>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:01:48 -0400 (AST) >From: Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: foreign investment (fwd) >To: Canadian futures <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Precedence: Bulk >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 05:33:43 -0800 >From: Mason Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: foreign investment > >Mel Hurtig of Canada deplores the sale of Canada to foreigners. It is >undesirable, he's right, but he gives it a provincial and Chauvinist >anti-American spin that is a bit misleading, and therefore ultimately >weakening, for at least two reasons. > >1, Many Canadian-based buyers are acquiring vast lands in the U.S. Down >here in southern California we have Bramalea (the Bronfmans, who also now >control MCA, which owns Universal City among other trophies), BCE (Bell >Canada's real estate arm), Daon, the Bank of Montreal, and others. Many >Canadians own shares in U.S.-based corporations. Robert Campeau of Toronto >for a time controlled Federated Dept. Stores, with 354 name stores (Macy's, >Bullocks, Bloomies, etc.) around the U.S. O&Y owns real estate around the >world. Some of them zigged when they should have zagged, and lost money and >control, but that is also true of Americans in Canada. Thus, it's not that >American interests are buying Canada, on a one-way basis. Rather, it's that >wealth is becoming (has become) more concentrated in a few hands, worldwide; >and these giant multi-billionaires, and their firms, spread their tentacles >everywhere. It's also that they have brainwashed us local yokels everywhere >and dissuaded us from using the most effect countermeasure available, namely >a high rate of property taxation. > > If you are really disturbed by absentee ownership (whether >international or interprovincial or interstate or intercounty) just stop >relying on income taxation, which multinationals have a dozen cute ways of >avoiding, and rely more on local property taxation, and sockitto'em. > > If you want to raise revenues without discouraging capital inflow, >limit the property tax to the land value, and raise the rate even more. >It's been done before, and it's worked. Ask me for examples. > > >2. Hurtig should also note that when foreigners buy existing assets (firms >or land) the sellers now have free capital to invest locally if they want. >Absentee ownership is a problem, I agree; but he has not defined the problem >accurately. Once you define the problem, solutions are easier to find. > > > As a former resident of B.C., I observed a much higher degree of >absentee ownership of B.C. resources by Ontario residents than U.S. >residents. Yet, the pols found they could stir up folks against the >damnyankees much easier than against their "fellow Canadians." Well, if >that's what it takes to promote the property tax, it's better than nothing; >it's worked before, e.g. in the settlement of the American west in the 19th >and early 20th Centuries. But let's keep our eye on the important facts, >lest we get led down some garden path. > >Mason Gaffney >
