August1991

It is not at all altruistic for the US government to agree to limit its ability to impose protectionist measures. On the contrary, the US would be perfectly selfish to have such limits. Steel tariffs and softwood lumber duties hurt the US economy in that Americans lose more than they gain. New House Prices in US and Lumber Duties It is to the advantage of Americans to make it difficult for their government to impose such policies. The past fifty years are evidence of this where US governments have accepted to limit their ability to impose barriers to trade. The FTA and NAFTA are examples of this. It would be perfectly understandable that the US government would embark on a customs union negotiation. I think the negotiation might work better if Mexico were involved. Idealist, here we go again. Consider this. There is you (1 person) and the rest of the world (5,999,999,999 other people). Do you feel overwhelmed? IOW, Canada and the US don't trade. Individual Candians trade with individual Americans. That surprised me too. It depends on the wording of the question. ISM, anything involving the words Canada, US, customs union is not going to meet with massive support in English Canada.BTW, a customs union would simply mean that US and Canada would have the same tariffs against the outside world. More critically, such an agreement would make it more difficult for the US government (and ours too) to impose harmful barriers.

This is funny to listen to. It helps if you understand spoken French but even if you don't, it will still make you laugh. Pierrette Bellefeuille - Tory Candidate in Hull Where did Harper get her? Well, she apparently was a Liberal parliamentary aide for 20 years. Local Paper with Picture

I successfully avoided engineering. I'm happy I'm not a Harper actuary. But, as languages go, I prefer math.

Meaning, I guess, that you're a small guy, cg. Do you go offshore sometimes, cg? What business are you in exactly?

I have started that Gwyn book of yours. For the rest, please wait.

Maybe, but not obvious. What a misunderstanding of Quebec. Jacques Parizeau? Left? The BQ is much more afraid than the Tories.The Tories will likely get the most seats in parliament. Harper will be asked to form a government. After several months (September, October) when he faces a confidence vote, who will vote in favour? On a case-by-case basis, Harper will have the choice of the BQ, NDP or Liberals. Any one of these parties will provide a majority vote in the House - and they will. My Point? The Tories CANNOT be social conservatives. (They will get no House support.) But depending on the issue, the Tories will be able to be fiscal conservatives because they'll find a party to support their spending or taxing measure. Ontario (English-Canadian?) voters understand this perfectly. The BQ is the insurance. And Charest is double insurance. Last point: Someone should ask the GG - a CBC journalist, after all - how she'll decide who to ask on 29 June to form a government. (Note: She was a TV 'head' appointed by Chretien. IOW, she'll say off mike but still desiring promotion (?), "Stevie here got the most seats. Sorry Paul, but your NDP dealies don't count.")

You mean you invoice $110,000 and you keep $100,000? (You claimed an 8% rate. If you said you invoiced $60,000 and kept $55,000 - I might possibly believe if you've got dependent wife and kids. But not $110,000.)Sorry, don't believe it. Unless you've got a "push-the-envelope" accountant, or you are doing deals in a special sector with tax relief. What business are you in?

I have no idea. But a good writer would have prepared it in advance for use at the next scrum. I have only met Harper once. Six months ago, he was only a name to me. One reason I am on this forum is because I was curious about him and wanted a way to get back into this There are several things that impress me about Harper. First, he's shrewd. Second, he lines up his ducks. Third, he gets people to agree. Fourth, he's reasonable - no hype. People forget that Ontario had a Tory government for 40 some odd years. Frost, Davis, Robarts... I think this is Harper. He is good English-Canada.

With your millions, cgarret, why are you posting here? And if you're a small business person, and you're fooling around with numbers, wait and see what happens. In any case, no person I know who fools around on taxes would ever, under any circumstance, post to a forum about it. I agree the tax system has numerous flaws. One of the minor examples is self-employed individuals. But any such tax advantage just attracts more people into the business and you wind up with the same at the end of the day. You tell us your tax rate. You don't tell us your take home.

Harper's got good writers. Almost Jay Leno.

I might get into this thread but first, I must add another comment. Idealist, I checked that link. The magazine cover lists articles by Peter Newman, John McMurtry, Paul Hellyer and Sinclair Stevens! Sorry, but that list is simply too comical. Then I dioscover this Ralston Saul quote inside: Asking Saul about the market is like asking Milton Friedman about existentialism - no, it's more like asking Brittany Spears about differential calculus. We live in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. People buy Saul's books. Fine. *Giggle*, Sinc Stevens! *Giggle*

DAC, which test? Politopia (I find this test too obvious. They also ask for your e-mail to spam you.) Political Compass (This one I find genuinely intriguing.) If you do the Political Compass test, post your numbers here. I'll put everyone on a chart (with more famous worthies) and get Greg to post (!) an image file.

Truly embarrassing that McCallum got drawn into this. The guy was a Royal Bank VP and could have been Governor of the Bank of Canada. And then Martin defends the whole thing. Bizarre.

Maybe. But let's make plain what the equality refers to. Bad health is a lottery. It could happen to anyone of us. How to share this risk? State health insurance is an obvious way to equally share this risk. Now, how to organize this? Good question. How to ensure the dishonest don't take advantage?

WTF? Not at all. OMG! Dead wrong. IMV, we'll talk again.

Please, Idealist, NOT. My first effort was good but not absolutely clear. I changed the numbers simply to make the divisions unequal and obvious. Mathematics (arithmetics) is a precise language - but it's just another language with its own style. Nothing of substance changed. I'll repeat me example (with a word addition): The world is rather you and me on a desert island (!) each picking 10 pineapples a day. You discover a better way to pick pineapples so each of us can get 25 pineapples a day. So, you come to me and say, "I'll show you how to get 25 pineapples a day but to learn my trick, you must agree to give me 5 of your pineapples." Should I agree?

I'll go with a word-for-word translation:If the Conservative Party forms a minority government, it risks having all kinds of difficulties in the world to seduce the Bloc Québécois. La Presse on BQ with CPC This is a news item but not a forum item. (Now, there's a new idea. What's the media talking about - and what are forums talking about. See below.) The La Presse article goes on to say that the BQ will not compromise on certain basic points. Reading it, honest to God, many socially Liberal Canadians would be happy to have a BQ standing on guard over the Tories. (If your French is distant, avortement = abortion.) Canada, what a country! ---- My French Forum top five threads now: 1. A BQ candidate who ripped off the system (thread on track, sort of) 2. Sharia law in Canada (generally anti- multi-culti) 3. Call for Marijuana Party votes (posts are a joke) 4. Religious orders getting special treatment (thread turned into anti-religion then how the tax system gives special favours...) 5. "Not Easy" (this long thread started with US actuaries (hein?) and has morphed into the general, never public Quebec conversation of la question nationale.) Some journalist is going to pick up on what I just did and make it into a regular feature. You read it first here.

I can't help myself. Another point. Argus, the world does not work that way. If it did, we would still be living in caves fighting over access to the waterhole. The world is rather you and me on a desert island (!) each picking 10 pineapples a day. You discover a better way to pick pineapples so each of us can get 25 pineapples a day. So, you come to me and say, "I'll show you how to get 25 pineapples a day but to learn my trick, you must agree to give me 5 of your pineapples."

The problem with both of these arguments is that we generally don't buy health care this way. We don't buy health care the way we buy food; we buy health care the way we pay damages to someone after a car accident - or the way we buy car repairs after an accident. Most people do not self-insure a new car. The risk is too great. Health care is the same. Even in the US, most people have health insurance. (The very wealthy may self-insure but I doubt it. The risk is too great.) IOW, it is impossible to talk of health care without talking about insurance. (The equivalent would be discussing car repairs without noting that insurance companies write the cheques for the garages.) The next step is to ask: who should operate the insurance scheme? Private HMOs or the State? In the case of health insurance where virtually everyon wants it, a very strong case can be made for universal, obligatory State insurance. How the premiums are determined, whether there's a deductible (a small user fee) or what is included in the "coverage" are good questions that have been raised at various times in Canada. None of this requires State provision of health services. In fact, there is many reasons the State should not be involved at all in producing health care. As to the question of two-tier, I have a vague suspicion that if the State left entirely the area of producing health services, and introduced an intelligent array of health policies - with different premiums starting from a basic policy with premium paid from general revenues - the two tier issue wouldn't be a problem. (Sorry for the long sentence; maybe I'm naive.) People don't take their smashed cars to the States for repairs.

G&M Martin Wants Votes While driving to day, I heard this on the news. I couldn't believe it. The Liberals wil use absolutely any strategem to get a vote. These are the same crew that would do in any opponent who shows the slightest error. This would be pathetic except it's so duplicitous.

Note that the SES poll was conducted between 26 and 30 May (provincial Lib budget was 18 May) with a sample of 237 people. The MOE is +/- 6.5% 19 times out of 20, as they say. This SES poll is not significantly different from the Ipsos poll.

I'll insert this here to TakeNumber. I read through your Argus rant. Quite something! War Room type of stuff. We have exactly what you are proposing now. It's called the federal budget. It has all kinds of various taxes and subsidies inserted for various reasons. Of course, you would probably say that the incentives are all wrong. And I would answer, what makes you think taxes are set by God? As soon as God (i.e. you) tried to design a "good" tax system, He (you) would immediately be subject to all kinds of lobbying - and we'd be back where we are now. That doesn't mean that I think our democracy is bad and we should change it. My point is the same criticism of socialists - they want socialism as long as they get to be the one making decisions. It doesn't work that way. The world has too many (and has had too many) "system builders". You cannot take people for granted. They will outsmart you every time.

Here it is here: SES Research 30 May Regional Comparison I frankly would not put a lot of credence in this particular poll. (Take a look at the sample sizes in the regions. Be careful about the outliers, or that one weird case in 20.)

What I don't understand is why the Liberals don't run on the economy. By historical standards, interest rates are low, inflation is low, unemployment is low, debt-to-GDP ratio is low and GDP is growing. If this were a US election, the incumbent would be certain to win. It's the economy, stupid. Instead, PM PM has gone off on all kinds of tangents - and now he's appealing for our sympathy! He's ADD.

WTF? WTF? OMG!This thread reads like Laurel and Hardy discussing brain surgery. I don't like to stymy discussion but I just had to post this comment.