• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

canucklehead cool + a little subsidy ?

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Government of Ontario will invest $56 million to promote Ontario food products. The focus of the Fourth Annual Agri-Food Summit was “Bringing more Ontario Food to Ontario families”. At this event the Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty announced the government’s plan to spend $56 millions over the next four years to promote the consumption of Ontario food products in the province, $4 million of which will be allocated to the farmers’ markets. McGuinty stated that everyone has a role to play to support Ontario agriculture. He said “If you buy Ontario everyone wins, because we are supporting our farmers, and processor, our rural economy, our environment and ourselves with healthy food from here at home”. A recent survey run by Foodland Ontario estimated that 94 per cent of Ontario Grocery shoppers recognize their logo, which identifies produce grown in Ontario.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

What about the huge costs? What about traceback? Why are they doing that when there will be minimum benefit? :shock:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

What about the huge costs? What about traceback? Why are they doing that when there will be minimum benefit? :shock:

Looks to me they are spending their own money(Ontario taxpayers) rather then put it on the producers of food they import.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

What about the huge costs? What about traceback? Why are they doing that when there will be minimum benefit? :shock:

Looks to me they are spending their own money(Ontario taxpayers) rather then put it on the producers of food they import.

The producers aren't Ontario taxpayers?
 

Kato

Well-known member
Actually this is how a labelling program is supposed to work.

As a voluntary option for the marketing of local food. As a way for a smaller processor to gain an edge over a multinational. As a way to put a positive spin on local rather than a negative spin on imports.

American style MCOOL will also take away an excellent possible marketing edge a smaller independent American processor could have over the big multinationals as well.

Has anyone ever thought of that? :? :? :? I bet the smaller companies who have worked hard to get that edge through their own initiative have thought of it and are not happy to lose it. :shock: Chalk another one up for big business.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Actually, I think the government of Ontario getting a plan to promote Ontario's products is a great idea. I think it's pretty sad how the views change when the shoe is on the other foot.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

BULL SHEIST,whats the differnce ? end result is the same,mark your product to promote sales.
good luck

PS I get a kick outa you canuckleheads thinking you're slick :D :D you have had this canucklehead "COOL" since the first bovine hit canadian soil :D .when are you sending Miss Tam with my medicine ?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

You do what makes the most sense. In the US's case, marking the imports makes the most sense primarily because we're already doing it!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

You do what makes the most sense. In the US's case, marking the imports makes the most sense primarily because we're already doing it!

Is that waht they call Banker's logic? You want consumers to buy American BUT you don't want to have to label it as American product?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Haymaker what's the problem?

They are spending money to identify Ontario produced food. Not telling everybody to mark the imports.

You do what makes the most sense. In the US's case, marking the imports makes the most sense primarily because we're already doing it!

Is that waht they call Banker's logic? You want consumers to buy American BUT you don't want to have to label it as American product?



No, that is what I call somebody who jumps to ridiculous conclusions. I’ll try to make the R-CALF idea simple for you, Bill. You have a jar that has 100 marbles in it. 90 are white, 5 are black, 5 are red, and you want to separate them. As I am interested in doing things the most logical way, I would take out the black ones and put them in a bowl that says “black marbles”. I would take out the red ones and put them in a bowl labeled “red marbles”. I would not even mess with the white ones. This way, I separated the 100 marbles, but only actually handled 10 of them. This is called “efficiency.” I would then count the 5 red and the 5 black marbles and know that I had only white marbles left in the jar. I could put a label that says “white marbles” on that jar and it would be correct, even without looking. This is called “basic deductive reasoning” or “common sense”. Note the key words; “Efficiency”, “Basic Deductive Reasoning” and “Common Sense”. Now, I’m sure you have questions, so the floor is yours.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
By not inspecting the white ones, are they more or less safe, than the inspected red and black marbles?

Where was there any mention of inspection of ANY marbles? This was simply a sorting and labeling exercise. If you want to know about inspection, you're going to have to sign up for my inspection course and pay the small fee.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I would not even mess with the white ones. This way, I separated the 100 marbles, but only actually handled 10 of them

Handled vs. inspected

semantics

:lol: :lol: :lol: Did you inspect the butter knife the last time you handled one? How about a comb? A pen? A can opener? The last time you took a whiz?

I didn't realize this would be such a difficult example. This reminds me of when I was reading my pre-school son a story about a dog, and he wanted to know what kind of a cloud was in the picture - then he wanted to discuss whether it was a rain cloud or a hail cloud or maybe just a shade cloud. I had a heck of a time getting him back to the story of the dang dog. :lol: If it makes you feel better, the white marbles were inspected when they were first put in the jar as they obviously were handled then - and handling = inspection.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
You do what makes the most sense. In the US's case, marking the imports makes the most sense primarily because we're already doing it!

Is that waht they call Banker's logic? You want consumers to buy American BUT you don't want to have to label it as American product?



No, that is what I call somebody who jumps to ridiculous conclusions. I’ll try to make the R-CALF idea simple for you, Bill. You have a jar that has 100 marbles in it. 90 are white, 5 are black, 5 are red, and you want to separate them. As I am interested in doing things the most logical way, I would take out the black ones and put them in a bowl that says “black marbles”. I would take out the red ones and put them in a bowl labeled “red marbles”. I would not even mess with the white ones. This way, I separated the 100 marbles, but only actually handled 10 of them. This is called “efficiency.” I would then count the 5 red and the 5 black marbles and know that I had only white marbles left in the jar. I could put a label that says “white marbles” on that jar and it would be correct, even without looking. This is called “basic deductive reasoning” or “common sense”. Note the key words; “Efficiency”, “Basic Deductive Reasoning” and “Common Sense”. Now, I’m sure you have questions, so the floor is yours.

Not to take a darn thing away from them as I am sure they must have incredible patience with you, but; the only question I have is how long did it take the girls at the bank to explain that one to you?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Have a good evening Sadhsuker and thanks for the laugh!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Not to take a darn thing away from them as I am sure they must have incredible patience with you, but; the only question I have is how long did it take the girls at the bank to explain that one to you?

Would it be too much to ask for them to explain how free trade is a partnership, that is like "Dollar cost averaging"?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Not to take a darn thing away from them as I am sure they must have incredible patience with you, but; the only question I have is how long did it take the girls at the bank to explain that one to you?

Would it be too much to ask for them to explain how free trade is a partnership, that is like "Dollar cost averaging"?

I think you're having trouble with big words; What does dollar cost averaging have to do with business relationships?
 
Top