More Lost Revenue....

[internet]

Hey J.O.

The Mayans are wrong, the world isn't ending, so go ahead and eat those cans of beans you paid too much for.

Doesn't matter what I do. I'm not the lowest paid and I owe my employer nothing. See, I offer to sell my skills and labour and they are willing to pay a price - a price we both agree on because I keep going. That's the important thing. My skills and labour are a commodity, like corn, barley and airplane seats. It's why AC charges more on the 23rd of Dec than some Tuesday in Feb. It's probably why KLM was cheaper than AC on my next flight to the UK.

I'm not going to feel bad or guilty taking KLM to London instead of AC - the two hours I spend in AMS is worth to $195 I saved. In your world I'm evil and the killer of health care. In my world, I'm participating exactly as I should in the only system we've come up with that works.

If you feel you owe something to the $70 tire guy - feel that way. But he's ripping you off and I don't owe him or you or AC's Tango fare anything.

[CanadaEH]

And still (not surprisingly) you dodge the basic fundamental question, which is, what are YOU willing to sacrifice so that the next cheapo consumer can save a few bucks? What do you do for a living? Are you the lowest paid in your line of work? Because if you're not, you're ripping off your friends and neighbours. So be a good sport and tell your boss that next week's pay can be 40% less, for the good of everyone.

Since you're so convinced that cheaper is always better, the next time someone you care about needs major surgery or is diagnosed with cancer, dig out your chequebook and start writing a whack of zeros in the amount column, because the slippery slope you would take us down has no money for health care. And don't forget to tell your kids that their future includes living in a rented home that's falling apart, right next to the drug dealers and prostitutes. Remind them that there's no shame in having to choose between tonight's dinner and watching the cartoons on Saturday morning, since they won't have the money to afford food for their kids and pay the electric bill.

What a pile of BS.

Here's an example of what I pay taxes on:

Income Tax

Property Taxes on two properties

Property Transfer taxes

GST/PST/HST on everything: food, gas, hydro, cable, internet, cell phone, automobiles, homes, alcohol, toys, clothes, insurance, etc. etc.

Capital gains tax

Carbon Tax

Bridge Tolls

I get taxed to death supporting my country and community so I don't feel bad spending what little money I have left in the US on things that cost 40% less than they do in Canada. Your overdramatic example is BS.

[J.O.]

Was I being overdramatic? Absolutely. Guilty as charged.

But so is saying you're "taxed to death" while you're posting to the AEF from the green side of the grass and the comfort of your couch. I suspect there's a bit of a difference between your definition of what little you have left and what the minimum wage part timers in the big box stores would use to define it.

It's also being overly dramatic to accuse someone of being stupid for being willing to look beyond their own wallet. We can disagree over our values, but that doesn't make me (or you) stupid.

It is also being overly dramatic to say that the $70 tire guy is ripping you off, when you've never looked at his books and never considered that maybe he can't get tires from the supplier for the same price as Mr USA big box, who can sell at least 10 times as many tires as the guy in Canada and doesn't have to worry about all of those pesky taxes that the guy in Canada pays; or that maybe he pays his people for their loyalty and productivity; or that maybe he offers them a supplementary health insurance plan; or that maybe he's barely breaking even and struggling to stay afloat. If he's willing to compensate his people that way and struggling to compete, then he must be stupid too. How long will he continue to be willing to pay his people that way? And what happens to those people when he tells them that it's either take a pay cut to survive, or die? The answer is that the race to the bottom continues. I believe that at some point it has to stop before there's no one left but the "one percenters" to buy a ticket for the race.

Henry Ford once said that he had to pay his people enough money so that they could afford to buy the cars they were building, otherwise it wouldn't be long before he'd have no one to sell them too. While that may be somewhat simplistic, it is also quite realistic. At some point, we need to consider what the "Walmartization" of our economy is doing to the lifestyle we've collectively come to expect. Everything has a cause and effect. And human nature often gets in the way of what could be better, if we choose to take a broader view than just our own bank balance.

Much discussion has been had on this board about the threat that certain carriers are making against our airlines in the western world. The free marketers would tell us that the only choice is to allow them to take what they want. Many of us have heard how the "unskilled" working stiffs at those carriers are forced to live. I certainly hope that none of our children has to live that way. But if we're willing to accept that reality as a normal condition of being competitive, then we must also be willing to say that more of our own citizens need to barely get by. Who on this board will step forward and be the first to volunteer? It's certainly not going to be me, at least not without a fight.

I've twice become unemployed because someone came along with an offer to do what we did cheaper. It came as no surprise to me when those same people faced the same reality just a few years later. The only winners in those scenarios are the bankruptcy lawyers and few investors and senior executives who conveniently resign on the eve of the collapse so they can dodge their legal responsibilities to compensate their workers and keep their big house with the 4-car garage. IMHO, it all stems from our need to devalue someone else's wares just to save a buck. We all love to get a deal, but none of us likes to lower our price for the other guy to get that deal.

It may be the only system we have but it's still has many flaws. My dad loves to say, "You can't be the solution when you're being part of the problem". It's my opinion that we have a problem and that we're all fiddling while Rome slowly burns. Take some time to read the linked articles in Trader's posting about bank fraud.

http://theairlineweb...big-bank-mafia/

It reaffirms for me that we're all puppets in the same play and that the man with the strings gets a kick out of watching us fight over pennies while he collects his millions.

That, IMHO, really is stupid.

[Don Hudson]

Excellent post, J.O.

internet and of course many others here and elsewhere, express the common view of the vast majority and they're right - it's quite "normal" and acceptable if one sees the world and portrays the world as a dog-eat-dog world. The view is neither fresh nor original. This is the way it works in good times and bad and has done so forever.

However, internet's view and the millions who hold such views does not account for the various "springs" that are occuring around the world where people actually do think about their circumstances and aim for something better. The fact that the world is such doesn't make it "right" nor does it make it "wrong"; -in fact such political economy and social arrangements have no intrinsic value at all including the moral high ground; - they just "are". And we can't even say such people are "better". It is upon these loose foundations that such views coat-tail an economy that is partitioning off "the many" while creating a group which, if "tough enough", will be the ones to survive - they even claim the high moral ground in some cases.

But we cannot deny that the various "Spring" movements are as much "fact" as the present, institutionalized, legalized corporate greed and an abiding individual selfishness, exacerbated by manufactured scarcity and fear, which at times takes one's breath away.

Some do see a world where most, and not just a few, can survive quite nicely, while others view the world through survivalists' eyes. It reminds me of all those gold-bugs of the 70's and 80's who then as now, figure the world is going to hell in a handbasket and the only one's to find "salvation", (survival for what?), are those who look after themselves with actual bars of gold in their basement while the rest of us can't access our money because it's all vapourous electrons and pixels. It's an attractive and powerful image with a well-worn track record. It's the kind of view that people like Sarah Palin rode high on for a short little while before even reasonable right-wingers saw her view of the world for what it really was. It is the view of the world upon which the Republican Party is accessing the absolute worst aspects of human nature - fear, doubt, insecurity, avarice and anger, all in a bid for centralizing power in a right-wing ideology that "works". All one has to do is take a look at what many of the Republican state governments are touting as "reasonable" to see the stark contrast between intelligent, considered thinking and an emerging ideology which has captured the imagination of almost 50% of the population.

It may not be the Harper government "writ-large" yet but the smell of such is in the political winds and not wholly from our present leaders - the Harper government is curiously popular. I think it is popularity through naivete but that's a personal view which, clearly, most do not hold. Such a world view as espoused by the right is perfectly rational and as such justifiable and even home-spun. But in fact it is social darwinism at its most destructive and heinous because it works so well and appears so logical and doesn't require the tough thinking that a more subtle and reasonable social policy requires.

A lot of people agree with your view J.O., and have for decades - but government is not beholden to us - we are "given" the privilege of voting every so often and then are expected to "go away and be compliant" while government and big business continue their collusions. It is an old game. Like the survivalist's view of the world, the present portrayals and circumstances are not new - they existed at the turn of the nineteenth century as "ordinary people" were summarily dismissed in favour of the few, and with the same kind of arguments. People often say that if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. The elixir of raw power politics is far too irresistible for learning however. The power of an idea comes from its "get on board before its too late" sense...again riding on fear, insecurity and a deep desire to belong to a community...any community. The push-and-pull is not new and neither are the words. Old wine, new bottles. At present, corporate power supercedes government power in the U.S. and in Canada so government's ability to speak for ordinary people is ham-strung, for the moment. It's why most people climb on board...it just seems so right, until it is one's own ox that is the one being gored.

Don

[internet]

Few stories to pass the time:

1) Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

2) In January, under pressure from his Republican rivals, Romney released documents estimating that he had earned $20.9 million in 2011 and paid about $3.2 million in taxes, for an effective tax rate of about 15.4 percent. On a form requesting the extension, he estimated his taxes to be $3,226,623.

In 2011, Obama and his wife reported paying $162,074 in income taxes, an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent. That is a lower rate than in 2010, when the Obamas reported paying $453,770 in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of $1,728,096 - an effective tax rate of just over 26 percent.

3) West Wing) Sam : Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to because that's the only way it's gonna work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying.

[Seeker]

internet;

Very interesting stories but I do believe you've missed the point of all of them ( unless you're the tenth man in the story). The regular Canadian, according to the examples you have given, is better off with the current system than they would be with it's collapse - and should therefore spend their damn money in Canada!

[internet]

Spend their money in Canada? "Regular" Canadian and even the irregular ones spent $39 billion on crap in Canada in April alone. You think the system is going to collapse because AS is undercutting AC by $50 on a seat to Hawaii?

One day sooner than later, you're going to post some garbage about Harper killing Canadians when he turfs the dairy, egg and chicken marketing boards. The eggs will be deadly and the milk will be poison and hundreds of farmers will actually have to become productive and compete.

And the "regular" Canadian family will have $300 a year more in their pocket from the $$ they save from buying milk.

I type this on my iPhone, not a Canadian BlackBerry. You know, I wanted to have a cell from sometime post-2005. Hope that doesn't offend you.

[DEFCON]

Although I can appreciate all sides of this debate, I think we are collectively failing to see & recognize the fundamentals of the ailment that infects the globe? Rather than becoming truly informed and acting accordingly, we suck up the drivel coming from mainstream media and turn to blaming & fighting amongst ourselves which is a complete pleasure and the goal of those pulling the strings?

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON;

As George Carlin told us, "Earth ain't goin' anywhere. WE Are!" The rest are just details in the experiment, if we don't change our ways. But we won't change because it doesn't contribute to some corporation's bottom line and certainly doesn't fly in corporate board rooms. We are going to vote ourselves into oblivion, "Earth near point of no return, scientists warn Effects of civilization on planet threaten collapse of ecosystems in 50 years - with no going back", and this is from the Canwest organization!

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Earth+near+point+return+scientists+warn/6743401/story.html#ixzz1zODeriF1"

But of course these are only scientists and probably those guys all cheat, lie to us just to cause fear and doubt, fix the numbers and statistics and talk out of both sides of their mouth just to please business leaders, the electorate or whoever...

[J.O.]

One day sooner than later, you're going to post some garbage about Harper killing Canadians when he turfs the dairy, egg and chicken marketing boards. The eggs will be deadly and the milk will be poison and hundreds of farmers will actually have to become productive and compete.

Maybe it's crap because you just don't want to hear it, never mind consider that some of it might be true. There is evidence (should you choose to read it) that suggests that forcing higher production out of what is supposed to be a natural process can only be done by altering the process. That affects the nutritional value of the product. I know a fair bit about factory farms and how they increase production. If you get your way, I will stop buying farm products from grocery stores. I will be paying extra to buy from local farmers who don't use factory farm processes. One bout of cancer in my family was enough.

That will be my choice. I'm just concerned that the choice may be taken away from us in the name of money. Talk about stupid.

[DEFCON]

Don

I think we've passed the 'critical mass' point in our history and there's little chance of anything continuing for another 50 years? Our leaders and I almost choke when I apply that handle, know only one model; 'growth - jobs - babies'. D. Suzuki postulated that at 6.5B, our population was already 2.5B beyond earth's carrying capacity while others suggest we're already 4B over the top?

Regardless, there are too many of us competing for too few resources and all are being led by business types that have zero appreciation for anything outside of the money making mill.

Instead of common-sense, it'll only be war, disease or some type of natural calamity that thins us out.

[Seeker]

Spend their money in Canada? "Regular" Canadian and even the irregular ones spent $39 billion on crap in Canada in April alone. You think the system is going to collapse because AS is undercutting AC by $50 on a seat to Hawaii?

One day sooner than later, you're going to post some garbage about Harper killing Canadians when he turfs the dairy, egg and chicken marketing boards. The eggs will be deadly and the milk will be poison and hundreds of farmers will actually have to become productive and compete.

And the "regular" Canadian family will have $300 a year more in their pocket from the $$ they save from buying milk.

I type this on my iPhone, not a Canadian BlackBerry. You know, I wanted to have a cell from sometime post-2005. Hope that doesn't offend you.

Hey, internet, I'm not offended by anything you say. I'm simply pointing out that ducking across the border because it saves you personally a few bucks is short-sighted. I'm certainly no economics whiz but it seems pretty obvious that the way to prosperity for all of us does not start with spending your money outside the country whenever possible. If you don't support the Canadian economy, it won't be there to support you. Maybe you don't care about this - I do.

[Don Hudson]

The cross-border item is a local, vanishingly-small issue with more philosophical than material interest. The effect of "Shopping in Bellingham (or Buffalo)" etc upon our or any other economy is miniscule in comparison with the true "cross-border" issues which are 1) Private enterprise outsourcing labour to cheap countries for profits at home, and 2) Permitting China to branch-plant our material desires by letting their economic priorities into our households with every visit to Wallmart and the millions of other smaller businesses where one cannot buy home-made, meaning North American or Eureopean, goods anymore.

Let us consider where the notion, "Too expensive", comes from.

It's only too expensive if we can't afford it. Since the mid-70's, the neoliberal economy has driven wages down, private [sic] profits up and has made us first-line bidders for China's products vice our own because we've shipped high-paying jobs offshore. We can't even do what Henry Ford advocated in the 20's.

With government existing in the shadow of private enterprise, the means by which control is wrested from the board rooms and taken back to "Parliament" where such control of the social agenda belongs, is more doubtful than ever.

For those at the very top of private enterprise, they have it very, very good these days including the ability to buy elections in the United States. "Success" is defined as the ability to control a vast unruly population without firing a single shot. We are there, today.

THAT is the real cross-border issue. Private enterprise has arranged the world economy to suit them; screw the rest. And it has taken almost fourty years before the plucked goose has hissed and spit just a little bit before returning to its allotted compliant role of "going shopping".

Pithy though all this may sound, it only seems exaggerated because it looks at the tips of enormous mountains where the extremes are. But the entire landscape is increasingly ugly, all the way down.

Complaint begins at home. The notion of "cheap", where we want the cost of something to be just the cost of the material to make it, is extremely shortsighted.

If it isn't stupid just to accept this state of affairs and call it "success", I don't know what is.

Don

[Don Hudson]

Malcolm;

The other aspect of this is, it is not possible to isolate one's economy from all others, (and remain viable for long).

That doesn't mean "buy at home" isn't important. It means that one's own economy is always influenced by others now, because, electronically, there really is only "one" economy, with a number of smaller categories such as "Canada", Swizterland", "Germany", "Mexico", "China" and so on. Manufacturing-at-home and buying-at-home isn't isolationist and trade with other countries isn't outsourcing labour or "not-buying-at-home". It is when advantage is sought specifically in what I would call, "reverse isolationism" - sending the labour off-shore for narrow, short-term advantage, that the notions discussed here emerge and become more than philosophical points.

Don

[internet]

I'm debating with utopian seekers.

Spend your time wishing things to be whatever you want.

I'm going to focus on the real world.

The real world where 4.5 million Canadians flew out of US airports.

The real world where Canadians are spending a billion dollars on those 4.5million trips meaning conservatively $100million stays in their pockets.

The real world where, instead of your utopian hippie views of doing the right thing to save health care and the universe, maybe, just maybe, the competition of Bellingham, Buffalo and even Grand Forks makes YVR, YYZ, YWG and the feds see the light, become more competitive and bring back that billion dollars.

[Seeker]

Utopian? Thanks, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me today. You're right, I do wish things were different but you see when I spend my money in my local community or in my country I actually am doing something to contribute. A drop in the bucket? Maybe, but I also recycle my aluminium cans and turn off the light when I leave the room - what's that worth in the grand scheme of things? Not much, but I still do it.

I wonder why you haven't replied to the point raised by several posters here; that failing to support your local economy eventually means that there is no support for your business or source of income. I don't necessarily mean "your" in a personal sense but am referring to, perhaps, someone who works in manufacturing in southern Ontario but who drives the family over to BUF for the family vacation in Florida. Less money spent in Canada means less tax revenue, less tax revenue means tax rates go up, tax rates go up and manufacturing moves off-shore. Yup, the family saves some money on the vacation - doesn't do much good if their jobs disappear. The hope for them, obviously, is that they can have their cake and eat it too; they can drive across the border and save some money but everyone else should support whatever it is that brings in the money.

You say that if enough money is seen flowing out of the country that the government will lower taxes to try to get it back, I say that if the money never leaves in the first place that the rates will be lower.

[J.O.]

Seeker, you are trying to introduce logic and forward thinking into the debate. I didn't think that us hippies and tree huggers were capable of that!!!

[cp fa]

This quote has been on Facebook for a while, and I think it speaks to the theme of the "utopian thinkers" here, myself included, which is that making a conscious effort to spend your money in a way that supports your community has benefits that far outweigh (in most cases) the difference in cost. I'm always confused by people who will drive for hours, spend hundreds on gas, meals and hotel rooms so they can save a hundred bucks on a tv.

"When you buy from a small "mom and pop" business, you are not helping a CEO buy a third vacation home. You are helping a little girl get dance lessons, a little boy get his team jersey, a mom or dad put food on the table, a family pay a mortgage, or a student pay for college. Our customers are our shareholders, and THEY are the ones we strive to make happy. Thank you for supporting small businesses!"

[Don Hudson]

Jenn - I agree with you 100%. Fran and I shop locally as much as possible. Our priority is not "cheap" - buying "cheap" ignores both the true costs of production, and the needed "return" beyond the notion of "profit" - paying appropriately is part of the infrastructure of "community" -and community isn't necessarily only a physical place.

I would hesitate to call it utopian - it's just the right thing to do insofar as it is possible to do so. "Import/export" is a trade arrangement, not an offshore arrangement with secretive corporations and so we all have to find our comfort levels when things aren't made "in community". Our daughter spends a bit more to actively shops where Canadian goods are available and stuff from China and other predatory economies is not stocked. She recycles and re-uses perfectly good stuff tossed aside by others, and her (soon-to-be-in-July) husband hunt; one deer keeps them in meat for about a year; they have an active garden. A good friend and his wife have chosen Gabriola as a solution and shop almost exclusively very locally and sometimes in Nanaimo - they make/grow most of their food. These aren't unrealistic choices but they take work and mindfulness to do well. Packaging is another issue...

Our economy forces dependence upon us. I've never been sure what the notion of "progress" really meant, nor am I certain about the idea of "success". If anything it may have something to do with "living unremarkably" with a small footprint. But it is really difficult to do unreservedly, isn't it?

On a topic broached in another thread, I seem to recall when I chatted with him once about piano that Dave had once learned all the Beethoven Sonatas, or was working on them...does he still do them?

kind regards,

Don

[Seeker]

If anything it may have something to do with "living unremarkably" with a small footprint.

Don, this is a very interesting idea; "success" being the ability to live a large life with a small footprint. Thanks for that.

[internet]

Ok Seeker: "I wonder why you haven't replied to the point raised by several posters here; that failing to support your local economy eventually means that there is no support for your business or source of income."

No it doesn't. See, the way it works in the real world is this. People want money. Because when they have money, they can buy more crap. It's that simple. As hard as it is to believe that, money drives most people. They don't have enough of it and they want more. It's what drives business too - because the people who own business (shareholders) want more money.

I didn't invent this system. I didn't make people greedy. Don't blame me. But it's the way it works.

I support my local economy just fine by making them work for my money. I don't give a crap if the best value for my money is down the street or down the interstate. I don't owe anybody anything and I certainly am not going to give up more of my hard earned money just so I can support some local guy. If she earns my money through better value, better service, better prices whatever - then she will get lots of my money. If his prices are too high and I get more value buying in the US, too bad.

You think I feel guilty buying my last laptop on a trip to Alberta? Nope. Why? Because I give my province enough money, and I have around $75 more in my pocket today because I didn't pay PST.

It's why successful restaurants stay open and the crappy ones close. Money talks. If local guy's business fails, it's not my problem. I don't care. Compete or get lost. I don't owe anyone anything. And the 4.5 million Canadians who flew out of US border airports last year don't owe anyone anything either. You want my money - earn it.

[Seeker]

I don't owe anybody anything and I certainly am not going to give up more of my hard earned money just so I can support some local guy.

Yeah, we know, you said the same thing repeatedly, but you still haven't answered the question; how do you, or anyone else, expect that they can somehow step outside their local/national economy and get a free pass from the end result of what you propose? If you have a job in Canada or live in Canada you are affected by the transborder shopping. Now, as Don says, the net result is probably pretty small but nonetheless, there is an effect. Either the business that provides your income is affected or if you're independently wealthy and don't work at all you're still affected by the losses to the tax system or declining property values or increasing tuition fees etc.

Look, I'm not completely altruistic. I have bought stuff in Alberta to avoid the tax too. I won't buy something from a small business at any price. For example my Optometrist, while being very friendly and professionally skilled, charges absolutely outrageous prices for glasses. I buy elsewhere and don't feel guilty at all but if the prices were closer I'd buy from her because I want her to have the money to buy tickets from Air Canada at some time in the future.

[Don Hudson]

seeker, re, "I buy elsewhere and don't feel guilty at all but if the prices were closer I'd buy from her because I want her to have the money to buy tickets from Air Canada at some time in the future."

I think that's the "nexus" of the argument...(sorry..."Nexus" is an advanced-clearance cross-border/airport security pass those who may not know ) - that most of the time, we spend in our community because we want local businesses to do well - We made the choice to spend a bit more to do so and I think a lot of people are shifting their thinking towards avoiding "cheap" just for cheap's-sake because they know that the person that someone walked away from over a few dollars more could be their friend, relative, son/daughter, aquaintance, etc. That thinking that you're describing even extends to larger businesses as you say.

I think it is a serious mistake to consider "cheap" as the only measure of value and loyalty. Gradually, what we could call "market thinking hygiene" or perhaps less clinically, "market ecology", is moving towards a subtle mindfulness of the actual costs of products that we eventually send to our landfills.

With global trade the way it is structured, avoiding the enormous carbon footprint is difficult even when we buy locally. What would be a fascinating study to research, (and I'm sure that research has been done somewhere) is to categorize every single purchase made by "the average household" and trace it back to its origins in terms of locale of manufacture, associated corporate and labour environments, ecological considerations and so on. I think even a ten-thousand foot view would be interesting. After the major purchases, where does our "stuff" come from?, could be the title of the study.

Our "purchase footprint" broadcasts widely both physically and over time, (temporally) when we plunk down the card for an ordinary purchase. Buying locally is healthy because it intends to keep money local. We can't do that when the money we choose to spend "locally" instantly becomes part of a multi-national's massive balance sheet the legal headquarters of which will be located in the most tax-favourable place it can be...another story entirely, (google, "Visa Data Center")

The notion of "outrageous" in reference to prices certainly has currency but examined, again it comes down to ten-dollar bread in relation to what ordinary people are earning. A six-dollar coffee is indeed outrageous because I remember as a young adult paying a dime...and you could only shop "locally"! ;-)

It is towards this kind of "ecological" thinking, which does not dismiss our current economic activities or align itself with the "either/or" of "capitalism vs environment" memes but "places" them differently, that perhaps re-prioritizes "shopping". And then of course, there are millions, (Canada's population plus another 15 million men, women and children who are left entirely out of the Republican's notion and concept of "healthcare". According to the Republican Party the United States has the "best health care in the world". For his efforts in looking at every American and not just the institutionalized-privileged classes, Obama is called a "commie" and worse.

The point of bringing in a seemingly unrelated point is, there are fify million people who aren't even taking part in the U.S. economy because a Starbuck's coffee is out of their reach.

Don

[deicer]

Don,

Here's a primer....

[13820]

Brought to you by the Tides Foundation.

nuff said.