idealisttotheend

If I have too much oil and you have too many apples it makes all the sense in the world for us to trade. That creates wealth as I have apples I didn't have before that are more valuable to me than my surpluss oil. If I need a car and I have a choice between buying it from my neighbour or from a foriegner I have a moral duty to buy it from my neighbour. After all a car is a car and even if that car costs more from my better paid neighbour if I buy from him he can buy from me. Trade of manufactured goods is simply trade that takes place between countries instead of within them. It does not create wealth as the trade that occurs simply replaces trade within the domestic economies leaving no real creation of wealth. Unless you find value in paying people less for the same work. August often uses the example of families. "You don't have your clothing made by your family you farm it out to corporations" says August. But at the end of the day if I had a choice to buy my clothing from my brother or from a stranger I would buy it from my brother even if I had to pay more. The reason, I want my brother to succeed (and eat) on a selfless level and he is more likely to do the same for me (giving me a greater chance of eating) on a selfish level.

Aha. My rating of Ms. Stronach has nothing to do with her gender. I think she is often over rated because of her gender and people avoid criticizing her because they know they will be accused of sexism. What did she contribute to Magna? Her Dad built it, is there any evidence that it was run any better by her than it would have been run by you or I. Did she make major decisions or simply approve those of advisors. I think you are right that I guess we should see how she does as an MP but I really think this is the worst case of elitism as I don't see any reason she was considered for the leadership or is in politics except for the company her dad bequethed her. Basically she was in the leadership race because she had a large wad of cash that better and proven parlimentarians like Strahl or Grey didn't have and that offends me deeply. But again, wait and see how she does as an MP. Alright, alright.

Oooooo. I won the argument on the first post. *Mr. Burn's voice* "Excellent." Just kidding. I don't know a damn thing about metaphysics which I suppose I should correct some day. I like your term but I think it encompasses the negative result of my theory and not the positive result (which I take, being the Idealist and all). I argue not for no solution to the problem of the source of moral legitamcy but for many solutions. Furthermore I argue for these sources of moral legitamacy are able to coexist equally and simutanously. Indeed we can. We can evaluate which of these systems best describes our world as we understand it. Since both our world and our understanding of it change we will constantly and always be evaluating (comparing) these systems as a specis even if only at the level of "don't consider x for it is evil." (In order for x to be understood we must at least briefly consider it). At the pragmatic level I think it is entirely possible for an absolute Truth (of any kind, say string theory or any political system) to exist but it is impossible for us to know it (we can always learn something new therefore we can reevaluate it until we are no longer able to learn). I take it that you purpose the 'rubric' to be based on this: You must consider though that science fails unless you can islolate each variable. If you can't say "variable x and only variable x correlates to systematic change y in manner z each and every time" you don't really have science (or alternatively if you feel you can eventually work your way to that point based on the work you are doing now). I don't see how you can have a science of right and wrong for the simple fact that you can't isolate the variable. I mean, even if you took the simplest solution to morality: "Do what helps people, don't do what hurts people" you have all sorts of problems. Temporal problems (what is done now may have the opposite effect in time, morphine takes away the pain but destroys the kidneys), equibilibrium (doing one person good will cause another pain in time or yourself) etc. etc. In short I think it is impossible to isolate that one variable that would allow a science to define right and wrong. A faith/belief/myth is required.

I'm sorry but Ms. Stronach is "not intellectually inclined" and doesn't have seem to have the stomach for politics (she left a few interviews before her alloted time). There is absolutely no evidence she has any skills or assets to make her fit for politics and her supporters seem to be people who simply want a women leader and look up to Stronach for her womanly charms and "buisness record" If you want a female leader go find Deb Grey, hit her over the head and drag her back to Ottawa (you better give her a couple of million though too since that seems to be the only way one wins a leadership these days). Deb Grey is a women with the brains, guts and integrity to lead a party or a country. Stronach got her daddy's company and her mommy's looks. I don't see why you want Harper gone though MS. I agree he is a liability but if you are such a strong supporter of the NDP don't you want the Cons to be burdened with Harper's history? Worse, Campbell was a bad campaigner in the wrong place at the wrong time. Stronach can only dream of Campbell's intellectual abilities, political experience or personal fortitude. Sorry, I just can't stand Stronach or the fact that I can't see a single positive asset she has and yet all sorts of seemingly smart people keep saying that she ought to have been the leader. Mind boggling.

My argument has nothing to do with class struggle per se and I don't see how it's Marxist. I stand by it as the biggest threat to modern capitalism after shorter and shorter terms of reference regarding success or failure (this week's share price vs. keeping the business healthy for a generation). Big families have nothing to do with this. It's a question of percentages, no one can have a big enough family to have anything even close to even .1% of any society so they can not exert any more influence than small families. I like your point though "Winners in life co-operate best." I agree wholeheartedly and unreservedly. In fact that may be my raison d’etre economically. We just disagree fundamentally on what constitutes effective cooperation. Look at the BSE problem. It pointed out very quickly that the packers got along just fine because there were only 2 or 3 (supposedly) competing against one another and there were several thousand producers competing against each other. Consequently packers set the prices not producers (or consumers for that matter as the retail price of beef went on to show). The third world is poor in part because few companies buy resources from many producers and then sell back to many consumers. A Marxist might point out that packers benefited from the power to lay off their workers but that's another argument. The problem, and it is a persistent one, is that someone must determine the "Truth." or rather thousands upon thousands of small "Truths". Natural law and capitalist doctrine clearly state that any entity will act in it's self interest and it's self interest alone. Therefore, in certain instances the State is the best harbinger of "Truth" as it's self interest is the welfare of it's citizens and not profit or material gain on behalf of said State.. In application, try talking to fifty 'normal' people on the street. Show them a statement by Health Canada that drug X is harmful and statement by Pfizer that drug X (made by Pfizer) is good for them. How many do you reasonably think will trust Pfizer over the State in this instance? The government has every reason to tell the truth the company has it’s profits to think about. In this paragraph you make very many points but back none of them up (and I don't mean with links but with logic). For example, is it necessarily MITI's policies that are responsible for these things or other factors (overseas investment as a mechanism of influence or control over outside economies, say for Japan to protect her access to resources and markets which she is traditionally insecure about losing). Where’s the link? If it is, in fact, MITI's policies then are the problems inherent to them necessarily greater than the ones faced by lassez fair capitalism? The Japanese economy has been one of the most regulated in the world and has been a miracle (posted amazing growth) up until recently. In fact over the past fifty years, the most regulation occurred in the 1950-1973 period and that was the period of highest growth while recently has had the lowest regulation and has had the lowest growth. That doesn't necessitate causation but can't IMV be used to prove causation in the opposite direction (more regulation causes less growth). Japan does have productivity problems and competitiveness problems but the solutions have been to lay off workers (end lifelong employment and remove surplus workers). While Hjarmar may be dancing in the streets at this prospect I wonder how can you make an economy better by producing net job losses and lower wages. This usually leads to a lower living standard. Isn't the point of an economy to get the most goods into most people's hand as possible? At best these policies are neutral to the overall good of Japan. So says the great economics textbook (version 4.1 "With even less reality inside!!") You yourself speak it's "truths" with the zealousness of a true prophet though I respect your use of language. Microsoft sells 10B worth of Windows and has a 93.8% market share Microsoft has indeed been losing small amounts of market share in their server and video game business. These are completely ancillary to Microsoft and as a software manufacture are things one would thing they ought not be in at all. However in their primary business line, they have 93.8% market share (which rose slightly in 2003) with 10 billion dollars of annual sales. The only reason it isn't higher is because Apple still sells a few computers here and there and their system has it's own OS. Please explain to me how this is not a monopoly. "Stagnation and lack of innovation" "Greater weakness" "Blundering Buffalo" Very, very true about Microsoft. Anyone who knows anything about computers will tell you that Windows is not even a very good OS. It is unstable, full of holes and built on top of twenty year old code which makes it massively inefficient. It is an inferior product and in many respects Microsoft is an inferior company. Internet Explorer is similarly inferior (Microsoft has a measly 70% market share when it comes to browsers.) I've never heard or read anyone even try to claim that IE is better than Netscape and time and again it is shown to have all sorts of security holes. Yet many more people use it, why? Could it be because it comes with Windows and Microsoft makes every effort to make sure it's placed so the casual user will use it and not anything else? Microsoft has been the flagship of the new economy and in it we find many of the very things wrong with the new economy. Name one sector where the little guy has beaten the big guy? Just one measly little sector. Car companies? There were plenty of mergers through the twenties and thirties leading to the big three in North America. In the last ten years there have been even more and the companies that aren't actually merged tend to own each other's stock. How about banks? Always begging Ottawa to let them merge. Retail? Well, Eaton's also got lazy and stupid suffering from bad management at many levels. But.... they didn't get taken out by a (or a number of) smaller competitor(s) but by Wal Mart, the world's largest retailer. In fact, the simple fact that Eaton's wasn't challenged by smaller competitors or by a new entry into the sector even though it was shown to be extremely poorly managed should tell you everything you need to know about your theory. HBC has been doing well since it's management shake-up of the eighties (after buying Zeller's, moving out of the downtowns and getting rid of their politically risky fur and Northern business). Yet all the analysts are saying it just can't compete with Wal Mart and has to be bought by Target to keep it "vibrant." Reason: economies of scale period. The only possible recent triumph of the small over the little I can think of is Google. It succeeded for the simple fact that it took little capital to start it and little capital or new infrastructure to distribute it. For those reasons the old rules of capitalism still work. IBM got taken down a notch but it is still doing extremely well. Sometimes there is a cultural movement toward a smaller product (say, microbrewed beer or organic produce) but it is usually a luxury fad shared by few not affecting mainstream economics. But to conclude there have been no examples of large entities falling to smaller competitors in recent years. Even if it was possible, the system has too much at stake to keep the large entities afloat so won't let them go under. To applaud the DoJ failure in attacking Microsoft is to say you are happy with their product and prices and don’t want competition because if Wal Mart writes the book at “controlling” labour costs Microsoft writes the book at using it’s current monopoly position to stake new positions in other application and eliminate competition by bundling and using compatability needs between it’s platform. Your theory looks good on paper (and is true insofar as big companies tend to get lazy inefficient etc.) but has absolutely no basis in reality. In fact, now that I think about it, one of the problems with globalization may well be that national borders had previously been a natural check on the trend to ever bigger companies. Now that that check is removed only the biggest (not the best or the most innovative) companies will survive.

August you hit the nail on the head, but we can still blame Mulroney. It was Mulroney's policies that led to keeping the interest rates high in order to fight inflation. Crow's policies of high interest rates were known to Mulroney and approved of until late in his second term (if I recall correctly). The risht wing has traditionally liked high interest rates as it makes people's savings more valuable and eliminates inflation eating at their money. Furthermore Mulroney did nothing to curb spending or raise revenues even though he had a period of robust economic growth. Tredeau has a share of blame for the debt. But his was an honest mistake, he thought that the oil prices would come down and that his government's deficit was transistional and not structural (ala Keynes). A mistake but one made around the world.

How? The NEP was controversial but not the rapture that it is now made out to be. Unless of course you prefer Albertan oil to be owned out of Texas instead of Calgary. I'm sorry, BBM, but the people can never, ever have too much protection. A democracy exists for the people any other consideration is secondary.

CBC link I think that this is legal wrangling when the result isn't really in doubt, but hey, if it works go for it. Still, I wonder how the results may change now that voters know that sending a couple more NDP members to Ottawa could give the NDP the balance of power (or the Liberals I suppose). Would the Liberals and NDP would work out an agreement to have one withdraw.? Plus I bet these two ridings would end up getting more national political attention than they ever have or will in their existances (Layton would probably be there every other day if he was smart). It would be very interesting to watch, high political drama even, if they do hold those byelections. Welcome to the new fractured Canadian Parliament and the land of many future minority governments.

Good one Maple. Now if we could only get verb conjegation tables in public places I would be Bilingual. I once worked in a warehouse and the guys who worked there for years and years actually had learned the French and knew pretty much every case in a 125,000 sq feet facility by it's french side as well as it's English side. I remember thinking that it was due to Trudeau but then it was in Edmonton and there weren't many french speakers around to appreciate it.

I'm no theist but I have a theory. I think that all institutions that are chosen as givers of moral legitamcy (deciding the good from the evil) require an equal amount of... faith. Be it science, education, Darwininism, democratic majority, one's self or God, enough holes can be punched in any one of them to render them useless without a generous amount of faith in certain precepts underpinning each one of them. Therefore: It is correct if you believe it, what other reason would there to be for it be incorrect? Sure... if you believe it. can apply equally well to the science of any number of years ago, as they will our science when viewed by the science of the future. In short you cannot prove science provides a better basis for morality than religion. You can argue it ( and I often have) but you cannot prove it and therefore by your own belief system it cannot be necessarily "true." There a relativist position on relativism.

LA times link (reg required) So they didn't find any WMD and in order to justify this they are going to "speculate on what Hussien's capacity could have looked like by 2008." I can see the report now. "Had we not gone to war against him he could have bought the plans for a nuclear device from Pakistan and produced a nuclear device by 2008. he could have produced X tonnes of chemical agents for use on isreal etc." It will all look very technical and be based on several "facts" but any intelligent person will realize the number of variables and see that it is impossible to even start to speculate. (Plus, the fact that Hussien had no WMD to start with would seem to suggest it wasn't a priority.) My Lord. By this logic the US better go to war with the entire damn world because I am sure there are an awful lot of countries could easily have all sorts of WMD (and some already do) by 2008 along with regiems set to use them (and some do already). This also shows the further "decline of the American empire" for the simple fact that reality shows how poor American intelligence is and has been. So instead of improving it, they assign their people to write reports about what could have happened when the possibilites for such are virtually unlimited. Furthermore, this sends the signal that the production of politically accepted intelligence is more important than the acquasition of the real facts to improve decision making at all levels. People die when decision making is made poorly based on bad information. Anyone else remember all the reports the KGB sent back to Moscow about how "bad" things were in America all the time and how the collapse of the US was imminent just to appease people who didn't want to hear otherwise? Strange how neo-cons and communists are so very much alike.

Trudeau inspired the counrty and made it feel that it was something more than an economic space and an adjunct to the economic and military power of the United States. Trudeau was the last PM to have no connection to Bay Street. Whatever August thinks of Levesque, Trudeau destroyed the man and utterly beat him at his own game. Trudeau stood for something. You might agree with it, you might not but you never questioned his authenticity or commitment to his principles and ideals. For some reason that is rare since the Regean, Thatcher, Mulroney "revolution." Favorite premier? T. C. Douglas of course. He stood up to the doctors over Medicare and created the first socialist government in North America. Show me another current politician who would risk a doctor's strike to get what he knew was right (keep in mind that the Canadian Medical Association gave him an award almost fifty years later.) CBC archieve re: Douglas

Health Minister poopoos pharmacare Romanow says federal drug coverage sould be restricted to a 50/50 catastrophic plan I find it interesting that centerist former NDPers are not standing up for pharmacare (though in Doasanjh's case he may be simply towing the party line). I still think the reason it won't be done is pure cynacism. I mean the average citizen is going to have to pay for their drugs and all the evidence points to it being cheaper for the feds to do it from a single payer role. Plus the money the feds spend would save the provinces oodles of money which they could use for health care. At the end of the day though Martin probably wants to make yearly "injections" of money to the provinces which he can sell to the public instead of being stuck with any fixed costs that he can't continously take credit for. I repsect the people who've pointed out that the federal goverment's administrative competance has not been particularily high lately but I don't think that should be a factor. After all, there is very little administration involved (decide what is covered and then set up a system to compensate pharmacies). Plus I think the federal civil service could be greatly improved with the proper motivation and changes. If the federal government really has an interest in participating in health care and setting national standards then it should institute pharmacare. Yes costs are 7-12B and expected to rise but someone is going to have to pay them, a federal system would be most efficient and there is after all only one taxpayer/consumer.

This is one of those things that are good in theory but bad in practicality. Take any policy by government that tries to stop large buisness entities from praying on small entities, (anti-trust, anti-dumping, tax policies that are favourable to small buisness). A. There is no capitalist economic theory in existance that does not recognize that competition is beneficial and necessary to the capitalist system working, the more competition the better. B. Everyone knows that the bigger you are the more the advantages pile up. Costs to manufacture, warehouse and retail are universally lower per unit the more units you produce/sell. Also, once you are large enough you exert more pressure over the price of the supplies you wish to obtain than the person providing the supplies, pushing prices down. This means a larger entity )with reasonably competant mandagement) will always outsell a smaller entity by a margin roughly equal to the size difference between the two. Costs like wages etc. will inevitably drop to the lowest cost entity within a short time. (Are there exceptions to this rule, sure, but they are few and far between and are generally when consumers are not making 'rational' choices as the economics textbook says they should) C. Therefore the natural result of unregulated capitalism is very large entities controlling large swaths of every market sector. (Trade associations between companies also enhance cooperation between seemingly seperate companies in a buisness sector, reduing competion further. These associations are tolerated more often in periods of weak government control.) D. These results eventually lead to both greatly reduced competition and prices being set on the supply side instead of the demand side (companies with few competitiors can set prices where they wish knowing the need will outweigh people's unhappiness with the price). Since capitalism only works with adequet competition, unregulated capitalism will eventually destroy capitalism in favour of a semi-fascist oligharchy controlling what is sold to whom for what price, (say Microsoft, insurance companies etc.) The government must make regulations to promote competition even if it doesn't seem that one competitior in the 'race' is directly harming the other.

LOl -- Canada, we aren't even big enough to have our own big brother, we have to farm the job out to someone else.

Mr. Moore did not slander Mr. Bush. None of his statements in 9/11 have been proven to be untrue therefore it is not slander (if Bush could have proven something untrue he undoubtedly would have sued Mr. Moore). One statement about Mr. Kerry (so far) has already been proven wrong here. It is only in the modern US it seems where simply saying something negative about someone is seen as being unpatriatoc/morally wrong irregardless of whether or not the statement is true.

IMO, Vernon has a right to be half way house free if it doesn't produce any criminals. Only then can it claim not to have to take any responsibility for rehabilitating them. If it has more violent criminals in the half way house than it produces than this is still okay. After all the pollution causing power plant is probably in a different community as is the alcohol rehabilitation centre.

Good link regarding rent seeking for indepth click on the link within the link. mangolia.net

In America (which is what I was thinking of), The Data Quality Act. This two sentence law was written to ensure the data used by the US government is "sound." It was written by a industry representative. MSNBC story -- Data Quality law The Bush medicare revamp bill ourfuture.org anaylsis of the Bush bill (people wondering about why the provinces want a federal drug plan and possibly why Martin is opposing may want to consider that it looks like the point of this American bill is to avoid a single payer system that would push prices down) This state shows how powerful the lobbyists are in Arizona -- writing "many" of the bills There was a story on 60 minutes too about a piece of legislation that turned out to be writen exactly like the lobbyists submission that involved the EPA but I can't find it anywhere. In any case it's becoming common practice. In Canada: Many of PM PMs advisors are lobbyists. It is now considered normal at Health Canada to listen harder to drug companies and Monsanto than scientists defending the public interest. Lobbyists are direct appandages of corporations (colluding through industry associations).

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG One could easily argue that corporations are the only ones with representation these days. Look at the Bush administration. How many laws are flat out being written by industry representatives? When was the last time that Bush and co made a decision that went against corporate interests. Who pays for the leadership campaigns for political parties, who pays their bills, who fills their advertising budgets. Money talks in politics since without it you can't buy the love of the masses. I believe there was a heated debate on the Canadian campaign financing laws on this forum. I bet any takers 100 bucks each that the second a conservative government gets into office they get repealed. Why? So corporations continue to hold the vast majority of influence over political discourse in this country and others. And with the money begotten from average citizens who likely didn't consider political advocacy part of the purchase price.

I think corporations are a serious problem but tell me, how would we produce and sell automobiles without them? There is very little that we can produce nowadays as individuals. What we could produce as individuals or small buisnesses we would produce much less efficiently than could be done under large beauracratic structures (I hate beauracracies by the way). (BTW given this, I wonder the new way for the left is to go co-op, I think that co-ops are the answer to the problem of self interest in corporations and also a way around WTO and MAI prohibitions on government rights, but that is another thread I suppose).

I think the key to the left succeeding will be if SA can stick together. Brazil is far from pro-US these days as well and Venezualia has joined their common market, (resisting the NA one). If the US can't isolate Venezualia it won't be able to kick Chavez out. It may or may not fund the opposition but so long as Chavez has regional allies he should remain safe.

Point taken. I'm just extremely skeptical about economics and how it seems to be used by people to "prove" things they really only assume. But you are right. These things are better controlled now. The banking system is more stable and able to handle the increased debt though there is now talk about the debt wall. Unemployment is generally lower whatever "downsizing is occuring" and speculation is less easily manipulated. In fact government's instituted all sorts of measures after the great depression to stop it from happening again. Stock markets were regulated (they close if the market drops beyond a certain percentage), central banks were created and there are all sorts of laws to stop price manipulation. Banking laws were created to stop bank from failing so easily. The argument that minimum wages and other government interventions caused the great depression or did more damage is easily disproven. Post WWII we saw the welfare state in it's prime as all sorts of programs and standards were introduced. Yet there was a period of great prosperity that lasted until the oil price shock of 73. The drop in international trade does not prove causation between tariffs and economic depression. It simply means that tarrifs may not have been very effective in eliminating it, not that it caused it or worsened it.

For those of us who can't read French Globe story IMO, if Parizeau can't win a simple referendum then he should stop whining. I mean, if he wants soverignty maybe he should concentrate more on the hearts of Quebecers than leaglistic BS. In any case Charest may be able to use this next election. By equating a vote for the PQ with a vote for independence he could undercut the BQ support among fence sitters of soft federalists. I bet the PQ brass is none too happy about these comments and wish Mr. Parizeau would just "go away."

IMO, no one should learn economics because if they do learn economics they claim things are true simply because they appear in an economics textbook, whether or not that makes any sense in practice Trade protectionism is the reason we have any industry at all in this country and was the policy since confederation until the 50s and 60s. Free trade with the US was often an election issue and there is a reason the majority kept electing anti-free trade parties. Sometimes the majority knows a thing or two. The great depression was caused by rampant financial speculation, unduly influenced stock prices and an overabundance on borrowing on the "margin." It was continued due to an inflexable money supply and companies who made record profits while laying off workers left right and centre. Outsourcing domestic jobs would not have helped alivate the problem as the problem at the time was trying to create domestic jobs (remember the camps, the lines for dole etc.)