jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (01/01/70)
. . > > The Canada West Foundation has done similar calculations and has taken > the total amount of import duties and used that as a basis for determining the > costs associated with protectionism. (That is, the costs attributable to > other artificial barriers like quotas weren't even considered.) They I feel compelled to point out that at least *some* (I'd hate to guess but it seems like more than a few) of the dutiable items/classes are not made in Canada and therefore the duty is not protectionism but merely revenue for the government. In some sense this is true of all duties since they are not forwarded to industry. Should duty no longer be collected the government would certainly recoup that revenue somehow - i.e. out of our pockets. At least this way it has the side effect of saving/creating some jobs which can not always (or even frequently) be said of tax revenue. BTW do the figures you are quoting include FST or ar they strictly duty? > determined that import duties alone cost every man, women and child in this > country $136.62 (1983). If translated into manufacturing jobs this > amounts to a subsidy of $2,028.58 for each job. This is considerably Again, they would take the money in taxes and would we see any more jobs? > less than the $83,000 cited above, however it considers all manufacturing > not just a specific industry and it doesn't include the extra costs > attributed to quotas and the like. > > The Foundation did further calculations to see where in the country these > benefits accrued. Low and behold if they didn't discover that the four > Western provinces and the Maritimes lost $544 million. This is how much > more those regions paid in duties then they received in subsidized > manufacturing jobs. Ontario and Quebec on the other hand gained $544 million. > Ontario only has 35.4% of Canada's population yet it has 50.4% of the > manufacturing jobs while Quebec with 26.2% has 28% of the manufacturing jobs. It's even worse than that (at least it used to be); 50% of Canadian industry is/was located within 30 miles of Toronto. > If free trade were to come about the short term loser would certainly > be Ontario while the rest of country would get to enjoy reduced prices on > consumer goods. However, I firmly believe that the manufacturing industries > could survive the blow to their egos and eventually become competitive. > (In a separate article this past weekend it was pointed out that the duty > on clothing is 22%.) > > One of the arguments often put forward in favour of tariffs is that it > protects immature industries or allows old ones to retool to become > competitive. The problem with this is that these industries never seem to > get big enough or strong enough to come out from under the protectionist > umbrella. For example the shoe and textile industries have advocated > and received protectionist tariffs for over 15 years now. They always argue > that they need just a few more years to get new equipment and become > competitive. Once they get the tariffs they seem to forget all about > modernizing and continue on in their old ways. If industries knew that they > would never be able to have any tariffs imposed then we wouldn't be > in the situation we are now. > I would percieve this not as a reason to end tariffs but as a reason to change the way they are granted/applied/administered. > > Donald Acton -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (01/01/70)
> In article <2550@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are > >they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to > >< $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? How much > >is actually spent on clothes in total (i.e. is $500 million 50%, 10%, > >1% or 0.1% of the total?). > > The above questions are rather irrelevant. The fact of the matter is Ahhhh! This clears up a lot of your previous postings; now I can understand how you reason. There's no point in knowing what region figures apply to - they are correct for some place so we may as well use them for us too eh? No point in knowing how much of total cost these duties account for eh? 10% is as bad as 0.1% right? > that (low-tech) jobs are being subsidized to the tune of $83,000 per. > If that isn't a gross misallocation of resources then I don't know what is. > > J.B. Robinson > > The opinions expressed above may concur exactly with those of Ed > Broadbent. Then again, they may not. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (09/16/85)
OK, you free trade buffs, here's another one for you. What's wrong with this argument (if anything)? 1. Japan has had high import duties for a long time. 2. Japan's industry is highly competitive in the world market. 3. Canada's duties have been lower than Japan's for a long time. 4. Canada's competitiveness is less than Japan's in the world market. Therefore, we should RAISE duties so our industry can become competitive like Japan's. p. rowley, U. Toronto
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (09/16/85)
In article <1394@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >OK, you free trade buffs, here's another one for you. What's wrong >with this argument (if anything)? > >1. Japan has had high import duties for a long time. >2. Japan's industry is highly competitive in the world market. >3. Canada's duties have been lower than Japan's for a long time. >4. Canada's competitiveness is less than Japan's in the world market. > >Therefore, we should RAISE duties so our industry can become >competitive like Japan's. You left out several other variables. Particularly, salaries. Japan's cost of production is so much lower than ours that their import duties probably don't make any difference overall. Even if Japan were to completely eliminate their duties, I don't think that it would make any difference. Particularly, since the Japanese seem to think that Japanese products are of higher quality. Therefore, we should either: 1) LOWER the salaries for our workers so that our industry can be more price-competitive. 2) RAISE the salaries of Japanese workers so that their industry can be less price-competitive. I don't think either is particularly likely. Though, elimination of import duties may put pressure on (1). -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/16/85)
In article <1394@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >OK, you free trade buffs, here's another one for you. What's wrong >with this argument (if anything)? > >1. Japan has had high import duties for a long time. >2. Japan's industry is highly competitive in the world market. >3. Canada's duties have been lower than Japan's for a long time. >4. Canada's competitiveness is less than Japan's in the world market. > >Therefore, we should RAISE duties so our industry can become >competitive like Japan's. > I'm not satisfied that you have drawn any degree of causality between 1 & 2, (above), or 3 & 4 for that matter. Might one also say that; 1. Japanese people tend to have slanted eyes. 2. Japan's industry is highly competitive... 3. Canadians, (for the most part), have "rounder" eyes. 4. Canada's competitiveness is less... Therefore if Canadians all get plastic surgery to make their eyes slanted our industry will be better.(:-)> With due apologies to any Japanese, no offence is intended by the above false reasoning! The point is that correlation between two phenomena does not necessarily imply causality. There has to be more to it. For my two cents worth, I think higher trade barriers at this time would be bad for us. We want to take as much advantage of the inflated American dollar as possible, bearing in mind that if our dollar "strengthens" and becomes more valuable then the shoe will be on the other foot, and American goods will be cheaper. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/16/85)
> ... Particularly, since the Japanese seem > to think that Japanese products are of higher quality. Don't forget that this is not just a Japanese prejudice; often it is a verifiable fact. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (09/16/85)
> = me (peterr@utcsri) + = Chris Lewis (clewis@mnetor) / = Fred Williams (fred@mnetor) >OK, you free trade buffs, here's another one for you. What's wrong >with this argument (if anything)? > >1. Japan has had high import duties for a long time. >2. Japan's industry is highly competitive in the world market. >3. Canada's duties have been lower than Japan's for a long time. >4. Canada's competitiveness is less than Japan's in the world market. > >Therefore, we should RAISE duties so our industry can become >competitive like Japan's. +You left out several other variables. Particularly, salaries. +Japan's cost of production is so much lower than ours that their +import duties probably don't make any difference overall. Finally! We admit that duties and competiveness are not the only variables around. I agree, of course. My original posting was simplistic on purpose; designed to lure the ever-eager net predators into a trap (heh heh). + +Therefore, we should ... + 1) LOWER the salaries for our workers so that our industry + can be more price-competitive. +... elimination of +import duties may put pressure on (1). But, sigh, there they go again thinking that anything economically good can be caused by lowering duties. There are other variables, remember? In fact, before this can be proposed, let's find out why the duties in Japan don't cause wage inflation. Maybe we can do what they do. /The point is that correlation between /two phenomena does not necessarily imply causality. There has to /be more to it. For my two cents worth, I think higher trade /barriers at this time would be bad for us. We want to take as much /advantage of the inflated American dollar as possible, bearing in /mind that if our dollar "strengthens" and becomes more valuable /then the shoe will be on the other foot, and American goods will be /cheaper. Yes, of course there is more to it. A lot more. Free trade is NOT a simple issue. If the government wants to bring in legislation that will increase competitiveness yet at the same time provide for people who will be displaced (both for their benefit and mine-- I do not want parts of Canada to be ravaged by unemployment and the resulting crime and riots that have hit Britain, for example) and will bring in effective anti-combines legislation and will, at the same time, maintain levels of product and service safety and cultural and political sovereignty, then they will have my support. I'm not arguing for the status quo. On the contary, I believe real changes have to be made in the relationship between employer and employee if any real progress is to be made in terms of productivity. But I believe it is far more effective to make reasoned changes in existing structures rather than to stress them (e.g. with free trade), see which break, and throw those away. It is just too expensive (especially in human terms) to do that on a national scale. p. rowley, U. Toronto
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/17/85)
In article <1395@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >Finally! We admit that duties and competiveness are not the only variables >around. I agree, of course. My original posting was simplistic on purpose; >designed to lure the ever-eager net predators into a trap (heh heh). Your original posting was more than simplistic, it was wrong, and we told you so. I for one agree that there is more involved in competitiveness than duties and taxation! But free trade will allow natural market forces to play a greater role in governing the degree of competitiveness. If we then choose to price ourselves out of the market, then we'll get what we deserve. Like Chris said; >+ >+Therefore, we should ... >+ 1) LOWER the salaries for our workers so that our industry >+ can be more price-competitive. > >But, sigh, there they go again thinking that anything economically good >can be caused by lowering duties. There are other variables, remember? >In fact, before this can be proposed, let's find out why the duties in >Japan don't cause wage inflation. Maybe we can do what they do. > The fact that there are other variables does not mean that no economic good can come from lowering duties. It is a step in the right direction. No one is claiming that this will solve the worlds problems. >... If the government wants to bring in legislation that will increase >competitiveness yet at the same time provide for people who will be displaced It is highly unlikely that any such legislation can be drafted. It is in a way like asking for something for nothing, a free lunch, and this to the best of my knowledge does not exist. Check out the laws of thermodynamics. >...I do not want parts of Canada to be >ravaged by unemployment and the resulting crime and riots that have hit >Britain, for example) Your ignoring causality again. Is this another of your simplistic traps?(:-)> >... But I believe it is far >more effective to make reasoned changes in existing structures rather than >to stress them (e.g. with free trade), see which break, and throw those away. >It is just too expensive (especially in human terms) to do that on a national >scale. Hmmm, are you building up to suggest something like communism? Exactly what "reasoned changes" do you see? I'd like to know, really. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis) (09/17/85)
In article <2186@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1394@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >>1. Japan has had high import duties for a long time. >>2. Japan's industry is highly competitive in the world market. >>3. Canada's duties have been lower than Japan's for a long time. >>4. Canada's competitiveness is less than Japan's in the world market. >>Therefore, we should RAISE duties so our industry can become >>competitive like Japan's. > >You left out several other variables. Particularly, salaries. > >Therefore, we should either: > 1) LOWER the salaries for our workers so that our industry > can be more price-competitive. > 2) RAISE the salaries of Japanese workers so that their industry > can be less price-competitive. >I don't think either is particularly likely. Though, elimination of >import duties may put pressure on (1). >Chris Lewis, >UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis >BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321 Don't forget the advantage that the Japanese have accrued through having a sparklig new industrial machine because their old one was destroyed in WW II. I suggest that we raze Canada's cities to the ground (odd saying isn't it...) and start our industries from scratch. David Brake English Majors are People Too. -- -- Reid Ellis "Roads? Where we're going, who needs _roads_?" {If!you!want!to!know!where!I!live,!look!at!the!header..}
peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (09/17/85)
OK no more simplistic statements (at least not intentionally). It appears, in any case, that there will be no "free" trade (according to the Americans), but a good chance of "freer" trade. Good. That will make it more likely that each of the loosening of trade restrictions will be examined for their impact. Apart from showing that the free trade situation is not simple, the obviously flawed example from Japan was meant to point out a counterexample to the accepted wisdom that free trade and world competitiveness go hand-in- hand. Japan developed very efficient and quality conscious industry in a sheltered trade environment with, incidentally, major guidance from the government. My point is simple. Free trade is not enough. Without other measures, it may well be detrimental. With other measures, it could possibly be the stick needed to get Canadian business and labour to try out the other measures. OK, what other measures? Basically, incentives to greater productivity via employer/employee cooperation, rewarding initiative within corporations, profit-sharing, power-sharing, and so on. Company- sponsored day-care so more of the population can work. In essence, not just the threat of free trade, but positive rewards for higher productivity. Calling free trade a threat makes me sound rather demagogic. But that is exactly what the free trade advocates think of it as when they say it will increase competitiveness. That's code for "do your job cheaper or better or both, otherwise someone else will take it from you". Think of your job; what would increase your productivity more, a threat like that (with no other changes in your company), or better management of the company? I know many people who *complain* of not getting things done because of management-- they would *like* to be more productive. But simply threatening them to become more productive won't work now, will it? Fred Williams suggest I want something for nothing if I want a freer trade arrangement to provide for displaced employees. Not at all; I am willing to pay for it with taxes. Retraining will surely cost far less in the long run than welfare, anyway. Or do you advocate quiet elimination of all those workers considered "obsolete"? p. rowley, U. Toronto
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/18/85)
> ...with, incidentally, major guidance from the [Japanese] government.
Guidance that the companies were free to ignore, remember. Like when
MITI told Honda that they should stick to making motorcycles and not try
to break into the car business.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryjimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/18/85)
In article <5966@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... Particularly, since the Japanese seem >> to think that Japanese products are of higher quality. > >Don't forget that this is not just a Japanese prejudice; often it is >a verifiable fact. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry The highest overall quality cameras and lenses are made in Canada (Wilde-Leitz in Midland, Ontario). I think that they still make Volvos on the East coast don't they? At any rate, it's well know in the auto industry that the Canadian plants produce almost uniformly better products than their U.S. counterparts. Chrysler knew it, Ford knew it, GM knew it. This is why so many new products are launched with Canadia production lines. From What I hear, QNX is better than MS-DOS (QNX is mainly Canadian) and NAPLPS really is *excellent*. There seem to be more good PC-clone circuit boards of high quality made in Canada for OEM's than in the US. I hear that the British still make just about the best Stereo equipment, but there's nothing really special about it. You can get ultra-high quality stereo equipment made in Canada if you check around. The Bionic Beaver (CemComp?) is likewise a very nice computer from what I've seen and heard (haven't tried it) and probably because it comes with QNX standard. It's selling fairly well in the US. Too bad the Canadian Schools don't seem to be buying it. Northern Telicom and Mitel are well known to most of us. Gandalf is fairly respected. AES word processors sold very well world-wide (Lanier in the US) as does Micom (through Philips). Both have been at times the best rated word processing systems available by various experts. We produce some pretty good stuff here. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/18/85)
In article <1397@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >Fred Williams suggest I want something for nothing if I want a freer trade >arrangement to provide for displaced employees. Not at all; I am willing >to pay for it with taxes. Retraining will surely cost far less in the >long run than welfare, anyway. Or do you advocate quiet elimination of >all those workers considered "obsolete"? > Actually, I was thinking of companies and managers being eliminated. The workers can always get hired by whoever takes over, of coarse this is not always true I'll admit. I rather like what you're saying now though, and I'm definitely supportive of productivity incentives, making employees partners in the business, and such things. I don't know about power sharing, this could be interpreted as administration by committee --- this would be creeping death for a company, economically speaking. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/18/85)
So, do all the opponents of free trade like the way they live in Japan? Is this why you keep bringing up Japanese society as an argument against free trade? Have you ever considered what it would be like if Japanese goods came into North America duty free? There is a reason there was fear in Henry Ford's eyes. But seriously, folks, we have heard some of you attack free trade, let's see you analyse what happens when a duty is put on and why you think it's good *for the country* as you like to put it. Let's slap a duty on shoes, for example. First result is some Canadian shoe makers get nice and rich, and in the short term there are more jobs in the shoe industry. And this means more votes from shoe makers. Second thing that happens is that *every* Canadian pays a few dollars more for shoes. How much in total? Well the extra paid is at least equal to the gain obtained by the shoe makers. So a large sum of money is taken from one sector (the rest of Canada) and given to a proven non-productive sector. Of course, when a large sum of money is taken away, it means jobs are lost. In fact, at least as many as were saved in the shoe industry! Of course, this is spread over the whole country, so nobody blames their lack of a job on the "extra" job that was propped up in the shoe industry, so no votes are lost. Now I see why duties are such a good idea!! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/19/85)
> So, do all the opponents of free trade like the way they live in Japan? > Is this why you keep bringing up Japanese society as an argument against > free trade? > > Have you ever considered what it would be like if Japanese goods came into > North America duty free? There is a reason there was fear in Henry Ford's > eyes. > > But seriously, folks, we have heard some of you attack free trade, let's > see you analyse what happens when a duty is put on and why you think it's > good *for the country* as you like to put it. Although I don't like excessive reliance on tariffs it does mean that infant industries have a chance to grow before (theoretically) they have to compete against much larger firms in other countries. > > Let's slap a duty on shoes, for example. First result is some Canadian > shoe makers get nice and rich, and in the short term there are more jobs > in the shoe industry. And this means more votes from shoe makers. > > Second thing that happens is that *every* Canadian pays a few dollars more > for shoes. How much in total? Well the extra paid is at least equal to > the gain obtained by the shoe makers. So a large sum of money is taken > from one sector (the rest of Canada) and given to a proven non-productive > sector. Of course, when a large sum of money is taken away, it means jobs > are lost. In fact, at least as many as were saved in the shoe industry! > Not only that but one of the reasons the shoes cost more is that you can't get away with paying someone $0.50/hr to make shoes in canada. So the people who actually make the shoes get paid a reasonable amount and so have some spending power which creates more jobs, etc. etc. Supporting industry this way does not remove money from the economy however an excess of imports does remove money from the economy. As seen recently the US is quite concerned with their massive trade deficit. > Of course, this is spread over the whole country, so nobody blames their > lack of a job on the "extra" job that was propped up in the shoe industry, > so no votes are lost. > > > Now I see why duties are such a good idea!! > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 One thing I would like to see is a complete lifting of duties and taxes on the import of semiconductors from Japan; with cheap enough parts we might have some chance of competing in manufacturing systems. Let's also not forget that duties are a source of revenue to the government and if you eliminate them the government will get them out of your pocket somehow; with duties at least a dual purpose is accomplished (jobs+revenue). -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/19/85)
In article <420@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Let's slap a duty on shoes, for example. First result is some Canadian >shoe makers get nice and rich, and in the short term there are more jobs >in the shoe industry. And this means more votes from shoe makers. > >Second thing that happens is that *every* Canadian pays a few dollars more >for shoes. How much in total? Well the extra paid is at least equal to >the gain obtained by the shoe makers. So a large sum of money is taken >from one sector (the rest of Canada) and given to a proven non-productive >sector. Of course, when a large sum of money is taken away, it means jobs >are lost. In fact, at least as many as were saved in the shoe industry! There is something I don't understand in this line of reasoning: if people start buying canadian shoes, then why the manufacturing of shoes be considered "non-productive"? If the industry is making something that people are buying, how could it be "non-productive"? Shoes are pretty useful things, what is your definition of "production", the production of useless goods? >Of course, this is spread over the whole country, so nobody blames their >lack of a job on the "extra" job that was propped up in the shoe industry, >so no votes are lost. Why would the job of shoe-maker be "extra" and "propped up" if there is a real demand for shoes? Why would people lose their job because they are paying a few more dollars for their shoes? The "large sum of money" which is "taken away" is not taken away from a few people but in a distributed manner over the entire population. >Now I see why duties are such a good idea!! You do? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (09/20/85)
In article <2223@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) claims: >In article <420@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Second thing that happens is that *every* Canadian pays a few dollars more >>for shoes. How much in total? ..... >> .... So a large sum of money is taken >>from one sector (the rest of Canada) and given to a proven non-productive >>sector. >There is something I don't understand in this line of reasoning: if people >start buying canadian shoes, then why the manufacturing of shoes be >considered "non-productive"? >..... >Why would the job of shoe-maker be "extra" and "propped up" if there is a >real demand for shoes? Why would people lose their job because they are >paying a few more dollars for their shoes? Let us suppose for a moment that on average a person buys a new pair of shoes every two years and that various duties and import restriction raise, on average, the price of a pair of shoes by a dollar. (I consider these estimates to be conservative, what with kids always needing new shoes and then those of you on the wrong side of the Rockies also having this little matter of winter footwear to consider. The dollar a pair is also probably quite conservative when one considers that the duty is probably in excess of 10% and shoes certainly cost more than $10.) With a population of 25 million people this means that we consumers pay 12.5 million dollars extra each year for the privilege of propping up the shoe industry. If there are 10,000 people employed in making shoes (which I doubt) it means that each job is subsidized to the tune of $1,250. The classical problem with duties and import restriction is that it encourages activities which can be done more cheaply someplace else. Presumably there is something that we can produce more cheaply than that someplace else, that is the reason we trade. These restrictions create a false demand for a product (in this situation overpriced Canadian footwear) which results in the misallocation of resources which culminates in further increased costs to the consumer. Consider the following scenario with the propped up shoe industry. The artificial demand for Canadian shoes results in the shoe makers bidding for more leather on the open market than they would without the supports. Since in the short run the amount of leather is fixed (you can't manufacture cows overnight) the increased demand will cause the whole sale price of leather to increase. This results in added costs to the other purchasers of leather which of course is passed on to the consumer. If the duty weren't there the costs of "non-shoe" leather products would decrease and price of shoes would go down too because of the removed duty. >The "large sum of money" >which is "taken away" is not taken away from a few people but in a >distributed manner over the entire population. Doing something to an entire population does not automatically justify or legitimize any action. Even if a tax/tariff/duty/import restriction (choose your favourite one) does apply to everyone it doesn't mean that it affects everyone in the same manner. Tariffs and such are usually fixed percentages just like a sales tax and these are all considered regressive taxes. That is, on a proportional basis, the poorer members of our society require a greater portion of their income to cover these taxes than the wealthy. Consequently these taxes have a greater adverse effect on the purchasing power of the poor than the rich. Anyway, what is so special about shoe makers or any other protected industry that we need to redistribute the wealth in their favour? Why not distribute some of it my way? :-) > >>Now I see why duties are such a good idea!! > >You do? Sure Brad does. It is a way to buy votes in one or several ridings at the expense of everyone else. Just ask Brian Mulroney and Lloyd Axworthy (The Billion dollar man) how this all works. They are both well versed in how to spend taxpayers' money or how to introduce policies that favour one riding over those in the rest of the country. As an aside, more federal monies have been spent in Brian's riding since the election than in all of BC, so you can see that Brian knows how to play the game and is already trying to buy his seat, at our expense, for the next election. Donald Acton
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/24/85)
This quote is from an article about textile import quotas that appeared on the editorial page of the local newspaper a couple of months ago: "The North-South Institute in Ottawa estimated in 1981 that consumers had to pay an additional $500 million for their clothes, or about $83,000 a year for every job saved." (That works out to about 6000 jobs.) It would actually be cheaper for the government to pay those people $20,000 a year not to work. Now, it's unlikely that those workers are getting paid much more than maybe $20,000 each. Wonder who gets the rest of the money? To find out, do the following experiment: when your newspaper prints an article about harmful effects of import quotas watch the letters to the editor for the next few weeks. See who writes letters defending the need for import quotas. If you know somewhat about economics you can often recognize a high bullshit level. -- David Canzi Hmmm, folks must not be heavily into freedom these days. -- Garfield
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/24/85)
> > This quote is from an article about textile import quotas that appeared > on the editorial page of the local newspaper a couple of months ago: > > "The North-South Institute in Ottawa estimated in 1981 that consumers > had to pay an additional $500 million for their clothes, or about $83,000 > a year for every job saved." (That works out to about 6000 jobs.) > > It would actually be cheaper for the government to pay those people > $20,000 a year not to work. Now, it's unlikely that those workers are > getting paid much more than maybe $20,000 each. Wonder who gets the > rest of the money? > Normally I'm willing to take this kind of information at face value but it's pretty hard to believe these figures without some explanation. What are they using as a base price for clothes? Perhaps the labour component of the cost of shoes is relatively small so that any increase in the price of materials is a high percentage increase in the retail price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to < $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? How much is actually spent on clothes in total (i.e. is $500 million 50%, 10%, 1% or 0.1% of the total?). > To find out, do the following experiment: when your newspaper prints an > article about harmful effects of import quotas watch the letters to the > editor for the next few weeks. See who writes letters defending the > need for import quotas. If you know somewhat about economics you can > often recognize a high bullshit level. You can also recognize who will benefit from free trade if you read the papers - you don't see much from labour lauding it, while you do from business (well known friend of the worker, 0.5 * :-) ). > -- > David Canzi > > Hmmm, folks must not be heavily into freedom these days. -- Garfield -- 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) (09/25/85)
In article <1692@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > >This quote is from an article about textile import quotas that appeared >on the editorial page of the local newspaper a couple of months ago: > >"The North-South Institute in Ottawa estimated in 1981 that consumers >had to pay an additional $500 million for their clothes, or about $83,000 >a year for every job saved." (That works out to about 6000 jobs.) I read somewhere several months ago that each job saved due to import quotas in the US auto industry costed about $160,000. The US finally came to its senses, realized that that was an unacceptable price to pay, and discontinued placing quotas on imported cars. In one of his more lucid moments Bill Bennet once said that the only thing car import quotas do is cost British Columbians money. How true. J.B. Robinson
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/25/85)
In article <2550@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are >they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to >< $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? How much >is actually spent on clothes in total (i.e. is $500 million 50%, 10%, >1% or 0.1% of the total?). The above questions are rather irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that (low-tech) jobs are being subsidized to the tune of $83,000 per. If that isn't a gross misallocation of resources then I don't know what is. J.B. Robinson The opinions expressed above may concur exactly with those of Ed Broadbent. Then again, they may not.
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (09/26/85)
In article <2550@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) claims: >> "The North-South Institute in Ottawa estimated in 1981 that consumers >> had to pay an additional $500 million for their clothes, or about $83,000 >> a year for every job saved." (That works out to about 6000 jobs.) > >Normally I'm willing to take this kind of information at face value >but it's pretty hard to believe these figures without some explanation. >What are they using as a base price for clothes? Perhaps the labour >component of the cost of shoes is relatively small so that any increase >in the price of materials is a high percentage increase in the retail >price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are >they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to >< $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? The Canada West Foundation has done similar calculations and has taken the total amount of import duties and used that as a basis for determining the costs associated with protectionism. (That is, the costs attributable to other artificial barriers like quotas weren't even considered.) They determined that import duties alone cost every man, women and child in this country $136.62 (1983). If translated into manufacturing jobs this amounts to a subsidy of $2,028.58 for each job. This is considerably less than the $83,000 cited above, however it considers all manufacturing not just a specific industry and it doesn't include the extra costs attributed to quotas and the like. The Foundation did further calculations to see where in the country these benefits accrued. Low and behold if they didn't discover that the four Western provinces and the Maritimes lost $544 million. This is how much more those regions paid in duties then they received in subsidized manufacturing jobs. Ontario and Quebec on the other hand gained $544 million. Ontario only has 35.4% of Canada's population yet it has 50.4% of the manufacturing jobs while Quebec with 26.2% has 28% of the manufacturing jobs. If free trade were to come about the short term loser would certainly be Ontario while the rest of country would get to enjoy reduced prices on consumer goods. However, I firmly believe that the manufacturing industries could survive the blow to their egos and eventually become competitive. (In a separate article this past weekend it was pointed out that the duty on clothing is 22%.) One of the arguments often put forward in favour of tariffs is that it protects immature industries or allows old ones to retool to become competitive. The problem with this is that these industries never seem to get big enough or strong enough to come out from under the protectionist umbrella. For example the shoe and textile industries have advocated and received protectionist tariffs for over 15 years now. They always argue that they need just a few more years to get new equipment and become competitive. Once they get the tariffs they seem to forget all about modernizing and continue on in their old ways. If industries knew that they would never be able to have any tariffs imposed then we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Donald Acton
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/28/85)
In article <2550@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> "The North-South Institute in Ottawa estimated in 1981 that consumers >> had to pay an additional $500 million for their clothes, or about $83,000 >> a year for every job saved." (That works out to about 6000 jobs.) > >Normally I'm willing to take this kind of information at face value >but it's pretty hard to believe these figures without some explanation. >What are they using as a base price for clothes? Perhaps the labour >component of the cost of shoes is relatively small so that any increase >in the price of materials is a high percentage increase in the retail >price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are >they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to >< $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? How much >is actually spent on clothes in total (i.e. is $500 million 50%, 10%, >1% or 0.1% of the total?). I'm making an attempt to track down and obtain a copy of that study, just to find out how they estimate what clothes would cost without quotas, and how many jobs would be lost as a result of removing quotas. (It looks like a challenge... the local paper didn't know the name of the study, and they just got the information for their article from an article in another newspaper... and I was told that if I phoned the other newspaper, I'd probably found that *they* got it from yet another newspaper... and so on) -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/28/85)
In article <2573@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> In article <2550@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> >price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are >> >they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to >> >< $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? How much >> >is actually spent on clothes in total (i.e. is $500 million 50%, 10%, >> >1% or 0.1% of the total?). >> >> The above questions are rather irrelevant. The fact of the matter is > >Ahhhh! This clears up a lot of your previous postings; now I can >understand how you reason. There's no point in knowing what region >figures apply to - they are correct for some place so we may as well >use them for us too eh? No point in knowing how much of total cost >these duties account for eh? 10% is as bad as 0.1% right? Ahhhh! This clears up a lot of your previous postings; now I can understand how you reason. "The fact of the matter" doesn't matter to you if you can make the matter look small. If you can't spread it out over a large enough population, or make it look like a very small portion of the cost of clothing, you can always compare it to the U. S. Gross National Product, or the total value of all the iron in the asteroids. Gosh, compared to that, an $83,000 subsidy to create a $20,000 job is piddling. If that $83,000 figure is accurate, then it is cheaper to pay those people not to work, and remove the quotas. If the cost is spread over all of Canada and the U. S. and Mexico, it would *still* be cheaper to pay those people not to work. If the cost of quotas to the consumer is only 0.1% of the cost of clothing, it's *still* cheaper to pay them not to work. $20,000 is less than $83,000, no matter how thin you spread it. The partial truth is that textile quotas cost about $20 per Canadian per year. The whole truth is that the textile industry is only one protected industry of many, and they all cost us. If somebody robs you of $5, <yawn>, so what? If somebody robs you of $5 one thousand times, that's different. -- David Canzi Got a vote to sell? Brian's buyin'.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/29/85)
> In article <2573@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >> In article <2550@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >> >price. Since these figures come from the North-South institute are > >> >they for Canada & US (& maybe Mexico) in which case they work out to > >> >< $2/yr/person (pretty small) or are they just for Canada? How much > >> >is actually spent on clothes in total (i.e. is $500 million 50%, 10%, > >> >1% or 0.1% of the total?). > >> > >> The above questions are rather irrelevant. The fact of the matter is > > > >Ahhhh! This clears up a lot of your previous postings; now I can > >understand how you reason. There's no point in knowing what region > >figures apply to - they are correct for some place so we may as well > >use them for us too eh? No point in knowing how much of total cost > >these duties account for eh? 10% is as bad as 0.1% right? > > Ahhhh! This clears up a lot of your previous postings; now I can > understand how you reason. "The fact of the matter" doesn't matter > to you if you can make the matter look small. If you can't spread > it out over a large enough population, or make it look like a very > small portion of the cost of clothing, you can always compare it to > the U. S. Gross National Product, or the total value of all the iron > in the asteroids. Gosh, compared to that, an $83,000 subsidy to > create a $20,000 job is piddling. I stand by my comment. Bandying figures about without even knowing what group/region they apply to (let alone how they were derived) is ridiculous. It seems entirely reasonable to question the origin/applicability of the figures (particularily in view of a previous posting describing how hard it is to even find out where they came from). > > If that $83,000 figure is accurate, then it is cheaper to pay those Big if. > people not to work, and remove the quotas. If the cost is spread over > all of Canada and the U. S. and Mexico, it would *still* be cheaper to > pay those people not to work. If the cost of quotas to the consumer is > only 0.1% of the cost of clothing, it's *still* cheaper to pay them not It may also not be worth bothering about if it is 0.1%; it does help to decide which issues have an effect worth troubling over. > to work. $20,000 is less than $83,000, no matter how thin you spread > it. > > The partial truth is that textile quotas cost about $20 per Canadian > per year. The whole truth is that the textile industry is only one Sorry to be repetitious but - where does that figure come from? > protected industry of many, and they all cost us. If somebody robs > you of $5, <yawn>, so what? If somebody robs you of $5 one thousand > times, that's different. That's right - and it still is not clear which is the case here. > -- > David Canzi > > Got a vote to sell? Brian's buyin'.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/01/85)
In article <2578@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >I stand by my comment. Bandying figures about without even knowing >what group/region they apply to (let alone how they were derived) >is ridiculous. It seems entirely reasonable to question the >origin/applicability of the figures (particularily in view of a >previous posting describing how hard it is to even find out where >they came from). I have been in touch with the North-South Institute, they are sending me a list of their publications, and I know the study in question was done in 1981. I may have it within 2 weeks (if I can guess the right title...) You seem to think it's very important what country/countries the figures apply to. I and one other person have said it's irrelevant, and made arguments to justify that position. You simply say it's "ridiculous" to discuss these figures without knowing what country they apply to. "Ridiculous" isn't an argument. Show us an argument. Show us what's wrong with our arguments. What do you think my original posting was trying to prove? And how is the country those figures came from relevant to it? Demonstrate to us that there's a brain somewhere behind that mouth. It should be obvious to you what country those figures refer to. But is it irrelevant? >> *If* that $83,000 figure is accurate, then it is cheaper to pay those >> people not to work, and remove the quotas. If the cost is spread over >> all of Canada and the U. S. and Mexico, it would *still* be cheaper to >> pay those people not to work. If the cost of quotas to the consumer is >> only 0.1% of the cost of clothing, it's *still* cheaper to pay them not >It may also not be worth bothering about if it is 0.1%; it does help to decide >which issues have an effect worth troubling over. 6000 jobs is less than .03% of the population of Canada. It just doesn't seem worth the hassle to enforce quotas for such a tiny fraction of the population... >> to work. $20,000 is less than $83,000, no matter how thin you spread >> it. >> >> The partial truth is that textile quotas cost about $20 per Canadian >> per year. The whole truth is that the textile industry is only one >Sorry to be repetitious but - where does that figure come from? No you aren't. It's based on figures from the newspaper article. > >> protected industry of many, and they all cost us. If somebody robs >> you of $5, <yawn>, so what? If somebody robs you of $5 one thousand >> times, that's different. >That's right - and it still is not clear which is the case here. Textile quotas. Shoe quotas. Marketing boards for dairy products, eggs, and several other farm products. (So we pay extra on most of what we wear and most of what we eat.) Import duties on most things. Textile quotas are only a fraction of the whole thing. -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/02/85)
> In article <2578@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >I stand by my comment. Bandying figures about without even knowing > >what group/region they apply to (let alone how they were derived) > >is ridiculous. It seems entirely reasonable to question the > >origin/applicability of the figures (particularily in view of a > >previous posting describing how hard it is to even find out where > >they came from). > > I have been in touch with the North-South Institute, they are sending > me a list of their publications, and I know the study in question was > done in 1981. I may have it within 2 weeks (if I can guess the right > title...) it would be nice to know. > > You seem to think it's very important what country/countries the > figures apply to. I and one other person have said it's irrelevant, > and made arguments to justify that position. You simply say it's > "ridiculous" to discuss these figures without knowing what country they > apply to. "Ridiculous" isn't an argument. Show us an argument. Show > us what's wrong with our arguments. What do you think my original > posting was trying to prove? And how is the country those figures came > from relevant to it? Demonstrate to us that there's a brain somewhere > behind that mouth. Fine. Those figures could easily represent a totally different situation than that which exists in Canada; they could (given their source) easily represent a north&south american average which would have little to say about Canada (or since the U.S. & canadian average balance of world trade is negative should we assume that canada has a trade deficit?) given our relative size; or they could be talking about the entire world or some specific (other) country. The point is the same: we were talking (it seems to me) about free trade&canada so what is the point in giving out figures which do/may not apply to Canada? Had the figures been from, for example, the conference board of Canada I would assume that they were intended to apply to Canada; it seems far from clear that figures from the north-south institute necessarily tell us *anything* about Canada. > > It should be obvious to you what country those figures refer to. But > is it irrelevant? Why is it obvious? Because you want them to refer to Canada? . . > >> pay those people not to work. If the cost of quotas to the consumer is > >> only 0.1% of the cost of clothing, it's *still* cheaper to pay them not > >It may also not be worth bothering about if it is 0.1%; it does help to decide > >which issues have an effect worth troubling over. > > 6000 jobs is less than .03% of the population of Canada. It just > doesn't seem worth the hassle to enforce quotas for such a tiny > fraction of the population... That may in fact be true - as I said you need to know the size of the problems available so that you know where to expend (limited) effort. > >> The partial truth is that textile quotas cost about $20 per Canadian > >> per year. The whole truth is that the textile industry is only one > >Sorry to be repetitious but - where does that figure come from? > No you aren't. It's based on figures from the newspaper article. Ah, now I see why you're so confident of the figures - your a mind reader. . . > >> protected industry of many, and they all cost us. If somebody robs > >> you of $5, <yawn>, so what? If somebody robs you of $5 one thousand > >> times, that's different. > >That's right - and it still is not clear which is the case here. > > Textile quotas. Shoe quotas. Marketing boards for dairy products, > eggs, and several other farm products. (So we pay extra on most of > what we wear and most of what we eat.) Import duties on most things. > > Textile quotas are only a fraction of the whole thing. And marketing boards are a *very* different thing from import duties and quotas applied to foreign manufacturers. Two repeat two points: 1. How much does all this really cost? Is it really a significant problem? 2. Where will government recoup the revenue it now gets from duties? and, of course: 3. what happens to the (possibly up to 1 million according to the cbc evening news) people who lose their jobs through free trade. and, just since I'm on a roll 4. If free trade if such a solid gold no lose proposition why is it that the government feels it's so necessary to do such a con job on us (refering to the publicized document on selling free trade to the canadian public) > -- > David Canzi > > "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... > herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon Oh yeah; as to your question - is their a brain behind the mouth? Obviously not considering how much time I let myself expend in explaining the obvious.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/05/85)
In article <2591@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >3. what happens to the (possibly up to 1 million according to the > cbc evening news) people who lose their jobs through free trade. By dwelling on the topic of Canadian jobs, opponents of free trade can make it look as if no harm results from quotas, except for a measly sum paid by consumers in the form of higher prices. They also make it look as if anybody who bitches about quotas is a stingy S.O.B. who just wants his lousy 5 bucks back. Well, I'll be honest: I *am* a stingy S.O.B. who wants his 5 bucks back. But I can also show you that the issue is not quite as black-and-white, from a moral point of view, as you think it is. When quotas/duties are introduced, the amount of foreign goods imported decreases. As a result, some of the people in other countries who produced these goods become "redundant". What happens to them? You can be forgiven for not noticing the unemployed foreigners, because nobody mentions them when free trade comes up for discussion. Those for free trade dwell on Canadian consumers' money, and those against dwell on Canadians' jobs. But now that you're aware of them, how can you reconcile exporting unemployment with your sense of morals? * * * On another matter, I'll admit that the figures I quoted are more relevant to the discussion if they are Canadian figures than if they are not. If they are not Canadian figures, they serve only as an example of quotas raising the prices, and of how carelessly implemented quotas can lead to a real absurdity. The statistics were quoted in a Canadian newspaper discussing Canadian import quotas, which suggests that the reporter who reported them though they were relevant to Canada. Also, the North-South Institute is located in Ottawa, which suggests that their purpose is to try to influence government policy. This is both a good reason to believe that they would only use Canadian economic statistics, and to suspect that they might slant the results of their studies by omitting relevant statistics which are not favourable to their position. (And this last consideration is why I want to get a copy of the study for myself.) A major point of my original article was that the people who bitch loudest in letters to the editor are usually successful businessmen with a vested interest in keeping quotas, and that these letters betray a level of ignorance about economics that is hard to believe in a successful businessman. Are they really as ignorant as they seem, or are they lying? I'll politely reserve judgement. -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/07/85)
(shuffle, shuffle,..... that's just me putting on my asbestos suit :-) In article <2591@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >1. How much does all this really cost? Is it really a significant problem? I'll admit that I don't know what the costs really are. However, I do know that due to gutless anti-combines legislation and excessively powerful unions the Canadian public gets the dubious honour of helping to provide Big Business with Big Profits and Big Labour with a Big Strike Fund. As long as outside competition is not allowed, businesses have no incentive to keep costs down. So when the Widget Manufactures Union decides it wants a 20% wage increase the widget manufacturers growl a little and quickly succumb. They then pass all of their increased costs on to the consumer and everybody is happy again - except, of course for John Q. Public who has *no choice* but to pay the increased price. (How else did you think B.C. grocery clerks managed to wrangle $16.45/hr?) As to the question of whether it's really a significant problem: I'd say that whenever there is an almost total lack of competition there exists a big problem. Free trade with the US is one means of forcing increased competition. Other means would be stricter anti-combines legislation and looser labour laws. If we are going to have an economy based on free market principles, then by all means let's do it properly and have competition in our industries. >2. Where will government recoup the revenue it now gets from duties? First off, how much does it get from duties? Is it a significant amount? If it's just a piddling amount then it's obviously no biggee. Let's have some figures on this one. Secondly, consider that quotas and tariffs act basically like a sales tax in that they increase the effective price of goods. Since sales taxes hit the poor the hardest (i.e. they are regressive) I imagine it would not be at all difficult for a politician to argue that revenues lost from a decrease in duties should be made up for by *income* tax increases. Unless I'm very mistaken it's the NDP who is most against regressive taxation (and presumably equivalents thereof) so they should be the first group to call for tariff reductions and a corresponding increase in income tax (:-). Note that quotas are often the preferred vehicle of protectionism. Thus, the Gov't could lift Japanese car import quotas thereby decreasing the cost of all cars and yet end up with no reduction in tariff revenues. Ditto for quotas placed on clothes from Bangledash (sp?). >and, of course: >3. what happens to the (possibly up to 1 million according to the > cbc evening news) people who lose their jobs through free trade. I seem to remember reading in the Wail that the Macdonald Commission claimed that free trade with the US would in the long run be responsible for a 5 percentage point *decrease* in unemployment. Sounds good to me. >and, just since I'm on a roll >4. If free trade if such a solid gold no lose proposition why is it > that the government feels it's so necessary to do such a con > job on us (refering to the publicized document on selling free > trade to the canadian public) I imagine that they think it's necessary to counteract the con job that the unions have been trying to hand us. For example, the extremely interesting claim by Dennis McDermott that Canada would have to give up Medicare in order to secure a free trade agreement. I know, you know, and Mr. McDermott knows that no Gov't in its right mind would trade away Medicare (unless it has a death wish), but it sure make good politics to say so. J.B. Robinson
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (10/09/85)
In article <36@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >As to the question of whether it's really a significant problem: I'd say >that whenever there is an almost total lack of competition there exists a >big problem. Free trade with the US is one means of forcing increased >competition. Other means would be stricter anti-combines legislation and >looser labour laws. I am not convinced that stricter combines laws would necessarily result in a more competitive market place. What is needed instead is the removal of legislation that encourages monopolistic practices. Consider what would happen if the Post Office didn't have a legislated monopoly. We would certainly have cheaper rates for some services while others would more closely reflect their true cost. For example it has to more expensive to move a letter from Vancouver to Inuvik then to Victoria. If the government then decides that the Inuvik mail service should be subsidized then it should be done up front so that we know the exact costs instead of having it hidden in some huge bureaucratic nightmare (currently known as Canada Post). In calling for looser labour laws Jim has recognized that monopolies (In their current state unions certainly are monopolies) exist because governments guarantee that they don't have to compete. Instead of calling for tougher combines laws he should have proposed a less regulated business environment. Donald Acton
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/11/85)
>I am not convinced that stricter combines laws would necessarily result >in a more competitive market place. What is needed instead is the removal >of legislation that encourages monopolistic practices. Consider what would >happen if the Post Office didn't have a legislated monopoly. We would >certainly have cheaper rates for some services while others would more >closely reflect their true cost. For example it has to more expensive to >move a letter from Vancouver to Inuvik then to Victoria. If the government >then decides that the Inuvik mail service should be subsidized then it >should be done up front so that we know the exact costs instead of having it >hidden in some huge bureaucratic nightmare (currently known as Canada Post). If you carry this through to its logical conclusion, you must include the problem of unnatural geographic monopoly, as well. Canada is a most unnatural country, that has been held together only by communication subsidies to long-distance communication, and by a distaste for being swallowed by the USA. The former, I think, has been more vital. In my ideal Canada, Canadian citizens would travel free on any carrier (e.g. mostly Newfoundland businesses). If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that Central Canadians enjoy. The same applies to the Far North. I think that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be paid by the taxpayer in the interests of Canadian unity (much like the infamous Crow's Nest Pass rates, which did not work as fairly as my suggestion). Non-Canadian businesses and non-resident individuals would pay normal costs for long-distance travel in Canada, to prevent them from taking advantage of the subsidy for the benefit of the USA. This logic applies equally to the Post Office, since all mail starting or stopping in Canada is for the benefit of Canada. Of course, if you want to make everything natural, Canada (and the USA) should break up into smallish autonomous regions which associate according to similarity of interests and ease of internal communication. But I can't accept that you want Canada to continue, and at the same time want to have the users pay the true and full costs of communication over long distances. Those positions are incompatible. I know you (Donald Acton) didn't take that position, and you did accept the possible value of subsidy for post to Inuvik, but a lot of people do seem to take the incompatible positions both at the same time. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/13/85)
In article <1714@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >If you carry this through to its logical conclusion, you must include >the problem of unnatural geographic monopoly, as well. Canada is a most >unnatural country, that has been held together only by communication >subsidies to long-distance communication, and by a distaste for being >swallowed by the USA. The former, I think, has been more vital. >In my ideal Canada, Canadian citizens would travel free on any carrier >(e.g. mostly Newfoundland businesses). If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland >to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that >Central Canadians enjoy. The same applies to the Far North. I think >that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance >within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be The point is that in an artificial situation like this you destroy the country by stagnating the long distance communications and transportation industries. Without a proper profit incentive, people aren't going to go out searching for ways to make these things more efficient. This is the usual result of quick-fix interventionist solutions. With an artificial fixed rate, people don't go out and invent things like communications satellites and fiber optics. What's worse for Canada, when we have an artificial structure and the USA does not, these things get invented in the USA. And then all we can do is complain about brain drain and having to import our high-tech. Enforced monopolies have a *very strong* vested interest in maintaining the status quo. True innovation normally only comes when there is the big bucks incentive. >paid by the taxpayer in the interests of Canadian unity (much like the >infamous Crow's Nest Pass rates, which did not work as fairly as my >suggestion). Non-Canadian businesses and non-resident individuals >would pay normal costs for long-distance travel in Canada, to prevent >them from taking advantage of the subsidy for the benefit of the USA. How could they take advantage of a subsidy in shipments from Whitehorse to St. John to help the USA? Why should we wish to punish our foreign neighbours? Is it because of their nationality? To me that's not much different from doing it because of the colour of their skin. >This logic applies equally to the Post Office, since all mail starting >or stopping in Canada is for the benefit of Canada. What is this "Canada" but its people? Why not let the people decide instead of having you (or your bretheren) get together and decide what is good for "Canada" > >Of course, if you want to make everything natural, Canada (and the USA) >should break up into smallish autonomous regions which associate according >to similarity of interests and ease of internal communication. But I >can't accept that you want Canada to continue, and at the same time want >to have the users pay the true and full costs of communication over >long distances. Those positions are incompatible. Perhaps some people don't want your vision of Canada to continue. There is no reason your vision should get special status. For most people, the definition of Canada is "the country I live in." or "a free nation devoted to peace, order and good government." All this other stuff has been made up by various pressure groups and it certainly isn't *my* vision of Canada. >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
thomson@uthub.UUCP (Brian Thomson) (10/14/85)
mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) suggests: >If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland >to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that >Central Canadians enjoy. The same applies to the Far North. I think >that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance >within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be >paid by the taxpayer in the interests of Canadian unity This suggests to me that, if we fail to subsidize Newfoundlanders or, umm, Inuvikers (Tuktoyaktukians?), they will run off and form their own country (though how that will get them cheaper long-distance transportation I certainly don't know). That the rest of the country should buy the affections of far-flung Canadians, and that in the absence of such subsidies central Canada somehow gets a much better deal than the outliers. If Confederation is not mutually beneficial, it need not continue. I would rather see this country split up than hang together as a gang of mercenary states whose loyalty has to be rebought every month-end. Canadian unity does not require the nugation of physical distinctions between different parts of the country. Its economic and personal benefit is the lack of artificial barriers that always exist between independent states. Freedom to operate and relocate across provincial borders, and to select that part of the country best suited to one's needs. The Newfoundlander who wants to be able to phone Victoria for 10 cents a minute, because a friend of his in Nanaimo can do so, is in the same situation as the Baffin Islander who wants to grow grapes like they do in southern Ontario: they should both take advantage of the diversity of Canada, rather than cursing it, and go where they will be most content. And, if they are so hidebound in their regionalism, so fiercely Newfoundlander or Frankliner first and Canadian second, that they refuse to do so, then they are already acting like citizens of a separate country and buying them off can only make matters worse. A transplanted Canadian, -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!uthub!thomson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/15/85)
. . > >In my ideal Canada, Canadian citizens would travel free on any carrier > >(e.g. mostly Newfoundland businesses). If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland > >to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that > >Central Canadians enjoy. The same applies to the Far North. I think > >that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance > >within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be > > The point is that in an artificial situation like this you > destroy the country by stagnating the long distance > communications and transportation industries. Without a proper > profit incentive, people aren't going to go out searching for > ways to make these things more efficient. This is the usual > result of quick-fix interventionist solutions. With an artificial > fixed rate, people don't go out and invent things like communications > satellites and fiber optics. What's worse for Canada, when we have > an artificial structure and the USA does not, these things get > invented in the USA. And then all we can do is complain about > brain drain and having to import our high-tech. Enforced monopolies > have a *very strong* vested interest in maintaining the status quo. > True innovation normally only comes when there is the big bucks > incentive. I don't know if it's the result of government intervention or not but it seems to me that we already have communications/travel costs that vary only slightly with distance (once you get into distances of more than a couple of hundred miles or so). You can get a bus ticket to just about anywhere in canada a bus can go for $99. The difference in air fares from vancouver to toronto and vancouver to fredricton (sp?) is slight (I've been told the cost during a flight is incurred by the takeoff/landing). Once you get into out of province dialing the rates don't vary that much (although it is cheaper for me to call LA than Vancouver). > >paid by the taxpayer in the interests of Canadian unity (much like the > >infamous Crow's Nest Pass rates, which did not work as fairly as my > >suggestion). Non-Canadian businesses and non-resident individuals > >would pay normal costs for long-distance travel in Canada, to prevent > >them from taking advantage of the subsidy for the benefit of the USA. > How could they take advantage of a subsidy in shipments from Whitehorse > to St. John to help the USA? Why should we wish to punish our > foreign neighbours? Is it because of their nationality? To me > that's not much different from doing it because of the colour of > their skin. Why should we, in general, subsidize the air fares of foreign nationals Brad? > >This logic applies equally to the Post Office, since all mail starting > >or stopping in Canada is for the benefit of Canada. > What is this "Canada" but its people? Why not let the people > decide instead of having you (or your bretheren) get together > and decide what is good for "Canada" Martin is just putting forward, and giving some justification, for his opinion Brad - I don't think he's planning a coup. . . > >can't accept that you want Canada to continue, and at the same time want > >to have the users pay the true and full costs of communication over > >long distances. Those positions are incompatible. > Perhaps some people don't want your vision of Canada to continue. > There is no reason your vision should get special status. > For most people, the definition of Canada is "the country I > live in." or "a free nation devoted to peace, order and good Actually I'm tempted to agree with this although I think we might be (hope we would be) surprised by the amount of thought people give to "Canada". Certainly any adult who has emigrated to Canada probably has particular reasons for choosing it rather than any other country. > government." All this other stuff has been made up by various > pressure groups and it certainly isn't *my* vision of Canada. > >Martin Taylor > >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt > > > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Personally I agree with Martin's idea. I think the US has a stronger sense of national identity partly because of their dense and almost continuous population, and partly because of national symbols such as the contstitution and flag which have intense emotional power for them. I don't see how Canada could help but benefit from a stronger national identity and it certainly is necessary to be able to travel to and/or communicae with your (national) neighbours to feel a sense of unity. john chapman
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/16/85)
In article <2649@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> How could they take advantage of a subsidy in shipments from Whitehorse >> to St. John to help the USA? Why should we wish to punish our >> foreign neighbours? Is it because of their nationality? To me >> that's not much different from doing it because of the colour of >> their skin. > >Why should we, in general, subsidize the air fares of foreign nationals >Brad? What I'm really saying is that I question why we should subsidize anybody. Nationality is no special reason. I have far more in common with a computer scientist in Australia than I do with a cab driver in Vancouver or Toronto for that matter. Economic nationalism doesn't make a lot of sense to me, at least not in a free world. > >> >This logic applies equally to the Post Office, since all mail starting >> >or stopping in Canada is for the benefit of Canada. >> What is this "Canada" but its people? Why not let the people >> decide instead of having you (or your bretheren) get together >> and decide what is good for "Canada" > >Martin is just putting forward, and giving some justification, for his >opinion Brad - I don't think he's planning a coup. > But you're wrong. He's not planning a coup, but he does want the country run *his* way, in this case by legal means. I content that the legitimate government has no right to interfere with certain elements of citizen's lives. But they do, so the coup is over. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (10/17/85)
Brad, I've been arguing a similar cost structure to Martin's for
some time now, and even used *some* of his arguments. There's more
to this than meets the eye.
My own argument is that local phone costs should go up and that
long distance in general should decrease (at the very least relative
to current phone costs). The basis for this is the phone companies'
own complaint that local calls are being heavily subsidized by long
distance and special services. My own phone bill is primarily made
up of long distance and special services. Why should I be subsidizing
people who use the phones and pay a mere pitance because my own
contact range is wider? What the heck is 'local' anyway? Where did
the definition come from? As far as I'm concerned my calls at the
very least in southern Ontario should *all* be considered local.
For me they certainly are.
As a bi-product of this approach, we may find that we will build
a stronger (and economically more sound) nation. The main difference
is that I don't like the idea of Tax subsidies. I think that such a
diversion of funds is unnecessary. As for changes in the rate
structure, however, to the extent I'd like to see them, it's clearly
justified and even in some harmony with the industry's trend.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
Compuserve: 72205,541
MTS at WU: GKL6peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (10/17/85)
> In article <1714@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > > >If you carry this through to its logical conclusion, you must include > >the problem of unnatural geographic monopoly, as well. Canada is a most > >unnatural country, that has been held together only by communication > >subsidies to long-distance communication, and by a distaste for being > >swallowed by the USA. The former, I think, has been more vital. > >In my ideal Canada, Canadian citizens would travel free on any carrier > >(e.g. mostly Newfoundland businesses). If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland > >to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that > >Central Canadians enjoy. The same applies to the Far North. I think > >that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance > >within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be > > The point is that in an artificial situation like this you > destroy the country by stagnating the long distance > communications and transportation industries. Without a proper > profit incentive, people aren't going to go out searching for > ways to make these things more efficient. This is the usual > result of quick-fix interventionist solutions. With an artificial > fixed rate, people don't go out and invent things like communications > satellites and fiber optics. What's worse for Canada, when we have > an artificial structure and the USA does not, these things get > invented in the USA. And then all we can do is complain about > brain drain and having to import our high-tech. Enforced monopolies > have a *very strong* vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I *know* this is awkward, to bring up facts that is, but some facts just don't go away, like the fact that Canada, with its "artificial rates" had the first domestic communications satellite, has done a lot of original work on fibre optics, and in general has a very advanced communications sector. There are probably dozens of reasons for that, from the money being available for research (possibly because Bell is a protected company), to Canada's geography, to possibly even particular individuals who happened to manage particular research projects well. Damn it, don't you see that looking at everything in terms of a few simple concepts like supply and demand is a betrayal of intelligence, a gross distortion of reality? One thing I'd like to get clear: to those advocating massive reductions in government influence in society, are you advocating this because (a) it will make people happier, healthier, etc.? or (b) because it is more ethically correct, by your system of ethics? If it's both, which reason do you think is more important? I guess I should add a third option, (c) some other reason, which might include (for the Machiavellians out there) "because it will benefit me personally". p. rowley, U. Toronto
ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (10/23/85)
In article <851@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > My own argument is that local phone costs should go up and that >long distance in general should decrease (at the very least relative >to current phone costs). The basis for this is the phone companies' >own complaint that local calls are being heavily subsidized by long >distance and special services. I can't resist replying to this one. I have watched a B.C. Tel employee spend the better part of a day to install one phone in an office and then, when the phone didn't work properly, inform everyone that repair service would have to be called becausee he only did installations. (B.C. Tel is, of course, one of the telcos which claims that local costs are heavily subsidized by long distance tolls.) I think the problem is more subtle. The telcos haven't had to be efficient for local service, so labour has gotten away with such practices and management hasn't bothered to enforce a bit of efficiency (I have heard plenty of horror stories about multi-million dollar management screw-ups). I wonder what the phone rates would be if local service had to be competitive? -- -- 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)