August1991

I feel very sorry, Caesar, that you don't understand what "Canada" is all about.You seem to be English Canadian. So I suggest that you start with Grant's "Lament for a Nation". Then, since you seem to have a generous spirit, I suggest you go with Leandre Bergeron's "Small History" (in translation). Want to go professional? Try Dafoe's history of Laurier. Despite what foreigners say, Canada is an intriguing country. Canada's challenge is two languages. Few other places manage it. Sometimes, our writers make it good. Peter Newman's 'Renegade in Power' is fun to read. Crosbie's 'No Holds Barred' is excellent. Trudeau's 'Deux Innocents en Chine' and his 'Le Fédéralisme et les Canadiens français' are good too - I asked him to sign my copy. He did, in of all places, Camrose Alberta. But that was a long time ago.

How to advise Copps? If I were on her staff:One angle: "I didn't want to be a turncoat." (You mean being Liberal is above being Canadian? Looks bad.) Another angle: "I waited because I wanted good Liberals to get elected." (Too crass and calculated.) How about: "I didn't have all the facts assembled." (Looks like the facts are weak.) Final angle: "I feel uncomfortable in what I'm doing. But I want to make Canada a better country." (Does all of the above and changes the subject.)

Do you want to see how the Liberal Party operates? Look at this: Canada OnlineNow look who the Liberals get to discredit Copps and where he is now working. I wonder why this guy would step up so swiftly and get involved? CBC Story------ More closely related to the use of Liberal attack ads in the last few days of the campaign, I posted this from Kinsella's 2 July 2004 blog: At the outset of the last campaign, Harper said that a non-Liberal vote was not unCanadian but then he let that argument slide. That was a mistake. In the next campaign, Harper has to play a hard nationalist card. Harper has to wrap himself in the flag. He must even go as far as claiming that the Liberals have hijacked Canada to no good. IMV, English-Canadians desperately need to feel good about themselves. I have always liked this clip from the 1988 free trade debate. The Liberals succeed because they present themselves as "Canada". Mulroney was right when he said to Turner: "You do not have a monopoly on patriotism. And I resent the fact of your implication that only you are Canadian."

What are we supposed to make of this? If it is so important, and she had evidence, why did she wait until now to tell us? Shouldn't she have informed us before the election?

True, but I liked the quote, it's from Kerry and I figured this thread is the dumping ground for US election comments. The same thought ran through my mind when I read that. Then I figured guys in 'camo' go out with AK-47s and essentially make big pumpkins disappear. I dunno.

This site comes from Paul Wells and it shows Bush ahead of Kerry. Note that there's no arbitrage available between the overall winner and the winner in Florida. With 27 ECV, Florida will be the decider. Election Market This market is now giving a 60% chance to Bush and a 40% chance to Kerry.

That's what Charest is doing. What did Cheney and Klein talk about? Domestic trade? You mean you have a problem because it's a CONFERENCE? Who cares! How is a conference different from a meeting?Incidentally, I think Klein was alone when he met Cheney. Our Ambassador will be with Charest. IOW, the feds will know what was said. More pertinent, I suspect Klein's meeting was much more substantive than Charest's conference will be. Klein certainly suggested as much. I frankly have no problems with Klein meeting Cheney. I'd say whatever works. But for heaven's sakes, get down off your high horse.

Newf, you've hit the key point. What would the Liberals have to do to lose power?Some say Harper seems scary but it was the Liberal attack ads that shifted opinions in the last few days of the campaign. Ads in effect paid for with sponsorship money. The Liberal machine is a very ugly shark but in the minds of many voters in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, there is simply no alternative. The collapse of the Progressive Conservative Party was a result of Meech Lake. There are some very serious faultlines running below the Canadian surface. One indication is that the only party capable of forming a federal government is the Liberals. Copps' suggestion that PM PM wanted to get rid of the Canada health Act will be a blip for the people in the PMO. They'll say she's not telling the truth and then they'll move on. After all, if PM is not PM, the alternative is the end of Canada.

That's not true. You both make it seem as if a corporation is some kind of legal stealth creation. [The movie "The Corporation" was typical of the thinking.] The notion of a corporation as a "legal entity" like a person entirely misses the point. Nor is a corporation an entity that faceless suits hide behind. I blame Hollywood for many of these silly stereotypes. [From The Matrix to Waterworld, corporations are always the bad guys.] Corporate managers are still subject to criminal prosecution or civil suit for their actions. They are not exempt because they are acting in the name of a corporation. [Government employees get this kind of protection however.] The liability exemption applies specifically to shareholders. Partners do not get such an exemption. What does this mean practically? Creditors of a bankrupt corporation cannot sue shareholders to get their money back. IOW, a shareholder does not risk losing his house if corporate managers borrow from a bank. Creditors of a bankrupt partnership can sue the partners. A partner does risk his house when he borrows money from a bank. It would be impossible to have shareholders without limited liability. The riskiness of a share would change according to the solvency of various shareholders. With limited liability, some risk is transferred to creditors. Bank loans to corporations typically carry a higher interest rate to cover the additional risk. A call option is an example of limited liability. If I make a deposit for a holiday, and then walk away from the deal because I decide not to make the trip, my loss is limited to my deposit. The travel agent cannot sue me for not buying the whole trip. Limited liability for shareholders has the same effect. Limited liability might have consequences for inecntives. My car example was a bit too simple so I'll change it a little. Let's say I own a car which I lend to you so that you can make deliveries. We agree that you will pay yourself a salary and any residuals will go to me as payment for the use of the car. (I'm a shareholder and you're a corporate manager.) You have an accident and it is determined that the brakes were faulty. As owner of the vehicle, I am held liable. The victim sues me but can receive in damages at most the value of the car. In this scenario, would the limited liability provision lead to incorrect incentives? That is, as a shareholder, would I be less inclined to maintain the brakes. One solution would be to force me to buy insurance. This happens in some corporations. The creditors usually insist on this.

All we have in this story is Copps' version of events. I heard a quote of Scot Reid from the PMO denying the allegation. Toronto Star There in fact may be some truth to the story but I'd be willing to bet that Copps is putting spin on the story. And what is it about the CBC/NDP/do-gooding left to get their shorts in a knot as soon as someone talks about health care? Would Canada as we know it cease to exist if the Canada Health Act were changed? Is that what this country has become? A law about medical care? I also find it disingenuous of Copps' publisher to put an embargo on pre-publication stories and then arrange for such a leak. Lastly, I never thought I'd defend PM PM but this Liberal Civil War is weird. I wonder if Chretien will get involved. [MS, I've replied to Slavik because he provided a link to the article and his thread title is closer to the issue. Harper has nothing to do with this.]

Indeed, Ralph Klein went off and had a "substantive" chat with the US Vice-President on a matter of international trade between Canada and the US. Are you suggesting it's OK one way but not the other? Or, what exactly is your point?

Excellent quote. Toronto Star

The claims of death are vastly exaggerated (but I agree with you in principle).The Internet has altered transaction costs. In addition, I think there are more mechanisms available now to establish trust. Markets, when they work, are the best way for people to co-operate. Transactions internal to a firm are at best a poor substitute. Holding companies used to be common. Now shareholders diversify themselves. This perhaps reflects the lower transaction costs of share trading and the rise of large pension portfolios. IOW, it is easier to raise funds in a market rather than internally. Your Nike example is good but I think a better example is the following: firms have both in-house counsel and hire outside law firms. This example illustrates the nature of the problem. If I continue your logic, you should make the sweater yourself. Why don't you?

Now it's Kerry 271, Bush 257, Tied 10. Minnesota (?) is tied. I think Pennsylvania and Michigan will go Kerry. New Mexico doesn't matter (only 5 votes). The big unknown is Florida with its 27 votes. (The tally above gives it to Kerry.) So, it looks like we'll have 2000 all over again.

Not at all, Hugo.If I lend you money to buy a car and you kill someone with the car, my liability is limited to the sum of money I lent you. IOW, that is the most I can lose. The family of the victim can't sue me for damages because I lent you the money. In extremely simplified form, that's all that limited liability means.

Kerry 291, Bush 247 US electoral votes based on State polls IMV, the site above is the best way to know. With an election so close, Electoral College votes and state polling is the only way to go. It's close. Apparently, Kerry is no McGovern. He's not even a Gore. So, let's see what happens! This is true democracy.

I enjoy reading the stories of the people who lived here and I enjoy going about the pathways I find here. I have lived in different countries, but I have discovered no other specific place to call home.I am just not a nationalist. A canoe trip? A fishing trip? IME, women and men in Canada know how to roll up a sleeping bag, whatever the language. IME, abroad, it's not a given.

eureka, no insult intended, but WTF?You may not like this source (Fraser Institute) but the data is reliable. Government and GDP These stats show that Canadian governments bought 15.0% of GDP in 1966 and 18.6% in 1996. They transferred 7.3% of GDP in 1966 but 16% in 1996. You tell me if these numbers are too high or too low.

You have claimed this eureka, but you have NEVER provided evidence.In fact, since 1960 and through the 1990s, Canadian governments together have just grown larger in terms of total production they procure or transfer. God knows how much more governments regulate our dealings. I, for one, am not advocating that governments desist from active participation in our affairs. I even agree that it should take from the rich and give to the poor.My question is: When should a government stop? eureka, do you really believe that when governments take on average half of what people earn, and regulate everything we do, that's not enough? Do you really believe governments should get involved more in our lives? "Already wealthy and political sycophants" - I agree with you. So, how to stop them?

I stand corrected. "[Touches ear] I've got a Liberal voter here, Lloyd, should I interview him?" ---- From your post Caesar, it seems you voted Liberal because you are anti-American. You are entitled to your opinion but appeals to such knee-jerk emotions offend me. In the last election, David Herlihy was copying from a Master. To set up this Trudeau anecdote, bear in mind that 1) Trudeau was prepared to do anything to stop any possibility of treating Quebec differently from another province (IOW, Trudeau wanted to sink Meech Lake) and 2) Mulroney was in the process of negotiating a US Free Trade Agreement. In this context, Trudeau writes a very polemical piece published in Lapresse and The Toronto Star in which he calls Mulroney a poltroon (un pleutre) and in which he says the PM of Canada - for respect - must never "kowtow to the Americans" (faire la courbette devant les Américains). In both cases, the English is excellent but the French is better. Trudeau, when necessary and to defend his sacrosanct symmetrical Canada, was a demagogue. His appeal to English-Canadian anti-Americanism was cheap - but no doubt necessary, in Trudeau's mind. It worked. Meech sank. Parizeau did almost the same in his 1995 referendum night speech when he referred to the "ethnic vote". At the time, when I heard it, I thought that Parizeau was honestly expressing a frustration. He was speaking out loud. Trudeau's comment was calculated, and in writing.

I don't believe there are any Liberal voters on this forum. It seems to be infested with NDPers and "Alliance-Conservatives" and several others of unknown allegiance. Liberal voters are either too smart or too stupid to waste their time on Internet forums.

I'll be frivilous and say that would happen when people live forever. We face a fundamental constraint of time. IOW, we will never be wealthy enough. That is irrelevant. They could if they wanted to. Limited liability is a wonderful invention that makes it possible to divide risk. It is the distinction between a put and a call option. Such ways to define risk (and property, for that matter) will become more extensive in the future so taht they can be traded. Like all firms, a publicly traded corporation is a way to organize a whole series of contracts between individuals that, given current technology, would be too costly to organize through markets.You put emphasis on one aspect - lending and borrowing claims on (real) resources (buying and selling shares and bonds). This can be done through an organized market (public trading) or in an informal market (privately held corporation). The State creates a bias not through limited liability but through corporate taxes. Since shareholders are taxed on dividends paid from earnings after corporate taxes are paid, there is double taxation. As a result, corporations have an incentive to retain earnings rather than pay dividends. This means corporations are constantly searching for new ways to grow (and use their retained earnings). Shareholders realize their benefit through a capital gain - which is also taxed differently from income tax. Viewed from the perspective of your post, corporate taxes mean it is cheaper to raise funds internally rather than start up a new firm with new shareholders. Firms are larger than they would otherwise be and there is a misallocation of resources. ---- Incidentally, if you use the word "capital", ensure that is clear whether you mean physical/human capital (real resources) or claims (financial paper) on that capital (real resources).

Why?

Are you suggesting that we must choose between death by smog or death by drunk driver?Why can't society deal with both problems simultaneously? The question is how much to spend, in what way? In the case of drunk driving, I have a suspicion that penalties have been too lenient. I also think that "legal blood-alcohol limits" other than zero lead to costly litigation. In simple terms, "don't drink and drive" should mean literraly that. If you're caught with anything on your breath, they should throw the book at you. As to Campbell, how many lives would be saved in the future if he had to do three months jail time in Hawaii? If the premier of BC did jail time, many slightly tipsy people would think twice before getting behind the wheel. And among a few of them, that would be an accident avoided, possibly fatal. It would be a small cost with a great benefit. This is the kind of incentive the legal system lacks.

I would agree with you Thelonious. Consider Canada with all its regional arguments, it would be a worse mess if a foreign power were to be directly involved. At the level of a country, there is something debilitating about having an outsider resolve your own problems.As to democracy in the Arab world, most of Hugo's comments could be made about India - and yet, India has been a functioning democracy for over 50 years. And it's been more or less a pluralist state to boot. But true, among Arabic countries, only Lebanon resembles a democracy and it has a relatively large Christian population. I don't know why democracy seems to work in some places and doesn't in others. Perhaps it has to do with how one identifies with a clan.