[beanmedic]

And that's the greatest waste of taxpayer's dollars ever. Why the government has to fund trade "missions" to foreign countries is beyond me. Selling yourself to foreign markets is part of the price of doing business that shouldn't be 'externalized' on to Canadian taxpayers. If Bombardier wants to open a plant in China, I don't see why Chretien should be stumping for them or we should be paying for the sell.

Taxpayer dollars - however you want them spent - should be benefitting Canadians not corporate executives and shareholders.

There is of course the argument that helping Canada become more successful in forign trade strengthens our economy, thus benefitting Canadians.

I work for a manufacturing company and deal a lot with expanding into foreign markets. We've developed new markets which has resulted in more work for the company overall. This created the need for more workers to help with the extra work. Now, we're small fries when it comes down to it, but I would argue that more trade business is a good thing for Canadian companies. It doesn't stop at our factory either, we need more raw material and supplies, and on and on.

Free trade has a big effect on our economy and is something worth growing, especially with a country like China.

Hopefully your company becomes really successful so they can take advantage of NAFTA and move the operation to mexico!

[cferneyh]

And that's the greatest waste of taxpayer's dollars ever. Why the government has to fund trade "missions" to foreign countries is beyond me. Selling yourself to foreign markets is part of the price of doing business that shouldn't be 'externalized' on to Canadian taxpayers. If Bombardier wants to open a plant in China, I don't see why Chretien should be stumping for them or we should be paying for the sell.

Taxpayer dollars - however you want them spent - should be benefitting Canadians not corporate executives and shareholders.

There is of course the argument that helping Canada become more successful in forign trade strengthens our economy, thus benefitting Canadians.

I work for a manufacturing company and deal a lot with expanding into foreign markets. We've developed new markets which has resulted in more work for the company overall. This created the need for more workers to help with the extra work. Now, we're small fries when it comes down to it, but I would argue that more trade business is a good thing for Canadian companies. It doesn't stop at our factory either, we need more raw material and supplies, and on and on.

Free trade has a big effect on our economy and is something worth growing, especially with a country like China.

Hopefully your company becomes really successful so they can take advantage of NAFTA and move the operation to mexico!

Yeah! Just like all of these companies - who employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians - have done.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.globeinvestor.com/series/top1000/tables/companies/2005/">http://www.globeinvestor.com/series/top ... nies/2005/</a><!-- m -->

For example, it was a sad, sad day when Encana took their 4,000 employees to Mexico. Errr, nevermind.

[beanmedic]

And that's the greatest waste of taxpayer's dollars ever. Why the government has to fund trade "missions" to foreign countries is beyond me. Selling yourself to foreign markets is part of the price of doing business that shouldn't be 'externalized' on to Canadian taxpayers. If Bombardier wants to open a plant in China, I don't see why Chretien should be stumping for them or we should be paying for the sell.

Taxpayer dollars - however you want them spent - should be benefitting Canadians not corporate executives and shareholders.

There is of course the argument that helping Canada become more successful in forign trade strengthens our economy, thus benefitting Canadians.

I work for a manufacturing company and deal a lot with expanding into foreign markets. We've developed new markets which has resulted in more work for the company overall. This created the need for more workers to help with the extra work. Now, we're small fries when it comes down to it, but I would argue that more trade business is a good thing for Canadian companies. It doesn't stop at our factory either, we need more raw material and supplies, and on and on.

Free trade has a big effect on our economy and is something worth growing, especially with a country like China.

Hopefully your company becomes really successful so they can take advantage of NAFTA and move the operation to mexico!

Yeah! Just like all of these companies - who employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians - have done.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.globeinvestor.com/series/top1000/tables/companies/2005/">http://www.globeinvestor.com/series/top ... nies/2005/</a><!-- m -->

For example, it was a sad, sad day when Encana took their 4,000 employees to Mexico. Errr, nevermind.

What is that proof of?

[VioletlightHeron]

That capitalism isnt totally obsessed with lowering costs, as Karl Marx is famous for alleging, in a race to the bottom.

[beanmedic]

That capitalism isnt totally obsessed with lowering costs, as Karl Marx is famous for alleging, in a race to the bottom.

ok, but that link is not proof. It is a list of canadian companies. logically, companies that have moved would be excluded.

[cferneyh]

That capitalism isnt totally obsessed with lowering costs, as Karl Marx is famous for alleging, in a race to the bottom.

ok, but that link is not proof. It is a list of canadian companies. logically, companies that have moved would be excluded.

It's proof that hundreds of multi-million dollar Canadian companies have not fled to Mexico once they got large.

Now, show me a similar list of Canadian companies that have moved to Mexico.

Of course, knowing you you'll simply ignore this and move onto some other illogical and nonsensical argument. Though it will be tough for you to top your claim that lower prices for admissions to museums makes poor Canadians healthier.

[chancellor]

but from the top 50 of your list of these canadian companies, its good to see theres a large representation from the financial markets. several oiling and mining companies, very few manufacturers in the top 50. i believe 1 counted 3 in the manufacturer sector.

Why would the bank of nova scotia move to mexico???

[beanmedic]

That capitalism isnt totally obsessed with lowering costs, as Karl Marx is famous for alleging, in a race to the bottom.

ok, but that link is not proof. It is a list of canadian companies. logically, companies that have moved would be excluded.

It's proof that hundreds of multi-million dollar Canadian companies have not fled to Mexico once they got large.

Now, show me a similar list of Canadian companies that have moved to Mexico.

Of course, knowing you you'll simply ignore this and move onto some other illogical and nonsensical argument. Though it will be tough for you to top your claim that lower prices for admissions to museums makes poor Canadians healthier.

I have looked, but I'm not even sure where to look for a list like that.

please try to understand: educated people are healthier. museums are one component of all the things that contribute to education. you learn from museums. please dont re-word my argument to make it sound foolish ("lower prices for admissions to museums makes poor Canadians healthier").

[Sam]

We've developed new markets which has resulted in more work for the company overall. This created the need for more workers to help with the extra work.

Sure, some businesses might find they benefit a bit from the emerging market. But isn't one of the costs of doing business paying for your own growth? Or getting investors to pay for it with the promise of a share in future profits? If our gov't should curtail the money it spends supporting actual Canadians in need, why should it make money available to multi-national corporations with questionable business ethics and monumental profits?

I'm never more amused than when people who would deny welfare to a single mother (because it creates a culture of dependence!) are more than willing to hand cash to corporations because it 'aids growth.' Aren't you afraid of making corporations dependent on our largesse? They'll never learn to stand on their own 2 feet if we don't stop molly-coddling them! Stop corporate welfare before we're faced with a generation of corporate executives too imcompetent to make a business decision without a government handout!

Incidently, Bombardier has opened mass transit railcar plants in China and Mexico while closing plants in Kingston, Vancouver and a number of plants in Germany. Interestingly enough, in Mexico, the Canadian executives are housed in a walled compound surrounded by armed guards. Apparently the poor people in Mexico aren't all that chuffed with starvation wages.

So if you're actually trying to compile a list... you can add them to the list of companies moving to cheap labour.

And Volvo - not a Canadian company, but it closed plants in Nova Scotia for the lure of Mexico. But you can't trust Swedes, can you? Down with ABBA!

[cferneyh]

Incidently, Bombardier has opened mass transit railcar plants in China and Mexico while closing plants in Kingston, Vancouver and a number of plants in Germany. Interestingly enough, in Mexico, the Canadian executives are housed in a walled compound surrounded by armed guards. Apparently the poor people in Mexico aren't all that chuffed with starvation wages.

Bombardier employs 79,000 people in 24 countries including 24,495 in Canada.

Yeah, they suck.

:roll:

[cferneyh]

I have looked, but I'm not even sure where to look for a list like that.

please try to understand: educated people are healthier. museums are one component of all the things that contribute to education. you learn from museums. please dont re-word my argument to make it sound foolish ("lower prices for admissions to museums makes poor Canadians healthier").

So you have no evidence to back up your assumption that successful Canadian companies move to Mexico? Gee, that's surprising. Because you've had such great evidence to back up your claims so far.

Re-word your argument? You continue to maintain that a museum is not one place that the Canadian gov't should look to cut funds - rather than programs for the poor and impoverished - because - apparently, museums will educate these same poor people and make them healthy. It's a ridiculous stretch. I haven't had to re-word it. If I have, explain how my re-wording is different from your statement.

[cferneyh]

but from the top 50 of your list of these canadian companies, its good to see theres a large representation from the financial markets. several oiling and mining companies, very few manufacturers in the top 50. i believe 1 counted 3 in the manufacturer sector.

Why would the bank of nova scotia move to mexico???

Actually, it was a list of 1000. That was the first page.

Also, maybe - just maybe - it means that Canada's economy isn't as dependent on the manufacturing sector as it is on other sectors, making bean's "Mexico" comment even more ridiculous. Did you know that the service economy accounts for 3 out of 4 Canadian jobs? Of course you didn't.

[Sam]

Incidently, Bombardier has opened mass transit railcar plants in China and Mexico while closing plants in Kingston, Vancouver and a number of plants in Germany. Interestingly enough, in Mexico, the Canadian executives are housed in a walled compound surrounded by armed guards. Apparently the poor people in Mexico aren't all that chuffed with starvation wages.

Bombardier employs 79,000 people in 24 countries including 24,495 in Canada.

Yeah, they suck.

:roll:

There is the slight possibility that I know something of Bombardier's recent history that would cast those numbers in a different light.

Over the last 15 years, Bombardier has consistently closed profitable plants in established, industrial countries while opening plants in 'developing' countries. In their defense, most of the plants in Germany were bought with the sole intention of closing them, so that had more to do with getting rid of their competition than anything else. In an attempt to raise their stock value (which has flirted with "junk" status in the last few years) they have pursued policies for short term profit at the expense of Canadian workers. And they have done this while continuing to benefit from gov't corporate largesse.

Even the Globe has reported that, so you can't claim it's a left-wing conspiracy or a manipulation of data for socialist purposes.

Perhaps there's some board history re. political discussions that I'm unaware of, but there's no need to be offended or offensive when people disagree with you. Vote Conservative if you wish - open a shrine to Stephen Harper for all I care - but don't act like people on the other side of the political spectrum are half-wits for disagreeing with you.

[cferneyh]

Vote Conservative if you wish - open a shrine to Stephen Harper for all I care - but don't act like people on the other side of the political spectrum are half-wits for disagreeing with you.

I started to get involved in this discussion when someone - not you - said that anyone who chose Harper was "probably retarded". So, in defending a pro-Harper stance I'm treating others like half-wits? Uh, OK.

Sam, I'm not sure what I have said to you to make you think that I find you a half-wit. You clearly aren't. I just don't happen to think that a company that employs 25,000 Canadians is a great example of a company that has abandoned Canada for Mexico. You can question BBD's practices (and as a shareowner with shares solidly in the red, I do all the time), but they haven't exactly picked up shop and left for Mexico.

[Sam]

Sam, I'm not sure what I have said to you to make you think that I find you a half-wit. You clearly aren't.

Well, thank you. :oops:

And, for the record, I don't think that people who vote for Harper are "retarded" - I doubt anyone really thinks that. I can't see the appeal of the party or the leader, but then I don't particularly care for Orlando Bloom either and there are about 1 000 000 000 screaming fangirls who disagree with me. Differences of opinion make the world go around - and allow for Bloom's career.

Now, enough of the love in:

I just don't happen to think that a company that employs 25,000 Canadians is a great example of a company that has abandoned Canada for Mexico. You can question BBD's practices (and as a shareowner with shares solidly in the red, I do all the time), but they haven't exactly picked up shop and left for Mexico.

I'm a shareholder too - and I'm married to a longtime Bombardier employee, so perhaps I see them in a slightly different light than the normal shareholder might. They are expanding in places like Mexico and contracting in North America and Europe. They cooked their books for decades and gambled with and lost our pension money in their half-baked schemes to monopolize the transportation industry. And, they take more corporate welfare than any other corporation in Canada.

Sigh. When it comes to Bombardier, I'm afraid my mind is absolutely made up.