ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/28/89)
In article <1458@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: > ... > >If you really want to know what it means to be a Canadian, get in your car >sometime and travel the Canadian highway system. Stop at Moncton, Sherbrooke, >Lachine, Portage la Prairie, Biggar, Lac La Biche, Golden. Get out of your >car, talk to the people, smell the fresh air. Listen to the sounds. See the >mountains, the great lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Canada will no >longer be qualified, but will be who she is, a great country filled with great >people and places. You said it very well. I have visited every province and hope someday to get to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We really have a beautiful country. The problem is, most people don't appreciate it. A poll published in MacLean's magazine stated that ~60% of Canadians believe that we should have a common currency with the United States. That sucks, quite frankly. You can be sure that WE would be using THEIR currency. Too many Canadians, it seems, are too complacent. Everything is taken for granted. In fact, people bitch because they want more, but don't want to pay higher taxes. Maybe we can start a discussion on what it means to be a Canadian, to each person. Do we care? What are we willing to do about it? How many people would rather sit on their butts, watch American television, or rent American movies, or listen to American sports and go to the U.S. to buy cheaper clothes or other goods, rather than support their own economy. Are we willing to start our own businesses and work long hours to make it work? Or, do we all want to work for a company where we can work 35 hours a week, get lots of vacation and full benefits. (Our economy will not be healthy this way). Of course I realize that a lot of people work long hours, but a lot of people don't. How many people are angry at the number of immigrants who buy up real estate? I'm not talking about the billionaires from Hong Kong who already have money. I'm talking about immigrants who bust their asses, working very long hours here in Canada, to make a better life for their families. Is it realistic to be angry at someone who does something that we are too lazy to do ourselves? Elizabeth
brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (07/31/89)
In article <1989Jul27.235845.24886@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >In article <1458@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, >Emergency Planning Officer) writes: > >> ... >> >>If you really want to know what it means to be a Canadian, get in your car >>sometime and travel the Canadian highway system. Stop at Moncton, Sherbrooke, >>Lachine, Portage la Prairie, Biggar, Lac La Biche, Golden. Get out of your >>car, talk to the people, smell the fresh air. Listen to the sounds. See the >>mountains, the great lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Canada will no >>longer be qualified, but will be who she is, a great country filled with great >>people and places. > >You said it very well. I have visited every province and hope someday >to get to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We really have a >beautiful country. The problem is, most people don't appreciate it. > >A poll published in MacLean's magazine stated that ~60% of Canadians >believe that we should have a common currency with the United States. >That sucks, quite frankly. You can be sure that WE would be using >THEIR currency. > >Too many Canadians, it seems, are too complacent. Everything is taken >for granted. In fact, people bitch because they want more, but don't >want to pay higher taxes. OK, I agreed down to here. Bitching *is* the national pass-time. Every- body wants everything for the good life, but precious few are willing to pay for it. And anything we personally don't want to do instantly becomes the government's responsibility. And then we become absolutely livid when some naive politician actually asks us to *pay* for it with taxes. Imagine! The gall of him! >Maybe we can start a discussion on what it means to be a Canadian, to >each person. Do we care? What are we willing to do about it? How >many people would rather sit on their butts, watch American >television, or rent American movies, or listen to American sports and >go to the U.S. to buy cheaper clothes or other goods, rather than >support their own economy. I don't see the connection here. I don't think being Canadian has anything to do with watching politically correct TV programs or sports events. Given a choice between food on my table and culture on my television, I choose the food every time. No one yet has convinced me that millions spent by the CBC and other agencies on TV programs or movies benefitted Canada more than direct social spending already in place. As for going to the U.S. to buy, damn right I will. And it has *NOTHING* to do with a [un]willingness to support Canadian industry; if we can't compete, then pack up your bags and find an industry where we *can* compete. I have no sympathy for textile industries or grape farmers; if we can't do it well enough to keep our markets within the U.S. and Canada, then we shouldn't be doing it. >Are we willing to start our own businesses and work long hours to make >it work? Or, do we all want to work for a company where we can work >35 hours a week, get lots of vacation and full benefits. (Our economy >will not be healthy this way). Of course I realize that a lot of >people work long hours, but a lot of people don't. Back into agreement mode again. Yep, precious few are willing to take risks involved in starting one's own business, but then again, look at the geographic distribution of the population. The best chance for a business to succeed is in large market areas ie. large cities. The large cities usually aren't the ones with the major unemployment problems, at least, not compared to the rurual areas ie. rural NFLD vs. St John's, Kirkland Lake vs. Toronto and so on. > How many people >are angry at the number of immigrants who buy up real estate? I'm not >talking about the billionaires from Hong Kong who already have money. >I'm talking about immigrants who bust their asses, working very long >hours here in Canada, to make a better life for their families. Is it >realistic to be angry at someone who does something that we are too >lazy to do ourselves? No sympathy for the angry residents here; for every purchase, there was a seller. If Canadians don't want to sell land/companies/resources to foreigners, THEN DON'T SELL! God, trying to get that through some people is absolutely impossible. >Elizabeth Brian =============================================================================== __ __ Brian A. Jarvis, / ) ...jtsv16!brian / ) J.T.S. Computer Systems Ltd., /--< __ o __. ____ /--/ Downsview, Ontario /___/_/ (_<_(_/|_/ / <_ / ( o My dog, Goof, still says "Hi!" "Lord, defend me from my friends; I can account for my enemies." - D'Hericault ===============================================================================
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (08/01/89)
In article <1034@jtsv16.UUCP> brian@jtsv16.jts.com (Brian A. Jarvis) writes: >In article <1989Jul27.235845.24886@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >>Maybe we can start a discussion on what it means to be a Canadian, to >>each person. Do we care? What are we willing to do about it? How >>many people would rather sit on their butts, watch American >>television, or rent American movies, or listen to American sports and >>go to the U.S. to buy cheaper clothes or other goods, rather than >>support their own economy. > >I don't see the connection here. I don't think being Canadian has anything >to do with watching politically correct TV programs or sports events. It does in the sense that so many Canadians (and Americans) define Canadian culture/characteristics/etc. by their differences with their US counterparts. ie Canadian football is rarely judged anymore on its own merits, but how it compares to the NFL... >Given a choice between food on my table and culture on my television, I >choose the food every time. Anyone would, but that doesn't mean that culture, even subsidized culture, doesn't have its place. >No one yet has convinced me that millions spent >by the CBC and other agencies on TV programs or movies benefitted Canada >more than direct social spending already in place. I'm sure that in the grand scheme of things, you'll probably find it more beneficial than some spending programs (moving construction of a jail to Baie Comaux) and less than others (UIC). Everyone has the own priorities, and some even have their 'sacred trusts' :-/. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Director & editor, /usr/group/cdn 3 most stressful jobs in Canada: Policeman, fireman, choirboy in Newfoundland
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (08/01/89)
In article <1034@jtsv16.UUCP> brian@jtsv16.jts.com (Brian A. Jarvis) writes: >In article <1989Jul27.235845.24886@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >>In article <1458@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, >>Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >>> ... >>>If you really want to know what it means to be a Canadian, get in your car >>>sometime and travel the Canadian highway system. [...] >>You said it very well. I have visited every province and hope someday >>to get to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We really have a >>beautiful country. The problem is, most people don't appreciate it. >> [...] >OK, I agreed down to here. >>Maybe we can start a discussion on what it means to be a Canadian, to >>each person. Do we care? What are we willing to do about it? How >>many people would rather sit on their butts, watch American >>television, or rent American movies, or listen to American sports and >>go to the U.S. to buy cheaper clothes or other goods, rather than >>support their own economy. >I don't see the connection here. I don't think being Canadian has anything >to do with watching politically correct TV programs or sports events. >Given a choice between food on my table and culture on my television, I >choose the food every time. No one yet has convinced me that millions spent >by the CBC and other agencies on TV programs or movies benefitted Canada >more than direct social spending already in place. You have told me what being a Canadian does not mean to you. What does it mean to you to be a Canadian? I just threw out some questions. >As for going to the U.S. to buy, damn right I will. And it has *NOTHING* >to do with a [un]willingness to support Canadian industry; if we can't >compete, then pack up your bags and find an industry where we *can* compete. >I have no sympathy for textile industries or grape farmers; if we can't >do it well enough to keep our markets within the U.S. and Canada, then we >shouldn't be doing it. Thank you for expressing your opinion. I think the majority of the population agrees with you. >>Are we willing to start our own businesses and work long hours to make >>it work? Or, do we all want to work for a company where we can work >>35 hours a week, get lots of vacation and full benefits. (Our economy >>will not be healthy this way). Of course I realize that a lot of >>people work long hours, but a lot of people don't. >Back into agreement mode again. Yep, precious few are willing to take >risks involved in starting one's own business, but then again, look at >the geographic distribution of the population. The best chance for a >business to succeed is in large market areas ie. large cities. The >large cities usually aren't the ones with the major unemployment problems, >at least, not compared to the rural areas ie. rural NFLD vs. >St John's, Kirkland Lake vs. Toronto and so on. This if often true but not always true. As an example, it is possible to do computer consulting from a small town. The design and writing of the software doesn't have to be done on site. I have a relative with a graphic arts business. He does his design in a small town and commutes to the city to make the presentations. I have a financial planning business which I intend to eventually move to the Maritimes. I can fly in when necessary and discuss issues on the phone at other times. >> How many people >>are angry at the number of immigrants who buy up real estate? I'm not >>talking about the billionaires from Hong Kong who already have money. >>I'm talking about immigrants who bust their asses, working very long >>hours here in Canada, to make a better life for their families. Is it >>realistic to be angry at someone who does something that we are too >>lazy to do ourselves? >No sympathy for the angry residents here; for every purchase, there was >a seller. If Canadians don't want to sell land/companies/resources to >foreigners, THEN DON'T SELL! God, trying to get that through some >people is absolutely impossible. I obviously didn't phrase this very well. I was complementing immigrants who come into a strange country, learn the language, start their own businesses, work very hard and buy up real estate with their profits. I say good for them. My point was that I've heard Canadians (who are not new immigrants) complain about X (pick a culture) buying up "OUR" country. They complain because they were too lazy to work that hard themselves. >Brian Elizabeth
rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) (08/02/89)
In article <1034@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes regarding Elizabeth Doucette's challenge: >As for going to the U.S. to buy, damn right I will. And it has *NOTHING* >to do with a [un]willingness to support Canadian industry; if we can't >compete, then pack up your bags and find an industry where we *can* compete. >I have no sympathy for textile industries or grape farmers; if we can't >do it well enough to keep our markets within the U.S. and Canada, then we >shouldn't be doing it. There are a couple of problems with this view as I perceive it. First, one must recognize the effect of scale: the American's with a ten-fold population advantage can reap a larger benefit from large-scale production, and while it might be contended that that market would also be available to any would-be Canadian producer, American's DO have (or are very seriously acquiring) a buy-American attitude as a response to the Asian economic strategy. Second, and this relates directly to the `free-trade' agreement, Americans have an interesting view with regards to subsidies: that they are primarily a Canadian phenomenon; US government contracts etc. being `something' else. Both of these imply that the market is NOT free, that there is a considerable American bias, and thus that Canadians, should they fall prey to such idealistic illusions as you advocate, will find themselves without primary industry. Another problem is that, even under complete laissez-faire market conditions, buying foreign products to save a few cents is undermining your local economy as the balance of payments becomes skewed. This may be fine under a system wherein the labour force can migrate without constraint, but national boundaries curtail this equalization enormously. Thus, once again, concerns beyond a pure, hypothetical, market economy must predominate. Lastly, there is the issue of `community'. To buy foreign product in disregard of local manufacturers, is to have no regard for the effects which, even should they be absorbed within the national boundaries, are detrimental to one's own living environment (a sort of political ecology). Clearly, there must be cooperation. Should absurdly high prices be demanded, and the article for sale is of secondary import (e.g. entertainment products), then an alternative to buying foreign goods, is to not buy at all! This has both the desirable effects of maintaining a balance of payments AND showing dissatisfaction with the pricing strategy being employed. Automobiles, for example, fit well under this scheme since, rather than buy an unsatisfactory product, one maintains the current manifestation. I acknowledge that this strategy is unrealistic, but claims of industrial `survivalists' who advocate `pressuring' manufactures by buying foreign products, quite conveniently ignore this alternative while sanctimoniously indulging in their every desire. This is not always the case, but of significant occurrence to warrant mention. R. -- Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated | P.O. Box 9707 (613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4
brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (08/03/89)
In article <6713@cognos.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >In article <1034@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes regarding Elizabeth >Doucette's challenge: > >>As for going to the U.S. to buy, damn right I will. And it has *NOTHING* >>to do with a [un]willingness to support Canadian industry; if we can't >>compete, then pack up your bags and find an industry where we *can* compete. >>I have no sympathy for textile industries or grape farmers; if we can't >>do it well enough to keep our markets within the U.S. and Canada, then we >>shouldn't be doing it. > >There are a couple of problems with this view as I perceive it. First, one >must recognize the effect of scale: the American's with a ten-fold population >advantage can reap a larger benefit from large-scale production, and while >it might be contended that that market would also be available to any would-be >Canadian producer, American's DO have (or are very seriously acquiring) a >buy-American attitude as a response to the Asian economic strategy. Second, >and this relates directly to the `free-trade' agreement, Americans have an >interesting view with regards to subsidies: that they are primarily a Canadian >phenomenon; US government contracts etc. being `something' else. Both of these >imply that the market is NOT free, that there is a considerable American >bias, and thus that Canadians, should they fall prey to such idealistic >illusions as you advocate, will find themselves without primary industry. I am NOT advocating 'idealistic illusions'. I AM expounding the simple reality that there are some industries we should not be trying to enter or defend. Do you propose we should subsidize farmers in Canada who want to grow coffee? Of course not: coffee could only be grown here in green-houses and would be much, much more costly to produce that it would be to purchase from Columbia et al.. Reaching back into my high school days, the terms 'comparative advantage' and 'absolute advantage' come to mind. If we are to maintain core industries, export markets, a decent balance of trade/payment and a standard of living, we obviously don't want to waste time, effort and money in some venture we have precious little chance in success; let us instead concentrate on items in which we have advantages. To wit: the vast size of our nation has forced upon us certain problems in communications. Solving them have given us a slight edge in some respects of long range telemetry and telecommunication. The harsher climate has forced development of better home insulation and many cold-resistant products. The list goes on. Editorial Time... ready with 'n'... Something that has always bothered me about the critics who cry and whine that the Big Bad Americans (TM) have such a massive advantage over us that we are overwhelmed is their absolute belief that Canadians can do absolutely NOTHING right. What worries me more is that few Canadians would question it. Personal Disclaimer: Ray is NOT one of these people. His article, if fact, is one of the most rational and well considered items I've seen in some time. =============================================================================== __ __ Brian A. Jarvis, / ) ...jtsv16!brian / ) J.T.S. Computer Systems Ltd., /--< __ o __. ____ /--/ Downsview, Ontario /___/_/ (_<_(_/|_/ / <_ / ( o My dog, Goof, still says "Hi!" "Lord, defend me from my friends; I can account for my enemies." - D'Hericault ===============================================================================
rayt@heraclitus.UUCP (R.) (08/06/89)
In article <1042@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes in response to my contention that advocating a laissez-faire market to decide the survival of national industries (Canadian versus American, in this case) is idealistic, >If we are to maintain core industries, export markets, a decent balance >of trade/payment and a standard of living, we obviously don't want to >waste time, effort and money in some venture we have precious little >chance in success; let us instead concentrate on items in which we have >advantages. I'm not sure how to take this. The problem is in the ambiguity of `we', which can either imply a collective effort (i.e. under governmental supervision and control) or be merely referring to `every Canadian': the former being a strain of socialist planning, the latter shrewd capitalist entrepreneurism. Your previous argument against subsidizing farmers (rather than taxing luxurious consumption via tariffs), however, leads to me believe that socialist planning is your intent; if this is so, I'll just point out two very potent counterexamples to success: England and France. France being perhaps more to the point here, missing the safety-shoe rabidity which befell the island race, it nevertheless succumbed to traditional rationalistic hubris: planning itself into near bankruptcy via the albatrotic Concord and other national capital monoglyphs. Undoubtedly, part of the problem arose through the lack of national bank autonomy, but the overall scheme, firstly lacks the requisite information (i.e. planning is NOT a more rational substitute for the market), and secondly, necessarily undermines individual freedom as it shoe-horns everyone into the most suitable place as envisioned by the general plan. Shrewd capitalistic entrepreneurism, while lacking the control which would allow one to have a nationally focused economic purpose, gives one a broader economic base by promoting idiosyncracy, and relaxes the white-knuckle grip on personal freedom underlying regimental viewpoints. I have already noted some problems which obviate the pure implementation of this methodology, however, but these centre on the necessity of the government to ensure that the short-sightedness of sections of its population (BOTH producer and consumer) do not effect the viability of the whole. This is not necessarily a recipe for guarenteed national prosperity, nor one which will appeal to those who would sell everyone's freedom for idyllic reveries of justice and sloth. Regrettably, the more skewed the balance produced by those who wish to partake of the benefits of such a scheme but undermine its foundation in practice, the more the government is lead to generally restrictive countermeasures. One always gets the government one deserves (nationally speaking). >To wit: the vast size of our nation has forced upon us >certain problems in communications. Solving them have given us a slight >edge in some respects of long range telemetry and telecommunication. >The harsher climate has forced development of better home insulation >and many cold-resistant products. The list goes on. I agree; I also understand that such entitites (company/government department) as Northern Telecom do an admirable job in keeping in the forefront of this technology. Software, interestingly enough, is another Canadian strong point which can stand on its own merits. Heavy industries like steel and concrete, however, are considerably more vunerable; essentially because the innovations are not so much in the PRODUCT as in the MEANS of production. Thus keeping pace means reworking an enormously expensive plant: Pacific rim countries are reaping a very nice benefit here as emerging industrialists, for example. To let these local industries perish on this account with the hope that the balance of payments can be achieved through higher volumes in the more successful few, I do not see as realistic. But if you have contradictory evidence or argument, I am quite interested in reviewing it. R. -- Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated | P.O. Box 9707 (613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (08/08/89)
In article <6742@heraclitus.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >In article <1042@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes in response to my >contention that advocating a laissez-faire market to decide the survival >of national industries (Canadian versus American, in this case) is >idealistic, > > [...] R. >-- >Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated > | P.O. Box 9707 >(613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. >UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4 Before the last federal election free-trade was discussed a lot, as everyone knows. One of the agruements against, was that the U.S. has plants (100% owned by U.S. companies) in northern Mexico, along the U.S. border. Products manufactured there and shipped into the U.S., are allowed to be labelled "made in U.S.A.", therefore, fall under the free trade agreement. The products are allowed to be labelled this way because raw materials and components are imported into Mexico duty-free. Labour is so cheap, it might add only 15% to the value of the product. The result of this makes it very hard for Canadians to compete. Mexicans are paid U.S. $8.00 per day. Well, I was very much against this. However, in Thursdays (July 31/89) Financial Post page 9, there is an article on this. It mentions that more and more U.S. AND Canadian companies are doing this. Everytime a company closes and moves to Mexico, jobs are lost at home. Many of these companies are Fortune 500 companies (~57, including Chrysler and General Motors). The article mentions that electronic parts are made for Polaroid cameras and Control Data computers. "Every household in the U.S. and Canada owns products at least partially made in Mexico, from consumer electronics and car parts to vacuum cleaners and water heaters. Artificial Christmas trees and electric outboard trolling motors are manufactured here. So is dental floss for your dog and weed-eaters for your lawn." In Canada, Bendix Safety Restraints Ltd. announced it was moving production to Mexico putting 400 Canadians (Collingwood) out of work. Last fall Fleck Manufacturing Co. put 238 members of the Canadian Auto Workers union out of work, by moving to Mexico. Dicon Systems Ltd. of Toronto (makes smoke detectors), Custom Trim Ltd. of Waterloo (car components) and Ideal Equipment Co. of Montreal (industrial packaging) have also moved. Another reason that companies are moving is that in Mexico they do not have to adhere to strict environmental controls. According to the article, environmentalists say the companies can pollute at will. Another point that is made is that "the Mexican government is not reinvesting in the industry. Therefore, foreign companies can't attract workers to the region. With jobs chasing workers, wages will inevitably go up." I'm ambivalent about this situation. Any comments?
brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (08/08/89)
In article <6742@heraclitus.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >In article <1042@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes in response to my >contention that advocating a laissez-faire market to decide the survival >of national industries (Canadian versus American, in this case) is >idealistic, > >>If we are to maintain core industries, export markets, a decent balance >>of trade/payment and a standard of living, we obviously don't want to >>waste time, effort and money in some venture we have precious little >>chance in success; let us instead concentrate on items in which we have >>advantages. > >I'm not sure how to take this. The problem is in the ambiguity of `we', >which can either imply a collective effort (i.e. under governmental >supervision and control) or be merely referring to `every Canadian': the >former being a strain of socialist planning, the latter shrewd capitalist >entrepreneurism. Yeah, it *was* rather ambiguous. I'm going to do a little deep thinking before I try to elaborate further on what I meant by "we" before I bury myself too deeply. > Your previous argument against subsidizing farmers (rather >than taxing luxurious consumption via tariffs), however, leads to me believe >that socialist planning is your intent; Good Lord, *NO*! >Shrewd capitalistic entrepreneurism, while lacking the control which would >allow one to have a nationally focused economic purpose, gives one a broader >economic base by promoting idiosyncracy, and relaxes the white-knuckle grip >on personal freedom underlying regimental viewpoints. I have already noted >some problems which obviate the pure implementation of this methodology, >however, but these centre on the necessity of the government to ensure that >the short-sightedness of sections of its population (BOTH producer and >consumer) do not effect the viability of the whole. This is not necessarily >a recipe for guarenteed national prosperity, nor one which will appeal to >those who would sell everyone's freedom for idyllic reveries of justice >and sloth. Regrettably, the more skewed the balance produced by those who >wish to partake of the benefits of such a scheme but undermine its foundation >in practice, the more the government is lead to generally restrictive >countermeasures. One always gets the government one deserves (nationally >speaking). The actual degree of government intervention or assistance required is incredibly variable, changing in great measure from country to country. Here, the government stepping in on a daily basis is expected and demanded; any government that didn't, would be turfed out in short order. I've spent a few nights staring at the ceiling wondering of Dief's A.V.Roe Arrow program problem is a symptom of this malaise. In the U.S., industry says they don't want or need government assistance, but, boy, they sure scramble for those lucrative government and defence contracts. A good many industries couldn't exist without them. In Japan, government involvement is also common, but appears to be limited to financing and macro-managing of certain industries; they don't waste their time trying to run the individual companies from day to day, but get the largest corporations together for planning of a "grand strategy". I agree; people get the government they deserve. We've been stuck with a string of them that are pretty good at redistribution of wealth, but damn poor at generating it. Sometimes I'm absolutely convinced that our current standard of being is pure luck; other times, I look upon it as evidence that there is a merciful God. B{) > Heavy industries like steel and concrete, >however, are considerably more vunerable; essentially because the innovations >are not so much in the PRODUCT as in the MEANS of production. Thus keeping >pace means reworking an enormously expensive plant: Pacific rim countries >are reaping a very nice benefit here as emerging industrialists, for example. Good point. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way. I'll have to work on that in future. >To let these local industries perish on this account with the hope that the >balance of payments can be achieved through higher volumes in the more >successful few, I do not see as realistic. But if you have contradictory >evidence or argument, I am quite interested in reviewing it. >-- >Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated Nope, no contradictory evidence here. I can't argue for the complete elimination of all subsidies for all industries; the disruptions nation- wide would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Basically, anywhere that isn't Southern Ontario would be in big trouble. I *do* argue against subsidizing industries for the sake of national pride alone. Hearing the new round of declarations about how Canadian ownership in the energy sector is currently dropping, I can understand arguments about who has control over the resources of Canada. I have one super- radical, nationalistic friend who insists that Via Rail should be supported at all costs and should be rebuilt entirely from the ground up, with new cars, locomotives and stations put up nationwide; when I pointed out the multiple billions of dollars that this would cost over the next couple of years, he said that it was worth it. What if no one rides it? Doesn't matter; it's a national symbol, like the beaver and the flag. *sigh* I did point out that, well, we didn't have a national flag until the 1960's, and we *kill* and skin beavers, but it didn't persuade him. B{) Brian =============================================================================== __ __ Brian A. Jarvis, / ) ...jtsv16!brian / ) J.T.S. Computer Systems Ltd., /--< __ o __. ____ /--/ Downsview, Ontario /___/_/ (_<_(_/|_/ / <_ / ( o My dog, Goof, still says "Hi!" "Lord, defend me from my friends; I can account for my enemies." - D'Hericault ===============================================================================
brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (08/08/89)
In article <1989Aug7.192704.26849@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >Before the last federal election free-trade was discussed a lot, as >everyone knows. One of the agruements against, was that the U.S. has >plants (100% owned by U.S. companies) in northern Mexico, along the >U.S. border. Products manufactured there and shipped into the U.S., >are allowed to be labelled "made in U.S.A.", therefore, fall under the >free trade agreement. The products are allowed to be labelled this >way because raw materials and components are imported into Mexico >duty-free. Labour is so cheap, it might add only 15% to the value >of the product. The result of this makes it very hard for Canadians >to compete. Mexicans are paid U.S. $8.00 per day. > >Well, I was very much against this. However, in Thursdays (July >31/89) Financial Post page 9, there is an article on this. It >mentions that more and more U.S. AND Canadian companies are doing >this. Everytime a company closes and moves to Mexico, jobs are lost >at home. I've read similar articles over the past year. What kills me is that almost all of them are crying and whining about lost jobs here as though the Apocalypse was upon us. Yeah, there are lost jobs. But there's a lot of Mexican workers being used at rock-bottom wages with factories which questionable safety and pollution standards. For us, it's an inconvenience; for them, it's courting disaster. Those wonderful, socially-conscious journalists of our fine newspapers haven't spent anywhere near as much time on the human/moral/ethical issues involved. Slave-style child labour and family indentures in India, sweat shops in Taiwan, subsistance industry in Mexico. Sometimes I think we never should have come down from the trees... >Another reason that companies are moving is that in Mexico they do not >have to adhere to strict environmental controls. According to the >article, environmentalists say the companies can pollute at will. > >I'm ambivalent about this situation. Any comments? I used to be disgusted; now, I'm just amused. Sad. =============================================================================== __ __ Brian A. Jarvis, / ) ...jtsv16!brian / ) J.T.S. Computer Systems Ltd., /--< __ o __. ____ /--/ Downsview, Ontario /___/_/ (_<_(_/|_/ / <_ / ( o My dog, Goof, still says "Hi!" "Lord, defend me from my friends; I can account for my enemies." - D'Hericault ===============================================================================
dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) (08/08/89)
In article <1989Aug7.192704.26849@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >Before the last federal election free-trade was discussed a lot, as >everyone knows. One of the agruements against, was that the U.S. has >plants (100% owned by U.S. companies) in northern Mexico, along the >U.S. border. Products manufactured there and shipped into the U.S., >are allowed to be labelled "made in U.S.A.", therefore, fall under the >free trade agreement. The products are allowed to be labelled this >way because raw materials and components are imported into Mexico >duty-free. NOT TRUE. The Free Trade Agreement covers ONLY goods that are manufactured IN Canada or the United States. As far as the Free Trade Agreement is concerned, the legal fiction of labeling the goods "Made in USA" doesn't change the fact they were made in Mexico. Even if Mexico and the USA declare the Mexican border zone to be economically a part of the USA, it's still in Mexico, and Canada has NOT agreed to free trade with Mexico. It is annoying to hear Free Trade myths like this repeated. The point that goods manufactured in Mexico are clearly NOT eligible for importation to Canada under the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement was made OVER and OVER in every statement made on the subject last year by calm, rational Free Trade proponents trying to combat nonsense expounded by excitable, irrational Free Trade opponents. How many times does something have to be said? -- David Ferrier | computer: Edmonton, Alberta | a million morons uunet!myrias.COM!dbf | working at the speed of light
mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (08/09/89)
In article <618593503.8039@myrias.com> dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) writes: >In article <1989Aug7.192704.26849@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >>[referring to American owned plants in Mexico] In fact they can also be (and in a few cases are) Canadian owned, but it's much more convenient for American companies. >>Products manufactured there and shipped into the U.S., >>are allowed to be labelled "made in U.S.A.", therefore, fall under the >>free trade agreement. The products are allowed to be labelled this >>way because raw materials and components are imported into Mexico >>duty-free. Actually the Mexican-US duty-free arrangement has nothing directly to do with the FTA, it allows partial manufacture in ANY third country (though West Germany would be a poor choice for reasons you can deduce below), see quote from FTA below. > >NOT TRUE. The Free Trade Agreement covers ONLY goods that are >manufactured IN Canada or the United States. As far as the Free >[...] >It is annoying to hear Free Trade myths like this repeated. The worst myths are the ones in blue and white in the FTA itself, for example Annex 301.2(4) (pp 22-23) reads: Notwithstanding paragraph 3 [which refers to ways things may stop being considered to have been made in USanada], goods shall nonetheless be considered to have been transformed in the territory of a Party and treated as goods originating in the territory of the Party; provided that: a) the value of materials originating in the territory of either Party or both Parties used or consumed in the production of the goods plus the direct cost of assembling the goods in the territory of either Party or both Parties constitute not less than 50 percent of the value of the goods when exported to the territory of the other Party, and b) the goods have not subsequent to assembly undergone processing or further assembly in a third country and they meet the requirements of Article 302 [which refers to transshipment]. What this means to people who don't like reading legalese is that if a product requires 500 labour-hours to build, based on Mexican border labour rates of $1/hr, as long as raw materials (or labour or capital costs) from sources in the USanada cost at least $500, then the product is deemed to be of USanada manufacture, and is fully covered by the FTA. Note that this is NOT just a FTA question, US unions are very unhappy with this situation too. >How many times does something have to be said? Apparently until someone who has actually read the FTA relays what the FTA actually says! I can't believe this sometimes....I know it's the net way, but when discussing factual issues it would be so nice if people actually presented and discussed facts, or identified their opinions as: ``the rabid position I've always adopted is that....'' Disclaimer: I've adopted rabid positions before, but usually on imponderables such as: Is there a God? Does /usr/group/can have a soul? Is Clay Bond a person or a repressed AI experiment? ... You know, the important things in life! ../Dave
dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) (08/10/89)
In article <1989Aug9.023153.4191@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >Annex 301.2(4) (pp 22-23) reads: > Notwithstanding paragraph 3 [which refers to ways things may > stop being considered to have been made in USanada], goods > shall nonetheless be considered to have been transformed in > the territory of a Party and treated as goods originating in > the territory of the Party; provided that: > a) the value of materials originating in the territory of > either Party or both Parties used or consumed in the > production of the goods plus the direct cost of assembling > the goods in the territory of either Party or both Parties > constitute not less than 50 percent of the value of the > goods when exported to the territory of the other Party, and > b) the goods have not subsequent to assembly undergone > processing or further assembly in a third country and they > meet the requirements of Article 302 [which refers to > transshipment]. > >What this means to people who don't like reading legalese is that if a >product requires 500 labour-hours to build, based on Mexican border >labour rates of $1/hr, as long as raw materials (or labour or capital >costs) from sources in the USanada cost at least $500, then the >product is deemed to be of USanada manufacture, and is fully covered >by the FTA. Nonsense. What this really means is clearly explained a few pages earlier, in the explanatory notes accompanying the text of the Agreement: "The rules of interpretation in Annex 301 make clear that goods that are further processed in a third country before being shipped to their final destination would not qualify for area treatment even if they meet the rule of origin. For example cloth woven from U.S. fibres, cut in the United States but sewn into a shirt in Mexico...would not qualify for duty- free entry into Canada under the Agreement. If that's not clear enough, maybe the following excerpt from an April 1988 Saturday Night book review of If You Love This Country will help: "The most spectacularly shoddy argument in the book...is John Ralston Saul's piece on the danger of cheap Mexican imports...the issue that Saul thought he had uniquely discovered had, of course, been thoroughly discussed at the trade negotiations...any product whose final assembly does not occur in either the United States or Canada will not be covered by the deal. Again, how many times need it be said? -- David Ferrier | computer: Edmonton, Alberta | a million morons uunet!myrias.COM!dbf | working at the speed of light
mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (08/10/89)
In article <618720988.19101@myrias.com> dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) writes: >In article <1989Aug9.023153.4191@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (I) wrote: >>Annex 301.2(4) (pp 22-23) reads: >>[....] Sorry, an important point (alluded to, but obfuscated by my worthy opponent in this debate) was missing from this: *Final assembly* *must* take place in the US/Canada. This final assembly must be sufficient to change the class of the goods. In other words, assembling stuffed printed circuit boards into a computer backplane would certainly qualify, but pressing and packaging a shirt would not. This in no way changes the claims made in the original article: $490 worth of U.S. parts, $500 worth of Mexican labour, $10 worth of U.S. labour doing final assembly makes for a U.S. made product that will be duty free coming into Canada under the FTA. >Nonsense. What this really means is clearly explained a few pages earlier, >in the explanatory notes accompanying the text of the Agreement: > > "The rules of interpretation in Annex 301 make clear that goods > that are further processed in a third country before being > shipped to their final destination would not qualify for area > treatment even if they meet the rule of origin. For example Note that explanatory notes are just that: notes added by Canadian trade people to help explain *their interpretation* of the legally binding agreement. An arbitrator (or U.S. judge) might not agree, although one would certainly hope they would. >If that's not clear enough, maybe the following excerpt from an >April 1988 Saturday Night book review of If You Love This Country >will help: > [...]...any product whose final > assembly does not occur in either the United States or > Canada will not be covered by the deal. Quoting from a book review as a definitive interpretation of a legally binding international agreement is laughable!!! >Again, how many times need it be said? Again, until *WE* get it right. ../Dave
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/11/89)
About this Free Trade discussion, I was once against it. That was when I knew nothing of the facts and depended on TV for my info (ha!) After arguing till I was blue in the face with my economics prof, I know support the FTA. In fact when I was in London on July 1, I found this anti-FTA booth in one of the big parks there. I "picked" an argument with them. They were funny; they totally ignored all the facts I presented to counter their rhetoric and emotional arguments. That was fun! -- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada