Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Why would a boom town need charity? Inequities in Saskatchewan’s oil boom and bust May 23, 2018
    When we think of a “boomtown,” we often imagine a formerly sleepy rural town suddenly awash in wealth and economic expansion. It might surprise some to learn that for many municipalities in oil-producing regions in Saskatchewan, the costs of servicing the oil boom can outweigh the benefits. A Prairie Patchwork: Reliance on Oil Industry Philanthropy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA's National Office has moved! May 11, 2018
      The week of May 1st, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' National Office moved to 141 Laurier Ave W, Suite 1000, Ottawa ON, K1P 5J2. Please note that our phone, fax and general e-mail will remain the same: Telephone: 613-563-1341 | Fax: 613-233-1458 | Email: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • What are Canada’s energy options in a carbon-constrained world? May 1, 2018
    Canada faces some very difficult choices in maintaining energy security while meeting emissions reduction targets.  A new study by veteran earth scientist David Hughes—published through the Corporate Mapping Project, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute—is a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s energy systems in light of the need to maintain energy security and […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2018 Living Wage for Metro Vancouver April 25, 2018
    The cost of raising a family in British Columbia increased slightly from 2017 to 2018. A $20.91 hourly wage is needed to cover the costs of raising a family in Metro Vancouver, up from $20.61 per hour in 2017 due to soaring housing costs. This is the hourly wage that two working parents with two young children […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Mobility pricing must be fair and equitable for all April 12, 2018
    As Metro Vancouver’s population has grown, so have its traffic congestion problems. Whether it’s a long wait to cross a bridge or get on a bus, everyone can relate to the additional time and stress caused by a transportation system under strain. Mobility pricing is seen as a solution to Metro Vancouver’s transportation challenges with […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

In Praise of Export Cartels

Concerns about the prospect of BHP Billiton leaving Canpotex have prompted a backlash of hand-wringing about Canpotex’s very existence. For example, The Globe and Mail featured an editorial earlier this month that began by suggesting, “Canadian policy-makers should reconsider the status of Canpotex.”

But it concluded, “In practice, unwinding Canpotex would be no simple matter. Moreover it would be a drastic measure to legislate to prohibit an existing entity of this kind.” So, The Globe has no policy proposal but believes that Canadians ought to “feel uneasy about a fertilizer cartel based in their own country.”

Canpotex and OPEC

The argument is that Canadians “are being hypocritical in opposing foreign cartels, while taking for granted one of their own.” In particular, The Globe claims, “Most Canadians have long taken an unfavourable view of one cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.”

That premise is debatable. Canadians who favour lower greenhouse-gas emissions might thank OPEC for imposing a global carbon tax that far outstrips anything environmentalists have been able to implement. Indeed, OPEC’s oil-price shock in the 1970s prompted substantial (although still insufficient) improvements in energy efficiency.

Whatever upward pressure OPEC still places on oil prices imposes economic costs on some Canadian industries and regions. But higher oil prices obviously benefit other Canadian industries and regions. Since Canada is a significant net exporter of oil, price increases presumably provide a “net benefit” to Canada.

This conclusion is more clear-cut for potash, with Canada exporting huge volumes and consuming almost none. So, I feel no hypocrisy in applauding the efforts of both OPEC and Canpotex to raise commodity prices.

Taxing the Golden Geese

The problem is how the “net benefit” from higher commodity prices is distributed. While oil and potash reserves belong to the public, price increases mostly accrue to the private companies that extract them.

The solution is for provincial governments to charge companies higher royalties for these resources. Also, the federal government should stop cutting corporate taxes for such super-profitable industries.

The Globe muses about killing Canpotex and OPEC, geese that lay golden eggs for Canada. Instead, governments should simply collect more of the eggs for public purposes.

Developing Countries

What about the argument that high potash prices are detrimental to food production in the developing world? I am all for Canada spending more money on foreign aid to feed people and assist agricultural development in poor countries. But it is doubtful that lowering the price of a particular input like potash is the most effective way to achieve these goals.

We should also ask which developing countries are most affected. Potash exports from New Brunswick to the Carribean and Latin America do not flow through Canpotex, which controls potash exports from Saskatchewan through the Pacific.

Typically, China has been Canpotex’s biggest customer. The exception was 2009, when China bought less than Malaysia! This dramatic cut was engineered by Sinochem, the state-owned chemicals corporation that controls almost all of China’s potash imports.

If China can leverage its position as a major potash consumer to bargain lower prices, surely Canada should be able to leverage its position as a major producer to negotiate higher prices. Even if one believes that the world would be better served by more competitive potash markets, a viable “second best” may be for Canada’s coordinated selling power to offset China’s coordinated buying power.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Purple Library Guy
Time: September 15, 2010, 6:53 pm

Higher royalties would be nice. Nationalizing would be even better. Most countries with significant reserves have their own oil companies. Why can’t we manage? Why shouldn’t we keep the profits in the country, like other non-chump countries do, rather than let them drain away?

Write a comment





Related articles