Jump to content

EU bans seal products - should we retaliate?


Recommended Posts

Somehow, I don't think Michaelle Jean eating a piece or raw seal heart will sway the EU to lift the ban...especially after they see the (raw) video.

Jean kicked off her weeklong trip to the Arctic on Monday, making headlines - and stirring controversy - by helping to skin a seal and eating a raw, bloody piece of its heart.

She then wiped her fingers and expressed dismay that anyone would characterize the Inuit seal hunt as inhumane.

The gesture delighted her hosts and seal hunters, but it upset some animal rights activists.

The European Parliament voted this month to ban seal products, a move seen by aboriginals and Atlantic Canadian fishermen as an attack on their trade.

Asked Tuesday whether her actions were a message to Europe, Jean replied, "Take from that what you will."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...7a5QXjfuo6G3oYw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hooeh for the GG! Hooeh for Governor General Michaelle Jean showing support for Canada regardless of what the Queen and Europe may think!

In the face of this EU ban, Canada should develop its own market for seal meat, sold at a premium at every grocery store in every province. There's more than enough seals to support a domestic industry if more Canadians would have her courage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fairly recent news that the Canadian government has contested the EU seal ban at the WTO.

Thoughts? Does anyone think the EU actions goes against WTO?

Of course it does! The EU is reacting solely to emotionalism from animal rights fanatics. I mean, we haven't killed "white coats" in over 30 years yet in Europe they still drag out the same old 30 year old pictures.

The ban was very predictable. To an EU politician it looked like a free shot! It would garner them votes from people who really didn't know what was really going on. It's a comparatively small issue in terms of trade volume so they assumed that there probably wouldn't be any trade retaliation from Canada. In other words, Canada would not jeopardize the big money trade over a few seal pelts. To a politician, this situation seems a "free lunch".

That's why I started this thread. Federally, we might have to go through the WTO. Eventually, we will win. The EU politicians know this, but for a few years the ban will stand. When it finally is struck down probably few EU folks will notice. Who pays attention to the WTO? Even if someone does pay attention, the EU politicians will not have to take the blame. They will shift it on to the WTO! The losers will be the Canadians who depend on the sealing money to help feed their families. EU politicians and animal rights activists couldn't care less about them.

However, WTO agreements and political games don't apply on a personal level. I am free myself to change my buying habits to avoid EU products. So is any other Canadian who feels the same as I do. The bulk of our trade is with the USA and then China anyway. There's little or nothing we get from the EU that we couldn't get elsewhere.

My own actions may not add up to more than a spit in the wind but if the idea catches on, who knows? Meanwhile, I still read the "Country of Origin" labels whenever I go shopping. If it comes from an EU country, screw 'em!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

The EU ban has lead to two interesting things one being increased desire for seal products in Canada, the second that many tourists from Europe come here to try seal meat. The EU ban won't stand and it has given seal a lot of publicity. Oh a who cares what the EU does even if their ban could stand they are a bit player in the seal product market.

Oh and I'm against not buying products from a country just because the politicians of that country are idiots.

Edited by TrueMetis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the Greens thought very deeply about this? First off, the farther away the source of your product or service the higher the shipping and transportation costs. In a free market no one can afford to swallow this. They would have to include it in their price. Obviously a local source would have an advantage.

My point exactly. A product coming from abroad might be able to compete in our port cities. But once they start moving inland, the price would start going up, giving local businesses an edge over their competitors.

What's more, in the real world they will come smack up against all the subsidies governments of many countries have used to 'rig' trade in their favour. China refuses to let its currency value float like that of any other, keeping it unnaturally low to give themselves a huge labour cost advantage. European farmers have huge subsidies to make their food cheaper. Why do you think that I can see strawberries from the former Yugoslavia in my local supermarket at a cheaper price than local? Since they are fresh they must have come by air freight, which isn't cheap at all! It's impossible for this to happen unless there is a huge subsidy.

How on earth do the Greens expect to deal with this? They would need a bureaucracy larger than that for the Liberal gun registry to examine all the products we import and levy a duty or tariff based on the true transportation cost. They would then be forced to correct for any subsidies. Otherwise they would totally swamp out any correction levied just for transportation.

After all this, they would have to deal politically with all these countries, who will be screaming so loud they would be heard clear around the planet!

If this idea is typically of how deeply the Greens think things out, it's another reason why they have a long way to go before they are ready to govern.

This is where a green shift would have an advantage over complicated rules trying to take every little detail into account. If we think about it in simpler terms, foreign governments must tax other businesses or individuals to subsidize certain industries. So while those specific industries would have an edge, the rest of their economy is at a natural disadvantage. They could never compete with us on every front any more than we could against them. A natural equilibrium will always occur over time. A gas tax would give a natural advantage to local products though. Also, since this would mean lower income taxes, it would also mean lower labour costs, thus giving our service intensive industries (which could include some IT industries) an advantage over theirs, even if it gives some of their more resource intensive industries an advantage over ours owing to our higher gas taxes. As you can see, no one ca win on every front. By subsidizing certain industries, they are hurting others who are paying the subsidy. By increasing a gas tax we'd be hurting our transport industry and more resource intensive industries, but would be benefitting our service intensive industries through lower income taxes. The question is, what industries do we want to promote and what industries do they want to promote. I think a gas tax would be a simple way of protecting our local industries without necessarily putting ourselves at an unfair advantage over them. It would be an effective defensive tactic, albeit in no way threatening to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where a green shift would have an advantage over complicated rules trying to take every little detail into account. If we think about it in simpler terms, foreign governments must tax other businesses or individuals to subsidize certain industries. So while those specific industries would have an edge, the rest of their economy is at a natural disadvantage. They could never compete with us on every front any more than we could against them. A natural equilibrium will always occur over time. A gas tax would give a natural advantage to local products though. Also, since this would mean lower income taxes, it would also mean lower labour costs, thus giving our service intensive industries (which could include some IT industries) an advantage over theirs, even if it gives some of their more resource intensive industries an advantage over ours owing to our higher gas taxes. As you can see, no one ca win on every front. By subsidizing certain industries, they are hurting others who are paying the subsidy. By increasing a gas tax we'd be hurting our transport industry and more resource intensive industries, but would be benefitting our service intensive industries through lower income taxes. The question is, what industries do we want to promote and what industries do they want to promote. I think a gas tax would be a simple way of protecting our local industries without necessarily putting ourselves at an unfair advantage over them. It would be an effective defensive tactic, albeit in no way threatening to them.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that putting a tax on our gasoline would HELP our competitiveness? In the real world, I don't follow your reasoning.

A tax would only affect what WE pay to ship goods back and forth within the confines of our own country. We have no control over any similar taxes in any other country. Since Kyoto and Copenhagen have consistently called for exempting even the largest polluting countries from any such taxes or costs, it would be most likely that China, India, Russia or whoever would NOT impose similar gasoline taxes! They probably would even add subsidies!

So the foreign goods would have a HUGE competive advantage in the cost of shipping their goods from their borders to that of other countries. Once their goods landed in Canada, shipping would be OUR cost, regardless of being a domestic product or an import. The effect of such a gas tax would be effectively null.

Have I misunderstood you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly, you feel that putting a tax on our gasoline would HELP our competitiveness?

It may or may not help our competitiveness, but it will certainly help our efficiency (competitiveness and efficiency are two clearly distinguished concepts in my mind). As it stands now, a Canadian company selling across Canada and abroad may very well be contributing much more than any other company to traffic congestion on highways across our country yet paying the same amount in taxes. This also masks the real benefit to the Canadian economy from that company. On the surface, it might appear to be making lots of money and paying lots of taxes. In reality though, it may simply be draining the government of precious resources in building and maintaining ever more highways.

Alternatively, another company might be making less profit, but also making much less use of our highways. Though it light not pays as much in taxes, it's also not as much of a burden on our highway system. A gas tax would remedy this by making the real cost of that company to the Canadian economy more obvious. All of a sudden, the first company finds itself with less profit than before because it's not paying for all the roads it's using. Meanwhile, the second company sees its profits rise as its income taxes drop. Suddenly, the real contribution to the economy of each company becomes more obvious, and this puts an end to hidden subsidies, such as having others pay for your road usage. Make it user pay through a gas tax, and its real value to the economy becomes more apparent, thus encouraging companies make a profit without hogging up all our and other resources.

I do not think of competitiveness when looking at improving the economy. In fact, I do not care for competitiveness. I'm more interested in efficiency, since competitiveness is to focussed on just taking wealth from a competitor, whereas efficiency focusses on actually producing new wealth for all.

In the real world, I don't follow your reasoning.

A tax would only affect what WE pay to ship goods back and forth within the confines of our own country. We have no control over any similar taxes in any other country. Since Kyoto and Copenhagen have consistently called for exempting even the largest polluting countries from any such taxes or costs, it would be most likely that China, India, Russia or whoever would NOT impose similar gasoline taxes! They probably would even add subsidies!

While this might not affect things much in our border towns and port cities, it will certainly affect imports in Canada's interior, where the local product will e granted a clear advantage. Also, do we really want our export companies hogging our roads? If you're planning to export your stuff, then move to a border town or port city so that you can save on transport and distance. Wouldn't that make your company more efficient and make our whole transport system more efficient too by taking more trucks off our roads?Move closer to the market.

Companies that want to stay in the interior shift their focus on the local market, or alternatively foreign companies that sell to Canada's interior could just move there rather than hog all our roads and ports, don't ya think?

So the foreign goods would have a HUGE competive advantage in the cost of shipping their goods from their borders to that of other countries. Once their goods landed in Canada, shipping would be OUR cost, regardless of being a domestic product or an import. The effect of such a gas tax would be effectively null.

Yes,shipping would be our cost, and so we'd buy less of it. We'd try to buy more locally instead. In some cases, that could benefit an importer. For example, a Canadian in Ottawa might rather buy a product from Buffalo than from Vancouver. However, with our lower income taxes, our service industry would have an edge over the US one which would have to pay higher income taxes. Add to that the savings in not having to build more highways for awhile, owing to less traffic as our export industries move closer to the border to be closer to their foreign markets.

Again, you're thinking competitiveness, I'm thinking efficiency. Two different concepts that are too often confounded.

Edited by Machjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you're thinking competitiveness, I'm thinking efficiency. Two different concepts that are too often confounded.

Well, my career was spent selling electronic parts to manufacturers. I started off when Intel first invented the microprocessor chip and ended around 9/11/01. So I saw competitiveness and efficiency first hand in business. By your methods, there would not be an electronic manufacturing business of any kind in Canada. We have lost much of what we had to not being competitive and again, by your methods we would lose virtually all that was left.

The reason is that your argument only works with products that can be produced at a reasonably competitive price regardless of volume. Electronic products like computer boards, cordless telephones, Ipods and tvs cannot be produced for a local Canadian market as cheaply as they can in the volumes they are produced in China. You could supply the energy for free and it still wouldn't be anywhere near enough of a cost saving to make those products here in Canada at a price that anyone would be willing to pay, given the choice of many other cheaper countries.

Nowadays I can't think of any consumer products that could be competitive if built in Canada unless we also were able to compete for the export market. We might make a few tens of thousands of dryers and washers and sell them in Canada. China would be making tens of millions to sell around the world! Much higher production volumes means much more competitive pricing. You can be as efficient as hell but who cares if you're too expensive?

That would leave us with just a few, "one-of" custom pieces of electronics, like a central control station for one hydro electric generator in Labrador. No mass-production, of course.

Would you condemn us to just being a resource-driven economy? That used to be the definition of a third world economy, where you were too primitive a country to compete with manufactured goods so you cut your throat trying to be the cheapest source of raw materials on the world market, competing with Haiti and Bangladesh.

I don't think I'd care to invest any money in Machjo Enterprises...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my career was spent selling electronic parts to manufacturers. I started off when Intel first invented the microprocessor chip and ended around 9/11/01. So I saw competitiveness and efficiency first hand in business. By your methods, there would not be an electronic manufacturing business of any kind in Canada. We have lost much of what we had to not being competitive and again, by your methods we would lose virtually all that was left.

The reason is that your argument only works with products that can be produced at a reasonably competitive price regardless of volume. Electronic products like computer boards, cordless telephones, Ipods and tvs cannot be produced for a local Canadian market as cheaply as they can in the volumes they are produced in China. You could supply the energy for free and it still wouldn't be anywhere near enough of a cost saving to make those products here in Canada at a price that anyone would be willing to pay, given the choice of many other cheaper countries.

Nowadays I can't think of any consumer products that could be competitive if built in Canada unless we also were able to compete for the export market. We might make a few tens of thousands of dryers and washers and sell them in Canada. China would be making tens of millions to sell around the world! Much higher production volumes means much more competitive pricing. You can be as efficient as hell but who cares if you're too expensive?

That would leave us with just a few, "one-of" custom pieces of electronics, like a central control station for one hydro electric generator in Labrador. No mass-production, of course.

Would you condemn us to just being a resource-driven economy? That used to be the definition of a third world economy, where you were too primitive a country to compete with manufactured goods so you cut your throat trying to be the cheapest source of raw materials on the world market, competing with Haiti and Bangladesh.

I don't think I'd care to invest any money in Machjo Enterprises...

You seem to be missing a few points here. A Canadian manufacturer who specializes in exports could easily set up shop right on the border. That way, as soon as the product is produced, it's shipped out without having to buy much Canadian gas if any if it's right on the border. It's produced in Canada, shipped out, and barely a tax is paid. In fact, that company might even have an edge over his foreign counterparts since the gas tax would offset income taxes. With lower income taxes, the company could cut costs that way, and by avoiding the gas tax or any other resource tax as much as possible, it might in fact pay much less tax than its counterparts abroad.

Now you might argue that that would hurt Canadian government revenue. I'd have to agree, but with a caveat. The company would be paying less tax because it would have found a way to not burden our infrastructural resources needlessly, thus saving the government much money in infrastructural development too. So yes, the government would have less money, but would also use less money. Meanwhile, the export company that insists on staying in central Canada and use up all our highway and airport and rail infrastructure would be paying its fare share to maintain it, as it ought to.

As for the company that services both a foreign and domestic market, it would be forced to make a choice. If its market is mainly domestic, it could set up shop more or less in the centre of the country. Or if it can afford two factories, and it exports alot of its products too, then it could set one up on each coast, and then charge a low cost to foreign buyers while naturally calculating transport costs for the Canadian market, the farther afield the town, the more expensive the product, as it ought to be. You use the roads, you pay for them. Why should I subsidize you?

Meanwhile, Canadian services such as computer programming, or other internet services would have an advantage too owing to lower income taxes. Since income taxes would be lower, and they'd be making little use of our roads, airports, harbours, etc (it's easy enough to just email your finished product in such industries), the combined advantages of low income taxes and low reliance on gas and other natural resources (precisely where the taxes would be focussed) would mean that they'd be paying much less tax than their counterparts abroad, giving them an edge too. As a result, while our resource-based industries would suffer, our service-based industries would flourish, the exact opposite of your claim. American web designers, programmers, etc. would want to move to Canada, while our resource-based industries would want to resettle in the US or elsewhere. We could see a similar advantage in our education sector. Universities are mostly service oriented, not resource oriented, so our universities would be cheaper than their counterparts abroad too owing to the lower income taxes.

Another advantage with such a growing service industry is that tariffs and quotas have little to no effect on them. After all, how does a border guard stop an email message with an attachment, or an electronic financial transaction? Or how does a foreign government prevent its population from sending its children to Canadian universities without preventing them from leaving the country altogether. Such a Green Shift would essentially make the Canadian economy more resistant to foreign protectionism too.

Now you might argue that this would force Canadians to pay more for resource-intensive products, especially if from afar. True, but seeing that they're the ones burdening our highways, railways, airports, etc. should they not be the ones paying for it? I say let the user pay. No more corporate or consumer subsidies. This way, the one who purchases locally, or who spends more on service-intensive products or who spends more on services that don't rely so much on resources, would find the cost of such services drop owing to lower income taxes on himself and on the workers and companies, etc. So he'd find his money going farther than before. But again, if he's not burdening society as much in the need for infrastructural construction, should he not be rewarded?

All a gas tax, or any other resource tax would do is to make our roads, highways, airports, railways, harbours, etc. more user pay than there are now, where now we are subsidizing them regardless of whether we benefit from it. Why should I be subsidizing your industry? If it's that inefficient, then indeed, let another country have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU ban has lead to two interesting things one being increased desire for seal products in Canada, the second that many tourists from Europe come here to try seal meat. The EU ban won't stand and it has given seal a lot of publicity. Oh a who cares what the EU does even if their ban could stand they are a bit player in the seal product market.

Oh and I'm against not buying products from a country just because the politicians of that country are idiots.

We should as a country be more discretionary about trading with countries whose policies are damaging to human rights, the environment and global peace. I can see room for outright bans in the worst cases but I'd also leave enough room for individuals who purposely try to tie their purchasing, investing and selling choices to their principles. Trade in many cases could continue but I would certainly welcome tariffs being applied on goods whose production result in the degradation of human rights, the environment and peace.

Other market options also exist for producers and a consumers to put their principles first. Here's what my industry is doing for example, an example that I suggest could possibly be applied to seals and European consumers. The dogfish I catch has likewise been targeted by European environmentalists for banning however our fishery is now on the verge of being verifiably certified as ecologically sustainable. Amongst other things our fishery submits to video surveillance and the most rigorous validation/management regime on the planet.

Some dogfish fishermen were initially wary of an eco-assessment such as the MSC's, he says. There was debate about the wisdom of giving a third party the power to decide whether the fishery is sustainable, he says.

Fishermen came to realize that European markets are giving them little choice.

"It has become pretty well understood by most fishermen that some kind of independent verification is probably necessary, if the market is demanding it," he says.

"We have been proactive on sustainability for years and this is another step."

Link

That said we're not without our critics and some of our supporters do concern me.

In a September 28, 2009 article in The New Republic, Daniel Pauly, a professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia and the principal investigator of its Sea Around Us Project, accuses the MSC of bending to pressure from a large grant from the Walton Family Foundation and Wal-Mart, and certifying the practice of "reduction fisheries", or fish farms, a frequently harmful practice of raising non-native fish in ocean pens, feeding them ground-up fish. He also critizes their recent practice of "measuring success by the percentage of the world catch it certifies", adding that they are "complicit in a giant scam". [1]

Link

Friends shouldn't let friends drive drunk, eat farm fish, or export weapons to conflict regions. There's a bumper sticker for you.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a consumer in a so called "free" country I really have a hard time with politicians telling me what I must boycott from other countries. I am quite capable of making up my own mind what I will or won't buy. It ticked me off when Canada boycotted South Africa. I was quite capable of doing it myself without some wankers in Ottawa telling me I must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a consumer in a so called "free" country I really have a hard time with politicians telling me what I must boycott from other countries. I am quite capable of making up my own mind what I will or won't buy. It ticked me off when Canada boycotted South Africa. I was quite capable of doing it myself without some wankers in Ottawa telling me I must.

How do you feel about letting exporters sell to anyone they choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you feel about letting exporters sell to anyone they choose?

As long as what they are producing is legal and it isn't a national security issue for us, why not? What I have difficulty with is those in government imposing their personal moral agenda on me. I don't have a problem with them taking a position on an issue like Apartheid, I would applaud them for doing so but I have a real problem when they pass laws that interfere with my right to exercise my own judgment. We don't have a problem with legislators having personal religious beliefs but wouldn't stand for them passing laws that imposed them on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as what they are producing is legal and it isn't a national security issue for us, why not? What I have difficulty with is those in government imposing their personal moral agenda on me. I don't have a problem with them taking a position on an issue like Apartheid, I would applaud them for doing so but I have a real problem when they pass laws that interfere with my right to exercise my own judgment. We don't have a problem with legislators having personal religious beliefs but wouldn't stand for them passing laws that imposed them on others.

I could add to that that by sanctioning the country, we sanction both the perpetrators and the victims. In that I'd though of ways governments could circumvent this issue, at least to some degree. I'll explain below.

The Canadian government (though this could apply to any government but I'll take Canada's as an example) could grant individuals and individual companies guaranteed trade freedom with us by meeting certain obligations. For example, any company in the world that meets all Canadian labour, environmental, human rights, and other standards that do not directly conflict with the laws of its country would automatically be granted free trade with us, regardless of any trade sanctions, tariffs, etc. we may have imposed on its government. All the company would need to do would be to have a representative of the Canadian embassy in his country verify the company's claims, with maybe one surprise inspection a year to ensure its continued adherence to these standards. In a sense, the idea would be that Canada would be establishing free trade agreements not with governments, but with individual persons and organizations. After all, what incentive is there for a company to raise its standards if it will remain sanctioned by our government no matter what it does? At least under this new proposed system, we'd be handing him an incentive whereby he could surmount our economic sanctions against his government though his own actions. In this way, we're also promoting personal responsibility among companies abroad, which in itself promotes social justice.

If we establish such agreements with governments only, then we remove any incentive on the part of individual companies to take responsibility for their own actions, not to mention that we penalize individuals and companies in the country that are in fact trying their best to meet our standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as what they are producing is legal and it isn't a national security issue for us, why not?

Fair enough but I suspect what we think should be legal or considered a security issue might be quite different.

What I have difficulty with is those in government imposing their personal moral agenda on me.

I also have difficulty with us as citizens not being able to have more influence on governments when they do decide what is or should be moral or legal, especially when our national security is connected to an issue.

I don't have a problem with them taking a position on an issue like Apartheid, I would applaud them for doing so but I have a real problem when they pass laws that interfere with my right to exercise my own judgment. We don't have a problem with legislators having personal religious beliefs but wouldn't stand for them passing laws that imposed them on others.

I have a bigger problem with the government because it doesn't do more to pass laws that increase our right to excersize our judgement, especially on the laws they pass and the decisions they make like who we should or shouldn't trade with and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could add to that that by sanctioning the country, we sanction both the perpetrators and the victims. In that I'd though of ways governments could circumvent this issue, at least to some degree. I'll explain below.

The Canadian government (though this could apply to any government but I'll take Canada's as an example) could grant individuals and individual companies guaranteed trade freedom with us by meeting certain obligations. For example, any company in the world that meets all Canadian labour, environmental, human rights, and other standards that do not directly conflict with the laws of its country would automatically be granted free trade with us, regardless of any trade sanctions, tariffs, etc. we may have imposed on its government. All the company would need to do would be to have a representative of the Canadian embassy in his country verify the company's claims, with maybe one surprise inspection a year to ensure its continued adherence to these standards. In a sense, the idea would be that Canada would be establishing free trade agreements not with governments, but with individual persons and organizations. After all, what incentive is there for a company to raise its standards if it will remain sanctioned by our government no matter what it does? At least under this new proposed system, we'd be handing him an incentive whereby he could surmount our economic sanctions against his government though his own actions. In this way, we're also promoting personal responsibility among companies abroad, which in itself promotes social justice.

If we establish such agreements with governments only, then we remove any incentive on the part of individual companies to take responsibility for their own actions, not to mention that we penalize individuals and companies in the country that are in fact trying their best to meet our standards.

Good ideas. On the question of tariffs, I would use the funds these create to offset problems or make improvements elsewhere in the world that are willing to adopt higher standards and could benefit from a helping hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway although I try to buy Canadian, its getting darn near impossible. Went to a clothing store recently and EVERY SINGLE ITEM was made in China.

My solution is simple. I frequent second-hand stores when shopping for clothing and most consumer goods.

The items I buy may be made in China, but buying them 2nd-hand virtually guarantees that the money I am spending on the product stays in Canada, and in most cases right here in my local area's economy.

For those things that I must buy new, I try to go to locally-owned shops/stores/franchises first.

Big box stores are not even on my radar.

Costco, Wal-Mart, Future-Shop, Bestbuy, Home Depot, etc never have my shadow darken their doors.

Actually, that is untrue. I did once go into a Wal-Mart.......to return a DVD-player I had been given, which I promptly replaced with another, far better one, which I bought at local 2nd-hand store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the company that services both a foreign and domestic market, it would be forced to make a choice. If its market is mainly domestic, it could set up shop more or less in the centre of the country. Or if it can afford two factories, and it exports alot of its products too, then it could set one up on each coast, and then charge a low cost to foreign buyers while naturally calculating transport costs for the Canadian market, the farther afield the town, the more expensive the product, as it ought to be. You use the roads, you pay for them. Why should I subsidize you?

Meanwhile, Canadian services such as computer programming, or other internet services would have an advantage too owing to lower income taxes. Since income taxes would be lower, and they'd be making little use of our roads, airports, harbours, etc (it's easy enough to just email your finished product in such industries), the combined advantages of low income taxes and low reliance on gas and other natural resources (precisely where the taxes would be focussed) would mean that they'd be paying much less tax than their counterparts abroad, giving them an edge too. As a result, while our resource-based industries would suffer, our service-based industries would flourish, the exact opposite of your claim. American web designers, programmers, etc. would want to move to Canada, while our resource-based industries would want to resettle in the US or elsewhere. We could see a similar advantage in our education sector. Universities are mostly service oriented, not resource oriented, so our universities would be cheaper than their counterparts abroad too owing to the lower income taxes.

Well, if I manufacture toasters in high enough volumes that I can compete on the global market I guess I can afford to move to the east or west coast to be close to a shipping port. I would have to be addressing the global market or I wouldn't be in business, for reasons already stated.

However, when you say "our resource-based industries would want to resettle in the US or elsewhere" I can't help but think it's a wee bit more complicated. You can't resettle an oil well or a copper mine. The stuff is where it is, after all. If it's in the middle of the country then too bad, you have to pay to ship it out.

Service industries that are telephone or internet based have already migrated to countries like India. Unless we can directly compete with their labour costs we simply can never thrive in this area.

Right now we have less and less manufacturing in our economy. You propose making our resources even more expensive.

Since call centre jobs aren't up for grabs either I'm curious as to just what ARE we going to do? Draft everyone into the postal service and we'll all get rich mailing letters to each other?

And what happens to all the workers displaced by this "green shift" revolution? If you're still in school all options are open but if you're 52 and have done nothing but bang bumpers onto cars on an assembly line you're done like dinner! Because of your age no one is going to hire you for these new "green jobs". You'll be lucky to get a McJob! All the retraining programs in the world are just a facade. It just doesn't make sense for industry to hire older workers if they can get younger ones.

So if we went down your path, we better have enough welfare money in the budget to get through a decade or 3 of adjustment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if I manufacture toasters in high enough volumes that I can compete on the global market I guess I can afford to move to the east or west coast to be close to a shipping port. I would have to be addressing the global market or I wouldn't be in business, for reasons already stated.

Bingo! That also saves me on taxes to build more highways, airports or whatever because that business is clogging our roadsand airports. If its business is mainly exports, then move near a harbour and stop hogging our roads at taxpayers' expense. Don't you just love this user-pay idea? I do.

However, when you say "our resource-based industries would want to resettle in the US or elsewhere" I can't help but think it's a wee bit more complicated. You can't resettle an oil well or a copper mine. The stuff is where it is, after all. If it's in the middle of the country then too bad, you have to pay to ship it out.

OK, I was being a little sarcastic there, and was exaggerating. But it still holds true to a certain degree. In those cases where the resource in question is equally available abroad, we'd likely see a sudden drop in exports (unless by sheer coincidence the mine happens to be near a port so as to avoid the brunt of the gas tax, though I concede that is highly unlikely), but the domestic market would remain because whether domestic or imported, the resources would still have to face Canadian gas taxes, the exception possibly being border towns and port cities if that are far from the resources, which might then find it advantageous to just import the product. But then, we'd be benefiting from their countries' taxpayer subsidizing their transportation infrastructure to give us the product at a price below its value. That would last only so long as other contries realize we're exploiting their subsidization of their transport infrastructure.

Service industries that are telephone or internet based have already migrated to countries like India. Unless we can directly compete with their labour costs we simply can never thrive in this area.

Not all of them. Especially those that require a multilingual staff find it hard to outsource since in other countries, the language known is usually the national language plus English, a very different scenario from in Canada where it is more likely to be English, French, and Mandarin, a combination fairly unique to Canada's demography. Try to export that job. I work in the language industry myself so am well aware of this.

Right now we have less and less manufacturing in our economy. You propose making our resources even more expensive.

I can't see all industries shipping out. I doubt many southern countries would be interested in importing skidoos en masse. If they have to pay for transport into the heart of Canada regardless of whether it's produced in Canada or not, and then if we consider that producing it in Canada would mean less income tax than producing it abroad, why on earth would a company produce it in the US for example, with a higher income tax, and then import it to Canada with a high gas tax? The smartest thing to do then would be to produce it in the heart of the market. Sure the gas tax would be high (which they'd have to pay either way anyway), but at least income taxes would be low. To build it in the US to then ship it to Canada would be the worst of both worlds. Now if it wants to focus on the Canadian market since few Americans buy skidoos, it might just produce it in the heart of Canada's north where the market is greatest so as to save at least a little on the gas tax. If it's focussed on the export market, it would likely move just North of the Canada-US border, but almost right on the border, in some cases maybe even almost literally on the border so as to benefit from low Canadian income taxes and low US gas taxes. In fact, some smart Canadian companies might even ship their goods across Canada on US highways, thus taking advantage of US income tax subsidies to their highway system. If we look at it that way, my guess is the US would soon follow suit with a gas tax of its own when it realizes their taxpayers would be subsidizing our transport industry. :) Why waste taxpayers' money to build more highways when we can get the US taxpayer to do it for us? :P

In fact, you're likely to find a number of US factories moving just across the Canada-US border into Canada to take advantage of the same thing, benefiting from Canada's low income taxes and low US gas taxes while shipping to the US market. Needless to say, the US would suffer much more from this than we would. After all, we would still be making at least some money from them even if the income tax is low (after all, a low income tax is not the same as no income tax). And if all they're doing is producing in Canada (right on the border might I add) and exporting it all to the US, it's not like that's much of a burden on the Canadian government when it comes to infrastructure spending. They'd barely even be using our highways. And if they do use our highways to sell domestically, well, then they'll pay more tax, so it would still be breaking even. The US though would be getting zilch from them whether in income or gas taxes.

Now you might say that could risk causing a labour shortage in Canada's border areas. It could, but a imple labour movement agreement would solve that problem. Thiw could benefit health care too. After all, we'd likely witness a surge in educational and medical tourism owing to the lower income taxes professors and physicians would need to pay, allowing them to accept lower salaries and still make a good profit. Only the transport there would be expensive, but for international students, that would be no more than once or twice a year, saving money on professors' salaries the rest of the year. And again, if a hospital opes near the border on the Canadian side, you'd have US citizens crossing the border to benefit from low-taxed physicians while also avoiding much of the gas tax.

We'd likely experience an economic boom in our border regions and our port cities while benefiting wholeheartedly from foreign subsidies to their transport industry, at least until they figure out what's going on and finally adopt a similar system to ours.

And what happens to all the workers displaced by this "green shift" revolution? If you're still in school all options are open but if you're 52 and have done nothing but bang bumpers onto cars on an assembly line you're done like dinner! Because of your age no one is going to hire you for these new "green jobs". You'll be lucky to get a McJob! All the retraining programs in the world are just a facade. It just doesn't make sense for industry to hire older workers if they can get younger ones.

I'll acknowledge that the Canadian interior and places farther from the border would likely suffer somewhat. I say somewhat because, as mentioned above, businesses with a primarily local market would still be wise to stick around, though granted mainly export oriented industries might close shop unless they're mainly service oriented such as computer programming, etc. The only solution I could see to that would be:

1. Move to the newly booming border towns and port cities,

2. Retrain for a skilled service industry job, or

Retire early and the government would simply have to swallow the cost in helping the early retirement crowd, Perhaps it could redirect some of the money it saves from all the infrastructure spending in the short term while reducing the income tax rate more slowly to give the government a chance to adjust.

I disagree though with me subsidizing industries I don't even make use of just for make-work jobs. Yes, we need to ensure jobs for all. But a job must never ever be an end in and of itself, but always a means to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...