Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: free trade
Message-ID: <31@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 00:45:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.31
Posted: Tue Oct  1 00:45:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 02:28:53 EDT
References: <2518@watcgl.UUCP> <13@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2530@watcgl.UUCP> <19@ubc-cs.UUCP> <819@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <819@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>
>     The US government and State governments subsidize industry in the
>US.  Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't been looking (deliberately?).
>When jobs are at stake, the Fed. Gov. can and often does give tax
>relief to industries and sometimes actual funding.  Canada, from what
>I've heard does *less* of this.  Some of the best places to locate
>industry right now are the US Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama).
>Get in touch with various Chambers of Commerce and State industrial
>commissions and find out why.  This sort of card stacking works.  Many
>industries *are* locating south of the boarder *specifically* due to
>the insentives.  You can look at border import duties as a similar
>card stacking attempt on a national scale.  I see no moral difference.

I was under the impression that companies (both US and foreign) were
relocating to the sun-belt due to the existence of right-to-work
legislation in those states. I know of at least one major *Canadian* 
company that intends to expand its sun-belt plant(s) at the expense of 
its Canadian plants for just this reason. It already has access to the
Canadian market, and probably figures that it can kill two birds with one 
stone by using the aforementioned strategy - i.e. not only will it benefit
from looser (more realistic) labour laws, but also it will demonstrate
that it is a good "corporate citizen" by employing Americans thus helping
to dull the newly found protectionist tendencies of the US.

>............................  The US people feel it is their duty to
>buy American when the chips are down.  Currently, this may have
>some effect on our sales.  If you don't believe me take a trip through
>the US and talk to people.  Listen to what they say to each other.
>My father spends the winter in Florida and his American friends
>berate *him* (a Canadian!) for not buying US products!  

I am yet to hear anyone reconcile the "buy American" tenet (myth) attributed
to US citizens with the fact that the US has a projected trade deficit
of $150 billion (US). Doesn't sound like them Yankees are buying American 
to me. [And let's not forget California (pop. 25 million) where one out of 
every two new cars bought is an import.] Note that we have a trade *surplus*
(~$20 billion) thus  implying that Canadians "buy Canadian" (even if it is 
because we're coerced into doing so).

J.B. Robinson