jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/15/85)
I have found the original source of the figures regarding the import tariffs on shoes and the costs thereof. These figures originally came from the canadian shoe manufacturers association. They also say tariffs account for less than $.01 per person per day (in Canada). Given the cost and the number of jobs in question (16000) and that I would pay at least some of this money in increased taxes (if the tariff was removed) I don't find this particularily significant compared to a lot of other issues that are available to worry about (that's only my opinion though).
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (10/17/85)
In article <2650@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > They also say tariffs account for less than $.01 per person > per day (in Canada). When expressed this way the amount of money in question seems trivial. Why don't you make the number even smaller by computing it on a per hour or second basis? Nevertheless, you cannot get around the fact this works out to 25,000,000 people paying $0.01 for 365 days which is $91,250,000 for, according to you, 16,000 jobs. On tariffs alone we are subsidizing these jobs to the tune of 5,703 dollars a pop. Since there are also *quotas* on shoes the cost of keeping these jobs is even higher. To me the problem is that we are subsidizing one industry at the expense of others by distorting the importance of that industry. Ninety-one million dollars is a lot of money (except maybe to socialists) and there are other more worthwhile and productive things that we could purchase rather than a crutch for the shoe industry. However, the shoe industry is just one of many industries that soak the Canadian public by convincing the government of the need for tariffs or quotas. Any one of these subsidized industries may not cost us very much but it all adds up and in the end it costs us a lot. Donald Acton
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/18/85)
> In article <2650@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > They also say tariffs account for less than $.01 per person > > per day (in Canada). > > When expressed this way the amount of money in question seems trivial. > Why don't you make the number even smaller by computing it on a per hour ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > or second basis? Nevertheless, you cannot get around the fact this works out Because this is how the shoe manufactures stated it. > to 25,000,000 people paying $0.01 for 365 days which is $91,250,000 for, > according to you, 16,000 jobs. On tariffs alone we are subsidizing these A minor point but, again, this is according to the manufacturers not me. My point is that out of all the money "removed" from me (people like the Fraser Institute estimate half my/your yearly income) by the government $0.01/day is totally insignificant - or put another way: there are a lot more important things to gripe about. > jobs to the tune of 5,703 dollars a pop. Since there are also *quotas* on A *much* lower figure than was originally quoted, by the way. > shoes the cost of keeping these jobs is even higher. > > To me the problem is that we are subsidizing one industry at the expense > of others by distorting the importance of that industry. Ninety-one > million dollars is a lot of money (except maybe to socialists) and ^^^^^^^^^^ or people who believe in reagonomics (doubling the national debt in 5 years). You might like to believe that overspending is the hallmark of socialism but the facts just don't bear this out. Everyone likes to make a big stink about the federal deficit but after 40 years of conservative rule in Ontario the provincial debt is about $19 billion. The only socialist government in BC's history left office with a surplus - care to state how big a debt the Social Credit party has run up? By the way a large part of the Ontario (and other provinces) debt is from borrowing from our federal pension plan. The federal government now feels it can't ever retrieve this money and this is why they are talking about such high increases in cpp contributions. > there are other more worthwhile and productive things that we could > purchase rather than a crutch for the shoe industry. However, the Quite possibly. I have no particular axe to grind with respect to the shoe industry - it is however a mistake to just assume that all tariffs are bad or that they total to a significant amount. > shoe industry is just one of many industries that soak the Canadian > public by convincing the government of the need for tariffs or quotas. > Any one of these subsidized industries may not cost us very much but > it all adds up and in the end it costs us a lot. > > Donald Acton
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/20/85)
In article <2663@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> there are other more worthwhile and productive things that we could >> purchase rather than a crutch for the shoe industry. However, the > > Quite possibly. I have no particular axe to grind with respect to >the shoe industry - it is however a mistake to just assume that all >tariffs are bad or that they total to a significant amount. > >> shoe industry is just one of many industries that soak the Canadian >> public by convincing the government of the need for tariffs or quotas. >> Any one of these subsidized industries may not cost us very much but >> it all adds up and in the end it costs us a lot. >> >> Donald Acton This may become a passe argument even as we read/write. I hear a major shoe manufacturer in Montreal went under lately. There may not be a shoe 'industry' in Canada to protect. Maybe that's all for the better. Anybody here know much about the shoe industry (I mean how shoes are made, not these employment figures)? Is it or can it be automated? Who works in the factories, immigrants, 'unemployables'? Also, I noticed a custom shoemaker a while back. Does anybody know whether that's viable? I'm asking out of curiosity, although I expect some people would make an issue of the "who works in the factories" question. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (10/21/85)
In article <2663@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP in the continuing debate on the cost of shoe tariffs writes: > My point is that out of all the money "removed" from me (people like > the Fraser Institute estimate half my/your yearly income) by the > government $0.01/day is totally insignificant - or put another way: there > are a lot more important things to gripe about. > I disagree, it is the government nickel and diming us to death that results in about half our income going to taxes. (If I remember the Fraser Institute's calculations correctly it is only British Columbians and Albertans that are taxed less than 50%, everyone else is lucky enough to be taxed more than that.) Every little tax, quota, and tariff no matter how insignificant it may seem contributes to us turning over about 50% of our incomes to governments which then proceed to mismanage it. Since I am fundamentally opposed to quotas and tariffs any amount is too much but that doesn't mean we can't gripe about the other things too. > ............ The only socialist >government in BC's history left office with a surplus - care to state >how big a debt the Social Credit party has run up? John, you are just plain *wrong*! The NDP were removed from office in the late fall of 1975. According to Statistics Canada report 68-207 which covers that time period, the deficit for the fiscal year ended March 31st 1976 was 460.5 million dollars. Since the Socreds had only been in power a couple of months by that time, the deficit is a result of the spending patterns and targets put in place by the NDP. Since you asked, I will tell you that the budget speech for 85-86 predicts a deficit of 890 million dollars which would bring the total BC provincial debt to 2.3 billion dollars. The following is a summary of budget surpluses or deficits for the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario as of March 31st of the year indicated. 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 (projected) BC 16.8 -460.5 161.2 204.1 592.8 -20.7 560 ONT -730.0 -1439.0 -1464.0 -1211.0 -685.0 -833.0 -616 All figures are in millions of dollars and taken from the same report cited above. (The actual title of the report, which is issued yearly, is "Provincial Government Finances: Revenues and Expenditures".) I was unable to find any Statistics Canada Reports that reported anything after 1982. I don't judge a political party by its name but by its actions. Consequently I hardly consider the Ontario PCs to be very conservative. They pursued policies like equal pay for work of equal value, purchased a 25% interest in SUNCOR, were against free trade, instituted rent controls and ran up huge deficits. Unfortunately, the federal tories seem to be blundering down the same path and are bowing to every special interest group that gets within ear shot of Brian. (By the way with all the SUNCOR and PetroCan/GULF service stations that I saw when I was back there a couple of weeks ago where can you people buy gasoline from non-government sources? I might have to push my crate more than a mile if I ever run out of gas in Ontario.) Donald Acton
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/21/85)
. . > the better. Anybody here know much about the shoe industry (I mean > how shoes are made, not these employment figures)? Is it or can it > be automated? Who works in the factories, immigrants, 'unemployables'? I don't know a lot but I was watching a CBC program the other night that had some shots of Bata factories in South Africa. At least some of it is highly automated - soles and other pieces of the shoe were stamped out by a machine, I imagine that putting the pieces together would require human effort. I watched a guy (with a booth in a mall) making shoes once - they were women's high heeled shoes with a plastic front and back - the women got to choose what ornaments etc would be on the shoes, how the straps would go etc. - and he made them on the spot for about $15 in <5 min custom fitted to the foot (these were pretty cheap shoes I think, more of a novelty item). > > Also, I noticed a custom shoemaker a while back. Does anybody > know whether that's viable? I'm asking out of curiosity, although > I expect some people would make an issue of the "who works in the > factories" question. Well not to make an issue out of it particularily.... but one of the other comments during the CBC program (which may be of interest to those worried about putting foreigners out of work) was that the *highest* paid factory worker (all blacks) gets $40/wk which is below even the South African governments poverty line for blacks. It's easy to understand how the shoes from those factories might be cheaper. > > Cheers! -- Jim O. > > -- > 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) (10/21/85)
. . > > ............ The only socialist > >government in BC's history left office with a surplus - care to state > >how big a debt the Social Credit party has run up? > > John, you are just plain *wrong*! The NDP were removed from office in > the late fall of 1975. According to Statistics Canada report 68-207 which > covers that time period, the deficit for the fiscal year ended March 31st > 1976 was 460.5 million dollars. Since the Socreds had only been in power Well I won't take issue with Stats. Can. figures here. I do remember the controversy at the time though and as I recall the Socreds were claiming the NDP had left a debt of around $150million and the NDP claimed they left a surplus of $40million - it seemed to depend on which bookkeeping method used and whether startup costs of ICBC (later to become a profit making operation) were to be included. > you that the budget speech for 85-86 predicts a deficit of 890 million dollars > which would bring the total BC provincial debt to 2.3 billion dollars. Hmmm, a 64% increase in the debt in one year. > > The following is a summary of budget surpluses or deficits for the > provinces of British Columbia and Ontario as of March 31st of the > year indicated. > > 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 (projected) > BC 16.8 -460.5 161.2 204.1 592.8 -20.7 560 > ONT -730.0 -1439.0 -1464.0 -1211.0 -685.0 -833.0 -616 > > All figures are in millions of dollars and taken from the same report cited > above. (The actual title of the report, which is issued yearly, is "Provincial > Government Finances: Revenues and Expenditures".) I was unable to find > any Statistics Canada Reports that reported anything after 1982. > > I don't judge a political party by its name but by its actions. Consequently > I hardly consider the Ontario PCs to be very conservative. They pursued > policies like equal pay for work of equal value, purchased a 25% interest in When? I certainly don't see EPWOEV in place anywhere around here.... > SUNCOR, were against free trade, instituted rent controls and ran up huge > deficits. Unfortunately, the federal tories seem to be blundering down the . . > Donald Acton By no stretch of the imagination can either of those two governments be considered "socialist" - which was/is my point; your comment regarding socialists and spending was both innaccurrate and unwarranted.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/22/85)
In article <2673@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >Well not to make an issue out of it particularily.... but one of the >other comments during the CBC program (which may be of interest to >those worried about putting foreigners out of work) was that the >*highest* paid factory worker (all blacks) gets $40/wk which is >below even the South African governments poverty line for blacks. >It's easy to understand how the shoes from those factories might be >cheaper. So, would they be better off not working and getting $0/wk? -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/22/85)
In article <2663@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP writes: >> ........................................................ Ninety-one >> million dollars is a lot of money (except maybe to socialists) and > ^^^^^^^^^^ >or people who believe in reagonomics (doubling the national debt in 5 years). Or people who believe in Liberal economics. (Though any good Liberal would be the first to admit that he has no underlying philosophy ) Consider that in 1980 the net debt, which is in effect the accumulated budgetary deficit since confederation, was $68.6 billion. So if we were as fiscally irresponsible as the Americans then I guess we'd now be looking at a debt of about $135 billion. Alas, we are not. In his May budget speech, Michael Wilson made a reference to the public debt, which he defined as the sum of all past deficits. He said that the debt was approaching $200 billion. Thus, it would appear that we ***tripled*** our debt during the same five year period. It seems that it is hardly necessary to look south of the border for gross economic mismanagement - we've got more than enough right here. [The doubling of the US's debt can be mostly attributed to a 25% reduction in federal income tax rates and increased military spending. What, if anything, have *we* got to show for the tripling of our debt?] It is too bad that everyone seems too preoccupied with Ronnie's deficit to take the time to realize that *we* are in serious trouble. In fact, the only sure thing is that when we start taking our medicine a large segment of society is not going to like its taste. Thank you, Pierre Trudeau, for leaving this country in a state of economic shambles. [BTW, guess which party PET belonged to before joining the Liberals] >You might like to believe that overspending is the hallmark of socialism >but the facts just don't bear this out. At the beginning of the federal election campaign John Turner was talking about cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. Brian Mulroney claimed that a Conservative victory would automagically revive the economy, thus bringing down the deficit; all without cutting services or raising taxes. (My bogonmeter hit the red line on that one). However, when we come to Ed Broadment we find someone who not only readily admitted that he would be increasing the deficit by about $2 billion in order to finance new programs and enhance existing ones, but also claimed that said deficit was no big deal. If that's how Ed talks during a campaign, then one can only begin to imagine the immensity of the torrents of fresh red ink that would have been unleashed had he made it to 24 Sussex Dr. Perhaps he should take a few leaves out of New Zealand PM David Lange's book: one socialist who seems to realize that before you can redistribute wealth you've got to create it. >........................................Everyone likes to make a big >stink about the federal deficit but after 40 years of conservative rule >in Ontario the provincial debt is about $19 billion. If it calls itself a duck but feeds at the trough, rolls in the mud, and oinks like a pig, then a duck it ain't. [Know what Ontario Hydro's debt is?? $22 billion] J.B. Robinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/22/85)
> >It's easy to understand how the shoes from those factories might be > >cheaper. > > So, would they be better off not working and getting $0/wk? > -- > David Canzi > > There are too many thick books about thin subjects. yes
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/23/85)
In article <2675@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP writes: >> I don't judge a political party by its name but by its actions. Consequently >> I hardly consider the Ontario PCs to be very conservative. They pursued >> policies like equal pay for work of equal value, purchased a 25% interest in > >When? I certainly don't see EPWOEV in place anywhere around here.... I seem to remember Frank Miller promising to implement EPWOEV in the public sector in his throne speech. He also promised to set up a task force to look into the issues involved in implementing it in the private sector. **REAL** economic conservatives believe that the free market is the place for wage levels to be decided. Obviously, Frank is not such an animal. J.B. Robinson
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/23/85)
>> >Well not to make an issue out of it particularily.... but one of the >> >other comments during the CBC program (which may be of interest to >> >those worried about putting foreigners out of work) was that the >> >*highest* paid factory worker (all blacks) gets $40/wk which is >> >below even the South African governments poverty line for blacks. >> >It's easy to understand how the shoes from those factories might be >> >cheaper. [John Chapman] >> >> So, would they be better off not working and getting $0/wk? [David Canzi] > >yes [John Chapman] Fine. Let us agree, then, that South African blacks would be better off with no food than they are now with inadequate food. (This has something to do with the *intangible* benefits of starvation, no doubt.) Given this, it is, of course, immediately obvious that we must restrict imports from *all* shoe-producing countries. (The reasoning that leads to this conclusion is so simple that I'll let you explain it.) -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/23/85)
. . > At the beginning of the federal election campaign John Turner was talking > about cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. Brian Mulroney claimed > that a Conservative victory would automagically revive the economy, > thus bringing down the deficit; all without cutting services or raising > taxes. (My bogonmeter hit the red line on that one). However, when we > come to Ed Broadment we find someone who not only readily admitted > that he would be increasing the deficit by about $2 billion in order > to finance new programs and enhance existing ones, but also claimed > that said deficit was no big deal. If that's how Ed talks during a > campaign, then one can only begin to imagine the immensity of the > torrents of fresh red ink that would have been unleashed had he made A more charitable assumption (and one just as likely to be true) is that he is more honest/realistic about his plans than the others. . . > >........................................Everyone likes to make a big > >stink about the federal deficit but after 40 years of conservative rule > >in Ontario the provincial debt is about $19 billion. > > If it calls itself a duck but feeds at the trough, rolls in the mud, and > oinks like a pig, then a duck it ain't. In that case I'd be interested to know what you consider, more-or-less, a conservative. > [Know what Ontario Hydro's debt is?? $22 billion] > > J.B. Robinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/23/85)
> In article <2675@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP writes: > >> I don't judge a political party by its name but by its actions. Consequently > >> I hardly consider the Ontario PCs to be very conservative. They pursued > >> policies like equal pay for work of equal value, purchased a 25% interest in > > > >When? I certainly don't see EPWOEV in place anywhere around here.... > > I seem to remember Frank Miller promising to implement EPWOEV in the > public sector in his throne speech. He also promised to set up a task > force to look into the issues involved in implementing it in the private > sector. **REAL** economic conservatives believe that the free market is > the place for wage levels to be decided. Obviously, Frank is not such > an animal. I don't think one election promise by a candidate (particularily after the party has been in power for a few decades already and done nothing on the topic in question) can be construed as following a policy of EPWOEV. > > J.B. Robinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/23/85)
> >> >Well not to make an issue out of it particularily.... but one of the . > >> >*highest* paid factory worker (all blacks) gets $40/wk which is > >> >below even the South African governments poverty line for blacks. > >> >It's easy to understand how the shoes from those factories might be > >> >cheaper. [John Chapman] > >> > >> So, would they be better off not working and getting $0/wk? [David Canzi] > > > >yes [John Chapman] > > Fine. Let us agree, then, that South African blacks would be better > off with no food than they are now with inadequate food. (This has > something to do with the *intangible* benefits of starvation, no doubt.) The arguments that they are better off (as they are now) are basically the same as those used to justify continued slavery in the american south (they need masters or they'll starve; they wouldn't know what to do with freedom; at least as slaves they get fed every day....... and on and on) It seems to me that you were the one expressing concern about the workers of other countries - all I'm saying is that you should be careful . Those people would probably be a lot better off if you sent a letter to Bata telling them that you would like to buy their shoes but are morally unable to do so due to the conditions/renumeration of their South African employees (rather than just buying the shoes because they are cheap and justifying it by saying it gives them *some* income - or were your previous comments just crocodile tears....?). > Given this, it is, of course, immediately obvious that we must restrict > imports from *all* shoe-producing countries. (The reasoning that leads > to this conclusion is so simple that I'll let you explain it.) Well it's certainly not my statement (nor one I would make) so I'll let try and explain your logic..... > -- > David Canzi > > There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/24/85)
In article <2693@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> >> >...the >> >> >*highest* paid factory worker (all blacks) gets $40/wk which is >> >> >below even the South African governments poverty line for blacks. >> >> >It's easy to understand how the shoes from those factories might be >> >> >cheaper. [John Chapman] >> >> >> >> So, would they be better off not working and getting $0/wk? [David Canzi] > >The arguments that they are better off (as they are now) are basically the >same as those used to justify continued slavery in the american south >(they need masters or they'll starve; they wouldn't know what to do with >freedom; at least as slaves they get fed every day....... and on and on) Which appears to be the same argument used to justify import quotas: they (Canadian workers) need jobs (ie. masters) or else they'll be poor (sorta like starving). >It seems to me that you were the one expressing concern about the workers >of other countries... I've noticed, from a number of your postings, that you are a very moral person. When you asked "what happens to the workers who would lose their jobs if quotas were removed?", the intent, I think, was to portray opposition to quotas as heartless and/or cruel. I asked in return "what happened to the people who lost their jobs when the quotas were implemented?" The intent was to show that people opposing quotas don't have a monopoly on heartlessness and cruelty. Two important points: Firstly, you can't morally justify throwing foreign workers out of their jobs to provide Canadians with jobs unless you feel that Canadians are somehow more deserving. Secondly, quotas don't create jobs so much as they redistribute them. >> Given this, it is, of course, immediately obvious that we must restrict >> imports from *all* shoe-producing countries. (The reasoning that leads >> to this conclusion is so simple that I'll let you explain it.) > >Well it's certainly not my statement (nor one I would make) so I'll let >try and explain your logic..... Well, since your assertion that South African blacks would be better off unemployed instead of exploited was part of a pro-quota argument, I figured it must somehow be supporting your position. Forgive me if I misread you. -- David Canzi "Permission is not freedom."
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/24/85)
In article <2692@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >I don't think one election promise by a candidate (particularily after >the party has been in power for a few decades already and done nothing >on the topic in question) can be construed as following a policy of EPWOEV. I sure hope that that also applies to David Peterson and his promises to implement EPWOEV in *both* the public and private sectors. J.B. Robinson