peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (08/28/85)
Free trade is a hot topic these days. Brad Templeton just sent me a letter
advocating it, and as I started replying, I thought I should post the reply.
*IF* everyone were rational and had perfect knowledge of the things they
were considering buying, one could see that, in the long run, free trade
would increase competition and, presumably, quality and affordability of goods
& services. It would also, if past patterns are any guide, lead to increased
monopolization of the Canadian economy, but some people think that's OK
as long as it leads to reduced costs (whether it does or not is a question
for another time).
But to implement free trade, all at once (say, a week from next Tuesday)
would be a big change in the economy and economies do not react well to
big changes. It's the people that suffer when this happens and so if
free trade is to be implemented, it should be phased-in so as to not cause
massive hardship.
*BUT* would this wonderful "idol in the sky" of free trade (even the
phrase sounds wonderful-- "free" as in "strong and free" and "trade" as
in "I'll trade you an Expos for a Blue Jays") really help Canadian
manufacturing to be more competitive? I think there's a good chance that
it wouldn't.
Consider Japan. They have had high trade barriers for a long time, to
the detriment of the US. Now, the barriers are coming down. But there's
a problem: The Japanese simply do not want to buy US durable goods. They
are used to thinking of them as being of inferior quality. Perhaps there
are other reasons also, but, for whatever reasons, they prefer to buy
Japanese.
Back to Canada and the US. Imagine, it's December 1990, and free trade
exists between Canada and the US. It's time to buy toys in a US
department store-- and the market is open to Canadian toys. And because
one Cdn company worked particularly hard all summer, they have a new toy in
the store, and it's even a bit of a better value than the US-made toys
there. But all the customers want to buy American. At home in Canada,
though, the department stores carry both the US and Canadian toys. With
free trade, the prices are very close, and the children have seen ads for
the US toys on US televion, so they want those toys, not the Canadian ones.
By February, the Canadian company with the better idea is out of business.
But, you say, most people are smarter than children when it comes to these
things. They will buy the best product, for the best price. Not so.
Many businesses buy their PC's from IBM, when clearly superior products
can be bought from others for less. And so often, the buying decision
comes down to an emotional one-- and Americans are quite emotional about
supporting American industry (apart from the fact that it's in their
general best interests to buy American as it creates jobs in the US).
That's 1 reason why Cdn companies run ads in US magazines listing only their US
offices, to give the impression that they are a US company.
Some US companies do know a good deal when they see one, though, and Canada
certainly has good deals on natural resources. It would be a real boon
to the lumber companies to have free trade, for example. But do you want Canada
to be a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water?
"Free trade" just *sounds* so good, so wholesome. But I don't think it
stands up to scrutiny given Canadians' all-too-often perverse desire to
NOT buy Canadian, and the American "Buy US" attitude.
p. rowley, U. Toronto
{allegra, cornell, decvax, ihnp4, linus, utzoo}!utcsri!peterrludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (08/29/85)
In article <1355@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >Consider Japan. They have had high trade barriers for a long time, to >the detriment of the US. Now, the barriers are coming down. But there's >a problem: The Japanese simply do not want to buy US durable goods. They >are used to thinking of them as being of inferior quality. Perhaps there >are other reasons also, but, for whatever reasons, they prefer to buy >Japanese. A small counter-point. Having lived in Japan, I can safely say that the Japanese *love* foreign goods - Scotch whiskey, Italian leather, French suits, Californian wines, etc. These often sell at ridiculously inflated prices (I'm not sure how much is because of taxes, distribution, advertising or profit). Advertising often uses foreigners and foreign-sounding brand names. A lot of American manufactured goods just make no sense in Japan. They drive on the left side of the road. They eat different food. Their houses are designed differently. If you think there's a wide variety of Japanese goods available here, you should sample what's available in Japan! Competition is ferocious there. Of course, there are many tariff and non-tariff barriers to foriegn goods, often to satisfy certain groups whose votes are necessary for the government to stay in power (do I see a similarity with the Canadian textile companies?). I think the Americans are whining because they've been beaten by superior businessmen and manufacturers and because it's convenient to have a scapegoat. The Americans expected the Japanese market to adapt to them and it hasn't happened. It's not easy doing business in Japan and the Americans (and Canadians, too) haven't been willing to put in the effort to learn the market - as the Japanese *did* do over here. The Eastern manufacturers' attitude seems to me like the whining of the Americans. Children have to eventually get out from behind their mothers' skirts and walk alone in the big, bad world. So will Canadians. And we *can* compete - look at the successes of Northern Telecom, for example. -- -- Peter Ludemann ludemann@ubc-cs.uucp (ubc-vision!ubc-cs!ludemann) ludemann@cs.ubc.cdn (ludemann@cs.ubc.cdn@ubc.mailnet) ludemann@ubc.csnet (ludemann%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA)
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (08/29/85)
In article <1355@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) with respect to free trade writes: > It would also, if past patterns are any guide, lead to increased >monopolization of the Canadian economy, but some people think that's OK >as long as it leads to reduced costs (whether it does or not is a question >for another time). I don't really see how this would be the case and I am having a hard time trying to think of examples of this from the past. (Of course maybe this is what we see developing with Petro Can right now but that is hardly a company operating in a free and unrestricted market.) The only monopolies I can think of (telephone and hydro companies and the Post Office) are all government legislated monopolies that if anything restrict free trade, and they certainly didn't come into existence because of it. To suggest that these would stay monopolies without government support is highly questionable and this leads me to believe that it is unlikely that any new monopolies would develop in a free trade environment. >*BUT* would this wonderful "idol in the sky" of free trade ..... >.... really help Canadian manufacturing to be more competitive? I > think there's a good chance that it wouldn't. Perhaps these eastern manufacturing industries wouldn't become more competitive and their past performance would certainly support that conclusion. But this time instead of quotas and government price supports which cost the consumer/taxpayer billions of dollars they would go bankrupt. The whole system of price supports and quotas disrupts all of society's allocation of resources by creating and sustaining an artificial demand for a certain product or service. (In this case certain Canadian manufactured goods.) By freeing up these squandered resources we will be able to reallocate them to produce something that can stand on its own. > >By February, the Canadian company with the better idea is out of business. The problem with this company, of course, is that it had a better idea but never bothered to tell anybody about it. This exhibits the typical eastern Canadian manufacturing industry's attitude of buy something because of were it is made and not because of the product's merits. The current position of the manufacturing industry seems to be if you can't sell it then get the government to restrict imports so that people have no choice but to buy it. >Some US companies do know a good deal when they see one, though, and Canada >certainly has good deals on natural resources. It would be a real boon >to the lumber companies to have free trade, for example. But do you want >Canada to be a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water? It is nice of you to show such a concern for those of us who live in the hinterland which, in general, makes it living that way. I guess it is all right for those of us in the West to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water for Ontario and Quebec but heaven forbid that we should try and do the same in the US. Free trade with the US would naturally be of benefit to the above mentioned industries but other sectors of our economy would also be able to take advantage of the US market. I worked for an electronics company in Vancouver (hard to believe eh) and they sold their products almost exclusively in the US. This company was in an expansionary phase and they seriously considered relocating part of their operations in the US to gain better access to that market, so free trade would surely be to their advantage. Just because some companies might suffer doesn't mean that others wouldn't benefit and that still other firms might come into being just because their product now has a larger market place that makes it existence feasible. To suggest that this wouldn't be the case is to suggest that Canadians aren't innovative and imaginative and that only Americans can come up with new ideas or create new markets. If you truly believe that then maybe we do deserve to be nothing but hewers of wood and drawers of water. A final point in this diatribe is that the only province that opposes some form of free trade with the US is Ontario and as a result this appears to have put quite a damper on things. If it had been the West or the Atlantic provinces that were opposed instead of Ontario you can bet that it would be full speed ahead and damn the rest of the country. Ontario continues to maintain the condescending attitude that what is good for Ontario is good for the rest of the country. Donald Acton PS: Are we all ready for the increase in gasoline prices this weekend?
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (08/29/85)
In article <1355@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >Back to Canada and the US. Imagine, it's December 1990, and free trade >exists between Canada and the US. It's time to buy toys in a US >department store-- and the market is open to Canadian toys. And because >one Cdn company worked particularly hard all summer, they have a new toy in >the store, and it's even a bit of a better value than the US-made toys >there. But all the customers want to buy American. At home in Canada, >though, the department stores carry both the US and Canadian toys. With >free trade, the prices are very close, and the children have seen ads for >the US toys on US television, so they want those toys, not the Canadian ones. >By February, the Canadian company with the better idea is out of business. If the Canadian company in question has just the slightest bit of business savvy it would have inundated *both* American and Canadian television with commercials, and would have placed the said toy in American stores as well as Canadian. This will result in North American children seeing commercials for both Canadian and American toys. Since children are really not too terribly interested in nationalistic goals it would be reasonable to assume that they'll put pressure to bear on their parents for the toy that they think is best (which could mean the toy with the best advertising). In other words, from the point of view of the children, the Canadian and American toys would be competing on an even footing. But what about the parents, you ask? Read on..... >But, you say, most people are smarter than children when it comes to these >things. They will buy the best product, for the best price. Not so. >Many businesses buy their PC's from IBM, when clearly superior products >can be bought from others for less. And so often, the buying decision >comes down to an emotional one-- and Americans are quite emotional about >supporting American industry (apart from the fact that it's in their >general best interests to buy American as it creates jobs in the US). >That's 1 reason why Cdn companies run ads in US magazines listing only their US >offices, to give the impression that they are a US company. IBM's success can be attributed to the fact that a potential customer knows that if he buys an IBM product not only can he count on IBM being around to support that product until Armageddon, but also that he'll get competent, dependable and prompt service. These intangibles tend to be much more important to a business than whether the PC can execute 0.50 MIPS as opposed to just 0.40 MIPS. You know the old saying - no one ever got fired for buying IBM. I do not believe that the "buy American" attitude that is being attributed to our Southern neighbours does indeed exist. If this were so the US would *NOT* have an annual trade deficit of well over $100 billion (US). There's a reason that Congress is getting the jitters and that reason is that Americans are simply not *willingly* "buying American" - remember, we are talking about the consummate capitalists here. It's worth noting that in California one out of every two new cars bought is an import. I think Americans are just like everybody else: if a foreign product is a better buy than the corresponding domestic product ( where "better" could mean less expensive and/or higher quality but may also include some of the other qualities referred to above ) the foreign product will get purchased. In the event of a tie, latent nationalism may be exhibited by the consumer resulting in the domestic product winning out. >Some US companies do know a good deal when they see one, though, and Canada >certainly has good deals on natural resources. It would be a real boon >to the lumber companies to have free trade, for example. But do you want Canada >to be a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water? The question boils down to: do we want to do "everything" in a mediocre fashion or do we want to do fewer things in a superlative manner? It's hard to be proud of a widget industry that's fat, inefficient, and lazy and hence wouldn't last 6 weeks if it wasn't being protected from the real world. Not to mention having to have to put up with inferior products just so that Canadian companies can be spared the "trauma" of rationalizing their production. It is of interest to note that the US telecommunications industry is on record as being opposed to free trade due to their fear of unencumbered Canadian competition. Surely what the Canadian telecommunications industry has achieved on its own volition can also be accomplished by other Canadian industries given the "sink or swim" incentive. >"Free trade" just *sounds* so good, so wholesome. But I don't think it >stands up to scrutiny given Canadians' all-too-often perverse desire to >NOT buy Canadian, and the American "Buy US" attitude. In my opinion the only valid argument against free trade that I have seen to date is that it would probably be necessary to link the Canadian and US dollar together in some way so that neither country could artificially increase exports and decrease imports by the devaluation of their currency. However, since the Bank of Canada already pursues policies whose purpose is to do just this it can be argued that that would represent no real hardship. J.B. Robinson
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (09/01/85)
As pointed out in an earlier posting Ontario is the only province resisting the idea of some form of free trade. In a discussion on this topic yesterday a group of us figured out how to make all the parties happy. What would happen is that Canada would negotiate some sort of a free trade deal with the US and then Ontario could opt out of the agreement. Under such conditions Ontario would have to maintain its protectionist policies at its taxpayers' expense instead of forcing the rest of Canada to pay for them. Such an agreement should keep all sides happy. Donald Acton
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/05/85)
> ... The Americans expected the > Japanese market to adapt to them and it hasn't happened. It's > not easy doing business in Japan ... Among other things, a lot of American companies didn't think it necessary to find senior people who could speak Japanese, or to get technical info and such translated. You will not find the Japanese making that mistake when they sell in North America! -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/17/85)
Throughout the current ongoing public debate about free trade there seems to be a tacit admission that Canada is in poorer econic health than the US. Is this really true though? I've done a bit of travelling in the US and they don't *seem* to have a particularily higher standard of living in general; in fact their cities have slum/poverty areas which seem a whole lot worse than anything you can find in major canadian cities. The other day I heard that the US debt is now approx. $2trillion How does this compare to canada? My impression is that the per capita debt load is far lower in canada. Another point I'd like to make is that one of the reasons we have been having such economic problems in the last 10-15 yrs is precisely because of the large percentage of our exports that are to the US coupled with the unstable US market/economy. It was a long time ago but it seems to me my economics teacher told us that diversity is a much wiser course (don't put all your eggs in one basket as my mom used to say). Why don't we develop our markets & make trade agreements with as many other countries as we can so as to minimize the effect of any single country's economy on our own. Finally, how much political autonomy will we have once 80% or more of our trade is with the US? They will easily be able to control our political policies through economic pressure. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/19/85)
In article <2518@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) claims: >Throughout the current ongoing public debate about free trade >there seems to be a tacit admission that Canada is in poorer >econic health than the US. Is this really true though? I've >done a bit of travelling in the US and they don't *seem* to >have a particularily higher standard of living in general; in >fact their cities have slum/poverty areas which seem a whole >lot worse than anything you can find in major canadian cities. I'd say that the US's economy is in much better shape than Canada's. Consider: unemployment - US: 7.0% CDN: 10.3% budget deficit - US: $200 billion CDN: $36 billion national debt - US: ~$2 trillion CDN: ~$240 billion * taxes - significantly lower in the US In all fairness I'll include: trade deficit - US: >$100 billion CDN: $20 billion *surplus* (for now) Due to the fact that the US is a country of extremes, comparing a Harlem to an East Vancouver makes as much sense as comparing Beverly Hills to The British Properties. I.e. the variation found in the States is undoubtedly higher, but that says nothing about the mean or median. >Another point I'd like to make is that one of the reasons we >have been having such economic problems in the last 10-15 yrs >is precisely because of the large percentage of our exports >that are to the US coupled with the unstable US market/economy. Elaboration on this point would be appreciated. >It was a long time ago but it seems to me my economics teacher >told us that diversity is a much wiser course (don't put all >your eggs in one basket as my mom used to say). Why don't we >develop our markets & make trade agreements with as many other >countries as we can so as to minimize the effect of any single >country's economy on our own. Makes sense to me. However, I don't see why we shouldn't cash in on our proximity to the US *as well* as diversify our markets. >Finally, how much political autonomy will we have once 80% or more >of our trade is with the US? They will easily be able to control >our political policies through economic pressure. Since currently about 77% of our exports go to the US I'd say we'd have exactly the same political autonomy as we have now. In fact, we may end up with more since it would be necessary for the US to actually renege on a formal agreement (usually not a popular move) in order to deny us access to their market, as opposed to the present situation whereby they could "legally" deny us this access if, for example, we refused to outlaw the NDP. J.B. Robinson * I'm not absolutely sure about this figure but I am 99% positive that it is higher than the US's, on a per capita basis.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/19/85)
. . > > I'd say that the US's economy is in much better shape than Canada's. > Consider: > unemployment - US: 7.0% CDN: 10.3% > budget deficit - US: $200 billion CDN: $36 billion > national debt - US: ~$2 trillion CDN: ~$240 billion * > taxes - significantly lower in the US > > In all fairness I'll include: > trade deficit - US: >$100 billion CDN: $20 billion *surplus* (for now) Well I know the two trillion $ figure is in US funds so I assume the rest of your figures for the US are also in US funds. Similarily the canadian figures seem to be in canadian funds. Lets be fair and use the same currency for comparisons. Current exchange rates seem to be about 1.38 Can. per US $ which gives: budget deficit - US $276 billion CDN $36 billion national debt - US ~2.76 trillion CDN ~240 billion trade deficit - US >$138 billion CDN $20 billion surplus inflation - US ???? CDN ~4% taxes? who knows Seems to me that when you adjust these figures for the aprrox. 10:1 population ratio we come off looking just as good or better than the US. According to the news a few nights ago the US deficit doubled during Reagans term(s) as president - you sure can make an economy look good (temporarily) when you *borrow* $1 trillion US dollars to pump into it. How long can they keep inflating the balloon before it collapses? > > Due to the fact that the US is a country of extremes, comparing a > Harlem to an East Vancouver makes as much sense as comparing Beverly > Hills to The British Properties. I.e. the variation found in the States > is undoubtedly higher, but that says nothing about the mean or median. It sures does make sense; it says that our economic and social system does not allow the type and extent of grinding poverty that the US does. This seems to me to be something we ought to be proud of and willing to protect - it sure sounds a lot more civilized to me. > > >Another point I'd like to make is that one of the reasons we > >have been having such economic problems in the last 10-15 yrs > >is precisely because of the large percentage of our exports > >that are to the US coupled with the unstable US market/economy. > > Elaboration on this point would be appreciated. An example for B.C. : the US economy takes nose dive; industries start shutting down; house building slacks off :---> BC economy takes a nose dive since it depends so heavily on exports of mining lumber to the US. Were our export markets more evenly spread around it would not be such a problem. Our economy was doing quite well compared to almost every other country in the world except the US (perhaps I should say currency rather than economy); however since so much of our economy is tied to the US their performance made ours look bad. > > >It was a long time ago but it seems to me my economics teacher > >told us that diversity is a much wiser course (don't put all > >your eggs in one basket as my mom used to say). Why don't we > >develop our markets & make trade agreements with as many other > >countries as we can so as to minimize the effect of any single > >country's economy on our own. > > Makes sense to me. However, I don't see why we shouldn't cash in > on our proximity to the US *as well* as diversify our markets. Because as you point out below we already have a HUGE percentage of our trade with the US- far too much for us to consider ourselves as having a diversified export market. We should reduce our trade with the US and increase it with as many different countries as we can. > >Finally, how much political autonomy will we have once 80% or more > >of our trade is with the US? They will easily be able to control > >our political policies through economic pressure. > > Since currently about 77% of our exports go to the US I'd say we'd > have exactly the same political autonomy as we have now. In fact, Hmmm, perhaps that explains our glorious prime ministers toadying to the US. > we may end up with more since it would be necessary for the US to > actually renege on a formal agreement (usually not a popular move) Check the ABM treaty and the UN nonmilitarization of space treaty to which the US is a signatory. The US also has several agreements/ treaties to not interfere militarily in other countries (they even have a domestic law against it) but it doesn't stop them from, for example, mining nicaraugan ports. > in order to deny us access to their market, as opposed to the > present situation whereby they could "legally" deny us this access > if, for example, we refused to outlaw the NDP. > > J.B. Robinson > > * I'm not absolutely sure about this figure but I am 99% positive > that it is higher than the US's, on a per capita basis. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/24/85)
In article <2530@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > Well I know the two trillion $ figure is in US funds so I assume > the rest of your figures for the US are also in US funds. Similarily > the canadian figures seem to be in canadian funds. Lets be fair > and use the same currency for comparisons. Current exchange rates > seem to be about 1.38 Can. per US $ which gives: > >budget deficit - US $276 billion CDN $36 billion >national debt - US ~2.76 trillion CDN ~240 billion >trade deficit - US >$138 billion CDN $20 billion surplus >inflation - US ???? CDN ~4% >taxes? who knows > >Seems to me that when you adjust these figures for the approx.. 10:1 >population ratio we come off looking just as good or better than the US. Actually, what is really important is the ratio of deficit (or debt) to GNP. Since our GNP is approximately one tenth the US's (1983 - US: $3304.8 billion (US) vs CDN: $315.4 billion (US) ) comparisons based on a per capita basis are (flukily) meaningful (assuming pop. ratios of 10:1). So getting back to the above figures we note that our deficit is 30% greater than the US's, on a per capita basis. Not good I'd say. Our debt is 14% lower, on a per capita basis. Not bad, but since we're accumulating debt faster than the US this is only temporary. The US's trade deficit is actually ~$150 billion (US) or $207 billion (CDN). We're blowing them away on this one. However, if the Big 5 (remember when it was Big 7 - did we get booted out when I wasn't looking?) have their way the US dollar will be going down and so will their trade deficit and *our* trade *surplus*. (This is in reference to the meeting that took place over the weekend where the US, West Germany, France, G.B., and Japan mutually agreed to work towards a devaluation of the US dollar) Today's Globe and Wail's statistical index reported inflation rates of 4.0% and 3.6% for Canada and the US, resp. No big difference. Taxes get a bit more complicated and if I have the time I'll dig out my old US tax returns to demonstrate the lighter tax load borne by US citizens. Let's now consider deficits as a percentage of budgets. The US budget is ~ $1 trillion (US). Hence their deficit is 20% of their total budget. On the other hand, Canada's deficit accounts for 35% of its budget. Thus, in order to achieve a balanced budget the US would have to increase revenues by 25% whereas Canada would have to increase same by *50%*. Alternatively, the US could decrease expenditures by 20% and Canada by 35% (or some combination of the two could be employed). At any rate, I think it's obvious which country has the easier job. (I imagine that if Brian announced a tax hike of 50% he'd be kissing off any chances his party has of forming the Gov't in '88) Mr. Chapman fails to comment on the unemployment figures I posted. Since this is one of the two components of the "misery" index and taking into account that our unemployment rate is ***47%*** HIGHER than the US's ( 10.3 vs 7.0 ) I fail to see how one can omit any consideration of these numbers when comparing the two economies. It would also help to remember that when RR was elected the US's unemployment rate was very close to Canada's. They took a radical new course and we continued with the status quo; now they've got 7.0% and we've got 10.3% - coincidence? I don't think so. I think RR's economic policies are directly responsible for the US's drop in unemployment. While I'm at it, I might also point out that 49 of the 50 states are required by their constitutions to have balanced budgets. I don't think you'll find any of the provinces in this happy situation. In fact, if I remember correctly provincial deficits total about $8 billion. >According to the news a few nights ago the US deficit doubled during >Reagans term(s) as president - you sure can make an economy look >good (temporarily) when you *borrow* $1 trillion US dollars to pump >into it. How long can they keep inflating the balloon before it >collapses? Since our deficit has been consistently higher that the US's, on a per capita basis, the logic used above would dictate that out economy should look better than the American's. One only has to consider the unemployment rate to see that this is not the case. The obvious reason for this apparent anomaly is that Reagan's deficit is financing a 25% tax cut whereas our deficit is financing (often counter-productive) government programs. The question I'd like to ask is how long can *we* continue inflating the balloon? (And ours, unlike the US's, doesn't even get any bigger) >> Due to the fact that the US is a country of extremes, comparing a >> Harlem to an East Vancouver makes as much sense as comparing Beverly >> Hills to The British Properties. I.e. the variation found in the States >> is undoubtedly higher, but that says nothing about the mean or median. > >It sures does make sense; it says that our economic and social system does >not allow the type and extent of grinding poverty that the US does. >This seems to me to be something we ought to be proud of and willing >to protect - it sure sounds a lot more civilized to me. Again nothing is mentioned about what percentage of people live in this type of poverty. Is it 10% or is it 0.1%? Until I see figures I will maintain that it is pointless to make such informal comparisons. [Note that approximately the same percentage of Americans live below the poverty line as do Canadians - about 13-15%] One should also take into account the law of diminishing returns. Given that a government (the taxpayers) has only a finite amount of resources (money), should it use a large portion of those resources to eliminate the last vestiges of grinding poverty, or should it take that money and "invest" it in numerous other programs which will yield far greater "dividends" due to the said law? The latter seems to make more sense to me given our "imperfect" world. [BTW: TV programs such as Hill Street Blues and Dynasty do nothing towards promoting an accurate image of the average US city. Unfortunately, these images are the ones that most quickly come to mind when thinking about the US. ] J.B. Robinson
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/24/85)
In article <2530@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >An example for B.C. : the US economy takes nose dive; industries >start shutting down; house building slacks off :---> BC economy >takes a nose dive since it depends so heavily on exports of mining >lumber to the US. > >Were our export markets more evenly spread around it would not be >such a problem. Our economy was doing quite well compared to almost >every other country in the world except the US (perhaps I should >say currency rather than economy); however since so much of our >economy is tied to the US their performance made ours look bad. This assumes that an economic downturn in the US won't affect the rest of the world. Given the sheer size of the US economy I find this hard to believe. I think it's merely a case of "pay me now, or pay me later". >Because as you point out below we already have a HUGE percentage >of our trade with the US- far too much for us to consider ourselves >as having a diversified export market. We should reduce our trade >with the US and increase it with as many different countries as we >can. As I understand it Trudeau and Co. tried to develop this "third option" and failed. I believe it has something to do with the fact that many (most?) of the countries that we'd like to do business with already belong to trading blocs (e.g. EEC) and they don't take too kindly to member countries making special deals with nations outside of the bloc. The other reason is that it's probably cheaper and easier to sell those pesky widgets to a country inside the bloc since, presumably, no tariffs are involved and, therefore, no real negotiations are necessary. The notion of *deliberately* reducing our trade with the US seems rather strange to me. Certainly we should attempt to promote trade with other countries. But, we should do this by increasing our exports, not merely redirecting them. This would result (if it could be accomplished) in growth in our export industries *and* reduction in the percentage of exports that go to the US. I also suspect that redirection of trade would not be without costs - lower profits for export industries and higher prices for imported goods (since if trading widgets with country X was more profitable than trading with the US it would already be a fact). This would result in a lower standard of living and in the long run probably cost jobs. >> >Finally, how much political autonomy will we have once 80% or more >> >of our trade is with the US? They will easily be able to control >> >our political policies through economic pressure. >> >> Since currently about 77% of our exports go to the US I'd say we'd >> have exactly the same political autonomy as we have now. In fact, > >Hmmm, perhaps that explains our glorious prime ministers toadying >to the US. Our fearless leader has also toadied(?) to every other SIG in Canada that has shown just the slightest amount of organization. Remember, (it seems like eons now) when it was PC policy to sell Air Canada and Petrocan? How about the strong stance he took on the de-indexation of pensions? And let's not forget how he bravely charged ahead with the "debate" on universality. Then, there's the $100 million 10 year interest-free loan to Domtar - a company that had profits of $96 million last year, but since it was located in Quebec...... well you get the drift. So it's not like his US toadying is anything special. The man does it for any and everyone. >> we may end up with more since it would be necessary for the US to >> actually renege on a formal agreement (usually not a popular move) > >Check the ABM treaty and the UN nonmilitarization of space treaty >to which the US is a signatory. The US also has several agreements/ >treaties to not interfere militarily in other countries (they even >have a domestic law against it) but it doesn't stop them from, for >example, mining nicaraugan ports. The US has not as yet violated the ABM treat and opponents of Star Wars are more than happy that the treaty exists since it makes things just that much more difficult for Ron and the boys. True, the US violates treaties, and for this reason adequate safeguards would have to be devised. However, I am reasonably confident that something suitable can be arranged, and I am positive that we won't know until we try. J.B. Robinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/25/85)
> In article <2530@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > Well I know the two trillion $ figure is in US funds so I assume > > the rest of your figures for the US are also in US funds. Similarily > > the canadian figures seem to be in canadian funds. Lets be fair > > and use the same currency for comparisons. Current exchange rates > > seem to be about 1.38 Can. per US $ which gives: > > > >budget deficit - US $276 billion CDN $36 billion > >national debt - US ~2.76 trillion CDN ~240 billion > >trade deficit - US >$138 billion CDN $20 billion surplus > >inflation - US ???? CDN ~4% > >taxes? who knows > > > >Seems to me that when you adjust these figures for the approx.. 10:1 > >population ratio we come off looking just as good or better than the US. > > Actually, what is really important is the ratio of deficit (or debt) to > GNP. Since our GNP is approximately one tenth the US's (1983 - US: $3304.8 > billion (US) vs CDN: $315.4 billion (US) ) comparisons based on a per > capita basis are (flukily) meaningful (assuming pop. ratios of 10:1). > > So getting back to the above figures we note that our deficit is 30% > greater than the US's, on a per capita basis. Not good I'd say. > > Our debt is 14% lower, on a per capita basis. Not bad, but since we're > accumulating debt faster than the US this is only temporary. Is that true? I don't have figures handy but I know the US senate is lambasting reagan for doubling the national debt in the last (approx.) 4 years - may be wrong but it seems to me that our debt took a lot longer to double. > > The US's trade deficit is actually ~$150 billion (US) or $207 billion (CDN). > We're blowing them away on this one. However, if the Big 5 (remember when it > was Big 7 - did we get booted out when I wasn't looking?) have their way > the US dollar will be going down and so will their trade deficit and *our* > trade *surplus*. (This is in reference to the meeting that took place > over the weekend where the US, West Germany, France, G.B., and Japan mutually > agreed to work towards a devaluation of the US dollar) You may be right but the analyses given in the papers out here are along the lines that (although we should be insulted that our "good friends" with whom we have this "special" relationship ignored us) this will acutally be a good thing for Canada. It makes the european currencies relatively stronger against ours thus opening up greater market opportunities for Canada. It doesn't seem to have had much impact on our dollar relative to the american buck (although it has been only three days) so our trading position with the US should be relatively unchanged. > > Today's Globe and Wail's statistical index reported inflation rates of 4.0% > and 3.6% for Canada and the US, resp. No big difference. > > Taxes get a bit more complicated and if I have the time I'll dig out > my old US tax returns to demonstrate the lighter tax load borne by > US citizens. Comparison of a single individuals tax rates won't tell us much but a list of the marginal rates, available deductions and distribution of income in the states might be helpful. Of course in order to fairly assess the burden of tax one would also have to consider what is recieved in return by society in general. > > Let's now consider deficits as a percentage of budgets. The US budget > is ~ $1 trillion (US). Hence their deficit is 20% of their total > budget. On the other hand, Canada's deficit accounts for 35% of its > budget. Thus, in order to achieve a balanced budget the US would > have to increase revenues by 25% whereas Canada would have to > increase same by *50%*. Alternatively, the US could decrease expenditures > by 20% and Canada by 35% (or some combination of the two could be > employed). At any rate, I think it's obvious which country has the > easier job. (I imagine that if Brian announced a tax hike of 50% he'd > be kissing off any chances his party has of forming the Gov't in '88) On the other hand he could have avoided giving to billion to the oil industry and maybe fulfilled his election promise to place a minimum tax on the rich. There are a lot of alternatives other than simple across the board tax increase or spending reductions. He wants to sell crown corporations which are making money - it seems to me that liquidating capital assets in order to reduce debt load is generally seen as a poor idea in business. > > Mr. Chapman fails to comment on the unemployment figures I posted. > Since this is one of the two components of the "misery" index and > taking into account that our unemployment rate is ***47%*** HIGHER than the > US's ( 10.3 vs 7.0 ) I fail to see how one can omit any consideration > of these numbers when comparing the two economies. It would also help > to remember that when RR was elected the US's unemployment rate was very > close to Canada's. They took a radical new course and we continued with Well yes it is true that our prime minister just hasn't tried to fulfill "jobs jobs jobs!" > the status quo; now they've got 7.0% and we've got 10.3% - coincidence? > I don't think so. I think RR's economic policies are directly responsible > for the US's drop in unemployment. Well one big reason for our unemployment situation is precisely that we are too dependent on the US for trade, so when their economy took a dip it meant a lot of unemployment in Canada. This is one very good reason why we should diversify our trade rather than intensify our reliance on the US. > > While I'm at it, I might also point out that 49 of the 50 states are > required by their constitutions to have balanced budgets. I don't think > you'll find any of the provinces in this happy situation. In fact, if I > remember correctly provincial deficits total about $8 billion. > > >According to the news a few nights ago the US deficit doubled during > >Reagans term(s) as president - you sure can make an economy look > >good (temporarily) when you *borrow* $1 trillion US dollars to pump > >into it. How long can they keep inflating the balloon before it > >collapses? > > Since our deficit has been consistently higher that the US's, on a per > capita basis, the logic used above would dictate that out economy should Logic would dictate looking at how the debt was accumulated. Reagan pumped a huge amount of money into an economic system over a short period of time; we ran up our debt over a significantly longer period of time. We got long term support of the economy they got a huge impulse. It remains to be seen which will prove to be the superior. > look better than the American's. One only has to consider the unemployment > rate to see that this is not the case. The obvious reason for this > apparent anomaly is that Reagan's deficit is financing a 25% tax cut > whereas our deficit is financing (often counter-productive) government > programs. > > The question I'd like to ask is how long can *we* continue inflating > the balloon? (And ours, unlike the US's, doesn't even get any bigger) Well, since we are doing it relatively slowly, probably for some time to come. How often can the US double it's debt? > > >> Due to the fact that the US is a country of extremes, comparing a > >> Harlem to an East Vancouver makes as much sense as comparing Beverly > >> Hills to The British Properties. I.e. the variation found in the States > >> is undoubtedly higher, but that says nothing about the mean or median. > > > >It sures does make sense; it says that our economic and social system does > >not allow the type and extent of grinding poverty that the US does. > >This seems to me to be something we ought to be proud of and willing > >to protect - it sure sounds a lot more civilized to me. > > Again nothing is mentioned about what percentage of people live in > this type of poverty. Is it 10% or is it 0.1%? Until I see figures > I will maintain that it is pointless to make such informal comparisons. Well I can tell you from travelling in major US and Canadian cities that it sure looks like there are a lot more poor people (as a percentage) in the states than in canada. > [Note that approximately the same percentage of Americans live below > the poverty line as do Canadians - about 13-15%] I've heard a lot higher figures (for both countries); where do you get your's from? > > One should also take into account the law of diminishing returns. > Given that a government (the taxpayers) has only a finite amount of > resources (money), should it use a large portion of those resources to > eliminate the last vestiges of grinding poverty, or should it take that > money and "invest" it in numerous other programs which will yield far > greater "dividends" due to the said law? The latter seems to make more > sense to me given our "imperfect" world. Well I'd certainly like to see that applied in some cases: e.g. instead of cutting the science council's budget in half (by $5million) and spending $75million on military uniforms it would have made a lot more sense to leave the council alone and spend "only" $70 million on uniforms. > > [BTW: TV programs such as Hill Street Blues and Dynasty do nothing > towards promoting an accurate image of the average US city. > Unfortunately, these images are the ones that most quickly > come to mind when thinking about the US. ] I know. Thats why I watch the CBC, the Canadian made programs generally give a much more realistic picture of things. > > > J.B. Robinson -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
thomson@uthub.UUCP (Brian Thomson) (09/26/85)
John Chapman (jchapman@watcgl) asserts: >Of course in order to >fairly assess the burden of tax one would also have to consider what >is recieved in return by society in general. This is the utter nonsense. 'received by the taxpayer', yes, but certainly not 'received by society in general'. -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!uthub!thomson
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/29/85)
Jim, you mentioned the strikingly higher unemployment figure in
Canada and the significance of that is being missed by a lot of people
in favour of free trade. The proponents of free trade forget a lot
of unhappy facts about industry and in partcular multinationals and
big governments.
The US government and State governments subsidize industry in the
US. Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't been looking (deliberately?).
When jobs are at stake, the Fed. Gov. can and often does give tax
relief to industries and sometimes actual funding. Canada, from what
I've heard does *less* of this. Some of the best places to locate
industry right now are the US Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama).
Get in touch with various Chambers of Commerce and State industrial
commissions and find out why. This sort of card stacking works. Many
industries *are* locating south of the boarder *specifically* due to
the insentives. You can look at border import duties as a similar
card stacking attempt on a national scale. I see no moral difference.
The current outlook is that the US wants to dictate our Patent
and Copyright and other Industrial and Intellectual property laws.
That's the real price of free trade. Loss of our independence. No
doubt. Will we gain jobs? Maybe in the short term. Remember two
other things tend to happen. The US people feel it is their duty to
buy American when the chips are down. Currently, this may have
some effect on our sales. If you don't believe me take a trip through
the US and talk to people. Listen to what they say to each other.
My father spends the winter in Florida and his American freinds
berate *him* (a Canadian!) for not buying US products! And believe
me Canada is *not* buying local in their eyes. A few years ago
there was an uproar because people found out that trucks by the big
3 were often Canadian products and they wanted these trucks to be
specifically Advertised as Foreign products--to be avoided.
When the crunch comes, multinationals are influenced to
maintain US employment at the cost of foreign employment. This
can be done by quotas. There are cases where it is done by dumping
US product on Canadian subsidiaries. Again, there is also tax
siphoning. These are hard to prove and in the case of Tax siphoning
illegal (I think dumping is illegal in these cases, but I'm not
sure--I've never checked).
Personally, I think we can have "freer" trade, but caution is
wise.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomurarobinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/01/85)
In article <819@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > > The US government and State governments subsidize industry in the >US. Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't been looking (deliberately?). >When jobs are at stake, the Fed. Gov. can and often does give tax >relief to industries and sometimes actual funding. Canada, from what >I've heard does *less* of this. Some of the best places to locate >industry right now are the US Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama). >Get in touch with various Chambers of Commerce and State industrial >commissions and find out why. This sort of card stacking works. Many >industries *are* locating south of the boarder *specifically* due to >the insentives. You can look at border import duties as a similar >card stacking attempt on a national scale. I see no moral difference. I was under the impression that companies (both US and foreign) were relocating to the sun-belt due to the existence of right-to-work legislation in those states. I know of at least one major *Canadian* company that intends to expand its sun-belt plant(s) at the expense of its Canadian plants for just this reason. It already has access to the Canadian market, and probably figures that it can kill two birds with one stone by using the aforementioned strategy - i.e. not only will it benefit from looser (more realistic) labour laws, but also it will demonstrate that it is a good "corporate citizen" by employing Americans thus helping to dull the newly found protectionist tendencies of the US. >............................ The US people feel it is their duty to >buy American when the chips are down. Currently, this may have >some effect on our sales. If you don't believe me take a trip through >the US and talk to people. Listen to what they say to each other. >My father spends the winter in Florida and his American friends >berate *him* (a Canadian!) for not buying US products! I am yet to hear anyone reconcile the "buy American" tenet (myth) attributed to US citizens with the fact that the US has a projected trade deficit of $150 billion (US). Doesn't sound like them Yankees are buying American to me. [And let's not forget California (pop. 25 million) where one out of every two new cars bought is an import.] Note that we have a trade *surplus* (~$20 billion) thus implying that Canadians "buy Canadian" (even if it is because we're coerced into doing so). J.B. Robinson
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (10/01/85)
In article <31@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <819@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> >> The US government and State governments subsidize industry in the >>US. Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't been looking (deliberately?). >>When jobs are at stake, the Fed. Gov. can and often does give tax >>relief to industries and sometimes actual funding. Canada, from what >>I've heard does *less* of this. Some of the best places to locate >>industry right now are the US Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama). >>Get in touch with various Chambers of Commerce and State industrial >>commissions and find out why. This sort of card stacking works. Many >>industries *are* locating south of the boarder *specifically* due to >>the insentives. You can look at border import duties as a similar >>card stacking attempt on a national scale. I see no moral difference. > >I was under the impression that companies (both US and foreign) were >relocating to the sun-belt due to the existence of right-to-work >legislation in those states. I know of at least one major *Canadian* >company that intends to expand its sun-belt plant(s) at the expense of >its Canadian plants for just this reason. It already has access to the >Canadian market, and probably figures that it can kill two birds with one >stone by using the aforementioned strategy - i.e. not only will it benefit >from looser (more realistic) labour laws, but also it will demonstrate >that it is a good "corporate citizen" by employing Americans thus helping >to dull the newly found protectionist tendencies of the US. Good point. I know of companies (plural) who are going there for the reasons I've stated. It may be that facts are therefore inconclusive. It's also hard to get frank and open discussion from people on this point so all "facts" are probably tainted. Let's just say that the insentives exist. > >>............................ The US people feel it is their duty to >>buy American when the chips are down. Currently, this may have >>some effect on our sales. If you don't believe me take a trip through >>the US and talk to people. Listen to what they say to each other. >>My father spends the winter in Florida and his American friends >>berate *him* (a Canadian!) for not buying US products! > >I am yet to hear anyone reconcile the "buy American" tenet (myth) attributed >to US citizens with the fact that the US has a projected trade deficit >of $150 billion (US). Doesn't sound like them Yankees are buying American >to me. [And let's not forget California (pop. 25 million) where one out of >every two new cars bought is an import.] Note that we have a trade *surplus* >(~$20 billion) thus implying that Canadians "buy Canadian" (even if it is >because we're coerced into doing so). > >J.B. Robinson Also a good point. However, that trade deficit is, as far as I under- stand it a fairly new aberation in their economic history (I'd like to see a 100 year analysis on the topic and haven't). Also, it also makes it more likely that they have now increased their incentive to press for "hidden" trade discrimination, something like Japan. I will accept that this point may be relatively empty. It's another where the facts are at best weak and possibly the stats prove your point. None of this addresses the other problems I've stated. The manipulation of our economy via influence of business conduct of multinationals and the desire to influence our legal structure. You know, I frankly find the US concern with our Copyright and Patent laws surprising. There really isn't all that much difference. The basic fundamentals both originate in the Statute of Monopolies and the Statute of Anne in England, and have been modified to an extent by the Berne Conventions and other Treaties. Some of the details differ, but nothing irreconcilable at this stage. Now, if the Canadian government were to do what *I* would like them to do, then we'd have a substantially different set of laws, but I think they'd be much better than what currently exists in either country. But a lot of people would disagree with me on this (mainly Patent lawyers I should think). -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/02/85)
. . > I am yet to hear anyone reconcile the "buy American" tenet (myth) attributed > to US citizens with the fact that the US has a projected trade deficit > of $150 billion (US). Doesn't sound like them Yankees are buying American > to me. [And let's not forget California (pop. 25 million) where one out of > every two new cars bought is an import.] Note that we have a trade *surplus* > (~$20 billion) thus implying that Canadians "buy Canadian" (even if it is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Or that we sell an awful lot of stuff outside of canada. > because we're coerced into doing so). > > J.B. Robinson
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/08/85)
>John Chapman (jchapman@watcgl) asserts: > >>Of course in order to >>fairly assess the burden of tax one would also have to consider what >>is recieved in return by society in general. > >This is the utter nonsense. 'received by the taxpayer', yes, but >certainly not 'received by society in general'. >-- > Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto It for sure isn't utter nonsense. It may be a little subtle for some folks (see net.politics.theory for examples), but "society" is more than a disconnected set of taxpayers. There are different possibilities of benefit for society and for taxpayers (even including those who pay zero tax among the set of "taxpayers"). Society includes organization, and the health of society usually, but not necessarily, reflects in the welfare of its members (much as the health of a biological body reflects usually but not necessarily in the welfare of its constituent parts). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/16/85)
In article <1702@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > It may be a little subtle for some >folks (see net.politics.theory for examples), but "society" is more than >a disconnected set of taxpayers. There are different possibilities >of benefit for society and for taxpayers (even including those who >pay zero tax among the set of "taxpayers"). Society includes organization, >and the health of society usually, but not necessarily, reflects in >the welfare of its members (much as the health of a biological body >reflects usually but not necessarily in the welfare of its constituent >parts). Perhaps it's too subtle for me, too. Either the "good of society" can be defined as some kind of aggregate measure of the good of society's members, or it can be defined as some other thing which may sometimes conflict with the good of society's members. You seem to favour the latter. I don't understand how you can define the "good of society" except in terms of the good of its members. -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/19/85)
>> > It may be a little subtle for some >> >folks (see net.politics.theory for examples), but "society" is more than >> >a disconnected set of taxpayers. ... * ... Society includes organization, * and the health of society usually, but not necessarily, reflects in * the welfare of its members... [Martin Taylor] (The '*'s mark some text that John Chapman deleted in his reply.) >> >> Either the "good of society" can be defined as some kind of aggregate >> measure of the good of society's members, or it can be defined as some >> other thing which may sometimes conflict with the good of society's >> members. You seem to favour the latter. I don't understand how you >> can define the "good of society" except in terms of the good of its >> members. [David Canzi] > > ... when you make some kind of sacrifice >(e.g. paying more in taxes than you recieve *directly* back in goods >or services) you are not necessarily losing "good" or really making >a sacrifice. The difference between what you give and what you >recieve directly back may be used to promote certain features of >life/society in general - you benefit if society's wellbeing is >increased because you live in that society. [John Chapman] If one defines a measure of the "good of society" as an aid in government decision making, it will be possible to improve this "good of society" function in ways that are detrimental to some of society's members. This is not what concerned me about Martin's article. The sentence I reinserted was the main thing I was reacting to in Martin Taylor's article. It's vague and *could* mean that he feels that the good of society can be pursued in ways that are not good for any of society's members. I would like to be reassured that he doesn't really believe that... -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta) (02/23/87)
> > The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic > state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the > majority of voters oppose A, but some minority wants A, then A shouldn't > happen. This is the supposed basis of a democracy. > Your definition of democracy is one that is unfortunately becoming quite common. It is, however, I think quite incorrect. What you describe is a tyranny of the majority. If tomorrow 60% of Canadians should decide that that it was their wish to have all members of certain organization, or group, exterminated, that does not mean that such an event should occur. In a democracy it is important that the views of minorities be represented, and that when decisions are made there should be some compromise between the desires of the majority and the desires of the minority. Of course, this does not mean that any given minority should have veto power, merely that in a true democracy the views of differing groups should try to be reconciled. I think it is a tad simplistic to assume that just because there are more people who want A than want B, it gives the A people the RIGHT to impose their desires on all. I think the basic principle of a democracy is that each individual should be allowed to act freely, inasmuch as his/her behaviour does not prevent others from exercising a similar right. A tyranny of the majority does not satisfy this basic requirement. > > Try not to become a man >UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try >Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. > Albert Einstein Terry Coatta Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!coatta -- Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the blink again Marvin the Paranoid Android
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/24/87)
> ... I think the > basic principle of a democracy is that each individual should be > allowed to act freely, inasmuch as his/her behaviour does not > prevent others from exercising a similar right... You are confusing "democracy" with "freedom"; the two are unrelated concepts. You have described freedom. Democracy is the method of resolving disputes by majority vote (or by officials elected by majority vote, etc.). Given the tendency of pure democracies to shaft minorities, nowadays it is popular to place some restraints on democratic decisions, such as constitutional limits on what the majority is allowed to do. For a perspective on how effective this tactic is in extremis, consider that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held the military draft to be constitutional, despite the US Constitution's absolute and unconditional ban on "involuntary servitude". -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/26/87)
>From: coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta) >Your definition of democracy is one that is unfortunately becoming >quite common. It is, however, I think quite incorrect. What you >describe is a tyranny of the majority. I don't know the source and can't recall the quote exactly, but it goes something like this : "Democracy sucks, but it's better than the alternatives." Democracy is quite literally defined as a tyranny of the majority, unpleasant as that obviously is for some to face. >If tomorrow 60% of Canadians >should decide that that it was their wish to have all members of >certain organization, or group, exterminated, that does not mean that >such an event should occur. In a democracy it is important that >the views of minorities be represented, and that when decisions >are made there should be some compromise between the desires of the >majority and the desires of the minority. Of course, this does not >mean that any given minority should have veto power, merely that in >a true democracy the views of differing groups should try to be >reconciled. I agree completely, and stated the equivalent summary in the posting which you extract from. This doesn't resolve the question however that in situations where reconciliation is not possible, something must be done. A democracy presumes that in this situation majority rules; simplistic true, but probably preferable to other alternatives. >I think it is a tad simplistic to assume that just >because there are more people who want A than want B, it gives >the A people the RIGHT to impose their desires on all. I think the >basic principle of a democracy is that each individual should be >allowed to act freely, inasmuch as his/her behaviour does not >prevent others from exercising a similar right. A tyranny of the >majority does not satisfy this basic requirement. You have confused two issues here. Firstly democracy is defined as : a form of government for the people, by the will of the majority of the people, a state having this form of government. (from the first dictionary I grabbed.) To paraphrase : one person, one vote, majority rules; plain, and simple. That is the basic and only principle of democracy. This has obvious disadvantages and is suboptimal since, as someone else pointed out, this means that in a democracy minorities can be abused and "dumb" decisions made by the majority, as was the case with Nazism, a cause supported by the majority of the population at least initially . The saving grace of democracy is that the majority usually don't make dumb decisions. They usually choose to make rules similar to the freedom rule you propose, and other altruistic rules which support minority rights in some ways. This is why democracy survives. That is why Canada survives. That is why Canada is respected as a democracy; we have collectively chosen to make and enforce rules that other people see as desirable, chief among these is our decision to protect minority rights whenever possible. We could have made different rules, but we didn't, and now minorities look to Canada as a haven when they are abused in their own country. The rules that a democractic state chooses to make and enforce however, are entirely separate from the fact that the state operates as a democracy. There is no theoretical reason why a state that operates as a dictatorship or under socialism or under communism could not make and enforce a freedom law roughly similar to the one you proposed. And you have only to talk to your local economics professor who habitually campaigns and runs under the NDP flag (every campus has one right :*)), to here why a state that runs under the guise of socialism would be better at implementing and enforcing your freedom law. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/26/87)
> > You have confused two issues here. Firstly democracy is defined as : > a form of government for the people, by the will of the majority of the > people, a state having this form of government. (from the first > dictionary I grabbed.) > > To paraphrase : one person, one vote, majority rules; plain, and simple Just an aside but by this definition, which I don't particularly dispute, we do not live in a democracy. It is quite possible, both federally and provincially, for party A to get more of the popular vote than party B and yet have fewer seats. BC is almost an example of this - more than once the NDP has had a popular vote within a few percent of the Socred party but the Socreds end up with an overwhelming majority of seats. Also while it is one person one vote within a riding the votes in some ridings count for "more" since it has a small number of people but still has a seat. The worst case of this is a small riding in BC which has 10% of the population of the larger ridings and yet has the same say in running the goverment as the 10 times larger ridings. > > UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try > Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. > Albert Einstein *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
ansari@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Aali Ansari) (03/17/88)
the best line i heard/read : on the back on a 'TTC' streetcar seat (the new one) FREE TRADE Trade Mulroney Free Canada aali