OT Food for thought

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

Peter Charles wrote:

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

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.


I'm sure not saying that. I own stock in a Canadian company.




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.


Sorry to **** you off. That's not my intent. I'm not too sure where
you're coming from. Does "that isn't the case at all" mean that Canada
doesn't subsidize any industries? From what I understand both the US and
Canada (and most other countries) do subsidize certain industries. These
subsidies are major road blocks to free trade.

Willi

rw wrote:

Tim Lysyk wrote:
Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.

--
and you know we kind of like it that way

Jack

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:34:44 -0700, Willi wrote:



Peter Charles wrote:

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

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.


I'm sure not saying that. I own stock in a Canadian company.

I'm talking past you here, Willi and just venting in general . . .


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.


Sorry to **** you off. That's not my intent. I'm not too sure where
you're coming from. Does "that isn't the case at all" mean that Canada
doesn't subsidize any industries? From what I understand both the US and
Canada (and most other countries) do subsidize certain industries. These
subsidies are major road blocks to free trade.

Willi


No, Canada does have subsidies but they're only a fraction of what we
are accused of having . . . that is my point.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Peter Charles wrote:

No, Canada does have subsidies but they're only a fraction of what we
are accused of having . . . that is my point.

I often think most major economies (US, EU, Japan, maybe Canada) don't
really mind other countries' subsidies nearly as much as they publicly
pretend to. Their rivals' subsidies provide an excuse for much
bombast and finger-pointing that distract from serious examination of
their own.

JR

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.

Interesting you should say that about subsidies to the beef industry.
Kind of shows your own bias, or someone's, as there are no subsidies to
the beef industry. The Canadian government does not subsidize feedlots
nor grain fed to cattle. There really are no Canadian government
subsidies for beef cattle production. The main trade irritant before
BSE was Canada's require for disease testing for cattle coming into
Canada. The long standing bias against Canada wis not just from
government from from American farmers and other involved in the
agriculture and natural resource industry.

You are right about one thing, the difference between a competive
advantage and unfair trading practice is..."when I do it, I am
exercising a competitive advantage, when you do it, it is an unfair
subsidy."

Tim Lysyk

Tim Lysyk wrote:

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.


Interesting you should say that about subsidies to the beef industry.
Kind of shows your own bias, or someone's, as there are no subsidies to
the beef industry. The Canadian government does not subsidize feedlots
nor grain fed to cattle. There really are no Canadian government
subsidies for beef cattle production.


You're right, from what I just read, that was some US cattlemen
association Bull****. Even an American study showed the Canadian beef
industry one of the least subsidized in the world.


But I still disagree with your statement of a long standing bias against
Canada. There's no doubt that the US government has self serving
policies, but I don't think that our self serving policies are
specifically directed at Canada. I think we apply our self serving
policies on more of an equal opportunity basis.


In reading about this I discovered how complex the the different systems
of subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. that are used by different countries
to protect their own interests and how these affect trade. It seems like
all countries use a variety of tactics to protect certain industries.
Very complicated stuff.


Willi

Willi wrote:

But I still disagree with your statement of a long standing bias against
Canada. There's no doubt that the US government has self serving
policies, but I don't think that our self serving policies are
specifically directed at Canada. I think we apply our self serving
policies on more of an equal opportunity basis.

Well, I suppose we are going to disagree on that. I was just using trade
as one example. There are other examples of US bias against Canada; I
mentioned a few, as has Peter. And not just from the the government. I
agree that the US is biased against pretty much everyone, but since
Canada has a long border with the US, the bias does get directed
northward a lot.

Tim Lysyk