exporting logs, exporting jobs
eureka @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:10 pm
You can repeat it a soften as you like and you can shout it from the rooftops, too. There is a petrodollar and almost no one argues with that. No one but those who don't want to admit tot he problem.
I don't know where you get your ideas about Canadian/Japanese trade but you could not be more wrong. The amount of trade is not all that high to begin with and, although Japan has a somewhat increasing deficit with Canada (after being in balance for a number of years, the deficict is entirely due to commodities. Trade in manufactures goods has not changed much and may be in decline.
Of course, Canada manufactures can compete with American produced goods. They cannot comppete under the influence of an artificially high Canadian dollar. In Auto manufacturing, they do more than compete.
And how does your saying, quite wrongly, that there has been a net gain in prosperity for Ontario mean that we are talking specifically of Japan? That is a broader brush than I have used since I am sticking tot he specifics and applying them to Japan.
Caelon @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:34 pm
eureka eureka:
You can repeat it a soften as you like and you can shout it from the rooftops, too. There is a petrodollar and almost no one argues with that. No one but those who don't want to admit tot he problem.
Funny your 'almost no one' turns out to be almost everyone but you and Dalton.
eureka eureka:
I don't know where you get your ideas about Canadian/Japanese trade but you could not be more wrong. The amount of trade is not all that high to begin with and, although Japan has a somewhat increasing deficit with Canada (after being in balance for a number of years, the deficict is entirely due to commodities. Trade in manufactures goods has not changed much and may be in decline.
Sigh. So would you call Japan's increasing trade deficit with Canada a net loss or a net gain for Canada? If we sell more to them than we buy off of them, most peopel would say that is a net gain in Canada's favour. I gather you use a different form of mathematics than most economists
eureka eureka:
Of course, Canada manufactures can compete with American produced goods. They cannot comppete under the influence of an artificially high Canadian dollar. In Auto manufacturing, they do more than compete.
Please read your own words again. You say Canada can compete, but only if there is an artificial subsidy like a low dollar versus the US. BUT if all things are equal it is not fair. Boo Hoo. Ontario cannot compete with the US unless things are not equal. Let's rephrase that shall we. Ontario manufacturers are uncompetitve with the US when all things are equal. Or should we just say Ontario manufactured goods are uncompetitive.
eureka eureka:
And how does your saying, quite wrongly, that there has been a net gain in prosperity for Ontario mean that we are talking specifically of Japan? That is a broader brush than I have used since I am sticking tot he specifics and applying them to Japan.
Sigh. I guess I really do have to go back to your previous posts to refresh your memory about your own words. At 10:16 AM April 1, 2012 your wrote
eureka eureka:
Wait for the `Free Trade` deal with Japan. Then we will export a lot more raw lumber and a lot more manufacturing jobs.
Alberta beef and B.C. logs along with Central Canada`s jobs as Harper pushes this country deeper into the tank
Alberta beef and B.C. logs along with Central Canada`s jobs as Harper pushes this country deeper into the tank
To which I responded with
Caelon Caelon:
Japan due to size and population has become a manufacturing country and as such requires materials from around the globe. It has also built manufacturing plants in many parts of the world. A significant number of Canadians living in Ontario owe their livelihood to Toyota and Honda. Without the Japanese auto plants there would be that many more Ontarians out of work. And of course Canadians in all provinces get to have jobs at the Japanese dealerships for autos and motorcycles.
Now Alberta beef would be considered a 'finished' product. It started off in a cow calf operation, went through a feedlot, then a slaughter house to a packaging facility. Value was added at each step and Canadians were employed here earning income. The Japanese get to consume the finished product and the value stops about the point the meat entered their mouth.
Looks to me like we win in both areas.
[/quote]Now Alberta beef would be considered a 'finished' product. It started off in a cow calf operation, went through a feedlot, then a slaughter house to a packaging facility. Value was added at each step and Canadians were employed here earning income. The Japanese get to consume the finished product and the value stops about the point the meat entered their mouth.
Looks to me like we win in both areas.
Funny seems like the topic is specifically about Japan.
eureka @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:48 pm
Are you being deliberately obtuse? My own words say exactly what I am saying now - not a scrap of difference.
And the vast majority of economists call the current Canadian dollar a petrodollar. There is no secret in that. It is not an artificial subsidy that is required for Ontario but a return to sanity and to stopping the destruction of the Canadian economy in the name of oil.
We have gone all through the Dutch disease before. We, in Canada, have a bad case of it and the current government puts its political advantage ahead of the survival of Canada.
Other countries have learned the lesson.
And how does your deflection to say that the topic is specifically about Japan change anything?
You will do better when you can grasp that economies do not act in a vacuum. Japan has had an increasing deficit with Canada in the past two or three years because of Alberta beef and other Western commodities. It is of no benefit to Ontario.
PluggyRug @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:55 pm
eureka eureka:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? My own words say exactly what I am saying now - not a scrap of difference.
And the vast majority of economists call the current Canadian dollar a petrodollar. There is no secret in that. It is not an artificial subsidy that is required for Ontario but a return to sanity and to stopping the destruction of the Canadian economy in the name of oil.
We have gone all through the Dutch disease before. We, in Canada, have a bad case of it and the current government puts its political advantage ahead of the survival of Canada.
Other countries have learned the lesson.
And how does your deflection to say that the topic is specifically about Japan change anything?
You will do better when you can grasp that economies do not act in a vacuum. Japan has had an increasing deficit with Canada in the past two or three years because of Alberta beef and other Western commodities. It is of no benefit to Ontario.
And the vast majority of economists call the current Canadian dollar a petrodollar. There is no secret in that. It is not an artificial subsidy that is required for Ontario but a return to sanity and to stopping the destruction of the Canadian economy in the name of oil.
We have gone all through the Dutch disease before. We, in Canada, have a bad case of it and the current government puts its political advantage ahead of the survival of Canada.
Other countries have learned the lesson.
And how does your deflection to say that the topic is specifically about Japan change anything?
You will do better when you can grasp that economies do not act in a vacuum. Japan has had an increasing deficit with Canada in the past two or three years because of Alberta beef and other Western commodities. It is of no benefit to Ontario.
I was watching BNN the other day where a number of economists reiterated "the petro dollar does not exist".
As Caelon states it's the decline of the US dollar.
Lemmy @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:00 pm
eureka eureka:
There is a petrodollar and almost no one argues with that. No one but those who don't want to admit tot he problem.
eureka @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:15 pm
Even a Jack Mintz admits that the dollar appreciation is Partly due to oil and that it is hurting Ontario and manufacturing generally. And that would really hurt him.
There can be no argument about it that is not simply idoeologically based.
Stanford and Mackenzie say it categorically and without much in the way of caveats.
So do others, many of them. I have been reading about this and commenting on it for years.
Lemmy @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:26 pm
Do you know that oil, by dollar value, represents roughly 10% of Canadian exports? Would you then be prepared to concede that at least 90% of the determination of our currency value is NOT based on oil?
Gunnair @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:33 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Do you know that oil, by dollar value, represents roughly 10% of Canadian exports? Would you then be prepared to concede that at least 90% of the determination of our currency value is NOT based on oil?
The sooner you admit that wiki trumps your training, the better it will be for you.
In other words, shut the fuck up and know your place.
Lemmy @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:36 pm
It doesn't take any specialized economics training to understand percentages. I'm just wondering if we're using the same concept of mathematics. We'll move on to applications of economics when we get to questions #3, 4 and 5. Those'll come after I get answers to questions #1 and 2.
Those are "yes or no" questions, btw, eureka.
Caelon @ Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:19 pm
eureka eureka:
It is of no benefit to Ontario.
Finally we get to the crux of your problem. Your definition of Canada is Ontario. According to you if all the rest of Canada is experiencing economic growth, but Ontario does not it is bad. If Ontario experiences growth and all the rest of Canada does not it is good. It seems that your view of Canada does not include most of the country. So for the betterment of all are you advocating Ontario secede from Canada? Then Ontario can have its own low valued currency to prop up its inefficient industries. The ROC would not have to help out with transfer payments and all will be well.
Of course without the economic handout McGuinty would have even more trouble trying to balance a budget. You can draw your own conclusions about the resultant economic well being of your version of Canada. I am sure there will be pixie dust, sugar plums and other wonderful things in your dreams.
eureka @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:08 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Do you know that oil, by dollar value, represents roughly 10% of Canadian exports? Would you then be prepared to concede that at least 90% of the determination of our currency value is NOT based on oil?
No, and you know it does not work that way. The argument is about the same as the climate deniers saying that the little extra CO2 we provide above the natural emissions is harmless.
Gunnair @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:12 am
Lemmy, you are a petrodollar denier.
eureka @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:15 am
ince the gunny rag can not see beyond Wiki, here is one little Wiki piece for him. It is short so not beyond his scope.
There areliterally, thousands of such references and statements by economists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency
Gunnair @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:25 am
eureka eureka:
ince the gunny rag can not see beyond Wiki, here is one little Wiki piece for him. It is short so not beyond his scope.
There areliterally, thousands of such references and statements by economists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency
There areliterally, thousands of such references and statements by economists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency
The wiki-warrior cometh and he wields a keyboard.
A lot easier than getting an actual education, eh?
Lemmy @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:27 am
eureka eureka:
Lemmy Lemmy:
Do you know that oil, by dollar value, represents roughly 10% of Canadian exports? Would you then be prepared to concede that at least 90% of the determination of our currency value is NOT based on oil?
No, and you know it does not work that way. The argument is about the same as the climate deniers saying that the little extra CO2 we provide above the natural emissions is harmless.
No, there is nothing about the relationship between exports and the value of our currency that is ANYTHING like the science of climate change. Nice bait and switch, combined with an outright dodge though.
Was your "no" to Question #1, Question #2 or are you refusing to answer my first two simple questions? Oil accounts for 10% of our exports. How, therefore, can oil be any more than 10% responsible for our currency's value?