Michael Hardner

This last point would be absolutely true if cartels didn't exist. I don't think I've heard labour unions use this argument to support demands for wage gains, ie. that there is a labour shortage in their industry. I'm not 100% sure this is what you're saying, though. A bigger concern, I think, is attracting investment in the economy. You stated above that the inflation increase in the 1970s was trigged by a rise in oil prices. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Well, they don't have to and they won't. Outlawing unions, or reducing their power would help a lot of big employers such as the auto companies and the federal government but it would also eliminate many well-paying jobs. In a consumer economy where such jobs are already on the decline, I'm not sure why this would be a priority. The big employers that have international presence are already reaping big gains from lower wages, as you have pointed out in the past. I think we should be focussing on creating the conditions necessary for more well-paying jobs to be created, rather than eliminating them. 2/3 of our economy comes from consumer spending.

Sully: I can't follow the jump you made from "killing innocent civillians is wrong" to "killing some now is better than killing some later". Which ones would have died later and why ? It seems to me that this morality is flexible enough to rationalize Israelis exterminating Palestinians or the other way around. The culture of self-righteousness and justified violence saturates people on both sides of the conflict in the ME. There's no simplified way to look at the players - both have done wrong and continue to do so. Until the people truly want it to end, and the leaders have no choice but to accept this volition, the conflict will revolve infinitely.

Yes, everything is relative. We'll have to wait for the election campaign to (hopefully) read the fine print on the CPC promises. Well, the CPC knew about Stephen's past when they elected him and it's fair game in politics to bring it up, so what's the big deal ? If the people are satisfied with his answer then the Liberals will look desperate if they keep harp(er)ing on it. Paul Martin's past will certainly be an issue in the election, so why not Harper's ? Falling Leaf: I will ask you the same question I've asked others here. Who would Harper coalize (coagulate ?) with in order to form a governing party ? The Bloc ?

CR: It's not workable. Do you want tax cuts ? YES Do you want more services ? YES Policies need to be developed with long range planning, not on a month-by-month basis. Anyway, you have more say than you realize as the parties in power use modern polling techniques to guage the popularity of legislation before they table it.

But the industrial revolution reverberated with a host of social changes - improvements to working conditions and so forth. If we're reducing the amount of labour it takes to produce things, doesn't it follow that a reduction in working hours is imminent ? It happened after the industrial revolution.

That's a good argument for industrialization, but I'm not against industrialization.

Sorry, I thought you were saying Canada wasn't self-sufficient. I'm a bit above the level of an "average citizen", being a MapleLeafWeb poster and holding a degree, but not so much that these concepts are crystal clear to me.

August: As little as I know about economics, that HAS occurred to me. What will they want ? Probably manufactured goods that are largely produced elsewhere - electronics, running shoes etc. What is that "something else" for someone who previously was employed in manufacturing ? Working at Home Depot or some other lower paying job is a likely answer. Outsourcing can't be easily pigeonholed as "bad" or "good". For the American continent, it reduces the costs of manufacturing and also exports those wages to another country. My clothes come from China. My bread comes from a local company that won't be shipping bread to China or Indonesia. Likewise for my eggs.

Developing software supposedly takes more skill than working in manufacturing. That said, globalization is forcing these wages down too. But the unprotected jobs are seeing salaries decrease. If their services aren't required, then they will be laid off. They can strike but what bargaining power do they have if they're not needed ? Economics teaches us that these jobs are replaced by better higher-paying jobs. This is still true, but those jobs are unprotected and globalized. They might be shipped out to India. So who wins ? The business lowers labour cost. An offshore company gets the higher paying job.

Oshawa, Oakville, Ontario in general... When everyone makes minimum wage, who will buy cars ? I have already asked this question already many times in different ways.

Actually, I spoke with an economist who explained to me that Canada is actually self-sufficient in terms of natural resources. To answer the question, corporatization and globalization aren't "bad" or "good". These are means of increasing wealth, which hopefully will increase the general wealth as well. But as Hjalmar proves with every post, the average citizen has no idea what the state of the general wealth is and what affects it. If we can't have a clear and understandable public consensus on what we're trying to achieve in society, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed first.

FL: It sounds like some isolated incidents, allthough your source doesn't give any examples or evidence. Who wrote this piece ? Was it a magazine article, a book, what ? When was it written ?

Hjalmar: Nice to see you respond to one of my posts. How about one of you provide a starting point for the discussion of the links between Organized Labour and Organized Crime in Canada ?

What connection ?

August1991: Since Hjalmar isn't responding again, I'll take this up with you. Manufacturing and software jobs are going offshore. Is that debatable ? If so, let me know and I'll put some time into researching this. Why not ? Reduced wages results in increased productivity doesn't it ? I'm not an economist. But as far as I know, productivity is (roughly) the amount of output per worker. I don't see how a government payout such as you describe would do this.

The link is clear in your mind but nowhere else. I don't recall Martin bashing Europeans as sexists and racists either. There's another thread on this board that ties a verbal slip-up to some deeper problem with policy, or whatever. It's good grist for the stand-up comics but there isn't much more to it, in PM's case or GWB's.

This is another aspect of this affair that I don't understand. Can anyone be sure that public figures are faking when they break down in public ? I sure wouldn't make that judgement. A member of my family accused Tie Domi of faking tears when he was ejected from the hockey playoffs a while back. He just knew Tie was faking. I suppose it's human nature to have strong instincts like that, but I wouldn't post my hunches as fact whether it was Robinson, Domi, Limbaugh or Jimmy Swaggert.

We have a problem in our economy with the decline of decent paying jobs. You, Haljamar, see the problem upside-down, and are trying to target those dwindling jobs for salary decrease. The economy is 2/3 consumer-spending driven. What's the good of record productivity if there is no one to buy the goods ?

Willy - I'm still trying to figure out how you think this can happen without support from the Bloc. The CPC will not be asked to form a government unless they can survive a confidence vote.

Krusty: This is rather harsh, don't you think ? Even public figures deserve a certain modicum of sympathy. Campbell and Robinson are people too after all. From Luke 6:37 Words to live by...

Or radio host, like Rush Limbaugh. I heard about this on CBC Newsworld and the panel seemed to be making somewhat light of it there.

Maybe you don't know how a minority government works. The Conservatives would need to survive a vote of confidence in order for them to form the government in the first place, I believe. A Liberal that supported such a vote would effectively be crossing the floor. Well, as I said above they'd have to have something to start with or there would immediately be a second election. They would need to vote about 50% of the seats to the Conservatives in order for this to happen, ie. for a majority to happen. It could happen but it's a tall order. Well, the anti-American stuff is largely symbolic anyway. Martin could call for non-essential free votes on these issues. And the spend-and-tax issues could be resolved as they have been with minority governments in the past.

It was in another story I read. Sorry. Here's the LEAP.: CTV

CBC Story He seemed to be connecting it to his hiking accident. The mind reels with possibilities... Painkiller addiction possibly ? He turned himself in, though.

Amen to that. Quite possible. Ok. If we're entering into this arena, then let's go there. Harper and Duceppe would have to come to an agreement to frame any agreement around "provincial rights". There would be enough room in that position to satisfy the Quebec separatists, the Alberta separatists, and those non-separatist types who just favour more power to the regions. But the grassroots for those parties would cry bloody murder. The reaction from Conservatives on these political forums to this possibility is usually revolution Such a colation could backfire severely on both leaders. Also, there's the issue of money for Quebec. I don't know if Harper has the political acumen to navigate through this one - unless he was able to dupe Duceppe into accepting more powers and less money, in which case the Bloc would be trounced in the following election. And how could Harper cut the size of the federal government with all of those government jobs in Quebec protected by the BQ. I agree with your analysis. I think 1) is most likely, followed by 3) then (the most interesting) 4).