Made in "Your Country Here" ; Is it important to you?

[eppie]

If the playing field were level in international trade, I would agree with you. It isn't now and isn't likely to become so. The rule-set for companies here is not the same as for companies elsewhere. If we bought and sold only to ourselves (or places with similar rules about how to treat employees and how much pollution is allowable), we might be able to maintain a standard of living for all here, instead of increase the disparities between the low-wage-earners and the factory owners and mirror conditions elsewhere.

And now, after centuries of profiting and draining african and asian countries, we in the west start complaining about the playing field not being level. Although I of course fully agree with you in the fact that it would be great if other countries would have the same labour laws, environmental policies etc. that we have, we are not the ones with much reason to complain.

If we didn't have these sources of cheap labour that are making stuff we daily use for us, we would indeed have more work at home, but we would have less time for our jobs such as fill in your weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money.

And talking about level playing field; you are lucky you live in Canada with 3.41 other canadians per square kilometer of land full of oil, gold, timber etc......especially in times of crises such as food shortages etc.
You are much richer because e.g. your land prices (for building a house for example) are probably 10 times cheaper than in Holland.....that is if you want to live close to a big city.....otherwise it is probably 1000 times cheaper.

I think buying local for environmental reasons (the farmers market example of deebye) is a good reason but living in a western country and buying local to keep jobs at home sounds selfish to me. (and already mentioned by a few others probably also doesn't make a lot of sense)

[Jester]

You are much richer because e.g. your land prices (for building a house for example) are probably 10 times cheaper than in Holland.....that is if you want to live close to a big city.....otherwise it is probably 1000 times cheaper.

If land prices are high, that means a country is rich, not poor, because nearly all countries own nearly all of their own land. Land prices in Monaco are crazily high. Land prices in Chad are trivial.

The international comparison is a little tricky, because of course it's very difficult to compare like with like - there is nowhere like Nunavut in the Netherlands, so what would it usefully mean that you could buy an enormous slice of permafrosted tundra for the same price as an apartment in Utrecht? Similarly, you can't compare a farm in Friesland with a skyscraper in Toronto. If we compare downtown property with downtown property, I suspect you'll find the gap is not even very large between North American cities and European ones, although it does of course depend on a lot of factors. And while North American cities tend to have extensive suburbs, the Netherlands just has more cities.

-Jester

[shoju]

If land prices are high, that means a country is rich, not poor, because nearly all countries own nearly all of their own land. Land prices in Monaco are crazily high. Land prices in Chad are trivial.

Hey man! My land prices are MORE THAN FAIR!




My name is Chad

[kandrathe]

And now, after centuries of profiting and draining african and asian countries, we in the west start complaining about the playing field not being level. Although I of course fully agree with you in the fact that it would be great if other countries would have the same labour laws, environmental policies etc. that we have, we are not the ones with much reason to complain.

Development is a double edged sword. I can't help regret the loss of tribal and cultural identity, then again, where are the Maygars Thracians, and Picts? Even with my own cultural identity, I've had to go back and re-learn my language, history and culture. We can look at the negative impact and exploitation, and on the other hand, better medicine, better education, and modernization of their society. Albeit, often done to them in a European image.

If we didn't have these sources of cheap labour that are making stuff we daily use for us, we would indeed have more work at home, but we would have less time for our jobs such as fill in your weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money.

And, what would they do? Go back to the herds, and hope this year isn't another drought? I'm not opposed to their products and their economy thriving. Whenever I travel, I'm thrilled to purchase the products from that society. I guess what I'm opposed to is where European and American multi-national companies relocate operations specifically to exploit differences in environmental and labor laws -- that is what makes the playing field uneven for our workers (societies). The result must be a transfer of wealth from the consumers to the producers. We will get poorer, and they will get richer -- and the owners of the multi-nationals will get very, very rich by leveraging the inequity.

And talking about level playing field; you are lucky you live in Canada with 3.41 other Canadians per square kilometer of land full of oil, gold, timber etc......especially in times of crises such as food shortages etc. You are much richer because e.g. your land prices (for building a house for example) are probably 10 times cheaper than in Holland.....that is if you want to live close to a big city.....otherwise it is probably 1000 times cheaper.

You could emigrate. I think Canada would have you. But, you might be one of the 3.41 Canadians living on the ice where it's dark most of the winter. For agriculture comparison, Canada has 4.87 tilled acres per person, the US has 2.96, and The Netherlands has .29 -- yet, you still export food. Probably the prices you are seeing relate to the hidden cost of petrochemicals used to grow, and move it.

I think buying local for environmental reasons (the farmers market example of deebye) is a good reason but living in a western country and buying local to keep jobs at home sounds selfish to me. (and already mentioned by a few others probably also doesn't make a lot of sense).

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to skew my buying behavior in their direction, the local mini-mart closed and the property is for sale. I must now go a few miles out of my way to get to the nearest market. Some new entrepreneur may decide to re-open a mini-mart (making me happy), or bull doze it and put in some other business that may be more successful (making me sad). I think what Shadow and I are describing may actually be more unselfish. The neighbor right next to me, has been self employed laying carpet for his entire career. I would never think of using anyone else when I have the need, even if they were much cheaper (and they are not). In the end, we both win, and we both feel better about being good neighbors.

Let's imagine though, that very near us there was a company that made computers which were priced 10% higher. They do design and make the steel cases, which are very stylish. Yes, they ship in some of the main components, but try to source much of it domestically. They are known for choosing reliable components and offer a good free 1 year warranty. As an individual, yes, I would consider them -- and if I could make the case to choose them, even with the higher cost, I would. If the cost gets too out of whack, then no. As a business person, no, I need to ethically make the best (utilitarian) decision for the business without the same passions.

[Jester]

My name is Chad

My condolences. Male life expectancy for Chad is only 49.2.

-Jester

[eppie]

I must now go a few miles out of my way to get to the nearest market. Some new entrepreneur may decide to re-open a mini-mart (making me happy), or bull doze it and put in some other business that may be more successful (making me sad). I think what Shadow and I are describing may actually be more unselfish. The neighbor right next to me, has been self employed laying carpet for his entire career. I would never think of using anyone else when I have the need, even if they were much cheaper (and they are not). In the end, we both win, and we both feel better about being good neighbors.

I agree with this but we are confusing things now. Both big industry and local shop owners can sell local products or products from China.

---

You are much richer because e.g. your land prices (for building a house for example) are probably 10 times cheaper than in Holland.....that is if you want to live close to a big city.....otherwise it is probably 1000 times cheaper.

If land prices are high, that means a country is rich, not poor, because nearly all countries own nearly all of their own land. Land prices in Monaco are crazily high. Land prices in Chad are trivial.

The international comparison is a little tricky, because of course it's very difficult to compare like with like - there is nowhere like Nunavut in the Netherlands, so what would it usefully mean that you could buy an enormous slice of permafrosted tundra for the same price as an apartment in Utrecht? Similarly, you can't compare a farm in Friesland with a skyscraper in Toronto. If we compare downtown property with downtown property, I suspect you'll find the gap is not even very large between North American cities and European ones, although it does of course depend on a lot of factors. And while North American cities tend to have extensive suburbs, the Netherlands just has more cities.

-Jester

It also means a country is small and has many inhabitants.
My point is however that you have a much larger potential wealth. When we will hit some big food crisis in the near future you will be happy to live in a big country with lots of terrain.......and that permafrost is gone in 20 years anyway.

[shoju]

My name is Chad

My condolences. Male life expectancy for Chad is only 49.2.

-Jester

Then I will just start using my dad's corny line. He always says that he is 38 because Jack Benny was 39, and he's older than my dad.

So I will just stay 37. Then my dad is older than me, and Jack benny is older than him, and I'm good.

[ShadowHM]

And now, after centuries of profiting and draining african and asian countries, we in the west start complaining about the playing field not being level.

I am not guilty of those sins. The lack of level playing field has many root causes, most of which have to do with geography. (See Guns, Germs and Steel for a primer on that.) They are, of course, exacerbated by the venality of general human nature. If you want to feel guilty about the sins of your forefathers, go right ahead.

If we didn't have these sources of cheap labour that are making stuff we daily use for us, we would indeed have more work at home, but we would have less time for our jobs such as fill in your weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money.

No, those of us with our 'weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money' jobs would have a bit less money, but our socialist national goverments might have more tax revenue, due to actually receiving income tax from those citizens who now are unemployed to help pay for the services all citizens receive.

I think buying local for environmental reasons (the farmers market example of deebye) is a good reason but living in a western country and buying local to keep jobs at home sounds selfish to me. (and already mentioned by a few others probably also doesn't make a lot of sense)

I can't think of any response to that. If buying the cheapest products, made in places with little-to-no human rights and little-to-no environmental rules, helping support governments that have no incentive to change that set-up makes you feel virtuous, please enjoy the feeling.

[FireIceTalon]

I am not guilty of those sins. The lack of level playing field has many root causes, most of which have to do with geography. (See Guns, Germs and Steel for a primer on that.) They are, of course, exacerbated by the venality of general human nature. If you want to feel guilty about the sins of your forefathers, go right ahead.

No, it has zero to do with geography, and everything to do with the fact we live in a world that consists of classes. Wealthy nations exploit the 3rd world nations just as the Capitalist class exploits the working class within said nations. The exploitation of these weaker and poorer nations is a natural occurrence and necessity of global Capitalism. Nor is it exacerbated by "human nature" - human nature itself is a social construct just like religion and patriotism are, and anyone with even a basic anthropological and historical knowledge regarding the social development of our species should know this. It isn't biological. Which is why whenever I hear someone use the human nature argument in any kind of political or morality/ethics discussion, I get a bit queasy. Our behavior is generally a reflection of the economic, social, and political society we live in - it never has been and never will be a fixed, innate concept. They are exacerbated by the drive to expand private capital and increase profits, the goal of Capitalism - this has nothing to do with human nature.

No, those of us with our 'weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money' jobs would have a bit less money, but our socialist national goverments might have more tax revenue, due to actually receiving income tax from those citizens who now are unemployed to help pay for the services all citizens receive.

"Socialist national governments". Please. I don't think you even know what Socialism is

And clearly, you have little understanding of the role of the State in Capitalism.

I can't think of any response to that. If buying the cheapest products, made in places with little-to-no human rights and little-to-no environmental rules, helping support governments that have no incentive to change that set-up makes you feel virtuous, please enjoy the feeling.

Thus why many people choose not to shop at say, Wal-Mart. But this is idealistic, and has little relevance pertaining to material conditions or processes. You clearly support Capitalism, and all of those horrible vices you just named are not only a by-product of Capitalist society, but they are also NECESSITATED by Capitalism. Your logic here is a complete paradox, and one viewed through the lens of rose-colored glasses at that: You cannot have it both ways. If you support Capitalist society and believe it is the best system for us, you directly or indirectly accept and acknowledge the vices that come along with it as well, and not just the moral/ethic or economic ones you listed, but the social and political ones too....such as racism, sexism, homophobia, war and jingoism, etc etc. Whether you want to or not.

[Jester]

No, those of us with our 'weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money' jobs would have a bit less money, but our socialist national goverments might have more tax revenue, due to actually receiving income tax from those citizens who now are unemployed to help pay for the services all citizens receive.

Let's back-of-the-envelope those numbers, in the best case scenario where this actually works - although I still maintain we have very little reason to suspect it would. Unemployment is at about 7.5%, and emp/pop is at historical levels, so we can pick up somewhere around 3 to 4% of the labour force before reaching full employment. Let's call that 2% of the population extra, employed, and paying taxes. That's 700,000 people. Now let's be generous and say that these people enter the labour force well above the ground floor - at $40,000 per year. Assuming no deductions, that's about $7000 in taxes per year. That's 4.9 billion in extra tax revenue.

That would pay for slightly less than 2% of the budget. That's not peanuts, but it's not going to radically alter the Canadian tax base. It might pay for the CBC, but it's not going to pay for major redistribution or social programs. If there are even minor inefficiencies involved in severely reducing our international trade (to better reflect our localist values, but at the cost of cheap goods), then we'll lose more than we gain.

Given Canada's situation as a very open economy (our trade share of GDP is something like 40%, which means of everything we make, about 40% of it goes to other countries, and of everything we consume, 40% comes from other countries), I strongly suspect that a trade disruption of that magnitude (even if we kept trading with the US) would have huge negative effects on efficiency, and hence, on the tax base.

It's also assuming that we don't lose any tax revenue at all from those "weird modern job title manager" people, who make up the largest parts of our tax base...

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No, those of us with our 'weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money' jobs would have a bit less money, but our socialist national goverments might have more tax revenue, due to actually receiving income tax from those citizens who now are unemployed to help pay for the services all citizens receive.

Let's back-of-the-envelope those numbers, in the best case scenario where this actually works - although I still maintain we have very little reason to suspect it would. Unemployment is at about 7.5%, and emp/pop is at historical levels, so we can pick up somewhere around 3 to 4% of the labour force before reaching full employment. Let's call that 2% of the population extra, employed, and paying taxes. That's 700,000 people. Now let's be generous and say that these people enter the labour force well above the ground floor - at $40,000 per year. Assuming no deductions, that's about $7000 in taxes per year. That's 4.9 billion in extra tax revenue.

Except this is the fictitious number (e.g those receiving unemployment benefits <> the unemployment rate). It's closer to 15% -- but it's hard to tell since the government only measures and publishes the "feel good" number. Our U6 rate is closer to 15%,

If you look at labor participation, Canada mirrors the US with male (15+) labor participation down 5% over the decade (71.5%), while female participation is up 10% (86.43%). Assuming males are equal to females (and with child birth, they should not), the male participation rate should be at least 15% higher.

Canada is doing better than the US.

[ShadowHM]

FireIceTalon.
Your incoherent response is noted. You would have done better to have made a start on the reading assignment. Let me know when you finish it. I may bother to start reading your posts again if you can demonstrate that you absorbed the material.
Jester
Thanks once again for the time you spend on crafting responses here. You have given me some food for thought.

On a separate note altogether, it looks like it may snow tomorrow. Damn!

[FireIceTalon]

FireIceTalon.
Your incoherent response is noted. You would have done better to have made a start on the reading assignment. Let me know when you finish it. I may bother to start reading your posts again if you can demonstrate that you absorbed the material.
Jester
Thanks once again for the time you spend on crafting responses here. You have given me some food for thought.

On a separate note altogether, it looks like it may snow tomorrow. Damn!

You not reading my post(s) is probably a good explanation why my post came off as incoherent to you. My post was made clear as day. If you cannot comprehend it, I would say the problem is somewhere on your end, but I'm sure you never considered that possibility. And you have the audacity to critique my response. LOL. Perhaps it is you that needs to come out of YOUR Ivory Tower and get started on the reading assignment and absorbing the material, instead of dismissing posts that are inconvenient to your ideology, or your grand misunderstanding of the material realities in which we live? Something to think about.

[DeeBye]

P.S. Deebye, if you are reading this still - when/if you drive through the town of Wiarton, check out the small butcher shop called Sullivans (on the main street) for their sausages and smoked bacon. I will be stopping on my way home from our Thanksgiving gathering to collect a sufficient supply of both to get us through the winter.

I haven't checked this thread in awhile. Sorry for the late response.

Unfortunately I don't have any chances to just "drive through" Wiarton from London, and it looks like it would be a 2.5 hour drive if I went there directly. Stupid Bruce Peninsula, leading to nowhere.

My ultimate dream is to live within walking distance of a butcher, a baker, and a fruit and vegetable place. I remember when I was a child in elementary school, I lived close enough to school that I would come home for lunch. My dad also worked in a bank close enough that he would walk home for lunch as well. As fate would have it, a bakery was on his route home. Every day he would stop by on his way home for lunch and buy a freshly-baked loaf of bread, and my mom would have cold cuts/egg salad/tuna salad and other stuff ready for us to make awesome sandwiches for lunch. I remember the bread being still warm and having the most amazing smell.

[eppie]

You are not personally guilty and I don't feel personally guilty, but these are facts. Part of the reason why we are so rich is because we drain poor countries. You know for example that the last 10 years richer countries (probably mainly China) have bought agricultural land in Africa the size of 6 times Germany?
So no, I don't want to hear anything from a canadian about level playing field.

If we didn't have these sources of cheap labour that are making stuff we daily use for us, we would indeed have more work at home, but we would have less time for our jobs such as fill in your weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money.

No, those of us with our 'weird modern job name-manager which actually make a lot more money' jobs would have a bit less money, but our socialist national goverments might have more tax revenue, due to actually receiving income tax from those citizens who now are unemployed to help pay for the services all citizens receive.

You know it doesn't work like that. There is no-one in Canada that wants to make plastic toys for the same amount of money a chinese guy earns. And playing WoW also doesn't seem so much fun if you have to do it 20 hours per day for a few dollars so that your boss can sell the character to some westener.

I can't think of any response to that. If buying the cheapest products, made in places with little-to-no human rights and little-to-no environmental rules, helping support governments that have no incentive to change that set-up makes you feel virtuous, please enjoy the feeling.

Aaa, but if you use the human rights and environment argument I of course fully agree with you ( as I have mentioned before in this thread), but this is something else than saying you want the guy next door to keep his job.

My whole point is that we can't complain about a non-level playing field while we are (through all kinds of trade-laws and taxes) influencing international markets so much in our advantage. When the playing field becomes more level.....when China, India, Russia, Brazil etc are a bit on our wealth levels there is one important result......we will be much poorer.


I know you a bit, and I think you actually think about this the same as I do in terms of what is fair, hating the terrible labour laws in asia etc. etc. but looking at it only from an economics point of view, the loosing some jobs in our countries is juts a very minor negative point* of world trade as it exists now.

*negative point for us in the west that is.