Jack Layton: "Buy Canadian!"

Excellent!  I've been cheering Barack Obama all the way with his Buy American stuff lately.  And the reason has been because I WELCOME protectionism wars. 

Yes, things won't be quite as cheap as they used to be, but then, you know, I don't think we really NEED 10 pairs of shoes, and bulging closets and all that crap that's destroying the earth anyhow. 

Protectionism, along with strong social programs to help those who are unable to afford the basics, is just what the doctor ordered.

I saw the following when it was issued last November, and Jack's statement made me look it up again:

Canadian Content Rules Do Not Violate Trade Agreements, CAW says

Finally, nationalism comes clean.

How very, very refreshing.

But how do we re-instate Waffle a third of a century after its dismissal by the very people now calling out for its ideas?

And, more importantly perhaps, how do we cobble together the people and technology made redundant by the products of sweat shops round the world ?

History has its own logic. Things turn into their opposites.

We could start by saving the about-to-be and the just-recently-made redundant. Then we can aim higher.

Right!

Late today, the Times is reporting that Obama, in response to an EU uproar, may largely back off from the "Buy American" provisions in the "stimulus" package.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

The U.S. government already has many "Buy American" provisions in place - far more so than we do in Canada.

Who gives a f***? This thread is about Canadian policy. We need to invest in our own economy.

Very true. For one example, the "Buy America Act", which was first enacted in 1933, applies to federally-funded transportation projects:

Source.

I'm curious to know if any of these buy locally projects ever make a dent. People often have difficulty figuring out where things are made a lot of the time. Ask Canadians where the bananas they have with their Kellogg's Corn Flakes for breakfast come from and most probaly don't even know where they are grown or how they get to Canada. Even though we have great weather most of the time I'm pretty sure they don't come from BC.

I suppose Harper has been lobbying the White House over this.

Obama urges Congress to soften protectionist trade message

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1248975

The main obstacle for Ottawa, however, is the popularity of Buy American among labour groups and free-trade critics who carry significant influence with Democrats.

The Buy American concept also has strong appeal for voters in economically distressed states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are perpetual electoral battlegrounds for Democrats.

"People need to understand their chances of talking the American public out of this kind of attitude are zero," Representative Barney Frank, Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Am I missing something here as the headlines read Obama says willing to take back only buy USA products. Lets say it happened it would be like say 50% of Canada just got cut off from its life supply system.  And its not about buying its about the futures of Canadians and investing in their futures and future generations with solid education as there is nothing better you can do for a country but to ensure not only that its people are both educated and healthy and English speaking doesn't hurt either being it the language of the market place.   Its so important as healthy people don't need much health care, as its a lifestyle with good nutrition and healthily living.  Look at the USA they are having a real problem and Canada in some places is not far behind.  And although Martin may have started the trend of compromising Canadians education and health and their ability to compete globally Harper has done nothing to stop it.  Martin gradually took away funding from what is most vital to Canadians, their education system and health care leaving Canadians unable to compete globally.  And Harper's budget only addressed buying computers and fixing up places along with some schools(good stuff) but more is needed like investing in Canadians and their futures here in Canada by providing a education system to be proud of and one that is recognized for its excellence around the globe and one in reach of the average Canadian as many are unhappy with the high costs associated with education.  Now thats something as all these little events and stuff and speculation well thats good for the moment but at the end of the day as better have more than a few bucks invested in a plot of land as the real bucks need to be in educating a people so they have the skills and abilities to compete globally, now thats something to bank on and no market flucation is going to take it away.  And what about innovation it was barely tossed over if this is the best they could come up with is how to get people shopping well I would think more is required than spending a dime.

The only reason we would need to embark on a "Buy Canadian" policy is if Canadian goods were otherwise uncompetitive with foreign imports. If Canadian products were cheaper or better, such a clause would be completely unnecessary.

Which then raises the question - why do we want to buy products that are either more expensive or inferior to others that are available?

Look at the situation in the U.S.: The stimulus package is intended in part to build new infrastructure - roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, etc. For this steel, iron and other materials are needed. But, by choosing to buy more expensive or inferior American made products (if they were cheaper or better this clause would be unnecessary), less steel, iron, etc. can be purchased and fewer bridges, tunnels, railways, etc. can be built or upgraded.

Everyone loses - it's obvious that foreign workers, producing a product for export, lose as they are discriminated against simply for not being Americans (or in Layton's case, Canadians).  But people at home also lose as their government spending is unable to do as much as it could.

So that we can work, and earn money, and be able to afford to buy anything in the first place. Of course, for those that don't need to work in order to live, "free trade" and the cheapest possible goods sounds like heaven on earth. That's why it's the humble Canadians, not the high and mighty, who opposed free trade. Strange, isn't it, that we lower classes would oppose cheap high-quality goods? Maybe we've seen through the parlour trick.

I imagine Chinese steelworkers have the same aspirations. But I guess it's their own fault for not being Canadian.

They should have tried harder, I suppose.

Write to Jack Layton and explain to him that he is showing hostility and lack of empathy toward the wellbeing of Chinese steelworkers' families when he suggests that we should spend our money at home and keep our families employed.

I believe in international solidarity, but my definition doesn't include an international competitive race to the bottom by workers competing against each other to see who can work the hardest and starve the fastest.

Bravo, Jack - don't falter on this one!

The Chinese were doing alright until British gun boats arrived and forced them to accept the opium trade. That's right, our colonial forefathers belonged to drug gangs.

The Opium Wars

It always fascinating that the richest people in the world who consume far more than their share and often the share of the liftetimes of entire villages, are always so concerned about alleviating poverty when it comes to trade. What fascinates me more is that otherwise intelligent people still buy that shit.

75% of our trade is with the USA and NO amount of domestic demand will make up for it. So if you want to kill every bloody job in this country keep at it. 

Protectionism between advanced economies of the US, EU, A/NZ, Japan and Korea would be economic suicide. We are to interconnected as no economy makes the entire widget anymore. 

Do not confuse the problems of globalism with trade among advanced economies. Wake up we are not in the 30's anymore 

Buy local when you can is the message I'm hearing especially when coming to produce.  Its green.  Also Bravo for budget providing unemployed workers with money for training as great start but still can't figure out what the additional five weeks employment is antiscipated to do for unemployed Canadians and their families are being left without help and thats no good.  Trade policies are clearly meant to be Free Trade around the World and anything less will do little for the Economy or for Global Trade.

I'd like to agree with you Unionist, but I can't. I agree as far as the workers are concerned, but the workers do not run the company and cannot ensure that products are being made that we need. If we keep buying GM's gas guzzlers, they'll never make anything more efficient.

Good evening.

I'm talking about government stimulus funds being used to fund Canadian projects and maintain and create Canadian jobs.

I am not talking about stopping trade.

As for Japan, Korea, etc., last time I checked they were selling their cars here, while accepting few or no North American made cars in their markets. They clearly understand the vital importance of protecting their domestic economies. C'mon, join the club.

Oh, and I'm not scared of the U.S. If deprived of our resources, they would plunge into anarchy. They should be scared of us. Boo!!!

Do you agree with me that if we don't produce something or other, we will starve?

I don't think  concentrating on providing the cheapest possible labor is the way to go thats a losing propostition as can't compete with China and India so what Canada needs to focus on is having a highly educated and skilled and diverse work force and they will be beating down are doors for Canada's expertise and inovation.  They are already got the door trampled down when it comes to our resources why not the people?

Perhaps we produce only items that we really need and focus on the basics necessaries of life,  such clothing, shelter and farm tools.

We do not need unneeded SUVs, large aircraft and other luxury goods.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

I think its important to believe in what you do and if there are better products out there it wise to invest in new inovation or get out of the race unless your into that loonie store stuff but then there is only so much plastic that a household can buy without it taking over their space.  This way it is less likely you will have to worry about starving as you have a product or service that is in demand in good times as well as bad. 

Yes Canadian companies are uncompetative in this new global era.  Why? Because we believe in things like worker saftey, environmental protection, labour standards and so on.  Not enough mind, but we still do.

Food imports come into Canada and are on our shelves that are grown with known and banned carcinogens, which produces cheap food and Canadian farmers are told they are not competative.  Brazil (the great global success story in agriculture according to the global trade crowd) is estimated to have over 20,000 slaves working in just Soya alone (read Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved). And yet again some wag trots out the Canadians just aren't competative enough routine.  Well if doing these things are what makes us competative than you can keep competative and shove it where the sun don't shine in my books.

Every time we buy some piece of crap product or food because it is cheaper than what is made or grown here we are contributing to poverty and injustice around the world.  Trade is a good and positive thing if done fairly and to try and bring people up to the highest levels and standards.  That is not what we do.  We do as unionist mentioned - we race to the bottom.  In the race to the basement it is workers, where ever they live that lose each and every time.

Thank you Jack Layton for opening up this much needed discussion about what is needed to be done to have real trade that benefits communities and people.

And Jasonj2 you might want to check your facts.  The 2007 figure is 79%, but much of that trade is in non-manufacturing procuts.  In 2006 (the last year figures are available) 10% of that was raw crude.  A further 7% was in refined oil products.  Auto made up a further 10%.  While we have a positive trade balance with the US tis true - if you remove the value of oil and gas, it gets closer to net balance.   Our trade balance with the rest of the world though is net negative suggesting quite strongly we have become over dependent on one market, ignored our own domestic markets and have lagged behind on innovation because of that. 

Also when we ramped up exports under CUSTA and then NAFTA we saw a drop in real terms of the purchasing power of the average wage.  Little of what we produce in Canada in our industrial sector flows to the United States that doesn't also return here through redundent trade- the dirty little secret of global economics.  Your knowledge of trade realities is a little sketchy I am afraid.

Back to the past for the present and surprisingly enough most of us have plenty of the basics as even the poor find themselves dressed in designers Labels along with other luxury goods that end up in their shopping carts or charity organizations.  However although the economy may be on hold for the moment future inovation is going strong and it will be back to the future for the masses before to long.  And I see great things like advancements in medicine and transportation and why not its not like it hasn't happened before.

Double Post

No, instead Chinese workers will have to work that much harder and cheaper in order to compete with privileged Canadian producers.

Canada's trade surplus in 2008 was $80 billion.

That's $80 billion worth of "something or others" that this country produced and exported over and above the value of the "something or others" we imported from abroad.  We're not going to starve, not by a long shot. 

"Exported", yes. But "produced"?? That's a term with variable shades of meaning. With natural resources accounting for 60 percent of exports, and with the most labour-intensive manufacturing sectors suffering plant closures and job losses in the hundreds of thousands, we appear to be doing lots more "exporting" than "producing".

That's precisely the problem that a domestic procurement policy, attached to economic stimulus spending, would help address.

So, we send our precious fossil fuels and raw logs away to be processed in other countries, and they send it back to us as value-added finished products for us to buy while at the same time hemorrhaging jobs? I wonder for how long we can keep that up?

AJ

Any idea how much of that Canadian surplus comes from the natural gas and oil flowing south? And the other minerals dug from the ground that you say we "produce".  Ever heard the expresson "hewers of wood and drawers of water?" That's been Canada's view of itself ever since the Great Depression.

If you are so taken with math, with  numbers, why not try to discover what percentage of that surplus USED TO come from Ontario's car manufacturing industry. How much now.

WE are not going to starve? 

What fatuous nonsense.

From my earlier linked report, here was the picture in 2004 when looking at the "value-added" component of exports (i.e. factoring out the imported input into those products):

And from the conclusion:

NB: The above graph shows the situation before Canada's factories started shutting their doors.

Hey BA.

Breakthrough.

Loblaws will not be importing U.S. "Black Angus" beef in a month's time.

My favourite butcher - with whom I have bantered good naturedly for two years now about Loblaws' propensity to import the high-priced suff from south of the border - informed me on the weekend. He wanted to be first to tell me. Not that I can afford the beef from the specialty counter yet.

I know, beef is something one should not eat too much of for enfironmental reasons, but my doughter (and others I know) hod to reluctantly go back to getting their iron and protein from a product on the hoof. Just not too much of it. And lots of whole grains.

 It is amazing you would know the number for 2008 when the full data has not been released yet.  Kreskinesque really.  The trade balance for 2007 according to Industry Canada was about 43 billion.  This included items such as wheat, logs, minerals and so on.  Of the top 25 export industries 46% of all exports came from natural resource extraction.  (Oil and gas extraction of course led the way).  If anything our manufacturing base has been eroding to such a degree that the balance is likely to become more heavily dependent on raw resources in the next few years tipping the balance to more than 50%.  In fact if you take off secondary processing of raw resources (such as pulp) from the manufacture numbers you are already over the 50% threshold.

There is a simple plain fact.  You can not continue to export the wealth producing parts of your economy to other nations with a lower and lower set of standards each time the new 'economic miricle' location moves and expect to be able to sustain things like social spending.  You simply are not doing a Chinese worker a favour by supporting a system that exploits them in conditions that are right out of Dickens

And the year 2004, U, was when it started to become clear that the loonie was going to turn into a petrodollar and it was only a matter of time before Ontario's industry - with its head offices elsewhere - was going to go uncompetitive, shut down.

Wrote a piece for the local dead tree media to that effect that year.

Hey George

Good to hear.  Black angus stuff is bogus anyway.

I don't eat beef every day either, or even meat for that matter.

 What you and your daughter need to invest in is a good slow cooker.  It turns even the toughest cuts into relatively tender and tastey dishes.  I recomend marinating in a good red wine.  Might not help the taste but the lovely smell will make you think it does.  If you drink the rest of the bottle with the meal you eventually won't give a shit anyway.

You're my kinda chef!

Oh, but don't ya know, the wealth will "trickle down" and they'll all be rich, and we'll feel good for making them so!

Anyway, A_J's concern for the international working class is touching, but it seems to be premised on the thesis that the invisible hand of the free market cures all ills. That's not my perception of the last couple hundred years of history.

But the issue facing us now is not an "ideological" one. The simple question is, should a government that is "artificially" injecting funds into economic activity favour the performance of that activity by Canadian workers, at a time when our manufacturing base is being eroded like never before?

Jack Layton has said "YES", and we must tell him that he is on the right track.

Well, let's see.  There's a billion of them living there, and I'm sure they can all use some steel and infrastructure at home.  So, they can produce steel for themselves, and we'll produce steel for ourselves.  And we'll maybe trade with some of our neighbours (with good tariffs) for some of the stuff we can't source from home - like bananas or oranges or whatever.

There's no reason why China or any other country with shitty labour laws or "free trade zones" should have any "right" to flood the Canadian market with cheap goods, and there's no reason why Canada shouldn't say that, for the good of our country, we're going to buy from Canadian suppliers for everything that we CAN grow or extract here, and buy from other countries only the stuff we CAN'T grow or extract here.

I think A_J could be concerned that Canadians would be in tough for manufacturing our own toilet paper and furniture and plastic shower curtain liners, chainsaws, buses and alarm clocks. And who would supply the witty sentiments for those over-priced Hallmark greeting cards made from old growth Canadian logs? 

How could democratically-elected government in Ottawa possibly manage to create a national energy policy all by themselves without American CEO's dictating it to them?

 YES WE CAN!

Actually, we can grow oranges or bananas here.  It is just very expensive compared to simply importing them from tropical countries (tropical countries that might have shitty labour laws, or grow their produce in "free trade zones")

Similarly, we can manufacture a lot of the goods that are made overseas here as well, but that would also be more expensive than importing them (but you are okay with that, because the extra costs are passed along to other Canadians).

Why the double standard?

Why shouldn't Canadian hot-house orange-growers be given a share of the largess? 

Yeah, I even know some people who spend precious time and resources cooking meals at home, when they could eat cheaper and faster at McDonald's. Go figure.

The "extra costs"? You mean, like, the extra good jobs that would be created, the extra tax revenue that would result, and the extra Canadian-made goods and services that these employed Canadians would be able to purchase in Canada?

Yes, I guess I would be "okay with that".

Do you know of any Canadian hothouse orange growers? 

I'm not saying that we have to dictate labour policy to everyone we trade with.  That's up to the people in those countries to demand fair working conditions from their governments. 

I'm saying that for stuff we can produce ourselves, we should buy it from ourselves instead of other countries, and for stuff we can't produce ourselves, we should trade for them.  There's no reason why our workers should have to compete with workers in other countries with shitty labour standards. 

Harper & Ignatieff have quite the winning economic policies, but just not sure who is winning here. I'm pretty sure it ain't da workers.

You're doing one heck of a job boys!

More big job losses in store for Canada as firms hunker down

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hoF1gyuhz0q6IQxNW72yCsdGi4xA

 Good for Jack for sticking up for Canada....It's long been a contentious issue how we sell our resources, just to have another country manufacture a value added product and then sell it back to us. like pasta and mustard. If this gets any steam I would expect the US to do a big back track.

 When it hits there yankee doodle dandy heads that we are the fresh water supplier as well as energy supplier...and buffer zone (the place where missles land so we are the sacrifical goat instead of them)via arctic missle warning bases...and that we actually build all the parts of their f-18's to have the back draft from contract rewarding end up in the hands of political parties in the form of contributions...they will think twice.  But yeh it will take the actions of a real Canadian to make it happen...like Jack is doing.

Oh yeh the US is going to back track bigtime! The last thing they want is Canada to wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

There is not a single hothouse grower of oranges in Canada- nor will there ever be.  Oranges grow on trees.   Large tree production is not conducive to greenhouse growing, so AJ your agrument is full of bananas

I didn't find it very appeeling either.

Attempt at strained humour deleted.

This is off-topic but I can't resist. Years ago I used to stay with my gf in Florida, and despite having very productive orange trees in the front and back yards, insisted on buying orange juice every week from the supermarket. Used to drive me crazy!

Was it imported from Canada, I hope?

Back on topic everyone, please.

Go, Jack, go!

We should always be buying Canadian, whenever we can. It's not easy, though. 

True. Especially for those who have lost their Canadian jobs.

But whether we always buy Canadian or not, we can at least demand that our taxes be spent on stimulating Canadian production.

So I guess AJ is AOK with Jimmy Pattison getting richer off of clear cutting BC forests, which belong to the peoples of BC and Canada, by exporting the basically stolen raw logs to China for manufacturing, while Canadians go to food banks and live on income assistance?

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

I'm just challenging this distinction you're making between the stuff we can make and the stuff we can't.

There are very few things that are impossible to make in Canada, but there are lots of things that are prohibitively expensive, or we're simply not very good at - like oranges.

On the one hand you're saying - "sure, it's expensive to make [random good currently made in China] in Canada, but we should do so anyway", while at the same time saying "it's too expensive to grow oranges here, so we should do what is cost-effective and import them".

No, there is no one currently trying to grow oranges in some kind of elaborate and labour-intensive greenhouse operation here in Canada (that I know of).  But imagine there were - their oranges would be very expensive, say 10x the price of those imported.

Is that too much?  If steel made in Canada cost 2x that made in China (all figures utterly fabricated - don't worry, they're being fabricated by a Canadian), should we still buy the local product?  What about aluminium that cost 3x as much as that made in Brazil?  Computer chips that cost 5x as much as those made in Japan?

At what point are the alleged gains to be made by buying locally (supporting Canadian greenhouse makers and the employees of local orange growers) outweighed by the extra costs?

You make it sound like Canadians have a lot of work ahead of them, A_J.

Ah, no answer I see, just continuing on with absolute nonsense, with no thought as to "costs" in the long run.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

 A_J:

Canadians are one of the most well-educated populations in the world. So how could we possibly survive in the middle of what is unparalleled in the world natural resource wealth?

I ask you to use your imaginative powers. Put on your thinking cap, and don't let up for at least five minutes. We'll want an essay by tomorrow morning 9 o'clock sharp. And step on it.

I'm not sure why we're allowing A_J to reduce an important discussion to some ludicrous lowest terms.

This isn't about stopping imports, or growing our own pineapples, or anything of the sort.

It's about imposing a 60% Canadian content rule on taxpayer-funded investments, except where it can be shown that that's not feasible.

Babblers ought to be encouraging Jack Layton to follow through on his stand, and put pressure on the Liberals and BQ to do likewise.

The CCPA and the trade unions should be brought on board (if they're not already). We need letters, petitions, op-ed pieces. It will have the side political benefit of showing economic leadership in a time of crisis.

Let's do it! We CAN do it! 

In a modern world competition should not just be on price but on other social considerations going into production including how labour is treated and the environment.

When it comes to Chinese workers, I hardly think it would be a big problem for them if we insist on buying from Chinese factories that pay better wages for example. Ultimately this is not something that can be imposed from another country. But one day we could call for an international minimum wage. In the meantime we could promote more ethical imports. Countries who wish to criticize China's labour laws and wages are hypocritical since you could go there and hire workers in a factory paying proper wages- but we go there and pay the lowest we can get away with. And we can, without putting up a wall require better labour standards in all products sold here. Everything would cost more but the Chinese would not stop competing to deliver to us products as we want them. They will provide the higher wages if we will pay. We get Chinese exploited workers because that is what we want and pay for and any other interpretation is a complete misreading of the relationship. Our consumer desires are entirely dependent on exploitation and need to be curbed by appropriate recognition of real costs in products. 

When it comes to environmental concerns we always use the environment to subsidize trade along with exploited labour. If we stopped doing this we would see that buying locally is competitive. when you factor in the environmental costs of shipping over distance then you can see why a buy Canadian campaign now has as much to do with environmental common sense as it does with nationalism.

The NDP entirely on the right track with this one and this is something people can relate to.

You're absolutely right, no one (or only very few people) are calling on the country to cease trading with the rest of the world.  Layton's proposal is simply to buy Canadian when the government spends its money - not to require everyone to buy Canadian at all times.

But like I said - presumably this is necessary because the Canadian goods are more expensive and would be overlooked in the normal bidding process, which merely asks who can provide the required good or service at the lowest price.  You're asking the government to instead look beyond the bottom line and make its spending decisions not based on whether the good or service offered is the cheapest, but whether that good or service came from Canada.

The problem is that you get less out of your tax-payer funded investment this way - one bridge instead of two for the same amount of money, three subway trains instead of four, 100 school breakfasts instead of 1,000 because you bought insanely overpriced $10 Canadian oranges that were grown in the dead of winter at a multi-billion dollar hot-house complex located outside of Winnipeg 

I live on Quebec's Lower North Shore, just below Labrador, and even here we are getting produce from Florida, California, and even Chile of all places!!!

I have a good size veggie garden which I shall expand as soon as spring arrives (late May) and grow more lettuce, carrots, and beets to give away to friends and neighbours (aside from what I need for myself). More folks here are taking up gardening as a protest against imported produce which spoils quickly and is over priced to begin with. I wish I could grow fruit, but our growing season is too short (aside from blueberries, raspberries, and bakeapples).

No, A_J. Not at all. It means companies may have to restructure their operations to meet Canadian content rules.

When Bombardier bids on U.S. public transit contracts (subway, LRT, etc.), it rents or builds plant space or partners with others in the U.S. in order to meet the U.S. content strictures of the "Buy America Act". That way, it can do part of the work in Mexico (for example) and final assembly in the U.S.

Would it be cheaper to get it all done in Mexico? Sure, maybe. Then they could order more commuter trains, but less people would have jobs to commute to.

Here's a reprint of David Orchard's(Conservative) comments of 2004

    How free trade changed us

And the number of foreign takevers is now somewhere over 12,000

Short sighted at best AJ.

Now let's have a look at your version of government, allegedly being able to build  2 bridges instead of 1, by using  the "cheapest is best model".

This ideology is based upon exporting goods and service purchases to any ol' place other than Canada,  which hence means, providing jobs elsewhere, other than Canada. You say this is allegedly to "save" money, in order to have, you say, "more" government developmental power and expenditures.

Now logic dictates this idiology is an absurbity in notion, and stupidity in action of trying to spread the bs. Why?

60 thousand, at least, jobs have been lost in BC's forestry sector, while BC's forests are being cut down and the raw logs exported to China. In essence, those 60k jobs have been given to Chinese workers, plus another 10k -15k in support service industry and goods productions.

Yes, the Canadian government makes royalties off of the sale of those raw logs. However, it makes NO income tax money from 70k or so workers, a loss which continues to grow exponentially, plus many other revenue taxations are also lost.  So merely allowing something like this to happen, has decreased the federal governments ability to build "2 bridges", they can now only build 1.

In fact, it is in a net loss situation, because it also has to pay to have those workers to be retrained, and it has to pay out EI, forgoing interest on the EI money.

And then, when NO jobs are found, because there aren't any, the cost of up keep of those workers, who have lost their jobs, is downloaded to the provinces. As the lost job workers, will have to go on income assistance in order to survive. This means now, that the provinces also, lose their ability to build 2 bridges.

Additional GST revenue is also lost by the federal government, and PST by the provincial government, because 70k people cannot now afford to make purchases. 

Because people cannot afford to make purchases of even FOOD, then more jobs are lost in differing sectors. Then in turn, MORE jobs are lost when other industries are impacted, because of other sector job losses

Now you expand this reality to the government's purchasing of goods and services elsewhere, which is basically the same thing, and which according to you is cheaper, and thus "better' for Canadians in the long run.

It isn't! It is advocating self destruction.

Thus your short sighted ideology becomes, or is, an exponential loss activity that continues, or would continue, until there is/was nothing left. 

Yep.

AJ could have stepped right out of Peter Seller's 1959 classic, "I'm All Right Jack."

PEF on Procurement Policies

The point of a stimulus package is, rather obviously, to stimulate the economy and stop the downward spiral of reduced demand and employment that makes up a recession.  How many bridges you can build with foreign steel vs Canadian isn't the point. The point is to stimulate demand and create jobs HERE.

Great, Dogbert, thanks for this reference! Here's a comment by Stephen Shrybman (of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP) on that article:

"The point of a stimulus package is, rather obviously, to stimulate the economy and stop the downward spiral of reduced demand and employment that makes up a recession.  How many bridges you can build with foreign steel vs Canadian isn't the point. The point is to stimulate demand and create jobs HERE."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The literalist also demands attention to a single message in religious texts.   Your take on economic textbook approach looks to be so inspired to me. Whatever happened to comparison with the U.S. (you know, the folks giving grief over beef, timber, pork, occasionally potatoes and wheat) that has taken advantage of us at every turn. 

Or do you see yourself as simply conveying what Galbraith termed "conventional wisdom?"

Another point is that protectionism hurts the most vulnerable. Rising costs hurt the poor the most. And developing countries are the least likely to be able to meet expected standards, they they become hardest hit too, thus perpetuating inequalities between rich and poor within countries as well as between developed and developing countries. It's motivated by greed and nationalism, pure and simple.

I think, if you get really, really creative you just might be able to imagine a world with our very own Canadian-grown APPLE JUICE on the school lunch menu.

I know, I know - I'm such a dreamer, aren't I? 

What you forget is that other countries don't just sit there and shrug their shoulders while you're taking jobs away from them. Again, this is pure nationalism with no care for social justice outside our own borders.

I see myself as pointing out the obvious: that if we aim to stimulate the Canadian economy, we should take measures to ensure that we actually stimulate the Canadian economy. "Conventional economics textbooks" will tell you how Free Trade is great under every circumstance, I'd consider that to be religious dogma. 

The poor also take the brunt of the job losses when jobs get shipped overseas. The last 30 years of free trading haven't exactly been good for the poor in Canada or anywhere else.

Now, if you want to talk about a world where both capital and labour can move freely, or where the prerequisite for trade is strong environmental or labour standards, that I'd be all in favour of. Free trade that puts capital rights ahead of anything else will lead us all into the sweat shop.

And you're also forgetting several important things too.

What about the workers who could have been employed constructing that second bridge?

What about the economic benefits of the second bridge?  Perhaps it could have increased transport capacity, connected a rural town, lowered the cost of doing business in Canada and allowed a company to set up a factory and employ people.

If the actual projects in the stimulus package don't even matter and the only thing that does is putting money in the hands of people employed in otherwise uncompeitive sectors of the economy, why not:

1. calculate the cost of building the bridge using the cheapest materials (whether Canadian or not).

2. calculate the cost of building the bridge using Canadian materials (whether the cheapest or not).

3. *not build any bridge at all*

4. write a cheque for the difference between 1 & 2 and hand it over to the major unions in the country.

5. lather, rinse and repeat with every other item in the stimulus package.

Oh my goodness, I never thought of that.  Just imagine that 80 percent of chronically-hungry thirdworld capitalist hellholes whose colonials rely on exporting food to stay filthy rich have no where to ship cash crops to. This would create chaos for capitalist trading companies. What  were we thinking, people?

Classic schoolroom assignment stuff, AJ.

Now grow up and come out into the real world.

I still think you are a perfect take on Sellers ' "I'm All Right Jack."

"I see myself as pointing out the obvious: that if we aim to stimulate the Canadian economy, we should take measures to ensure that we actually stimulate the Canadian economy. "Conventional economics textbooks" will tell you how Free Trade is great under every circumstance, I'd consider that to be religious dogma."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Galbraith was talking about tunnel vision, not textbooks, bert.  Letting our own steel smelters grow cold and importing the stuff is narrow thinking bert. Very, very narrow.