Rural Subsidies

[Renegade]

Gonna get right on it, as soon as all the other world industries do.

What other world industries do is irrelevant afterall isn't the argument that WITHIN Canada we are subsidizing each other?

[guyser]

What other world industries do is irrelevant afterall isn't the argument that WITHIN Canada we are subsidizing each other?

Except that we cant rule out other countries in this economy. So much of what is subsidized is exported. Where do we draw the line?

The lumber hassle had both sides saying subs dont work, but no one wanted to amend them. We gave some dollar number to stumpage, the americans didnt. (something like that - lil shady on all details so fogive me)

The CDNS said an artificially low minimum wage is in effect a subsidy.

We are subsing in this country, no doubt, and for regional variances it works. I'd like some balanc where I live, but realize it is not coming anytime soon. But that is also part and parcel of the global economy.

[blueblood]

What other world industries do is irrelevant afterall isn't the argument that WITHIN Canada we are subsidizing each other?

Western Canadian Oil industry ----> Low taxes, means in some Liberal eyes that the oil industry is subsidized

(Oil industry also takes place out in the country, I haven't heard of pump jacks in a city boy's basement)

Bombardier, big taker of gov't cash

Domestic auto makers, big takers of cash

Jack Layton also says that by lowering corporate taxes we are subsidizing big banks and big oil

Canadian Grain industry is seeing the highest grain prices in decades, the only Ag lobbyist you'll see is Stewart Wells crying "Save the CWB".

Harper is going to have to throw more subsidies to the manufacturing sector if he wants his majority.

Cutting out subsidies when other countries don't and won't is a recipe for a Canadian economic disaster

[Renegade]

Except that we cant rule out other countries in this economy. So much of what is subsidized is exported. Where do we draw the line?

Sure we can. Let them subsidize. Let us buy at subsidized prices. It amounts a wealth transfer from them to us.

[Renegade]

Western Canadian Oil industry ----> Low taxes, means in some Liberal eyes that the oil industry is subsidized

(Oil industry also takes place out in the country, I haven't heard of pump jacks in a city boy's basement)

Bombardier, big taker of gov't cash

Domestic auto makers, big takers of cash

Jack Layton also says that by lowering corporate taxes we are subsidizing big banks and big oil

Canadian Grain industry is seeing the highest grain prices in decades, the only Ag lobbyist you'll see is Stewart Wells crying "Save the CWB".

Harper is going to have to throw more subsidies to the manufacturing sector if he wants his majority.

What's your point? That everyone has got their hand out for subsidies. Agreed. That is why is the only sensible thing to do is to say no to ANY subsidies.

Cutting out subsidies when other countries don't and won't is a recipe for a Canadian economic disaster

Show me some economic theory or examples that prove this. Edited January 16, 2008 by Renegade

[blueblood]

What's your point? That everyone has got their hand out for subsidies. Agreed. That is why is the only sensible thing to do is to say no to ANY subsidies.

Show me some economic theory or examples that prove this.

In the 90's and early 2000's the U.S. and E.U. would heavily subsidize their farmers and they in turn would pump out agricultural products at an alarming rate and would in turn dump their products to other countries citing "charity" the other countries including Canada who did not subsidize as heavily were forced to compete with rock bottom commodity prices and the others were basically paid a salary by their governments. This basically tanked the Canadian ag industry until Harper and Bush said screw this we're popping up ethanol plants and put the price back into balance.

Had Canada subsidized like the E.U. and U.S. we would not be in this mess or had the U.S. and E.U. not subsidized we would not be in this mess.

It's very hard for businesses to compete with each other when one is subsidized and one is not.

To talk about the original point, it is demonstrated that everyone receives subsidies in one way or another and it's not just rural people. It's not fair to single out rural people for being subsidized, when everyone else is.

[Renegade]

In the 90's and early 2000's the U.S. and E.U. would heavily subsidize their farmers and they in turn would pump out agricultural products at an alarming rate and would in turn dump their products to other countries citing "charity" the other countries including Canada who did not subsidize as heavily were forced to compete with rock bottom commodity prices and the others were basically paid a salary by their governments. This basically tanked the Canadian ag industry until Harper and Bush said screw this we're popping up ethanol plants and put the price back into balance.

Had Canada subsidized like the E.U. and U.S. we would not be in this mess or had the U.S. and E.U. not subsidized we would not be in this mess.

It's very hard for businesses to compete with each other when one is subsidized and one is not.

No you said it would be an economic disaster for Canada. Clearly the Canadian economy was not a disaster. It was the ag industry which was impacted. BIG DIFFERENCE.

To talk about the original point, it is demonstrated that everyone receives subsidies in one way or another and it's not just rural people. It's not fair to single out rural people for being subsidized, when everyone else is.

To be fair, you are quite right that it is not just rural residents who are subsidized. However to have a thread about all subsidization would be unmanagable, and therefore I focused on one type of subsiization.

I have repeatedly said that I have a disdain for ALL subsidization.

[AngusThermopyle]

You really cant be serious Renegade, you actually need it explained to you why it wouldn't work if everyone had to provide their own food? it's simple really. Food production in it's various forms requires both a given amount of land and time. simply put we would have no manufacturing sector and a totally agrarian society. We would have food instabillity and many would die. This has happened many times over. Although not overtly an act of war food embargos are an agressive action that cause many deaths. These sanctions have been employed many times against countries dependant on others for their food supplies. Just because this type of sanction has never been applied against an industrialized western nation does not mean it never will if they surrender this vital capability.

As for countries being unlikely to cooperate and deny this necessity, what is so unusal about that? we already have a prime example of countries doing just that in the form of OPEC. Sure its oil not food, its still a vital commodity though. For years OPEC has been exerting influence through control of the worlds major oil supplies (until recently anyway). I find your contention that nations who hold such a power, one far more essential than oil, would never use it to be rather naive at best. You seem to believe that food is a low priority item when it is in fact indisputably one of the three most important items to life. As for it being like saying I'm going to choke you. What is that nonsense? That has to be the most absolutely specious and down right stupid analogy I've heard in a long time.

I could go on but quite frankly I'm tired of trying to discuss an issue with someone who merely responds with, it hasn't happened yet so it cant, or why cant we do this or that obviously ridiculous thing, or the even more well thought out, prove it. Sorry man, you just refuse to see the importance of a nation being self sufficient, or the fact that food has. can be, and will be used again as a weapon, so what point is there in discussing issues related to these rather salient facts?

As I said earlier, I have more to do than respond to sophomoric questions of an argumentative nature.

[blueblood]

No you said it would be an economic disaster for Canada. Clearly the Canadian economy was not a disaster. It was the ag industry which was impacted. BIG DIFFERENCE.

To be fair, you are quite right that it is not just rural residents who are subsidized. However to have a thread about all subsidization would be unmanagable, and therefore I focused on one type of subsiization.

I have repeatedly said that I have a disdain for ALL subsidization.

How about for automakers in Canada not being able to export to countries like South Korea and Japan where they are allowed to market their products globally, Our auto sector takes a huge hit and theirs booms???

It's not necessarily a monetary subsidation, but it is a subsidy nonetheless.

[Renegade]

How about for automakers in Canada not being able to export to countries like South Korea and Japan where they are allowed to market their products globally, Our auto sector takes a huge hit and theirs booms???

It's not necessarily a monetary subsidation, but it is a subsidy nonetheless.

How is it a subsidy?

Do you think if the reverse were true (ie we banned the import of non-domestic cars) our economy would boom?

[Renegade]

You really cant be serious Renegade, you actually need it explained to you why it wouldn't work if everyone had to provide their own food? it's simple really. Food production in it's various forms requires both a given amount of land and time. simply put we would have no manufacturing sector and a totally agrarian society. We would have food instabillity and many would die.

The reason I ask you to answer is because your own response points to the flaws in your own argument. The reason we individually don't produce our own food, is because we SPECIALIZE at what we are efficient at. Some of us produce in manufacturing, some of us in services, some of us in informaiton industries. Just because we don't ourselves produce food, we don't feel a threat that our food supply will suddenly be cut off.

The same is true at a country level. We should focus on the areas we can efficiently produce. Our food supply isn't threatned simply because someone else produces at a lower cost than we can ourselves. If they can we should let them, and probably say thanks.

This has happened many times over. Although not overtly an act of war food embargos are an agressive action that cause many deaths. These sanctions have been employed many times against countries dependant on others for their food supplies. Just because this type of sanction has never been applied against an industrialized western nation does not mean it never will if they surrender this vital capability.

So again you are presupposing a threat which has never materialized before against ANY industrialized nation?

Where we spend taxpayer dollars is always a matter of choice. I can point to much more real and immediate needs than the threat you seem to feel is onerous yet has never happened in history.

As for countries being unlikely to cooperate and deny this necessity, what is so unusal about that? we already have a prime example of countries doing just that in the form of OPEC. Sure its oil not food, its still a vital commodity though. For years OPEC has been exerting influence through control of the worlds major oil supplies (until recently anyway). I find your contention that nations who hold such a power, one far more essential than oil, would never use it to be rather naive at best.

Can you name how many countries produce significant amounts of oil? Can you name how many produce food? The volume of names should tell you why one scenario should be much more likely that the other.

Given that an energy shortage is much more likely a food embargo, maybe those dollars spent on farm subsidies are better spent mitigating that threat.

As for it being like saying I'm going to choke you. What is that nonsense? That has to be the most absolutely specious and down right stupid analogy I've heard in a long time.

I'm glad you realize what a stupid analogy it is, because I bring it up since it is the equivalent of your "food is a weapon" analogy.

I could go on but quite frankly I'm tired of trying to discuss an issue with someone who merely responds with, it hasn't happened yet so it cant, or why cant we do this or that obviously ridiculous thing, or the even more well thought out, prove it. Sorry man, you just refuse to see the importance of a nation being self sufficient, or the fact that food has. can be, and will be used again as a weapon, so what point is there in discussing issues related to these rather salient facts?

Clearly, you lack an undestanding of economics and that we can achieve greater prospertiy by specalizing and not relying on us trying to do everything ourselves.

As I said earlier, I have more to do than respond to sophomoric questions of an argumentative nature.

Yet you keep responding.

[Borg]

Ah, what the heck - cut them off.

Bunch of free loaders taking those tax dollars and wasting them on a life style the city folks envy.

Country folks are generally capable of getting by without too much help anyways.

Borg

[blueblood]

How is it a subsidy?

Do you think if the reverse were true (ie we banned the import of non-domestic cars) our economy would boom?

Subsidy due to gov't interference.

The North American auto sector would boom if we banned imported cars as the money would stay here and not go to Japan/Europe.

It should either be no subsidies or everyone gets subsidies, no picking and choosing.

[Renegade]

Subsidy due to gov't interference.

IMO you stretch the term "subsidy" much too far. Governments "intefere" with everything from consumer, environmental, and workforce legislation. It would seem to me just an excuse to provide our own subsidies.

If some country stumbled upon a natural resource within its borders, which could be easily harvested and exported, would you consider this a "subsidy"? Assuming that natural resource was something Canada also produced, would the availabity of this cheap natural resource be good or bad for Canada? Should Canada then resort to subsidizing its own industry to make its prices competitive?

The North American auto sector would boom if we banned imported cars as the money would stay here and not go to Japan/Europe.

Yes the auto companies and workers would boom, however the Canadian consumer would not. There are many more consumers than there are workers. You would in effect be forcing consumers to pay a premium in the quality or price of cars in order to buy the jobs of auto workers. It is exactally this kind of situation which led to sub-standard quality North American cars and generally led us to being less prosperous as a society.

It should either be no subsidies or everyone gets subsidies, no picking and choosing.

I agree that you are half-right. There should be no picking, no choosing and no subsidies.

[White Doors]

How the hell does Japan keep going on then??? There's no concern that we'll have no food in the future and to imply such is absurd. Come back down to earth will you. You need a bigger argument for the subsidies than that. Money can be saved if we stop and allocated more efficiently.

I'm not arguing FOR subsidies, in fact I would like to see them dramatically lowered - nothing would help Africa to come to grips with poverty than the collective lowering of farm subsidies. But to argue that Canada do it in isolation from the USA and the EU is well, just dumb.

They have been negotiating this for a long time now. Do not confuse your disdain with farmers in general with being 'against subsidies'. They are an ugly fact of life.

I for one think having the strategic ability to grow alot of your nations own food is pretty important.

If you want to get all your food from the USA too, don't whine in the future when we have to grab our ankles even tighter for uncle sam. Apparently you like that sort of thing.

just sayin.

[Wilber]

With oil at around $100 a barrel and fuel forecast to hit $1.50 a liter, one wonders how much cheaper it will be to truck food thousands of kilometers in the future, never mind the polution and CO2 emissions from all those trucks.

Compare a local vine ripened tomato to one from the southern US which had to be picked green in order to survive the trip. You can't.

[Renegade]

With oil at around $100 a barrel and fuel forecast to hit $1.50 a liter, one wonders how much cheaper it will be to truck food thousands of kilometers in the future, never mind the polution and CO2 emissions from all those trucks.

Compare a local vine ripened tomato to one from the southern US which had to be picked green in order to survive the trip. You can't.

That would seem to indicate that local produce have a natural advantage to local consumers making the case for subsidies weak to non-existant.

[Wilber]

That would seem to indicate that local produce have a natural advantage to local consumers making the case for subsidies weak to non-existant.

In many cases I think they would have a natural advantage were it not for the imported food being subsidized by foreign governments.

[blueblood]

IMO you stretch the term "subsidy" much too far. Governments "intefere" with everything from consumer, environmental, and workforce legislation. It would seem to me just an excuse to provide our own subsidies.

If some country stumbled upon a natural resource within its borders, which could be easily harvested and exported, would you consider this a "subsidy"? Assuming that natural resource was something Canada also produced, would the availabity of this cheap natural resource be good or bad for Canada? Should Canada then resort to subsidizing its own industry to make its prices competitive?

Yes the auto companies and workers would boom, however the Canadian consumer would not. There are many more consumers than there are workers. You would in effect be forcing consumers to pay a premium in the quality or price of cars in order to buy the jobs of auto workers. It is exactally this kind of situation which led to sub-standard quality North American cars and generally led us to being less prosperous as a society.

I agree that you are half-right. There should be no picking, no choosing and no subsidies.

If other countries are bankrolling to produce their own resources, then Canada should follow suit in order to compete. Cheap goods are all fine and good, but we need to generate money in order to produce them, generating money comes from our industries, and if our industries can't compete, then the consumer has no money to spend at all and our country is all the poorer.

If the Asian countries are banning imports of our cars, why should we let them in here? Our manufacturers would be much more competitive and would build better cars if we could compete in markets that weren't cornered by Asian auto manufacturers. IMO the Asian auto manufacturers are heavily subsidized. That being said, the unions are doing much more damage to the auto sector than the Imports are.

If other countries didn't subsidize their goods, I would be against subsidies too. But if we don't play the game it's big trouble for us.

[Renegade]

In many cases I think they would have a natural advantage were it not for the imported food being subsidized by foreign governments.

If other countries are bankrolling to produce their own resources, then Canada should follow suit in order to compete. Cheap goods are all fine and good, but we need to generate money in order to produce them, generating money comes from our industries, and if our industries can't compete, then the consumer has no money to spend at all and our country is all the poorer.

If the Asian countries are banning imports of our cars, why should we let them in here? Our manufacturers would be much more competitive and would build better cars if we could compete in markets that weren't cornered by Asian auto manufacturers. IMO the Asian auto manufacturers are heavily subsidized. That being said, the unions are doing much more damage to the auto sector than the Imports are.

If other countries didn't subsidize their goods, I would be against subsidies too. But if we don't play the game it's big trouble for us.

Ok Both of you, here we go again with this justification that if others are doing it we must do it too. It isn't rational and defies common sense yet you are all to willing to believe it.

Let's do this mental exercise. If California decided that they would give all Canadians free tomatoes (or Korea decided to gve all Canadians free cars), would Canada be more or less prosperous after the gift than before?

[Wilber]

Let's do this mental exercise. If California decided that they would give all Canadians free tomatoes (or Korea decided to gve all Canadians free cars), would Canada be more or less prosperous after the gift than before?

Is this what it is about, you want something for free? Those countries didn't become prosperous by getting things for free, they did it by producing something people need and by trying to get as much of the market as they can, any way they can.

What is it you do that makes you so essential to the economy and the country?

[Renegade]

Is this what it is about, you want something for free? Those countries didn't become prosperous by getting things for free, they did it by producing something people need and by trying to get as much of the market as they can, any way they can.

Not at all.

I posed a simple mental exercise. One that you are unwilling to participate in, because you know what the answer is.

What is it you do that makes you so essential to the economy and the country?

I have never claimed to be essential to the economy and the country.

[blueblood]

Ok Both of you, here we go again with this justification that if others are doing it we must do it too. It isn't rational and defies common sense yet you are all to willing to believe it.

Let's do this mental exercise. If California decided that they would give all Canadians free tomatoes (or Korea decided to gve all Canadians free cars), would Canada be more or less prosperous after the gift than before?

No everyone is poorer, the Californian's are poorer for giving their stuff away, and the Canadian tomato farmer is forced out of business due to market glut and won't be able to buy other things which hurts the other Canadians. If we traded some oranges for the tomatos, then we'd be better off.

[Wilber]

I have never claimed to be essential to the economy and the country.

Yet you must think you are more essential than others because you feel you subsidize them. Easy to sit and take pot shots at others under cover of anonymity so you don't have to justify your own existence.

[Renegade]

Yet you must think you are more essential than others because you feel you subsidize them. Easy to sit and take pot shots at others under cover of anonymity so you don't have to justify your own existence.

There is no connection to being "essential" and subsidiies. It is only in your mind that they seem to be linked. I have never said that urbanites are more or less "essential" than rural dwellers. I have simply pointed out undeniable facts.

No, I don't have to justifiy my own exitance, nor do I ask that any one else do so. However I do ask that when I and others are forcibly made to subsidize that there is justification for that subsidy. So far I havent' see it.

If my whining bothers you, you are free to ignore it.

It does and I will.

It seem like your stated direction didn't last long, did it?