August1991

National Post Interview with Khadr daughter She makes no sense. She wants to come to Canada but she doesn't want Americans to go to the Land of the Two Holy Cities (I gather). WTF? Maybe she's not a radical Muslim; maybe she's just nuts.

That's not Moore's intent? Absolutely. I suspect this is a Weinstein/Disney/Eisner publicity deal. But who knows.But imagine Bush named 6 of the 9 judges and then the 6 handed down a decision that in effect said people like Michael Moore can't show their movie during an election. Moore would go absolutely ballistic. Yet that's what just happened in Canada. Is there any wonder that people are less interested in politics? Is there any wonder that we increasingly look to the US for new ideas?

How do you define "election advertising"? What if the NCC pays to make a movie (or write a book) that links Paul Martin to Saddam Hussein and then the NCC advertises this movie (or book) during the election? The Supreme Court of Canada is taking us into very starnge territory. This road leads to a dead end. Free speech makes for vibrancy. Michael Moore is a good example. The US Supreme Court didn't hesitate in allowing lobby groups to speak freely. Our Court has just been taken over by the Liberal Party.

We are about to embark on an election, and PM PM will go for a Normandy (Norway?) ceremony - and then he'll get a photo op, G7/8 thingee. Harper has every right to remind everyone that a previous Canada defended western values when Churchill did, and two years before the Americans. Small towns across Canada have monuments to those who died. IOW, we Canadians have no lesson to take from Americans about how to defend a civilized world. Our monuments say 1939-1945. Their monuments say 1941-1945. Big picture? Whither Canada? Are we on the right side any more? What happened? Fundamentally, where does Canada's moral compass now point?

If this Supreme Court decision were applied to the US election, would Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" be allowed? (He spent more than $150,000 to make it.) Should the government forbid such kind of political commentary during an election? What has happened to the moral compass of this country? Even Trudeau said "create counterweights". He never said the State should silence one group. IMV, this decision is one more evidence of a moribund Canada.

The thing I like about the US is that there are people like Moore who make such movies. And he can show them during an election. He can even advertise the movie. If Moore were Canadian, using this past Supreme Court decision, he could only spend $150,000 to publicize (make?) his movie. And so no one would ever see it. Thank God the Canadian Supreme Court is an irrelevant group of people in a minor country. Their decisions have no bearing on the future of humanity.

I read these, but missed a reply: Interesting comparison. I don't want to go "new age" but what is gravity except the connection between two objects. To use your chemical example, bonds not elements make character. (And a thought for fun: Quantum mechanics and probability are the universe "learning".) True. But the cost is often small. Think of the "cost" of Mozart and the benefit of his music. Using trade is also a "soft" technology. All mean we get "more". (I don't mean only more Walmart junk. I mean more... well, what?) Good point. Really good point. First, labour. How about child labour. IME, Asians and Latin Americans have a greater respect for family, and love of children, than anything I've ever seen in Europe or North America. North Americans claim Asians mistreat children? WTF? I know parents in Montreal that haven't spoken to their kids in years. (Ask someone from Asia about this.) I suspect that guilty/frustrated Westerners are transferring their personal problems on to foreigners. Labour? People in China, Vietnam, India, Ecuador are poor. They have low wages. They accept dangerous jobs because they need the money. All true. What did your great-grandparents do? Environmental standards. Got me there. You're right. Do you know what happens when a person drops one AA battery on the ground? Do you know what it takes to produce one AA battery in China, or anywhere else? I don't know exactly, but I suspect it ain't good.

'Socialist Policies'? Where did you get that idea? (People confused by math believe that a piece of paper is the root of all evil. A piece of paper... ) Yeah, well, you know. Bubbles happen in markets - particularly in "paper" markets.Much worse are panics. (Thank God, we don't have those in the Western World anymore. BTW, the State helped to solve the problem - sort of.) Speculation. Another thread, please. Unless you wanna write a book. "Real value". Hmm. In another thread, I think you (or someone else) said something about politicians and corporate managers being "short term thinkers". Polticians maybe. Corporate managers never. Here's why (and it's connected to the "value" of share prices.) A decent house in Montreal can be had for about $200,000. Would anyone pay $200,000 for house if they knew that the house would burn down next year? IOW, the resale value of the house determines in part today's price. Think of a car. Why is a Mercedes expensive but a Hyundai cheap? True, not the same quality - but think of the resale price. Today's high price also contains the belief that a future price will be high. Shares. Why buy Nortel at $100 now? Because you believe that next year the resale price will be good. IOW, you believe that someone will want to pay a good price for Nortel next year. Going back to the "real" house example, why will someone want to buy a house next year? That someone will benefit from living in it for the subsequent year (assuming there's no fire.) Back to shares. What benefit will the next person get from holding shares? Hmmm. Brilliant. I agree completely.John Locke said "life, liberty and property". Americans say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Canadians say "peace, order and good government." (Not only are we wimps, but we're boring, imitative wimps.) So, to have freedom, what form of order are we talking about here? ('Freedom'? How about 'to enjoy life the most possible'?) Wordy ain't the word.

Still interesting, and I don't mean to interrupt. But... A while back, you both seemed to confuse the UN, AI and the Red Cross. There's no connection: Amnesty FAQ "All funding is voluntary." (Yeah, right.) Red Cross Funding I see a difference between these two organizations. In the parlance, AI is an NGO. ICRC is an intergovernmental organization. I think UN personnel travel on a UN passport. The ICRC can issue travel documents - but Red Cross personnel travel under their national passport. Amnesty does none of this. The State requires involuntary relations - and of course, States play the game with each other - the UN and the ICRC are State productions. Game - On.

www.teammartinsaid.ca This campaign is going to be one of the more interesting ones in a long time. PS: Why is there no www.whatjacklaytonsaid.ca? Maybe because nobody cares what Layton says?

Is that how you win arguments? By yelling louder? If you YELL COMPLETE NONSENSE, no one is going to believe you. It should be individuals who decide what constitutes nonsense. (This forum provides ample evidence of how difficult it is to convince other people of an idea they don't like.) Democracy means having the maturity to trust that other citizens have the wisdom to decide wisely. Those in favour of this legislation and the court decision are ultimately being paternalistic. Incidentally, the origin of this Liberal law is ironic in the extreme. The first campaign spending law of this sort was passed by the PQ for the first referendum in 1980. This policy was then put into Quebec's electoral law. Robert Libman, an anglo federalist, now a municipal politician in Montreal, took Quebec to court. He basically lost. The federal Liberals imitated the PQ and put these restrictions into federal electoral law. Today's decision is an extension of the previous Libman decsion. There is a thread of paternalism in Quebec politics and history. It is combined with a sincere joy in thumbing a nose at authority. The true irony? In the 1995 referendum, Quebec had the same spending limits in place. The federal Liberal government completely disregarded them when it literally comandeered all those buses and planes to bring all those people to Montreal. The sponsorship scandal was part of all that. Incidentally, the biggest advertiser by far in Canada is the federal government. And for many people, the Liberal Party is the federal government. Along the same lines, the major tobacco companies were in fact in favour of curbs on advertising. Without advertising, it is very difficult to introduce new brands. Limits to advertising are a way to preserve the status quo. Precisely what the Liberals want.

Try this: Slate Krugman piece

Toronto Star on Ontario Liberals I gotta admit that this health premium idea is really dumb politically. Margaret Thatcher was kicked out for something similar. People hate this kind of money grab.

The stock market crashed in 1987 also. But it didn't lead to a depression. Have you ever wondered why? The Dow-Jones went from 375 to 200 in fall 1929. 1929 Chart The Dow-Jones went from 2700 to 1800 in fall 1987. 1987 Chart Why did one lead to a depression and the other not? There is no doubt whatsoever now that the US Federal Reserve really, really screwed up in 1929. Having learned the hard way, they didn't screw up in 1987. Greenspan still has his job because of this. Of course, he has good advisors. Indeed they're out there; in fact, they're advising Greenspan. None, to my knowedge, deny the holocaust. The wealth came precisely out of trade, and the world market. Higher Chinese incomes do not mean lower incomes for us. Life is NOT a zero sum game, IdealEnd. IMV, economics is about trade. The internet means it is easier to trade. So, it's the same old same old. I think the real revolution was the telegraph. Since then, it's a variation on a theme. People born in 1850 (and living to 1920) saw far more revolutionary things in their lifetime than people born in, say, 1930 and living to 2000.

In 2001, on all health care: Canada spent equivalent US $ 2792/person or 9.7% of GDP. US spent US $ 4887 or 13.9% of GDP. Switzerland spent equivalent US $ 3322 or 11.1% of GDP. UK spent equivalent US $1992 or 7.6% of GDP. France spent equivalent US $2561or 9.5% of GDP. OECD Health Data The high US numbers seem odd. Some have said this is because the US is richer and health is something that rich buy proportionately more. (In 1960, Canada only spent 5.4% of GDP on health care and in 1980, 7.1%.) It is also true that the US "exports" health care since many non-Americans go to the States for treatment. Of course, some argue that the US spends more but gets less - and then cite the millions "without health insurance". I am inclined to suspect data is collected differently. (How is an expenditure classified as "health"? In the US, clinics advertise to attract patients. Does that count?) IMO, compulsory government-operated health insurance makes good sense, with the premium paid from general tax revenues. We should also have a small "deductible" - that is, we should pay a small fee each time we receive a health service. IME, Canada's hospitals and clinics are too bureaucratic and the government tries to micro-manage them. Private-for-profit operation would make a big difference. (Nothing beats a few GPs running a small clinic as a small business and billing the Health Ministry.) In Quebec, you can schedule an abortion but you cannot schedule a live birth.

In your anti-right obsession, BD, you don't see that the Liberal Party is turning Canada into a one party State.

What a thread?Layton eats children. Harper sends them to the States. Martin uses them for experiments. Gee whiz. What an election we'll have! Carry on.

Neither can I. But not because I was born pro-American. I wasn't.Diversity? The only country that stubbornly refuses metric. Democracy? The only country that stubbornly recounts ballots for two months. Free Speech? The only country that stubbornly allows people to disagree with the State. Respect? The only country that stubbornly ignores its northern neighbour. The people who created the United States did a service to humanity. IMV, as Canadians, we should be thankful that we have Americans as neighbours. (Have you ever spoken to a Finn? A Pole? A Greek? A Pakistani?) Americans are irritating; but they defend the good fight. In sixty years when you're dead (I'm serious - because anyone reading this will likely be dead then, 2064 ), what world do you want for your children - grandchildren? Anyone born in 1985 may well have grandchildren who will die in 2110. What world will your grandkids know? So, why bother to have kids... If there is an answer to that question, I am thankful that our southern neighbour made me wonder about the question at all...

MS: There are no bad students, only bad teachers.

Good line! It reminds me of what teachers used to say to me.But then I learned that teachers know nothing about real life. So Dennis, you're like a teacher. You don't get it. And we're supposed to listen to you?

I think there is a good chance of a Tory (Harper) minority government. (Am I wrong?) If Harper wins, in fact the only way he'll win, is to have a lot of other normal people around him. So Maple Syrup don't worry Underneath all, Harper will only win if many ordinary MPs win. These ordinary MPs will keep all in check. Or, do you prefer a PM PM chèque en blanc?

You both seem to be Canadians. You both seem to want to ensure that there is a place called Canada on this continent, distinct from the Mickey Mouse jazz to the South. Fine. But if you both want this, for heaven's sakes, please understand (know) this place's history. John A. Macdonald was a Conservative. Progressive Conservatives? WTF? The Tall Shorts? The Progressives started in the States. The Canadian version joined the King Liberals and then the remainder "merged" with the Conservatives. The Progressives, BTW, were in favour of free trade. As were the Liberals, before. Does all this really matter? Or, are people only truly concerned about "local, here and now politics"?

If I sell it for less than $2000, then that would be like destroying value. More likely, I'll sell for more than $2000 - which is exactly the story of the apple/orange trade. I see no fundamental difference. IdealEnd, do you make your own clothing? Do you grow your own food? Did you build your own house? Probably not. You "outsourced" all of those things you could have done yourself. For thousands of years, we have found new ways to organize ourselves and to apply knowledge to solve practical problems. From fire and flints to penicillin and bar code readers. We all live better lives because of this. As to the checkout clerks, give them more credit. They will find something; someone will offer them a job. And then we as a society will have more: the checkout computer will do its job and the previous clerks will accomplish new tasks. Canada will have more. (Don't worry about who gets the "more" - more important is to have "more".) Job losses/gains are a very bad measure of an economy. Have you ever considered this? We could eliminate unemployment in Canada by simply hiring all the unemployed as tax collectors, and then pay them with the taxes they collect. This would cost nothing! (Or would it?) I thought that argument had disappeared with the 19 th century. Your Rifkin quote is evidence of the contrary. Forget "job creation". Think of a "job" as a "trade" (or "cooperation"). I help you, you help me - and we're both better off. People will always find ways to do that. There is no end to the help you can offer someone - and for which the person would be prepared to give you something in return. I don't know the Hutterites well. (I was in Edmonton one summer; I prefer Lake Louise.) Do Hutterites refuse modern dental care? Do they take antibiotics? Hutterite men and women seem to "trade" within families.But the second part of your quote is more interesting, IMV. I agree with you, in a way. If "job creation" is no measure of economic success, nor is GDP. I am thinking of driving to Nfld this summer (or going to BC, or Fla - where I'v never been). I will camp (or stay with family in St. John's). How much will GNP go up? IMV, life is the freedom to do such things, and smell the ocean in the morning. My "profit" is huge (to use your $1 example before) but it's not recorded in statistics anywhere. We all want for something; so I guess we're all poor. At the very least, we might want to lie on a chesterfield and do nothing. Your idea here seems to be: People must have enough money to be able to buy things. If not, we will collapse into poverty. So for the lack of a few scraps of coloured paper (money), Western Civilization is doomed. Really? WTF? (Excuse my French.) "...in order for there to be winners there must be losers." (???) What is a happy marriage? When two people live well together, they both win, no? When two people voluntarily work together, or trade, they cooperate and both win. 1929? That deserves another thread. Exactly. Different people view "price competition" differently - depends on the perspective. In general, neither buyers nor sellers like the "market" - which seems to be a strange out-of-control beast. Fortunately, someone invented math several millenia ago and so we don't have to "regulate" competition (or the law of the jungle, or the race to the bottom). With price competition, we can wisely cooperate through trade - at the level of a planet with 6 billion people. Imagine. I have two fears: First, this math, price perfect cooperation solution doesn't always work. So second, people see the problems, get confused and look for weird solutions. Wordy? Me too. And I tend to correct later.

Here are three recent speeches of these characters (presented in alphabetic order, flip through the speeches to get an idea of what we're dealing with): Harper Speech: Harper on Taxes Is this guy a wonk or not: --------- Layton Speech: Layton on Health Care Is this guy glib or what: ------- Martin Speech: Martin on Quebec Take a look at the metaphors of this guy: -------- My conclusion? I have to say that Harper and Layton actually say something. Martin says nothing. (Honest, flip through the speech.) Maybe to be PM PM in Canada, that's what people expect. On the other hand, Trudeau said things. Mulroney sometimes said things. Pearson sort of. But none of this PM PM verbiage. My real question? Will this election be "Canadian boring"? If PM PM wins, will that be it? Four more years of these speeches? Hell, even Chretien was more entertaining.

Go to the web site linked by Black Dog above and skip down a way to see the picture of Jack Layton ON A PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS. (I'm not making this up.) Are the NDP for real?