August1991

To my knowledge, Trudeau never said that. I think that the quote comes from Dion.Trudeau did say that Quebec nationalists would make Montreal a Danzig of the New World.

Typical old Leftist thinking. You look for conspiracies, invest in symbols and miss reality. How sad.

I have stated elsewhere on this forum that Crosbie's book is the best on Canadian politics. Along with Radwanski's Trudeau book or Dafoe's Laurier book or Newman's Renegade in Power. All good reads. (Autobiography and biography are the best route to history.) But then, Berton's Smug Minority is good. Read Mason Wade about French Canada. (I'm choosing English only. Leandre Bergeron is a scream.) As to Crosbie the man, his wife Jane was better. But he stood up to Joey Smallwood, and even his brother. Give the guy credit.

Precisely my point, eureka. You don't know what money is. (It's only paper! How does mere paper have power?)

The choice of Margaret Thatcher as Tory leader in 1975, then her election in 1979 followed by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 were all indicators of a shift to the "right". The popular destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 were also indicators. I think Vaclav Havel said that the only remaining Leftists are now teaching in western universities. Tony Blair, Felipe Gonzalez and Bill Clinton are all examples of the left reforming. Even Francois Mitterand was pragmatic and comfortable with cohabitation. Jacques Chirac, by some standards, is now "Left". And what was Deng Hsiaoping's famous comment on the colour of cats? This is a far cry from Michael Foot, James Laxer and the waffle, George McGovern, Georges Marchais, Henry Wallace and Arthur Scargill. Richard Nixon, for heaven's sakes, was interventionist - he imposed wage and price controls and created the EPA. Across the world, from India to Italy, from Albania to Argentina, countries have by and large rejected State intervention and opted more or less for free markets. If anything, modern communications technology (including the Internet) has exacerbated this. I don't see this as a swing of the pendulum. This is a permanent change. The old tax-and-spend, nationalize-commanding-heights, Directive-Plans, pro-Union Leftism won't work and isn't even popular. At the same time, I happen to think the Left has an important role to play in deciding State policies. The State is in some ways the best institution, for example, to protect the environment, to protect children at risk and to redistribute wealth without destroying it. But I'm still waiting for an intelligent Leftist to make some proposals. Instead, I just hear the old 1960s refrains ("profits are bad", "corporations are bad") of Noam Chomsky et al. Ugh. Lastly, Canada is a minor backwater in world affairs. We have not been immune to these changes but the Quebec National Question has infected our federal politics and we've been left with the Liberal Party as a result. IOW, we get a fudge in which such institutions as the CBC, the CRTC can survive or an activist Supreme Court can thrive - and ideological questions defer to national unity.

You show a frightening ignorance of markets and how they work. Have you ever thought what determines the price of gasoline? House prices? Wages?Do you really believe that wages are higher in Canada because of "state protection and worker activism"? [House prices are much higher in Canada than in, say, Sri Lanka. Is this because of "state protection"?] By that logic, the profitable US health sector would be a growth industry and everyone would want its shares.I agree the US spends a larger share of its income on health care than we do. But the US also spends a larger share of its income on travel and tourism too. Americans have higher incomes and rich people spend proportionately more on health services than poor people do. The US also "exports" its health services by providing them to foreigners. This makes the US sector larger than ours. I am willing to concede however that a State health insurance scheme might function at lower cost than several private health insurance schemes. Lastly, Canada no longer offers universal medical coverage. There have been several news articles in Montreal about newcomers being unable to find a family physician. Existing doctors refuse to accept new patients. Since this primarily affects immigrants, it has yet to register on the public radar where queues still seem to be the priority. Read this article as an example. I find that comment sheer snobism - and of the worst kind. If an education helps someone to work or live better, then who are you to question how the education was obtained? Many wise people have no "formal" education. In any case, almost all Canadian university students would gladly accept the opportunity to study at Harvard, Princeton or Yale: all non-State institutions. Greek and Italian students desert their State institutions as quickly as possible.

More people go to school now and stay longer. To the extent you believe in this, we are reaching further and further into the shallow end of the natural talent pool. (You could also argue that university access is more based on talent now. I'm thinking in terms of 1950 vs. 2000.) Overall averages of SAT scores have been declining in the US.

Do starved workers arrive at Nike sweatshops pleading for a job? Have you ever been to a 'Third World' country? By voluntarily accepting a job, the workers are presumably better off than the alternative.Cartman, I have no doubt that there is great poverty in this world. I don't see how forcing Nike to pay higher wages will reduce that poverty. What do you mean by "rule of law"? I would define it as "property rights" and "contract law". The former is typically enforced by the State (with varying degree of success) and the latter is largely non-State. What do you mean by equality before the law? Got me there. Most contract arbitration is conducted in private courts according to mutually acceptable rules. The 407 is evidence of a modern private road of which there were many in the past. Your example of traffic regulations is more convention: think of left/right hand drives. It is in the interest of everyone to follow the rules.Let me give another, very practical example. Who decided the rules of English grammar? The State? Who enforces these rules? The State? It is in the interest of everyone to follow these rules. Contract law is the same. Life (in the sense of trade) is not a sports game where people want to cheat or get around the rules. Life (in the sense of trade) is like two people talking through an interpreter. They both want to help their intermediary. On the contrary, government regulation has given people a false sense of confidence. This has encouraged reckless behaviour because many feel Big Brother will step in and bail us out with other people's money. In Canada, we had Confederation Life. In the US, the Savings and Loan.MS suggested thinking outside the box. IMV, the State has become identified with the nation. This is a con job. I see a big difference between Canada the country and, for example, the Canadian federal government. They are not the same thing at all. Canada the country has a long history, involving millions of people and their various efforts to live their lives. The Canadian government is an entity which confers on certain people certain powers that no one else has. We too often mistake the Canadian government for Canada. It's not. I'm not anti-government. I just wonder what role the State should have.

Here's the South African perspective on this rowing incident. Not only can we not steer, but we also appear to be lousy losers. It's just a game? The purpose is to encourage others to be more physically active?

They would be able to collect a private pension according to the conditions stipulated.I agree this choice should be left to the employee and employer. PM PM is hardpressed to argue in favour of mandatory retirement at 65.

I think Trudeau noted that Canadians cheer the Montreal Expos (all players American) and Americans cheer the New York Rangers (all players Canadian). Conrad Black bought the Daily Telegraph. Sony bought Columbia Pictures. Incidentally, this isn't a new world. We are returning to the globalization existing prior to World War I.

Communist Broadcasting Corporation. Geez, that one might stick. I frankly couldn't give a damn whether Canada wins any medals. I certainly care nothing for the sob stories of athletes spending years in training only to place 37th. I mean, really, we've got hurricanes in Florida and a 'war' in Iraq. Let's keep this in perspective. Canada's measure as a country is in no way related to medal wins. That's East German thinking and look what happened to it.

Yes, we did. (Read announcement here.) But we have never implemented it. That is, we have never presented a specific plan to achieve the goal Kyoto assigns to Canada. The federal government has nevertheless spent money on CO2 reductions. Fraser Institute 'progress' reports are here and here.

No doubt information plays a critical role in markets - as does clear property rights. At issue ultimately is whether an enforceable contract is possible and at what cost. Many, many deals fall through because such a contract is either impossible or too costly. Markets don't exist.At the same time, the legal system has developed tremendously over the past several hundred years precisely to overcome this problem. (Call this trust if you will.) I have no doubt we can now conduct more transactions through markets than ever before. Consider contingency markets alone. Now then, have government regulations encouraged or discouraged the ability to sign enforceable contracts? I am hard pressed to find even one example where government regulation has lowered transaction costs. Can you think of one, Sweal? [How about money and central bank insurance services to private banks? Governments screwed this up and have now made central banks independent. How about universal medical insurance? Maybe. Well, OK. Provision of public goods and enforcing property rights.] If individuals acting on their own can't find away to fashion an enforceable contract at acceptable cost, I doubt very much if the State would do much better. Markets fail for a reason.

How? And if they do, how would government regulation improve things?

Will the children participate voluntarily? Are they capable of even deciding? Free markets suffer various weaknesses. Your example is not one of them. There is nothing divine in it, nor did Smith ever suggest this. Instead, he observed that personal greed exercised through a free market with prices leads to a greater common good. People have been trading (co-operating) for several thousands years using numbers (prices) but Smith was the first to examine how this mechanism works. Judging by the posts to this forum, many still misunderstand the concept. I don't think the revolution occurred with Smith, it occurred when the first guy invented numbers to determine terms of trade. This invention arguably made the single greatest impact on human wellbeing. Markets need nothing of the sort. I would argue that most of our social problems arise because markets don't exist or are fettered in some way.In simple terms, two athletes competing for one gold medal leads to a tired winner and a tired loser. Compare that with two sellers competing over a number, a price. Here too, there is a winner and a loser - but a third person, the customer, indirectly benefits. I think this is the key insight of Smith. IOW, competition without prices is a recipe for waste. Competition with prices is a recipe for wealth. Democracy presumably about a majority deciding. A constitution is about protecting a minority against a majority decision. The US Bill of Rights expressly protects individuals against the power of the State. You offer no evidence to support this claim. (I disagree that the past 20 years were 'low growth'.) In any case, correlation does not mean causality.Unions are cartels and on balance, these prevent people from making mutually beneficial (profitable) trades. People and countries are poorer as a result.

If it were only so simple, hjalmar. I would defer to Adam Smith here. The Wealth of Nations comes about when individuals can trade with each other as freely as possible. Policies that hinder individuals co-operating make countries poor. Cartman, you are confusing correlation with causation. Union participation in the US has fallen in the past 50 years while its real GDP per capita has grown. This reverse correlation says nothing about cause and effect.The social sciences are unfortunately filled with such bad reasoning.

Well said, Bryan. Thinking outside the box? On the contrary, we would still be saddled with Eaton's now if MS had his way. And the Eaton's brothers would be the beneficiaries of naive nationalism.Thinking outside the box means considering the unthinkable.

I think the technical term is "putting one's head in the trough".

Reading through this thread, I was struck by some of the uninformed comments made. SUVs exist as a response to government regulations on fuel economy. SUVs are treated as light trucks (not personal cars) and so car manufacturers have been happy to produce and sell them. See this. (I believe hummers are completely exempt from gas regulation.) The lesson here is that government regulation often leads to the opposite of what is intended. Individuals invariably find ways around bad laws. Some people prefer small cars, some prefer large. Let individuals choose. I see no reason for the government to bias this choice. For the same reason, removing the PST or GST on some vehicles (hybrids etc) is not wise. Let people decide. To the extent gasoline causes carbon dioxide emissions, then a so-called carbon tax makes sense. One could impose other 'fuel' taxes for nitrous oxide emissions and so on. But the biggest cost by far to society of auto usage is congestion. Driving a car in morning/afternoon traffic takes up a big chunk of prime real estate (albeit a moving chunk) but drivers get this space rent free. I was extremely impressed with the 407 in Toronto. This practice should be applied to all major thoroughfares in all cities. We pay for using cinema seats with different prices depending on time of use. We should do the same for the roads we travel on. Municipalities could impose this cost and collect the revenues. (London England has started doing this.)

My question was why a checkout clerk pays taxes to subsidize the university education of middle class/rich kids. About 25% of young Canadians go to university/college. Most of these kids come from well off families.Like much of what passes for "socialism" in Canada, the poor and the rich subsidize the middle - after all, that's where the votes are. TalkNumb, you talk a hard line but you're an old softy at heart. A gullible one, apparently.

MS, you seem to think the corporation General Motors is a rich greedy guy who is the evil mastermind in some silly movie. Where does General Motors get the money to advertise? From shareholders and car sales. People who buy its cars pay indirectly for the advertising. If Ford (or Toyota) can do better, their cars will be cheaper. How would consumer advocacy groups pay for advertising? ---- The level playing field? By what right should an organization be able to take money from you without your permission. Name me one corporation that does that. In fact, MS, name me one corporation that forces you to do something against your will. (Unions do precisely that.) MS, I understand (and agree with) your desire for a better world where everyone will live better. (I'm suspicious of your belief that the "weak" need protection. I think your belief is smugly superior.) I do not believe that unions help poor people. The past century offers so much evidence that centralized, obligatory powers in the form of unions and the State do not help ordinary people but in fact harm them. What well meaning Soviets did is an absolute sin. Ordinary people usually know what is best for themselves. Leave them be. They don't need union activists, social workers or bureaucrats telling them what to do unless the opinion is asked for. Let our relations be voluntary - this is the essence of respect.

Parizeau, in endorsing Laplante's suggestion, is returning the PQ to its pre-Claude Morin, 1974 policy. (The PQ lost in 1970 and 1973, running under the policy that an election win would be a mandate for sovereignty.) The issue here is what happens if the PQ wins a majority in the National Assembly but only gets, say, 47% of the popular vote? According to Parizeau/Laplante, the new government would write a new Quebec constitution, determine citizenship and then perhaps attempt to negotiate international associations. IMV, a critical feature would be non-payment of taxes to the federal government. For example, the Quebec government at present deducts from all Quebec civil servants (including teachers and son on) federal income taxes which are credited to the federal revenue agency. What would happen if the Quebec government stopped doing this? Landry has clearly stated he doesn't agree with this proposal. He said a majority on a clear question is a "question of dignity". Parizeau's article raises the valid point that the PQ cannot win a referendum in current circumstances. (The federal government and English Canada will not respect the referendum rules.) Bakunin is right to say that the NDP will go nowhere in Quebec. In fact, the national question so predominates in Quebec that there is in fact no ideological debate. (This disease has infected Canadian federal politics too and explains the June election results. People vote Liberal to "save" Canada.) The PQ may well win the next provincial election. Under Laplante's proposal, we would be in a royal mess of brinkmanship strategy.

For heaven's sakes, you guys would have the government regulate corporations for a supposed democratically inspired public good. But when a democratic government regulates corporations, you claim that the government is hostage to corporate lobbyists. Sorry, I don't quite get it. Maybe the solution here is that the government should not be regulating corporations at all. IOW, the government - because it has powers of coercion no corporation/collective/cooperative/single individual has - should be held in check. I'm not merely afraid of the government being taken over by corporations. I'm afraid of the government being taken over by anyone. All of your examples above of alleged corporate malfeasance involve people who voluntarily chose to deal with people through corporations. Nortel share prices? Gimme a break! No one is forced to buy shares.

That also explains why eastern Europe is no longer Communist. American corporations managed to brainwash people from Warsaw to Bucarest into believing that socialism is bad.Leftists too often confuse symbol and reality.