August1991

Because the inventor of dynamite felt guilty.The country may be "progressive" but it seems Mr. Nobel was ordinary in his sins. His jealousy of his wife's dalliance with a mathematician means there is no Nobel Math Prize. (But math has the prestigious Field Prize.) The Nobel in Economics is recent and some claim not a Nobel Prize at all. Why are the prizes given in Oslo?

Is it fair to say that between fascists and thieves, Ontarians chose the thieves?Incidentally, with a sample size of 1000, the provincial results are meaningless. I don't think the Liberals are ahead of the BQ in Quebec.

MapleSyrup, Switzerland is one of the most snobbish places on earth. Switzerland is like a plane's First Class cabin, a place where the rich go to insulate themselves from the hoi-polloi.Now, if you had chosen Germany as an example, it would have made some sense....

It sounds like Posner. He's simply saying that any particular way of assigning property rights is largely arbitrary. But that emphatically does not mean that property rights are not necessary or can be arbitrarily changed. Example? A person's eye colour is partly inherited. People with blue eyes earn on average more than people with brown eyes. There is no simple way to undo this arbitrary, inherited advantage. PS. It is unfortunate that Posner will never make the Supreme Court. Well, Bork too never made it.

Of course I don't need to. There's need to get touchy about it... -kimmy Touchy? Huh? MS's beloved Trudeau studied in a segregated school and sent his three sons to a segregated school. In fact, Quebec is filled with segregated secondary schools. (And we're not talking just math here...)First, I would leave this choice up to parents and students. Second, I have no strong feelings either way. I can see the benefit of a mixed education but I can also see the benefit of segregation. Maybe it depends on the student. Third, I have a suspicion that we don't know enough about how to organize mass education. The kind of education students now receive in Canada seems to date from the 1960s. IMV, the jury is still out on how best to do this. Let Abbotsford (and Carbonear) try different methods.

I am inclined to trust more what people do in fact rather than what they say. Actions speak louder than words. That sounds voluntary to me. No gun was involved nor other form of coercion. The previous regime was definitely not voluntary. It required a law and police enforcement. You call it "market share" but I call it satisfying what the customer wants - providing a better service and/or at a lower cost. (What a concept!) Then I guess it would be profitable now to set up a small corner store.----- Look JWayne, if you and I decide to have an argument on this forum at 3 am, should MapleSyrup have the right to stop us? More specifically, if a store discovers a way to use lasers and computers so that cashiers are no longer necessary, should the current cashiers have the right to forbid this innovation?

Canadians seem to be less traditional about certain sexual matters than Americans. Good one, BD. (I have a personal dislike of bowling on TV.) It appears our open-mindedness in sexual matters does not extend to political opinions.

Does it make any difference if the federal government pays down the debt or if it cuts taxes? In both cases, it is not using the money to buy anything but instead it is giving money (back) to individuals. Hence, I see no difference. I take $100 from you and then return $40. Does it make any difference whether I say the $40 is a "gift" or I say the $40 is partial reimbursement? This is all sleight of hand. I would be more concerned with the other $60. What was it used for?

Perfectly legitimate as long as it's voluntary.An afternoon in a park often brings much greater pleasure than shopping for the latest doodad. Unfortunately, an afternoon in a park is not included in economic statistics the same way our purchases of doodads are. BTW, I suspect the CAW would not want the BUY NOTHING DAY to include purchases of new cars.

If it were more profitable to open only for 6 days, then successful stores would do that. If the Mom & Pop stores are as good as you imply they are, then they would be profitable. It appears the corporate stores are more profitable because they somehow satisfy customers better. You would find few if any stats that would show that clearly. Rather, the gain is from giving people the choice to do something they previously could not. It is like the gain of having a cell phone.

Eureka, I realize this question does not belong in this thread but you made the remark here. Hugo showed good evidence that the 19th century was a period of steady, continuous if rather small economic growth in Europe and North America. This growth benefited everyone. In the US, average real GDP per capita grew at about 1.5% per year through the whole century. This growth was unprecedented in human history. I would argue that an ordinary person born in the west in 1850 and living to 1920 saw more radical changes than any generation born before or since. Eureka, do you dispute these "facts"? Or do you dispute their "cause"?

What a thought!I think the UN managed the elections in Afghanistan - and one would think the UN would at least be competent in matters of ink.

So, what did The Economist magazine say about Canada?This is from the Spetember 2003 cover story: That was then. So why is Linda McQuaig talking about Canadian naysayers? Why do the naysayers even exist now? The simple answer is that Paul Martin became PM. I don't think The Economist would write the same article now about Canada as they did in September 2003.

Linda McQuaig's article is very short-sighted and simplistic. The Economist magazine published Canada's New Spirit on its 23 Sept 2003 cover. (Check out the photo in the link.) Was The Economist cover story part of a widespread neo-con conspiracy to make fools of us? What happened in the past year?

I'll ignore the possiblility that, from an Islamist perspective, Canadians are every bit as immoral or degenerate as Americans - if not moreso.Instead, I'll consider your idea Thelonious. If Americans introduce "immoral and degeneracy" into Canadian society, maybe we should forbid inter-marriage? That is, maybe we should forbid Canadians from marrying Americans? After all, if Canadians marry Americans, after awhile, there won't be any Canada left.

Caesar, if other Canadians say they want or need it, and are prepared to pay for it, who are you to judge?Neither you nor eureka have given me an argument other than to say "I don't like coffee so no one should have coffee."

eureka, if you so choose, then you are free not to buy a foreign product. But I don't see why you should have the ability to forbid me from buying a foreign product.If sufficient Canadians want the service and are willing to pay for it, then fettering the foreigner's right to sell here in fact harms Canadians. Trade, and co-operation, isa two-way street.

This may be good for Alberta but if the high price of oil drives up the Canadian dollar, it won't be necessarily good for the rest of us. The problem is known as the Dutch Disease:

You are being a smug Canadian, MS.The US has regional, private accrediting organizations. But the best form of "accreditation" is the value of a diploma on the labour market. Students do not spend time and money to obtain a diploma that indicates at most an ability to weave baskets.

That is simply false.There are many types of universities in Canada from large to small, good to bad. Their reputations vary and competition for entry too. Macleans does a survey and rating. Canada's modern universities are a creation of the 1960s and most universities depend on government money. This leads to a series of problems. Most university administrators becomes government lobbyists always asking for more cash. Universities have become excessively bureaucratic and weighed down with administrative overhead. Canada's universities are generally large and inefficient. Typical of most of the public sector, university employees are generally unionized. This creates another hindrance to change. The small, private four-year liberal arts college is a feature of the US barely existent in Canada. Because of such colleges, Americans are among the most educated in the world with the highest percentage of adults holding a university degree. In Canada, subsidized higher education amounts to a transfer from poor people to middle class children. This is from the US Census of 2000.Of Canadians 15 years or older, about 11% have a bachelor's degree. Statistics Canada 2001 Census

I listened on the radio to the first hour of the Friday, 8 October debate in Missouri. IMHO, Kerry did best. There were many instances where I thought Bush could have better responded. He didn't. At times, I thought Kerry was too slick. "I have a plan" Kerry always said. I was expecting Bush to respond that Kerry has a "Five Year Plan, like the Soviets". Bush never said that. Instead, Kerry kept talking about his "plan". In the American context, on foreign issues, I don't know if Bush lost votes by seeming to be uncooperative. Kerry said he would work better with allies. Is Kerry's line a vote winner? And in the States, who has better credibility on taxes? Is Kerry "tax and spend"? Is Bush "tax cuts for the rich"? Overall, I think Kerry bested Bush. Ordinary Americans are looking for an alternative and the debate showed that Kerry doesn't seem to be a dangerous choice. [Note: My election choices are always wrong.]

Thanksgiving is a strange holiday. Nowhere in the world does it exist. Until much older, I didn't realize that Americans celebrated it on a Thursday - in November. Thanksgiving (strangely translated as L'Action de grâce) is a holiday for family, like Christmas/New Year, but it hasn't been "commercialized". There are no gifts. I have tried to explain this holiday to non-Americans. "Other than Christmas, Canadian families wish most to get together on this weekend." I am thankful this year that I can be with mine. If you are not with yours, be patient.

I have been to Alberta several times in my life and I worked one summer in Edmonton.I would never describe Albertans as arrogant. IME, they are the opposite of urban snobbish. IMV, Albertan "cool" is a tough criteria. Rural decency and an ability to clean a carburetor - or at least to know what a car battery looks like - combined with the ability to tell the truth without saying anything.

*Sigh* How was it determined that there is only one way to cure the snakebite? How was it determined that there is only one way to salvation? Neil, many Christians dealt with the difference between these two questions about 400 years ago. Have you?

TheloniousMonk, your post is an odd mix of ideas. I will comment on one idea that is unfortunately too common and wrong: Imagine, Thelonious, that posters to this forum decide to take a democratic vote about whether to burn your business down. (Downtown Calgary, no?) Most posters are indifferent, some are against but a few think it might be "fun". You of course are decidedly against. Majority vote decides the issue. Pouf. Democratic societies have constitutions, charters, bills of rights precisely to protect against such votes. They protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority, and the individual against mob rule. But the problem here is really "equal votes". I imagine that you have strong feelings about seeing your business go up in flames. Posters to this forum have probably weak feelings about the fun of watching it burn. Equality or "one man, one vote" ignores the depth of feeling about an issue. ----- Basically agreed. But it is possible to alleviate human error and suffering. For example, that is why "prices" were invented. (And inadvertently mathematics.)With clear terms of trade, some "bad solutions" are avoided. But not all. The State is a remnant of previous non-market solutions. In some cases, even in modern times, the State is better than no solution at all. But why is the State so large? I don't know.