and its citizens, it would still be wrong. It would be like saying: "I am stealing from tax-payer Peter so that I can give to farmer Paul so that farmer Paul can continue to protect and feed everybody regardless of whether Peter wants the protection or if he can feed himself differently."

We allow our own farmers to be driven out of business because of foreign subisidies and we will be left with no choice but to buy goods that are grown to standards set by other countries and at their prices.

Should we force our own citizens to go bankrupt (or at least pay higher prices) so that they can eat? regardless of their own individual choices?

The farmers here are not subsidised and are profitable. Allowing it to dissapear into urban sprawl because those farmers are driven out of business by foreign subsidies would be just plain stupid.

You are mixing everything up. Either the farmers need protectionism or they do not. (That is why I could not resist the jest above.)

If they are profitable, they do not need intervention in the market (protectionizm). If they are driven out of business, they are not profitable.

Individual consumers should have the choice of whether they want to forego their nation's ability to produce food (or national security) or not.

However, I am curious: how is our local inability to provide our own food, a national threat?

If we can pay for imports, who would threaten us?

[Wilber]

I speak of tariffs as a response to subsidies, nothing else. If there is no subsidy, there is no need for a tariff. I do not support subsidies.

I don't know if you fall into this category but I am always amazed when people who consider Canada's self sufficiency in such things as energy of primary importance, or we should have a Canada only price for Canadian oil and gas, or freak at the thought of selling one liter of water to the US, can be so cavalier when it comes to the security of what they need to put on the table every day in order to survive.

[Charles Anthony]

I do not support subsidies.

Why not?

[August1991]

I speak of tariffs as a response to subsidies, nothing else. If there is no subsidy, there is no need for a tariff. I do not support subsidies.

The sun subsidizes light to the point that sunlight falls on Canada for free. Should we impose a tariff on sunlight so that our lighting industry doesn't face unfair competition (dumping) from the sun?

Any barrier to trade we impose will only hurt ourselves overall. A tariff on sunlight would hurt us overall (but General Electric's light bulb division might enjoy the extra sales).

If foreigners want to subsidize their exports, then that is to our benefit. If the Japanese government offered to send you a free Lexus, would you refuse the gift? How could the gift be bad for Canada?

[Wilber]

The sun subsidizes light to the point that sunlight falls on Canada for free. Should we impose a tariff on sunlight so that our lighting industry doesn't face unfair competition (dumping) from the sun?

Nonsense. Who would you impose this tariff on?

If foreigners want to subsidize their exports, then that is to our benefit. If the Japanese government offered to send you a free Lexus, would you refuse the gift? How could the gift be bad for Canada?

It might be to my own personal benefit, but would it be to this country's benefit? The Japanese would only do so if it benefited Japan and the Japanese. It would not be a gift. Do we act in the best interests of our own country and fellow citizens or are our priorities centered on just grabbing what we can for ourselves? If another country's predatory trade policies don't have a negative effect on me personally, well screw those who are effected? Are we a nation or not?

[Charles Anthony]

The sun subsidizes light to the point that sunlight falls on Canada for free. Should we impose a tariff on sunlight so that our lighting industry doesn't face unfair competition (dumping) from the sun?

Nonsense. Who would you impose this tariff on?

Every person who goes outside without full body coverage or without a parasol. Every window that is not tinted.

The example is deliberately ridiculous to illustrate protectionist policy and the principle is clear.

It might be to my own personal benefit, but would it be to this country's benefit?

Country's benefit??? Define. Who decides???? Local farmers???

There is a door open here....

Do we act in the best interests of our own country and fellow citizens or are our priorities centered on just grabbing what we can for ourselves?

Can our priorities be centered around farmers who produce at higher prices???

If another country's predatory trade policies don't have a negative effect on me personally, well screw those who are effected?

The local farmers who insist on protectionism are raising prices for local consumers. Local farmers under protectionism are screwing the local consumer.

Are we a nation or not?

Being a nation requires stealing from local Peter consumer to give to local farmer Paul? Are we a nation of thieves?

[Wilber]

One other thing on subsidies. While they may come out of the US governments piggy bank, the money spent by those US farmers goes into US communities and companies. The taxes they pay go to the US treasury, their State and local governments. The same goes for the people they employ. All the things those Canadian farmers who are effected used to provide in their country and communities are now going to the US. If you think a foreign government's subsidy is a gift to you and your country, you are short sighted.

[Wilber]

The local farmers who insist on protectionism are raising prices for local consumers. Local farmers under protectionism are screwing the local consumer.

Bull. Haven't you noticed that produce prices go way down when the Canadian crops go on the shelves in the summer and fall. You obviously don't do the grocery shopping in your family.

[Charles Anthony]

You obviously don't do the grocery shopping in your family.

You do not even know what protectionism is anyway. Thanks for the interchange.

[Charles Anthony]

---

[August1991]

One other thing on subsidies. While they may come out of the US governments piggy bank, the money spent by those US farmers goes into US communities and companies....

How did the money get into the US government's piggy bank in the first place? It had to come out of someone's pocket which means they didn't spend it in US communities and so on.

[August1991]

If foreigners want to subsidize their exports, then that is to our benefit. If the Japanese government offered to send you a free Lexus, would you refuse the gift? How could the gift be bad for Canada?

It might be to my own personal benefit, but would it be to this country's benefit? The Japanese would only do so if it benefited Japan and the Japanese. It would not be a gift.

The Canadian, US and Japanese governments frequently do things that benefit a small number of people at the expense of many others. If this is news to you, then you must have been asleep during the Gomery Inquiry.

In its grand wisdom, the US Congress has decided to give US taxpayers' money to agricultural producers (along with many other producers too). The effect is that Canadians can buy US agricultural products more cheaply.

So, as I say, if the Japanese government decided to give you a free Lexus, how would that be bad for you or for Canada.

Do we act in the best interests of our own country and fellow citizens or are our priorities centered on just grabbing what we can for ourselves? If another country's predatory trade policies don't have a negative effect on me personally, well screw those who are effected? Are we a nation or not?

Do you mean that I should be forced to buy Canadian-made cheese even if imported cheese is cheaper?

By that logic, you should be forced to use Canadian-made lightbulbs during the day rather than use cheaper imported sunlight. (Afterall, as you put it, are we a country or not?)

If General Electric made such an argument of "national solidarity" and claiming that the sun was being "predatory", I'm sure you would see GE's argument as obviously self-serving. So you'll understand why I'm inclined to believe that Canadian farmers are also self-serving when they appeal to "national solidarity" to justify their arguments.

Patriotism may be the last refuge of a scoundrel but when I hear the word patriotism, I check my wallet first. It often means that someone is invoking a noble motive to obtain a base reward.

[Wilber]

So I take it that you guys are in favour of subsidies as long as you benefit from them and are not doing the subsidizing. That's the difference between us. I don't believe in them period. I also don't see the difference in a tariff and a subsidy. They just benefit different people and they both take money out of the economy without producing anything of value. It would seem that you both do.

When you speak of choice. I would like to have the choice of buying fresh produce for four months of the year, not stuff picked green weeks before and shipped thousands of miles. Also, this stuff is now being shipped by truckers paying a buck a liter for diesel. Your cheaper produce has been subsidized by cheap fuel and foreign governments. The cheap fuel is on the way out. If foreign producers no longer face local competition, how long do you think those foreign subsidies are going to last? Why would you continue to subsidize something if you have a monopoly?

You are not about choices. You are about a quick buck and damn the consequences.

[Wilber]

"Every person who goes outside without full body coverage or without a parasol. Every window that is not tinted.

The example is deliberately ridiculous to illustrate protectionist policy and the principle is clear."

First you should learn the difference between a tariff and a tax.

"Country's benefit??? Define. Who decides???? Local farmers???

There is a door open here...."

If you support foreign subsidies then I guess you think foreign governments should decide.

"Can our priorities be centered around farmers who produce at higher prices??? "

I am not talking about farmers who produce at higher prices. I am talking about foreign governments who support farmers who cannot produce at lower prices. What is so difficult for you to understand?

"The local farmers who insist on protectionism are raising prices for local consumers. Local farmers under protectionism are screwing the local consumer."

Local farmers who are asking for protection from foreign subsidies are asking for a level playing field not screwing the local consumer. I don't know about where you live but around here when local produce is on the shelf the price of imported stuff goes down to compete. What is so difficult about this principle?

"Being a nation requires stealing from local Peter consumer to give to local farmer Paul? Are we a nation of thieves?"

Hope you don't work for Bombardier.

[Charles Anthony]

"Country's benefit??? Define."

If you support foreign subsidies then I guess you think foreign governments should decide.

Please define what you mean by the "country's benefit" and who has the authority to decide it.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

I do not understand why farmers should get special treatment.

There are many industries in Canada (and elsewhere in the world) that struggle without government intervention. Should we ask for retaliatory protectionist policies on every industry? Why should farmers get special treatment?

Local farmers who are asking for protection from foreign subsidies are asking for a level playing field not screwing the local consumer.

Do not say "level the playing field". The local farmers lobby governments to impose tariffs to raise the consumer price of imports. Consumers are forced into paying higher prices for the imports if they want them.

I don't know about where you live but around here when local produce is on the shelf the price of imported stuff goes down to compete. What is so difficult about this principle?

You have everything completely mixed up. You are saying that the imports start higher than local prices and import prices must drop. Why would local producers need tariffs???????? This is ridiculous.

You do not even know what your are saying.

[Wilber]

Charles, for a while I actually thought you might be a smart guy but I now have my doubts. Maybe you are but are just baiting me. I'll try one more time.

Subsidies exist so that producers can sell their product a price that is lower than their cost to produce it. Somehow you believe this is not protectionism but a tariff to protect the victims of that subsidy is. They are both protectionism. You seem to be in favor of protectionism if it saves you a nickel but against if it doesn't.

A subsidy is government intervention. Do you not think that Canada should protect its citizens from interventions by foreign governments?

If local products come on the market that aren't subsidized, a subsidized foreign producer can then lower his price to undercut the unsubsidized producer and still make a buck because his government is picking up the tab.

I'm sorry but I don't think I can explain it any simpler than that.

I have to wonder why anyone would want to invest millions in a farming operation when they know that there are people like you out there who can't wait to cut their legs out from under them to save a nickel on a cucumber.

[August1991]

Subsidies exist so that producers can sell their product a price that is lower than their cost to produce it. Somehow you believe this is not protectionism but a tariff to protect the victims of that subsidy is. They are both protectionism. You seem to be in favor of protectionism if it saves you a nickel but against if it doesn't.

Protectionism is usually defined as an action that treats a domestic product or service differently from foreign product or service. So, for example, if the Canadian government subsidized Canadian carrot producers or imposed a tariff on foreign carrot imports, then both actions would be protectionist.

Subsidies exist so that producers can sell their product a price that is lower than their cost to produce it. Somehow you believe this is not protectionism but a tariff to protect the victims of that subsidy is. They are both protectionism. You seem to be in favor of protectionism if it saves you a nickel but against if it doesn't.

If the US government subsidizes US carrot producers, then its US taxpayers that are the losers. Canadian carrot consumers get to buy cheap carrots.

A subsidy is government intervention. Do you not think that Canada should protect its citizens from interventions by foreign governments?

I think this is the key question, Wilbur, and it's good that you raised it.

If the US government does something foolish like subsidizing US carrot producers, then that's no reason for the Canadian government to be foolish too. Someone once characterized an international trade dispute as "If you hit your head with a hammer then I'll 'retaliate' by hitting my head with a hammer."

[Charles Anthony]

Maybe you are but are just baiting me.

I thought you were definitely baiting me because you never answered any of the questions posed by myself nor by August1991 which examined the "morality" of protectionism. You still have not. I doubt whether you can answer them.

I'll try one more time.

Fair is fair. I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you answer the questions posted aforehand which specifically examine the "morality" of protectionism. Remember: you raised the issue of questioning morality and ethics in trade subsidies. I will save you the trouble of skimming through the thread and list them here:

What is moral about forcing a local citizen to buy local?

If a "local" farmer figured out how to produce coffee beans or bananas and his uncle was Prime Minister of Canada, would it be moral to subsidize his "local" greenhouse? would it be moral to raise tariffs and set quotas on imported coffee and bananas?

However, I am curious: how is our local inability to provide our own food, a national threat?

I do not support subsidies.

Why not?

It might be to my own personal benefit, but would it be to this country's benefit?

Country's benefit??? Define. Who decides????

So, as I say, if the Japanese government decided to give you a free Lexus, how would that be bad for you or for Canada.

Do you mean that I should be forced to buy Canadian-made cheese even if imported cheese is cheaper?

By that logic, you should be forced to use Canadian-made lightbulbs during the day rather than use cheaper imported sunlight. (Afterall, as you put it, are we a country or not?)

What is so difficult for you to understand?

I do not understand why farmers should get special treatment.

There are many industries in Canada (and elsewhere in the world) that struggle without government intervention. Should we ask for retaliatory protectionist policies on every industry? Why should farmers get special treatment?

Here is the kicker:

I don't know about where you live but around here when local produce is on the shelf the price of imported stuff goes down to compete. What is so difficult about this principle?

Why would producers need protectionism in your example???? in your example, local produce is starting cheaper!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps the real question should be whether or not international trade agreements should be made at all. I mean what is the point of the exercise when even once an agreement is made it can be violated anyway without consequence. The NAFTA arrangement being worth discussion as a case in point. How long have we been debating soft wood lumber? You can say that it is now resolved but the agreement reached provided a means to restrict our market access and leaves a billion dolars of illegal taxes in the hands of the United States government.

Free trade is one thing, but I will only support it if I ever get to see it. As it stands free trade is a business arrangement that benefits the corporate citizens at the expense of the natural citizens. When the individual has less right than the group, we have begun a process of corporate governance which will ultimately be proven to be detrimental to the best interests of the citizens.

We as a society of individuals need to consider the ramifications of our own actions. It will soon become a moot point with the rise to dominance of the Asian economic giants in China and India.

[Wilber]

Protectionism is usually defined as an action that treats a domestic product or service differently from foreign product or service. So, for example, if the Canadian government subsidized Canadian carrot producers or imposed a tariff on foreign carrot imports, then both actions would be protectionist.

Isn't that what I said or are you saying that subsidies and tariffs imposed by a Canadian government are protectionist but those imposed by a US government are not?

If the US government subsidizes US carrot producers, then its US taxpayers that are the losers. Canadian carrot consumers get to buy cheap carrots.

Untill there are no more Canadian carrot producers, then US carrot producers will be able to charge what they damn well please.

If the US government does something foolish like subsidizing US carrot producers, then that's no reason for the Canadian government to be foolish too. Someone once characterized an international trade dispute as "If you hit your head with a hammer then I'll 'retaliate' by hitting my head with a hammer."

They are not fools if they can destroy their competition by doing so, thereby giving them unchallanged access to a market. The people who allow them to do it are the fools.

Perhaps the real question should be whether or not international trade agreements should be made at all. I mean what is the point of the exercise when even once an agreement is made it can be violated anyway without consequence. The NAFTA arrangement being worth discussion as a case in point. How long have we been debating soft wood lumber? You can say that it is now resolved but the agreement reached provided a means to restrict our market access and leaves a billion dolars of illegal taxes in the hands of the United States government.

A common fallacy is that softwood lumber was ever covered by NAFTA. It was not. Our governments have been doing Canadians a diservice by letting them believe that it was.

[August1991]

If the US government subsidizes US carrot producers, then its US taxpayers that are the losers. Canadian carrot consumers get to buy cheap carrots.

Untill there are no more Canadian carrot producers, then US carrot producers will be able to charge what they damn well please.

You are describing something called "predatory pricing". I know of no successful attempt to eliminate all competition by lowering prices and then raising prices later in any sector. It would be impossible in an agricultural setting. There are simply too many producers, and too many potential producers and it is simply too easy to exit or enter a particular market.

The day US producers tried to raise prices (assuming that were possible) to take advantage of their monopoly status (assuming that existed), Canadian (and other foreign) producers would quickly eye the market.

To pick one example, New Zealand can produce butter and deliver it to Canadian stores at lower cost than Canadian (or US) butter producers can. Needless to say, Canadian federal import quotas severely restrict butter imports and so you don't see Anchor butter at Loblaws.

The world is a big place and the idea of predatory pricing in agricultural products is untenable.

When it comes to monopoly pricing, I am far more fearful of domestic producers and their political clout with domestic governments. Foreign producers could not possibly be worse in their greedy rapaciousness.