August1991

If you look back through this thread, you'll realize this one doesn't. This thread's question is stated simply by this quote: Greed is NOT evil when it's combined with prices in a market. I can explain this simply enough. When you buy meat in a store, the benefit of the food is greater than what you have to give up (your money) to get it - and you probably shop for the best price too. You are acting in your own best interest. You are being selfish or greedy. (Call it what you will, but in effect that's what it is.) This works because the people who have farms with cattle do the same thing: they too are greedy. The benefit of the money they get is greater than what they have to give up (their time and effort to produce the meat). Adam Smith referred to this as "the invisible hand" which guides individuals to do collective good even though the individuals are being "greedy". All of this falls apart if there is no market and no prices. In such a world, being greedy is probably harmful to society but it may help the individual. This world existed several thousand years ago. (An interesting film that depicts such a world is 'Quest for Fire'.) Western religions (eg. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are, in my view, closely related to these ideas. For example, to trade using markets and prices requires the clear idea of ownership so that trading makes sense. The Old Testament (Judaism) deals with this question (along with much else). The New Testament (Christianity) seems more concerned with sharing. Early Christians forbid earning interest by lending, as does the Koran. (I'm no biblical scholar. Perhaps others will correct me.) I think Christianity was the first reaction of perplexity to a system (markets and prices) in which private greed led to so much (relative) public wealth. This perplexity lives on. "Timeless" is an objective measure that I'd accept. But by that measure, the pyramids are art simply because they're monolithic. But "emotional level"? Purely subjective. Your definition is as good as mine. Would you call the film 'Titanic' art? Many people were moved by the story. "By and by"? For heaven's sake! In those three little words, there's a whole story that took a hundred years or more after Smith to unravel. But even Smith said more than "by and by". Precisely the reason I prefer to avoid the word system and all the -isms. Comparing a society or a social organization to a computer misses the whole point. A society is composed of living people who make choices, learn, change. Each person has a story to tell and each defies generalization - surely, a generalization as lame as being a part in a computer. This does not mean that it is impossible to develop theories about society. It just means that it should never be done without careful regard for individuals (or the 'masses', as you wrote in another post.) The past two centuries are ample evidence of what happens when gross generalizations are made about societies. In building a theory of society, the key starting point is to assume that individuals are self-interested (or greedy, if you will).

Thanks BigGunner for the info. All can read the press release here: Ipsos Reid 2 March Poll Detailed Stats My own take? The Liberals are going to ride hard and heavy on Martin because he's the only thing holding them up. Ontarians trust Martin more than Harper. Imagine what that means.

Goldie, are you a Newfoundlander?

MapleSyrup, thanks for dates. My opinion? First, the "Tories" and then, the Grits. This new guy? I saw him. He's boring but no Nazi. If Ontarians vote for him, he'll follow his honest word. I think the Chretien Grits have decided that it's "Time Out". They need time to think. (IOW, give us all a break, please.)

Well said. Let the people speak, and life is too short to be a demagogue. You speak well. I'm an Easterner but I think it's time for Western truth. I'll listen, if it's honest Western - and not naive Diefenbaker, Douglas, "Demo" nonsense.

DEAR COLLEAGUES, WE CONTACT YOU BY THE PRESENT METHOD FOR TO OFFER YOU A METHOD OF IMPRESSIVE OPPORTUNITY AND BECAUSE WE NEED YOUR AID. I CALL MYSELF SYLVAIN CHAREST, SON OF THE DEFUNCT PRIME MINISTER OF QUEBEC, JEAN CHAREST. SINCE THE CIVIL WAR IN MY COUNTRY, MYSELF AND MY SISTER, JULIE CHAREST, AND MYSELF HIDE OURSELVES IN THE HOTEL IN A SUBURB OF GREAT MONTREAL FOR AVOIDING DEATH BRIGADES OF THE POWERS IN PLACE. WHEN HAPPENED THE SAD DEATH OF OUR FATHER, HE HAS LEAGUED US SEVERAL MILLION DILLARS PROVIDED FROM SUMS ALLOWED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC. THIS SUM TOTALISES 100 MILLION DOLARS CANADIAN. BY COUNTER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO EXTRACT THIS MONEY AND AVOID THIS SITUATION. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE NEED FOR YOUR AIDE. WE NEED YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER FOREIGN OR CREDIT CARD FOR TRANSFERING THE SUMS OF ME AND MY SISTER. WE WISH TO LKIVE AGAIN AND BRING LIFE. WE WANT TO MAKE YOUR REGION RISH. IF YOU GIVE US YOUR BANK NUMBER WE CAN MAKE THE TRANSFER AND YOU WILL MAKE A LARGE COMMISSSION FOR YOUR HONEST ASSISTANCE. PLEASE HELP US, ME ET MY SISTER, TO HELP OUR PEOPLE TO EXIT THIS SITUATION. IF YOU ARE GOOD, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND. WE NOT CAN NOT MORE HIDE DEATH SQUADS. NOTRE VIE DÉPEND DE VOTRE AIDE. MERCI D'AVANCE POUR VOTRE LECTURE. SYLVAIN ET JULIE CHAREST.

Maplesyrup, I posted this Gazette link about Stronach before, where it should have been posted, under the rubric "Stephen Harper". The article is interesting because L. Ian Macdonald is part of Tory memorabilia. The story is: why have these guys, including Mulroney, gone Stronach? The theory of this story? Are you Westerners rubes? Will we Easterners make one of you Westerners PM? Is it: Say what ever you want, let 'em talk, but "Spell my name right"? The basic idea is that Belinda won't win but she'll make people talk and think the Liberals are "old hat". Old what?

What's this 'Firewall' deal. In the debate, Clement got into this. 'Buidling Walls'. I thought the financial term was 'Chinese Walls'. Are we talking 1980s "enclusive" vs. "exclusive"? Is this "I feel your pain?" vs. "Take a hike!" New millenia. There were men/women in a manif about Quebec and Charest in Montreal during the CPC debate. Any talk of Martin, scandal, PLC, Canada, Quebec and 'firewalls' sounds pretty silly to me. Walls? Pretty obvious to me.

Knot? Underwear? Where did you get the right to be verbose? But first, I missed maplesyrup: In Quebec, that was a really dumb comment. The PQ (and Levesque) always lost by-elections. That's life. If she'd added, "That's life", in English even, everyone would have understood and laughed. She didn't. So, she just came across as another American with a TV show in Toronto. Harper had the sense, carefully registered among Mulroney Quebec Tories, to say that he will not cross Canada's BNA lines. Back to verbose. Springer, can you please find a way to be succinct?

I'm going to take you guys on - one by one. My impression watching him in action? All true. (You have to see him move his pen from side to side. He may be Putin. Well, no. Much taller than the others. At G8, he'll beat Chirac and Tony.) I have learned that first reactions to politicians are often wrong. (These guys dream of this...) I'll wait and see. But he wants it and he's much better than Clark. He's just, well, boring. Then you don't understand democratic politics. It's the ugly deal for the higher good. No, no, no. It's the deal that, with luck, makes everyone as best off as they can be. On the other hand, it's also just an ego game, power trip. Harper? We're in King territory maybe. Gawd. Harper ain't that. I saw Trudeau up close several times. No comparison. More, I was always curious about Trudeau's take on a question - even if it enraged me. Harper is more Mack the Knife, not Whack the Wife. My own opinion at this moment? Harper'll get this nomination because Belinda didn't do it right in Quebec. She needed to get 'em all and she didn't. Will Harper make PM? (Did Karol make Pope?) Maybe. Let's see whether these federal Liberals decide, as they did in 1984, that it's time for a time-out.

Sorry, manif = demo. That one slipped by. (To be precise, demonstration = manifestation.) You know, chanting, slogans, signs, bull-horns. Rather common here.

Harper's not dumb as a plank, he's just boring. Trudeau was never boring. Well, hate to break this to you, but in the grander scheme of things, Canada is boring.

What La Presse got was a home video made for the 50th birthday of the CEO of one of the ad agencies that got a big chunk of the moulah. In the video, we see Coderre cracking jokes about the guy and saying how much the government appreciates his work. Coderre video What's damning is it's familiarity, and Coderre comes across as slightly goofy. This one's going to do the French internet tour.

Interesting article in The Gazette today by Ian Macdonald about leadership voting for the CPC. Ian Macdonald Gazette There are 30800 points on offer which means 15400 to win. There are 9000 members in Quebec (for 7500 points) of which about 5000 members were previous CA/Tories. IOW, Stronach has sold about 3500 new members and about 500 others have joined on the other own. Macdonald claims that Stronach might get as many as 5000 of the 7500 Quebec points. (For comaprison, Harper has about 6400 points from Alta/BC according to Macdonald.) Even using Macdonald's very optimistic Stronach numbers for Quebec, she apparently didn't sell enough memberships to take this puppy out for a walk. Anybody have a reading of Ontario?

Until we get close to an election date, or at least the election is called, the polls are good but far from perfect. As noted above by sir_springer about BC, people don't pay attention until they have to. This is true elsewhere also. Layton is slick and speaks well to an urban crowd, particularly in Ontario but these people won't vote NDP. I think they just won't vote. I don't know what effect he'll have in the west. There are 32 seats in the Maritimes. They'll stay largely Liberal, although the CPC may get a few. The CBC makes a big deal about the NDP, Layton'll be interviewed like the others and this gives the impression they're a contender. But then they finish last. Happens everytime. There are alot of people who voted Liberal last time out in Ontario. These people don't follow politics closely, hear the stories and are upset. What do they do? They're uncomfortable with CPC/Reform and they don't like the NDP. In a poll, they might say Liberal or undecided. Election day comes, I bet they just don't vote.

Denis Coderre, PM's Immigration minister, may be next to get sucked into this whirlpool. La Presse today has him connected to the ad agencies involved when he was sports minister. If this is true, this would get the scandal closer to PM PM.

The CA/Tory split in the last election made it much easier for the Libs in Ontario. Heck, I think they got all 103 in 97. The thing about the NDP in Ontario is that people remember Rae. It'll take a generation to wipe that memory out. In addition, the anti-Liberal vote will realize that an NDP vote is tantamount to voting Liberal because the same gang will stay in power. On the other hand, there's a core Liberal vote that's based on people perceiving it as a National Party. The CPC's French debate today was geared to those voters - not to Quebec at all. I think the CBC by playing the three party deal gives the impression the NDP is bigger than it really is. Quick numbers in Ontario? I'd say that if it's a spring election, 45/45/10 might do.

Good post. It's palpable here in Montreal too. The Libs do well in polls but they win some seats with 92% of the vote so their vote doesn't turn into seats. With Libs in provincially, it's safe to vote BQ, even French federalists, and that's what many will do I reckon. I don't know what the anglos will do. There are many diehard Liberals amongst that gang. I don't see any CPC or NDP seats here, but who knows. Heck, Martin may still pull this one out of the hat. (There's a sense of inevitability to the Liberals in Quebec.)

I get the impression there's alot of NDP wishful thinking going on. It's in the nature of NDP supporters to be young and naive. But the last poll had the Libs at 40% or something in BC. This I don't get at all. Can you explain?

I actually went to this debate in Montreal and sat through the whole thing. Gawd. Trudeau started this crazy bilingualism thing and so I had to listen to two anglophones absolutely massacre the French language. Harper is better than Clement. As leaders go, Trudeau or Levesque would have danced circles around these three. All were visibly nervous at the start, Stronach particularly. (Incidentally she's taller than Clement which is somehow funny.) Harper is well, boring. Now I understand why he hasn't caught on. He is well advised and well organized. And he was the only one that said anything that might have any connection to what anyone in Quebec thinks. (Respect for provincial jurisdiction.) Otherwise these three might have been arguing on Mars. For example, there were several hundred people there. On the streets outside (making traffic a mess) there was a manif for women (8 March) with several thousand. Of course no one said anything about this. News reports covered primarily the manif, not the debate. This party has no connection to Quebec whatsoever. It's as if the BQ parachuted candidates into Alta.

I checked. It was Réal Caouette. But the Créditiste in 1979 was Fabien Roy, from the Beauce. (Accents are important in French.)

Ah geez, Galahad, you went and ruined it by explaining the punch line. "See, Bush will pick the ex-Mayor of NY and get rid of the fat, bald guy with the lesbian daughter because, you know, the mayor guy is really popular after what happened in New York." Personally, I was more intrigued by the Condi Rice scenario.

More salvos in what appears to be a Liberal Civil War. An ill wind blows no good and it's always better to have them inside peeing out etc. etc. More pertinently, the Liberals have relied on their seeming "professionalism" compared to all the other amateurs. Well, now the Liberals look the amateurs. You can read Pelletier's whole letter in today's Globe: Pelletier in G&MAnd then on CTV, we've got a Gagliano interview: Gagliano CTV The best of all though is Margaret Wente's column in the Globe & Mail today about Stevie Cameron. Wente G&M I heard Sheila Copps quoted as saying there is a divide between the "Social Liberals" and the "Financial Liberals". Copps is a Liberal's Liberal and Liberals never say such things. It's the Tories that tear themselves apart. All of this dirty laundry is coming out in the most amateurish, bungled manner. Student council politics are more sophisticated.

In 1980, MacEachan realized that Clark had no contacts with the Creditistes and MacEachan also knew that he could get Trudeau to come back. Clark's government fell because the six Creditistes sat out the vote. (All six lost their seats in the 1980 election.) BTW, I suspect Clark felt he could pull a Diefenbaker and turn a minority into a majority. Why is this relevant? Because no formal coalition is necessary. Just careful discussions, and the basic fact that politicians fear elections. The Liberals have traditionally been good at managing such.

That does sound arrogant, and also purely arbitrary and subjective. Are you sure that you have the good taste to recognize good taste?A minor point: art, like knowledge itself, become common goods available to all. We have a much vaster choice of art to choose from than people alive 500 years ago, and think how much more people alive in 500 years will have. Moreover, art is a luxury. People in the future will be wealthier and hence will consume more art. Anyone. I believe AOL-Time Warner shares are at $17.15 right now, they trade under the ticker symbol "TWX" on the NYSE. Or you could get some shares in Fox Entertainment, which are a lot pricer at $28.99 per share. Take your pick.Delightful response! To avoid a semantic argument, I'll accept your point but I cringe at the word "system" and any -ism. Too often, these words mask the actions of individuals and represent lazy thinking by generalization. I read recently about a small counting device found in Belgium (of all places) that dates from 8000 BC. This would have been an extremely simple abacus. Incidentally, the earliest writing (in the 3000 BC era as you note) concerned primarily accounts and inventories. I don't think there is any doubt that co-operation achieves much more than competition. Unfortunately, co-operation suffers from the fatal flaw of cheating (self-interested behaviour). One can easily see that families and clans exist to overcome this problem. Moreover, if someone helps their family, this is tantamount to selfish behaviour. But Hugo, Smith did not argue that private greed led to public virtue because people wanted to help their families by working hard and accumulating wealth. Smith's key insight was that society benefits most when a family (or individual) chooses the best trade on offer. In other words, the collective good is greatest (and individuals co-operate completely) when individuals choose the best for themselves - surely a cheat-proof objective. To be able to make this choice, market prices are critical. I find remarkable that several thousand years ago - 5000 years ago according to you - people discovered a way to obtain co-operation that withstood cheating. That is, they discovered market relations. If we consider that humans have existed for several million years, then 5000 years is a mere instant.