Canada Must Stress Trade Relationship With U.S., Not NAFTA: Report

If so called "protectionism" is no good, why do we have armies, insurance companies, police, national holidays with flag wavings, etc. etc..........

If we have the right to protect our bodies, families, children, properties etc. why shouldn't we protect the main foundations of our survival, which is called "economics"

Also, why should we tie ourselves to a bankrupt economy, and bankrupt philosophy,that ruins the world and kills millions every year, hoping for salvation by some miracle that if we let the same criminal gang do more harm, everything will be OK ?

Long live protectionism, democracy and self determination!!!!!!!!!!

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC>

"If so called 'protectionism' is no good, why do we have armies, insurance companies, police, national holidays with flag wavings, etc. etc.........."

"If we have the right to protect our bodies, families, children, properties etc. why shouldn't we protect the main foundations of our survival, which is called 'economics'"

Protectionism is bad because it only protects the producers of goods and services, at the expense of consumers, who become captive markets for local monopolies.

If I'm the only game in town, and nobody from outside my "territory" can compete with me in that market, where is the incentive for me to provide a good product or service at a reasonable cost with (where applicable) good post-sale support? Where is the incentive for me to do anything but gouge you for the privilege of using a crappy product? Your only alternative is not to use that product/service, or to move somewhere else.

Now add government subsidies to the mix. Not only am I now complacent and arrogant, but I don't even need to be profitable on my own anymore and you (the consumer) are no longer the party I need to please.

Of course, for Keynesians, whether or not a product is efficiently produced or meets the needs of its consumers doesn't matter. As long as the money is moving around and not collecting too much in one place, we're not supposed to worry about whether a product is any good or even wanted by anyone.

It is not unreasonable for us to want products or services that are of good quality and come at a reasonable price. Our tax system takes an awful lot of what we earn. The rest shouldn't go to pay inflated prices for crappy goods from complacent vendors and unionized workers whose compensation and advancement are based on seniority rather than merit.

Who "protects" us from them?

This is exactly the reason why we have so called "free trade" in reality the free movement of imaginary capital to take over and control the world's resources, in the name of "global competition" of course, putting millions of pf producers out of business and killing tens of millions every year in the name of "efficiency".

Monsanto bought up hundreds of small seed producers in the USA and closed them down, Cargill is controlling the world's grain and much of the meat supplies, as here in Canada,
fixing prices and forcing hundreds of farmers and ranchers off their land.

But to stop these criminal actions would be "protectionism" by people who call themselves "indvidualists", while preaching Soviet type collectivization and control of markets that used to thrive for centuries.

If these phony "free market" treaties are not "protecting" these criminal elements, what are they doing?

Ed Deak.

How come rightistas such as 'individualist' never answer questions such as this? Also, why (if privatization is so good) aren't police, fire, military services also privatized?

"Monsanto bought up hundreds of small seed producers in the USA and closed them down, Cargill is controlling the world's grain and much of the meat supplies, as here in Canada,
fixing prices and forcing hundreds of farmers and ranchers off their land. "

Yes Ed, we know about Monsanto and Cargill. But there are other sectors in the economy besides agriculture, and I believe that the governments of both Canada and the US need to get more serious about "trust-busting" to combat private monopolies. But as a practical matter, what is the difference between a domestic (or local) monopoly and a multinational one? The problem in a monopoly (be it private or state-owned) isn't its size so much as the lack of choice and competition, and thus a lack of incentive to provide consumers with good value for their money. It doesn't matter if you're a huge corporation or a tiny mom-and-pop business - a captive market is a licence to be inefficient, complacent and contemptuous of those who consume your products.

If I get crappy service from you, I should be able to take my business somewhere else. If you lose enough customers, you'll either smarten up and start serving your customers better, or you'll go out of business. That's the benefit of competition.

Our conversations on here aren't very productive. I have little desire to talk about Monsanto or what a big deal you are, and you have little interest in addressing my points about monopolies, competition and freedom of choice. We're just talking past each other.

Oh, and Rick, it doesn't make sense to privatize police, firefighters or the military because free market incentives wouldn't improve performance in those sectors significantly enough. I don't dispute the existence of "natual monopolies". I simply believe that they are fewer in number than you folks on the left think.

Protectionism is more often than not an excuse to prop up enterprises that cannot provide quality goods or services at a competitive price. It is also an excuse for governments to engage in favouritism, cronyism and crass vote buying in the name of "industrial policy".

If people want a decent wage in the country where the goods are sold, then simply find a country where people can be forced to work for starvation wages . The race to the bottom for wages , working conditions and living conditions will mean all production is done in sweatshops, where people only get enough to barely survive? This will make it a better world? Where we will all be better off? So who will they sell the goods to, with a huge portion of the population barely able to earn enough to survive? Will the tiny percentage of the people who benefit buy ten times as many toasters etc?
I would suggest that anyone who belives that, has no business living in a country like Canada, where we value the quality of life above the cheapeness of goods. Anyone who believes that goods should be produced by virtual slave labour, should simply emmigrate to a country where that is the case, and enjoy the wonderful, crime free lifestyle that is available there , where it is either commit crime , or watch your family starve. Sounds wonderful. No shortage of countries for you to choose from. Go for it . Let us know how you make out. Don't come back.
Social parasites sponge of the advantages of a more egalitarian society, while condemning the same egaltarianism and fairness that has made their lives so comfortable and worry free here.
Brent

So you recognize that monopolies are "natural"? That means you think there are so-called "essential services" that people must be forced into. If police are essential, and if no one wanted to be a cop, what would you do -- draft someone? Not very democratic, this "for the greater good" concept.........

You folks on the right are a confused lot -- and apparently quite afraid of REAL free enterprise.

As JK Galbraith said: The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition.

When there was the Maple Leaf mess a few months ago, a whole slew of brand names have been taken off the markets, showing that they're phony, because their products all come out of the same machines.

To the best of my knowledge, Nestle is operating under 800, Green Giant under 600 names and 10% of every dollar spent on food in the USA ends up in the pockets of the Philip Morris cigarette company. Here in BC, the wealthiest Jim Pattison is operating supermarkets etc, etc. under dozens of names, pretending to be "free enterprise".

This is all the result of so called "competition" that permits the buying up of businesses by oligopolies, and controlling the markets. I've been the owner/manager of independent businesses in manufacturing and agriculture in BC since 1957 and need no lectures on how businesses work and on the crime wave we're under, with the world's economy controlled by a handful of the corporate mafia, in beautiful Soviet fashion.

The main purpose of the phony "free trade agreements" is the licencing of the multinational corporate mafia to come in, take over and destroy real private enterprise, setting up kolkhozes and steal everybody blind with the approval of crooked politicians.

Ed Deak.

Brent: "The race to the bottom for wages , working conditions and living conditions will mean all production is done in sweatshops, where people only get enough to barely survive? This will make it a better world? Where we will all be better off? So who will they sell the goods to, with a huge portion of the population barely able to earn enough to survive?"

Competition isn't just about a "race to the bottom" for wage costs, although they certainly are a factor. And what's the benefit of getting your nice unionized, merit-agnostic salary if everything costs too much or is in too short supply. Diss comsumption all you want - you still have to buy (well, acquire) stuff to have a decent standard of living, and inefficient monopolies make that very difficult.

And when you say that you "value the quality of life above the cheapeness of goods", what I think you're really saying is that you don't expect others to work hard and provide you good service because then others won't expect hard work or good service from you either. That was, after all, the great Canadian social/labour pact of the 60's and 70's - the "good life" defined as making as much money as your collective agreement and seniority entitled you to can while working as little and taking as few risks as possible. And if you didn't feel like working at all, well that's your lifestyle choice, and we'll help you pay the rent and buy food. Those were the real "social parasites" and no, they weren't (and are'nt) a myth.

As for Rick's little rant...

"So you recognize that monopolies are 'natural'? That means you think there are so-called 'essential services' that people must be forced into. If police are essential, and if no one wanted to be a cop, what would you do -- draft someone? Not very democratic, this 'for the greater good' concept........."

I'm not sure just what you're arguing for or against. Not all problems can be solved with markets and competition, but those that can be do very well under market-based solutions. In my reference to "natural monopolies", I was referring to a well-known economic concept. In your zeal to pounce on me (something you share with some of the other regulars), I think you lost focus somewhere.

And as for Ed's canned response, once again on the topic of the food industry, he still hasn't demonstrated how a parochial monopoly is superior to a multinational one. Just more hand-waving, name-calling and obvious sour grapes stemming from his personal experiences.

I doubt that. You have revealed your ignorance quite nicely by saying we need cops (for example) but that these cops shouldn't be private cops. Now, if no one wants to be a cop, and we need cops, the only "solution" is a draft. Likewise, firefighters, military..........

But why stop there? We also "need" nurses, doctors et al -- yet you (and those of your ilk) insist that the private sector best supplies these. Now how is that? What is the demonstrable difference between a firefighter and a nurse, vis a vis the markeplace? For that matter, what is the difference between a soldier and a stock broker, seen from the perspective of the markeplace?

Let's face it -- you're full of hooey. You must be one of those 'economists' Ed refers to.


Now here is a typical example of the shortcomings in the food industry:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... eaker.aspx