idealisttotheend

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me this is only true if these people pay $5 into an organization which then makes the signs and distributes them. If you make such a sign and I (and 30,000 other people) buy the sign and choose to display it then it's perfectly legal. Can you really express your opinion in a 30sec television spot? Wouldn't it be better to express your opinion in such a fashion where the target audience can express their's back? Perhaps a useful amendment to this law would be to make it legal to spend money on advertising public meetings where everyone can express their opinions and not just listen to the opinions of those who can raise the most money.

This from the great defender of math as all things holy. I see your point and don't intend to argue that there is a 'right' number, only there should be a generally accepted number. If one looks at Martin/Day's famously consistant low ball surplus projections (hey look we found an extra 6 billion we must be doing a great job), the controversy over how to book 'liquified' government assets in Ontario or resource revenue projections in Alberta... I think that it is fairly obvious that one standard would be ideal (as in the corporate world). This standard could be agreed upon in a debate in the legislature and if it ought to be changed then it could be again debated in the legislature. I see little political value in arguing over accounting methods to determine how much of a surplus there is or isn't. It is also confusing to average Joe Citizen who comes to the conclusion that the government is so stupid they don't even know how much money they have or don't have. I think it would be better to do the numbers from an agreed upon consistant standard (which would indeed be complicated I admit) and then restrict the political debate to how to or not to spend that money. I will read the book though as soon as I can get to the library.

Doesn't everyone think that the Liberals will move left enough that a good portion of the ND vote will go to the Liberals as Lefties worry that Harper will win and the Liberals will take the province anyway (save perhaps for the cental Toronto)? This seems to be the historical pattern and the Liberals are talking about pharmacare, more health funding and speaking against tax cuts, putting them just slightly left of centre. The NDP does it again, in it's own way.

I wonder if instead of arguing over whether there was or wasn't a surplus, (again) it wouldn't make more sense for budget numbers to be released by a non-partisan body in every provincial juristiction and at the federal level. That way budget decisions would be made at the political level but everyone would have the same numbers to work with instead of fighting over how much there really is or isn't?

The grand solution to all problems in this forum not involving the Liberal party The GST was created to replace the MST because the MST created an import bias (i.e. importers did not have to pay the manufacturer's tax and so had an advantage). The GST was charged on all things purchased in the country leveling the playing field and was, strangley enough, the smartest thing Mulroney ever did. Globalization is clearly a race to the bottom, anyone who disagrees can prove that things are now manufactured in counrties with better labour, enviromental standards than they were 20 years ago, they can further prove any benefits in terms of better living conditions for anyone. Even jobs staying in country are paying less in real wages than they were as a result of globalization. Therefore our labour standards, enviromental standards, health care and education standards are creating an import bias. Either we need to lower ours or highten other people's. We've worked too damn long and hard for the quality of life we have in this country to lower our standards now especially as new technologies ought to be making our lives better still. We must not only maintain our standards but improve them and must certainly not sacrifice them to the latest unproven economic theory whatever it may be. The only freedom worth defending is the freedom from tyranny, poverty, sickness and despair. The democratic welfare state is the pinnacle of Western civilazation, it is what we shall be remembered for when this civilization is gone. Therefore we should change our labour, enviromental etc. laws to better reflect the global economy. We should set these standards not on people in Canada but on the products allowed to be sold in Canada. Nothing that doesn't meet these standards should be sold in Canada. As productive technologies increase they will cause problems with joblessness on a rampant scale therefore we should increase wages in the third world across the board allowing people there to buy more products and creating jobs everywhere around the world. We can afford this easily, but it will be at the expense of short term corporate profits now rising due to more 'productive' workers in the third world and technology. For people in our counrty who are displaced they should have a right to adequet welfare (say the guarenteed income Manning looked into when he was with Reform) but should have to do significant amounts of socially useful volunteer work. We should make it a matter of national pride to see that we do everything we can to allievate world hunger and poverty with our technologies and economic 'space' (i.e. the lower costs of production). Not sign stupid treaties to say that we will or make grand statements at the UN for the cameras but put our heads together and get it done. This will create jobs and be our contribution to world security. WWI started because Bismark thought he was losing the race to industrialize. WW2 because Hitler wanted 'living space' and Korea and Vietnam were functions of a cold war that was more about different economic systems trying to save themselves from each other than anything else. A military is well and good but a man whose family all have full bellies is not likely to participate in a war or blow himself up in a plane or at a checkpoint. Such a man will hate the radicals who threaten to take that from him for some stupid ideology (say Mr. Bin Laden's). It is cheaper and more productive to 'nation build' with food and sanitation than with any army, this has never really been in doubt. We should continue to work together to do these things and not let the mysterious 'laws of competition' drive us apart or undermine public institutions and programs that involve goods and services that we either need or cannot reasonably do without (health care, utilites etc.) If the public sector cannot work efficiently than it's high time we elected people with the skills and know how to make it more efficient. Is it a manifesto, I guess. Is it radical, only if you believe it is. Can it be done? Damn right it can. Canada is not so much a country but an ideal, a federal state where people, rarely, kill each other over religion, clan affilation or for one shrine or another. We are smart enough to be a leader in innovations of all kind if we invest in it. Politically, we may be boring but we never too far one way or the other and the Truth is almost always somewhere between 40% and 60% grey. We have a proud international reputation as an honest broker. We have one of the best education systems in the world and most people know how to work hard. Can't do it because no one else will? Are we leaders or followers? I think we can do it. If we want to.

Yes well math has never confused me and I don't think money is the root of all evil. However the debate is that high interest policies benefit the rich (i.e. ones with savings especially bonds) and low interest rates help labour because they create employment. Think 1980 and whatever the heck that BOC governer's name was (can't remember it now). I have no strong feeling one way or the other. UNICEF stats re: Child labour third world I agree though that extended families seem much stronger and that the Chinese with their one child policy tend to be especially nice to their children. I wonder if Western civilization hasn't made having children economically unwise and what that says about this particular society. Peace order and (sort of) good government have gotten us a relatively peaceful, stable and prosperous place to live. I'd argue they've served us very very well and allowed us to survive as such a diverse country. You commented on Progressive Conservatives (Tall shorts) somewhere else. It always seemed silly to me too but now I wonder if it isn't the one political truth in this country. I love that thought. I wonder though if it doesn't necessarily follow then that the farther you get from the quantum level the less you are able to 'learn.' Is this why societies/economies are so slow to change? I wonder. Ah yes, what was the subject again. Oh can we afford the Welfare State. Yes well of course we can, in fact we can't not afford it unless we are willing to write off 15-20% of the population, (who won't like being written off). Gonna have to make some ethical choices about health care (when is it wrong to keep people alive through expensive medical treatments). Gonna have to reinvigorate the civil service too, maybe PC has gone too far. Serious consideration to a minumum income for all. Otherwise sure. Finally on topic. First time in my life. Sorry, one more wordy post and then I'll retire, gotta get back to more economically 'productive' pursuits anyway I guess.

All right, that is a good site. Would inflationary policies have helped in 1929, maybe so but then they are usually considered 'socialist policies' even now. Furthermore they don't account for the fact that company shares were ridiculously overvalued and were expected to keep rising with no underlying 'real' value What is real value, beats me but surely a company's share price should represent something 'hard' some product or benefit to society. Yes we need to speculate but how much and at what cost, (own Nortel? what was the difference between when their share price was really high and when it was really low?). Surely share prices could not rise forever but everyone (including apparently the experts) thought this was possible. People who argued were seen as party poopers and discounted out of hand (Chinese incomes can go up 4 times but ours won't go down). Plus the reforms instituted after included a provision that closes the market when things start to go bad to let things cool down. This is less than "free" but is necessary. A regulation. Only with some form of order can freedom exist.

I dislike the Liberal parties fundraising as much (if not more) than any other party. My point is not an attack on the Cons, though it is of the NCC. What I saw in the leadership campaign to "elect" Mr. Martin to me is the very best example of how having so much money involvement is not in the best interests of democracy. In 68 there were something like 9 different candadates, with different visions and such, now the result is known five or six years ahead of time. Mr. Manning is right, it made this country a laughing stock on the democratic stage. The Cons were no better, what the hell is a $100,000 deposit required for to run in the campaign. Chuck Strahl can't run but Belinda Stronach can? Can or cannot the "little people" decide who they want to lead a 'grassroots' party. Layton, I am told, got the machinery of the ridings on his side and won that way also. Money's involvement in politics has gone way too far and I think most people on all sides of the spectrum will agree, except for defenders of the NCC and such organizations that benefit from having money be necessary for democracy. We must seperate voting from buying. The ability to raise money ought not be a prerequisite to whether or not you get to make your point, (besides a small amount raised from individuals). Whatever side you are on. And yes it does favour people who already have money vs those who might have more under a new system. This prevents change. As to my analogy the public has a finite appetite for election advertising. They will not listen to endless amounts it. They will hear what is adveritsed most often in the most popular forum, (the loudest voice). If it is controlled so that everyone has a small but equal portion it will be a discussion among equals. Furthermore don't we want to hear what the politicans think on issues from their own mouth or do we want the spin?!? Time to dumb up the political debate in this country (to say pre TV days) and 30 sec. "Paul Martin has stolen your money" ads won't do that. We elect politions based on what they have to say not on what someone else says the said. This my absolute favorite argument. If I give my money to the federal government (expecting services in return) it is my money and I am told to be indignant that it is taken from me. If I give it to Telus (expecting services), it is not my money and Telus can do whatever they want with, (oh wait I can not have a phone right). WTF is the difference? Because I elect one and the other is 'private?' Companies do not exist for their own sake, they exist for the sake of their customers, their employees and their owners. The company must be subservant to the individual. They have no 'buisness' advocating any sort of political position, (and no neither do unions). I respect the CTF, but as to the NCCs let us indeed see their member list shall we. I want to see the 40,000 people who support it without the backing of any corporations or millionaires. Let's see the money trail. I am very indignant about that sir and that it has been stopped to my mind is perhaps the most important thing Chretien did (maybe he saw the sponsorship scandal when he put it through). Citizens. Not 'special interest' groups that happen to recieve large amounts of money from companies. Citizens as individuals. And I do. The citizens decided, though their elected goverment to enact this law controlling third part advertising and another law to crub funding to political parties. My argument is that citizens decided wisely to do this while yours is that (apparently) they did not. It is not paternalistic to ask not to be patronized by election ads from groups like the NCC. And perhaps, just perhaps the best way to have a real debate is not to have it in 30sec ads but to find another forum.

I have always had a deep voice and I usually make an effort to talk softly. It leads me to this analogy I am having an argument in a room with three other people, everyone is watching this argument. I have a loud voice and can yell much louder than the other three. If I have free expression is it then my right to yell as loudly as I want, completely drowning out the other three? Is their right to participate in the argument, their freedom of speech, not affected by my yelling overtop of their arguments? Is there not a point where I exercise my freedom of speech at the expense of the other three? Further, since I have a loud voice I have a natural advantage in the argument, people hear my side more or to the exclusion of the other sides. But having a loud voice does not make my argument any more valid then any one else's. So is allowing me to yell, because I have "free expression" in the best interests of the Truth? Secondly, that's my damn money the NCC is spending. They got it from businesses who got it from me without my consent for them to use it to buy a commercial to try and influence my vote. Thirdly, why are these people afraid of an equal playing field? Surely if your position is superior than it will be accepted by the majority of citizens who have considered all of the positions . Surely these people do not think so little of the Canadian electorate that they think they can only get their message across through endless repetition instead of sober debate?

Aha. This is the ideal of capitilism that is often defended by the right which worked very well back when capitalism was invented but does not work very well anymore. These small buisnesses you speak of, can they generate power, produce automobiles or really any other consumer good. Do I have a hope in hell to produce shoes (even if it is a better shoe) against a mass produced, mass marketed, mass distributed version and be competitive? Even the family farm is supposedly now too small, has to be factory farmed or it's too expensive. The trend is definately towards larger and larger corporations with anti-trust legislation left by the wayside because small corporations are not competitive on a global scale. Main street is Wal-Mart and Superstore and a whole bunch of empty shop windows. We defile big government for being so inefficient while all the time praising and depending on big buisness which are just as beauracatic and don't make decisions on a local level either, (CanadaRock's super-buisnesses). The just don't have official oppositions. So the already rich (who can afford education and productive technologies) get richer and the already poor (hard to be a go-getter on an empty stomach) get poorer. The people who work for lower wages to make them more productive are still dependant on the first world to buy their products through first world corporations. How will this narrow the gap? Not so long as any given factory in China can just more to Inonesia if any laws are passed to enable workers or give them more rights. The absolute lowest wage wins and this cannot produce higher wages across the board in the long term.

I have never wondered why, better social supports, better financial controls (I think only one small bank failed) and we were producing so much more of everything due to technology that the sort of starvation and using flour bags for clothing was not necessary. Plus there was not a food crisis. If that were so then there were be no scarcity and the basic premise of economics would fail. Economics tries to be a non-zero sum game but it works only as long as it can string it out (the bank may lend/invest 10 dollars on my 1 dollar deposit but it has to be paid bank eventually). I have yet to see the free lunch that perpetual growth fanatics are trying to produce for me. Physics tells us that everything has a cost, you can break down one sort of atom to form another but you still have the same number of particles. The only thing that creates 'more' is the multiplying effect of technology which had it's own cost to develop and deploy and such. Chinese workers are not on the same level as new technology as you have argued previously but an end around labour and environmental standards and a transfer of jobs to where they are 'demanded' most. Without jobs the wage economy fails and we do lose, people have no way to earn a living. Chinese workers do not produce more they only produce the same with less. I would love to know then how they explain that with a loss of no material, no productive capacity and no labour everyone got so much poorer all of the sudden. I will try to find such a theory and read it so that I can understand how this is possible.

Uh huh. And every idiot and his brother speculating on the margin on the stock market that was going to grow "forever" had nothing to do with it? The little cabals that worked the stock prices for their own gain were good examples of market forces at work (stock prices must have been reflecting the real value of the company after all), n'est pas? That's why they had to put all those reforms in the stock market afterwards? I’ve never seen anyone argue that it wasn’t the market crash that triggered the depression and if they’re out there, they’re probably on the same level as holocaust deniers. Yes well, during the depression there was a drought. There was not enough rain and therefore food shortages. Socialist policies cannot, easily, be blamed for the fact that it didn't rain. As to FDRs policy you may be right. My understanding was that his policies did have a small benefit (usually only to the people who were actually employed in the make work schemes) but that many were disappointed that they didn't end the depression. I have trouble understanding how the market solution worked better though, we had work camps in Canada (designed to prevent communist revolution) and a significant lack of any 'socialist' policies, but we still had a depression. Indeed whatever you or I may think, without the Great Depression there would have been no CCF or NDP, nor any welfare state. The 'common man' accepted socialist practices (differing from communist practices) as a possible solution to some problems making the CCF/NDP into a quasi mainstream party. The 'common man' saw that when everyone worked together for the war effort suddenly there were jobs for all and everyone ate. Once the 'common man' fought and died in the trenches it got harder to call him lazy or a n'ear do well if he was unemployed and there weren‘t any jobs for him to do. The market showed it's weakness and policies were put in place to correct for those weakness. Unemployment is not caused by minimum wages. There are people who argue that it does but I've never seen a valid argument that considers all the facts. Look what mass production did for Ford, he increased wages, decreased the price of his cars and therefore sold many more cars, increasing his return. If I manage a 7-11, I know exactly how many workers I need based on how many customers I have and how much work needs to be done. I will not hire more workers if the wages of the ones I have are lower because I don't need more workers, (unless I am particularly benevolent or inefficient manager). Higher labour costs may increase my prices but will also increase my demand since my employees now have more money with which to buy products (from me and others). If a business can’t survive under such laws than it was marginal to start with. Minimum wage laws are the best way to ensure the race is to the top and not to the bottom. Sure. China has becoming the "factory floor" of the world, to use the cliché. We are sending all our manufacturing jobs there and quadrupling their incomes with our money. Surely you did not think that those incomes appeared magically out of nowhere due to the benevolence of the world market? That the large US trade deficit with them is not a transfer of wealth from the US to China? Didn't you just use China as an example of everything you see as right with the world? Either they're 'socialist' or they're not. In any case many people have done many things in the name of 'socialism.' Like all very broad and poorly defined ideas it means so many different things to so many people. People commit violence in the name of religion even though all world's major religions are inherently peaceful. Socialism, properly defined, brought us universal health care, welfare, employment insurance etc. I find these policies to be liberating and in the best tradition of enabling human rights and safeguarding human dignity. Please note that there are elections every four years in Saskatchewan even though the NDP has been in power more often than not since 1944, to my knowledge there are no mass graves from government killings to be found. These three countries are often at or near the top of the UN's quality of life index. Canada's economic position is considerably better than the American's (sacrilege I know) except for the fact that no one ever did bother to diversify our trade so we will go down right along with them. Even if I agreed that this was true, are we to assume that the state sponsored health care, decently funded education systems, larger public sectors, and more generous welfare policies are the only variables involved in which country has more poor? Could resources have anything to do with it? What about immigration or geographical position or relative size. How about foreign policy or land per capita ratios? Surely other factors must be taken into account. Says who? I've read a couple of books here or there. I get quite tired of the self fulfilling prophecies that everything seems to be dependant on, (if enough people believe that A lead to B then A leads to . I get tired of people who state assumptions as fact. I get tired of just spinning the numbers one way or the other. Or the people who have stopped doing research by coming up with a hypothesis and checking if it is true but rather by starting with the answer they want and working backwards to come up with the theory that fits (and ignoring the twenty or thirty other possibilities). There's a revolution happening (no not that kind, the computer kind) and I think it is time for some new economic theory to deal with it. Or else we'll have another Depression and then we'll see if more or less "common men" think socialism is in their interests or not.

That's a great link, thank you for posting it for all of us to read. Nothing like a little hard data. Looking at the numbers I wonder what would happen if the NDP could get the Green party vote (about the same popularity as either Con party was seperately looks like). Is this the next big merger mania? In BC at least.

Full employment is not in the short term interests of the free market (and it rarely if ever anymore considers the long term anymore). The more people employed the higher wages go therefore creating resistance to higher employment. In fact many right wing think tanks now agree that unemployment is necessary even preferable as a way to keep labour costs down. They continue to blame the unemployed for their "own problems" though. Really. During the depression there were few if any "socialist" policies in effect. People starved and corporations continued in some cases to make large profits. During the war, many "socialist" policies (government control of large parts of the economy) had to be put in place and... well everyone had a job and food to eat. During the 50s, 60s, 70s much of the Welfare state was put in place. Unemployment was rarely over 2%. Then came the market reforms of the 80s and 90s and now where is unemployment? In fact one could argue that it was the lack of "socialist" policy in regards to oil prices (oil being something we cannot reasonably choose not to buy and a structural element of the economy) that have caused the debt problems and unemployment, combined with the market's inability to replace oil with another source of energy that can be domestically produced even though such technologies seem to exist or can be developed (actually casued by "socialist" polices of right wing governments in the US). But then that's treason out here in the west.

This is well argued and way over my head but I have one thought, something I heard a poor farmer in Egypt say on the radio recently regarding the middle east: Interviewer: "Who will start the next war?" Farmer: "The thirsty man"

I can't resist. Moore accuses Disney of censorship, Disney responds Does it really. Where is my market "vote" on Mr. Moore's film? Oh wait, Disney says I don't get one, we can't have political films during an election year. But we can have Fox News and talk radio. Perhaps this medium we are using now will solve that problem in time. (I myself think Mr. Moore is engaging in a publicity stunt but the argument reamins valid). Democracy: A system of government whereby each citizen is given an equal vote and regular opportunity to select leaders who will make the laws governing all of the country insofar as those laws comply with a written constitution. The government must allow a free press and free access to all information regarding it's activities (except narrowly defined security concerns).

Ah, well yes you are, IMHO and all. If you are going to vote this is your responsibility and if you are going to talk about them, it is also your responsibility. If you can quote a specific part of the policy that seems to be radical left wing and state why then the NDP people might have something to debate with you. Statements like: really aren't very useful except in a battle of mindless rhetoric. IMHO.

Is it not just a bit reductionist to define the entire Liberal government in terms of one man? I don't really like them all that much either (though for different reasons) but wouldn't define them all by the fall guy they decided to fire. I just 'hear' what's in the media but I think the only way the NDP will have significant success is if the Liberals split the right vote with the Cons. If it ends up being a question of Harper's credibility s too far right it could happen. But more likely the Liberals will finally realize that they are going to have to run [b} for [/b] something in this election instead of running against the Cons and giving them the initiative. I'm guessing that 'for' will be slightly left of where they are now. So the left will not be mad enough at the Liberals to make a concerted effort against them and, as usual, will be afraid of Harper getting elected and so vote Liberal in droves. Just a guess. The Cons have done nothing to stand for Canadian sovereignty in a long time and have done nothing to suggest they will start now. The people who pay their campaign funds depend on the US too much for it to be in their interest.

Was the merger not an attempt to re-brand the Alliance as not these things, expecially in Ontario (and get rid of the PCs while they were at it)? They say in buisness that there are no mergers after all, only takeovers.

Broadbent on a bicycle went over very well for the NDP in the 80s, go with what you know. Neither have you proven it sir. What, for example, is this radical leftist agenda the NDP is supposed to support? Or perhaps parties who have a history of believing in nothing, (Free Trade is like sleeping with an elephant, Free Trade is good, the GST must go, the GST in essential) Mulroney, by the way, lost the popular vote in the great FTA election of '88. It was just the split between the NDP and the Liberals that got him through. The NDP is not electable for the simple reason that all but the actually 'radical' left are more reluctant to split their vote than the right has been. So they vote Liberal, that's why they poll better than they elect. But in a minority they would -- by a quirk of the parlimentary system -- set the agenda. Watch for a minority government with the NDP teaming up with the Bloc to push the Liberals back to the left (bet that'll annoy all the CPC merger enthusiasts ). It'll be just like '72 again.

No it means you spent labour and materials with an intrinsic value of $2000, the hole (in this case) may or may not have any intrinsic value whatsoever. But if you sell it will you sell it for $2000, less than $2000 or more than $2000? This is, if I remember correctly, the crux of Mr. Smith's argument in Wealth of Nations. I do not argue with it (though the apple has some value to me if only as a paper weight etc., it just has more value to you. This was the historical situation in Mr. Smith's time). But pertinent to the topic, we are not receiving a different product form the third world when we outsource. We receive the same product we already had, manufactured at a lower labour cost to us. There is a fundamental difference. Perhaps. This is not ideal but under the current wage economy may be necessary. Unless we find a way to deal with the problems they cause. On a practical basis there is no where for these checkout clerks to go until and unless we find new "demands" on their labour. Security is a possibility but other than that I don't see any growth industries they can move into. We would have to find new products to produce and demand in order for them to continue to participate, (but these new products may not required unskilled labour anyway so there is still a problem). During the industrial revolution, the displaced workers were able (and required) to move into the factories and such. They were not under qualified for the new jobs created, in fact they were overqualified for the new repetitive tasks. This is not the case now as the new jobs are highly skilled jobs. Furthermore the labour saving technologies were balanced by a massive increase in consumable goods leading to an equilibrium (until the Depression rolled around at least). I can't find a number off hand but I don't think this is in doubt. This did make us materially richer but only worked as long as the vast majority of people could be still be employed in producing the goods and service (they just produced more of them). Because no one is redundant in their society because they do not use technology. They do not have as much materially but they also (may) not want as much materially. A man is only poor if he doesn't have something he wants. I would prefer full use of technology myself but can't see an immediate solution to the labour problem and have recently been able to see benefits (if not ideals) in such societies. So that I can afford the products the employer (and thousand of other employers) produce from a strictly "math" perspective. That simple. Of course there are social issues too but the math argument is the best. This is what they did in England by raising wages pre-1900 and what Ford knew when he was able to drop the price of his cars and increase the wages of his workers. Possibly but there a many third parties and some also lose. You see economics only in terms of winners and never in terms of losers, in order for their to be winners there must be losers. Unless, of course, you believe in the perpetual growth they were so sure of in 1929. If I compete with you for a job that allows the employer to push down wages, it benefits that employer and other employers in the same sector (both 'third parties') and hurts other workers since their labour is now valued lower, (also third parties). If the employers compete with each other to hire me, allowing me to push labour prices up then it benefits other labour 'third parties' and hurts other 'third party'' employers. No action without a reaction and all that. Nothing, besides possibly God/Allah/Buddha, is perfect. This is why I agree with you that competition is inevitable in human relations. But we must co-operate to regulate this competition or both parties will end up losing as you also aptly point out can often happen. If we co-operate to regulate the competition it may not become a race to the bottom. But if we fail to regulate competition than the capitalist snake will eat everything in sight and eventually itself, ensuring we all lose.

Indeed my vote does matter in the election, however little. It would mean considerably more with PR or possibly if it were illegal to publish polls and I didn't think I knew who was going to win. But it still matters. My market vote does not matter at all regarding Global. Since I don't watch I don't know if I am 'voting' for it or not by supporting one of their advertisers. Even if I buy a product from an advertiser it doesn't mean I support the media they advertise in. Global has no way of knowing if I do or don't support them based on whether or not I support an advertiser since their is no feedback mechanism. If the buisness in question supplies me with a necessity of life or something that I cannot reasonably do without, I do not have the choice not to buy from them (if their competitors also advertise which is ususally the case). Very very few people choose to buy or not buy something based on who and whether or not they advertise with or think about it all. Therefore I contend that I have considerably more choice about how much of my money the CBC gets than I do with Global. And that I do not give any money to Global TV voluntarily but that they still get it even though they are a private network. Am I being stubborn? I hope so, that has always really bothered me. Thanks for everyone's time (especially August 1991's) it was fun.

Agree and agree. I think the Senate should be changed to be an effective second house of government. I also think that PR is a great idea but is a bit tough to combine with electing an individual you want to represent you. I suggest: 1) the senate be elected with equal votes for five regions BC/Prairies and North, Ontario, Quebec and Maritimes. 2) it either be elected based on the PR of the votes for the House of Commons (say vote on a list of candidates for each party after the MP election) or on a non-partisan basis all together, like they do up north. 3) It have all the powers of the House to suggest and deny legislation except in cases of war/security or if the opposition and government of the house agree to a veto of the senate. Yes and no. I don't think it should be 10 to 1 PEI to Toronto and that one house has to be one person one vote. But in a country this large, there are going to be real differences between the regions. For example, Ontario might not want to do anything to irritate the American's on trade because they are doing well exporting their auto parts but out West the farmers and ranchers and loggers are getting killed by American protectionism. A regional based Senate could better moderate this conflict on the federal level. Plus Quebec has much different needs (and has been fairly successful at) defending it's majority language and culture than does say BC which is fairly more diverse and so has all different challenges. Again, a regionally balanced Senate could help moderate these differences. We have a history of regional parties in the Commons that aren't really all that effective since they can never be in the majority. Therefore a regional system could also help to ensure that a government that gets, say, 102 of 103 seats in Ontario still has to listen to all the regions and not write any of them off. It might also go along way to stopping all the complaining of 'alienation' and such and get people working on more constructive approaches to whatever problems we might have. Though I doubt it, too much political hay to be made by blaming the Feds for everything. Shall we pine for Trudeau awhile?

Can't read francais, had trouble conjugating the verbs in school, but thought I'd make a contentious comment. Looking at the middle east and raced-religion based violence in general, I have often wondered if the only solution is to have Jews and Arabs shop at the same markets and eat in the same restaurants. This would make it extremely hard for fanatics to bomb Jews. Carrying it over to Canada what if there were no Jewish schools, (or schools based on any faith or ethnicity), nothing to bomb n'est pas? Yes there would still be synagogues and community centres but these could be guarded zealously against such attacks being fewer in number. I have another reason to argue against schools based on religion or ethnicity. I love my country and one of the main reasons is that so many different sorts can live together in relative harmony (90% of the time 19 times out of twenty). But I wonder how much of that tolerance is guaranteed by the fact that I went to school with a guy with the last name of Venketreman and another with the name of Huynh and thought that it was the most normal thing in the world?

Since both the CBC forum and the "right" to work legislation forum seem to be heading to questions of economics I thought I would resurrect this forum. All quotes from August1991 Though I will likely get in trouble with certain people for quoting Lenin, the critical problem of free market economics in my opinion is and has always been how can 1 +1 = 3? To make a widget I spend 1 dollar on labour 1 dollar on materials and sell it for 3 dollars. If everyone does this and the economy represents real goods traded from one person to another where does the third 'dollar' come from? By definition then I always sell things at a profit (for more than it is worth in intrinsic terms) and always buy things at a loss (for less than it is actually worth in intrinsic terms). If I sell exactly as much as I buy then I am okay because I have taken as much profit from other people than they have taken from me. But if I buy more than I sell than I have not only lived outside my means in intrinsic terms but I have paid more profit to someone else then I have taken and so lose twice. Therefore I have become poorer in more ways than the obvious (I have spent more money than I have 'earned'). This, and economies of scale, is why money trickles up IMHO Furthermore the trade deficit will be a major issue in the American political campaign and if Kerry is smart he will focus on it. It cost jobs and the people who lose their jobs often don’t get new ones or if they do they are not nearly as good. That simple. In a word, yes. They would put us out of work which would be great for them ( they need it) and bad for us since we‘d become the poor workers. This leads to our next disagreement: You seem to be very confident that if you lose your job you will just go find another one (as you have posted previously). You are confident of economic good times for all (when admittedly markets may seem fairly co-operative and all together ’nice’.) It is not that easy for all of us. Markets are designed to be competitive period. If you and I are competing for the same job and you are willing to do it for a lower price than me (assuming the same quality of work) than you will get that job. If I don't get a different job then I might not eat and I will not feel that you and I are co-operating. If I lose the competition it is quite possible that I will starve or live in a way I certainly do not want to, it happens everyday. If I am producing widgets and sell them for a lower price than you do and you go broke you are the one on the street. Again we won't feel like we are co-operating. Even if you do lower your prices and drive me out of business but your prices are so low that you don't make a profit that you feel is adequate you will be unhappy with me for driving your prices down not happy that we are co-operating, (it works on the labour side too vis a vie “right to work“ laws and such). Consider also, how much of our society is geared to showing off how good we are at competing. We buy big houses and fancy cars to show how we've "made it" and that we have been successful in the great Competition. I enjoy listening to ads on CORUS for luxury homes. “You’ve always demanded the best from yourself and those around you. Now it is time to show that success and live like it. This assumes that someone else has not or we would not feel it necessary to flaunt that we have. Winners require losers. The checkout clerks will be impoverished because they earn $0 not $3000. And yes jobs will be created to build and service the machines but not as many as they will be replacing (otherwise why introduce the machines at all they would be economically redundant). Therefore there will be a net job/wage loss and to argue otherwise is very silly (though often done). Socially, the checkout clerks probably do not have the skills to get these jobs (building and servicing their replacements) and so will lose doubly. This is the problem with the wage economy and it must be dealt with soon. Science fiction of twenty or thirty years ago talks of societies where robots do all the menial work and people are left to write poetry all day (writers only write about writers in the end I guess). Yet this does not work in practical terms. The wage economy requires us to solve the 1+1=3 problem by constantly expanding (creating jobs) not contracting even if requiring less work to be done by humans would seem obviously preferable. You have argued recently that technology must be in the best interests of humanity. I used to think this is true but am now not so sure. I wonder if the Hutterites don't know something we don't. Firstly we still have not resolved the problem of what people who are not needed in the economy are going to do . Ever looked in a bank teller's eyes as they tell you that you can win $500 by using the ATM machine? Or wondered at the sanity of protests on the East Coast when coal mines are shut down. People protesting that they don't have to mine coal anymore? But there is nothing else for these people to do and the market is going to tell them that they are useless and undeserving even though they’ve done nothing to deserve it. Collectively we could continue to pay them and lose nothing we of course practically can't and so by no fault of their own they are left jobless and without a function in society. Furthermore if use of such technology is in everyone's interests than everyone should benefit through lower banking costs for example. Have your bank costs dropped much since ATMs were introduced, have bank profit‘s increased. Currently only the people who own banks (which many of us do through pensions funds etc. I admit) profit. Second the skilled jobs created replacing unskilled jobs can usually not be filled by the people who are being replaced. This creates significantly greater demand for skilled people and significantly less demand for unskilled people leaving a large gap that cannot be solved simply by reducing the working week to 32 hours as France has done. You need doctors and IT people to work more than 40 hours and clerks and miners to work less than 32 hours if at all. You cannot (despite the Liberal’s “best” retraining programs) simply interchange the two. In effect large portions of the human race would be made economically redundant if technology is used more widely to do the work that used to require human hands. Thirdly, by not paying these people we stop circulating money therefore reducing the GDP which despite common sense is rather bad for the economy. The people who used to work at the bank have no money to spend at the local coffee shop and the people who own the bank may either be living outside the country or spending their money outside it. This may be passé nationalism, but if the net effect of this technology is a transfer of resources from the local economy to someone in Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands is it in my best interest or yours? Fourth, even if you pay people not to work what will they do all day?!? Some people may enjoy not working or working much less but most would not know what to do with themselves I assume. Who knew both Brave New World (economically/socially) and 1984 (politically) would become so prophetic. Well...... I am between a rock and hard place here. On one hand in order to defend our standard of living I can't care about the worker in Vietnam except in the case of aid etc. and indeed must compete with him/her. On the other, the "$3000" a year worker in Vietnam is producing things that he/she can't reasonably expect to buy (like running shoes). If any of the scions running the show in Toronto or Montreal really thought that his/her standard of living would be raised significantly (and therefore ours dropped) we wouldn't be there. This may happen or it may be stopped but I don't think it is anyone's honest intention Therefore we are really engaging in a form of economic colonialism and I think Mr. Dodge knows this when he encourages us to "invest in the third world." Investment in the third world is really like giving a man a fish so that he can give you three in return sometime in the future. He may eat better initially but he will owe you in the long term. Interesting but hard to really prove. I mean communist countries have always been relatively poorer but that doesn't necessarily mean communism or capitalism had much to do with it. There are so many variables, where wars have been fought, people to resource ratios, value of resources, foreign policy decisions with economic effects. And most societies today are market - based so there are not a lot of examples. Looking at Russia though, I don't think that many Russians feel they are richer or more fairly treated, (in fact some of the old communist kingpins have simply become capitalist kingpins leading to a slight problem for ideologues on both sides). Saskatchewan has a history of collective action not through markets and has done pretty well considering it has never had many natural advantages. Alberta is richer but with their oil revenues they ought to be. Actually sticking to Canadian history it would seem to me that only rich societies can afford the free market reforms in vogue now. Albertans can (apparently) afford to pay more than double in car insurance rates and considerably more for electricity etc. than people in Saskatchewan even though economies of scale should ensure just the opposite. No one in Saskatchewan would stand for it. Totally free markets are all the rage in Alberta these days and people talk like they always have been. But when Alberta was one of the poorest provinces Aberhert was all the rage with his funny money and trying to cancel the debts of farmers. Even Conservative governments in Eastern Canada talk about (real) insurance and gas price reforms while such topics are taboo in Ontario and Alberta (yes there are attempts at legislation but they are relatively toothless and say nothing of even considering public systems). It seems to me the poorer the jurisdiction the more non market collective action is employed. I wonder if this isn't really politically motivated though. When everyone is relatively richer the 'free marketers' look smarter and when everyone is relatively poorer the 'socialists' look smarter. Yes. I think competition is natural and necessary (though must absolutely be controlled or will lead to destruction of one sort or another). However the best basis for a fair democracy is to give everyone as equal a playing field as possible and then let them both compete in the market and co-operate at various levels of government. I think votes are different from dollars though. I don’t deny that dollars are important to getting and influencing votes (though they ought not be -- can you really tell me Bush was superior to a man like McCain or that Martin was so much better than Manely that a leadership convention was almost not necessary). So far as the market does distribute dollars to people who have contributed more to society it is not totally unreasonable for them to have slightly more influence, but not more votes. Once you fail to differentiate between your vote at the ballot box and spending money in the market you do not have democracy, you have fascism. Mmmm I was trying for shorter posts, next time.