August1991

Should the US be the world's policeman? Should it intervene (risking the lives of its own soldiers) merely because some country gets itself into a total mess? Should the US have intervened in Rwanda? Sri Lanka?

Union members belong to a legal cartel - as do farmers who belong to marketing boards. If we remain civilized for the next hundred years or so, I have no doubt that such cartels will not exist. They will disappear as the wing-tipped collar has and they will be viewed in the same way - a curious anachronism of old photos, or a curious subject of old Internet forum discussions. Unions are what some describe as "old economy". Well said.

But the NDP appears to be losing to the Greens. If not for the Greens, the NDP would be over 20% and in striking distance of... the BIG GUYS! Are we going to see Jack Layton wearing more green ties, or no tie, in the future?

Since when does the US president organize professional football leagues and television singing contests? The US federal administration is one part of federal government which in part is one part of US government which itself is one part of American society. The masses choose freely their opiate, I believe.

Who decides the protocol? Who decides if this case is a special case? In all organizations, all the time, this happens.IMV, the term "rule of law" is used too often without clarity.

What is this? Surely The Toronto Star doesn't want to keep this scandal alive. If Travers writes an article, it must be because there is something out there that won't go away. How to make it go away? Blame Chretien and then find a way to blame Mulroney? Well, the Mulroney allegation requires much stronger evidence than the "check newspaper archives" line. This is not investigative journalism. Instead, it suggests something deeply ugly and a strange note of desperation. Toronto Star Travers

So you're going with a 7 June election date?

CG: That's nonsense. You are simply showing your anti-Americanism. (Admit it, you don't like the US and Americans.) All your arguments stem from this basic premise. Until you grow out of your anti-American bias, any kind of intelligent debate is probably a waste of time. And unfortunately for you, you'll miss out on a much richer discussion.

Sorry Hugo, I'll pick one point for now: For internal flights maybe, but then, that means you have answered your own question - and the answer was not "unions bad." Hugo, you don't get it. Monopolies are not bad for moral reasons (eg. they make high profits). Monopolies are bad because they raise prices above a competitive market price and many buyers can't buy their services. This leads to bad decisions, waste and a poorer country. Smart monopolies would never raise their prices so high that they lose too many customers or invite a competitor to jump into the market. In Air Canada's case, it is not management or shareholders who control this monopoly. It is the unions. And they've pretty much botched the job in large part because they are convinced that the federal government will come in and save our "national flag carrier". That's a monopoly, controlled by a union, that has access to its customers' credit cards. This explains why 76% of public employees are uinionised but only 20% of private sector employees. Unions in the private sector (without access to credit cards)? In general, I prefer anonymous market relations to the brinksmanship common in family disputes. In other words, I prefer the quietude of cooperation to the drama of competition. In theory, unions and private employers could arrive at the same settlement as a free labour market without unions. Well in theory, government bureaucrats could organise the same economy as a free market does. And I thought you were the one against concentrating power. BTW, this is not a minor issue in Canada. The Charest passed controversial legislation concerning the right to privatise or contract out certain tasks and in effect hire non-union employees. The left-wing slang for this "out-sourcing" - which now applies also to hiring cheap foreigners.

I thought this kind of nonsense died when Gorbachev spoke od perestroika and Deng Xiaoping spoke of black & white cats. I think Vacel Havel said the only Marxist left in the world teach in western universities. Here goes. cg, you imagine the world as a cake to be divided up. You are upset about the division and feel that a few people get big pieces and the rest get the crumbs. What you fail to understand is that the cake is NOT FIXED IN SIZE nor is it one cake for the world. If we share the cake more equally as you seem to want, the cake will get smaller. If we let people get on with life, the cake will grow larger. Bill Gates is worth some $50 billion (plus or minus). He DID NOT TAKE THIS WEALTH from someone. He created it. This creation means we no longer live in caves looking for fire. It is fair to say that without the incentives that let people like Bill Gates get on with life, we would not be communicating now on this forum. Nevertheless, cg, there is a very good argument in favour of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The argument relies on the fact that we don't choose where, when or to which families we are born. Before birth, cg, how much insurance coverage would you have bought?

What about PanAm, TWA, Eastern? And why, do you think, the US airlines are unionised?Air Canada is almost a monopoly in Canada. Different story, from the unions' perspective. All cartels are team players in that sense. They obviously don't want to lose their monopoly position. Union negotiations are high-stakes poker though, as we are witnessing with Air Canada and in Newfoundland now. Market relations are miles from this kind of brinksmanship. PS. I feel on the cusp of another "cantankerous, protracted Hugo debate".

This is the tenet of 'socialism'. It may be the tenet but cooperation is certainly not the result of socialism. Free markets, prices and clear property rights achieve wide scale, anonymous cooperation unsurpassed by any other method. The socialist method of getting people to cooperate is bone-headed in comparison - put everyone in a room, hand out instruction books, assign people different tasks, tell them they are doing all this for a higher good. Such a method is generally a failure, increasing over time.

That's nonsense. A corporation is not a cartel. A union is one. I can choose to deal with one corporation or another. The whole point of a union is to be the only source of supply. Corporations and unions are diametrically opposed in nature. Adam Smith had it right: Fortunately, cartels don't last forever. They fall apart either because members cheat on one another or their exceptional profits invite competitors. Air Canada is a case in point. Its unionized workers have priced Air Canada out of the market. It remains only to be seen whether their bluff will pay off. Will the federal government use our credit cards to pony up and save the "national flag carrier"? Canada has some 13 million workers in the private sector of which about 20% are unionized and some 3 million workers in the public sector of which about 76% are unionized. In effect, unions benefit from the monopoly power of the state. Hugo draws a distinction here; I don't except to note that we can turf a government out - we are stuck with the public sector union leaders. Another case in point? Reform of Canada's education and health systems is a practical impossibility because of public sector unions.

KK, I at least appreciated your long post.

Hey cg, let's make everyone get the same thing! That would be really good, no? But honestly, cg, your thinking is so "zero-sum". There are better arguments for your side. Please find and use them.

I meant that we live in a world where cooperation has the upper hand, not competition. By upper hand, I mean that it is possible for an individual to be more successful through cooperation than through competition. For our species, this is a recent development and we're still coping with the change. One effect is how it changes the position of the so-called "weaker" sex.

I wonder if he doesn't now regret calling a snap election for, say, January? And where was his head when he let the A-G do the report? Heck, it could have fallen under Chretien's watch if PMPM had not moved the coronation date up. Frankly, I figure under any scenario, the result would have been the same. There is something about Martin that means he doesn't have it. The Turner/Campbell-looks-good-on-paper but it doesn't work... IMV, Canadians are fickle. Anyway, we're facing a 1979 style election.

Those damn Fiberals! They won't let us steal!

Amen, Willy. The great thing about being Canadian is that we have all of the benefits of being American but none of the responsibilities.

Thanks for the G&M link, MapleSyrup: The key to the next election is what Ontario voters do. In the past, they have voted for the party with "national" support (ie. support in Quebec). I think this election will be different. Furthermore, I think people are making a "hard" decision. They will not change their minds later.

Tory newspaper guys (Coyne, Wells) seem to think that Martin is now desperately backtracking. He is now advised to make amends - Coyne suggested (jokingly) that Pelletier will be rehired! But on the French web forums, there is discussion of a very fundamental point. These guys (the Crowns, as Martin says) stole money from taxpayers and are now suing taxpayers for more money. WTF? I disagree with Coyne. There is no plan, Martin is not backtracking, or making amends with Chretienites. Martin is making this up as he goes along. Martin is basically incompetent. He's about to change the election date to the fall. Martin's another ADD Desmarais protege - like Maurice Strong.

Ah yes. Geo-politics. A more sophisticated version of the NHL. Who is going to win the Stanley Cup this year? Who will win it in ten years? That's how you posed your question. Who is (will be) Top Dog! This may surprise you, but the world today is NOT like a sports game. Since mathematics were invented some 6000 years ago or so, the world is different. Now, the world is more like a concert, or a movie. What's better? An evening watching hockey, or an evening watching a movie? Men are confused. Women have now the upper hand (!).

Yes it is. To spend money, you have to earn it. So the income tax and the GST are similar. The same activity is taxed in two ways - almost. The GST doesn't tax what you save.More important, the only way to avoid these taxes is to stop working, stop buying or go underground. Difficult. You have my full attention. But the tax should apply not to SUVs but the use of SUVs. If a SUV sits in the garage, it's no danger to anyone. And there's not just pollution, your SUV takes up space on a road when you drive it. When you rent a hotel room, you pay for the space. The same should apply for a road space - even if it's moving. An individual must pay income tax on dividends received. Dividends are a source of income like any other. The problem is that corporations must pay another tax (corporate tax) on earnings before they pay any dividends. Not surprisingly, corporations don't pay dividends - they re-invest their profits.The equivalent would be the following: You receive by direct deposit your after-tax salary and then also pay a tax every time you use your debit card. Not surprisingly, you stop using your debit card and start using the ATM alot. (Why would the government apply such a tax? Because voters believe only rich people have access to bank accounts and debit cards.)

Is that bad? Is It wrong to create something of greater value than the effort put in to create it? Is it wrong that the measure of value should be what someone else is prepared to give up to enjoy your creation? "Profit" makes these ideas clear by using mathematics.

Either Martin is saying nonsense or the journalists are deaf or, Martin just doesn't know how to get his message out. I'd go for the latter. Martin is not good at politics. The Globe & Mail: G & M Martin in Quebec The Toronto Star: Toronto Star Martin in Quebec Sun chain