August1991

I'd disagree with that.Quebecers used to (and still do) use the term le Canada anglais to designate the other nine provinces. English-Canadians criticized them for using the term since 1) many people in the other provinces were not English and 2) this somehow implied Canada was a duality/bi-national country when in fact Canada had people from many countries/nations and Quebec after all was just one province of nine.... So, someone came up with the term "rest of Canada" which is now used even in French as ROC, RdC or le reste du Canada. This term at least imples that Quebec is still part of Canada (which it is in fact). I'm well aware of the fact that ROC is not a single place. But is "English-speaking Canada" better? "Anglophone majority provinces"? Maudits Anglais?

Absolutely delightful, Ideal. I'll bet that site will get many hits very soon.

At the federal level, the PM has up to 6 months to fix the date. In effect, we have "fixed" dates for both general and by elections now. According to some, it appears the current fixed dates are too far into the future. In the case of general elections, by bringing the date forward, we would in effect reduce the potential length of mandates. I don't see how this would make Canada more democratic. Elections Canada web site

Are the Olympics over yet? It seems CBC radio has stopped talking about it but maybe it's because I'm not paying attention. Also, is it true that we win all our medals in competitions with judges? (If true, can I assume this means that we are good at UN style, truly boring and pointless negotiations?)

Precisely the point and particularly frustratring for the separatists. I had exactly the same thought!

I suppose Alberta would be a different place but then again, people would still be people and Alberta's a big place. The question is how do you think the ordinary Albertans you know would respond to such a situation?Why do you find this conjecture fanciful?

What do you think money is, and how is that inconsistent with the concept of power? Money is just paper. No one desires paper for itself. People desire money because it can be used to obtain real, tangible things. (Food, clothes, a house). To say "money is power" is to say that people do things to obtain other, real things. Well, that's quite obvious and the first guy who built his own cave didn't need money to understand it. (Note that all of this perfectly voluntary.) I think eureka's point is rather that large, expensive advertising campaigns can influence people's opinions through brain-washing. I think the common term now is wearing a tin-foil hat. If it were only so true. Peter Pocklington would have lost the past election to Belinda Stronach. And General Motors would still dominate the North American car market. And the Soviet politburo, with access to very sophisticated advertising techniques, would have everyone in its spell. Lastly, I bought Harper's and read Lapham's article. (I haven't done that in several years and it seems to me Harper's quality has gone down; must be the Internet.) Well, Lapham is back on the Old Left hobbyhorse of "conspiracy". "There must be some evil force making people think in such a foolish way." Lapham's article is very American. He does not discuss or mention the rise of the right elsewhere in the world.

I think Hugo is asking you to think outside of the box, eureka. That was a good film, but I preferred a documentary on the Army vs. McCarthy hearings. What you are saying, eureka, may be true in the US context but it is not true in the broader international context. I think this is a debateable point. And the debate is even relevant today.The Cold War represented a significant threat to the way we normally live. The past century was arguably a battleground between Bismarck and Lincoln; that is, it was a violent dispute between top-down authority and bottom-up freedom. As to McCarthy's minor role in this, I would say that a mindless witchhunt is counterproductive but an intelligent investigation is worthy. The Americans face a similar problem now. Incidentally, recent evidence backs Chambers' and Nixon's accusations against Alger Hiss.

Imagine that most people in Canada were French speaking and the English speakers were a minority concentrated in Alberta. So, Alberta is the same as you know it now (Klein is premier) but the rest of Canada is very different. People across the border in Saskatchewan in BC and elsewhere in Canada speak French, drive like maniacs and have big churches (pick any other stereotypical behaviour as well). The question is: would Alberta be a separate country or would it stay "connected" to these surrounding French provinces? ----- I think the real question here is whether English-speaking Canadians, if the shoe were on the other foot, would be as indecisive as Quebecers are about independance. The implication is that Quebecers lack the gumption to do something that les Anglais would have done ages ago, given similar circumstances. Incidentally, I liked Kimmy's comment: That's a good starting point but can you imagine how badly Klein would mangle French? He would be uncomfortable outside of Alberta.

From the article above: Ibbitson implies the legislation will go forward shortly after parliament resumes in early October. This is interesting and one to watch.

NYT article (This link may require (free) registration) I cannot believe that Roberts did this without WHite House knowledge. And I have seen this idea floated elsewhere. The CIA is a bureaucracy that has lived for about 50 years or so. I think that may turn out to be the useful lifespan of a bureaucracy. At a certain point, the advantages of institutional wisdom are outweighed by institutional lethargy. There are some places I've been where I truly thought that they should just fire everyone, or send them somewhere else, and start from scratch with a whole new crew. Trudeau sort of did that with CSIS and the RCMP in the 1970s.

Huh? The US has a current account deficit which means it has a capital account surplus. In effect, foreigners are delivering good and services to the United States because it offers a good place to invest them. In return, foreigners get a future claim on US resources. Incidentally, this situation is not new and occurred when the US government budget was in surplus. In fact, the capital account surplus is much larger than the current budget deficit.I think that's what Hugo said. I'm not sure your example of 17th century Spain is appropriate. Saudi Arabia typically runs a trade surplus, I believe. BTW, I agree with you about much military expenditures. Making cruise missiles and then exploding them is fun at first but is ultimately a waste of time and money. I learned that as a kid with fireworks and my allowance. Typical Canadian thinking. Attack a mathematical model? Are you joking? I merely wondered why you went into detail about what years it is taught in a university curricula. I thought the discussion was about government international trade policies. ---- Cases can be made for governments to intervene in trade between people. It is almost impossible to justify interventions which treat trade between people in one country differently from trade between people in two different countries.

The point is that Quebec has twice held a referendum on the question, and both times voters rejected "mandates to negotiate..." In effect, Quebec is doing nothing. The question is whether Albertans (for example) would be more decisive than Quebecers seem to be.

Imagine that Alberta is still Alberta BUT... the United States is a country of French people run by a President named Chirac or d'Estaing etc. In addition, imagine that the rest of Canada is also French speaking. Bouchard is the guy in BC, someone named Parizeau in Manitoba, Levesque in Ontario and so on. Canada has French people with their funny flags and weird habits and speaking style everywhere. Now, Alberta with its English speaking Klein is still the same straight shooting English Alberta you've always known. The question is, would Alberta be a separate country? Or would Alberta go along with all these local province French guys? Wrap your mind around this theoretical case (try to imagine a big France to the south with people who eat cheese and so on) and wonder what Klein or Lougheed would do. (If you're not Albertan, try Harris or McGuinty or Campbell or whoever.) [bTW, this is an ongoing thread on my French forum.]

Since when is "putting out to pasture" a synonym for "killing"? Or am I missing something? Is a citizenship court room an appropriate place to hand out religious tracts? Wouldn't it be better if new citizens were handed discount coupons for passport photo studios? Or even political party info packages. Why is it a better question?

I've noticed that gas stations here in Montreal have changed their signs to have three figures, plus a decimal. Prices have been as high as 99.9. Incidentally, gasoline prices are still too low. With crude oil near 50$/barrel, gasoline prices will have to go up.

If the federal government privatizes Petro-Canada, it will sell the shares. Why not simply mail us the shares instead and let us decide whether to hold them or sell them? Some people may prefer the cash rather than holding Petrocan shares.

In Montreal, the prices are now about 91.4/litre. I was recently in southern Ontario where they were about 5 to 10 cents cheaper. (Although I bought gas once for 66.5/litre in Toronto.) I was in the States too (Boston and New York) where prices ranged from about 1.80 US to 2.20 US per US gallon. That's about 63 CDN/litre to 77 CDN/litre.

What if the federal government sells the shares, gives you the money and then if you want, you can buy the shares yourself? IOW, why force people to own shares when they don't want to? Maybe Canadians have better things to do with that cash? As to the idea of owning the shares to "know what's going on", doesn't the federal government have huge bureaucracies with the right to get information? Surely the Revenue Agency has the info. Or StatsCan. Do you really mean that the government has to make a several billion dollar investment "to know what's going on"? And what does the government need to know anyway?

Swell, let me take the hindmost because it seems this resolve many of our problems.If we are on a desert island and you don't honour the contract, then the only thing I can do is to deal no longer with you. But why would you do that? That is, would you give up all the future benefits of trading with me to get one night of coconut? I dislike this example though. We don't live on an island with only one other person. We live on islands with millions of people. How do you think credit cards work? IOW, you seem to think that contract law is like sport rules, people will cheat to get ahead if they can. On the contrary, contract law is like the rules of grammar. It makes no sense to cheat because you'll only cheat yourself. The purpose of contract law is to make explicit to both parties what they must give and what they will get. In the case of breach, it makes explicit what damages are to be paid. It is in everyone's interest to do this. In a race, I have every reason to make you quit the game. In a trade, I don't want you to leave. Huh? Millions of people work in the United States despite having no legal status there. Their property rights are respected. People regularly buy and sell illegal drugs yet the State does not offer any protection of property rights. Indeed, in many jurisdictions the State is the worst protector of property rights. People frequently rely on private means to protect themselves. We are witnessing major changes in the definition and protection of intellectual property rights. I'd wager that the State will be the last entity to get involved in this debate.The world is a big place and with 6 billion people, it should not be surprising that there are many ways to skin the cat of property right protection. Property right definition is important because it should be simple and clear, and it should not be open for redefinition. It matters less who does this. I'm not sure that our economy works better because the State does this than that the definitions are usually clear. Your long explanation is entirely theoretical. In theory, the State will only execute criminals and let innocent people free. In theory. In practice, it's a different story.I asked you for a concrete example where regulation improved things. ---- I hope I don't sound so anti-State that I'm an anrachist or something. By and large, I can see why criminal law is enforced by the State - although I can see how it doesn't have to be. In general though, there is a whole area of property rights where the State is seriously derelict. For example, it does not protect environmental rights. And it does not adequately protect the rights of children. If we are to consider the State and Left vs. Right, I think we should start there.

Do you write the same way elsewhere as your posts here? That is, do you write in such an incoherent fashion? First, for some bizarre reason, you start with a disjointed description of when the Solow Growth Model is taught. Who cares! Then, you state that people do trade but "countries" cause shifts in trading patterns. When you say "country", do you mean "government"? Then you give an example (from the UK in the 1700s) which seems to support trade restrictions - specifically import substitution. But then you state this shouldn't been done for long. Then you state: Sorry, you got me here completely. Canada does not trade with the UK. Individual Canadians trade with each other and with individuals in the UK. How does a restriction on your ability to trade make you better off?Then you state: Huh? So where is our disagreement? Let me get this right. Trade is not the issue at all. What you think is that the government should get into the business of picking winners. That is, you think the government should take from successful people and give to other people if they follow what the government wants.I guess what you really mean is that the Albertan government should tax the oil industry and subsidize the non-oil industry. If this is such a good idea, why can't people do this on their own?

On one hand this, on the other hand that. Solow growth model? WTF? [Or are you are trying to somehow impress?] Look, the issue here is whether the Canadian government should force (or induce) me to deal with another Canadian rather than with someone in China. Do you really mean to say that allowing Canadians this choice, we'll stagnate like Spain in the 1600s? And do you really believe that trade with the Flemish caused Spain to decline as a political power? And can't you find a more recent example? On the contrary, all the evidence suggests that trade restrictions lead to stagnation. Countries don't trade; people do. Economic arguments go wrong when they ignore individual choice.

Jobs are lost with new technology too. Does this mean we should stop new inventions? Forget about low wage foreigners taking our jobs. We should be worried about computers taking our jobs. Soon, computers will do everything and we'll have nothing to do ourselves.

Why would you have to pay more to your brother? Why wouldn't your brother simply lower his price to match the foreigner's price? Then you could in good conscience (and as a smart shopper) buy from your brother. In this case, the effect of the foreigner is merely to make you richer and your brother poorer. Unless of course, your brother does not want to match the foreigner's price because, at such a price, the work isn't worth it to him. IOW, your brother has an alternative job possibility that earns him more than making cheap clothing. This alternative job possibility is what will make your family (you and your brother together) richer. More dramatically, imagine the foreigner decides to give you clothing for free. Your brother will certainly never match that price. So he'll do something else instead. Whatever he does, will make your family richer. This last example is exactly what happens with the invention of a new device that makes some jobs obsolete. (eg. automated elevators) ---- Vander Zalm's comment made me laugh. He says such nonsense but I'm sure he never ran his business that way. I would like to believe that politicians matter much less than their egos imply. But then the history of the past century shows that politicians are capable of complete folly. In 1913, the world had a functioning global economy where people travelled without visas and shipped goods to buyers across oceans without hindrance. By 1945, the folly of politicians had swept that freedom all away.

If you want to understand the federal debt, you have to understand that interest payments became the single largest budget item in the 1980s. Hence, when interest rates fell, the federal government's budget position improved considerably. Interest rates started falling around 1990. See the graph here showing the Bank of Canada rate since 1980. (I would prefer to show the 10 year government bond rate but I can't find it on the Internet.) I don't think Mulroney can be blamed for increasing the debt nor PM PM be credited with balancing the budget. The most significant event has been the Bank of Canada becoming monetarist around 1980 and no longer following Keynesian policies. BTW playfull, that link you provided above is one of the more hilarious I have seen. Thanks for the laugh.