NAFTA negotiations.

[GostHacked]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The Americans have much more leeway than the whipped MPs in Parliament....none will oppose Trudeau without risking expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

Talk is cheap....Canada put itself in the current situation with previous decisions and choices.   U.S. export trade is already far more diversified than Canada's, and it has nothing to do with what Canada thinks about it.

HATE America..but LOVE the American economy.   

What economy? Is that not why Trump is trying to 'fix' ?

[scribblet]

So let me get this right!   We, the taxpayers will be paying extra compensation to dairy farmers so that we can pay higher prices for dairy products?

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

So let me get this right!   We, the taxpayers will be paying extra compensation to dairy farmers so that we can pay higher prices for dairy products?

Probably. Supposedly a user pay system with no subsidies is somehow Communist. On the other hand, a system that dumped 50 million gallons of subsidized milk last year because there was no market for it is "free enterprise" and the way we need to go.

[Wilber]

And if you think it is just the US that subsidizes its over production. Australia bailed out its industry to the tune of $450 million last year and the EU offered theirs 500 million Euros. Now Canada gets to join that club.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada already caved on its supply management protectionism long before Trump/USMCA....caved in for CETA and CPTPP...because it is/was indefensible for a nation that wants open access to other nation's markets.

It was a foregone conclusion by Canadian business media that Trudeau would have to cave in...again.

 

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada already caved on its supply management protectionism long before Trump/USMCA....caved in for CETA and CPTPP...because it is/was indefensible for a nation that wants open access to other nation's markets.

It was a foregone conclusion by Canadian business media that Trudeau would have to cave in...again.

 

So why is less than 3% of the US dairy market open to foreign competition tariff free? The US export far more dairy than it imports.  Four times as much to Canada. You need to lay off the orange Kool Aid, it can rot your brain.

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So why is less than 3% of the US dairy market open to foreign competition tariff free? The US export far more dairy than it imports.  Four times as much to Canada. You need to lay off the orange Kool Aid, it can rot your brain.

 

 

 

Same reason as Canada's....where lots of Kool-Aid is sold at Walmart.

Edited October 5, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

And if you think it is just the US that subsidizes its over production. Australia bailed out its industry to the tune of $450 million last year and the EU offered theirs 500 million Euros. Now Canada gets to join that club.

That is one thing that very much worries me. If opening our markets leads to long-term perpetual subsidies (as opposed to a one-time buy-out), then I'd rather stick to supply-management. Supply-management, for all its harms, does have one virtue: it is user-pay. Those who buy the milk pay for it and do not get subsidized by the taxpayer. I don't even buy milk so why should I be subsidizing another person's milk consumption? Supply-management does have that advantage. I hope Canada does not start to subsidize its milk producers long term. I've lived without milk for years. If a person can't afford milk, then don't buy it but don't go crying to the government for it to subsidize your milk consumption.

[Wilber]

16 minutes ago, Machjo said:

That is one thing that very much worries me. If opening our markets leads to long-term perpetual subsidies (as opposed to a one-time buy-out), then I'd rather stick to supply-management. Supply-management, for all its harms, does have one virtue: it is user-pay. Those who buy the milk pay for it and do not get subsidized by the taxpayer. I don't even buy milk so why should I be subsidizing another person's milk consumption? Supply-management does have that advantage. I hope Canada does not start to subsidize its milk producers long term. I've lived without milk for years. If a person can't afford milk, then don't buy it but don't go crying to the government for it to subsidize your milk consumption.

Those commies down south are forcing you. How can you give a one time buyout and then expect people to compete with subsidized goods.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Wilber

[Machjo]

25 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Those commies down south are forcing you.

Not exactly. Even with open borders, Canada can choose to not subsidize the dairy cartel. The question is will it do so.

[Wilber]

Just now, Machjo said:

Not exactly. Even with open borders, Canada can choose to not subsidize the dairy cartel. The question is will it do so.

Depends on whether you want to destroy the industry. Dairy farms don't operate in a vacuum, they consume more goods and services than just about any other type of farming. The average farm has somewhere between $500K and a million in annual operating expenses, almost all of it spent locally. Their demise affects a lot more people than just the farmers.  

[Machjo]

9 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Depends on whether you want to destroy the industry. Dairy farms don't operate in a vacuum, they consume more goods and services than just about any other type of farming. The average farm has somewhere between $500K and a million in annual operating expenses, almost all of it spent locally. Their demise affects a lot more people than just the farmers.  

Though I didn't know the details, I am aware of this general fact:

http://www.marineconomicconsulting.com/Presentations/MeatEconomics_102115.pdf

So why would we want to subsidize an inefficient industry? Vegan is to meat what the Model T Ford is to the Toyota Corolla. Do you advocate we subsidize Model-T Ford production just to maintain the industry as a historical relic? Such industries belong to history.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Machjo

[Wilber]

Why should we let our industries be snowed under by others that are subsidized. How does a competitor being subsidized make your business a relic? Trouble is, people can't see any further than cheap stuff and they want someone else to subsidize it.

[Machjo]

6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Why should we let our industries be snowed under by others that are subsidized. How does a competitor being subsidized make your business a relic? Trouble is, people can't see any further than cheap stuff and they want someone else to subsidize it.

Cheap? I don't even consume milk or meat. As you yourself admitted above, the animal-husbandry industry is extremely economically inefficient and resource-dependent. Research shows that too. So why not let the US take these inefficient industries and let them get stuck with subsidizing them and let us have the healthier and more efficient industries like fruit, grain, etc.?

If they want these relics, let them get stuck with subsidizing them and let Canadians buy the subsidized product from the US. Why should I be subsidizing an unhealthy and inefficient industry? Should we subsidize the tobacco and alcohol industries too?

Edited October 6, 2018 by Machjo

[Machjo]

If an industry needs subsidies to survive, then why would we want to maintain such an industry? Let another country's taxpayers subsidize it!

Edited October 6, 2018 by Machjo

[Machjo]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Why should we let our industries be snowed under by others that are subsidized. How does a competitor being subsidized make your business a relic? Trouble is, people can't see any further than cheap stuff and they want someone else to subsidize it.

As far as I'm concerned, if the US wants to subsidize meat, milk, egg, tobacco, or alcohol, I say let them do it. We can develop more long-term industries instead.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

As far as I'm concerned, if the US wants to subsidize meat, milk, egg, tobacco, or alcohol, I say let them do it. We can develop more long-term industries instead.

Like what? You don't think farming is a long term industry? When are you planning on quitting eating? Remember, less than 3% of the US market is open to tariff free competition so how do Canadians compete against businesses that are protected by tariffs and receive subsidies?  How many tariffs and subsidies did the Americans drop in this agreement? You get one guess.

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, Machjo said:

If an industry needs subsidies to survive, then why would we want to maintain such an industry? Let another country's taxpayers subsidize it!

The aren't subsidizing the industry, they are subsidizing its consumers. When is that going to sink in.

[Machjo]

6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Like what? You don't think farming is a long term industry? When are you planning on quitting eating? Remember, less than 3% of the US market is open to tariff free competition so how do Canadians compete against businesses that are protected by tariffs and receive subsidies?  How many tariffs and subsidies did the Americans drop in this agreement? You get one guess.

You're confusing agriculture with animal husbandry. I have not bought any animal product or byproduct in years. Animal products and byproducts, unless prescribed for medical reasons, are a luxury, not a necessity. don't confuse agriculture with animal husbandry.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

You're confusing agriculture with animal husbandry. I have not bought any animal product or byproduct in years. Animal products and byproducts, unless prescribed for medical reasons, are a luxury, not a necessity. don't confuse agriculture with animal husbandry.

Bully for you, I'm sure there a things you use that I don't and couldn't give a crap about.

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The aren't subsidizing the industry, they are subsidizing its consumers. When is that going to sink in.

In theory, if I bought meat, I'd benefit indirectly from any subsidy to the meat industry since a farmer could then pass that cost onto me. But if I don't eat meat, then I'm just subsidizing it but not getting subsidized at all. How does that benefit me?

[Machjo]

Just now, Wilber said:

Bully for you, I'm sure there a things you use that I don't and couldn't give a crap about.

And am I asking you to subsidize the food I buy?

[Wilber]

Just now, Machjo said:

In theory, if I bought meat, I'd benefit indirectly from any subsidy to the meat industry since a farmer could then pass that cost onto me. But if I don't eat meat, then I'm just subsidizing it but not getting subsidized at all. How does that benefit me?

I don't care. There are things I don't use that are subsidized, that doesn't mean I think they should disappear.

[Machjo]

Am I asking the government to subsidize my industry? I work in the travel industry, which has some good points (cultural exchange) and bad (a major carbon footprint from the airline industry). Would I support the government subsidizing my industry if ever the industry took a major downturn? Hell no. I'd find other work. Let's say in the worst case scenario, I lost my job, had no other skill, and was bankrupt, of course I'd want the state to help me, maybe retrain me for some other growing industry, but I wouldn't be asking it to subsidize a product or service that the consumer clearly didn't want anymore.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

I don't care. There are things I don't use that are subsidized, that doesn't mean I think they should disappear.

OK, fine, let's just open a farm at the local zoo and hire a local farmer to raise his animals there for the tourists to watch as a part of our heritage I guess.