Brandon716
Senior Member
Here is where we will have to agree to disagree, grab a drink, and enjoy the evening.
|
|
|
China is building its industrial infrastructure for its own purposes, first and foremost. It just needs to outsource its consumption until it can sustain itself. Second, I don't think anyone is opposed to regulating the quality of imports.
But does Canada spend billions of dollars subsidizing those people so they can deliberately work for less pay?
Perhaps the government should, you know, provide training to allow those steel mill workers to move elsewhere. Or help the steel mill retool to produce higher quality steel.
If a typewriter factory shuts down, should the government ban computers to protect the typewriter factory worker's jobs?
Second, Taiwan is more or less a developed economy that won't allow dumping lead down the drain.
Third, no one is opposed to environmental regulation (as long as it's not thinly veiled protectionism). Strawmen don't work.
So why is China building a massive industrial economy, first and foremost?Bull. China is trying to calm the masses of people from the interior, whom flood into the cities everyday to find work. In order to do so it has created artificial circumstances that provide a very real competitive advantage.
If the imports do not meet Canada's quality standards, then they do not sell. I don't think anyone is opposed to that.The issue of regulating quality is also important. It is funny how in the west that cost is born by the producer, by means of regulation and the threat of legal liability. Yet when it comes to imports, there is no (or severely limited) legal recourse and the expense of ensuring standards is paid for by us.
The professions are regulated strictly for public safety reasons, not to deliberately restrict competition (or so I hope, given all the Indian taxi drivers with PhDs in this country). As such this does not present a subsidy, just as police and fire service is not a subsidy. By contrast you're advocating tariffs deliberately to restrict competition.You missed the point. There are all sorts of rules and regulations they must follow. Just as manufacturers. The difference is that in manufacturing you can circumvent them by producing in other countries and importing back to Canada. You can't import a dentist, doctor or lawyer whom operates outside of Canadian rules and regulations. Foreign banks cannot set up shop here and ignore the Banking Act. Setting aside the price fixed commodities and currencies, these issues alone demonstrate the hypocrisy of trade as it now stands. We inisit that producers must practise certain standards of care, but we do not impose the same obligations on imports.
China subsidizes their raw materials, the USA subsidizes Boeing, Europe subsidizes Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. I don't like industrial subsidies, but if everyone is doing it then we should too.No amount of training is going to change the fact that the raw material prices are artificially lower. In case you haven't noticed China is able to produce value added goods. The advantage they have from fix commodity prices permeate up the chain.
If a Made In China typewriter is prone to bursting into flames then its sale will be banned. If a Made in China typewriter has passed an array of safety inspections then its sale will be allowed. No one is opposed to that.It is not about replacing a typewriter with a computer. It is about changing a typewriter with another typewriter that cost less, largely due to price fixing and lack of regulations applied to one producer only.
Replace that with Japan/60s, Korea/70s, USA/20s, Britain/19th century, etc, etc, and then we can talk.Quick name me a river with good water quality in Taiwan during the 90's.
I concur that we should assist other countries with improving their working conditions. But I would go further and say just ban products from countries that use unsafe working conditions. How come not too many lefties advocate this course of action?
So why is China building a massive industrial economy, first and foremost?
If the imports do not meet Canada's quality standards, then they do not sell. I don't think anyone is opposed to that.
The professions are regulated strictly for public safety reasons, not to deliberately restrict competition (or so I hope, given all the Indian taxi drivers with PhDs in this country). As such this does not present a subsidy, just as police and fire service is not a subsidy. By contrast you're advocating tariffs deliberately to restrict competition.
China subsidizes their raw materials, the USA subsidizes Boeing, Europe subsidizes Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. I don't like industrial subsidies, but if everyone is doing it then we should too.
If a Made In China typewriter is prone to bursting into flames then its sale will be banned. If a Made in China typewriter has passed an array of safety inspections then its sale will be allowed. No one is opposed to that.
Replace that with Japan/60s, Korea/70s, USA/20s, Britain/19th century, etc, etc, and then we can talk.
Err...which lefties are you talking to? Glen and Dichotomy?
So what is the underlying purpose of this?Mercantilism.
There's nothing intrinsic about Made in China things that is inferior.Hmm. Melamine in pet food, lead paint on toys, highly flammable clothing. etc. all produced under regulations that prohibited such practices. As they say talk is cheap. Regulations and standards mean little when there is no enforcement.
Perhaps Menu Foods and Mattel should have exercised due diligence when they chose their subcontractors. Especially when they're chasing lower costs. And especially since Canadian courts have no jurisdiction over the People's Republic of China.While Menu Foods and Mattel face huge expenses for their vicarious liability (deserved) the other parties involved pay nothing. Even though it was their (off shore sub contractors) lies and actions that caused it.
An Indian lawyer may not be familiar with Canadian laws, and a Russian dentist may not be familiar with the higher dental standards in Canada. Besides, we already have too many PhDs driving taxis and delivering pizzas as it is.No it is an artificial barrier that prevents competition. If I want to hire an lawyer from India to represent me in court or a dentist from Russia to work on my teeth I am prevented from doing so. Where is the safety issue in that?
If it doesn't meet safety standards then it doesn't sell. Perhaps having politicians who don't make snide jokes over their incompetence will make a difference.It is even funny that you mentioned safety as it is just that, safety (labour and environmental) which can be and is avoided by moving production to developing nations.
Yes, it might be tempting to impose anti-dumping duties. But we will need to think of the wider consequences of our actions, especially since this is a market no one can afford to be hostile toward.China's subsidies are so wide spread, food, energy, commodities, that they dwarf all the other combined. Plus a fixed currency that most feel would appreciate greatly if unpegged is the 40% cherry on top.
Maybe they should, you know, add inspectors?What inspections? Like those cited above? There are no real inspections, just regulations. Real inspectors cost real money. Like the ones we have here. In China inspectors are just a handful of people whom wait to get executed when other are inevitablly found to be breaking the rules.
No, but Detroit wasn't renowned for its clean air either. Neither was Manchester in 1900. Or Tokyo in 1960.And Henry Ford was flooding China, India et al. with Model T's while they ate bon bons by their pristine lakes?
How about the regulatory bodies, you know, actually do their job.Again you missed the point. If they want to have lower labour and environmental standards, that is their decision. What we have done is to tie certain standards to product based not on the product itself but the location where it is made. Hypocrisy!
Err...which lefties are you talking to? Glen and Dichotomy?
Kind of self explanatory, don't you think?So what is the underlying purpose of this?
I never said that there was. I simply stated the fact that regulations are only as good as the enforcement. Which appears to be nill in China. Maybe we should restrict all imports until confidence can be restored.There's nothing intrinsic about Made in China things that is inferior.
Just ask Michael McCain. Or any Alberta rancher. Or any tomato and spinach grower in California.
Maybe you should demand better inspections rather than artificially restrict competition.
Perhaps Menu Foods and Mattel should have exercised due diligence when they chose their subcontractors. Especially when they're chasing lower costs. And especially since Canadian courts have no jurisdiction over the People's Republic of China.
Besides, the Mattel factory manager hanged himself when it became clear Mattel would be seeking damages.
An Indian lawyer may not be familiar with Canadian laws, and a Russian dentist may not be familiar with the higher dental standards in Canada. Besides, we already have too many PhDs driving taxis and delivering pizzas as it is.
If it doesn't meet safety standards then it doesn't sell.
Yes, it might be tempting to impose anti-dumping duties. But we will need to think of the wider consequences of our actions, especially since this is a market no one can afford to be hostile toward.
Unequivocally wrong. It is allowed to float within a narrow band set by the government widley considered to be 40%, or more, below what it would if allowed to float freely.Besides, the Chinese Yuan is NOT fixed. It's not freely convertible, but it's not fixed.
Again, you miss the point. Detroit's air was dirty making product for the US. Not for elsewhere.No, but Detroit wasn't renowned for its clean air either. Neither was Manchester in 1900. Or Tokyo in 1960.
Yes, and when they don't we disallow the import of such products. Just like we shut down producers here.How about the regulatory bodies, you know, actually do their job.
I never said that there was. I simply stated the fact that regulations are only as good as the enforcement. Which appears to be nill in China. Maybe we should restrict all imports until confidence can be restored.
Lets just see what Menu Foods and Mattel can collect. I am sure stock holders want money rather than blood.
But why do I not to get to make the decision on the potential trade-off. I can import a product made under different laws and regulations, why can I not import a service?
What do you mean hostile towards? They need our resources more than we need anything they offer us.
Again, you miss the point. Detroit's air was dirty making product for the US. Not for elsewhere.
There is hardly a "lack of confidence" in Chinese goods. Nobody has stopped buying goods from China, and nobody will.
Mattel has admitted that the recalls were caused by problems in it's design, not faulty sub contracting. Considering Maple Leaf just killed 20 people through it's poor cleanliness and Canada is actively exporting asbestos to third world countries, it's not like we are the greatest thing to happen to consumer safety.
You can, it's called immigration. If there is demand for local taxi cab drivers or janitors, you obviously can't send the jobs overseas, but we can and do bring workers in from overseas.
Hardly, Canada is the most trade dependent nation in the G7, there is very little we sell that isn't for sale in another half dozen African countries. China actually invests more in Canada than we invest in them. Not to mention a good chunk of our population would slip into poverty as we ban cheaper goods (raising the cost of living) and eliminate a solid chunk of demand for our resources.
You mean cars made in Detroit never left a 100m area around their factory? Please, there is no difference between Detroit shipping cars to Los Angeles, Manchester shipping rail cars to Bombay (or Toronto...), Tokyo shipping cars to Johannesburg and Beijing shipping Dora the Explorer play sets to Vancouver. Demand is demand and supply is supply.
And besides, if Westerners are the ones who are demanding gizmos and widgets, isn't it their fault for the environmental degradation that occurs because of it? I don't necessarily buy that, but if we follow you're logic that is what you get. It's not some random Chinese persons fault that we like cheap goods.
(p.s. can people just start answering in paragraphs? these quote battles are impossible to read).
1. The seem to sell like hotcakes as far as I know.1. Care to buy some Chinese Candy or eggs?
2. You might want to google Mattel and lead.
3. Why can't I bring in a Chinese lawyer, to work as a lawyer under Chinese standards and accreditation? Just like I can do for products.
4. What non resource investments are you referring to?
5. American industries developed to supply the American market during the industrialization period. They did not do so to supply foreign markets based on a artificial competitive advantage.
You are right one one point. It is our fault because we allow it. We put restrictions on local producers which gives non complying producers abroad at a competitive advantage. Our morals it seems are just as exportable as our jobs, it appears.
PS Any retort on the exchange rate issue?
1. Care to buy some Chinese Candy or eggs?
2. You might want to google Mattel and lead.
3. Why can't I bring in a Chinese lawyer, to work as a lawyer under Chinese standards and accreditation? Just like I can do for products.
4. What non resource investments are you referring to?
5. American industries developed to supply the American market during the industrialization period. They did not do so to supply foreign markets based on a artificial competitive advantage.
You are right one one point. It is our fault because we allow it. We put restrictions on local producers which gives non complying producers abroad at a competitive advantage. Our morals it seems are just as exportable as our jobs, it appears.
PS Any retort on the exchange rate issue?