Ottawa says Ontario's call to drop retaliatory tariffs would mean 'surrender'

[Machjo]

15 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Canadian provinces already have tariffs against other provinces, that's one of the biggest problems with confederation, a lack of internal trade, it not like America where no state tariffs the products of another other state, America is a free trade zone, Canada is not. 

And so that would be the advantage of provincial jurisdiction in international trade. You tariff us, and we'll just drop tariffs against the world and trade with it instead.

[Machjo]

On that note, I do think Ontario should unilaterally drop tariffs against other provinces.

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, Machjo said:

On that note, I do think Ontario should unilaterally drop tariffs against other provinces.

That would be nice, problem is, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That would be nice.

Actually, I don't think it has tariffs against other provinces, but it does have trade barriers of other kinds none the less. It should unilaterally drop those.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Machjo

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Machjo said:

Actually, I don't think it has tariffs against other provinces, but it does have trade berriers of other kinds none the less. It should unilaterally drop those.

Tariffs by any other name, still smell like shit.

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Tariffs by any other name, still smell like shit.

Merely the manifestation of no national interest.  It's the Dutch Disease on steroids, all the Canadian provinces in cut throat competition with each other to do business with the Americans, no interest in doing business with each other, to the tune of an estimated loss of $100 billion per year.

[Machjo]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Merely the manifestation of no national interest.  It's the Dutch Disease on steroids, all the Canadian provinces in cut throat competition with each other to do business with the Americans, no interest in doing business with each other, to the tune of an estimated loss of $100 billion per year.

Let's not confuse nationalist politics with sound economics. Ontario has a massively populous market right on its southern border. In terms of transportation costs, etc., it makes more sense for Ontario to trade withNew York State than it does with British Columbia. In the same way, it makes more sense for BC to trade more with Washington State than with Ontario, given the comparative cost of transporation of goods. Tariffs distort that.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Let's not confuse nationalist politics with sound economics. Ontario has a massively populous market right on its southern border. In terms of transportation costs, etc., it makes more sense for Ontario to trade withNew York State than it does with British Columbia. In the same way, it makes more sense for BC to trade more with Washington State than with Ontario, given the comparative cost of transporation of goods. Tariffs distort that.

I don't see any reason why Ontario cannot have trade utterly free of barriers with both New York and British Columbia at the same time, and I don't see any need for Confederation for Ontario to do that.

In fact, as I say, Confederation is the problem.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Dougie93

[Machjo]

22 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see any reason why Ontario cannot have trade utterly free of barriers with both New York and British Columbia at the same time, and I don't see any need for Confederation for Ontario to do that.

In fact, as I say, Confederation is the problem.

I favour free trade, so you won't here a complaint from me there. In principle, confederation might be more worthwhile if it could maintain free trade within our borders. Otherwise, from an economic standpoint, what's the point? Maybe each province could become a loose federation that would share a common citizenship and passport and nothing else. I'd be happy with that, honestly.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Machjo said:

I favour free trade, so you won't here a complaint from me there. In principle, confederation might be more worthwhile if it could maintain free trade within our borders. Otherwise, from an economic standpoint, what's the point? Maybe each province could become a loose federation that would share a common citizenship and passport and nothing else. I'd be happy with that, honestly.

The purpose of Canadian Confederation is; Keep the French in, keep the Americans out, and keep the Indians down.

  It's archaic.  It's obsolete.  It doesn't serve its stated purpose and never really did.  A 19th century agreement which makes no sense whatsoever in the 21st century.

[Dougie93]

And its costing you a trillion dollars worth of lost business, every decade.

[Machjo]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The purpose of Canadian Confederation is; Keep the French in, keep the Americans out, and keep the Indians down.

  It's archaic.  It's obsolete.  It doesn't serve its stated purpose and never really did.  A 19th century agreement which makes no sense whatsoever in the 21st century.

Interesting perspective, and not far from the truth. I still see the benefit of a common citizenship and passport though from the standpoint of labour mobility. Beyond that, perhaps we should transfer all other powers to the provinces. This would make them almost sovereign states in their own right minus responsibility for citizenship and passports going to the federal government. But then with the federal government holding so little responsibility, we could probably reduce the Federal parliament to nine MPs elected by the members of the provincial parliaments, good enough. Heck, it's not like the feds would need to manage a heck of a lot then.

 

It would literally hace one ministry: Citizenship and passports.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Machjo

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Interesting perspective, and not far from the truth. I still see the benefit of a common citizenship and passport though from the standpoint of labour mobility. Beyond that, perhaps we should transfer all other powers to the provinces. This would make them almost sovereign states in their own right minus responsibility for citizenship and passports going to the federal government. But then with the federal government holding so little responsibility, we could probably reduce the Federal parliament to nine MPs elected by the members of the provincial parliaments, good enough. Heck, it's not like the feds would need to manage a heck of a lot then.

I don't see any need for common passports.

For example, an Australian shows you his passport, and then a New Zealander shows you his passport, what is the difference in practical terms?

It's all the same country, it's called the House of Windsor.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Now a customs union?  Common currency?  That works for me.  The Bank of Canada is supposed to be arms length from the government, but really its not, because the government can sack the governor if he doesn't do what they want.

Whereas with a customs union, it would require a unanimous vote to sack the governor of the Bank of Canada, so then the Central Bank could really be doing what it is supposed to do, instead of what it does now, which is try to prop up whoever is in power at any given moment, mostly by allowing them to accrue massive amounts of debt and devalue the currency.

[Machjo]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see any need for common passports.

For example, an Australian shows you his passport, and then a New Zealander shows you his passport, what is the difference in practical terms?

It's all the same country, it's called the House of Windsor.

Since Australia and New Zealand have relative open borders between one another, you're right that that allows each to work in the others' country visa-free. But if they ever ended that agreement, then the different in passports would be wide. Ensuring a common citizenship and passport would make it more difficult to remove Canadians' freedom to move around Canada. Semi-sovereign states but with a common citizenship and passport.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Machjo said:

Since Australia and New Zealand have relative open borders between one another, you're right that that allows each to work in the others' country visa-free. But if they ever ended that agreement, then the different in passports would be wide. Ensuring a common citizenship and passport would make it more difficult to remove Canadians' freedom to move around Canada. Semi-sovereign states but with a common citizenship and passport.

Since Canadian Confederation is a failed state by its own terms and is as a result costing us a trillion dollars a decade, while Australia and New Zealand work fine as two Dominions of the House of Windsor and always have,  I'm not seeing the argument in favour of Confederation in there.

To wit, there is no Australian Quebec, and I can have an Australia of my very own, without leaving the House of Windsor, Canada is in fact superfluous at this juncture, and was in fact superfluous,  as soon as Canada hopped from the British Empire to the American Empire of Liberty, in 1918.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Merely the manifestation of no national interest.  It's the Dutch Disease on steroids, all the Canadian provinces in cut throat competition with each other to do business with the Americans, no interest in doing business with each other, to the tune of an estimated loss of $100 billion per year.

 

Indeed....the "free traders" want to keep the north-south gravy train running without addressing longstanding domestic and protectionist barriers.  Trump (and Obama) kicked this hornet's nest and Canada is scrambling to figure it out.   The huge American market does not exist for Canada's export dependencies.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind what actually incited Confederation; all the provinces in Canada wanting to be one country?  Nope.  They actually did not want that.  Confederation was a shotgun marriage imposed from London, because of the Americans becoming a superpower overnight in their Civil War, which dwarfed the British military, and so the British were not coming to defend Canada anymore, so they basically kicked us out of the British Empire.  Then we charged into World War One to prove to them we were still British.  Then the British broke the Empire at the Somme, and suddenly Canadians were cast adrift, and so latched on to the Americans to be their protectorate instead.

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Indeed....the "free traders" want to keep the north-south gravy train running without addressing longstanding domestic and protectionist barriers.  Trump (and Obama) kicked this hornet's nest and Canada is scrambling to figure it out.   The huge American market does not exist for Canada's export dependencies.

The reason why you encounter this fascistic Canadian Anti-Americanism, is that Canadians are still trying to prove that they are British, after being kicked out of the British Empire in a massive traumatic Empire destroying catastrophe, it's just been handed down through so many generations, they don't even remember why they do it anymore.

Canadians are more British than the British, because Canadians are still the British, from the 19th century, Victoria, our Queen and Empress.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canadians are more British than the British, because Canadians are still the British, from the 19th century, Victoria, our Queen and Empress.

 

The Americans used that to their advantage by beating Commonwealth tariffs with U.S. owned subsidiaries in Canada (e.g. EMD London).   Unifor is crying the blues because big bad GM has decided to cut Oshawa loose, and there sure as hell isn't any Canadian ownership coming to the rescue.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The Americans used that to their advantage by beating Commonwealth tariffs with U.S. owned subsidiaries in Canada (e.g. EMD London).   Unifor is crying the blues because big bad GM has decided to cut Oshawa loose, and there sure as hell isn't any Canadian ownership coming to the rescue.

And this is because, down in the bones, the very DNA of Canada, it doesn't function as a Westphalian Nation State.

The Westphalian Nation State is literally Elizabeth Windsor.  De jure Elizabeth Windsor, it's not "symbolic" as the Canadian lefties like to assert.

Canada is legally, constitutionally and functionally, the pesonage of that lovely old lady living in Buckingham Palace.

  If you ever try to test it in court, Elizabeth Windsor will smack "Canada" aside with ease. Without Elizabeth Windsor, there is no Canada.

The Domestic Self Governing Federation of 1867, was never constructed to function as more than a protectorate, and so a protectorate it will be, forever.

It's never going to try to take a place in the sun, it will ever be a British protectorate of the American Empire of Liberty, it cannot be what is not in its nature.

[Dougie93]

Not that I'm complaining; God bless America, God save the Queen, is not mutually exclusive, since 1918.

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed....the "free traders" want to keep the north-south gravy train running without addressing longstanding domestic and protectionist barriers.  Trump (and Obama) kicked this hornet's nest and Canada is scrambling to figure it out.   The huge American market does not exist for Canada's export dependencies.

I don't care too much about that. Sure US free trade with Canada would benefit Canada too just as it would the US; but since Canada has no control over that, I don't worry about it. I say just unilaterally drop tariffs and quotas against the world and let the chips fall where they may. Growing pains, sure, but it would make us economically more resilient in the end.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I don't care too much about that. Sure US free trade with Canada would benefit Canada too just as it would the US; but since Canada has no control over that, I don't worry about it. I say just unilaterally drop tariffs and quotas against the world and let the chips fall where they may. Growing pains, sure, but it would make us economically more resilient in the end.

 

Agreed...Canada has no control over the changes that are happening to globalization.   Capital is leaving Canada because of current policies and conditions.   Consumer spending in Canada is slowing down....two out of three months had negative growth.   Oil is still way down from the heady days of $100 Brent.   Tariffs have been weaponized, and the WTO is too damn slow and impotent to react.

[Machjo]

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...Canada has no control over the changes that are happening to globalization.   Capital is leaving Canada because of current policies and conditions.   Consumer spending in Canada is slowing down....two out of three months had negative growth.   Oil is still way down from the heady days of $100 Brent.   Tariffs have been weaponized, and the WTO is too damn slow and impotent to react.

And tariffs are among the worst taxes around. Yes, the government needs a sourse of revenue. Three general sources include taxes, royalties on resource extraction, and fines.

 

I like royalites since they're user-pay. Just raise those. I like fines since they charge the people who deserve to pay. Raise those.

 

As for taxes, they need to be rational. I could see a moderate wealth tax for example. But as for tariffs, they actually hinder economies of scale and efficiency (for example, it would be better for an Ontario plant to sell to New York and its Washington plant to sell to Vancouver from the standpoint of transport costs. Tariffs distort these.