Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gord Bolton who wrote (74869)	8/12/2001 8:07:59 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116764

{ So in order to avoid imposing of tariffs, the richer country may ask that the poorer country with the smaller markets and longer distance to transport and shorter harvest season, to in all other respects, (i.e. the levels of state and federal taxation, fees, wages, worker benefits) ... be at equitable levels with the richer country. The salary levels, taxation, and benefit levels of employees becomes an issue. If taxes are not enough or gov't benefits too generous can they be cut back? After all, with state health plans, the company does not seem to have to pay worker benefits or pay higher salaries as the Stateside company should have to. Is this not a subsidy that should be on the table with free trade? If workers must pay their own health insurance in the states, would that not drive salaries there up? Are Canadians getting a free ride with deficit financing or does it even out with taxes? In the end the gov't has to collect enough money to administer the departments pertaining to the company and must collect taxes to pay the gov't. I cannot imagine a bigger government or higher tax structure than Canada's. Does that cause wage demands to be higher, and more than offset the gov't fees to acquire land or timber? Does it matter at what end the gov't collects its fees? So what about tax breaks to modernize, research tax grants, pollution fees to discourage effluent? Must all these schemes have bi-lateral equity? To what extent can the governments of one the other state dictate the internal taxation and industry policies of the other? It would appear that the US is asking the impossible. They seek total economic cost and government service equity between different countries with different trade volumes, transport to market distances and expenses, energy costs, economies, climates, and social policies. That has to be a lose-win situation. It cannot be that both countries could trade advantageously with each other, given these differences. } You know it strikes me that if the Canadian dollar was worth 1.50 in US cents this whole issue would not be worth a moment's notice to anyone in the States. The US knows an exporting nation with a weak dollar, cheap electric power, and lots of oil is wearing a big grin and they don't like it. But what about that pipeline? Hmmmm. Seems like the Uncle Gene's Hakowis are going to give the gov't trouble till the US bends on wood tariffs. But we should be the ones with the crying towel. With all the land Amoco stole off Dome Pete in the Arctic looks like they are going to the ones complaining about trouble pumping all that oil out of the north. Tsk tsk. Too bad about that cold weather, yankee land baron, too bad. And you had to pay all of 10 cents a barrel for that crude too. Tsk tsk.. waaaaaaaaah! EC<:-}