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

Trade War With Canada Begins

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
If it makes sense for you to pick up a dividend on your purchases, why doesn't the same apply to the government?

You're jumping out of turn Sandy. Answer the question first.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
If it makes sense for you to pick up a dividend on your purchases, why doesn't the same apply to the government?

You're jumping out of turn Sandy. Answer the question first.

YES

Now, why does it make sense for you to purchase where you get money back, but not the government?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
If it makes sense for you to pick up a dividend on your purchases, why doesn't the same apply to the government?

You're jumping out of turn Sandy. Answer the question first.

YES

Very good. Then I guess you agree that the government (in an effort to get a dividend on it's purchases) is obligated to pruchase or allow pruchases from places that make sense economically.
If the foundry in Pittsburgh scources it's ore from Ontario, and the people in the mining industry in Ontario spend their money on cars made in Detroit, and the people in Detroit spend their money.... well, you get the idea.....
So, by your logic you should stop buying the Pittsburgh steel because it uses foreign ore. Even though there is obviously a benefit in the cross border trade, even though that money comes back to Americans and increases American prosperity, it's bad because there was a mutual benefit.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
What if by mandating that you can not spend it at place B results in all of the sister companies of B (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,) stopping their purchasing from A as a protest.

I'd say that those companies are out of line. They are demanding government waste for their own benefit.

The problem is not necessarily in you equation, it is in the collateral damage that may result by the Government sticking their nose into the market.

The government is another customer buying goods and services in an open market. Why are they not allowed to buy whereever they get the most benefit just like anybody else?

When you tell companies they can not buy goods from Canada, Canadians have the right to reciprocate by not buying goods from the U.S. So you better be very sure that Store A's extra $.50 sent back will cover all them other stores that will lose money due to Canada returning the favor.

Canadians, or anybody else, need to realize that a government doing business with the people that pay it taxes makes sense for that government financially due to the additional taxes those businesses generate. It has the net effect of reducing the total financial outlay. It's not anti-trade, is pro-financial efficiencey and responsibility. The same applies to the Canadian government. That is where any reciprocation should be. It makes sense for everybody.

It is a slippery slope that may or may not work to our advantage! In theory I have no problem with any country buying local, I believe we all should buy local rather than spend away. I believe we should support the local feed store rather than drive 30 miles to save money at another. But passing laws and regulating it can and will have collateral damage!

People need to mellow out and get priorities in order. The government can't spend wisely because of "trade". We can't enact foot safety laws because of "trade" We can't enforce traffic laws because of "trade", states can't have the gambling lawsthe people want because of "trade", etc....., it's rediculous. I'm not anti-trade and I do realize the benefits of trade, but our everyday lives can't revolve on "trade" and "trade" can't be the trump card in every decison that we make.

As I have said I have no problem with buying local rather it is County, State or Country.

But when the Government mandates it and Canada turns out the loser on the deal, and people that were buying from Canada in past are now forced to buy elsewhere. Then if I was Canada I would return the favor, but not as you suggested, I would say screw the U.S. if we do not have it locally then we will buy from China, Korea or anyone else we can EXCEPT the U.S.

You are wanting to save a dollar but risk losing 10 dollars.

Why is it fiscally responsible to say buy U.S. in one area such as lumber, but cost another area say such as Agriculture money because Canadians decides to buy a Kubota instead of a John Deere?

Canada and U.S. are to interwoven economically to discard them!

The Canadian government should be buying from Canadians for the exact same reasons. How then can they get torked?

If foreigners have a problem with our government putting fiscal responsibilty ahead of trade, then I say to hell with them. If that's the case, we don't have a trade agreement, we have extortion. What they're saying is "We demand that you p*** away the taxpayer funds that you've got a fudiciary responsibility not to so that we can profit from it. If you don't violate your responsibility and give us a piece of your taxpayer's pie, we're going to make you sorry". That's crap.

I actually like your views on buying locally, problem is we can not go back and grandfather it in. The Big wheel has already been moving for many years now.

So now when you have lets say a company that builds trailer houses that buys lumber from Canada. But now if they get stimulus they can no longer buy lumber from Canada and they have to do away with the relationship they have had for 20 years with Canadian lumber company because Obama tells them to.

That is not going to be good! It is going to start trade wars. The right thing would have been that the company always bought U.S. lumbers when they could. But since the Big wheel has been moving for so long in regards our trade with Canada, for Obama to come in and say they have to find new U.S. sources has a lot of potential for harm.

Maybe that lumber yard no longer buys John Deere equipment to work their land instead the buy a Kubota.

Sure the U.S. lumber companies hire some new employee's but the John Deere manufacturer has to fire just as many, then the Tire company supplying them with tires has to fire some, then the battery supplier has to fire some, then the company making alternators for the John Deere has to fire some, then the banker loses his job because John Deere defaults on their loans he made them.

Like I said slippery slope, that is more complicated and has more collateral damage than you are factoring in with over simplifying the magnitude of Obama's actions.

Not to mention the ramifications that come in other areas, maybe Canada is not as willing to help in Afghanistan, maybe they mess with our oil supply. Who knows how big the snow ball can get once you push it down the hill?

Obama should have looked at a little more strategic and less brass way of getting what he wanted!
 

Silver

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I noticed a lot of Canadian produce in my Whole Foods Market tonight, far more than previously. Interesting.

Previously, Canadian ground was covered with snow :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver, "If the foundry in Pittsburgh scources it's ore from Ontario, and the people in the mining industry in Ontario spend their money on cars made in Detroit, and the people in Detroit spend their money.... well, you get the idea..... "

The problem is that the Ontario guys don't pay the US income taxes that a US citizen would. That is the equivalent of a lost sale for the government.

No, my logic does not say to not buy the Pitt steel because of a Canadian supplier. My logic says to buy the Pitt steel instead of the foreign steel because buying from the domesic guy raises his taxable income and thus, his taxes. THAT is the dividend. The guys who work for the steel company make more money and thier taxes go up and another dividend is created. My logic also says that more dividends can be picked up if the Pitt supplier is a US entity as well.

Why don't you practice what you preach and not do business at your CO-OP? Why don't you do your business with the supplier on the other side of town? Then the people who work there can buy groceries, clothing, etc... from somebody who does business with the CO-OP?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
When foreign governments finance and thus dictate, where our governments purchase their "tax dollars", then they are no longer in control.

The US, with China financed $$$ is determining who will do the "work", it won't work in the long run.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
APLUS, I see what you're saying and I'm not going to defend Obama's requirements that suppliers all down the line have to be US. Just like his whole porkulus bill, that doesn't make any sense and, as you pointed out, might not even be possible. Maybe that's where a lot of our disagreement comes from. When I say the government should buy domestic, I'm speaking in general, not this POS plan of Obama's.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The problem is that the Ontario guys don't pay the US income taxes that a US citizen would. That is the equivalent of a lost sale for the government.

No, my logic does not say to not buy the Pitt steel because of a Canadian supplier. My logic says to buy the Pitt steel instead of the foreign steel because buying from the domesic guy raises his taxable income and thus, his taxes. THAT is the dividend. The guys who work for the steel company make more money and thier taxes go up and another dividend is created. My logic also says that more dividends can be picked up if the Pitt supplier is a US entity as well.

Why don't you practice what you preach and not do business at your CO-OP? Why don't you do your business with the supplier on the other side of town? Then the people who work there can buy groceries, clothing, etc... from somebody who does business with the CO-OP?

I suppose that would make sense to a grade 4 social studies class, but you need to look at the bigger picture, which you refuse to do. You can't make the connection between trade and prosperity.
Don't put words in my mouth Sandhusker. I'm not preaching anything and you know it. I'm pointing out to you that the picture is a lot more complicated than the fourth grade picture you're trying to paint. Cross border trade results in more money in government coffers and that a fact. Foreign investment equals prosperity. Healthy corporations pay tax, employ people. If part of what makes a corporation healthy is cross border trade, how can you make the claim to the contrary?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If the US government would have wanted this stimulus program to work, they would have financed it through generation of financing, payable to themselves, and not to foreign governments.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

Me'thinks you need a little night course in basic economics.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

Me'thinks you need a little night course in basic economics.

It's night now, so give me the course. How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

It may not make the Government more money in your equation, but those domestic enitities probably don't have access to all of the resources they need domestically and that has to come into the equation also.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Richard Doolittle said:
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

It may not make the Government more money in your equation, but those domestic enitities probably don't have access to all of the resources they need domestically and that has to come into the equation also.

It does't make the government more money in any equasion, unless there is a tariff involved.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Richard Doolittle said:
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

It may not make the Government more money in your equation, but those domestic enitities probably don't have access to all of the resources they need domestically and that has to come into the equation also.

It does't make the government more money in any equasion, unless there is a tariff involved.

Or the cost due to lack of tariffs
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Sandhusker said:
Richard Doolittle said:
It may not make the Government more money in your equation, but those domestic enitities probably don't have access to all of the resources they need domestically and that has to come into the equation also.

It does't make the government more money in any equasion, unless there is a tariff involved.

Or the cost due to lack of tariffs

And that cost could get pretty significant if Canada decides that since we don't need the ore from Ontario, we probably don't need the other resources that they have and we need.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

Me'thinks you need a little night course in basic economics.

Me thinks anybody who says, "Cross border trade results in more money in government coffers and that a fact." has no business accusing anybody else of fourth grade economics.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

Me'thinks you need a little night course in basic economics.

Me thinks anybody who says, "Cross border trade results in more money in government coffers and that a fact." has no business accusing anybody else of fourth grade economics.

If a US company makes more profit in cross border trade wouldn't the government benefit from higher income tax from that company?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
How does cross border trade make the government more money than the same business being done by two domestic entities?

Me'thinks you need a little night course in basic economics.

Me thinks anybody who says, "Cross border trade results in more money in government coffers and that a fact." has no business accusing anybody else of fourth grade economics.

Anyone who thinks cross border trade is not good for standard of living, prosperity, the economy must work at a bank. :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top