So the Conservatives want to do maximum business with China, including Chinese ownership of Canadian Natural resources. The socialists, on the other hand, are much more reluctant to do business with a communist country. Go figure.
This from a CBC news story.
With a federal review of China's National Offshore Oil Corp.'s (CNOOC) $15.1-billion bid to buy Calgary-based Nexen Inc. currently under way, the Conservatives are said to be leaning favourably towards the deal but Mulcair appears to be siding the other way.Furthermore, there once was a time a country guarded its knowledge. There was such a thing as economic espionage, and people engaging in that were dealt with harshly. Today, what's the point. The knowledge belongs to the multi-national corporations. A person running for the Presidency of the US has been a pioneer in outsourcing jobs to China. Skilled employees at companies owned by Bain Capital are required to train untrained Chinese workers in their skill. After the training the jobs and equipment goes to China. I can see how this is good for Bain Capital, but fail to see how this can be good for the USA.
Stopping short of saying the Conservatives ought to reject the deal, the NDP leader said "why in heaven's name would we give up our own resources that way to another country?""We're not dealing on an even playing field with Communist China. They have state resources, they don't accept the rule of courts, they don't follow environmental procedures," said Mulcair.
While Harper said the CNOOC bid did not come up during his meeting with China's President Hu Jintao during a bi-lateral meeting at the Asia Pacific summit in Russia last week, Harper did indicate he wants to open investment to China as long as it is willing to reciprocate.
And the pioneer of this kind of outsourcing is running for President! Go figure.
A few years ago, I read a book called "Thinking Beyond Stage One". The basic point was that many people - particularly liberals - think about the immediate action of a policy, but don't ask what happens next. I do believe liberals have good intentions for the most part, but they use too much emotion, and not enough logic. I believe running through 90% of issues with this filter, shows how liberals don't think through the consequences of actions.
ReplyDeleteIn the case above, what would happen if jobs were not outsourced? Imagine if Canada decided to never outsource any jobs, what would happen? Lets say you made computers, and refused to outsource it to Taiwan and China. A computer sold in the US (largely using outsourced manufacturing and parts) would cost $500, and one made in Canada would cost $2500 (this would roughly be the cost). The Canadian firm would go bankrupt if there was any form of free trade, as no one would buy their product for that price. If there was no free trade, then Canadians would drive across the border to buy computers, and if not that, the lower-middle class in particular in Canada would no longer own a computer in large numbers - it would simply be too expensive. As a result, general productivity of the nation would be down.
Its funny to me, that Romney, a man that helped start companies like Staples that now employees thousands of jobs, and helped restructure many companies to keep them competitive, is looked upon as destroying jobs. Meanwhile, a man like Obama who has no business sense, and never created a job outside of government, is supposed to be an authority. All Obama has done, is greatly increase regulations - thereby helping the mega corporations at the expense of small firms. Regulations put a higher fixed cost on businesses, something large firms can obviously absorb easier than small/medium businesses. I don't believe that was Obama's/liberals intent, but alas, he is inflicted with stage one thinking.
ReplyDeleteA more interesting comparison though is what the article was talking about. Letting other countries own another countries natural resources. Taking this past step one is easy for me and I do not see great positive in it. How does the many steps approach look to others when it comes to owning natural resources?
Mark
It’s a fair question, that I have not thought fully through. Those countries open to foreign investment- including natural resources - as a general rule do better than those that don’t. However, I would agree that on the surface having Canadian resources opened to Chinese investment doesn't appear wise. Given Harper in this article is noted as saying he wants to open investment to China, as long as its willing to reciprocate, I don’t have a good understanding of what the real motivation is. Its doubtful China will open up investment much, so perhaps he is merely trying to make China more self-aware.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about stage one thinking is certainly appropriate. However, I don't think the liberal/conservative categorization is helpful in discussing it.
ReplyDeleteExample: Military spending has been the largest single contributor to the US deficit. US military spending has gone up steadily since the mid 90s, regardless of who was president or who controlled congress. Yet I see the military response in today's world as totally stage one. All that money has been spent, and the world is not safer as a result.
Example: Allowing lobbyists to spend unlimited amounts of money in plying their trade surely has got to be stage one thinking. How can long term good come out of that?
With respect to outsourcing, are you saying all outsourcing is good, period? It would seem to me, that doing added value work with our oil before it is exported to China [or the US] would be good for us.
Deviating slightly from the CBC news story, but only slightly, is another question. Why is a Conservative government in Canada hell bent on exporting our oil as quickly as possible? This takes money, and this money is supposed to come from China. To be conservative, in my mind, would be to say: "there is a limited amount of oil on this planet. At one point it was uneconomical to mine our tar sands, but now with increased world oil prices, it has become economical. However, the demand for oil will not disappear, so we will make sure that whatever we do with the oil, it is safe. There is no need to hurry and take environmental short cuts." That would be reasonable, that would be conservative. But no, the essence of Harper's energy strategy is to export that oil as quickly as possible! The seems to be no other strategy.
Like I said: go figure!
Military spending is unclear. The world is still relatively safe (measured by 5000 years of recorded history) so its unclear what the situation would be with less spending. But net, I don't necessariy disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteOn outsourcing, of course I don't believe it is always good, but neither do I believe it is always bad. However, the way people paint Romney, by hating him as an outsourcer, they are the ones implying its always as bad.
On oil, Harper may be entirely rational, and not doing a static analysis. If under today's technology and consumption rates, there are 100 years of reserves, surely with technology advancements and substitutes to alternative energy the real life of the reserves is much higher.
But the bigger point on stage one thinking, is that I do believe in general, that liberals don't ask what happens next as much as conservatives. Looking at same-sex marriage, extended unemployment insurance, higher taxes on the rich, forcing banks to lend to the poor, recent financial regulations (hurting the small firms the most)and many more are all issues where people are not/did not, ask the consequences. Why are liberals more susceptible to this kind of thinking than conservatives in my view? They focus more on feelings, and doing what feels compassionate.