OT Food for thought

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:46:29 -0700, rw
wrote:

Peter Charles wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:40 -0700, rw
wrote:


Peter Charles wrote:

He is serious - have you forgotten mad cow?

Bad example, Peter.


Why? Explain

It's my understanding that genetic tests and records revealed that the
BSE-infected cow that was found in the US came from Canada.

Is the Canadian media reporting something different? If so, I'd like to
hear about it. I'm serious. I know the Canadian government objected to
the initial report as "premature," but AFAIK they haven't been defending
that position.

When this news came out, there was no anti-Canada sentiment in the US
that I ever heard, and some of my friends are cattle ranchers. It was
just one of those things.

No, the Canadian media did not report anything differently. However,
almost every CNN, NBC, etc. newscast on the subject went on and on
about this being a Canadian cow with the strong implication that the
US cattle industry was not to blame. You have probably heard that
Canada has had a recent case of mad cow disease that predates this
case and that the US closed its borders to Canadian beef as a result.
Did you also know that this cow origniated from a US herd? I suppose
CNN etc. left out that detail. Contrary to the CNN etc. coverage of
the US case, the Canadian media did not blame the US for our mad cow
case.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Peter Charles wrote:

No, the Canadian media did not report anything differently. However,
almost every CNN, NBC, etc. newscast on the subject went on and on
about this being a Canadian cow with the strong implication that the
US cattle industry was not to blame. You have probably heard that
Canada has had a recent case of mad cow disease that predates this
case and that the US closed its borders to Canadian beef as a result.
Did you also know that this cow origniated from a US herd? I suppose
CNN etc. left out that detail. Contrary to the CNN etc. coverage of
the US case, the Canadian media did not blame the US for our mad cow
case.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that what you see on CNN, NBC,
etc. proves an anti-Canadian bias in America. Is that accurate?

My take is that the country of origin was a very important angle in the
recent BSE incident. Should that information have been suppressed?

Maybe you should tune into CBC occasionally.

Please believe me about this, Peter. Americans, by and large, are not
anti-Canadian. You are well below the radar. I think that's the real
problem that some Canadians have with America.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Please believe me about this, Peter. Americans, by and large, are not
anti-Canadian. You are well below the radar. I think that's the real
problem that some Canadians have with America.

With respect to mad-cow disease, the real issue is not country of
origin, but the length of the US embargo against Canadian beef. Beef
imports into the US from Canada have been a long-standing issue between
the US and Canada. Before BSE, Canada shipped billions of $$ worth of
cattle to the US. For years, the US accussed Canada of unfair trade
practices, and at one time, placed a tarrif on incoming beef from
Canada. This was eventually overturned, but the issue remained. When
Canada had its one case of BSE, the US was the first to ban Canadian
beef. Canada did everything, and more, to demonstrate that the case was
isolated. Thousands of animals were slaughtered, and no other case was
found. The US has refused to lift its embargo on Canadian beef, even
though all the surveillance requirements were satisfied. The US is on
record as saying it will not lift the embargo until Canada addresses the
other issues that the US considers as unfair trading practice. The issue
has moved from science and food safety to politics, olitics that reflect
the anti-Canadian bias of your government. As a result, the Canadian
beef industry is suffering greatly, and rural economy in my area of the
country is also suffering. All because of long-standing US bias against
Canada.

Beleive me Steve, there is a huge anti-Canadian bias in your country. IT
has existed for years, has directly affected trade in spite of all the
free-trade agreements in place, and has been at its nadir ever since
your country appointed its current leadership. You don't see it because
of bias in your media. I have to deal with it daily.

Tim Lysyk wrote:

rw wrote:

Please believe me about this, Peter. Americans, by and large, are not
anti-Canadian. You are well below the radar. I think that's the real
problem that some Canadians have with America.


With respect to mad-cow disease, the real issue is not country of
origin, but the length of the US embargo against Canadian beef. Beef
imports into the US from Canada have been a long-standing issue between
the US and Canada. Before BSE, Canada shipped billions of $$ worth of
cattle to the US. For years, the US accussed Canada of unfair trade
practices, and at one time, placed a tarrif on incoming beef from
Canada. This was eventually overturned, but the issue remained. When
Canada had its one case of BSE, the US was the first to ban Canadian
beef. Canada did everything, and more, to demonstrate that the case was
isolated. Thousands of animals were slaughtered, and no other case was
found. The US has refused to lift its embargo on Canadian beef, even
though all the surveillance requirements were satisfied. The US is on
record as saying it will not lift the embargo until Canada addresses the
other issues that the US considers as unfair trading practice. The issue
has moved from science and food safety to politics, olitics that reflect
the anti-Canadian bias of your government. As a result, the Canadian
beef industry is suffering greatly, and rural economy in my area of the
country is also suffering. All because of long-standing US bias against
Canada.

Beleive me Steve, there is a huge anti-Canadian bias in your country. IT
has existed for years, has directly affected trade in spite of all the
free-trade agreements in place, and has been at its nadir ever since
your country appointed its current leadership. You don't see it because
of bias in your media. I have to deal with it daily.


There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle. The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs. I don't think that either of
these practices are necessarily bad, however, they do provide an unfair
playing field for American businesses competing in these fields. What
you would see as fair treatment to your country would be putting
American businesses at an unfair disadvantage.

Willi

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi wrote:




There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle. The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs. I don't think that either of
these practices are necessarily bad, however, they do provide an unfair
playing field for American businesses competing in these fields. What
you would see as fair treatment to your country would be putting
American businesses at an unfair disadvantage.

Willi


I'm sorry Willi, but for you to complain about real or imagined
subsidies of agriculture by foreign countries is incredibly
hypocritical considering the vast array of US agricultural subsidies
that exist. Canada is on record demanding a reduction of US and EU
agricultural subsidies but instead, we get this sort of crap over BSE.

Too bad we don't have a government with some balls . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Peter Charles wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi wrote:




There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle. The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs. I don't think that either of
these practices are necessarily bad, however, they do provide an unfair
playing field for American businesses competing in these fields. What
you would see as fair treatment to your country would be putting
American businesses at an unfair disadvantage.

Willi



I'm sorry Willi, but for you to complain about real or imagined
subsidies of agriculture by foreign countries is incredibly
hypocritical considering the vast array of US agricultural subsidies
that exist.

I wasn't complaining about the subsidies and I'm aware of some of the
subsidies in this country. Overall, I'm not in favor of this type of
corporate welfare. I was merely commenting that I think that subsidies
do complicate free trade and that the US policies aren't "all because of
long-standing bias against Canada." "All" governments place their own
country's economic welfare above that of other nations.

Whenever, any country's government substantially subsidizes a given
industry and that industry exports into another country without the
subsidies, it has a very unfair advantage. This can have VERY serious,
even devastating effects on that industry in the country without the
subsidies. This type of scenario does, IMO, merit trade restrictions.
This applies to the US as well as Canada or any other country.

Willi

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:31:57 -0700, Willi wrote:




I'm sorry Willi, but for you to complain about real or imagined
subsidies of agriculture by foreign countries is incredibly
hypocritical considering the vast array of US agricultural subsidies
that exist.

I wasn't complaining about the subsidies and I'm aware of some of the
subsidies in this country. Overall, I'm not in favor of this type of
corporate welfare. I was merely commenting that I think that subsidies
do complicate free trade and that the US policies aren't "all because of
long-standing bias against Canada." "All" governments place their own
country's economic welfare above that of other nations.

You're right about a lot of this not being the result of an
anti-Canadian bias, rather it's the actions of a politically powerful
industry seeking to paint Canada as some nasty, commie, subsidizing
state. We all know that subsidies are the only way a foreign industry
can beat a US industry. Any time a foreign industry starts getting a
bit of market share, it must be because they're cheating.

Whenever, any country's government substantially subsidizes a given
industry and that industry exports into another country without the
subsidies, it has a very unfair advantage. This can have VERY serious,
even devastating effects on that industry in the country without the
subsidies. This type of scenario does, IMO, merit trade restrictions.
This applies to the US as well as Canada or any other country.

Willi


Quite true, but that isn't the case here at all -- not even close.
There are a lot of fairy tales being told to justify trade actions.

I'm sorry if I'm getting a little ****ed off, but I put up with this
sort of bull**** every time I channel surf past CNN so I really don't
want to have put up with it on ROFF as well.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi wrote:

(snipped severely)

The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs.

And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
loss on the deal.

As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
substandard medications to Canadians?
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Thousands of products are market segimented for various reasons. The
ability ot pay is one reason. If you doubt it exist go to your local fly
shoop adn check out fly rods.
The drugs are the same. IF you sold them to Canadians for the same price
that you sell them in the US they would not buy as many and you would make
less money. As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
developement and research cost. Once a drug has been developed and tested
production cost is relativly nothing. If every drug company in the world
gave up research and developement all existing drugs could be produced very
cheaply.
IIf stopped all progess on everything we could by with 8086 compputers,
1982 model cars and bamboo fly rods.
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi wrote:

(snipped severely)

The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs.

And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
loss on the deal.

As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
substandard medications to Canadians?
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely
on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:33:23 GMT, "B J Conner"
wrote:

Thousands of products are market segimented for various reasons. The
ability ot pay is one reason. If you doubt it exist go to your local fly
shoop adn check out fly rods.
The drugs are the same. IF you sold them to Canadians for the same price
that you sell them in the US they would not buy as many and you would make
less money. As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
developement and research cost. Once a drug has been developed and tested
production cost is relativly nothing. If every drug company in the world
gave up research and developement all existing drugs could be produced very
cheaply.
IIf stopped all progess on everything we could by with 8086 compputers,
1982 model cars and bamboo fly rods.
wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi wrote:

(snipped severely)

The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs.

And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
loss on the deal.

As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
substandard medications to Canadians?
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely
on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

BJ

What if I told you that one of the major players in the American drug
prices war is a British company - Glaxo Smithkline PLC. Also that
American drug companies have oversea research labs -- for example,
Viagra was invented and developed in Sandwich, England at a Pfizer
lab. Canada has its own pharmaceutical research industry. So tell
me, why should the American consumer pay through the nose to support
research in other countries? Pay more for the same drugs than
consumers in those countries?

I have my own theory but I'd be interested to hear yours.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html