Windsor/Detroit bridge is a go!

[kimmy]

If more Canadians than Americans are using it, how does America "win?" Wouldn't the "Canadians going over more" be the winners, since they are the ones using the bridge?

Could it be that *everybody* wins?

(Everybody except Manny Maroon, of course.)

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Could it be that *everybody* wins?

(Everybody except Manny Maroon, of course.)

Perhaps you should direct your comment to Topaz, since she's the one who made the claim that "Americans win," which is what my posts have been in response to. I'm just trying to figure out the logic of "Americans win" as "more Canadians will be using it."

Edited April 13, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

I try not to worry about what Topaz says. I think most of us understand that the main reason Canada wants this bridge so much isn't so that more Windsorites can go shopping in Detroit on Saturday.

It will be an economic benefit for Ontario, and I expect for Michigan as well.

-k

[Topaz]

First of all, the reason behind the new bridge, it will be part of the "Superhighway" that US and Canada will join and they want the bridge to be government-owned. Secondly, the statement behind Canadians getting it twice , is the Canadians that go over to the US will pay the toll and they and the rest of Canadians will be paying for the bridge through taxes to the government. The US doesn't pay anything but the tolls if they use the bridge. Of course, that all depends on the other bridge and if the two government are successful of closing it down. I also understand that the owner of the Ambassador, owns land the new bridge will go, should be interesting.

[Guest American Woman]

Canadians are not paying for it twice by paying a toll. Everyone who uses it is paying a toll - and therefore paying for it. Canada gets all the toll money until it's paid off. Canada isn't paying for it - Canada is simply fronting the money.

[August1991]

There was a funny segment on the January 9 episode of The Daily Show about Manny Maroon's efforts to stop the new bridge. The segment interviewed 3 Detroit residents-- a housewife, a Tea Partier, and Malik Shabbazz of the New Black Panthers. All are against the bridge. The Tea Party guy is convinced that the bridge is a "Trojan Horse" that will bring Chinese steel and "Chinamen" to Detroit; the housewife and Mr Shabbazz are convinced that despite the claims that the Canadians are paying for the bridge, Michigan will actually end up getting swindled.

I haven't read this entire thread but I quickly glanced through recent posts, and I usually pay attention to a KimmyPost™

I happen to dislike The Daily Show in general but here it makes a good point, and uses archetypes from the political spectrum to make it.

-----

In another thread (that because of this new forum software and/or Windows 8, I can't easily provide a link), we are debating whether RBC should be allowed to hire (cheaper) foreign labour. I have compared this to using new technology, To me, a (cheaper) foreign worker is like a (cheaper) robot, or ATM.

But perhaps the best comparison is to a bridge, or a metro line. Montreal recently extended its Metro to Laval, a suburb in the north, and the last stop is near a large shopping mall. While everyone generally believes this metro line is a good idea (despite the cost), I suspect that shopowners where the Metro used to stop (Henri-Bourassa) have a different viewpoint.

The day that North Korea opens to the world (builds a bridge to civilized society), North Koreans in general will be better off. The North Koreans with an ability to speak English will gain great value, while the North Koreans who know the liturgy of Kim Il-Sung will see the value of their service plummet. But overall, it will be good for North Koreans.

With a bridge, one can easily see the issue in political terms. A bridge across a river is usually considered a good thing. No one is forced to use the bridge and cross to the other side. Overall, it will make people better off. Yet, one understands that some people on either side of the bridge will object because it means losing their "monopoly" status.

If you want to understand the questions of free trade, new technology, foreign labour, outsourcing, think of a new bridge - in political terms.

It will be an economic benefit for Ontario, and I expect for Michigan as well.

-k

Only "expect"? Do you expect Canadian thieves to steal Michigan cars and drive them across the bridge? Edited April 17, 2013 by August1991

[Topaz]

Canadians are not paying for it twice by paying a toll. Everyone who uses it is paying a toll - and therefore paying for it. Canada gets all the toll money until it's paid off. Canada isn't paying for it - Canada is simply fronting the money.

ok, last time for this, either I'm not explaining it well to you or you just don't get it but here it goes. The money from Canada will come from Canadian taxes, which Canada may not have right now because the finances are in the red., so they may have to print money or borrow that money and interest would be added for borrowing , which makes it more costly for Canadians taxes payers. I'm not sure this federal government did the right thing about building a new bridge just for the ownership when keep telling Canadians our consumer debt is too high, when they aren't much better. Since Canada is pay the whole deal, perhaps Canadians should be allowed to cross at half price or for free.

[Guest American Woman]

ok, last time for this, either I'm not explaining it well to you or you just don't get it but here it goes.

You're explaining what you think just fine and I totally get what you're saying - but you're wrong.

The money from Canada will come from Canadian taxes, which Canada may not have right now because the finances are in the red., so they may have to print money or borrow that money and interest would be added for borrowing , which makes it more costly for Canadians taxes payers. I'm not sure this federal government did the right thing about building a new bridge just for the ownership when keep telling Canadians our consumer debt is too high, when they aren't much better. Since Canada is pay the whole deal, perhaps Canadians should be allowed to cross at half price or for free.

The money from Canada will come from Canadian taxes, as you said, and those using the bridge will pay back the Canadian tax payers. Both Americans and Canadians using the bridge will pay a toll - which will go back to Canada until it's paid in full. Until Canada is paid in full, the U.S. will get none of the toll money, It will all go to Canada.

The Canadian government is simply fronting the money for the bridge. Again. Canada will get that money back. Canada isn't "paying for the bridge" any more than the bank you get your mortgage from paid for your house. YOU paid for your house - by paying the bank back. By the same token, users of the bridge - both American and Canadian - will pay Canada back. Whoever uses the bridge - Americans, Canadians, etc. - are the ones paying for the bridge.

[kimmy]

In another thread (that because of this new forum software and/or Windows 8, I can't easily provide a link),

I get no end of amusement from your conviction that Windows 8 must be what's causing you all this trouble, August.

Only "expect"? Do you expect Canadian thieves to steal Michigan cars and drive them across the bridge?

No, August, I'm not anticipating a massive international car heist. There will be winners when the new bridge is open, but there will also be losers.

An obvious example of losers: Windsor retailers aren't going to be too excited about making it easier for Canadian shoppers to get to Detroit. We expect that the net overall effect will be positive, but it won't be positive for everybody, and there might be places and industries where it's a net negative.

This will be a bridge between two groups of people who are quite equal to each other. Suppose instead that this bridge was a "warp tunnel" (or "portal" or choose some other sci-fi plot device) between Detroit and Mumbai. Is it still likely to be positive for everybody?

-k

[August1991]

An obvious example of losers: Windsor retailers aren't going to be too excited about making it easier for Canadian shoppers to get to Detroit. We expect that the net overall effect will be positive, but it won't be positive for everybody, and there might be places and industries where it's a net negative.

True, but who can object to a bridge? Chretien always ranted about "building bridges" or "building teams".

This will be a bridge between two groups of people who are quite equal to each other. Suppose instead that this bridge was a "warp tunnel" (or "portal" or choose some other sci-fi plot device) between Detroit and Mumbai. Is it still likely to be positive for everybody?

"Equal"? 2 + 3 are greater than 7. Is that what you mean? One side will dominate the other?

Sorry, co-operation doesn't work that way. Imagine two people stranded on an island waiting for a rescue plane: a quadriplegic and an Olympic athlete. They have every reason to co-operate because while the guy in the wheelchair looks for the plane, the athlete can look for food. One of the greatest discoveries of the social sciences (David Ricardo, Comparative Advantage) is that there is always reason to co-operate. (I think the social scientists are still working on how to co-operate... )

------

But Kimmy, your warp-tunnel idea intrigued me. Can we trade with the future? No, we can't. We can give to the future, but the future can't give to us. The future is buying (and I loved this English expression when I first learned it) "a pig in a poke". It's an unfair trade because the future gets what the past and present leave it.

As to your "sci-fi portal" idea, something else intrigued me. If you (or anyone else) were given the opportunity to travel to the future - without any chance of returning to the present - what would you do?

We all understand that we can go back at any time to the neighbourhood where we were a child, and yet we all understand that we can't travel back in time. Why is time different from position? (Hint: It has to do with probability.)

Edited April 20, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

ok, last time for this, either I'm not explaining it well to you or you just don't get it but here it goes. The money from Canada will come from Canadian taxes, which Canada may not have right now because the finances are in the red., so they may have to print money or borrow that money and interest would be added for borrowing , which makes it more costly for Canadians taxes payers. I'm not sure this federal government did the right thing about building a new bridge just for the ownership when keep telling Canadians our consumer debt is too high, when they aren't much better. Since Canada is pay the whole deal, perhaps Canadians should be allowed to cross at half price or for free.

If I understand you properly Topaz, you don't object to the bridge - you merely object to who is paying for it.

Having read some of his papers, I suspect that Einstein would have had a similar viewpoint.

Edited April 20, 2013 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

If I understand you properly, you don't object to the bridge - you merely object to who is paying for it.

I suspect that Einstein would have a similar viewpoint.

The people who use the bridge are paying for it.

[Topaz]

Ther US governemnt is thinking, of increasing fees to cross into the US by car or bus and people who fly into the US are already paying 5.50 on the air ticket. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/americans-eyeing-crossing-fee-canada-u-land-borders-093343863.html

[cybercoma]

Nor does most of your contribution to this thread. You act as if this bridge isn't even in America's interest. It's like you're trying your hardest to be a troll....and you're succeeding. BC keeps making some kind of argument that traffic is only congested going south, completely ignoring the fact that 99.9% of that traffic has to return to Canada, making his argument hilarious. You two are nothing but trolls, and you deserve troll responses.

Detroit is north of Windsor.

[kimmy]

True, but who can object to a bridge? Chretien always ranted about "building bridges" or "building teams".

"Equal"? 2 + 3 are greater than 7. Is that what you mean? One side will dominate the other?

Canada and the US compete on fairly even playing fields when it comes to wages, safety and environmental standards, taxation, and so on. There's no need for either side to fear the other in such a relationship. But if a "warp tunnel" to India were opened up in Windsor and Detroit and a flood of $2/day labor were allowed to cross back and forth, it would be devastating for everybody who depends on wages to survive, and beneficial only to those who consider wages an expense.

Sorry, co-operation doesn't work that way. Imagine two people stranded on an island waiting for a rescue plane: a quadriplegic and an Olympic athlete. They have every reason to co-operate because while the guy in the wheelchair looks for the plane, the athlete can look for food. One of the greatest discoveries of the social sciences (David Ricardo, Comparative Advantage) is that there is always reason to co-operate. (I think the social scientists are still working on how to co-operate... )

Maybe they can help each other if food is plentiful. But if they're stuck on that island for a long time and food becomes scarce, I bet I know who'll starve first.

But Kimmy, your warp-tunnel idea intrigued me. Can we trade with the future? No, we can't. We can give to the future, but the future can't give to us. The future is buying (and I loved this English expression when I first learned it) "a pig in a poke". It's an unfair trade because the future gets what the past and present leave it.

As to your "sci-fi portal" idea, something else intrigued me. If you (or anyone else) were given the opportunity to travel to the future - without any chance of returning to the present - what would you do?

We all understand that we can go back at any time to the neighbourhood where we were a child, and yet we all understand that we can't travel back in time. Why is time different from position? (Hint: It has to do with probability.)

I have no idea where you're heading with any of that.

-k

[August1991]

Canada and the US compete on fairly even playing fields when it comes to wages, safety and environmental standards, taxation, and so on. There's no need for either side to fear the other in such a relationship. But if a "warp tunnel" to India were opened up in Windsor and Detroit and a flood of $2/day labor were allowed to cross back and forth, it would be devastating for everybody who depends on wages to survive, and beneficial only to those who consider wages an expense.

So, if I understand properly, you would have objected to the invention of the 747 or the A380 since they were a "warp tunnel" - they make it easy for people to come to Canada. Kimmy, what do you think of Skype, or VOIP?

Heck, Kimmy, what do you think of the Internet?

----

Your "even playing field" argument intrigues me. If such rules improve life in Canada, then surely these are not a tax or a cost.

[kimmy]

So, if I understand properly, you would have objected to the invention of the 747 or the A380 since they were a "warp tunnel" - they make it easy for people to come to Canada.

Not in the sense that a bridge, or our fictitious warp tunnel does.

With the bridge or our warp tunnel, a worker can wake up in his own bed, travel to a different country to do a day's work, and be back in his own home in time for supper. If there's a gross disparity between the cost of living in the country where he lives and the country where he works, then his ability to live on a much lower wage has dire consequences for the people on the other side of that bridge.

Kimmy, what do you think of Skype, or VOIP?

Heck, Kimmy, what do you think of the Internet?

Ask the Royal Bank of Canada. Ask just about anybody who's ever placed a technical support call how they feel about how the magic of VOIP lets companies outsource customer service to India.

I'm sure I've probably at some point made mention of the time I spent doing telephone tech support for Microsoft. If I haven't, I can make a long story short by simply saying that while they may save dollars, they pay for it in terms of customer satisfaction.

Your "even playing field" argument intrigues me. If such rules improve life in Canada, then surely these are not a tax or a cost.

Certainly they're a cost. They're a cost that we as a society have decided is worthwhile, and some other societies have decided aren't.

Let's just say that I would feel a lot favorable about proceeding with this bridge if it went to Mumbai rather than Michigan. And I'm sure that Michiganders would say the same.

-k

[August1991]

With the bridge or our warp tunnel, a worker can wake up in his own bed, travel to a different country to do a day's work, and be back in his own home in time for supper.

Huh? You have described Skype.

If there's a gross disparity between the cost of living in the country where he lives and the country where he works, then his ability to live on a much lower wage has dire consequences for the people on the other side of that bridge.

Huh? Why? Why is it expensive to live in Switzerland but cheap to live in India?

Ask the Royal Bank of Canada. Ask just about anybody who's ever placed a technical support call how they feel about how the magic of VOIP lets companies outsource customer service to India.

Kimmy, I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. If you go to Holt Renfrew, it's understood that you will receive more attention than if you go to Wal-Mart. Presumably, RBC has decided that its ordinary customers get the VOIP/India (Walmart) treatment and the privileged RBC customers get a bilingual call centre in Moncton (Holt-Renfrew - uh... Moncton, bad comparison...).

But you raise an interesting idea: Many young Canadians go abroad to teach English as a second language. It's cheap to live abroad, fun, and the weather is sometimes better. How long will it take for call centres abroad to hire young (bilingual) Canadians?

Why work in Moncton when you can work in the Barbados?

Edited April 24, 2013 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

Many young Canadians go abroad to teach English as a second language. It's cheap to live abroad, fun, and the weather is sometimes better. How long will it take for call centres abroad to hire young (bilingual) Canadians?

Why work in Moncton when you can work in the Barbados?

I know quite a few Americans who have gone abroad to teach English as a second language. They make good money. I doubt if the call centers pay as well. At any rate, none of them do it for years. It's a great experience, but Moncton is in Canada and anywhere in Barbados isn't - so that's why.

[kimmy]

Huh? You have described Skype.

If somebody can use Skype to pour my coffee, put shingles on a roof, fit sheetmetal, and so on, then... well, Microsoft must have added some new features since last time I used it.

Huh? Why? Why is it expensive to live in Switzerland but cheap to live in India?

If it is cheap to live in India, and expensive to live in Canada, why do so many people leave India to come to Canada?

-k

[silver72]

I wonder how many on here knew that the US exports hazardous material into Ontario by ferry and now they want to transport it on the Ambassador Bridge. First of all, I didn't realize we except that stuff and wasn't it the people from Michigan that was raise hell for Toronto garage coming over to Michigan?? I think when it comes to hazardous material each country should look after their own. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/hazmat-canadas-busiest-border-crossing-opposed-144716127.html

[cybercoma]

You do realize that a ridiculous amount of industrial goods cross that border. A ban on all hazardous materials would be nuts.

[silver72]

You do realize that a ridiculous amount of industrial goods cross that border. A ban on all hazardous materials would be nuts.

Yeah, but since become public what a setup for a terroris, then again, maybe that how the governments are going to get rid of the AB when the new is built.

Edited April 30, 2013 by silver72

[August1991]

If it is cheap to live in India, and expensive to live in Canada, why do so many people leave India to come to Canada?

Your question, kimmy, is so 19th century.

Welcome to the 21st century, when many Indians and Chinese have higher incomes than North Americans on welfare/disability.

If somebody can use Skype to pour my coffee, put shingles on a roof, fit sheetmetal, and so on, then... well, Microsoft must have added some new features since last time I used it.

Fergawdsakes... The Bell telephone operator who lost her job to Skype is now pouring coffee, or putting shingles on roofs.

Or more likely, she's working in a production firm to supply content to one of the 367 cable channels.

Edited May 5, 2013 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry...no money in President Obama's budget for a customs plaza. He must have just plum forgot about it. Canada will have to pay for that too.

U.S. President Barack Obama did not put money in his federal budget proposal for a customs plaza on the Detroit side of a planned bridge between the city and Canada.

Obama sent his $3.9 trillion fiscal 2015 budget to Congress on Tuesday, but it doesn't include the $250 million cost of a border inspection plaza.