August1991

Hmmm. I think you're right. I'm still thinking about the Mom-and-Pop business and Microsoft and government and lobbying. You're right: Wal-Mart is not the same as my local depanneur. But what? And how does this change modern government?

Getting better? He's learning? Honestly, I have no idea what I mean. But Crosbie-types seem good at getting this one right. (Where is a Newfoundlander when you need one?) Let me explain. When I think of myself as an English-Canadian, I feel there's something wrong about Martin. But I can't explain what. So, what is it? (Thanks Goldie for The Winnipeg Sun article. It made me feel good that I'm not alone.) But what is it about Martin? Can a Newf, or a literary Liberal explain this?

They are frustrated perhaps, but absolutely silly. The independance, sovereignty, of Quebec. In the context of Quebec, that's a good question. I think the separatists (indépendantistes, souverainistes) were tired of watching Quebecers voting for Trudeau. There had been efforts to get voters to boycott federal elections. The boycotts didn't work. (BTW, the word "boycott" has special significance in Quebec.) So, the BQ started as an alternative (another word in Quebec) and then people asked, "but what would the BQ députés do if they win?" (Well, there was Mulroney, Meech Lake, etc. etc. But the Trudeau sweeps started the idea. Mulroney made it obvious.) What is the Bloc's purpose? I think it is to offer a non-Liberal way for people in Quebec to vote. But I think your question,maplesyrup, really is: "What does Québec want?" (IMHO, it's still a good question.) How about North America's Sweden? You know, Abba and Volvo. (Celine Dion and Bombardier.)

A goof? A doofus? Not really. In a column, Jeffrey Simpson had him running as an Opposition Leader against the Liberal Party. It's not that either. Is there a literary, Liberal voter out there that can explain this? I need a Newfoundlander to make this one plain.

Dennis, I agree, there's something wrong, but what is it? Really? Paul Martin Junior? What would his Dad say?

No, mercantilism, and the Bay came well before the industrial revolution. With reason. There was autocracy to buy. Precisely. If corporations can add greater value to their product at lower cost (meaning customers will pay more to get the benefit), then corporations will do it. Radial tires are a good example. There is no conflict between profit maximization and consumer satisfaction. On the contrary, the co-incidence of interests (consumers, owners) makes for the delight of the market system. If that were the case, you would see billions - not millions - spent on TV advertising. The winner of the White House could easily pay off "investors" several times fold by tariffs, regulations or Justice investigation. None would require getting difficulty legislation through Congress. The Left thinks ordinary people are stupid, Madison Avenue is smart, and the world needs more teachers, social workers and journalists. The Left is wrong.

Goldie, OK, someone else seems to have the same feeling as I do, but WHY? What is it about the guy? On paper, he's perfect. So, what's wrong?

For Willy, others can ignore: I recall Trudeau at MUN in St. John's saying, "OK. You can have every last cent from the oil. But would that be Canada?" The NEP raises the same question. Who owns the oil under the ground in Alberta? Trudeau suffered the cuts of a thousand knives because of the FLQ and the so-called lack of a Quebec signature on the Constitution. True, Quebec's legislature voted against (PQ and provincial Liberals under Ryan). But Trudeau said that his federal Quebec Liberals did sign. But who represents the people of Quebec? Well, who represents the people of Alberta? If we have a country, then Trudeau's question is good. It opens minds, and maybe wounds, but wisely. I'm no Trudeau apologist. Far from it. (Incidentally, I had no argument with his being left-wing.) Rather, I disagreed with his apparent belief - typical of post World War II types - that the world is perfectible. I don't think it is. And I'm irritated by those who want to perfect it. I think instead that people just are, and that they learn on their own in ways none of us can imagine. Thank God, if so willed.

The Liberals are about to embark on a campaign based on the Paul Martin Team because the polls show him leading the party. The word is about "re-branding" the Liberal logo. Yet, it seems to me there is something wrong with this idea. Honest to God, I have nothing against the man, but I have the impression Canadians are not comfortable with him. Can someone clue me in? Or am I mistaken? Is it that Martin was perceived as a good Finance Minister under Chretien, they formed a good team somehow, but he's not good solo? Or is that he's frenetic, runs around everywhere giving press conferences, and raises his voice an octave or two when he gets excited? Or is that he was ambitious and got the job through, let's say, indirect means? Or is that he's just dishonest because he has all those ships abroad and plays dumb about the sponsorship deal? Is it because he's older than Mulroney? Heck, I can't figure. On paper, the guy looks like the Liberal candidate from heaven but it seems to me there's something wrong. If you're a true-red Liberal, please explain. What gives?

If you believe that BD, you are crazier than I thought. (And why did you say the U.S. this time and not Bush?) I liked Mubarak's answer to the question, "And what does this attack mean for the peace process? He said, "What peace process?" Look, the Israelis and the Palestinians (and many of the Lebanese) are peas in the same pod. I hope I don't sound frivolous but they love attention. 1/10 of 1% of the world's population can command everyone's attention. They grandstand, and love doing it. But true, they both want the same land and have X, Y, Z reason for saying they're right. Makes for a dramatic story. What else? Israel is the only democracy in the area. But I have to admit nothing's more fun than arguing with a Palestinian. (If you like argument...)

I suppose it sounds that way, but I don't mean it as such. It's just that the last time English Canada had a leader who spoke for English Canada was, well, Pearson and Diefenbaker. (Clark? Turner? Campbell?) I don't know if English Canadians trust Harper. But maybe he's ready made for it. He's arrived at a time when Canadians have a deep distrust of politicians and his major asset is his stubborn, Clyde-Wells style honesty. Many English Canadians seem to think that separatism is some kind of strategy in a poker game. It's not. (And I'm not saying that to raise the stakes. Rather, I see it as a strange dance that in truth started in 1960 - well, maybe 1759.) Let's see how this unfolds.

The history of the 19th century is one of industries lobbying for protectionist legislation. Governments were bought and sold. (Think of John A., Tammmany Hall, Robber Barons) Where do you think the idea of mercantilism came from? If anything it was worse then than now. (Think of the Hudson's Bay Co. and how it was formed.) Do you mean to say that the auto companies were unsuccessful when air bag regulations were implemented in the 1990s? Despite Nader, I have tendency to believe that corporations lobby better than consumers. I suspect that air bag legislation was a protectionist measure, useful in the 1990s, but not in the 1970s. I have little or no belief that such regulations are beneficial to consumers. If air bags provide added value, firms would jump at the chance to offer them - like radial tires. (No need for regulation.) This one gives me pause. Is there really a difference? Both mom-and-pop and Microsoft face a bottom line which keeps them focussed. Can big firms stray further for longer? (Well, Brittany Spears can too - that is, sometimes it's a chance offering.) The significance to me of large firms is their existence and their internal operations. They amount to mini-Soviet Unions, or US Armies. But they cannot pursue arbitrary goals for long. They are benign to the State. Look, consider this: Bush's re-election budget is $100 million and if he wins, he will command a budget 10,000 times larger. This seems an extremely good investment - if we talk lobbying efforts. But in fact, one doesn't buy control of the US budget through lobbying or campaign contributions. Politicians sell themselves the way Martin has just done. He's buying the cattleman vote for $1 billion and the young family vote with the bursary tax credit.

What hard statistics? Income distribution statistics are fraught with the basic problem that most people, early in life, are poor. Later in life, they're rich. There is mobility during one's lifetime. As to the spending power point, for everyone who sells, there is someone who buys.

The fact of the matter is the NDP and the CPC will not get any seats in Quebec. I also don't see the Liberals getting more than 20 now. The Bloc will get 55. Unless something changes (what?), this election is a foregone conclusion in Quebec. More seriously, we may well be watching the next step in this neverending "Canadian" saga. For the first time in a long time, English Canada may well have in Harper someone who speaks for English Canada.

And what realities would that be? That WAL-MART did not exist 40 years ago and may well not exist in 40 years. (Think of Eatons') That Ford once dominated GM in the US car market (in 1920, 55% to 11%), then GM dominated and now Toyota dominates the world market. That Microsoft didn't exist 20 years ago but now dominates IBM. That McDonald's is now less profitable and is struggling to change the way it operates. Corporations face the ugly truth of a bottom line. If customers can do better elsewhere, they'll go - regardless of the advertising. It's a fundamental error of the left to believe that ordinary people are ignorant fools and who can be easily manipulated. (The same ordinary people the left wants paternalistically to protect.) Governments do not face such an ugly truth. The government has your cheque book and your credit card. At any time it wants, it can spend in your name or borrow in your name. (Incidentally, it makes absolutely no difference which it chooses.) No corporation has such power.

Somebody is paying now for the kids' education, cg, and if I understand your other posts, it appears to be the "wage slaves". Becaus the "government" pays, does not mean it's free. This is a very touchy issue in Quebec. No one here has yet clued into how Harper views the Constitution. I have yet to see the term "firewall" (or its French equivalent) used here. Curious.

The "flat tax" as I understand it would mean that taxpayers would pay tax as a fixed percentage above a generous personal exemption. I don't see how this is "regressive". We almost have this now in Canada. On the Mtl CBC this morning, it was reported that 25% of the city's population cannot find a family doctor. Walk-in clinics typically require a wait of about 5 hours. All of this will simply get worse. BTW, we already have a two-tier system: it's a combination of "contacts" and going to the US. What possible difference is there if the shareholder is American, Chinese or Brazilian? Any owner would be wise to seek the best return on investment. Anything less and the business will soon be bankrupt. BTW, the major problem with Canada's tax system is that people with low incomes are encouraged to non-report because of the high marginal rates they face on unearned income. As to corporate taxes, this amounts to double taxation. Corporations avoid it by re-investing; this means shareholders receive a capital gain instead of dividends. One consequence is that forms are larger than they otherwise would be.

Precisely, slavery means being taxed at source. And many people are very tired of it. They want in on the same deal you've got cgarett. The last thing they want is someone like you so willing to spend someone else's money on some grand scheme. Do you see the great disconnect? Your own situation and what would happen if the whole world did as you say?

We're miles from marriage, but what the heck. Hugo has made the error of putting everything in the context of "power" and the "concentration of power". I guess he's making a political philosophy of Acton's phrase "Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." I've understood that phrase to mean that the power to forbid trade is the power to command a bribe. Rather than power, how about the better question of whether a relationship is voluntary or not. A citizen's relation to the State is involuntary - unless one chooses to vote with one's feet. A customer's relation to a corporation is voluntary. The State can use your credit card at any moment to buy what it wants and you have no say in the matter. No corporation has such "power".

Only someone thoroughly ignorant of business could write such nonsense. This is economics through the eyes of a Gap sales clerk. "people just don't seem to need more than one widget each and are only willing to pay so much for one" If this were true, we would not be posting on this forum, we would still be playing cards by candlelight. IOW, never underestimate people's ingenious ways to make a buck; and other people's endless desire to spend one. "you need to cut costs! and labor is usually the most expensive cost. so if you could just set up your factory in china... then boom, more profits!" Is this bad? If Canadians can get widgets more easily by having them made in China, why shouldn't we? Keep in mind something very, very important. The Chinese will not send us widgets for nothing. We will have to send them something in return. What? "except for those damn pesky national borders! with those silly rules that tax imports to protect the natiions widget industry!" I see, you enjoy paying taxes. Then you'll be happy to pay mine.

No question is silly, even asked publicly. And the best questions are asked publicly and anonymously! Have no fear. But Keynesianism is another question. Keysianism is very silly. Anyone who asks about that must be a complete fool... (I hope you have a sense of humour...)

The US fought a successful war. We did not. French Canadians were defeated, and immigrants of Irish origin were defeated too. You can draw your own opinion about the UEL. The recent arrivals -East European or others- are extremely sensitive to this whole question. I suspect they are already angry with what I have written. As a Ukrainian once wisely explained, "I came to the New World, but no one told me there were two of them." When Harper said "culture of defeat", he has no idea what wounds he naively opened. Trudeau opened minds, sometimes wounds, but always wisely. Harper is young. Let's see if he can heal, not hurt. "Any damn fool can burn down a barn. It takes someone smart to build one."

Jesus Christ? Let me start with this recent Mel Gibson movie that I have not seen. Maybe I will, but I doubt it. I have no desire to see a film depiction of someone being beaten to a pulp. I recall the end of Martin Scorcese's Casino (I guy gets beaten by baseball bats) and that was enough for me. Faked sex seems silly; faked violence seems pornographic. From what I can gather, the only reason any viewer can sit through this faked, Hollywood violence is because of "its significance". "He" suffered for our sins. Imagine you're a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim on a South Pacific Island. A Christian friend shows this video to you. What do you think? "Your religion is based on some guy being beaten to a pulp?" Imagine this is 5000 years in the future, you are walking through a museum, looking at Roman statuettes, Christian icons. Suddenly, you see this video beside a Rublyev. Confused, as we all are in museums, what do you think? Who was Martin Scorcese? Why did he make violent flicks? What was the mafia? By curiousity, I have been to almost all the places where Jesus was reputed to have walked. Anyone know Maloula, north of Damascus? How about Aramaic? Or how about Gethsamane? Or how much Jerusalem moved? The New Testament was written some 100 years after Jesus Christ died. I saw Christian churches of the 5th century. (Sorry if I say that when I walked among the foundations, I thought of Soviet propaganda of the 1920s.) Christianity to me? A step, maybe forward; more likely back. People need to believe because individual freedom is too frightening. People must work together because they achieve so much more more when they do. With respect alone do I query belief, or Christian faith if you will. I have had too many intelligent conversations with Muslims and Buddhists.

Forget race/ethnicity/sex. What about height? Or baldness? For example, when was the last time BC or Alta had a short, bald man as premier? Should there be a policy of "equal" representation based on height and hair? In the US, the Republicans apparently believe in "affirmative" action: Cheney, Ford and Agnew were all balding. For Democrats, you have to go back to Humphrey or Stevenson to find "bald". And what about height? Since this query is weird, check out this web site: Presidential Religion/Heights/Affairs In Quebec, people seem to ignore religion, height, hair and affairs: Trudeau and Levesque were both short and bald. Their religion is a given. Their affairs, I can't say.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.