August1991

TalkNumb, your posts are obstinate but never, absolutely never, boring. Who has shifted? Bet it's the people who can do so at least cost. IOW, put the incentive where it does the most good. (I was irritated that the 407 didn't post prices - particularly before the decision to take the on-ramp. In the US, "Last Exit Before Toll" was always clear.) Inner city business loses a rent. Boo-hoo. I used to hit my head with hammer five times a day - now he only does it three times a day. (PS. You seen any studies on property values?) Raise Tube prices. A major problem in London is that some people simply will not live in some places. And some offices simply must be in some places. Some people will pay anything to get something. Snobbism. You want it, you pay for it. Even the moralistic, fairness-obsessed Old Left would agree with that. Of course, Londoners should subsidize Japanese tourists. They bring all that money to the economy! IOW, the environment can cope with car exhausts now because the emissions are not concentrated. Your list reads like a Soviet professor confused because Russians must now pay a "high price" for gasoline rather than sit in an interminable queue.

I cannot speak about Winter Games, Campbell's competence (or sobriety) or the ability of BC shipyards to build boats. But I can consider the following two questions: There are NO economic benefits from building a house. (Building a house requires a lot of hard work.) There ARE economic benefits from living in a house. IOW, there are two ways to get ferries: you either make them yourself or, you make something else and trade to get the ferries. It appears the BC government has chosen Option B. (Makes sense to me. I choose Option B for almost everything I consume.) Who cares where "hard earned cash" is sent? Does your household stop because you take money from home and spend it at Wal-Mart? Why stop at ferries? Why not force people to buy BC oranges too! With the multiplier effect, think how many jobs could be created (and taxes paid) if BC grew oranges in greenhouses!

I strongly disagree with this notion that the Left is somehow the heart and the Right is somehow the brain. WTF? The Left says: "Give them money from someone else's wallet!"The Left often argues why some people, through no fault of their own, are in need of assistance or protection. Then, the Left argues for ways to protect or assist these people. My main gripe with the Old Left is that the ways suggested to protect and assist people won't work and will just cause grief for everyone. (I think someone on the Right noted that the Left still has not come to grips with the atrocities committed by the State in such places as the Soviet Union.) Elsewhere on this forum, I said that the Old Left looks for conspiracies, invests in symbols and misses reality. IME, the Old Left too often confuses reality and the symbols that supposedly portray it. For example, they assume that having a diploma means having an education. They confuse style for substance. The Left has some serious soul-searching to do. It is in the process of doing it now and the results range from people such as Noam Chomsky to Tony Blair - passing by the incoherent, anti-everything demonstrators at world summits. Even that dilettante gadfly, Naomi Klein decided she needed to know more about economics (stylishly choosing the LSE).

They all are. See above. Very, very different story. I think the Iranians can deal with themselves. Look what happened in Libya. Huh? I agree. Bush lacks finesse. But all US presidents are suspected of being nefarious. Bush went to the UN and arguably acted under its resolutions. But the big buildings were in NY, not Paris. Here I guess you mean steel (which is not really connected to terrorism). I completely agree. Clinton, like Thatcher, stood up to these people asking for other's people's money.

How?

Anybody know anything about this? Got anything to say? Know any good jokes? PM goes to GG

WTF?True, I mean that if Stalin can accomplish a task by Method A in 12 hours and by Method B in 10 hours, then Method B is the morally superior method. But if the task at hand is to kill people, I am certain that not only Stalin's time will be required. To start with, people are not going to sit idly by while Stalin murders. And they didn't. My point is that something is moral if the derived benefit is greater than the required effort. Most of us act in purely personal matters this way. The challenge is to extend the principle to life at large - that is, to a world with billions of people or a universe with innumerable creatures. I believe utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. But how to add up benefits for one person against efforts exerted by another? How to add up different benefits for different people? IMV, this is where utilitarianism falls apart. Yet we all seem to do it. Even the very young. When we choose to have waffles for breakfast, we've made the calculation. (Heck, once we decide to get up, we've done the math.) I'll accept the word "faith" to describe my belief that people try to make good choices. But is that really faith?

Why not?

Byng-King in 1926? But OK, you are basically right. The problem resides in the area of symbolism, and respect. It's about "face" and "dissing". The term "National Assembly" dates from the 1960s. Landry was big on putting "national" after everything. (If you keep repeating something, maybe it will become true.) That one had me in giggles... For heaven's sakes, eureka, go into the corner for a day or two and read your Canadian history. (May I suggest?) Find out why French-Canadians stopped voting for the Conservative party. Find out why there was a violent revolt in Lower Canada in 1837 but only a drunken brawl in Upper Canada. What was Regulation 17? Who was Clifford Sifton? What was the deportation? How many boats travelled between France and Canada between 1760 and 1850?If there are still French speaking people in North America, there is only one reason. Starting from about 1800 until about 1950, each French speaking woman gave birth to about 20 kids and then raised them as best she could with the help of her husband. Why that happened is a question for historians, but please don't repeat nonsense about the monarchy. Respect people more, and don't blame their contrary opinions on "brain-washing". Bakunin, I have never like that comparison. You cannot resume millions of people into one person. Quebec is aready a "distinct nation" in the cultural sense. I would agree, but I'll be damned if I know what it would be or even how it could be done. Any ideas Bakunin? The Soviets called it an "autonomous republic". Mulroney and Bourassa called it a "distinct society". Levesque called it "sovereignty-association". Stanfield called it "deux nations". The technical term now I guess is assymetrical federalism.We have it now because the BNA Act made for its provision. For example, Quebec has its own CPP (RRQ), its own immigration policies and is one of only three provinces where English and French can be used equally in courts.

The following quotes all come from eureka: I think eureka's viewpoint is that capitalism leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This happens because capitalism requires "surplus labour" and inflation hurts poor people more than rich people. Capitalism means a race to the bottom for poor people. Unionism curbs all this by protecting poor people. These ideas were common in the 1930s and represent a crypto-Marxism version of Keynesianism. All the evidence of the past several hundred years show these ideas to be false. In economies that can be characterised as "free market", the poor people alive today have never been so rich. They have more and better food, housing, clothing, transportation. You state eureka that real incomes of poor people have fallen in the past 25 years. Please provide evidence of this. Can you provide evidence of it in the past 50 years? The simple fact is eureka that free markets provide the best means for ordinary people to have a better life. The sooner the Left understands this, the better for everyone. (There are many things yet that are still bad.) But eureka when you go around using Marxist nonsense to criticise capitalism, you just sound like an anachronism. No one argues that the world is flat anymore.

When you go shopping, do you say $100 have been taken out of your household economy and transferred into the local shopping mall economy? IOW, why not keep that money in the family and grow your own food and make your own clothes?BTW, would it make any difference if the ship builder was in Quebec rather than Germany? How about Manitoba? Why do you arbitrarily draw a line at the BC border?

------- I think you guys are all missing my point. So let me give another example, from London England which is using the same 407 technology. (It has also been adopted in San Diego.) This is cutting edge stuff. BBC on London Congestion Tolls This new technology makes toll roads viable in a way that was never possible before. It is now possible to bill people for road use the same they are billed for cell phone use. Tolls can be set to congestion times. I don't care whether the road is private or public, the issue is that urban drivers now spend hours every day staring into space. This is a huge waste of time on a par with the kind of waste in the Soviet Union. The issue is not about paying for road maintenance or even pollution. It is specifically about paying for congestion - the space a car takes on a road during critical times of the day. Red Ken Livingstone was one of the first politicians to understand it. Others are sure to follow.

Our dispute with the United States concerns specifically softwood lumber which is wholly used (if I'm not mistaken) in construction. Here is a good paper in pdf (kinda slow to open) that makes explicit the cost to the US economy of this measure. When a government imposes a barrier to trade, this should not be perceived as an attack against a foreign country. It should be seen as a government shooting itself in the foot. More accurately, it should be seen as another form of corporate welfare (a term coined by the NDP's David Lewis). Bush (and Clinton before) were offering a benefit to US lumber producers at the expense of US new home buyers. As to paper, I haven't found a good Internet site that resumes all well. In general, western consumption has slowed its growth in the past few years. The big growth area is Asian consumption (in particular China). Because of the numerous qualities, the paper market is not simple. In addition, recycled fibres now make up about 35% of the pulp used. BTW, newspaper circulations are down across North America.

That's extremely misleading. In the US-Canada FTA (Mulroney, Idealist), we agreed that we would maintain the current supply of oil to the US in time of an emergency. IOW, we agreed not to cut the Americans off. [i cannot find quickly the relevant quote on the Internet.]ceemus, you imply that the Americans have the right to take all our oil. This is wrong. In addition, you ignore the fact that private individuals own the right to exploit our oil resources. They have signed contracts to deliver oil to US customers far into the future. Why should the Canadian or American governments be able to alter those contracts arbitrarily? So when we finish this discussion, I'm taking everyone out for milk and cookies.

Bush Interview with NBC This is called taking the high road, which the candidate should always do. Let the campaign people take the shots. [i think that was one of Harper's serious errors in the last campaign.] ----- I agree with your idea but it was hardly just the French Socialists (although they werre certainly in the forefront). Here I would disagree - but more about the word "soft". First, he faces limits imposed by the American public and other countries. Second, what is the guy supposed to do? But Bush seems to lack the finesse. (Have Yeltsin/Putin been any better in Chechnya?) Thrashing about seems to be the best we can do for the moment.

These two articles caught my attention: New hospital gowns I think this idea is humourous. At the same time, I don't see why not. It seems to me that I choose what bathing suit to wear in a hotel pool. Why should it be any different in a hospital? Sharia arbitration courts in Canada Here too, I see no reason to forbid two people, for example, divorcing under the law they choose. This group that opposes this freedom views Muslim women as the "weaker sex" in need of protection. Is that true? And is this the way to enlightenment?

Claude Morin wrote the quote below recently in La Presse. I just saw it. This was the end of an article in response to Parizeau's approval of an election/referendum. I feel that Morin is stating the truth, as perceived by many Quebecers. More broadly, millions of Quebecers dream of an independant Quebec. Will they ever realize their dream?

They will be paying forever for this. Make no mistake. What is heavily taxed? Booze, smokes, gas. When governments figure out they can tax road use, it won't stop.Before, cash tolls were tough to collect. With transponders of the sort the 407 use (you don't have to slow down to 5 km/h as in the US), these will be mandatory on all cars and detectors will be implanted on all entries to all major thoroughfares. TalkNumb, you should know that the issue of user-pay is not paying for the use of a resource. It's all about the accurate price to set. If there's a queue, the price is too low. Traffic congestion is a queue. Governments will see it as a source of revenue. Municipalities in particular. When city politicians figure out that they can reduce property taxes, pensioners will love it. Pensioners vote but they don't drive on busy roads.

That's the equivalent of the bureaucrat's "we will evaluate this proposal" or the minister's "my staff is monitoring the situation".When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate. When in charge, ponder. ---- The market is not at fault here. Markets can only function if someone clearly owns something and then can trade it using a quotable price.When you waste time in a traffic jam, would you say markets have not responded to your wishes? Or would you say that there are too many cars on the road? I would say no one owns the road and so no one can sell it. There's no money price to be paid. That's an invitation to trouble. We pay the cost in wasted time. We could do as they do in Athens and let cars with odd-number license plates drive on Tues, Wed etc. I suppose you would call that Old Left. I would call it dumb, ignorant and Soviet. We don't sell bread or milk that way. We shouldn't distribute road space that way either. But what about "poor people" says the Old Left? They seem to be able to buy bread and milk, I say first. But then I say, Old Left, you're right. There is a serious problem of poor and rich in this world. But we must not mix this problem up with road space and the environment. New Left thinking might be: Give money to poor people. Give them someone to have a decent conversation with so they may change somehow. Cartman, I really like your posts. I hope you're not offended by my rants.

There is no way the BQ will get more than 54 seats in Quebec. The twenty remaining seats are Fluffy/Rover seats - a federalist cat or dog could win them.In fact, the NDP and BQ already have a coalition of sorts. The BQ doesn't present candidates where the NDP can win; and the NDP doesn't present a threat where the BQ can win. There is no electoral effect of this. Hargrove is stating the obvious. On the other hand, what would be the optics from either side? BQ perspective: Why would the BQ align with a loser NDP party? Will the NDP advance the cause of a separate Quebec? But there is an angle that is intriguing. Many separatists are anti-BQ because its existence implies federalism can work. Few have explored the possibility that the BQ might be the way to find honestly (not Meech crooked) a new arrangement for a sovereign Quebec within a Canadian federation. A BQ-NDP association might give the BQ legitimacy in the eyes of some Quebec voters. NDP perspective: How would ordinary NDP voters feel about a NDP-BQ alliance? Layton had courage when he publicly repudiated the Clarity Act in the past election. But feelings about Quebec seem to cut across ROC's ideological scale. It seems there are hardliners (no more concession to those Quebecers) in all ROC parties. Bakunin is completely right. The NDP is too flakey.

This is a good do-able suggestion. Harper said that he would start it. I believe that up until 1920, US senators were selected by the State legislatures and for all I know, they may formally still be done that way.But the parliamentary tradition, not the Civil Code tradition, is precisely this kind of change where precedents are set and then strange practices are maintained by tradition only. France has had five constitutions since the revolution. The UK's constitution constantly evolves. In Quebec, people would likely vote rouge in federal elections and bleu to the Senate. I think this would be well accepted by federalists, and fence-sitters. Even the BQ would prefer popular Senators rather than Liberal hacks. Incidentally, there have been suggestions that certain double majorities be required in the Senate for example, on language questions. This would mean that a majority of Quebec Senators would also vote in favour. There will always be people who desire an independant Quebec state. But if English Canada (ROC) were to offer some concrete measures, ones controlled by Quebecers, guaranteeing the usage of French in North America, I believe that ordinary Quebecers would ignore the separatist sirens/dream. The Senate might offer one way to do this. I know that some Englsih Canadians hold to this tradition. But many don't and it really is anachronism. We should do away with the Queen and her face on our money. I really think that Canadians will only grow up when we call ourselves the Federal Republic of Canada.I'll never forget travelling with a delegation to southern Ontario. We arrived in Brockville during something called "Loyalist Days". The Quebecers couldn't stop laughing.

Indeed, the federal government owns the national parks and controls who uses those parks. Imagine what would happen if the federal government didn't do that.I'll avoid an ideological debate here about who (governments or private sector) would best protect (or use) this resource. (BTW, the most natural, fish filled rivers in Scotland are owned by private clubs that are indistinguishable from corporations.) My first point is that environmental destruction is not caused by greed, corporations or short-term thinking. It's caused by an absence of ownership. My second point is that I don't care who owns the environment as long as we find and designate clearly an owner or owners.

Collective ownership has occurred. IOW, we all own the environment (air, high seas) in the sense that anyone can use it. (This is one definition of socialism.) This method has failed. I own myself and this means I can choose to associate with those who choose likewise. (Although telephone solicitors seem to think my time is collective property.) If God exists, I'm sure He's a limitless collective good. There will be no queues to gain His attention. Why wouldn't they? Do you not treat well the things you own? There is more likelihood that corporate managers think in the long term than you or I do. Shareholders buy shares because of their resale value. And future buyers will think of resale value too. Corporate managers must think of future shareholders because current shareholders indirectly think of them now. Huh? The problem is well understood. Even the solution. Unfortunately, there are too many so-called Left Wing People, bad at mathematics who just don't get it.When something is owned and can be traded, like a cow, then there will be no problem. When something is not owned, like a cod fish swimming in the ocean, then you have a big problem. Our environment is like a cod fish. If I try to dump garbage on your front lawn, you will stop me or sue me. But if I dump garbage into the air you breathe, well who owns the air you breathe? Who owns the water in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? Blaming corporations and greed and short-term thinking for environmental problems is really, really dumb. It's ignorant. With that rant out of my system, let me add that a New Left Wing is desperately needed in this world. But first, the Old Left Wing must understand that socialism and communism and co-operativism and a "think globally, act locally" non-profit approach won't protect or help ordinary people - and they'll lead to the destruction of the environment.

I don't think so. This is internal PQ politics.It's a combo of Landry's loss, referendum loss, Charest's unpopularity, fears the PQ won't win and most of all, how to go about making Quebec an independent country. Landry has said that he will only hold a referendum if he knows he can win (since a third loss would end everything). This makes him a "soft" separatist. Marois has sort of presented herself as a "hard" separatist. As to Marois herself, the consensus, I would say, is that Marois is committing political suicide. (I would disagree with the consensus...) All eyes will turn to Duceppe now. I'm sure he's figuring out what to say to the press as I write this. All things considered, expect the PQ to make harsher noises in the future.

Pauline Marois dropped a bombshell this morning. Here it is in French (La Presse) and in English (G & M). Even PM PM didn't go public. But then Chretien was still PM. Marois has said that the Parizeau election/referendum suggestion should be "examined".