August1991

Background quotes from previous posts: To be 'The Man', to stay "in the bubble", Bush needs every vote he can get, buy, manipulate. I simply don't see how he'll get these votes by encouraging a coup, 'regime change' in Haiti. The Jeffrey Sachs article(s). Wow! Did you notice how non-Americans blame America for the situation in Haiti? (I suspect you're not American BlackDog and you were at pains to explain that it's the US government, not Bush, organising the coup in Haiti.) Sachs, on the other hand, as an American, blames Bush. Of course, Sachs can't blame America because then Sachs would be, well, unAmerican. All of this has nothing to do with Haiti and everything to do with Bush and America. The first Sachs' article I saw criticised the Bush Jr. Administration because it cut aid to the Aristide government but said nothing about arming rebels... (IOW, I decide no longer to give money to a beggar on my street. The impoverished beggar now falls into dire poverty. This is my fault?) The next Sachs article I read (BlackDog, thanks for the link to the LA Times article) suggests by question only that the US supplied weapons to the rebels. Gawd knows. Sachs? a) Sachs with his big ego and penetrating wisdom (have you ever met him?) is really angry that he met Aristide recently, decided Aristide had popular support and then watched when Haitians got rid of Aristide or b ) Sachs really hates this Bush Administration and realises this is a way to make Bush look like an amateur in Foreign Policy, the only thing Bush has to get re-elected. (Advice to Bush-haters? The key Kerry question: Have these past four years made you better off? What about the four years before that? Now, think and make your choice - Democrat or Republican.) My final idea about the tragedy of Haiti? Have you ever read the novel "The Comedians" by Graham Greene? Greene was no American apologist. Read his book and then we'll post comments about Haiti - not about Bush, the US government, or America.

This approach to history is precisely Marxist (or Hegelian) and it is based on the idea that society has 'progressed' through various stages culminating in capitalism. (Marx thought the next stage was communism or socialism or something.) IMHO, he and Hegel were dead wrong. There are no stages to history. History just happens. At most, over time, we have developed new technology based on a better understanding of the universe around us. In my view, one of the most significant social developments was the invention of numbers because it meant we could use prices to trade. This was done perhaps as long ago as 10,000 years or so. Humans as a species really began to dominate then because we could co-operate anonymously. But Hugo, I really don't see this 'Idea of Progress' as a major difference between you and me. Instead, I think we have a bigger bone of contention. Let me show you one of the most famous quotes of Adam Smith: The idea is plain. Market relations work because people are encouraged to be greedy (self-love) and act in their own self-interest (their advantages), yet in doing so, they produce co-operation for all. IOW, Smith identified how prices in a market accomplish co-operation by encouraging private greed. Unfortunately, many still find this confusing. (Perhaps because it's contrary to Christian dogma. The film 'A Beautiful Mind', following Hollywood dogma, misrepresented the idea too.) (BTW, bakers and butchers have existed for thousands of years but the Scot Smith -aided by the Enlightenment- was the first to examine anything so mundane as why butchers do what they do.) 'Capitalism'? To me, this is merely the idea that if I own something, I can trade it temporarily (lend it) and receive compensation while I manage without the thing I'm lending. (Today, this is 'leasing' which still confuses some people.) IOW, capitalism is one obvious extension of market relations. More modern examples are contingency markets such as options (insurance and reservation schemes) and futures markets. In all these examples, a market relation, with a price, is the key idea. I'm sure the future will find more applications. Now then, 'democratic capitalism'? To me, democracy is a way of organising a political entity in society. Protected property rights are a critical feature to have functioning market relations (capitalism if you prefer). Democracy tends best to protect property rights. Other forms of government seem to allow too easily arbitrary seizure, and insecure property definition. Hugo, you seem to be from eastern Europe. If this is true, you should understand well the importance of secure property rights for a society to benefit from market relations. If what I own can be taken at any moment, then I only trade with people I trust absolutely. I think you and I are saying the same thing using different words. (But geez, you make me think!) We seem to disagree most about 'morality' and the role of self-interest in markets (capitalism). Sorry for this long post, but you are wordy too.

A Parliament with Svend is a good Parliament, in my view. Why? Any financial advisor will say that it's best to diversify. That's my starting point, but I'll explain further some time. (Would I vote for Svend? Probably not, but depending on the riding candidates...)

Yeah, right. Fanatic Alliance (AF) , or the Alliance Française (AF), please be honest. Are you French? In general, the Canadians I know are open-minded people. They vote Tory, NDP and Liberal. (True... many vote Liberal. Your comment about voting NDP is silly. But true, Canadians are generally happy. Are they gay?)

As ugly as the name is for the Tories, this thread is a good one. The modern issue in Western countries (US, France, UK, Canada) is social liberal/conservative and fiscal liberal/conservative. The sixties leftists have mixed up the word "progressive" with these splits confusing everyone. And in Canada, there's more confusion: we have the anti-Liberal party. The amalgamated CPC is fiscally conservative. Where the problem arises is whether the CPC is socially liberal or socially conservative. In this, the CPC is on the cutting edge of modern western debate. Fundamentally, 'What is freedom?' (For the moment, the CPC leadership candidates seem to be hiding behind the idea of 'parliamentary free votes' and such to stake their 'social' position.) The sixties, progressive NDP? Fiscally liberal (steal from the rich) and socially liberal (anything goes). Voters in Western countries are starting to wonder what all this means exactly. I don't think voters will be conned anymore by the idea that higher taxes and social freedom are 'progressive'. Stronach? If she wins, the anti-Liberal will vote will go - geez, where will it go? Bloc? NDP? Green? Nader?

I'm going to change the name of this thread to either "LPC - NDP - CPC Showing Strength" or else "Federal Election 2004". The current name is too biased. If the GG's writ is dropped 4 April, what election date do we have? And what about the Broadbent byelection? (I think the rule is that byelections can be called but then get cancelled if a writ is dropped. What's the latest date for the byelection?) What the...? When we have an election at the same time as the Americans, does this favour the Libs or Tories? 68, 84. More pointedly (and thinking of Layton), Chretien - the Trudeau wannabe - managed well one piece of his mentor's advice. 'Canadians don't like a leader who kowtows to the Americans'. I suspect Nader would only hurt any party he tried to help, and I think a concurrent US election involving Bush will favour Layton over Martin, and let's say - hmmm - Harper. Overall, I agree MapleSyrup. These are interesting times and this one will be more interesting than the last several. Geez, maybe as good as 1979. Last Point: In Lapresse today, nothing about 'Le Scandale' except a column by Pierre Foglia. Know him? If not, he's the more intelligent, more sophisticated, less clueless Toronto Star 'Stringer' of Quebec (what a comparison - sorry, the best I can do.) The column is absolutely damning - in a smart, simple way - of Martin and federal Liberals.

$$$$$.

Where do I begin? What gives you - or a preacher - the right to believe people should be changed? In your mind, what is freedom ? What gives you the moral authority to judge how other people choose to spend their time or conduct their lives? No one forces anyone to work 80 hour weeks or drive SUVs. When you say 'freedom', what do you mean? When was democratic capitalism young? In the 18th century of Adam Smith and Ben Franklin? Sorry, I don't fall for that Marxist 'stages' claptrap of 'feudalism, capitalism, socialism'. What you all call 'democratic capitalism', I would simply call market relations. By a market, I mean people voluntarily trading using prices to find the best terms of trade (deal). [i sometimes think that we in Western countries are so familiar with this that we can barely imagine a world without it. Adam Smith did not invent it. He was simply the first to observe something that had been happening for several thousand years.] So, what is a world without markets? A world of competition and co-operation. Co-operation is always better for the collective but competition is sometimes best for the individual. (Example: Let's work together to hunt an animal. Now that we've killed the animal, I fight you to get the whole animal.) People fighting over the prize of a dead animal is not good for any society (but it is dramatic to watch!). It is better to encourage people to renounce greed and share (boring but honourable). A good example of co-operation is marriage, family and belonging to a clan. Now, into this world, we introduce a market with prices. We tell people to be greedy: Seek the best deal for yourself. The buyers go looking for the lowest price, the sellers for the highest price - they are all competing - but the result is good! They co-operate perfectly! This radical change to human relations is still confusing people. With this said, I really enjoy reading your comments. Don't stop this thread! I too prefer co-operation to competition, charity to wilful harm - and I would be the first to admit I am often wrong. I enjoy thoughtful discussions because I have learned too many times that I should change my opinion!

BD and MapleSyrup, I agree with you both. I think the Senate should be abolished, and electoral reform would do democracy in Canada well. In fact, the Charest government just tabled a proposal to have 75 seats by fptp and 50 by party list in the Quebec's National Assembly. (And immediately, the Quebec nationalists started to argue.) Any reform of the Senate, and serious federal electoral reform, would require a constitutional amendment. That's not going to happen. Why? Because as soon as you say "constitution", you open a can of worms - and the arguments never end. To amend a country's constitution should be difficult, but not impossible. Until something changes, it is impossible to amend Canada's constitution. This is one indication that Canada is not normal country.

It is unthinkable that the State department officials mentioned would do anything of this magnitude without direct instructions from the White House, meaning Bush. And what I mean is that Bush, or the US government if you will, doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the situation in Haiti. As a previous US president once famously said, "There ain't a vote in it." Your final point however is good. Haiti is an absolute tragedy. The Haitian-Dominican border is visible in satellite photos because of deforestation. Haiti is not the poorest country in the world, but it's the poorest in the western hemisphere. Why? To blame Bush (or the US government) for this tragedy is simply silly. To do so says much more about your opinion of Bush (and the US government) than it does about your opinion of Haiti's tragedy.

Same clowns, same circus? Heck PM PM is older than Mulroney. Gimme a break...

Evil side? Are you a Mel Gibson Christian? What is the 'evil' side of human nature? Not evil. Human. For thousands of years, millions, people wanted this. Is it clear to you how this happens? Free market prices do not appeal to higher angels. This is not right/wrong Christianity. (In fact, I suspect Christianity was the first socialist response to the wonderful human invention of math!)

Final. Bill Gates is careful with (does not waste) his time; the guy on Ste-Catherine street is careful with (does not waste) the coins in his hand. I'm sure both splurge sometimes. But that's not waste. Even Bill Gates will get at most 80 some-odd years. Who is rich really?

A contentious pre-final. Why is 'theft' as we know it bad? Well, why is 'welfare as we know it' bad? Because, if people can steal, they waste! How? Well, rather than do something useful with their time, they waste time devising ways to steal (go on welfare). Victims then waste time devising ways to prevent theft (avoid taxes). Which is "richer"? Iceland or Russia? Why?

To TheloniusFleaBag: By this quote, you believe that hurricanes and earthquakes are good for capitalist economies. All those destroyed buildings mean good business (and profits) for construction firms. Please, use rigorous common sense when discussing these issues. Hurricanes and earthquakes (and wars) do not make societies rich. (What about 'foreign' wars, if you're American? Manufacture bombs and planes, put them on a boat, sail the boat into the ocean, sink the boat. Everyone gets rich!) As my mother would say, for heaven's sake, think. Countries do NOT become rich this way. Capitalism is successful because it tends to abhor waste. Socialism is unsuccessful because it tends to cause waste. The only measure of 'justice' I can imagine is waste - the cardinal sin. My grandmother taught me that. Poor, she wasted nothing. Individuals don't waste on their own, but badly organised collectives can waste a lot.

To TheloniousFleaBag: I can only say that you must have raised them poorly. My reference to "children" was poetic. I meant your children, your children's children, and then their children again. There is no doubt that you have stolen from the past. You are born into a world with so much but you gave up nothing to get this. (Even if you were born in a so-called Third World country, you still benefit by so much compared to anyone born as recently as, say, 500 years ago.) Now then, your children's children's children will benefit from you -by their birth - but you will get absolutely nothing from them. They probably won't even remember you! (Do you know who your ancestor was 500 years ago?) Theft has nothing to do with anything I understand as "justice". We are all thieves.

Given this crazy argument, I'll start with Hugo. Hugo, you are basically wrong. Let's be honest. Capitalism/Free Enterprise/Free Markets encourage people to be greedy and get the most for themselves. True, they sometimes share but that's not the main intention. Yet, as a result, these capitalists co-operate more than even the best intentioned socialist ever would. Why? Because the capitalists compete on price - they compete for a simple number (money if you will). What inventions, prices and money! It didn't exist 6,000 years ago when people could only co-operate as socialists would have us co-operate now. ("You do this and I'll do that and then we'll meet later. OK?") Underneath it, socialists don't understand how capitalism produces this level of co-operation because socialists are usually bad at math. Hugo, I suspect you understand these ideas from the best teacher: experience. What will the future do when such teachers don't exist? We can only teach math now.

You would have me believe that George W. Bush spent time thinking about how to overthrow Aristide because, well, because Aristide was, well, you know... Do you have any idea what life in a place like Haiti means? Do you have any idea what concerns a US president? The idea that Bush, two months ago, spent even 5 nanoseconds thinking about Haiti and Aristide strikes me as absurd. On the other hand, I realize that the question is not Haiti or Aristide at all. It's Bush. The dislike of this man in some circles borders on irrational, wanton, phobic hatred. Borders? No, it's crossed some pathetic line. Whatever happens in the world, Bush must have been nefariously involved. Well, you know what? Bush'll probably get re-elected precisely because his opponents are foaming at the mouth. MOR Americans will see these rabid anti-Bushites and say, Kerry's ok but his supporters are nuts.

The story was that she received a 70K Mercedes and a portion of the cost was picked up by the ad agency. In addition, one month before leaving Via, she received a letter of commendation from Pelletier. I'd say the report is a mild salvo in a war possibly starting among federal Liberals. It's usually the Tories that vindictively wash dirty linen in public. I'd be surprised if the Liberals succumbed to a Beirut approach to politics, but who knows.

Thanks for the reference. The article is good. It lays out the Liberal strategy and makes it plain they're going for a Spring election. I may be wrong but 1) I'm not certain that Martin will be as popular as they believe (he's too frenetic, even ditzy, for a PM) and 2) they are really pushing it when they pretend it's a "new" team. Sorry, I think it's the same clowns in the same circus. It's almost insulting to pretend otherwise.

NDP Newbie: French people in Quebec think of you, the same way you think of Americans. Who is right?

Greed is inevitable. At this moment in history, our "best solution" is ownership and terms of trade - prices. With these, greed is turned into co-operation. Let's admire this wonderful human invention of prices, and mathematics. Now, can anyone imagine a way to extend the solution?

You guys are all living in FANTASYLAND! (Who is prepared to dispute my precise calculation that 47,326 angels can dance on the head of a pin?) Canada CANNOT amend its Constitution because Canadians are involved in an extremely messy argument about the existence of Canada. Everytime I hear westerners go on about PR and TripleE, I think I'm a divorce lawyer and the mother-in-law comes to say: "It would be much better if I took the kids on Sundays instead of Wednesdays." My answer? "You're right! But that's not the problem right now and given the way things are, your suggestion will just add to the litigation." (And my bill!!!)

Broadview-Greenwood is tony, gentrified Layton territory. If Layton went Tony "Third Way/New Wave", he'd be a shoe-in (shoe in?) and B-G would be Islington in a World Class Toronto! Well, sorry to break this to you: The NDP ain't Labour, Jack ain't Tony and the worst thing to do when discussing politics is to let wishful thinking replace basic facts. (It's probably true that Bill and Hillary thought McGovern was a shoein even with Eagleton - they learned though.) Layton has a very good chance of winning in B-G; it will add to the 20 odd seats the NDP might get nation-wide.

I think Collenette was on about that. It's a good line. The French reaction has been generally positive about what PM PM has done - but I suspect that any dig to Pelletier/Chretien is appreciated by separatists. There's almost a smell of bloodlust - who will be next? Ouellet? Chretien himself? Can Trudeau be connected to this somehow? In my view, the English press makes a bigger deal about how this is perceived as a "Quebec scandal" than the French press do. The perception in Quebec is that "the English are dumb and don't get it. It's not Quebec that is scandalous but federalist Quebecers that are scandalous. They'd sell their honour, their grandmother, their language etc. etc." BTW, all CoS have many enemies. Think of Haldeman, Haig, Sununu. Lalonde was Trudeau's from 68-72. Never met a CoS that wasn't a "bastard/bitch". Goes with the job. Nevertheless, Pelletier has long, winding roots into Quebec politics.