Global Food Crisis, overpopulation and Cannibalism

[Pliny]

"Supplying food to the needy" meaning what ? Victims of famine aren't the same thing as what we're talking about here. USA for Africa in the 1980s was meant to provide famine relief, and never a permanent solution for Ethiopia.

I don't think the Bono-led fundraisers are even held annually any more, but in certain circumstances.

And the idea that a lefty-do-gooder sticks in your craw is not a surprise. In fact, general repulsion for lefty-do-gooders (which I sometimes share by the way) is heard all over this board, and appears to be a driver for right-wing thinking.

Well, do-gooders tend to interfere in the lives of others based upon their own assumptions and evaluations and they know what's best for others.

For example, if there is no well in an African town and the townspeople walk two miles to fetch water everyday then. The do-gooder wants a well in the town. Even though the townspeople have been doing this for centuries and don't see the big deal about having a well the do-gooder sees it as paramount to their existence. Really, now what will the townspeople do with their time? Better get them some electricity so they have television. The townspeople should make the decision for themselves regarding the value or necessity for a well. Not the do-gooder who has been pampered all his life with indoor plumbing and can't see anyone living without it.

I read in the Globe and Mail recently that groceries cost about 50% less per family from what they did 50 years ago, adjusted for inflation. We have less leisure time, but that's because we choose to work more. There's a paradox there, and you'll find an encapsulation of our dilemma in that:we're richer, but more stressed, more in debt and lead more complicated lives.

Well, how does that work adjusted for inflation we are paying 50% less for our groceries? Here's the prices:

Price Comparisons over time

In 1960 the price of a loaf of bread is 22 cents and today the average price is 2.79.

So my 2.79 is only worth 11 cents today? Are things getting cheaper or more expensive? Basically we are not getting ahead so what's with this inflation? Why don't we just keep the price at 11 cents? I guess my wages would have to be about 75 cents an hour.

The fact is that if you figure out the percentage of wages for housing or a loaf of bread from the figures on that website then we are not paying 50% less for our groceries. We are paying more today than in 1960 not 50% less.

What do we gain with inflation? Most inflation comes from banks creating credit and depositing it in people's bank accounts in the form of loans. Creating this credit means we can buy now what we can't afford to pay for now. If the banks had to have the money on account before lending it out then that would eliminate most of the inflation.

The only inflation would be in the form of what the Bank of Canada printed and distributed to the banks. Really inflation is a devaluation of the currency. Of course, that is why we don't want to inflate it too much - it becomes worth less and if it is inflated a lot can become worthless.

Why don't governments like deflation? I guess because they would have to cut budgets and wages and it looks like they are cutting spending when in fact they can purchase more with the fewer dollars which have increased their purchasing power. Inflation makes us think they are spending more on things every year. Of course, inflation robs us a little of our purchasing power. But if we get a raise once in awhile someof us can keep up.

Where we really lose with inflation though is in our taxation. Taxes go up every year not only by the amount determined by government but by the amount of purchasing power we lose through inflation.

That sounds like collusion, doesn't it ? We as a society like the prices to go down for everything else - why not agricultural commodities ?

You claim, adjusted for inflation, the price of groceries went down about 50% over the last 50 years. Do you think they went up now?

It's poetic license. I'm saying that since economics generally makes life better as time progresses, we could theoretically - if we were perfectly selfless and clairvoyant - share the benefits of improved economics evenly across society. Then we would have perfect progress - every year, your work week would be reduced by 8 minutes, your costs would reduce by 2%, and all would be happy.

That's the theory behind a planned economy, but it can't be done in the real world we live in today. Certain industries wither and fail, and there are political reverberations to that.

Right. The planned economy is impossible except in a static state where all things remain equal.

I ask you - who are the people with money ? The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists - what are they thinking ? Are they expecting their taxes to go down forever ? How do they plan to share their wealth with the general community ? Certainly, it hasn't been done evenly to this point so maybe we can put the problem to them.

It seems to me you are saying that wealth should be distributed evenly? Why is that?

Who are the people with money? Really, it's the ones who own the currency printing presses. We can argue who that is to no avail. Apparently it is supposed to be the government of Canada. I have my doubts about that.

The owners of the Federal Reserve in the US are people with money. The Federal Reserve is privately owned. That can be determined. So those people have money.

The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists have some currency. While they have purchasing power they haven't got real power; power that makes currencies irrelevant.

If you are asking how those people with currency are going to share their wealth I think you will find it will be according to their own discretion. If you take the wealth away from them, as the government does then it will be to the government's discretion. Which would be more beneficial to the community? Well, if the government takes it the community may not benefit at all if other communities are determined more deserving.

[Michael Hardner]

Unless you are a commodity exporting country, then you want those prices to rise. Including ag commodities. When 75% of grain is exported, you want those prices high.

Ok, so producers want prices to rise and since we're net producers we want the world price to rise.

It sounds, then, like we're the OPEC of wheat, so to speak. If that's the case, why should Africa ever want to get into wheat production ? To be able to feed themselves, sure, but they should just do something else and buy the wheat - or we should give it to them as a gift-in-kind UN contribution.

I'm learning here, I'm learning.

I'm hoping my taxes go down forever, as long as the tax base expands and gov't spending is capped. They are going to "share" their wealth with the general community by buying things, saving in banks, and investing.

Buying things and saving in banks isn't anything more than the rest of us do, so thanks for nothing.

Investing, though, is where they employ people and contribute to society. But, if they want taxes to go down forever as you do, how will Canada pay the bill ?

I'm wondering if these people have a grand vision for the community they live in, or if they are just trying to get the best deal they can get. We can cut the social safety net to zero, and they can save millions on taxes, a small percentage of which they will have to use to put barbed-wire fences around their homes, I suppose.

[Michael Hardner]

Diet IS economics - always has been, always will. I mean, at the very least, the beginning of economics and the most important aspect of economics. Everything else is about consumption.

No, you asked about vitamin C, not the 100 mile diet. Since you brought it up first and made a pronouncement I believed you had educated yourself about it. My mistake.

Very good questions. At the very least to make people as aware as they possibly can about the content of their diet. Eat healthier if they are able. Get a sense of community and have something in common.

Ok, well as an experiment and vehicle for learning - the 100 mile diet is a great idea. But it seems impractical and you don't seem to disagree.

Yes, I can also see how diet is economics. We need to talk about these things, especially how globalization is supposed to work and why you and I losing jobs is sometimes a good thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, do-gooders tend to interfere in the lives of others based upon their own assumptions and evaluations and they know what's best for others.

We know that - hence the name.

For example, if there is no well in an African town and the townspeople walk two miles to fetch water everyday then. The do-gooder wants a well in the town. Even though the townspeople have been doing this for centuries and don't see the big deal about having a well the do-gooder sees it as paramount to their existence. Really, now what will the townspeople do with their time? Better get them some electricity so they have television. The townspeople should make the decision for themselves regarding the value or necessity for a well. Not the do-gooder who has been pampered all his life with indoor plumbing and can't see anyone living without it.

Interesting, if theoretical, example of why people don't like do-gooders.

Most of what I've read about UNICEF and the UN's actions in Africa have to do with vaccines, mosquito netting, clean sources of water, elimination of disease and improvement of infant mortality rates.

Well, how does that work adjusted for inflation we are paying 50% less for our groceries? Here's the prices:

Price Comparisons over time

In 1960 the price of a loaf of bread is 22 cents and today the average price is 2.79.

So my 2.79 is only worth 11 cents today? Are things getting cheaper or more expensive? Basically we are not getting ahead so what's with this inflation? Why don't we just keep the price at 11 cents? I guess my wages would have to be about 75 cents an hour.

The fact is that if you figure out the percentage of wages for housing or a loaf of bread from the figures on that website then we are not paying 50% less for our groceries. We are paying more today than in 1960 not 50% less.

We are paying less as a percentage of salary. Food is cheaper due to lower production costs - eureka ! I found the link:

Business Week magazine

It's also worth remembering how inexpensive food is these days. Americans shell out about 10% of their disposable income on food, about half what they spent in the first part of the 20th century.

What do we gain with inflation? Most inflation comes from banks creating credit and depositing it in people's bank accounts in the form of loans. Creating this credit means we can buy now what we can't afford to pay for now. If the banks had to have the money on account before lending it out then that would eliminate most of the inflation.

The only inflation would be in the form of what the Bank of Canada printed and distributed to the banks. Really inflation is a devaluation of the currency. Of course, that is why we don't want to inflate it too much - it becomes worth less and if it is inflated a lot can become worthless.

Why don't governments like deflation? I guess because they would have to cut budgets and wages and it looks like they are cutting spending when in fact they can purchase more with the fewer dollars which have increased their purchasing power. Inflation makes us think they are spending more on things every year. Of course, inflation robs us a little of our purchasing power. But if we get a raise once in awhile someof us can keep up.

Where we really lose with inflation though is in our taxation. Taxes go up every year not only by the amount determined by government but by the amount of purchasing power we lose through inflation.

But our wages go up, generally, with inflation too...

You claim, adjusted for inflation, the price of groceries went down about 50% over the last 50 years. Do you think they went up now?

Right. The planned economy is impossible except in a static state where all things remain equal.

It seems to me you are saying that wealth should be distributed evenly? Why is that?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in a perfect world, or somewhat perfect, economic improvements over time such as productivity gains would be shared equally. That is not the same as saying in a perfect world wealth would be distributed evenly.

I'm saying that things generally improve economically, as time goes on and yet people don't understand that. In fact, they use terms like "going downhill" when in fact when we talk about declines in national wealth, we're talking relatively.

So these are two separate questions here: 1) sharing wealth, and 2) managing the economy as it changes, so as to manage the benefits of economic improvements and ensuring that they are realistically spread across sectors.

Who are the people with money? Really, it's the ones who own the currency printing presses. We can argue who that is to no avail. Apparently it is supposed to be the government of Canada. I have my doubts about that.

The government has money ? I thought the government was in debt ?

The owners of the Federal Reserve in the US are people with money. The Federal Reserve is privately owned. That can be determined. So those people have money.

They control money, they create money but they don't always "own" money.

The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists have some currency. While they have purchasing power they haven't got real power; power that makes currencies irrelevant.

How much of the economy is real money that is invested versus money that is created by banks then ? (I think that's what you're saying.)

If you are asking how those people with currency are going to share their wealth I think you will find it will be according to their own discretion. If you take the wealth away from them, as the government does then it will be to the government's discretion. Which would be more beneficial to the community? Well, if the government takes it the community may not benefit at all if other communities are determined more deserving.

I'm wondering what their vision is for Canada or whatever national jurisdiction in which they invest.

[blueblood]

Ok, so producers want prices to rise and since we're net producers we want the world price to rise.

It sounds, then, like we're the OPEC of wheat, so to speak. If that's the case, why should Africa ever want to get into wheat production ? To be able to feed themselves, sure, but they should just do something else and buy the wheat - or we should give it to them as a gift-in-kind UN contribution.

I'm learning here, I'm learning.

If market prices rise, then if your a wheat exporting country that's great. If prices rise, that's a signal for Africa to get into wheat production for themselves and for export, and very recently they just got into that.

The other problem is tin pot dictatorships that squander whatever else they do, which has resulted in a mess. The problem is they don't have any money to buy grain or exploit their resources. That money to do so comes from foreign investment, and selling whatever they produce. Ag production is the ground floor of where to start an economy.

Buying things and saving in banks isn't anything more than the rest of us do, so thanks for nothing.

Investing, though, is where they employ people and contribute to society. But, if they want taxes to go down forever as you do, how will Canada pay the bill ?

I'm wondering if these people have a grand vision for the community they live in, or if they are just trying to get the best deal they can get. We can cut the social safety net to zero, and they can save millions on taxes, a small percentage of which they will have to use to put barbed-wire fences around their homes, I suppose.

I've been clear I heavily favor a low flat tax, and a cap on spending, which results in an increased tax base. Think of Walmart selling things at rock bottom prices, but due to its sheer size is able to generate massive profits - that's how I view our tax system should be.

By capping spending, and continuously growing the tax base, you should be able to lower taxes in perpetuity, just not massive percentage points.

[Michael Hardner]

I've been clear I heavily favor a low flat tax, and a cap on spending, which results in an increased tax base. Think of Walmart selling things at rock bottom prices, but due to its sheer size is able to generate massive profits - that's how I view our tax system should be.

By capping spending, and continuously growing the tax base, you should be able to lower taxes in perpetuity, just not massive percentage points.

What do you cut ?

And why does the tax base increase ?

[blueblood]

What do you cut ?

And why does the tax base increase ?

Slashing enviro programs and the CBC for starters, gov't services that can be done by the private sector. Cuts to the civil service. A little nip here a little nip there so to speak.

The tax base increases because the less taxes on business, the more incentive there is for foreign investment/business start ups, not to mention job creation. It's better to gain sources of tax rather than upping the rates.

[Michael Hardner]

Slashing enviro programs and the CBC for starters, gov't services that can be done by the private sector. Cuts to the civil service. A little nip here a little nip there so to speak.

The tax base increases because the less taxes on business, the more incentive there is for foreign investment/business start ups, not to mention job creation. It's better to gain sources of tax rather than upping the rates.

You've only got a few billion in there from what I can see. You'll need to cut transfer payments, CPP and EI to save big money.

There's a limit to how much more business you can attract to Canada, too, even after your cuts have turned it into a cultural, environmental and otherwise wasteland. (oops, sorry for the editorial )

[blueblood]

You've only got a few billion in there from what I can see. You'll need to cut transfer payments, CPP and EI to save big money.

Those too.

There's a limit to how much more business you can attract to Canada, too, even after your cuts have turned it into a cultural, environmental and otherwise wasteland

Wasteland is subjective

[Shwa]

Ok, well as an experiment and vehicle for learning - the 100 mile diet is a great idea. But it seems impractical and you don't seem to disagree.

Yes, I can also see how diet is economics. We need to talk about these things, especially how globalization is supposed to work and why you and I losing jobs is sometimes a good thing.

Great idea and impractical at the same time? Hmmmm.... for millions, the 100 mile diet is very practical. Someone here did a map of the 100 vicinity of Toronto. An average person with a desire and means to learn could take advantage of this no problem. The area inside the circle is some of the best farmland in Canada.

Ghosthacked was on the money though - there isn't a food shortage, just a food distribution problem. If we want to talk economics lets not forget that grocery stores and restaurants throw away tons of edible and nutritious food every year. I am sure some do backdoor foodbank donations, but how much of their food purchases end up in the garbage? When it comes to food distribution, we are grossly inefficient.

[Pliny]

We know that - hence the name.

"You" know that.

Interesting, if theoretical, example of why people don't like do-gooders.

Most of what I've read about UNICEF and the UN's actions in Africa have to do with vaccines, mosquito netting, clean sources of water, elimination of disease and improvement of infant mortality rates.

Isn't that nice!

We are paying less as a percentage of salary. Food is cheaper due to lower production costs - eureka ! I found the link:

The article says "disposable" income. According to the site I linked to food is a greater "percentage of salary" today than 50 years ago. Disposable income was greater 50 years ago because taxes were not taking 50% of your salary.

But our wages go up, generally, with inflation too...

A nice balance isn't it. We do lose to inflation on our savings. If I wanted to save $10,000 dollars to buy a house in 1950 and I finally had the cash twenty years later I would find that the price of houses had doubled and I would need another $10,000. In other words I could never save for a house. If you looked on that link I cited you would see that the price of houses as a percentage of salary rose substantially. In 1930n it was 50% and in 2008 it was around 25%.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in a perfect world, or somewhat perfect, economic improvements over time such as productivity gains would be shared equally. That is not the same as saying in a perfect world wealth would be distributed evenly.

That's what I understand the left to mean when they are talking about the redistribution of wealth.

It doesn't work that way that things are shared equally. Most of us contribute to improving our standard of living collectively. As we do so, we raise our own individual standard of living. Generally, improvement of our individual standard would be based upon our contribution to the improvement of the collective standard of living.

I'm saying that things generally improve economically, as time goes on and yet people don't understand that. In fact, they use terms like "going downhill" when in fact when we talk about declines in national wealth, we're talking relatively.

I agree it takes time for a general economic improvement. It seems the I want it now society must redistribute the wealth on a more immediate basis.

So these are two separate questions here: 1) sharing wealth, and 2) managing the economy as it changes, so as to manage the benefits of economic improvements and ensuring that they are realistically spread across sectors.

A planned economy is what you prefer.

The government has money ? I thought the government was in debt ?

I guess that's the first indication the government doesn't own the printing press.

They control money, they create money but they don't always "own" money.

They are above owning money.

How much of the economy is real money that is invested versus money that is created by banks then ? (I think that's what you're saying.)

You make the distinction between "real money" and money created by banks. There is a definite difference. I think that's what I am saying.

I'm wondering what their vision is for Canada or whatever national jurisdiction in which they invest.

The UN outlines the vision.

[Michael Hardner]

Great idea and impractical at the same time? Hmmmm.... for millions, the 100 mile diet is very practical. Someone here did a map of the 100 vicinity of Toronto. An average person with a desire and means to learn could take advantage of this no problem. The area inside the circle is some of the best farmland in Canada.

I'd be interested in doing it for a short term, as part of a group exercise but not otherwise.

Ghosthacked was on the money though - there isn't a food shortage, just a food distribution problem. If we want to talk economics lets not forget that grocery stores and restaurants throw away tons of edible and nutritious food every year. I am sure some do backdoor foodbank donations, but how much of their food purchases end up in the garbage? When it comes to food distribution, we are grossly inefficient.

Yes, but it's also getting better all the time.

[Michael Hardner]

The article says "disposable" income. According to the site I linked to food is a greater "percentage of salary" today than 50 years ago. Disposable income was greater 50 years ago because taxes were not taking 50% of your salary.

Sure, but taxes haven't changed as much as that, and as the article points out costs of production have lowered, which is consistent with historical trends.

A nice balance isn't it. We do lose to inflation on our savings. If I wanted to save $10,000 dollars to buy a house in 1950 and I finally had the cash twenty years later I would find that the price of houses had doubled and I would need another $10,000. In other words I could never save for a house. If you looked on that link I cited you would see that the price of houses as a percentage of salary rose substantially. In 1930n it was 50% and in 2008 it was around 25%.

Yeah, you could save for a house because you would be investing your saved money, which would be growing faster than the rate of inflation. I concur that real estate has gone the opposite direction from prices for consumer goods.

Anyway, this inflation thing is a side-discussion because (I think) I referred to real costs adjusted for inflation.

The main point, again, is that over time the economy improves and the benefits of that aren't distributed evenly through society.

That's what I understand the left to mean when they are talking about the redistribution of wealth.

It doesn't work that way that things are shared equally. Most of us contribute to improving our standard of living collectively. As we do so, we raise our own individual standard of living. Generally, improvement of our individual standard would be based upon our contribution to the improvement of the collective standard of living.

Again, you're talking about distributing wealth itself and not the economic changes that come from productivity improvement, globalization and so on which I referred to as 'economic improvements'.

Here's the difference:

Capitalist owns factory. Capitalist makes $1M from year, employing 200 workers at $50K per year each. The wealth is distributed according to the market for labour and capital.

The capitalist closes the factory, outsourcing to China for $10K per year each, saving $8M in costs, $7M of which he uses to reduce the selling price of his product by 10% to be competitive and $1M of which goes back to himself.

So, now, the capitalist made an extra $1M, consumers saved 10%, and the 200 workers lost, as well as the Canadian government, which now has to pay EI and retraining for those 200 workers.

The government can and does manage the costs and benefits of these adjustments, and it's not practical for those costs and benefits to be distributed equally however we could do a lot better at understanding what is happening in this process.

I agree it takes time for a general economic improvement. It seems the I want it now society must redistribute the wealth on a more immediate basis.

Once again, you're talking about 'wealth' rather than economic improvements.

A planned economy is what you prefer.

Not as far as that term is normally used, i.e. to refer to a Soviet or Marxist central planning model. I'm happy with the amount of economic control we have now, but I'd like better economic education, as this is a difficult subject to understand. ( As evidenced by this very thread. )

You make the distinction between "real money" and money created by banks. There is a definite difference. I think that's what I am saying.

I know that's what you're saying. You said it here:

The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists have some currency. While they have purchasing power they haven't got real power; power that makes currencies irrelevant.

They are above owning money.

My question, you still haven't answered is:

How much of the economy is real money that is invested versus money that is created by banks then ? (I think that's what you're saying.)

What is the amount of purchasing power that's being invested versus this other money ?

Are you saying that the UN is controlling global investment ? Now's the chance to explain what you meant. I want to understand what the vision is for where we're headed and who has that vision.

[Pliny]

Sure, but taxes haven't changed as much as that, and as the article points out costs of production have lowered, which is consistent with historical trends.

Not much meat here. I was talking about disposable income and taxes take a greater percentage of disposable income than they did fifty years ago.

So you are saying it all evens out. Well, I think our standard of living could be much better than it is if government had not taken over control of the economy.

It's a pretty general statement, some would be better off and others possibly not but overall I think we would be better off. Life would perhaps be more challenging and some would perhaps prefer a more secure and leisurely life like that of a cow.

Yeah, you could save for a house because you would be investing your saved money, which would be growing faster than the rate of inflation. I concur that real estate has gone the opposite direction from prices for consumer goods.

You are saying you get interest on your savings, I believe. True.

Anyway, this inflation thing is a side-discussion because (I think) I referred to real costs adjusted for inflation.

And the site I linked to showed that even after adjusting for inflation our costs were still higher.

The main point, again, is that over time the economy improves and the benefits of that aren't distributed evenly through society.

I don't think it is a question of even distribution. That is a pipe dream. The measure is if the majority of people experience a higher standard of living over time.

Again, you're talking about distributing wealth itself and not the economic changes that come from productivity improvement, globalization and so on which I referred to as 'economic improvements'.

Here's the difference:

Capitalist owns factory. Capitalist makes $1M from year, employing 200 workers at $50K per year each. The wealth is distributed according to the market for labour and capital.

The capitalist closes the factory, outsourcing to China for $10K per year each, saving $8M in costs, $7M of which he uses to reduce the selling price of his product by 10% to be competitive and $1M of which goes back to himself.

So, now, the capitalist made an extra $1M, consumers saved 10%, and the 200 workers lost, as well as the Canadian government, which now has to pay EI and retraining for those 200 workers.

The government can and does manage the costs and benefits of these adjustments, and it's not practical for those costs and benefits to be distributed equally however we could do a lot better at understanding what is happening in this process.

You are imagining in the first example that people expect the factory to be there forever and they never make any contingency plans. This is how people used to think and how you still imagine things should be. Government, loathe to lay anyone off also thinks that way - they will always be around. It depends on the job they do.

The free market is not that predictable. A product could, just as easily as a corporation moves it's manufacturing base, become obsolete.

What you want are guarantees.

If we have a free economy then people should understand how it works and plan their lives accordingly.

Not as far as that term is normally used, i.e. to refer to a Soviet or Marxist central planning model. I'm happy with the amount of economic control we have now, but I'd like better economic education, as this is a difficult subject to understand. ( As evidenced by this very thread. )

Economic education is essential.

My question, you still haven't answered is:

What is the amount of purchasing power that's being invested versus this other money ?

I don't quite get the question.

All forms of money and money substitutes, currencies have some purchasing power. Or they wouldn't be called "money".

Are you saying that the UN is controlling global investment ? Now's the chance to explain what you meant. I want to understand what the vision is for where we're headed and who has that vision.

No. I am not saying that. I am saying that the UN is working on becoming a more important and significant entity in global affairs. It is a governmental body. It is attempting to grow some teeth. It is achieving that mainly through environmentalism today.

By getting countries to agree to treaties and accords it has become a regulator and overseer of global interests but it is starting to interfere with the sovereignty of nations by applying direct taxation - carbon taxes mostly. Before that it relied upon donations and pledges from the national member governments. This is a centralization of power on a global level.

The problems the UN sees are what it is attempting to resolve and you will see their advices appear in the policies and programs of Nations.

Some of the global problems are:

Depletion of non-renewable resources (oil for one)

Over-population

Pollution

Anthropogenic climate change (A heavy focus right now)

Poverty

Famine

Not having enough power to legislate effectively regarding these problems.

Cultural, racial and ethnic harmony.

If you wish to see it's plans regarding these and many other issues you need only visit their website. Several instances of national policy are adopted from the advices of the UN which I am sure you will recognize even in the Canadian federal government.

If you see international conventions of government bodies then they usually originate in the UN and the interests of all participants are discussed and policies suggested.

You must realize that carbon taxes are an idea originating in the UN. Our very own Maurice Strong is a big "idea" contributor to the UN. Ed Broadbent went there after he left the leadership of the NDP. And most people there are people that understand the importance of government - the basic mindset is that it is very important - there has to be order established and an anarchy of nations will not establish order.

Basically, global governance is on the horizon. The US just has to get in step with the rest of the world and some headway can be made.

Frankly, I prefer an unregulated economy and the sanctity of person and property being the sole mandate of government and we don't need no stinkin' badges. The UN I feel is unnecessary.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Not much meat here. I was talking about disposable income and taxes take a greater percentage of disposable income than they did fifty years ago.

So you are saying it all evens out. Well, I think our standard of living could be much better than it is if government had not taken over control of the economy.

It's a pretty general statement, some would be better off and others possibly not but overall I think we would be better off. Life would perhaps be more challenging and some would perhaps prefer a more secure and leisurely life like that of a cow.

I don't think that the economy would do better without some government control. A strong US government forced citizens to subsidize investments in infrastructure and defense in the 1950s, for example.

(These posts are getting long, so I'm going to trim some points where we mostly agree.)

And the site I linked to showed that even after adjusting for inflation our costs were still higher.

Are you still saying that food costs more than it used to ? If so, then why is that ? The article I linked to pointed out that progress (economies of scale, new processes etc.) has made our grocery bill go down over time.

Anyway, the groceries example is still just one aspect of life. Our economy GROWS over time, and that growth needs to be managed.

I don't think it is a question of even distribution. That is a pipe dream. The measure is if the majority of people experience a higher standard of living over time.

And what we're discussing is how to make sure that that happens.

You are imagining in the first example that people expect the factory to be there forever and they never make any contingency plans. This is how people used to think and how you still imagine things should be. Government, loathe to lay anyone off also thinks that way - they will always be around. It depends on the job they do.

The free market is not that predictable. A product could, just as easily as a corporation moves it's manufacturing base, become obsolete.

What you want are guarantees.

If we have a free economy then people should understand how it works and plan their lives accordingly.

Right. You didn't address the larger question of the economy, and instead are saying that the workers in that factory should have planned to be laid off at any time.

What about the economics in my example ? Somebody won (the owner, and the consumers) and somebody lost. If you don't think that that should be mitigated, then let's go way into the future where the owner of that factory owns an automated mine, and a factory to produce goods from it. It's an extreme example, but in it the owner gets all the economic advantage.

What happens then ?

What I'm getting at is that large changes in the economy have to be planned for - individually, yes, but by our governments as well. It's not realistic to say "oh well, thousands laid off I guess they should have seen it coming". That type of thinking represents a gross misunderstanding of human nature, and has effectively led to revolutions in the past.

Frankly, I prefer an unregulated economy and the sanctity of person and property being the sole mandate of government and we don't need no stinkin' badges. The UN I feel is unnecessary.

Ok, we're going around in circles here. I asked what the vision was for the future, by those who have money, by those who drive investment. You responded that they have purchasing power, which led me to think you were differentiating real money from bank-created money.

Let's go back: those with money drive investments, create wealth that makes economies prosper. If they only want to pay less and less, then there is no larger vision for how the economy will work is there ?

I think this is where we go confused. You said:

The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists have some currency. While they have purchasing power they haven't got real power; power that makes currencies irrelevant.

You mean that wealth isn't real power ? That the UN and world governments have real power ?

[blueblood]

I don't think that the economy would do better without some government control. A strong US government forced citizens to subsidize investments in infrastructure and defense in the 1950s, for example.

Ah but in the 90's when Reagan's policies were starting to bear fruit, the US saw its biggest growth ever.

Right. You didn't address the larger question of the economy, and instead are saying that the workers in that factory should have planned to be laid off at any time.

What about the economics in my example ? Somebody won (the owner, and the consumers) and somebody lost. If you don't think that that should be mitigated, then let's go way into the future where the owner of that factory owns an automated mine, and a factory to produce goods from it. It's an extreme example, but in it the owner gets all the economic advantage.

You forgot about the shareholders in that capitalist example benefitting by having the factory shut down and move to China. Society as a whole won by having that factory close. In countries such as Canada and the US with ocean freight being as cheap as it is, there is no way we can compete with other countries in doing that kind of grunt work. Just because a factory closes, that doesn't mean its the end of the world for those workers, it's a matter of finding work in the sectors that we can do that nobody else can. There is a trade off the other way if those workers kept their jobs, goods would be more expensive and the value of the company would decrease and that could affect thousands of people.

What I'm getting at is that large changes in the economy have to be planned for - individually, yes, but by our governments as well. It's not realistic to say "oh well, thousands laid off I guess they should have seen it coming". That type of thinking represents a gross misunderstanding of human nature, and has effectively led to revolutions in the past.

There has also been one of the most significant revolutions in human history started by rapid increases in taxation as well. Revolutions are a two way street.

Let's go back: those with money drive investments, create wealth that makes economies prosper. If they only want to pay less and less, then there is no larger vision for how the economy will work is there ?

It's not about paying less and less with investing, it's about the returns your going to get. Say I have 10 dollars. Me being an investor and a cheapskate, I want to make money. I have a choice of two investments, I invest a dollar and get

3 in the long run, I didn't spend much, but I didn't gain much. Next one has me spending 5 dollars, but in the long run getting 20, I spent a lot of my money, but in the long run made a lot of money compared to when I started previously.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah but in the 90's when Reagan's policies were starting to bear fruit, the US saw its biggest growth ever.

Policies ? As in government economic policies ? As in government control of the economy ? Deregulation is a policy too, although admittedly, it loosens overall control of the economy.

You forgot about the shareholders in that capitalist example benefitting by having the factory shut down and move to China. Society as a whole won by having that factory close.

I think I talked about the 'owner' in that example, didn't I ? Owner implies 100% shareholder. And I made the point about the falling costs of goods too.

Society won as a whole, but those workers lost. The policy of globalization loosened control of the economy for an overall benefit, but again individuals lost out. Furthermore, my example implied that the owner only took part of the cash saved from outsourcing, for simplicity and to illustrate the point that there are winners and losers in the economic game.

There has also been one of the most significant revolutions in human history started by rapid increases in taxation as well. Revolutions are a two way street.

If you're talking about the American revolution, then there's something to that - but the war cry was 'taxation without representation', not merely that taxes were increased.

It's not about paying less and less with investing, it's about the returns your going to get. Say I have 10 dollars. Me being an investor and a cheapskate, I want to make money. I have a choice of two investments, I invest a dollar and get

3 in the long run, I didn't spend much, but I didn't gain much. Next one has me spending 5 dollars, but in the long run getting 20, I spent a lot of my money, but in the long run made a lot of money compared to when I started previously.

Yes, you have restated what I said better than I did. The question is, though, what is the overall vision if investors are just looking for their own returns to max out ? Companies are profit-focussed, and only pay attention to community concerns as it serves their prime directive.

[Oleg Bach]

Here I go in my usual curmudgeonesqe` rant.. When I was a kid raised by Russian Orthodox parents it was a "sin" for a piece of bread to hit the floor or any un-eaten morel of food to be sent off to the garbage dump. We no longer consider life or life giving food as something sacred. When a couple tell me they have to plan to have children or they can not afford offspring - I say to them, what you toss in the garbage is enough food to sustain two growing children. Deny a person drink (alcohol) and they will survive - Deny them medications and most will survive. Deny a person food for only a few days and the brain will swoon..the legs will grow weak and the spirit will break. Within a week that hungry person will not have the mental capacity to save themselves by thinking their way out of the life threatening dilema..Those that control food supplys will never give food to those that do not produce food or some product that can enrich them - useless eaters are soon turned into non-eaters - look at Haiti - as soon as this former stave camp became useless - the population dwindled in strength and cunning but increased in size. If they wanted the hungry to eat they would be fed - look at our food banks - there is just enough nutritial power generated to cause a slow death.

[Pliny]

I don't think that the economy would do better without some government control. A strong US government forced citizens to subsidize investments in infrastructure and defense in the 1950s, for example.

I am not an anarchist but when it comes to the economy I don't think government can equitably and efficiently plan or participate in the economy. Today it creates it's own inequities by attempting to balance the economy. Bailouts are a recent example.

A poorly run corporation gets subsidies which in their absence the corporation would fail and well run corporations suffer these unfair market disadvantages.

The people are left with poorer quality goods and services than they could have and their standard of living is lower than it could be.

Government took over the printing of currency in the name of protecting our "money".

The dollar was originally a "money substitute" which is why it is referred to as a "bill". Present the "bill" for payment and you received money. They have since divorced the currency from money and made the currency the money. So what was once "money", gold and silver, has over time turned into the currency, essentially paper tokens. The merits of that may be debated but basically they were entrusted to protect our money and have through the general populaces ignorance of economics replaced money with their "money substitutes". A nice trick.

There are advantages to doing so by adding extra tools for government to manage the economy. But basically they convinced us that money could be a simple token or piece of paper, and as long as there was a fiat enforcing it to be a legal tender everything would be fine.

This illustrates the problem with government having "some" control over the economy.

Pretty soon it becomes total control over the economy. They wanted to protect our money and now they totally control it. You can argue that we can always do something about it by not using it thus breaking the law but essentially that means revolting against the government.

Are you still saying that food costs more than it used to ? If so, then why is that ? The article I linked to pointed out that progress (economies of scale, new processes etc.) has made our grocery bill go down over time.

Anyway, the groceries example is still just one aspect of life. Our economy GROWS over time, and that growth needs to be managed.

Talking about economies of scale, new processes, etc. are a reduction in the "costs of production" not the ratio of consumer cost to average salary.

Market innovations and entrepreneurial initiative does inarguably lower the cost of production. Certainly the population would not be served well without those advantages and the population would perhaps never have been able to grow to the size it is, which some already deem unsustainable, without them. The cost of food without them would be quite high. The government sets the prices with marketing boards, subsidies, tariffs, quotas, licensing, etc. This is why dairy is so much cheaper in the States. There is less regulation and our dairy farmers are protected from that competition. Many more people would buy locally and it would be cheaper without these marketing boards, which have become entrenched bureaucracies.

And what we're discussing is how to make sure that that happens.

It can't help but happen because no man is an island unto himself. He needs other people. People need people. We are discussing if the government should have the abilty to enforce economic cooperation, injecting the ideas of politicians as to who is deserving or not and creating the inequities they do in the name of equality or would the market better determine the inequities? We add human ideological preference and biases into the equation if we let politicians or even special interests determine who shall have and who shall pay.

Right. You didn't address the larger question of the economy, and instead are saying that the workers in that factory should have planned to be laid off at any time.

The larger question of the economy is answered by the individual contribution. It isn't like there isn't any notice of change. A factory does not just get up and move to another country. New products will phase others out. We have to keep aware of what is happening and that is all I am saying. Being contented cows is what you think factory workers should be.

What about the economics in my example ? Somebody won (the owner, and the consumers) and somebody lost. If you don't think that that should be mitigated, then let's go way into the future where the owner of that factory owns an automated mine, and a factory to produce goods from it. It's an extreme example, but in it the owner gets all the economic advantage.

People need people. Injustices are the only thing you can punish someone for. A person who has is always attacked to relieve him of his wealth. It always appears unfair that someone is rich. Well, if he didn't steal it then he deserves it.

You are saying the workers lost. The owner wins. The workers can still offer their labour for a price somewhere. They haven't lost anything. they may feel their contribution to the welfare of the company is lost and the investment of their time is lost but they agreed to the conditions of their remuneration. Certainly a person who has put 20 or 30 years in at a factory will be anxious about his future if the factory closes. But the day of working 20 or 30 years for a factory are quickly fading.

What I'm getting at is that large changes in the economy have to be planned for - individually, yes, but by our governments as well. It's not realistic to say "oh well, thousands laid off I guess they should have seen it coming". That type of thinking represents a gross misunderstanding of human nature, and has effectively led to revolutions in the past.

Basically what I am saying is that there won't be any large and fast changes in the economy if it is not centrally managed. Thousands is not a lot. It's when we get 10 and 15 and 20 % unemployment that it becomes a lot. This happens in planned economies only or through ill-conceived banking policies. The loss of a thousand jobs can be absorbed in a vibrant economy. A "mistake" in economic forecasting in a planned economy isdevastating to a nation. A mistake in economic forecasting by a corporate executive is devastating only to the corporation. There will always be someone to pick up the pieces in an open and competitive market. A government's mistakes affect the nation's whole economy.

We can look at the housing crisis and say it was greedy bankers Wall Street that were responsible for the debacle. But wasn't there one wise person on Wall Street who could see what was coming and waited until the collapse to weigh in and buy up the competition? Unfortunately, government essentially told Wall street to ignore the signals, everything was fine. They guaranteed it by buying repackaged mortgage derivatives from them through Fannie and Freddie.

Ok, we're going around in circles here. I asked what the vision was for the future, by those who have money, by those who drive investment. You responded that they have purchasing power, which led me to think you were differentiating real money from bank-created money.

Let's go back: those with money drive investments, create wealth that makes economies prosper. If they only want to pay less and less, then there is no larger vision for how the economy will work is there ?

I think this is where we go confused. You said:

The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists have some currency. While they have purchasing power they haven't got real power; power that makes currencies irrelevant.

You mean that wealth isn't real power ? That the UN and world governments have real power ?

That is where the power is centralized.

I want to avoid getting into a discussion of "who" has the real power. Basically, the rich know they are vulnerable and find many ways to protect their assets. It is done by either strengthening their positions or weakening the position of others but the best protection is in being anonymous. All levels and classes of society are engaged in the same process within their own frame of reference and sphere of operation. If I can control my assets and improve my life and standard of living then I have power. It seems to me though that most of us realize we only get assets through the co-operative efforts of each of us. Only criminals try to get something for nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

Again, these are getting long, so I'm going to trim what I'm not disputing or commenting on.

This illustrates the problem with government having "some" control over the economy.

Pretty soon it becomes total control over the economy. They wanted to protect our money and now they totally control it. You can argue that we can always do something about it by not using it thus breaking the law but essentially that means revolting against the government.

Some of what you're talking about isn't government per se, but banking in general but ok.

The larger question of the economy is answered by the individual contribution. It isn't like there isn't any notice of change. A factory does not just get up and move to another country. New products will phase others out. We have to keep aware of what is happening and that is all I am saying. Being contented cows is what you think factory workers should be.

Right, so every man for himself.

People need people. Injustices are the only thing you can punish someone for. A person who has is always attacked to relieve him of his wealth. It always appears unfair that someone is rich. Well, if he didn't steal it then he deserves it.

Right. And if somebody corners the market on insulin, for example, he can demand that all diabetics be his slave since he was the one who was crafty enough to nab that insulin.

So, to recap, using force is wrong, stealing is wrong but hoarding or controlling of resources is 'if he didn't steal it, he deserves it'.

You are saying the workers lost. The owner wins. The workers can still offer their labour for a price somewhere. They haven't lost anything. they may feel their contribution to the welfare of the company is lost and the investment of their time is lost but they agreed to the conditions of their remuneration. Certainly a person who has put 20 or 30 years in at a factory will be anxious about his future if the factory closes. But the day of working 20 or 30 years for a factory are quickly fading.

By saying that those days are fading, you're offering something of a vision as I asked - but more a vision of what will not be than what will be. It will not be a place where jobs are secure, it will not be a place where you can count on anything happening to help you.

Basically what I am saying is that there won't be any large and fast changes in the economy if it is not centrally managed.

Regulation and bureaucracy slows the economy, both up and down. How many market crashes were there from the late 1800s until 1930 ? Lots.

Thousands is not a lot. It's when we get 10 and 15 and 20 % unemployment that it becomes a lot. This happens in planned economies only or through ill-conceived banking policies. The loss of a thousand jobs can be absorbed in a vibrant economy. A "mistake" in economic forecasting in a planned economy isdevastating to a nation. A mistake in economic forecasting by a corporate executive is devastating only to the corporation. There will always be someone to pick up the pieces in an open and competitive market. A government's mistakes affect the nation's whole economy.

We can look at the housing crisis and say it was greedy bankers Wall Street that were responsible for the debacle. But wasn't there one wise person on Wall Street who could see what was coming and waited until the collapse to weigh in and buy up the competition? Unfortunately, government essentially told Wall street to ignore the signals, everything was fine. They guaranteed it by buying repackaged mortgage derivatives from them through Fannie and Freddie.

So the 1929 crash and the latest one was the government's fault ? Your proof that it was the government's fault this time seems to be that business was duped by the government.

That is where the power is centralized.

I want to avoid getting into a discussion of "who" has the real power. Basically, the rich know they are vulnerable and find many ways to protect their assets. It is done by either strengthening their positions or weakening the position of others but the best protection is in being anonymous. All levels and classes of society are engaged in the same process within their own frame of reference and sphere of operation. If I can control my assets and improve my life and standard of living then I have power. It seems to me though that most of us realize we only get assets through the co-operative efforts of each of us. Only criminals try to get something for nothing.

We have a basic disagreement over who holds power. The power is made by who controls the economy, by who owns the economy. "The rich know they are vulnerable" means nothing. They have enough capital to gamble with, and to still live in comfort so I don't know what kind of vulnerability you mean.

A guy with a billion dollars spending a million dollars is not like a guy with $100 to his name spending $10. The math is scalable but the human reality is not. You're not the same as Exxon and if you think you are, then phone up the prime minster's office and ask for a meeting this week.

Once in awhile I like to engage in these types of libertarian discussions, but I always end up being disappointed in the impractical simplicity of the model, really as simple as Marxism makes itself out to be.

[blueblood]

Right. And if somebody corners the market on insulin, for example, he can demand that all diabetics be his slave since he was the one who was crafty enough to nab that insulin.

So, to recap, using force is wrong, stealing is wrong but hoarding or controlling of resources is 'if he didn't steal it, he deserves it'.

Free markets are a two way street. With the lack of regulations, it is much harder to hide behind laws to be able to corner the market. Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations. If someone tried to corner the market on insulin causing prices to rise, that sends a signal to someone else to start making insulin, and it eventually works out to equilibrium.

Regulation and bureaucracy slows the economy, both up and down. How many market crashes were there from the late 1800s until 1930 ? Lots.

They also hide inefficiencies. Sure there might be less market crashes, but when they do happen, its getting to be a bigger and bigger problem. Regulation and bureaucracy try to take out the cyclical nature of markets, which doesn't work and only goes to make the peaks and valleys larger and larger. Eg. Bailout of Chrysler and GM. Cost taxpayers billions, the companies are still horrible. They should have went bankrupt and let other car makers divy up the assets.

We have a basic disagreement over who holds power. The power is made by who controls the economy, by who owns the economy. "The rich know they are vulnerable" means nothing. They have enough capital to gamble with, and to still live in comfort so I don't know what kind of vulnerability you mean.

A guy with a billion dollars spending a million dollars is not like a guy with $100 to his name spending $10. The math is scalable but the human reality is not. You're not the same as Exxon and if you think you are, then phone up the prime minster's office and ask for a meeting this week.

They are vulnerable because when its tax time or talk of tax increases guess who the whipping boy is. The rich are also vulnerable because at the bottom line come election day they are out voted by a large margin. It takes a lot of resources to persuade ordinary people not to elect a party that will soak them in order to better society.

[Michael Hardner]

Free markets are a two way street. With the lack of regulations, it is much harder to hide behind laws to be able to corner the market. Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations. If someone tried to corner the market on insulin causing prices to rise, that sends a signal to someone else to start making insulin, and it eventually works out to equilibrium.

Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations ?

There are such things as patents, limited resources, and other factors that lead to monopoly.

They also hide inefficiencies. Sure there might be less market crashes, but when they do happen, its getting to be a bigger and bigger problem. Regulation and bureaucracy try to take out the cyclical nature of markets, which doesn't work and only goes to make the peaks and valleys larger and larger. Eg. Bailout of Chrysler and GM. Cost taxpayers billions, the companies are still horrible. They should have went bankrupt and let other car makers divy up the assets.

No they don't. Individual companies still fail, merge and so on. Less regulation leads to more dramatic swings. The bailouts of the car companies are a separate issue.

They are vulnerable because when its tax time or talk of tax increases guess who the whipping boy is. The rich are also vulnerable because at the bottom line come election day they are out voted by a large margin. It takes a lot of resources to persuade ordinary people not to elect a party that will soak them in order to better society.

Some whipping boy. Income taxes have been on the decline (at the top bracket) for years now. They haven't been soaked for years now.

[blueblood]

Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations ?

There are such things as patents, limited resources, and other factors that lead to monopoly.

In Canada's case the government, the CWB, the dairy industry, Sask power, MTS circa 1990, Autopac, SGI, Manitoba Crop insurance. Those monopolies.

No they don't. Individual companies still fail, merge and so on. Less regulation leads to more dramatic swings. The bailouts of the car companies are a separate issue.

The CRA is an example of gov't regulation that caused the mortgage bubble which caused the financial collapse. No regulation would have meant poor people went packing to start with, and the problem would have never gotten so big.

Some whipping boy. Income taxes have been on the decline (at the top bracket) for years now. They haven't been soaked for years now.

Ask the U.S. banks what they think of Obama's new bank tax.

[Pliny]

Some of what you're talking about isn't government per se, but banking in general but ok.

The Bank of Canada regulates the banks and advises the government on fiscal policy.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada is not elected. the Central bank and the Government work hand in hand. But the real Bible of economic theory adopted by Central Banks and Governmnets is Keyne's General Theory.

Right, so every man for himself.

No man is an island unto himself. If he is looking out for himself he better make some good friends and look out for them as well. Tit for tat.

Right. And if somebody corners the market on insulin, for example, he can demand that all diabetics be his slave since he was the one who was crafty enough to nab that insulin.

I read blueblood's response to this question and he answered it fairly well.

How could someone corner the market on insulin? I suppose the "government" could grant him a patent.

And don't be so sour in assuming an individual will always do the wrong thing, some will but most will do what they feel will be of benefit to others. Liberals are the ones that think the public is stupid and needs to be policed and nannied for their own good and they will invariably do the wrong thing.

So, to recap, using force is wrong, stealing is wrong but hoarding or controlling of resources is 'if he didn't steal it, he deserves it'.

If he didn't harm anyone - what's the problem?

By saying that those days are fading, you're offering something of a vision as I asked - but more a vision of what will not be than what will be. It will not be a place where jobs are secure, it will not be a place where you can count on anything happening to help you.

It will be a more diverse place where people have more choices and will not be content with sitting on assembly lines their entire life.

Regulation and bureaucracy slows the economy, both up and down. How many market crashes were there from the late 1800s until 1930 ? Lots.

The Federal Reserve came into being in 1913. It was touted as a means to minimize bank failures and eliminate booms and busts. Not only did it not eliminate booms and busts but it brought into fruition the greatest depression ever seen.

You can read about market crashes in the 1800's and they were all caused by bankers overextending their credit through the practice of fractional reserve banking and/or printing currencies to excess.

So the 1929 crash and the latest one was the government's fault ? Your proof that it was the government's fault this time seems to be that business was duped by the government.

A lot of the left blamed it on Government deregulation by the Bush administration. Government fiscal policy, not regulation, sets the trend of the economy. If it couldn't government would abandon it's tools. It tightens fiscal policy, it adjusts interest rates to encourage or discourage lending, it inflates and deflates the currency supply. Business tries to guess what the policies will be and government assures them of their position and informs them of the state of the Economy to encourage or discourage whatever econoimc activity is desirable.

We have a basic disagreement over who holds power. The power is made by who controls the economy, by who owns the economy. "The rich know they are vulnerable" means nothing. They have enough capital to gamble with, and to still live in comfort so I don't know what kind of vulnerability you mean.

A guy with a billion dollars spending a million dollars is not like a guy with $100 to his name spending $10. The math is scalable but the human reality is not. You're not the same as Exxon and if you think you are, then phone up the prime minster's office and ask for a meeting this week.

I don't want to get into a debate on who holds power. suffice it to say the person who can be in charge of their own life has power.

Once in awhile I like to engage in these types of libertarian discussions, but I always end up being disappointed in the impractical simplicity of the model, really as simple as Marxism makes itself out to be.

I haven't met many Libertarians who provide good discussion about Libertarianism and I have disagreements with them. Some are Libertarians because they have a special interest that they want the government to legalize, like marijuana or prostitution, euthanasia. I don't find they are really libertarian at all. I think they believe that if I claim to be a libertarian, I am supposed to hold the same views as them. I would be for the legalization of marijuana but I would not advocate it's use and would discourage rather than promote it's use. Other proponents would encourage everyone to use it. I think that all drugs have their uses and abuses. Most advocates of legalization are not promoting the "use" but the "abuse" of a drug.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

In Canada's case the government, the CWB, the dairy industry, Sask power, MTS circa 1990, Autopac, SGI, Manitoba Crop insurance. Those monopolies.

What about Standard Oil ?