August1991

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.

A more apt comparison might be people from Edmonton and people from the Peace River area, or people from Toronto and people from Muskoka. But this is neither here nor there really.I don't know where you live Argus but if someone evicted you and your neighbours from your homes, you'd probably be upset.

Go here and then to the bottom of the page.

Open the gates, see what happens. You gotta love it.

Toronto Star? It's an Internal Memo. The issue is whether the memo will get votes in the GTA, or play in West/East focus. Ask Herle, the Magician.

Let me flip though this thread and make pertinent comments. If you've followed the thread (to me, the thread is fascinating - thanks MS for starting it), I hope my comments make sense. The free market doesn't always work or it sometimes leads to monopoly, perhaps temporary. In these cases, the government in theory could improve things. In practice, it doesn't and the evidence is clear that government regulation makes things worse. Swell, do you have contrary evidence? Idealist, your A,B,C,D argument is basically Marxist and false. By the same logic, big families would dominate in society. [see further below... Winners in life co-operate best. It's not certain the big Wal-Marts will co-operate best. It's not even certain they'll run the fastest.] Harper? Socialist? Huh? We do not need the State to accredit diplomas. When it does accredit/guarantee, it creates a false sense of confidence and just makes the learning curve longer and more difficult. At issue here is "The Truth" as in: Can this doctor prescribe the right treatment? Even the State does not have better access to The Truth than we mere mortals.Please, everyone, stop seeing the State as omniscient and omnipotent. The State has created this impression but it is false. The sooner we all know this, the better for our children and grandchildren - since they will certainly know it. [Cartman, students do not choose to study at Harvard or McGill because they have State accreditation.] Good definition Hugo. I agree. But fairness is an elastic concept. What you do and what you produce are based on the chance lottery of what you are. Is that fair? If your insurance premium is used to pay a claim to the owner of a burned house, is that theft? I really dislike this analogy, Hugo. IMV, it misses the whole point. So let me discuss my viewpoint at length.Two runners compete for a single prize and as such, both expend much effort merely to determine one winner. If the starting blocks are moved, it would probably upset at least one runner. It might change the winner. But for the rest of us, it wouldn't matter at all. How the winner is determined does not matter. If you think about it, you'll realize that life is not a race of runners. Life is rather what I would call a good marriage. It is two people working together to make each person happy. A race will produce a winner, and a loser. A good marriage produces two winners. The problem, of course, is that people have a tendency to cheat, even in good marriages. Mathematics (arithmetic really) was such a great invention because it helped people, inclined to cheat, towards good marriages. Why? Because prices in a market turn people's competitive, cheating instincts into cooperation. The Olympics don't do that. And neither does your analogy. What does this have to do with corporations (and their serious troubles)? Well, internally, good corporations want the same as good marriages - they want cooperation and "two" winners. This is all false. The definition of 'property' is based on complex history - and I'm not even certain the State enforces the definition in many cases. (eg. Why not sue planes flying over your house? Don't you own the air above it? Why not?) As to contract law, if you and I do a complex deal concerning flight paths, we'll include a clause concerning dispute resolution. In my family, "when Dad gets home" was the usual clause. IOW, we chose a private resolution mechanism using private rules, publicly accepted. Quite frankly, I have yet to find any glorious insights from you on this matter August. IMV, markets are a wonderful invention inducing proper collective behaviour from beings who are naturally individualistic. We humans invented mathematics to make ourselves collective. How can I explain this to you?Math is just a language, but a precise one. Most of us now understand prices. Several thousand years ago, no one could understand even that much. ----- I'll reserve this for last. No, it's different. How is it different? That is, how are the laws of grammar different from the laws of contract? Both are designed to make it easier to communicate, deal with one another. Both predate any State you can imagine. In fact, there is no single English dictionary, nor is there a single contract law. (BTW, this is not the same in French. Le Petit Robert is the standard dictionary. And indeed, Quebec is the only jurisdiction in North America that uses the Civil Code, a form of State Contract Law.) What is the issue? How to help people communicate and deal with one another. Markets using mathematics do this well but don't always work. Families are the oldest way. 'Corporations' and cooperatives another way. The State a newer alternative. But as individuals, our inclination will always be to cheat. That is, we'll promise to cut the lawn in return for a steak dinner. And we'll promise to spend less time on the phone in return for a spontaneous red rose. But promises are easy to make. And what promises are written down?

The only reason the Republicans didn't go to court is because the optics would have been bad. Moreover, F911 was a movie that several million, largely left wing Americans will see. It preaches to the converted.The Dems are now attacking the Bush ads because it makes sense to do so. IOW, neither side has the moral high or low ground. They are both trying to convince, using whatever way seems appropriate, disinterested voters that their candidate is best. Attack ads are now part of the arsenal - but they're no longer the steroid boost they used to be.

Huh?I think hjalmar's point is that individuals can increasingly choose to live in the jurisdiction where taxes are lower. IOW, people vote with their feet and governments now compete for taxpayers. On the other hand, hjalmar is not describing anything new. People voted more with their feet 100 years ago than they do now. (The greatest influx of immigrants to Canada and the US occurred around 1900.) High tax and low tax jurisdictions exist (and compete) in the US (Massachusetts vs Arizona) and in Canada (Quebec vs Alberta). I imagine property tax rates vary between Vancouver and Chilliwack as they do between Montreal and Laval. Living in a particular place has always been a package deal. ----- eureka, when you use the term "neo-lib", what do you mean exactly?

Bakunin, I agree with you. The Legault article merely clarifies (as if this is necessary) what Parizeau wrote and Laplante has proposed. But she's also disingenous by skirting around some of the implications. For example, Parizeau is still convinced that he lost the referendum because of money and the non-francophone vote. He cannot accept the fact that a large number of francophone Quebecers do not want a separate country, and this explains ultimately the PQ's difficulty. And BTW, the Quebec carte soleil is now a de facto "citizenship card". It remains only to make its presentation a vote requirement.

Easy, Rene Levesque was Canada's best politician. He was more of a democrat than a separatist. (Trudeau was more of a federalist than a democrat.) Laurier, like Smallwood and Diefenbaker, was an egotist. Mulroney, like Pearson, lacked confidence. Clark was too foolish. Meighen too, I suspect. But Bourassa had the best office (in the HQ building), and Davis the best staff. Lougheed was the toughest, in public. Bouchard was an ordinary guy. For those who choose Trudeau, I met Jacques Hebert in the Montreal Ritz. He was a drunk snob. For me, Trudeau was a snob. Sorry.

MS, you didn't mention her previous history. Nor did you note the circumstances of this charge. I thought Campbell's photo was worth a laugh. But he's a politician who can lose an election. She was a judge for life. I see a difference.

Your ideas were old in 1974, MS. I won't say what students in Poland think of them now. Everything in your post is 1960s rant, or older. The Left is needed. But not this way.