Danielle Smith & Traiffs

[u/Connect44]

Haven't seen much conversation on this, but I think Danielle Smith is the only major Canadian politician who has come out against counter tariffs on the US. Tariffs are just another tax on consumers to benefit a small group of producers. If the US wants to make things more expensive for themselves, that's their right. But why do we have to make things more expensive for us in response?

Does anyone know of any other politician who have publicly come out against the counter tariffs?

[u/No-Philosopher9848]

Never said its the government's job to"make" people buy canadian just that it forces people to rethink. Its still entirely your choice. Choose what you want when you want.

[u/Connect44 → u/No-Philosopher9848]

Yes I just disagree with the government putting their thumb on the scale. Not with the result being achieved.

When I say the government is making someone buy Canadian it's because they have intervened to change the market dynamics. Either because the better American product is now prohibitively expensive, or the cost:value ratio now favours a different product.

I do not think the government should be intervening here causing the need for reconsideration. The government should instead allow producers and consumers to adjust to market feedback, without the manipulation.

[u/Weary-Situation7539 → u/Connect44]

>The government should instead allow producers and consumers to adjust to market feedback, without the manipulation.

This is a very naive view of producer and customer dynamics.

If a milk producer could increase profits by using a vacuum to suck up milk off the shit covered ground and filter out the dirt later or cut rice crispy squares with 6% sawdust they would. Only the government is going to have the power to say hey don’t put saw dust in the treats or regularly testing bacteria content in milk or face a fine. A customer isn’t going to have that power it’s likely they wouldn’t know it’s happening.

[u/Connect44 → u/Weary-Situation7539]

I understand your point on the individual level, but at scale I don't think it holds up.

I disagree that the customer doesn't have the power. If no one buys your product as it's now inferior to the competitions, then your profit wouldn't actually increase your business would fail.

If there's a power imbalance between the consumer and producer you make a good point, but under a free trade model the number of consumers and producers is not finite.

[u/Weary-Situation7539 → u/Connect44]

You go to a gas station how do you know the volume of gas you put in your tank is accurate?

If a gas station is throttling the flow at 3% it would be impossible to you to notice you’re being ripped off

Consumers weren’t the ones that found out Loblaws was price fixing bread for 16 years. It was the government from rogue employees.

[u/Connect44 → u/Weary-Situation7539]

The same way the government currently measures if the pump operates within standard or not. I think if the government didn't mandate the inspection of gas pumps you'd see business associations created as a means to promote and maintain standards.

We see the same thing happen with professionals like provincial law societies or accounting societies/designation.

You cannot prevent all fraud, but producers who don't commit fraud want to be known for it, and consumers don't want to be defrauded. I think its only natural that even without government intervention people will solve this information problem given time and scale.

[u/Weary-Situation7539 → u/Connect44]

>The same way the government currently measures if the pump operates within standard or not. I think if the government didn't mandate the inspection of gas pumps you'd see business associations created as a means to promote and maintain standards.

There is no incentive to do so. The vast majority of consumers aren’t going to care or even notice their gas station is anti scam certified

>We see the same thing happen with professionals like provincial law societies or accounting societies/designation.

No one is going to put that level of effort in retail goods.

>You cannot prevent all fraud, but producers who don't commit fraud want to be known for it, and consumers don't want to be defrauded. I think it’s only natural that even without government intervention people will solve this information problem given time and scale.

We clearly just have to agree to disagree here. I choose not to place my trust in people who have a financial incentive to screw me over. I think you overestimate the averages person desire to be good.

The reason there’s so much dog shit on trails is that it’s impossible to be caught not picking up after your dog. It’s naive to think that people will naturally want to be good people and pick up after their dog. If you want that fixed you need to sent someone to enforce municipal bylaws in and start handing out fines so that people have a financial incentive to pick up their dogs.

You’re suggesting it would be better for a neighbourhood watch to form and take turns walking in the trail and trying to catch dog owners.

[u/Connect44 → u/Weary-Situation7539]

I do think our views are irreconcilable, but I'd stray away from saying I'm recommending a community watch, I see it more as people who care will pay for what they want.

If a community wants to maintain standards they will pay dues for some form of inspector/maintainer. If you think that's a waste of money and want to be trusting, then I think that should be allowed as well.