August1991

Canada GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity) $29,800 (2003 est.) CIA Factbook USA GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity) $37,800 (2003 est.) CIA Factbook The data in both cases is in US dollars. (The Canadian dollars of Canada's GDP were translated into US dollars at an exchange rate that approximated what money will buy. The CIA got its data from Statistics Canada.) I would like to see median income data and comparisons for the two countries in 1970 and 2000. Incidentally, the data above implies that Americans have on average incomes about 25% higher than us. Bear in mind that they use some of that extra income to spend more on health care and to buy cruise missiles.

That doesn't tie in well with the fact that 77% of the Canadian electorate is governed by those they didn't choose but who still exercise arbitrary power over them. Everyone in Canada is free to leave if they don't like the way our constitution provides for selection of the government. And, just an aside, the goverment in Canada does not exercise 'arbitrary' power. TS, I agree with you except maybe for the arbitrary part: In the case of government, we clearly take the bad with the good. John Kennedy said that if 80% of the population is supportive, that amounts to unanimity. Well, what about the other 20%?Another way to view this is to say that I should be able to sell my vote. Markets seek perfect co-operation. A Pareto optimum means 100% support versus any other alternative. Our current system of government is arbitrary. It is barely an improvement over "I'll decide because my Dad decided."

No, August, it becomes government when one condo 'owner' is there against his will. Your condo argument fell apart, and you gave up even trying to defend it about half-way down page 7 of the "defence of anarchy" thread.Who keeps you in Canada, Hugo? Are you forced to stay here? Indeed, I suspect that you chose to come and live here!Hugo, you never answered that question. If I understand properly, you define government as a prison and then say (surprise, surprise) government is bad. But Hugo, how do you define the administration of the condominium? What term do you use to describe this institution? You did once refer to moving in the following way: What would you be abandoning? You would sell and get a fair price. In fact, I think that's not a bad way to view the value of government services.A rent is what attracts people to Canada. A quasi-rent is what keeps people here. It could be argued that these are the net benefits created by government. Imagine a condo administration that just raise common fees to repair the entry. You voted against the proposal, object to paying the higher fees but choose to stay in the building because moving would be more costly. Canada is a club, a condo building. What do you mean you have a stake in it? If you were born here, you inherited the condo from your parents. If you immigrated, you chose to buy a condo. In either case, if you don't like the current administration, sell and move on. (This isn't Soviet Russia. You do not require an exit visa.)If you don't leave, it is because the benefits are greater than the costs. Or at least, this is above your quasi-rent. ---- Hugo, you refer to "government" as a separate entity. It's not. It is an institution that allows people to co-operate together for mutual benefit. (Family too does this, as do markets.) IMV, a society with no government would be a poorer society and in fact no one would want to live there. You will say that's only my opinion and I will answer that I have seen no society without some form of "government". The reason is simple: markets do not provide in all cases a satisfactory outcome. IOW, I would prefer to move beyond this silly issue of whether government is ever a useful institution to the more interesting question of what should government do? Marriage, family and government amount to long term contracts. (What is alimony but tax by another name?) So, what should be in this contract given current market transaction costs? That is, what can government do better when a market is dysfunctional? To use the condo analogy, should the condo administration really be taking food from my fridge and giving it to other other condo owners? Fixing the entry is one thing; redistributing food another. ---- Hugo, you remind me of Tyco Brahe who simply refused to believe that the earth moved. For you, it is that government might be a useful institution.

Kimmy, I think this past election's significance lies in the Republican victories in the House and Senate.

Could parents justly bind their children into servitude before they were born? That is what the social contract amounts to: not merely a family qua family, but a family - not even your family - that presumes to sign your life away on your behalf before your very birth. My point was that family is a non-market institution which fosters co-operation. It does this in part through coercion. In addition, we do not choose to be a member of a family.Since I suspect you approve of 'family', I'm asking you to consider 'government' in a similar manner. As to Spooner, clueless is perhaps a bit strong. I disagree with ideologists in part because they put bone-headed attachment to a simple rule above rigourous common sense. Insurance poses numerous problems for free markets and a market solution is often sub-optimal.If you are not insured, and have no assets, how can I seek redress for a tort you cause? Worse, what incentive do you have to change your behaviour? I can see the benefit of a law requiring you to insure yourself. Pay me? Who is the 'me' in your quote above? My point is that I want some pay-off to accept to be coerced in the future. Like many deals, things don't always turn out as intended.But you are right. Nothing says that governments will exist in the future - in fact, I am certain they will change as we find other, better ways to co-operate. I generally agree with you but, once again, in practical terms I don't see how we can sell the high seas to a single owner. But Hugo, your examples are in effect government. That was what my condo example referred to.The 407 example is different. The road is open to anyone but each pays according to use. In the future, it is conceivable that we will use all roads that way. At the moment, technology does not allow this at a reasonable cost. Exactly. But even this won't work for all cases. All networks have declining average costs. You'd still wind up with only one distribution system. Let's be clear about the word 'price'. The terms of trade are not always explicit. A monetary price - a number - makes for easier comparative shopping. In the short run, yes.But I agree that we have no idea now how people will relate to one another in the future. 100,000 years ago, people could barely speak to one another. Co-operation is mutually beneficial and that is why humans seek to co-operate through a variety of institutions. I'd argue that people are far smarter at figuring out how to do this than you or I at theorizing about it. IOW, I prefer sometimes a positive approach to these questions. Hugo, you and I can argue about this but I will say that agree in principle with the following quote: The issue here is, have we made them worse off.

Maple Syrup is being clueless again, you can always tell.

Maple Syrup, I must say, this forum is boring without you. I'm "happy" to see you back. Let's argue "politely" as "Canadians". Mea culpa. We should all defend your right to be here.

Personal attacks? I'm sorry about my suggestion of your cheques and livelihood. I retract it.But MS, I advise you to diversify your savings.

Hugo, you appear to be a devout Christian and so I guess, you believe in family. Let me try my argument that way. And we don't choose our family either. Is that a reason to forbid families? Yes, I did. Rawlsian justice is a pure thought experiment. Spooner is clueless. Hugo discovers the difference between "rent" and "quasi-rent". How much would you pay to become Wayne Gretzky? How much would you pay not to be Spock?Or, how much would you pay to get a spot in the local mall? How much would you pay to break your lease with the local mall? But seriously, I agree with you. Governments can tax up to the rent. People leave at the quasi-rent. Then you define a failed market as a market where some people choose not to participate?No, I meant the cost of saving someone's home was negligible. So, even if the family didn't pay the premium, let's save their house. This leads to moral hazard. Better off to cover everyone. Ergo, government. (Even in medieval times people had the good sense to understand my argument. Hugo, you are normative. Try to be positive sometimes.) Key. Technology (in the broadest sense) determines an answer. About 50,000 years ago, the only way to co-operate was family (Mom/Dad), government (Alpha Male) or random acts of generosity/trust. Now, we've got markets (prices/numbers) and firms.Hugo, are you an original/genius? Find a new way to help our species to co-operate. Incorrect, August, there will be welfare losses. If you grant a market with "universal, obligatory participation" you have created a cartel, which will then proceed to gouge on prices and generally extort from the customers who no longer have market options to help themselves. Government is about creating the cartel. IOW, the monopoly is better than nothing. Democracy seems to be a minor improvement over "we'll flip a coin" to decide the monopolist. I'd prefer "pay me and I'll let you become a monopolist". I don't know this example. To me, the environment is a question of property rights. Nobody owns the high seas. Hence, anyone can take anything from them, or dump anything they want into them.For this reason alone, I'm a strong environmentalist. In my mind, David Suzuki is a fool. 407? No one has yet devised a way to charge me for driving on the road immediately in front of my house. Power generation, yes. Power distribution is different. Even in the land of Hope and Glory. Agreed, trade (co-operation) does not require a market price. Agreed, value is personal. And third, trade with a price means finding more easily a better deal. In the long run, it's in equilibrium. Static? No, it requires future markets.The theorem critically requires prices.

I wanted to avoid this thread. The American Left is flaky. I learned this in Amsterdam, many years ago, talking to a NYC Marxist who had gone to Soviet Russia, toughed out several months, and then decided Pravda was not the truth. On one side, we have flaky Americans. On the other side, we have inferior-complexed Canadians. The two produce a Tijuana marriage made in heaven. It'll last several weeks. End of story.

That's a good quote, you old Newf. The Canadian dollar should neither be high nor low. It should be at its "just" value. When a price falls/rises, there are winners (to varying degrees), losers (to varying degrees), people who don't care (no effect) but overall, the world is better off. The Left fundamentally does not understand this idea. Maple Syrup, for example, lives in a world of 80,000 years ago where the strong defeat the weak. For Maple Syrup, a strong "Canuk dolla" means Canada is "Numbuh Wun". In fact, the great thing about a price is that it forces people to reveal the truth. Force? Maple Syrup has voluntarily broadcast to all that he is self-interested and greedy (despite his claims to the contrary). I suspect MS gets his cheques in Canadian. He believes he'll always get them. And he believes he'll be able to buy something with the cheques.

I'll jump in here. I think each province should devise its own health care system as long as this guarantees a minimum coverage for people not paying any premium, and makes coverage transferrable between provinces (MS, that's federalist). In return, the feds would either cede tax points or handover cash. A provincial government should not necessarily be involved in delivery of health services (hospitals, clinics, individual doctors). This could should be non-profit, for profit or State. (Our education system works this way.) On the other hand, the provincial government should be closely involved in providing insurance. Premiums should be paid for basic coverage from general tax revenues. The provincial health insurance scheme should be free to impose a deductible (a small user fee) depending on the service. In setting basic service/deductible, provincial governments would have to think about catastrophic insurance, pharmaceutical insurance, routine care insurance and elderly insurance. We almost have this now. PM PM in the last agreement essentially gave the provinces the right to experiment along these lines. Alberta is allowing for profit clinics (I believe) and Quebec is starting on PPP (public-private partnerships - privately operated, government paid). A private clinic recently opened in Quebec, charging 1000$ annually for basic service. The Quebec government should pay my premium and then offer me catastrophic insurance coverage. KEY BUGBEAR: Health care workers in Canada are unionized. This makes any change politically impossible/difficult/ugly.

No, that would be a cartel, like Singapore, or several Soviet bloc countries. A single party in effect presents different faces.That is most definitely not the case in the US. BD, you may find it interesting that some right-wing thinkers, following this idea, are very much against bipartisanship. I suspect Bush's recent victory speech was mere window dressing. He has no intention of co-operating with Democrats. Incidentally, one condition for the conclusions of so-called perfect market competition is a homogeneous product. I think you are right that my "same sex kissing in a bar" example was a bad analogy. Here we would want heterogeneity (!) across a spectrum. My main point though was choice. It's the age old phrase, "He was so different before we got married."

Even de Tocqueville noted that American politicians tend to present themselves plainly as opposed to European politicians who tend to be authoritative. Maybe this derives from Protestantism. In any case, Michael Moore made the case that Bush Jnr was a goofball and I gather Bush Jnr never bothered to defend himself much. It's a long tradition. Gerald Ford said "I'm a Ford not a Lincoln." Jimmy Carter was proud to be a peanut farmer. Nixon pointedly said he graduated from Whittier College and barely passed his bar exams. Harry Truman ran a clothing store and was as plain speaking as they come. Reagan just smiled and nodded, pretending not to hear. On this issue of style, I'd say the European Left/Michael Moore approach is clueless. I think Bush Jnr's smirk and success bewilder and anger the Left. BTW, thanks Slavic for those numbers. Interesting. Do you have a link?

We debated this before. You choose to live in a certain jurisdiction and in effect, to be governed and taxed there. This certainly applies to municipalities and provinces/states. It applies to countries too. I gave the example of buying a condo with shared expenses.It is a long term contract with many terms unspecified. I think the critical idea here is that a free person voluntarily accepts now to be coerced in the future. This is similar to marriage. People vote with their feet, and I argued elsewhere that the best measure of citizenship is not voter turn out but tax compliance. I suspect governments are less rapacious when citizens can move more easily. (Think of Quebec or the Soviet Union.) Fire department. Yes, it could be private, collecting premiums on a voluntary basis. But that would mean not responding to a fire because the person didn't pay the premium.Insurance schemes in general don't function well on an individual basis. There can be welfare gains in having universal, obligatory participation. Even where private, group insurance is common. Another example would be all manner of networks. This would include roadways, water delivery, electricity. An argument could be made that government involvement would be welfare increasing. I don't think the environment will be protected without government involvement. We have argued this before - it concerns how to define property rights. There are transaction costs to using the market. These costs often concern obtaining information which in some cases is not merely too costly, it is impossible. The result is that no enforceable contract is possible. In such cases, for example, government might be able to obtain beneficial co-operation. Many beneficial transactions occur within a family that would be too costly through a market. (Think of sharing a single washroom.) Many beneficial transactions occur within a firm that would be too costly through a market. (Think of the assembly of an automobile.) Many beneficial transactions occur within a government that would be too costly through a market. (Think of national defence.) Hugo, have you ever heard of the First Theorem of Welfare Economics? Are you aware of the required conditions for its proof? [i am taking a normative approach here and I'm using efficiency as my moral compass.]

There need be no difference in the product. (Think of gasoline or sugar where there is no chemical difference.) The existence of a choice is what is critical. This changes entirely the nature of any relationship. I am not saying that choice solves all problems. You'll look a long time before finding a 20 cent beer.

Thelonious, as Bush has said on many occasions, America didn't start this war. It was those idiots who flew the planes into the buildings that started it. IMV, Bush is far more pragmatic than ideological. I think this election is more significant for the Dems. In the US Congess, they are now in the position of the Tories in Canada. The perpetually losing party on the wrong side of too many issues or perceived somehow as being inept.

BD, you still don't get it.Remember the lesbian (gay?) couple that were refused service in a bar in Alberta? The best defence against idiocy is to cross the street and go elsewhere. But that requires an alternative. Now, if Crest and Colgate were a cartel, then there would be no alternative. But from what I can see in the US now, the Dems and Republicans are at each other's throats. There is no bipartisanship. It's no cartel. BTW, I have always admired the US precisely because it produces and sustains such people as Hunter S. Thompson, Michael Moore, Sean Penn and Noam Chomsky. ----- Hugo, I started another thread.

They got paid as a team for hauling the boat. Each individual cannot observe the effort of the others. Each individual would benefit from shirking (and each one knows this). Hence, each individual agrees to be subject to coercion. There are many situations like this and they invariably arise from people being dishonest or cheating. Co-operation is a good thing but individuals are prone to being opportunistic. Markets sometimes solve this problem but not always.

With a GDP per capita about 30% higher in the US, I would expect movement the other way. In fact, Canada is becoming New York in the 1970s. Poor people are coming here to take advantage of our social services.

BD! Georgi Dimitrov! The Lion of Leipzig! I think Stalin had him killed. Far from it, I just got tired of banging my head against a wall.But I'll try again with your slave-driver example. In China in the 19th century, teams of men would haul boats up the rapids of the Yellow River. The men would hire another man to follow along and whip any shirkers. It was in the interest of each man individually to have such a slave-driver. That in essence is the logic of government.

Rather, I think Kinsella is right. Going negative works better than going positive.Or to be more precise, the candidate should go positive and the campaign should go negative. The Liberals got a freebie in English Canada in June.

I was listening to a French radio phone-in and everyone was saying that American voters are badly informed. I expected a Kerry win but I'm mildly happy that Bush was re-elected. In fact though, I agree with Kimmy that it's not the end of the world. The margin in Ohio (140,000) is just too big. In 2000, the margin in Florida was much smaller (25,000).

In a nutshell, that is the problem with the Left. You confuse the symbol of something with the reality.Because Crest and Colgate look the same, it does not mean that you can dispense with one and simply keep the other. It is having the alternative that is critical. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Government is a legitimate institution that can do good. We will have this argument (once again, *sigh*) in a different thread, Hugo.[Only a Bush Jnr victory could get Hugo and Black Dog to agree.]

Wow, BD claims there was no choice and eureka makes it seem the choice was between life and oblivion. I suspect many in Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Belarus and so on would be happy merely to have a choice.