News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

lenaitch said:
I guess I'm missing the point about how subsidizing domestic trade would improve things over simply removing any artificial barriers.
Click to expand...
Because transportation costs are the biggest barrier to interprovincial trade–according to StatsCan–per the quote and link in the post you originally responded to. And that any action to remove that particular barrier would likely have more impact than any mediation that requires harmonizing safety regulations, etc.

lenaitch said:
Besides, subsidizing only some of the transportation carriers seems highly unfair. If CN were still Crown-owned, they could subsidize goods going to or from Edmonton but not Calgary?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but why would a Crown corporation do that? Mailing a letter costs the same no matter where you send it in Canada for good reason; it levels the playing field, creating equality.
 
zang said:
Because transportation costs are the biggest barrier to interprovincial trade–according to StatsCan–per the quote and link in the post you originally responded to. And that any action to remove that particular barrier would likely have more impact than any mediation that requires harmonizing safety regulations, etc.


Yeah, but why would a Crown corporation do that? Mailing a letter costs the same no matter where you send it in Canada for good reason; it levels the playing field, creating equality.
Click to expand...
Noted that transportation cost are a factor in the economy but I'm not sure I would class them as a barrier unless there is something particular about Canadian transportation costs that we can control. It costs Chinese companies a lot to ship to NA, and it costs Hershey's a lot to ship from PA to CA. one difference is there is a lot more market to spread that cost over.

My point about out west was imperfect since I assumed CN doesn't go to Calgary, which they do. How about Regina, or Charlottetown, or St. John's. The point was, if CN was still Crown-owned, how would it be a defensible level playing field to subsidize it over another carrier? Canada Post is different in that it is everywhere and has a monopoly - for right or wrong - on part of its service.
 
lenaitch said:
Noted that transportation cost are a factor in the economy but I'm not sure I would class them as a barrier unless there is something particular about Canadian transportation costs that we can control. It costs Chinese companies a lot to ship to NA, and it costs Hershey's a lot to ship from PA to CA. one difference is there is a lot more market to spread that cost over.
Click to expand...
My point was that the current kerfuffle about trade barriers is that their removal only benefits a small number of large corporations, and is trumped up to be something a lot bigger than it is. Most business consider transportation costs and local interest to be the two biggest obstacles to inter provincial trade. Not whether Quebec requires snow tires on freight trucks.

lenaitch said:
My point about out west was imperfect since I assumed CN doesn't go to Calgary, which they do. How about Regina, or Charlottetown, or St. John's. The point was, if CN was still Crown-owned, how would it be a defensible level playing field to subsidize it over another carrier? Canada Post is different in that it is everywhere and has a monopoly - for right or wrong - on part of its service.
Click to expand...

How is any crown subsidy defensible? They aren't in the eyes of capitalism. Why should corporations have a level playing field when they ultimately make the people their ultimate opponent anyway? Regardless of subsidy, we've seen time and time again that profit will always trump access.

Just to note, CN does go to Regina. Pre-privatization, they also used to go to both Charlottetown and St. John's. The Crown literally wanted as much coverage in the country as possible, as was the point of buying up so many disparate railway companies in the first place. The second Newfoundland was added to the confederation, Newfoundland Railways became a part of CN.

"Fair and level competition" has always been the argument used to justify deregulation and privatization, and always ends up hurting the consumer in the end. Deregulation and privatization killed the extensive rail network in this country.
 
zang said:
My point was that the current kerfuffle about trade barriers is that their removal only benefits a small number of large corporations, and is trumped up to be something a lot bigger than it is. Most business consider transportation costs and local interest to be the two biggest obstacles to inter provincial trade. Not whether Quebec requires snow tires on freight trucks.



How is any crown subsidy defensible? They aren't in the eyes of capitalism. Why should corporations have a level playing field when they ultimately make the people their ultimate opponent anyway? Regardless of subsidy, we've seen time and time again that profit will always trump access.

Just to note, CN does go to Regina. Pre-privatization, they also used to go to both Charlottetown and St. John's. The Crown literally wanted as much coverage in the country as possible, as was the point of buying up so many disparate railway companies in the first place. The second Newfoundland was added to the confederation, Newfoundland Railways became a part of CN.

"Fair and level competition" has always been the argument used to justify deregulation and privatization, and always ends up hurting the consumer in the end. Deregulation and privatization killed the extensive rail network in this country.
Click to expand...
Yes, my map failed me again. Regardless, pick a city that CN currently doesn't run to.

I've lost track of what you are for and against. I'm not trying to defend a Crown subsidy; far from it. My point has been that if CN remained to be Crown-owed, a position which you supported, you realistically couldn't subsidize only it and not its competitors. Regardless, large-scale or broad-based subsidies are in Trump's cross-hairs now, notwithstanding the US conveniently forgets that it subsidizes entire swaths of industry, like agriculture, through various grants, tax breaks, etc.

My concept of fair and level competition is between the players, not the consumer. The state can own everything, nothing or somewhere in between. If we had one and only one domestic air carrier in this country, I wonder what the fares would be like.

The Crown didn't want to own a railway. After WWI, they were faced with a number of private railway insolvencies - pretty much every major one except CP. Seeing that rail was the only long-distance land transportation option, to have let them simply shut down would have crippled the economy. It could well be argued that they let our rail network over-expand by too readily offering land grants and financial backing, but there they were in 1919.

CN was privatized in 1992. They abandoned Newfoundland and PEI four and threes years before that respectively. It could be argued that they were disposing of unprofitable assets in preparation of the sale; that I don't know. I guess if somebody thought there was money to be made, they would have bought them.
 
Protests are planned in all 50 state capitols for Feb 17 (President's Day). From BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/50501movement.bsky.social
Screenshot 2025-02-15 at 3.36.32 PM.png
 
lenaitch said:
CN was privatized in 1992. They abandoned Newfoundland and PEI four and threes years before that respectively. It could be argued that they were disposing of unprofitable assets in preparation of the sale; that I don't know. I guess if somebody thought there was money to be made, they would have bought them.
Click to expand...

It’s important to note that deregulation of the rail industry happened in 1987. Yes, CN was still crown at that point, but Mulroney had already put the dagger in their backs
 
Trump had just shy of 50% of votes (49.8 %) vs Harris with 48.3%, so there was still a majority of voters who did not vote for him. The vote distribution via the electoral college gave him a win. Yes, there are people reaping what they sowed but there is also a whole lot of people who are justifiably upset at how he is ignoring the constitution., which has even been removed from The White House website.
 
zang said:
It’s important to note that deregulation of the rail industry happened in 1987. Yes, CN was still crown at that point, but Mulroney had already put the dagger in their backs
Click to expand...
It seems you are in favour of nationalizing key parts of our economy. Our divergence is unreconcilable.
 
PinkLucy said:
Trump had just shy of 50% of votes (49.8 %) vs Harris with 48.3%, so there was still a majority of voters who did not vote for him. The vote distribution via the electoral college gave him a win. Yes, there are people reaping what they sowed but there is also a whole lot of people who are justifiably upset at how he is ignoring the constitution., which has even been removed from The White House website.
Click to expand...

I really have no sympathy for Americans. I really hope they get what they voted for good and hard. It's the only way their entire electorate will learn that elections have consequences. And that culture wars aren't the only thing they are voting for. Apparently the spike in farmer suicides the last time wasn't enough.
 
Richard White said:
I would not be the least bit surprised if Trump tried to invade Cuba

The Bay of Pigs was a disaster but hey.. you never know.
Click to expand...

Bay of Pigs was a disaster because it wasn't the US military doing it. It was a CIA sideshow with Cuban expats. Want to know what an actual military invasion of Cuba would look like?

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top