Fox Business Hearts Canada

Robert Sinche, RPS Global head of FX Strategy, on why Canada is able to cut corporate taxes for the fourth year straight…

Watching this brief report gives you a pretty clear idea of how unbelievably simplistic business news coverage is on cable networks like Fox Business and CNBC.

I wonder how many Fox viewers might be a tad confused by this fairly glowing assessment of the Canadian economy after having been incessantly told for years by right-wing pundits on its sister channel that we are a hopeless nation of raving socialists. What a shame that the expert here didn’t mention that it was a “liberal” government that handled the “major restructuring” in the 90s… that would have really blown their minds.

Update: Heh. Seems the story has migrated over to the “News” arm of Fox with a piece featuring New York Congressman Chris Lee (R) warning that the U.S. must follow Canada’s lead in lowering corporate tax rates or face the prospect of businesses migrating north. As if…



Filed under Economy, Liberals, Media

13 responses to “Fox Business Hearts Canada

  1. Whoever the host is in the first video is wrong. Canada’s corporate tax rate is not half of the American rate. Canada’s rate is federal + province. Federally we have an 18% rate but the provinces each have one ranging between 10-16%. Though most states have an additional rate also, the gap is much smaller than this host claimed.

  2. Never let pesky “facts” get in the way of a good argument.

    But seriously, I note that Paul Wells made a similar observation on Twitter about the combination of fed/prov tax rates.

  3. See what Globalism has wrought ? Now, Political Divisions (Nation-States) must compete for the provision of the low-cost business environments. The “winner” gets the jobs – but not the Corporate Revenue. The State can only raise revenue through personal taxation. But what happens when the Coporations up-and-leave for the next lower-cost Country ? What income is left to tax ?

    What a shit-mess.

  4. should have reac “Corporations”. My bad.

  5. burpster

    You really have to laugh at these snake-oil salesmen praising the very government regulations that saved us from the worst of the meltdown. The very same people selling deregulation and privatization as the gold-paved road.

    Do they not realize that when people have nothing, those same people are coming for their shit?

  6. ATY: At some point in time over the next half-century it might be expected that a level of global parity may exist whereby “low-cost business environments” aren’t so easy to come by. But meantime, in the zero-sum game of global economics, standards of living in the West will be steadily falling as those of the “emerging markets” are commensurately rising. The banksters are already betting heavily on this in the relative short-term, rapaciously plundering whatever they can from the West and throwing their resources and new investments into the “BRIC” countries (the acronym Goldman Sachs uses for Brazil, Russia, India and China).

  7. Burpster: Yeah, no kidding. Was there anything more cringe-inducing that watching Stephen Harper during the height of the financial meltdown prancing around Fox News praising the rock solid nature of our banking sector due to our stringent regulatory structure? What a flaming hypocrite. When heading up the Canadian Alliance, he would have gladly thrown all those onerous regulations into a rubbish heap and set them on fire! And it’s only by sheer luck that his initial, tentative efforts to open up the real estate mortgage market to competition happened when they did, otherwise we would have ended up in the same kind of mess. If Mr. Harper “the economist” had his druthers back in the day, we’d be in exactly the same foreclosure and banking crisis as our friends south of the border.

  8. jkg

    I am going to apologize for the commenting blitz, Red, but I am happy you are back so that we can delve into these things again! (Now, if only if Ti-Guy were to rejoin, but I digress).

    Once again, ATY has touched upon some of the writings and commentary that has covered the issue of globalization. Heaven forbid I should paraphase J.R. Saul (cue to caterwauling of elitism), but he said it best that multinationals, while some may have the size of some nation states in the world (hello GE), they are just aimless icebergs, floating around and bumping into whatever jurisdiction that would allow them to increase profits and thus, their executive compensation (and no, that is not a knee jerk reaction, I am keen on activist shareholding because I cannot tell you how many management circulars I have received in which the board of directors, most of whom are executives from other companies, attempted to transfer the control of executive compensation from the shareholders’ vote to the board themselves).

    In the old European imperial model, corporations previously were set up to channel capital and resources in the name of a nation (East India Trading Company tried to go beyond that and clashed with Westminster at times). In other words, there was at least an illusion or minimum understanding that these companies operated within the overall objective of the British Empire.

    Today, multinationals have practically no connection to any nation and just lumber along looking to see which nation will sweeten the deal for them.

    In Africa and other places with developing economies, the creation of “special economic zones” are a prime example of this. Basically, the IMF will pressure places like Gabon to create these zones where companies can build and operate. The companies will leverage their position to seek the least amount of taxation and other concessions with respect to labour laws and regulations from the country’s leader while promising jobs and economic growth from their business. Depending on the industry, the company, since they have so many exemptions in the “zone,” will sometimes just pick up and leave once they have determined that the environment is no longer conducive to their business.

    @ Red:

    The thing about globalization is that the integration of economies in geopolitical regions makes it easy for capital flight, a threat most of those banksters make. In addition, the continual integration into these economies means that the same asset managers who are looking for that ‘alpha’ in investment returns keep chasing whatever growth story in the BRIC (though recently, the runners up include South Africa). Ironically, because of this dynamic; it is hard to find safe haven from major risks in other markets. When the crash of 2008 was looming, people were extolling the “decoupling theory” which asserted that China had such a humdinger of an economy that it wouldn’t suffer a lot even if the U.S. entered a serious recession.

    We all know how that turned out.

  9. I was amused by your analogy of corporations as drifting icebergs, but that seems too benign and passive an object. I think they might perhaps be more accurately likened to a metaphorical type of Rickettsiae that perpetuates itself after the death of its host by opportunistically moving to a new target through some convenient vector…

  10. jkg

    Oh man, the Rickettsia! You deserve an applause for that nice microbial reference, Red. It is even more apt because that group is considered ‘in between’ viruses and true bacteria and cannot be grown in artificial nutrients. It can only be grown in tissue and embryo cultures as well.

  11. I’ve been reading “The Illustrious Dead” (great book about the role of typhus in Napoleon’s disastrous 1812 campaign) so the reference came naturally and seemed to be an appropriate fit.

  12. TofKW

    Interesting to equate the actions of corporations on host countries, to that of a parasitic microbes on biological hosts RT.

    It certainly fits, though I personally (through my enjoyment of the mob film genre) have considered the activities of modern corporations within host nations to be similar to that of organized crime getting their hands on legitimate businesses via gambling debts or other forms of extortion.

    Basically you take all the money and other assets out of the company, then leave the titular owner of the bankrupt remains to deal with the creditors.

    This analogy is certainly is how the US looks to me these days.

  13. Definitely. I don’t think it could be disputed that comparisons to the methodologies of a criminal racket are entirely appropriate when discussing the actions of corporations. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to point out the legitimate differences in the case of the banksters and other modern day “robber barons”…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s