So, the Finance Minister wants retailers to roll back prices because the Canadian dollar has climbed to parity with the US. It is quite obvious that Flaherty either has no idea of how international commerce works or he has spent too much time staring at this navel to know what happens in business as a whole.
Recently I bought a specialty mirror in the US for a project in Canada. The wholesale price to me was $US600, the same price as is charged to US companies like mine . In the US the mirror retails for $US1000. The US retailer after paying shipping and taxes has a gross profit (before selling, warehousing, and other expenses) of $280.
If I retailed the same mirror in Canada at $1000, assuming parity with US pricing, my gross profit would be $65. In addition to similar shipping costs that the US dealer incurs, I pay broker fees, shipping to Custom inspectors (so they can make sure that it is in fact a mirror and not... I assume... meat or dope or something else), time spent to move the import around the bureaucracy and a higher corporate tax rate.
In order to make the same gross profit on the mirror as my US counterpart, I have to sell the mirror for $1330. So much for FREE TRADE. And so much for Jim Flaherty.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Arrogance of the politicos
I spent all last week trying to get a federal or an Ontario politician to listen to a visitor from California who was an expert in the area of researching the causes of action of violent offenders and AD/HD sufferers. Red Hodges is the Chairman of the Violence Research Foundation, a California-based non-profit organization which is trying to make a difference for people. VRF wants to raise the profile in Canada of what is being done in California, to help reduce the incidence of violent offenses and to help treat AD/HD children.
What is the response of Canadian politicos? It runs the gamut from "Let me put you on hold so that you can talk to my assistant.", which is political-speak for "bug off" to "Let me see if I can get the MLA to call you back.", which is political speak, again, for "bug off".
We just went through a provincial election in Ontario wherein the politicians slapped themselves on the back saying that crime in Ontario is down, but also that we cannot rest until we eliminate crime. We also heard that Ontario must do more for AD/HD and autistic kids. We also have a federal government saying jail is where all offenders need to be... not house arrest or lesser forms of incarceration or alternate forms of treatment... and throw away the key.
If that is the case, why not listen to people like Red Hodges. Maybe we can all learn something new. Maybe our newfound knowledge can help our fellow Canadians. If we can reduce violent crime by treating the criminals as more than just political fodder, then maybe, just maybe, we reduce the number of victims. And that would be a good thing.
Stick around for updates.
What is the response of Canadian politicos? It runs the gamut from "Let me put you on hold so that you can talk to my assistant.", which is political-speak for "bug off" to "Let me see if I can get the MLA to call you back.", which is political speak, again, for "bug off".
We just went through a provincial election in Ontario wherein the politicians slapped themselves on the back saying that crime in Ontario is down, but also that we cannot rest until we eliminate crime. We also heard that Ontario must do more for AD/HD and autistic kids. We also have a federal government saying jail is where all offenders need to be... not house arrest or lesser forms of incarceration or alternate forms of treatment... and throw away the key.
If that is the case, why not listen to people like Red Hodges. Maybe we can all learn something new. Maybe our newfound knowledge can help our fellow Canadians. If we can reduce violent crime by treating the criminals as more than just political fodder, then maybe, just maybe, we reduce the number of victims. And that would be a good thing.
Stick around for updates.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
John Tory blows another one
By now most Ontarians and likely most Canadians will know that the Liberals won the 2007 Ontario election. A great deal has been made of the failure of the Conservatives to make their anticipated breakthrough in Toronto and other areas of Ontario. The failure of the Conservatives, however, was not hanging their hats on a divisive and unpopular issue of private school funding. The real blooper was making John Tory their leader.
I am not talking about Blue Tories versus Red Tories. It is easy to say that the radical right wanted a Harris-clone as a leader and that they refused to follow a less foaming-at-the-mouth leader such as John Tory.
The blunder was to run an American-style election in Canada. Attack ads seems to work in the US. I'm guessing because the Civil War is really not over in the US. But in Canada, we have respect for other Canadians, even if we disagree with their views. To run an ad over and over calling McGuinty a liar in everything but name was fine for about a week but when the tactic wasn't seen to be working, it was time to change the tactic. All the attack ads did was turn people off.
Where were the positive platform ads? They were there but they got lost in the attack ads. The Conservative brand was lost in the fog of war.
But what did the Conservatives expect? You can argue that the yellow-ties in the back rooms of the Conservative campaign were inexperienced but, hey, the leader had all the election organizing experience in the world. John Tory had run the federal campaign for Kim Campbell. Remember Kim? No? That's OK, she wasn't around long enough to leave an impression. While she had the ignominious task of running as Conservative leader following the less-than-popular Brian Mulroney, her campaign finally crashed when John Tory authorized the ultimate attack ad mocking the result facial disfiguration from a medical affliction against Jean Chretien.
I wonder what would have happen if the Conservatives and John Tory had decided to run a positive campaign instead a negative one. I guess we will never know.
I am not talking about Blue Tories versus Red Tories. It is easy to say that the radical right wanted a Harris-clone as a leader and that they refused to follow a less foaming-at-the-mouth leader such as John Tory.
The blunder was to run an American-style election in Canada. Attack ads seems to work in the US. I'm guessing because the Civil War is really not over in the US. But in Canada, we have respect for other Canadians, even if we disagree with their views. To run an ad over and over calling McGuinty a liar in everything but name was fine for about a week but when the tactic wasn't seen to be working, it was time to change the tactic. All the attack ads did was turn people off.
Where were the positive platform ads? They were there but they got lost in the attack ads. The Conservative brand was lost in the fog of war.
But what did the Conservatives expect? You can argue that the yellow-ties in the back rooms of the Conservative campaign were inexperienced but, hey, the leader had all the election organizing experience in the world. John Tory had run the federal campaign for Kim Campbell. Remember Kim? No? That's OK, she wasn't around long enough to leave an impression. While she had the ignominious task of running as Conservative leader following the less-than-popular Brian Mulroney, her campaign finally crashed when John Tory authorized the ultimate attack ad mocking the result facial disfiguration from a medical affliction against Jean Chretien.
I wonder what would have happen if the Conservatives and John Tory had decided to run a positive campaign instead a negative one. I guess we will never know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
