August1991

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.

Elder, your good questions seem to have been ignored. I hope I understood them well. There's an idea about that "marriage" confers "benefits" and that's why gays want marriage. For example, I've heard that if gays understood that marriage meant "responsibilities" too, then fewer gays may want marriage. (The right wing has a tendency to be a strict nanny; the left wing a fun one.) IMV, both left/right are wrong. Traditional marriage can only be seen as an agreement, publicly made, between a man and a woman to live together despite what happens. It's a contract - a long term one that says I give you all and you give me all. As in all contracts, there are benefits and costs. In this contract, the benefits and costs are unforeseen; one party breaches at peril. Now, what if gays had the opportunity to sign such a contract? Well, they have always had this opportunity. Any two people can go to a notary (solicitor, lawyer) and draw up any agreement or contract. It will be enforceable according to the terms of the contract. In this, gays have been free to "marry" for ages. Well, no. They couldn't use the word "marriage". They could only rewrite but not use the State or Religious contract. They were sometimes subject to criminal code violations. Now, should the government get involved in such contracting? (That was Hugo's question.) Should the government use such contracts, for example, in deciding immigration matters and paying out survivor benefits? What do private insurers do? What do you think? (BTW, both the State and private firms have been more or less doing this for about 20 years or so.) "Pushing religious institutions?" IYV, is religious affiliation voluntary or involuntary? If it's voluntary, then the gays will just change their church and find an agreeable cleric. If it's involuntary, then the gays will not request forbidden marriage - how can they choose otherwise? IOW, a non-issue. Should gays be able to say they're "married"? On this, I'll wait for a change in my dictionary, or a change in Globe & Mail usage. "The elderly woman, her spouse of 27 years, said that she had no reason to put her head in the oven..."

G&M Poll CTV News NP, 27 November 2002 CTV Poll Policy Alternatives One can argue about methodology, the way the questions were asked, regional differences, sources (Policy Alternatives??) - the fact of the matter is, we're a left wing country. Is it because we choose to define ourselves as "Anti-American" and the US is right wing? Well, people in Quebec have a distinct sense of who they are - no need to be anti-American - and they would be on the left side of all these questions. Is it because Canadians are "behind" the political ideology curve? Eventually we'll "catch up" with the "progressive" Americans and Brits? (In Quebec, the word "progressive" still means State Intervention and "neo-liberal" is an insult of ex-communication.) Or, taking a leaf from the angry American left, are we just a nation of ignorant cry-babies, manipulated by the CBC to believe that we can have it all for free? Or, maybe there's some sophisticated analysis that explains these results and at the same time means that people will happily vote for Stephen Harper. I wonder. The guy got 56% against 37% for a woman, basically unknown two months ago, and whose main contribution to the candidacy was to make plain that she was a social liberal, a "progressive" conservative who wanted to bake bigger pies but not by demolishing government. The Liberals are immersed in umpteen scandals yet they still lead the polls. Am I wrong to say that many Canadians secretly agreed when Broadbent compared Canadian banks to MC and Visa, or when Lewis talked about "Corporate Welfare Bums"? I'm no left wing apologist. Far from it. I've seen the beast of government up front and it's ugly in my view. But it seems to me that many Canadians still believe there's a pony under all that pony dung. One has to admit the truth sometimes, and in this case, it's what our countrymen believe. Admit it. We're a boring Finland. Harper will have a hard slog.

Thanks cgarret, I found the site amusing! But the article is entirely premised on the assumption that people who read about the Guatemalan civil war are ninnies, or decide how to vote based on what they read. You give far too little credit to the intelligence of the people you espouse to defend. But more important, most people (Canada or US) don't know where Guatemala is and few (if any) will cast their vote based on what happens there. Ordinary people have a tendency of deciding in their own way what they think is important. They decide on their own how to vote. To say they are manipulated is demeaning, and wrong. IMO, Americans have a strong tendency to vote according to whether they think their own life is good or not. Canadians vote more traditionally. Sometimes I wish it were as easy as you suggest to manipulate people.

cgarret, I have always suspected that the left has a vague disdain for the ordinary joe; the left seems quick to assume the ordinary joe is uneducated and easy to manipulate. What gives the left this right to "superiority"? I completely disagree. Voters in Quebec are NOT going to vote for Harper. They just won't. He's just too - excuse the word - foreign. (It's the same as asking voters in Alberta to vote for Lapierre.) Which brings me to another point of Springer: I agree. In 1968, there were 42 seats in Alta and BC. Now, there are 64. In Quebec, it went from 74 to 75 in that time. More critically though, about half of Ontario seats vote for a "National" leader: someone who can win in Quebec. The most extreme case (when Ontarians voted "against" Quebec) was 1979 when Clark won 57 of 95 Ontario seats. The Liberals still kept one-third. There is a chance that Harper will repeat 1979 in the next election. There are two last points: 1) Harper seems to be a Bush Jnr type politician: lower expectations, then surprise everyone when you win. All of the pundits write Harper off but he seems to win. 2) I don't think Canada is truly a "right-wing" country. We're rather a nation of working class, Chicago Democrats.

The voting turn out was 37% of the some 250,000 registered party members. Am I wrong in thinking this is low? Will the tabulation of the second choices be made public?

There is core Liberal support in Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario. This will ensure the Liberals win more than the NDP. Don't count the Liberals out just yet.

All of this could be said about Martin. He too was there. His answers would probably be the same. Read the Globe report here: G&M Gagliano

It's not wacky to me at all. Sir Riff, what specific right (freedom) do you take most seriously? Sorry Sir Riff, you're right, I'm wrong. Saying wacky things, that harm no one because the words are only words - not physical blows, that's wonderful. You're right. Voltaire was right: Je ne puis être d'accord avec vos paroles, mais jusqu'à la mort je défendrais votre droit de les prononcer à voix haute.

It's not wacky to me at all. Sir Riff, what specific right (freedom) do you take most seriously?

Good question. Good post. All should answer honestly, with understanding. Let's poll all posters by making them post here. I take most seriously the right to leave/enter freely the country, Canada.

I think Canada needs an English Trudeau. French federalists will listen, if he's honest. (You English federalists listened to Trudeau and were seduced because he was fancy. French federalists need more.) Does Harper have it? I don't know.

I saw the Internet clip. I'll read the papers tomorrow, and discuss this with friends. But I think you're right. Well, Harper told the truth But he didn't bare his soul. For an honest English, he did his passionate message. I suspect he wanted it. Still, he's no Trudeau, Parizeau, Levesque, Ryan, Bouchard. But Goldie, I think you're right. Why? (Hearing this story, French Canadians will be curious now... Why did this English speak as he did.)