228
Sovereignty Shopping (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Pearl Milling is Canadian. I've been using it since the first tariff wave. It's just as good. Yes, I'm back to turning "Product of USA" upside down.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

Pearl Milling Company products are just a rebrand from Aunt Jemima.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Ok then. Just did some research. WTF?? So, Product of Canada does NOT mean what we think. I think we need new guidelines: Product of Canada needs to mean: Canadian Company. And, thank you to all for the education! Most appreciated!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    The only effective enforcement is us voting with our wallets anyways.

    Plus standardizing is also kinda pointless cuz people are drawing their own lines. Like if you live near a Canadian manufacturing plant that makes an American branded product you'll probably be more inclined to purchase those brands that are at least produced here, if not fully owned.

    Meanwhile others are going eschew everything not 100% Canadian.

    I think naming and shaming brands that deceptively adopt Canadian branding is the best way forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Agreed. But when a package says: Product of Canada, and then I find out the profits are actually going to the USA?? WTF?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Totally but those are net profits. If it's produced here part of the gross revenue is staying here in the form of labour costs, utilities, and taxes.

    Ultimately the demand for 100% Canadian products will drive supply and we'll have more better options in the future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Ideally there would be no such profits. We need to outlaw for-profit companies.

    Then the net can go back into R&D or bonuses paid to workers or saved internally or donated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    We need to outlaw for-profit companies.

    Marx was pretty clear that's not how communism manifests. It's the final evolution state of socialism.

    What you're suggesting is an inverse of what needs to happen in order to achieve the outcome you're seeking.

    Only by creating a society that provides for every member within it can a context arise where there is no direct incentive to pursue for-profit ventures.

    Outlawing profit, will just create demand for law enforcement without doing anything to replace the mechanism driving people to seek profit in the first place.

    Really what needs to happen is they need to close tax loopholes and actually administer corporate income taxes responsibly instead of incompetantly like they are now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    I don't see why we can't provide everyone free food and shelter and also outlaw for profit companies.

    Don't confuse nonprofits with non payment. People who do labour for nonprofits can still earn a million dollars a year in salary.

    The difference is that nonprofits cannot give their profits to capitalists who do no labour for the org

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    everyone

    It's the everyone part. You need to get everyone on board. That is A LOT of ducks to line up; to put it lightly. Forcing it via prohibitions without first addressing the underlying needs;

    1. incentivizes non participation by both opponents who stand to lose and would-be supporters negatively effected by my 2nd point.

    2. Has unforeseen outcomes resulting the same working class casualties we wanted to avoid in the first place

    Basically it's easier said than done and there's no shortcuts like, 'outlawing for-profit". There are real logistical challenges are completely outside of capitalism at play. We have to do the hard work of building a self sustaining society first. Than we can remove vestigial constructs like capital and profit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    "Product of Canada" means the manufacturing happened in Canada and the majority of ingredients are of Canadian origin. It does not have any relevance to who owns the company.

     

    For me , purchasing decisions happen on a sliding scale with "product of Canada, Canadian owned company" at the top of the scale, and "made in USA" at the bottom.

    But between those extremes there are things like: "made in Canada by foreign owned company", "made using Canadian ingredients", and "made in any country that isn't the USA" which can be acceptable choices if a better category isn't available.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent