Not too naive... since Canada as it stands is quite socialist in
nature... on many levels(relatively.. for ex to US or Japan).
And that is not a bad thing. The bad thing is that this policy is
actually totally unsocialist. Point is that the proposed tax would
protect the profit of a bourgeoisie class and not the well being of the
average citizen/consumer. OTOH it is socialist in the sense that it also
intends to protect the jobs of the people employed by those bourgeois
people.
The socialism you had in Yugoslavia was a very warped sort. It was
intended to create a selfcontained "eco-system"... That socialism was
not really socialism (looking for the wellbeing of its people).. it was
more of an idealistic, progresivistic entity... aiming at the fastest
economic development at the cost of people's well-being.
Now the conclusion is that tarrifs are not going to help the employment
or the average consumer. If one country can't compete in a domain
fairly... it surely can find something else that it does better then the
other. This is part of globalization (which is not necessarily good nor
bad, but which is a reality and happens and will happen regardless).
Regullation of trade is necessary but not to this extent. On the other
hand I'd rather have the government sup****t new manufacturers emerge
(making bicycles or others) for the sake of employment and quality of
production (more to choose from... better products).
Luke wrote:
> In article <lm4q86ttxv.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Dragan Cvetkovic
> <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>mcsail <mcsail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Today’s Ottawa Citizen (Sept 27) has another re****t
>>>about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's (CITT)
>>>recommendation that the federal government impose a
>>>30% tariff on bicycles im****ted from various offshore
>>>countries, including China.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>> "The proposed 30% surtax would be applied in
>>> addition to two existing protections - a 13%
>>> customs tariff that is applied to every bicycle
>>> im****ted into Canada irrespective of origin
>>> and special antidumping duties ranging from
>>> 5-50% that have been imposed on bicycles from
>>> Taiwan and China for well over a decade."
>>>
>>
>>When I lived in Yugoslavia, we used to complain about the government
>>imposing high taxes and duties on (some) im****ted goods and would say
that
>>such stupidity happens only in socialist countries... How naive we were
...
>>
>>Bye, Dragan
>
>
> Yup, stupidity is an equal op****tunity proposition: politicians of all
> stripes - even those in democracies - subscribe to it also.
>
> Too often the reponse from international producers suffering from the
> Asian manufacturing juggernaut is to lobby for an increase in tariffs
> or 'voluntary quotas' to protect their turf - at the expense of the
> consumer, of course. That wouldn't be such a bad idea if the ploy
> fostered the regeneration of the beleaguered sectors, and nurtured a
> healthier, more competitive and dynamic marketplace. But it doesn't, as
> those listless patients, the domestic auto and textile sectors, attest.
>
> Consumers don't want these bicycle tariffs; from what I've read, either
> do retailers. The only proponents are a few domestic manufacturers who,
> hypocritically, spec' their bikes with a host of components emanating
> from those same factories they deride as 'dumping' bicycles in their
> markets. I'm curious: how would its champions react if the bicycle
> surtax would extend to all the peripheral - and im****ted - components
> they use to outfit their rides?
>
> That Chinese/Taiwanese bicycle ex****ters benefit from a host of
> economic advantages - particularly where it concerns labor costs - is a
> not necessarily a bad thing; that a consumer in another country should
> be denied the op****tunity of benefiting from them by legislation aimed
> at profiting narrow special-interests definitely is.
>
>
> Luke
|
