SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ralfph who wrote (4303)3/15/2003 9:52:59 AM
From: E. Charters  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8273
 
Free trade was an American idea. First warning flag. It was sold to economists of the York U school of Communist/Galbraithian economics as a panacea which allows "bad industry" (high cost) to be killed off by foreign cheap goods, and good industry (competitive) to survive. Nice generalism. Until you look at the fact that most industry prices are are ruled by labour costs and volume. (Domestic industry that does not export NEEDS PROTECTION, and does not NEED TO BE SAVED FROM ITSELF. This is because it employs fellow countrymen who add to the economic base which allows one to afford foreign goods in the first place.) ANY country with cheap labour and liberal foreign investment policy can kill ANY country with richer citizens, on prices. ANY country with a higher volume market can kill ANY country with lower volume on manufactured goods, on price. So the simplistic idea that there is "bad" industry and "good" industry in a country and you should allow domestic "non-competitive" industry to be "killed off" with cheap imports is really simple minded. There is industry period. It is adjusted to scale, salary level, and volume of the country's market. If you don't do that stuff, you will not be able to have any sort of service or industry in general to buy squat-doodlie cheaper goods anywhere. This is what is missed in the vast economic simplifications of economicommunismo 100.

The US ALWAYS kills us on any manufactured good. The only exceptions are agriculture which depends on soil and farm efficiency, and raw resources which depend on scale, richness of deposit and plentifulness of deposits.(trees, water, fish and minerals etc..) Availability of mineral lands and other raw product in effect. We (Canada) win on that latter score, but are swiftly shooting ourselves in the foot on that one by policy of mineral land removal.

The US used to fund its government on tariffs. It ran well and the citizens were wealthy. Around 1800 during the Jeffersonian time.

"Autopact" the US-Canadian auto agreement, which allowed the American owned Canadian based auto industry to survive was in effect a tariff. If it is killed, then the US can relocate its auto plants. They are doing that slowly. There is no sense in keeping low volume high cost plants in operation if it is not necessary.

A return to reasonable tariffs is required. It is nobody's business but our own what tariffs we apply. If they want to sell more goods in our country then they will have to make them cheaper still, until even a 300% tariff leaves a competitive edge, quality being even.

It is totally unreasonable that I should be able to buy a chrome-molybdenum two-knife kitchen set for $1.50 CDN, made in China, if that knife set cost 10.00 in made in Canada. We know that knife set is made with slave labour. We know they are dumping goods for break-even. There is something mysterious in our government not applying tariffs to these items. It sure will not hurt the Chinese or Canadians in the long run if we do. Otherwise where are Canadians going to work?

EC<:-}