August1991

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.

Bakunin, that money was not taken from me or you. It was taken from the shareholders who voluntarily chose to buy and hold the shares. I see a big difference between that and the money now being paid to Andre Ouellet.As to your example of a corporation polluting the water of a town and then suppressing a Fox news report about it, I would like to see an Internet reference (I vaguely recall the story.) But the "corporation" did not pollute the water. A person caused the pollution. IOW, I dump my garbage on your front lawn and you sue me. This is a question for tort law. I don't see why this justifies abolishing corporations or treating the people who create one any differently from you or I.

One could just as easily use these (very short term) stats to show that American workers have a higher income.The fact of the matter is that the unions in Canada are now largely concentrated in the public sector. Public sector unions are in effect monoplies paid through our taxes. One can easily imagine what this leads to. All unions are cartels. They restrict supply and raise prices to make a monopoly profit. This leads to numerous problems but I'll mention just one: bureaucracy. The complexity of employment in the public sector lies in stark contrast to the ease of employment decisions in the non-unionized private sector. The public sector requires endless meetings, job descriptions, organization charts, restructuring, re-restructuring, priority lists, labour tribunals, red-circling and so on. Even the vocabulary is boring. This is a Soviet path to stagnation.

The next chocolate bar you buy will contribute (GST) to the shotput team, or whatever. Like synchronised swimming? Pay for it on your own dime. (I prefer subsidized Internet connections. I think the government should help Canadians to enter the technical age. Canadians can exercise in the street.) BTW, Kimmy, I disagree with your comments even if my friends agree with you!

Let's!Corporations are not "democratic". But all of the people involved in corporations choose voluntarily to do so. The workers/managers can quit, the shareholders can sell, the customers can buy elsewhere. Governments are "democratic". This means the majority decides and individuals have no choice. The relationship is not voluntary. (Well, you can move. Easier for English Canadians but hard for 'French North Americans'.) A corporation is not a greedy person. A corporation is a cooperative and reflects the interests of many people. Bakunin, give me $5,000 cash (50 brown $100) and I will give you a personal cheque for $200. Do you agree? What is 'profit'?How do you measure, Bakunin? When is good better than bad? Should we measure by lives saved? How should society decide? Horoscopes? I think numbers are a better measure. How about profits? Here's an idea. A cashier makes an error and returns you more change. Should you tell the cashier? If you do, the cashier will stay in the job longer making greater errors. If you don't, the cashier will be fired and the shop will lose less money (and the cashier find a better job). Bakunin, bad news is bad news. When to learn it? At 23 years? Or at 54 years? The cardinal sin, according to my grandmother, is waste.

Can I disagree? Seriously? Greg, did you see what you did on your screen? Did you view the screen as a newcomer? What do they see? Greg, you did this (Current Screen): Canadian Politics Section (Open discussion on any aspect of federal politics in Canada.) * Federal Politics * Provincial Politics * Canadian / American Relations * Moral & Religious Issues International Politics * United States * The Rest of the World News and Help * Announcements * Support and Questions ---- I think, you should have done this: Canada (Discussions about Canada) * Federal (Any topic about Canada and Canadian life) * Provincial (Any topic about a specfic Canadian province) International (Discussions about International Issues) * The World (Any topic about events around the world) * United States (Any topic specifically about the US) * Canadian / American Relations (Any topic specifically about Canada and the US) Moral, Religious, Political Issues Site News and Help * Announcements * User Discussion and Questions ---- This matters. People in newspapers/MFAs read this forum. Make their mundane lives easier. I would appreciate a reply.

Parizeau wrote an article in Lapresse about Laplante's idea of the way to independence. Here's the article (in French). Whaddya think? Maclean's Wells thinks this is good news for federalists. I think it is bad news. Like Trudeau, and the Clarity Act, Parizeau's advice to the PQ raises the stakes. I would be the first to say that Canada is not a country of raw, symmetric federalism. I think Canada is a country of understanding and compromise. We Canadians do not believe in ultimatums. Our country does not exist because of Plan B. And if Quebec becomes a country, it should do so because many Quebecers want it. Honestly. Not because a majority of MNA deputies vote for it. Dans le fonds, Parizeau veut promouvoir l'étapisme à la parlementaire. Am I wrong?

I once thought that the Olympics should always occur in Athens. The site could improve over time; the athletes would approve. Then I understood that US television pays off the monopoly IOC. Asian times to prime TV EDT are messy. Africa and South America have never hosted the Summer Olympics. (Correct?) Why not a few permanent venues with schedules for US/Europe audiences? Why not an 'international' games with competitions in different countries? Why not swimmers in Ghana, runners in Argentina, baseball players in Cuba? I agree with you MS.

Hugo's point is that there is no connection between the cash register and the service. Imagine you go to the supermarket, pay $100, then take what you want. (The food on the shelves is 'free'.) Now imagine that everyone else does the same. OMG! Do you make your own clothes and "keep the money in the family"? Have you ever worked for a corporation Hugo? IMO, they are Soviet command environments - desperately trying to cooperate by market means. MS, what about governments? Stalin? Hitler? Nixon? Bush? Did they do any good for anyone? (You can argue that the 'system' is bad and we need a true 'democracy' but I'll ask - what's that?)---- Arguing? It's a waste of time, IMV.I rarely (if ever) use the term capitalism. Markets are not perfect. I'm extremely suspicious of 'regulation'. I quote you at length garret again. Argue? No, this is a discussion! Pollute my drinking water. Well, corporations don't do that. You do it when you buy their products. But point taken. I agree with you. Non-renewable resource? People husband rare resources. People work at corporations and own its shares. (Shareholders expect to resell their shares to someone else - presumably the shares will be desirable - and the buyers presumably feel the same. IOW, current shareholders are long term thinkers. Why are Mercedes more expensive than Hyundai?) Infrastructure? Missed me there. Look. If I buy a computer from Michael Dell, how are you affected? If I choose to see a Hollywood blockbuster rather than a Telefilm Canada production, how are you affected? If I choose to buy gas from Petro-Canada, how are you affected? Corporations allow me to cooperate on a voluntary basis with people from around the world. No slavery anywhere. No taxes. No Grade 10 PhysEd, ie. no forced marches! Corporations mean that I get to choose. Everyone else too. I think that's great. Last question: How does CIDA operate?

I agree with BD on this one. Sorry, Hugo. Government regulations did precisely that. Consider unleaded fuel. Without regulation, it wouldn't exist. Wrong again Hugo. These are unfortunately all the result of (US federal/state) government regulation. Entirely true, Hugo, IMHO.---- No one owns the "environment". There are no defined property rights on the atmosphere. The environment is an example of John Lennon's Imagining. Without an owner, everyone uses it without cost. (Corporations don't use it. Individuals use it.) Does this matter? Simply put, we don't know if we are peeing into a bath tub, a swimming pool or a lake. On balance, I'd argue that if the price is zero (0), then demand is greater than supply. I'd say we should study this question more than we do now. And I'd follow my grandmother's advice: leave a place better than you found it.

Thanks MS for starting this thread. The CBC has noted in its Olympic coverage that we don't support Olympic sports enough. The result is that we don't win medals. WTF? I'm supposed to pay taxes so that some Joe/Mary can win a silly medal and get her/his 15 minutes of fame? Sorry. Subsidies to get people to be active/lose weight/be healthy? Maybe. But subsidize the swimming equivalent of Brittany Spears? No way. Let the Chinese/Russians/Americans get into this silly nationalism. The fewer medals we win, the better - unless its some girl/guy out on a personal lark. BTW, why are athletes/medal totals identified by country and not continent? I think athletes should swim by continent, or under their own person colours. The modern Olympics are Nationalism gone silly.

What experts? How do they measure "best city to live"? What is the criteria?---- One way to phrase this question of tuition is to ask: "Why should a 45 year old supermarket clerk, with a Grade 12 education, pay taxes (income, GST, PST etc.) to subsidize kids from middle class/rich families to go to university?" A better question is to ask: "Who should decide how many university graduates Canada should have (and who they should be)?" [Ordinary Canadians decide how many cars we have and who has which car. The cars cost $20,000 and up.] Final point: If provincial governments were less or not involved in PSE, we would likely have many more smaller institutions. Such institutions would arguably provide a better environment for true learning. With State financing, our universities have become bureaucratic behemoths where the student is a pesky intrusion. In short, our universities are Soviet enclaves with Party member/union activists.

His car was double parked in Manhattan. I suspect his driver started into the "do you know whose car this is" routine and the argument escalated until Wallace got involved. Being NY, the crowd booed the traffic cops.

Much more critical, the relationships between shareholders, employees and customers are entirely voluntary. If you believe a corporation makes "excessive" profits, then buy its shares. If you believe employees corporations are stealing, then sell the shares. If you think its products are over-priced, don't buy them. Nobody is forced to deal with a corporation. In the case of corporations, what tyranny are you referring to? They cannot imprison me or tax me. They can only affect me if I let them. This cannot be said of the State.If an employee of a corporation refuses to hire me or to sell me a product, it must mean that I wanted to work with him or buy its product. Trade by definition is voluntary on both sides. Both sides are free to refuse the deal. So I guess we should go back to typewriters since all those secretaries lost their jobs (and have remained jobless) with the arrival of computers... WTF? Air is free but the economy would come to a halt very fast without it. More practically, the invention of the wheel revolutionized life and the idea is now free to all. Nobody has a patent on the "wheel" and patents only last for 75 years or so in any case.

I quote you at length garrett because what you have written is frightening in its economic ignorance. I fear many people share somehow your logic. Consider this: Imagine I invent a new car that uses water for fuel and takes one person an hour to assemble. According to your logic, the economy would go down the tubes because all those car plant workers (and oil industry workers) would be unemployed and impoverished. So, garrett, I guess you're against new technological innovations that eliminate jobs. IOW, you would prefer that we return to a world of caves and fire. And heaven forbid if anyone discovers a way to start a fire because that would eliminate the fire-keeper's job.