Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Canada imposes tariffs.
Topic Started: Jun 8 2018, 10:59 PM (700 Views)
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 09:49 AM
Berton
Jun 14 2018, 09:47 AM
No, the President wants a fair trade deal. No more, no less. You on the other hand want to keep sucking on the US teat.

I could use stronger language, but I will just point out that there are absolutely no facts that back up your case.

Your government is subsidizing farmers, ours doesn't do that. We have to equalize the playing field.

Cut the subsidies, and we'll consider cutting the tariffs. Fair is fair.
So now our wonderman Brew is a Kanadian govt operative. What a guy! !ol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Berton
Jun 14 2018, 10:31 AM
You keep wanting to talk about a very narrow section of tariffs and subsidies. Why don't you want to look at the overall picture? Oh, that is because like Ban has shown, Canada's tariffs are higher than the US tariffs. Hell Brewster, even Ima admits it. Why do you keep up your charade?
Cut the crap, Berton. You're the one who wants to deal with one narrow section - you refuse to admit there's any connection between your subsidies and our tariffs.

And now you want pick up Ban's diversion about tariffs in general without mentioning subsidies at all.

Yes, our tariffs are higher, because your subsidies are higher. It's the only way we can protect our producers.

Financial Post
 
{Canada's} Supply management is now under serious attack in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade talks by the Americans and others, with unrelenting pressure on Canada to make serious concessions to open up the system, if not do away with it entirely.

The U.S. is adept at pointing fingers at others, and while I’m opposed to supply management, it’s the Americans that are the super-stars when it comes to agriculture protectionism.

In Canada’s case, leaving aside supply management and not counting some provincial agriculture programs, Canada’s annual subsidies report to the WTO lists only three federal agriculture programs involving direct payments to producers: two for the hog industry and one for grape growers under the Orchards and Vineyards Transition Program.

There are another seven federal financing programs administered by Agriculture Canada, including the Advance Payment Program, crop insurance programs, loan guarantees under the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act and, importantly, guarantees on price volatility under the Price Pooling Program. These are all WTO sanctioned and hardly smack of a system fueled by subsidies.

Now let’s look at the mind-boggling array of U.S. agriculture subsidies. In its most recent WTO notification in 2014 (covering programs up to the end of 2012), the U.S. lists dozens and dozens of subsidies embracing virtually all segments of agriculture production.

As pointed out in The Economist, “American farm subsidies are egregiously expensive, harvesting $20 billion a year from taxpayers’ pockets. Most of the money goes to big, rich farmers producing staple commodities such as corn and soybeans in states such as Iowa.”

According to the U.S. WTO notification, in 2012 direct payments to farmers under income support programs amounted to US$3.837 billion.

Other direct subsidies include the counter-cyclical payments program, marketing assistance loans, and loan deficiency payments to eligible farmer. While these appear of have decreased from 2011 levels, in 2012 payments totalled $80 million.

Then there price supports for the U.S. dairy industry under the Dairy Products Price Support Program and the national dairy market loss payments program, which doled out $403 million in 2012. The array of disaster assistance and risk management programs for farmers paid out $1.750 billion in 2012.

The centre-piece of all of these is the yield and revenue insurance programs under the U.S. Feed, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, which pays producers when yields and revenue fall below guaranteed levels. In 2012, the U.S. treasury paid out $7.461 billion under this program.

In its most recent WTO notification in 2014 (covering programs up to the end of 2012), the U.S. lists dozens and dozens of subsidies embracing virtually all segments of agriculture production

These are only a selection of the larger U.S. subsidy programs that involve direct payments to farmers. There are many others that make up the annual $20 billion in payments noted by The Economist. The latest U.S. Farm Bill, as an example, provides expanded government crop insurance benefits of some $7 billion over 10 years.

By guaranteeing farmers an income stream and providing crop insurance, these subsidies allow U.S. producers to sell at artificially low prices on the domestic market, effectively denying foreign producers access and competitive opportunities as much as if tariffs were in place.


When you're ready to discuss the balance between tariffs and subsidies like an adult, I'll listen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thumper
Jun 14 2018, 10:49 AM
So now our wonderman Brew is a Kanadian govt operative. What a guy! !ol
And you're becoming a world class BS'r. Anything useful to add, or are you just going to stick with the silliness?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 10:57 AM
Thumper
Jun 14 2018, 10:49 AM
So now our wonderman Brew is a Kanadian govt operative. What a guy! !ol
And you're becoming a world class BS'r. Anything useful to add, or are you just going to stick with the silliness?
Yes, I will stick with your silliness Kanadian Citizen Statesman. You da man. cool2 ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I guess we all should stick with what we know best. Silly it is for Thump.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 11:20 AM
I guess we all should stick with what we know best. Silly it is for Thump.
You should also stick with what you know not with every little lefty fairy tale dujour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ImaHeadaU
Jun 14 2018, 12:15 AM
Banandangees
Jun 13 2018, 11:24 PM
it's every taxpaying citizen of the U.S. who, by-far, funds most of NATO's military expenditures.
If you are referring to the funds expended on each member's defense as a percentage of GDP, those expenditures are not NATO expenditures. The U.S. puts their level of defense spending in place to meet its own desires not NATO's.

Given the size of the U.S. economy, if each NATO member including the U.S. spent exactly 2% of their GDP on their defense these days, the U.S. spending would still be the largest relative to other members. If you find this unfair, you can try to renegotiate the terms of NATO membership or you could lower the U.S. GPD relative to other NATO members.

A better word for me to have used would have been fiscal "BURDEN" for supporting NATO's purposes and the total defense of all member nations.

II. BURDEN SHARING IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
6. The debate about fair sharing of the burden is as old as the Alliance itself. When the Alliance was founded in 1949, the economies of the European allies were still recovering from the devastating impact of the Second World War. The United States provided assistance with its “European Recovery Program (ERP)”, the Marshall Plan, while extending its conventional and nuclear “umbrella” to deter Soviet/Warsaw Pact aggression. As Europe’s economies grew, so did the intensity of debates on Alliance burden sharing. The main feature of those debates was the perceived imbalance in the United States’ contribution to the common defence compared to other Allies.



Canada didn't have the same fiscal problems that many European nations had after the war as the war wasn't fought on Canadian soil, and therefore didn't have the same reason for not complying with the NATO fiscal recommendations through the decades. I mean, Canada is advertised as a wealthy, happy nation..... in comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 10:55 AM
Berton
Jun 14 2018, 10:31 AM
You keep wanting to talk about a very narrow section of tariffs and subsidies. Why don't you want to look at the overall picture? Oh, that is because like Ban has shown, Canada's tariffs are higher than the US tariffs. Hell Brewster, even Ima admits it. Why do you keep up your charade?
Cut the crap, Berton. You're the one who wants to deal with one narrow section - you refuse to admit there's any connection between your subsidies and our tariffs......

(Brew's list)



I keep up "the charade" because it's an important FACT that puts a heavy view on why the issue of tariffs has come up. It's the major impetus of it all. Of the EU, Canada and the U.S., Canada leads.

As far a subsidies go:

Canadians pay hefty $684B bill in business subsidies over 30 years, study shows
Over a period of nearly 20-years, federal, provincial and local authorities together spent almost $684-billion on subsidies, mainly to private corporations — and the impact on consumers was marginal at best, says new Fraser Institute study


Here is a many page list of links to Canada's business subsidies: List

And yes, the list of subsidies in the U.S. is longer than that of Canada, but the GDP (result of business produced products and that must compete Canada and the world) is 12 times the size of Canada's and Canada's businesses that are affected by foreign tariffs and subsidies. Trump is just trying (with taxpayer approval) to level the playing field.... and has suggested doing away, all together, with tariffs and subsidies that affect trade. Naturally, Canada and the world won't want to do it because they are at the fiscal advantage in trading with the U.S.. What could be more fair trading than "no tariffs and no subsides" that affect trade?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 09:49 AM
Berton
Jun 14 2018, 09:47 AM
No, the President wants a fair trade deal. No more, no less. You on the other hand want to keep sucking on the US teat.

I could use stronger language, but I will just point out that there are absolutely no facts that back up your case.

Your government is subsidizing farmers, ours doesn't do that. We have to equalize the playing field.

Cut the subsidies, and we'll consider cutting the tariffs. Fair is fair.
I thought you wanted to have honest discussions. Of course Canada subsidizes agriculture, why lie?

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/tpp-pressures-canada-on-ag-subsidies
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Oops. (chuckle)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis