Machjo

Sweden has right-to-work laws and it has less of a divide between rich and poor than Canada does. There are ways to redistribute wealth without forcing a person into a labour union. For example, imagine the following scenario: 1. Canada introduces a right-to-work law. 2. Canada allows all sole proprietorships, worker cooperatives and consumer cooperatives to import tariff and quota free from any state on which the UN has not imposed sanctions. 3. Canada allows all other businesses not mentioned in 2 above to import tariff and quota free from any jurisdiction that respects the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4. Introduce co-determination laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination). 5. Introduce a moderate tax on accumulated personal wealth minus basic necessities, debt, and business shares and spend that money on universal compulsory public education, and trades and professional education for the unemployed and underemployed. There are plenty of ways to help the poor without giving labour unions excessive political power.

That depends. If the US imposes import tariffs on Canadian goods and Canada does not reciprocate, then I as an entrepreneur would consider the following: 1. Will the tariffs target my product? If so, then it might make sense to move to the US, depending on other factors of course. 2. Will the tariffs affect certain equipment and resources that I might need to import to build my product? If so, I might want to establish my business outside of the US so as to avoid those additional overhead costs. 3. Am I planning on selling my product to a US market? If so, I might want to establish my business in the US, while taking into account point 2 above. If the tariff on my finished product would be minimal but that on the resources that I would need to build the product are high, I might rather move to Canada for the cheap materials and then export to the US and pay the tariff. If the tariffs on my finished product will be very high but those on the machinery, resources, etc. will be low, I might rather set up shop in the US, pay the extra cost on resources, and then just sell in the US. 4. What are other businesses doing? If all my competitors move to the US, I might want to stay in Canada. Looking at points 2 and 3 above, a US manufacturer might be at a competitive disadvantage when selling to Canada due to extra overhead costs in tariffs it must pay on its purchases. I'd have the advantage when selling to Canada since I'd not face those tariffs myself. In other words, businesses in the US would have the greatest advantage when focusing on the US market. their products might be more expensive, but at least they'd be protected from Canadian competition. The Canadian business would have the advantage in Canada due to lower costs of production. 5. How does this affect economies of scale? If a business is particularly affected by economies of scale, it might rather set up shop in the US. a business that isn't might rather take advantage of lower costs of production in Canada and focus on the Canadian market. 5. How much do transportation costs affect my product? If it's a low-value and physically heavy and bulky product, transportation costs could greatly add to the cost of the product and so affect competitiveness. With that, I might rather set up shop in the US where at least I can focus on the US market. If it's a high-value and low-weight product and non-perishable, I might rather set up shop in Canada. Firstly, I could take advantage of lower import costs for machinery, etc. Secondly, I could then exploit the lower cost to ship my product to other states around the world. I should consider too that other states would be more willing to negotiate more comprehensive trade agreements with Canada but not with the US. This means that if I'm planning on producing in one country and from there ship around the world, I want to set up shop in a country that would have friendlier relations with other states. The US would not be it for that. 6. Am I selling a product or a service? For example, if I want to set up a private university that would attract foreign students or a hotel to attract foreign tourists, I might rather set up shop in Canada where my customer base can come with less border hassle. 7. Can I avoid tariffs in some way? For example, if I sell software online and the US has not imposed any tariff on foreign currency exchange, I could sell my product to the US by email or web download without my product ever needing to cross a customs check point. 8. How do climate and other factors affect my product? I might rather grow oranges in the US but collect maple syrup in Canada. In short, the US would have the advantage when I'm planning on selling a product to the US market and have little need to be price competitive on the world stage. Canada would have the advantage when I'm planning on selling mostly outside of the US so that I can avoid US import taxes and bureaucracy. Even if the US raises tariffs, while this would give US businesses an advantage in the US market specifically, it would put them at a competitive disadvantage in any export market due to the extra overhead costs that they must incur when buying machinery. Either they'd have to pay a tariff or settle for a less ideal domestically-made machine. No country can produce everything and be the best at everything. Industries in a protectionist state eventually become jacks of all trades and masters of none, protected within their own borders but noncompetitive on the world stage. Canada would adapt by exploiting the natural advantage that unilateral free trade would give its industries.

If the US is so concerned about its balance of trade deficit, all it has to do is balance its budget. The reason it imports so much more than it exports, or at least in part, is because the US government borrows so much money to spend more than it takes in revenue. That obviously drives up demand that the US economy might not be able to supply. If Trump wants to reduce imports, all he has to do is reduce US government spending and balance the books.

That's it? What about the clause restricting Canada's freedom to negotiate trade agreements with other states? What about the increased North-American content rules which again will make it more difficult for Canada to trade with other states? You think we should have agreed to that? Honestly, Us steel tariffs are a minor concern compared to these.

Unilateral free trade would amount to a tax reduction on businesses that may need to import parts and machinery from abroad. That actually would put them at a competitive advantage in world trade. Furthermore, with consumers paying less in tafiffs too, workers would be less interested in pushing for higher wages when the price of goods and services would be dropping. This too could help to reduce or at least maintain business costs.

Trump is a thug. What do you expect from him? You seriously think Canada could negotiate with someone like that?

So maybe Canada needs right-to-work laws. Perhaps Canada would adopt a policy to gradually eliminate tariffs over a seventy-year period to give businesses time to adapt.

And there is absolutely nothing Canada can do with that fool. Instead of negotiating with that buffoon, Canada should have showed him the proverbial finger and adopted unilateral free trade with the world. There would undoubtedly have been major growing pains, but our economy would have adapted within a generation as long as the state invested generously in universal compulsory public education and trades and professional education for the unemployed and underemployed.

With unilateral free trade, Canada's market size would extend far beyond Canada's borders to include other states, though I grant it might be a more disparate market imposing higher transportation costs. But still, it would still be something. Canada could also open itself up to foreign investment. Hong Kong and Singapore investors would love to invest in Canada.

That's Trudeau and Freeland. Had Trudeau stood firm and Trump raised the tariffs, US consumers would be paying much more for cars. Sure Canadian manufacturers would need to drop prices first and later start to downsize quickly. But the drop in wages would attract new businesses to Canada. After all, it would take a while for car factories to move the machinery from Canada to the US but they would do it. As for the buildings, they'd probably remain and be sold at a good price to an entrepreneur who sees another opportunity for it probably in a more tariff-resistant industry.

Because tariffs hurt those who use it too. For example, a US factory would soon need to pay more to buy a specialized piece of equipment from abroad for which US builders might lack the necessary expertise. Look at how the aluminum tariffs hurt Harley Davidson for example. Also, Canada could still drop tariffs against other states to allow Canadian factories to import the best machinery money can buy to make themselves cutting edge.

Tariffs make us just as poor. A lower currency would just reflect its real value under the circumstances. There are certain industries that tariffs can't stop easily such as travel and tourism, international education, and online software sales. Sure Trump could try to impose a tax on all currency conversions on all US credit card companies to deter imports of online foreign software, but then how far will US tariffs need to go to completely seal the US economy off?

Absolutely. If we investin education, then our workers will be able to produce things that US consumers will want to pay the tariffs for since no US company would produce the same at the same quality, Under protectionism of everything, the US industry would soon become a jack of all trades and master of none. Tariff-free Canada would focus on what it does best against which US manufacturers just couldn't compete. Tariffs don't solve all problems and Trump will soon learn that the hard way. Worse yet, industries gradually become dependent on tariffs and subsidies over time.

The market would adapt long before that. The moment Canadian industries start to close, the CAD would drop, which in turn would make Canadian exports from the surviving industries more more competitive. The more the US raises tariffs, the more the CAD would drop relative to the USD. Sooner or later, the US would be stuck in a bind while Canada would enjoy a highly competitive devalued CAD.

They can't have all the market because if they have all of it, we'd produce nothing and so have no money with which to buy their products. In short, if they hurt us, they'll actually hurt themselves too.

If they tax everything, sooner or later US consumers will pay a hefty price. If they want to punish themselves like that let them. Meanwhile, Canada's low dollar would attract more tariff-resistant industries like in banking, research and development, travel and tourism, international education, software development (which can just be sold online by email and so has no need to cross customs), etc.

And so we'll focus on producing something else instead.

I think of it more as shifting towards a more user-pay system than actual subsidization. Obviously a business that sells tobacco for example is imposing a greater social cost than one that sells apples and so that ought to be reflected in the taxes. I don't see user-pay as the same thing as subsidies.

isn't the point of royalties to sell the resource to the extraction company? As far as I'm concerned, once they've paid the royalty and business tax, it rightly should be theirs to sell. That's how free markets work The government decides the royalty and tax rate but should leave it to the market beyond that..

I do think we can make tax collection more efficient too. I have people where I work who say that when they have to exchange an international or even inter-provincial flight ticket a part of which has already been used, calculating the different international taxes that apply to different parts of the ticket (such as a tax that applies to the airport fee only with the airport fee itself varying from airport to airport and then having to compute currency conversion rate and then the different taxes on the base ticket fare) or even GST, HST, QST, etc. can take some time to calculate since it sometimes needs to be done manually with risk of error and with some taxes amounting to literally less than a dollar (sch as a low tax on an airport tee). That's is a lot of time consumed in the economy to calculate a bunch of taxes. While some of these taxes are high, others can amount to literally a collection of pennies. It would make more sense to eliminate little penny taxes and concentrate on taxes that can efficiently be collected from one large check. For example, a single wealth tax or business tax at the end of the year would involve just one large check once a year rather than having to collect a few dollars and cents on each transaction over many transactions over the course of a day. If much time is spent just collecting the tax, then that's a drain on our economic resources just to collect the tax before it's even given to the government.

Of course, but it also means less alcohol or tobacco consumption, less fuel consumption, healthier people, less air pollution, less traffic, and so reduced need for revenue in the first place. By making taxes more user-pay, revenue more naturally follows expenditure. So if people consume more alcohol or fuel, more revenue for healthcare and roads. If they consume less, less revenue and less need for revenue.

Raise taxes on less desirable industries (alcohol, tobacco, resourse extraction, etc.) and lower taxes on more desirable industries.

Incorrect. If Y's industries start to disappear, the Y can't even afford to buy from X, Y's currency plumets, and so the remaining industries on Y boom as exports increase. Xcould just increase subsidies to compensate, but how far can it go with that before the value of its currency starts to rise uncontrollably due to its excessively positive balance of trade?

No. Just shift the tax burden to encourage more desirable industries. I just don't see the point of taxing a business only to subsidize it afterwards. In that case, just drop the tax.

If country X taxes industry A to subsidize industry B, the country Y's A industry will enjoy an advantage over country X's. Now you say OK, but what if country X borrows to subsidize both industry A and industry B. Then what does country Y do? Simple. If country Xenjoys an advantage on all fronts, then that will put an upward pressure on its currency and a downward one on country Y's. The market will naturally regulate itself.