We do not need supply management to block US imports. Whenever you want to defend supply management, just remember what it is: a cartel. Nothing ever justifies a cartel.
Very respectfully, I’d disagree. I think it’s a question of trade-offs.
There’s a lot of research out there that shows Canadians end up paying slightly more for dairy, eggs and chicken on average. And that’s not something that should be shunted to the side — these are everyday staples, which means higher prices disproportionately impact poor Canadians.
But for me, the most important benefit that supply management has provided is that it’s been a protection against the monopolization of these industries that we’ve seen happen in the United States.
In these three industries, we’ve avoided so-called “chickenization,” which has been a huge problem for the Americans. And in fact, criticism of consolidation in the chicken industry is where a lot of the modern anti-monopoly rhetoric in the US began to take off. (Lina Khan was writing about “chickenization” for Washington Monthly well before she published her paper on Amazon and monopoly).
And because supply management allows many more small farms to be economically viable, rural Canada isn’t as hollowed out as rural America is.
But I think most important in today’s context is that smaller chicken operations make our overall system more resilient in the face of biological threats like avian flu.
And that’s before we even get into the animal welfare aspects. Mega-coops, like they have in the United States, might be more efficient, but I don’t think efficiency is the only thing we should value in this circumstance.
So I don’t think you’re wrong to be suspicious of or even opposed to our supply management regime. And like I said, there are very real aspects of it that negatively impact Canadians.
But for me, it becomes a debate about what you value more. And I do think that’s a debate worth having.
With respect to monopolization, a cartel is a monopoly, so supply management just *requires* monopolization.
As for protecting small family farms, at least in dairy, the number of farms has fallen from 145,000 to roughly 9,000 since supply management started, so they are not all that protected. Supply management really only protects large farms who can get the quotas.
In fact, that is one goal of a cartel: keep the number of members low so it is easier to maintain the collusive agreement. The cartel members win and everyone else loses -- except the politicians who crave votes in Quebec.
We can also regulate these markets for health and welfare reasons without supply management, which requires dairy farmers to literally dump milk down drains to keep prices high.
And one thing I rarely hear from supply management proponents: why are dairy, eggs, and poultry so in need of protection, other than they are largely in Ontario and Quebec? Why not beef farmers? Grain farmers? Oil producers are also subject to wild market fluctuations, but no one suggests joining OPEC.
I now believe that this is a war, not in a traditional military sense, but an economic war unlike anything we have seen in the past.
There is a madman hellbent on purging opposition at home and changing American society to his liking, and subjugating other countries abroad. Economy and values/beliefs are what brought nations to war in the past and that is what I believe is happening now. It seems nonsensical but Trump and his supporters have these ideas in their heads.
This will be more disastrous than the economic hardships we have seen since the end of WWII. I hope I am wrong.
Most journalists talk about how crazy the Trump tariffs are since they'll badly damage the US economy, but that misses the point. Trump isn't the same as the liberal, technocratic politicians we're used to, who want to strengthen the economy via a stable rules-based order to help them win the next election. He's a fascist, and part of that ideology is that rules apply to the out-group but not to the in-group. Rules are a blunt instrument to dominate others. So they're using tariffs to force weaker countries to adopt fascist policies like criminalizing immigrants, expanded surveillance, deregulation and privatization, etc. even if it damages the US economy.
We do not need supply management to block US imports. Whenever you want to defend supply management, just remember what it is: a cartel. Nothing ever justifies a cartel.
Very respectfully, I’d disagree. I think it’s a question of trade-offs.
There’s a lot of research out there that shows Canadians end up paying slightly more for dairy, eggs and chicken on average. And that’s not something that should be shunted to the side — these are everyday staples, which means higher prices disproportionately impact poor Canadians.
But for me, the most important benefit that supply management has provided is that it’s been a protection against the monopolization of these industries that we’ve seen happen in the United States.
In these three industries, we’ve avoided so-called “chickenization,” which has been a huge problem for the Americans. And in fact, criticism of consolidation in the chicken industry is where a lot of the modern anti-monopoly rhetoric in the US began to take off. (Lina Khan was writing about “chickenization” for Washington Monthly well before she published her paper on Amazon and monopoly).
And because supply management allows many more small farms to be economically viable, rural Canada isn’t as hollowed out as rural America is.
But I think most important in today’s context is that smaller chicken operations make our overall system more resilient in the face of biological threats like avian flu.
And that’s before we even get into the animal welfare aspects. Mega-coops, like they have in the United States, might be more efficient, but I don’t think efficiency is the only thing we should value in this circumstance.
So I don’t think you’re wrong to be suspicious of or even opposed to our supply management regime. And like I said, there are very real aspects of it that negatively impact Canadians.
But for me, it becomes a debate about what you value more. And I do think that’s a debate worth having.
With respect to monopolization, a cartel is a monopoly, so supply management just *requires* monopolization.
As for protecting small family farms, at least in dairy, the number of farms has fallen from 145,000 to roughly 9,000 since supply management started, so they are not all that protected. Supply management really only protects large farms who can get the quotas.
In fact, that is one goal of a cartel: keep the number of members low so it is easier to maintain the collusive agreement. The cartel members win and everyone else loses -- except the politicians who crave votes in Quebec.
We can also regulate these markets for health and welfare reasons without supply management, which requires dairy farmers to literally dump milk down drains to keep prices high.
And one thing I rarely hear from supply management proponents: why are dairy, eggs, and poultry so in need of protection, other than they are largely in Ontario and Quebec? Why not beef farmers? Grain farmers? Oil producers are also subject to wild market fluctuations, but no one suggests joining OPEC.
I now believe that this is a war, not in a traditional military sense, but an economic war unlike anything we have seen in the past.
There is a madman hellbent on purging opposition at home and changing American society to his liking, and subjugating other countries abroad. Economy and values/beliefs are what brought nations to war in the past and that is what I believe is happening now. It seems nonsensical but Trump and his supporters have these ideas in their heads.
This will be more disastrous than the economic hardships we have seen since the end of WWII. I hope I am wrong.
Very good podcast, thought-provoking all around.
Lots of food for thought!
Most journalists talk about how crazy the Trump tariffs are since they'll badly damage the US economy, but that misses the point. Trump isn't the same as the liberal, technocratic politicians we're used to, who want to strengthen the economy via a stable rules-based order to help them win the next election. He's a fascist, and part of that ideology is that rules apply to the out-group but not to the in-group. Rules are a blunt instrument to dominate others. So they're using tariffs to force weaker countries to adopt fascist policies like criminalizing immigrants, expanded surveillance, deregulation and privatization, etc. even if it damages the US economy.