OT Food for thought

Tim Lysyk wrote:
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.


I guess I'm partly basing that on a more personal basis. I've never
heard anyone say something like, he's just a ****in' Canuck (In fact I
can't even think of a derogatory term for a Canadian unless Canuck is
one) - but I have heard LOTS of similar statements made about people
from many other countries and even our own citizens who have a different
background.

Willi

"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:Aqq0c.35192$A12.19840@edtnps84...
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.

Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S. the
beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
Canada?

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."

Not only true, but obvious and inescapable. Even those defending their
competitive advantages while decrying other's unfair practices know it for
an absolute fact. So much for integrity.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:

Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S. the
beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
Canada?

These types of uses are generally under the jurisdiction of the
province. Land can be leased from the crown for grazing, but is done on
a competitive bid basis and the applicant pays for the use of the land.
How much, I don't know, but the leases are awarded to the highest
bidder, so it is not free.


Tim Lysyk

"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:Heu0c.36315$A12.5951@edtnps84...
Wolfgang wrote:

Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S.
the
beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
Canada?

These types of uses are generally under the jurisdiction of the
province. Land can be leased from the crown for grazing, but is done on
a competitive bid basis and the applicant pays for the use of the land.
How much, I don't know, but the leases are awarded to the highest
bidder, so it is not free.

But, of course, it doesn't have to be entirely free to be a subsidy.
Anything below fair market value (however that may be determined) will do.

Wolfgang

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:54:51 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:Heu0c.36315$A12.5951@edtnps84...
Wolfgang wrote:

Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S.
the
beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
Canada?

These types of uses are generally under the jurisdiction of the
province. Land can be leased from the crown for grazing, but is done on
a competitive bid basis and the applicant pays for the use of the land.
How much, I don't know, but the leases are awarded to the highest
bidder, so it is not free.

But, of course, it doesn't have to be entirely free to be a subsidy.
Anything below fair market value (however that may be determined) will do.

Wolfgang


Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.

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

Peter Charles wrote:



Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.


hmmm... i went to a coastal conservation association banquet. there was
an auction. 400 potential bidders present. $50 prints brought $400;
nothing sold anywhere the normal retail or even wholesale. in these
parts, auctions are considered opportunities to get things at bargain
prices...though, on occasions they seem to become soap boxes for
personal pride or wants, and bids unexplainably skyrocket out of the
range of reason. usually, an auction is a good method of getting
something sold...i'm not sure i would trust it as a method of
establishing fair market value.

btw...i went shad fishing this weekend. it was mcphee brought home.
others near me caught a few; i struck out (fortunately jim went founding
fishless too). yesterday, we pulled up at a spot in a backwoods creek
(same place we took indian joe last year). the hunting club had built a
small dock nearby. a fella was perched on it with a zebco-appearing
closed spinning reel. he was wearing his church-attending shirt, bermuda
shorts, shoes & socks. he claimed it was his first time ever shad
fishing. he caught more than 10 in our moments nearby. he looked at us
and grinned with each catch. i was close to committing a serious
criminal offense. neither jim nor i had even a bump from an angry shad.
of more than 50 shad fishermen...all in boats trying to find the best
shad lies g...this one fella was the only one we saw catch a fish. it
looks to be a very humiliating season of fishing.

Jeff Miller wrote:

Peter Charles wrote:

Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.

hmmm... i went to a coastal conservation association banquet. there was
an auction. 400 potential bidders present. $50 prints brought $400;
nothing sold anywhere the normal retail or even wholesale. in these
parts, auctions are considered opportunities to get things at bargain
prices...though, on occasions they seem to become soap boxes for
personal pride or wants, and bids unexplainably skyrocket out of the
range of reason. usually, an auction is a good method of getting
something sold...i'm not sure i would trust it as a method of
establishing fair market value.

Apples and oranges. There is a difference between a "vanity" auction
fundraising event where the proceeds go to charity and a hardnosed,
strictly business auction. In Illinois when you buy a property at
auction the value of that property for tax purposes is set to exactly
the auction price by law.

--
Ken Fortenberry