cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/29/85)
In article <1114@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > Governments always seem to have trouble making a profit. It is too >easy to simply "bail-out" anyone in trouble, or keep an outright >subsidy feeding the crown corp. as is the case for Petro-Can. Actually, I have some experience which relates to this issue. A year ago, some friends and I started a high-tech firm. We used our own equipment and one of the friends' father's money. Things being what they were, we ran out of cash, so we went to the Gov't of Ontario for some financial assistance. We went to the "bailout-for anyone in trouble" section and said that we were out of cash. We brought in a presentation about our product (we had a prototype but no product to actually sell). They were impressed (in fact they were very enthusiastic about the product), and they informed us that we weren't going to fail. However, they WOULDN'T give us any handouts, since it was clear to them that we would succeed, and we didn't need help. To some small degree, the guy was right, but we WERE in financial trouble, and all we wanted was to not be in hock to the bank. The gov't isn't in the bank-surrogate business, though. They (as a matter of policy) are in the charity business when it comes to helping companies with handouts. Why? Because it's the politically safe & sage thing to do. After all, what had we to lose? Nothing but control of the company that we owned if we went to venture capitalists. If we went to a bank (the unadventurous capitalists), we might lose control later, and we'd certainly pay thru the nose in interest. If we failed, we could still put the results on a resume and get a related job anywhere. (which is what I had to do because a later cash squeeze meant I wasn't going to get paid). On the other hand, if some large industrial company goes belly-up, there's a large political price to pay in lost jobs, etc. Thus you end up with the surreal logic of "no we won't give you money, because you will succeed anyway". The phrase they used which sticks in my mind was "come to us when you've been refused by three banks". >Cheers, Fred Williams Hill Street Blues, Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... by baloney melted !
fred@mnetor.UUCP (07/03/85)
In article <183@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >some friends and I started a high-tech firm. We used our own equipment and one >of the friends' father's money. Things being what they were, we ran out of cash, >so we went to the Gov't of Ontario for some financial assistance. We went to >the "bailout-for anyone in trouble" section and said that we were out of cash. Yeah, your story was interesting and, I'm sure, typical. By the way, venture capitolists will not be out to do you any favours. I know a few and while they are nice guys, I wouldn't start a company with any of them. You might as well get a salaried job. They own the profits and you take the risks. My comment was really directed at government run businesses. If your company happened to be CN, or Air Canada, or the Post Office and you turned up with a loss then it is concluded that you must really be providing service above and beyond the call of duty since you put so much money into it. The result is that more money is made available. The interesting thing is that at any level of the civil service. if you manage to save money, (or make a profit), then your budget is cut proportionally for the next accounting period. You obviously don't need as much money. This limits your power and the number of people you have in your department. The winning stategy if therefore to spend as much as possible. This strategy is followed religously! Hence I say again, Governments are not good at operating efficiently! It is unusual for a government to make a profit. This is why the government must tax other oil companies in order to run Petro-Can. All it does is make gas more expensive no matter where you buy it. Would I rather see the money going out of the country? Well, I think the money should go to whoever can produce a quality product for less money. That is the basis of free enterprise. Rewards go for results. Cheers, Fred Williams
clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/03/85)
In article <1131@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > Would I rather see the money going out of the country? Well, >I think the money should go to whoever can produce a quality >product for less money. That is the basis of free enterprise. >Rewards go for results. Umm, well maybe that's something wrong with free enterprise. It seems to produce profits nicely, but it doesn't care much about anything else. My (poorly informed) impression about crown corporations is that they fall into more than one group: -- The very public giants like CN and Air Canada, which make money or lose it very much in the news. They might be less efficient than their private equivalents, but are we sure? Lots of airlines lose money lately, ESPECIALLY in the free market to the south, and CP has had some pretty big government subsidies too, hasn't it? Maybe the big difference between Air Canada and, say, Massey-Ferguson (or White or Volkswagen or Chrysler, to name a few "private" firms that have benefited from "socialist" interference here and in the U.S. lately -- or does anyone remember those private Canadian railroads that went into CN when they failed?) is that the ups and downs are better smoothed by the government for crown corporations than for private ones. Also, we the taxpayers do have a little more to show for our money if we own the company that gets it. -- The group that never expected to make money and were (I presume) crown corporations rather than divisions of government for managerial reasons. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd springs to mind, because my father worked for them for 20 years or so. He and his friends sure didn't act like civil servants, because they weren't. They also didn't act like private employees -- they worked harder. But maybe AECL was a special case. -- The group that do nicely, thank you, without a lot of notice. Remember Polysar? As I recall, we had to sell it to private investors, because our friends to the south found it offensive to have to deal with a government-owned company. The money felt different, somehow.
fred@mnetor.UUCP (07/03/85)
In article <729@utcs.UUCP> clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >Umm, well maybe that's something wrong with free enterprise. It seems to >produce profits nicely, but it doesn't care much about anything else. > It doesn't *have* to care because "supply & demand" is a natural law. Everything else falls into place. True, there is a noise factor that may leave the occasional person feeling poorly done by, but most of these cases can be shown to be the person's own fault. People have to be prepared to make their own luck, and accept the consequences of their actions. The world does not owe us a living! Yes, There have been bail-outs of private corporations, and in the case of Chrysler, (in the US), it proved to be the right decision. Generally, however, I am against bail-outs because it only supports the status quo in a company that has already proven itself to be a looser. As far as the loss of jobs, this will no doubt take place in the short term. Long term consequences will be better if the corporation in question is left to die because if the market for the product still exists, someone will fill that market. Another company will form and hire the people laid off. The workers may form a cooperative and fill the market themselves. What I'm saying is, -A free economy takes care of itself naturally, and it is hard to improve on mother nature. Examples of individual companies being supported when they are not able to efficiently serve their market are numerous; - Canadair -DeHavilland But individual examples are not worth much when analyzing the system of government, or the approaches used by various governments. If we compare the total results, the standards of living achieved, we get a good measure of the efficiency of those systems and approaches. Frankly I think we're a lot better off than the communist countries. Survival of the fittest is another natural law and it applies to business without loss of validity. Supporting a company that would otherwise die is an attempt to defeat this law. The result is that we have a lot of sick & lame companies behaving as leaches on the economy of the nation. Bailing them out draws them under government control and this is very attractive to the "empire builders" in the civil service "priesthood". They are the ones who benefit on the backs of all the rest of us who pay taxes. Cheers, Fred Williams
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/04/85)
In article <1141@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >In article <729@utcs.UUCP> clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >>Umm, well maybe that's something wrong with free enterprise. It seems to >>produce profits nicely, but it doesn't care much about anything else. >> > It doesn't *have* to care because "supply & demand" is a natural >law. Everything else falls into place. > .... Surely you don't believe that supply and demand is going to take care of your aged mother, or keep the rivers and the air clean -- unless there's some nasty socialist interference? >.... As far as the loss of jobs, this will no >doubt take place in the short term. >... A free economy takes care of itself naturally, and >it is hard to improve on mother nature. > >... Survival of the fittest is another natural law and it applies >to business without loss of validity. This outlook is was seen as simplistic in the nineteenth century. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase Darwin and his pals considered muddle-headed when applied to biology. Apply it to society and economics and you get "social darwinism" (poor Darwin), one of the underpinnings of our recent history of racism and fascism. There have to be better arguments against crown corporations.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/05/85)
>There have to be better arguments against crown corporations. * Crown corporations, like all government ventures, are inherently inefficient. This is due to the fact that they are not subject to the discipline of the market place. If a Crown corporation finds itself losing money, rather than cut costs and attempt to streamline itself it will come hat in hand to the government (i.e. you and me ) for more money. The politicians, being the way they are, will then invariably dish out the (our) money to the "needy" corporation and all will be well until next year's books once again don't balance. The June copy of _Report_on_Business_ (no, I don't subscribe, I got it as a freebie with a Globe and Wail) ranks the performance of corporations in Canada. From the numbers reported it is obvious private corporations generally do much better than Crown corporations. Let's take a look at the airline industry (year end 84 except Nordair, 83): Return on Operating Return on Company Capital Margin Assets ------- --------- --------- --------- Air Canada 5.76 1.7 4.2 Nordair 18.03 2.8 9.9 Pacific Western 8.28 6.6 7.2 Wardair 22.21 13.0 14.6 Now let's look at the oil industry: Return on Company Capital Return on capital is profit before tax ------- --------- and interest expense divided by average Suncor 12.13 capital (debt plus equity) Petrocan 13.92 Shell 16.65 [Operating margin and return on assets Husky 18.75 were not published] Imperial 20.17 Gulf 24.08 Chevron 28.42 Texaco 44.03 Mobil 57.01 (Can you pick the crown corporation(s) :-) Now let's look at some real scewups (not a complete list): [The following are all Crown Corporations] Return on Company Capital ------- --------- CBC -1.05 Sydney Steel -10.40 De Havilland -33.02 Flyer -66.15 (ouch) Of the 37 large Crown Corporations listed 20 had losses (one other broke even) Of the 114 large private companies listed 10 sustained losses and, of those with losses the return on capital was below -2 for 7 of them and none exceeded -9.87. The moral of this story is that even when the government pretends to be acting like a private entity one should not expect anything other than typical government productivity (even in industries that others seem to do quite well in). >>... Survival of the fittest is another natural law and it applies >>to business without loss of validity. >This outlook is was seen as simplistic in the nineteenth century. "Survival >of the fittest" is a phrase Darwin and his pals considered muddle-headed >when applied to biology. Apply it to society and economics and you get >"social darwinism" (poor Darwin), one of the underpinnings of our recent >history of racism and fascism. I don't see any problems in applying "survival of the fittest" to corporations. Why should a corporation that has proved itself inefficient be propped up? The *only* people that benefit (possibly only in the short run) are the owners and the employees. (Should governments have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers in the early part of this century?) The taxpayer doesn't benefit because it's his money that does the propping up. The consumer doesn't benefit since this subsidizing allows the company the luxury of not rationalizing its production and thus maximising the use of its resources which would, in the long run, result in lower prices (though not necessarily for that product). As for linking racism and fascism to free enterprise - give me a break. >Surely you don't believe that supply and demand is going to take care of >your aged mother, or keep the rivers and the air clean -- unless there's >some nasty socialist interference? No I don't. But I'd also prefer if the government did not spawn a new Crown corporation every time it wanted to solve some new "pressing" problem. At any rate the purpose of a Crown Corporation is *not* to perform an activity (such as pollution control) which is inherently a money loser - this type of thing can be handled by a gov't department quite well without introducing some semi-autonomous body. The stated purpose of many Crown corporations is to provide a "window" into a given industry, e.g. Petrocan. The problem I have with this is that there is nothing that you can achieve by government ownership that you can't achieve otherwise with the right combination of carrots and sticks. Can anyone out there give me an example of a benefit that Canadians have experienced by "owning" Petrocan? If so, could this alleged benefit not have been achieved by applying the use of regulatory measures and tax break policies to private companies? [We all know about the fiasco concerning the Petrofina stations that the Liberals paid way too much for] Since private companies are generally more efficient than Crown corporations, does it not make more sense to do it this way? J.B. Robinson "If you want blood, you got it" AC/DC
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/05/85)
In article <1135@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>This outlook is was seen as simplistic in the nineteenth century. "Survival >>of the fittest" is a phrase Darwin and his pals considered muddle-headed >>when applied to biology. Apply it to society and economics and you get >>"social darwinism" (poor Darwin), one of the underpinnings of our recent >>history of racism and fascism. > >I don't see any problems in applying "survival of the fittest" to >corporations. The problem is that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean anything, as Bishop Wilberforce pointed out some time ago. > As for linking racism and >fascism to free enterprise - give me a break. I didn't. I linked them to the hoary old "survival of the fittest" catch phrase. > >>Surely you don't believe that supply and demand is going to take care of >>your aged mother, or keep the rivers and the air clean -- unless there's >>some nasty socialist interference? > >No I don't.... > ... there is nothing that you can achieve by government >ownership that you can't achieve otherwise with the right combination >of carrots and sticks. What you said (paraphrased) was that free enterprise handled all considerations naturally, and I took that to mean that no interference was necessary. You now advocate interference of one sort -- carrots and sticks -- as against another -- crown corporations. I expect you could get a pretty heated argument about that even in a business school. Here, at least you should not sound as if crown corporations only are an invention of the devil. (Now we know what colour the devil is: pink like me.) > Since private companies are generally >more efficient than Crown corporations, does it not make more sense to >do it this way? > This follows as a logical conclusion only if efficiency is the overriding consideration. In setting up crown corporations, obviously it is only one among many considerations.
fred@mnetor.UUCP (07/05/85)
In article <1229@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: > >The problem is that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean anything, as >Bishop Wilberforce pointed out some time ago. > It was I who posted the article applying the term "survival of the fittest" to companies. Allow me to admit that I've no recollection of a Bishop Wilberforce. Nevertheless, I stand by my original concept. "fittest" in this context is some combination of productivity, service economy of price, etc. It will no doubt vary from product to product and defy description, but the final judge is the customer! If the company is fit, it makes sales! If it makes sales and manages to avoid doing anything really stupid, it survives. Hence the conclusion. Yes it is simplistic. Why do so few people understand it? >> As for linking racism and >>>Surely you don't believe that supply and demand is going to take care of >>>your aged mother, or keep the rivers and the air clean -- unless there's >>>some nasty socialist interference? >> >>No I don't.... >> ... there is nothing that you can achieve by government >>ownership that you can't achieve otherwise with the right combination >>of carrots and sticks. > >What you said (paraphrased) was that free enterprise handled all considerations >naturally, and I took that to mean that no interference was necessary. >You now advocate interference of one sort -- carrots and sticks -- as >against another -- crown corporations. I expect you could get a pretty >heated argument about that even in a business school. Here, at least >you should not sound as if crown corporations only are an invention of >the devil. (Now we know what colour the devil is: pink like me.) > I, (Fred Williams), was the one who originally said something to the effect that free enterprise handles all considerations. The "carrots & sticks" comment came from the west coast I believe. I should watch out for these sweeping generalizations that I occasionally make. I will tone down my statement. Free enterprise handles the vast majority of considerations quite well, and better than socialism. There are some programs which are socialist that are very useful. Old age pensions, for instance, (but if my parents were not getting these they would still be looked after . . .by me and my two sisters). I realise that not all old people are as lucky. What would you think of a society where old people, handicapped people, etc. were looked after by the local community? Would you give two hours out of your week to help them, and get to know them? Or is it better to have the government send them a cheque from Ottawa and that way we don't have to get our hands dirty? But, what is the cost? Medicare. Now there's another useful socialist concept. I could say that doctors should not be employees of the state, being a right-winger and all. However even I can realise that a sudden illness or injury could wipe someone out through no fault of their own. So I do grant that some socialist programs have merit. However, I have yet to hear an arguement to justify the government ownership of Petro-Canada. I'll refrain from stating my previous arguements. The post office, I will grant should be under government control, as should be Air Canada. Airlines are being subsidised by so many other countries I doubt we could be competitive on a private basis...or could we? I see no need for government run manufacturing, or high tech firms though. Cheers, Fred Williams
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/05/85)
In article <1188@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >In article <1229@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >> >>The problem is that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean anything, as >>Bishop Wilberforce pointed out some time ago. >> > It was I who posted the article applying the term "survival of the >fittest" to companies. Oops... sorry if I've been confusing two of you. I ought to read names more carefully. Never mind, in the socialist paradise to come, no one will have a name of his/her own. (Or is that Bill Bennett who wants to do that? :-)) > Allow me to admit that I've no recollection of >a Bishop Wilberforce. Nevertheless, I stand by my original concept. >"fittest" in this context is some combination of productivity, service > economy of price, etc. It will no doubt vary from product to > product and defy description, but the final judge is the customer! > If the company is fit, it makes sales! If it makes sales and > manages to avoid doing anything really stupid, it survives. Hence > the conclusion. Bishop Wilberforce was the one who got laughed out of court by Thomas Huxley in the debates over evolution. Your paragraph above illustrates why "survival of the fittest" means nothing: "fittest" for what? Why, for survival, of course! The phrase is a tautology. What's more, the application from evolution is to species, not to individuals. The distinction is crucial. Please note that I am not claiming private firms are not more efficient than government-run organizations. I just think that this particular biological analogy has such an unfortunate history that it should be kept out of social and economic discussions.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/06/85)
>>The problem is that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean anything, as >>Bishop Wilberforce pointed out some time ago. >> > It was I who posted the article applying the term "survival of the >fittest" to companies. Allow me to admit that I've no recollection of >a Bishop Wilberforce. Nevertheless, I stand by my original concept. >"fittest" in this context is some combination of productivity, service > economy of price, etc. It will no doubt vary from product to > product and defy description, but the final judge is the customer! > If the company is fit, it makes sales! If it makes sales and > manages to avoid doing anything really stupid, it survives. Hence > the conclusion. > > Yes it is simplistic. Why do so few people understand it? "Simplistic" doesn't mean the same as "simple". It means, more or less, too simple to have a chance of being true, and is properly applied to your analysis. For one thing, the idea of "survival of the fittest" never was applied to any individual organism, but to types. Individual organisms have to contend with bad luck, but on balance those types that are "fitter" (i.e. more likely to survive and reproduce) tend to leave more progeny. Even if this simple idea sufficed in biology, how would it help in considering the fates of individual businesses? Sure, a "fit" business would have a better chance of surviving than an "unfit" one, but it would only be a chance, and in any case the argument would be circular since "fitness" is measured by survival chance. A second problem with the simplistic approach also hinges on the chance aspect. All economic activity involves some aspects of a gamble, and even the best thought-out and managed plans can "gang aft agley". A most worth-while project might die a-borning for lack of capital, whereas a better financed but worse conceived project might survive the same kind of ill luck. Remember, the real edge held by a gambling casino is not the unbalanced odds that favour the house, but the unbalanced capital that allows the house to survive a run of bad luck. In our society, the government can be (and often is) the house, and a company suffering a run of bad luck can do better by being able to draw on that capital, without which it might undeservedly die. All of which does not deny that well managed companies producing wanted goods will usually do better than ill-managed companies doing unwanted things, with or without bailouts. It does say that with reasonable selectivity, government bailouts can enhance the ability of the marketplace to sort out the good from the worthless. This way of looking at things applies to Crown Corporations. I agree that there should be no need for a Crown Corporation in a successful business area (one with several profitable companies). For one thing, it represents possibly unfair competition. But in an unprofitable but necessary area, Crown Corporations may be the only reasonable way of protecting the national interest. I think De Havilland is a case in point. They have a good product with a strong past market and probably a strong future market when the world economy recovers (especially the Third World). Right now, they couldn't turn a profit under any management, and probably would die. I don't see any reason why the Post Office should be a Crown Corporation. The arguments put forward by the Government when they converted it from a Government department (flexibility, efficiency, etc.) could apply equally well to any Government department. A better answer would be to improve the efficiency of the Civil Service. Bring it back to its healthy condition of the Pearson days. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/08/85)
In article <1230@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: > . . . Your paragraph above illustrates why >"survival of the fittest" means nothing: "fittest" for what? Why, for >survival, of course! The phrase is a tautology. > Fittest for pleasing the customer, I believe. What else? >What's more, the application from evolution is to species, not to individuals. >The distinction is crucial. > It is only an analogy, after all. But a good one I believe. Cheers, Fred Williams
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/10/85)
> ... Also, we the taxpayers do have a > little more to show for our money if we own the company that gets it. Have you tried to sell your share of a crown corporation lately? Do you expect that the government would pay you the equivalent cash value if you left Canada? In what way do we have more to show for money wasted on a crown corporation, as opposed to money wasted on a private corporation? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/10/85)
> The post office, I will grant should be under government > control, as should be Air Canada. Airlines are being subsidised > by so many other countries I doubt we could be competitive on a > private basis...or could we? Why is it in our interests to have a native internationally-competitive airline, as opposed to being served by internationally-competitive airlines? Why do we *need* a pet airline, especially when the kitty litter for it is so damned expensive? Please don't tell me it's so we can have air travel to Moose's Armpit, Saskatchewan, because Air Canada doesn't fly there anyway. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
fred@mnetor.UUCP (07/10/85)
In article <5770@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Why is it in our interests to have a native internationally-competitive >airline, as opposed to being served by internationally-competitive >airlines? Why do we *need* a pet airline, especially when the kitty >litter for it is so damned expensive? Yaeh, Henry, you could be right! Why not have sale, Air Canada, and Petro-Can, etc. We could make a big dent in the national debt. This could be used to lower taxes, (wish). Then we finally would get something back from these enterprises. Cheers, Fred Williams
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (07/10/85)
> Now let's look at some real scewups (not a complete list): > [The following are all Crown Corporations] > > Return on > Company Capital > ------- --------- > CBC -1.05 > ...... > > J.B. Robinson Wait a minute there! CBC was never meant to be a profit-making operation. It is a service operation providing information, ideas, entertainment to people. I personnally am very happy that they are losing money. It means that they spend more time producing services than selling them. How can you compare the profits of a service industry with that of regular industry? Service means service to people, not money (except reasonnable wages) to those providing it. I would be very suspicious of any service industry which registered a profit that wasn't spent on providing more services because then they wouldn't be providing as good a service as they could, thus, in my opinion failing in their goal. From what I have heard so far, CBC radio programs are also the most professional, informative and intelligent in North America. I don't watch enough TV to know about CBC TV vs other networks. Given the cuts in CBC's budget, it is amazing that they are still managing to produce such high-quality programs. I am personnally very happy that my taxes are contributing to the continuation of such a good service. I really don't understand some of you posters on the net. Isn't there any other measure of worth than the mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$? what do you think money is for in the first place? to make more money? the original purpose of money was to serve as a standardised way to trade services, yes services of human value. This is what we do with CBC or other service industries like hospitals (I guess I should say "we should" since medical care now seems to be a business rather than a service) or educational establishments. These operations provide many intangible benefits to society that can even be eventually translatable in $$$$$$$$$$$, but do not have to be if they contribute to the overall happiness of people. You can't take it with you, you know..... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/10/85)
>... Isn't there any other measure of worth than the mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
None that is acceptable to Revenue Canada at tax time! :-)
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryacton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (07/12/85)
I realize it is not normal to post facts to Usenet but a few concerning the CBC are in order. All of these figures are from the 1983-84 annual report of the CBC for the year ending March 31 1984. For that period of time the CBC's total budget was $979,416,000 of which the federal government provided $815,253,000. In addition the federal government provided $33,000,000 in interest free loans. The CBC's report claimed that they employed `about 12,000' people full time. (Yup, that is how the CBC reported its employement figures.) In article <1252@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP writes: >Wait a minute there! CBC was never meant to be a profit-making >operation. It is a service operation providing information, ideas, >entertainment to people. Originally the CBC was created to regulate (yes regulate) access to the airwaves and to provide a radio service. One of the goals of the radio service was to "protect" us from domination by U.S. radio. Sort of sounds like the CRTC and its attitude to U.S. TV signals. According to a government report entitiled "An evaluation of the Canadian Broadcasting System", additional goals of the system now include safeguarding, enriching and strengthening the political, social and economic fabric of the nation. Freedom of speech is unquestioned except where it conflicts with the law or the above mentioned goals. (The above is paraphrased from the report.) These conditions apply to all broadcasters including the CBC. This suggests to me that yes indeed the purpose of the CBC has never been to make a profit. Instead it and the associated broadcast acts are attempts by the government to try and influence the way we think and to enshrine the legality of this intervention in law. (No wonder I have heard of people in West Vancouver calling the CBC the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.) Fortunately for us, events transpired that prevented this from happening and instead the CBC became a big sink whole for government money. >From what I have heard so far, CBC radio programs are also the most >professional, informative and intelligent in North America. I don't >watch enough TV to know about CBC TV vs other networks. This, of course, is personal preference. I personally do not listen to CBC radio because I don't like it. I seldom watch CBC productions on TV for the same reason, but they do produce a couple of good shows. The CBC TV news appears to be produced by a bunch of navel-gazers who think the centre of the universe lies between Toronto and Ottawa. How else could you explain five minutes of drivel concerning some fight between two Toronto area mayors over a trivial problem that the people of Toronto probably didn't care about let alone the rest of the nation? >Given the >cuts in CBC's budget, it is amazing that they are still managing to >produce such high-quality programs. As I recall the CBC's budget was cut by between $80 and $90 million dollars which is a drop in the bucket compared to their total expenditures. If the shows they produce are so great and of such high quailty they should have no problem selling the programs directly to another network or time to advertisers to make up the difference. But hold on a sec, maybe the CBC is producing high quality stuff that nobody wants. I bet we could build some real fancy high quality buggy whips in a government factory too but who would use them? Just because the product goes off and pollutes the airwaves instead of piling up in a warehouse doesn't mean that it is being used. Given the massive amount of government money required to sustain the CBC octopus I would suggest that this is indeed the case. I have never seen a set of audience ratings for the Vancouver area where either CBC AM or FM radio had any sort of audience compared to the other stations. As far as TV is concerned the CBC's six o'clock news is constantly hammered by BCTV's Newshour. Any of the CBC's programs that draw a decent audience can usually be found on a U.S. station. (Except for perhaps hockey games and I am sure that CTV would love to broadcast some of them.) The question then becomes one of should the general population of Canada be asked to provide a service that only an elite few make use of? My answer is no. If I had my way the only government subsidized function of the CBC would be to forward radio signals (not necessarily CBC radio) to those communities that can't get anything else. TV to isolated regions is not an issue since you can just point a dish at the appropriate satellite and pick up BCTV or some other station. > These operations provide many >intangible benefits to society that can even be eventually translatable >in $$$$$$$$$$$, but do not have to be if they contribute to the overall >happiness of people. There are lots of events that I participate in that contibute to my happiness and to that of lots of other people who do the same but we don't expect the government to foot the bill for those activities. Like lots of people in the Vancouver area I like to ski and it sure would be nice if the government would provide free lift tickets for my favourite mountain but it is hardly something a reasonable person would expect. Donald Acton
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/15/85)
In article <1252@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP writes: >Wait a minute there! CBC was never meant to be a profit-making >operation. It is a service operation providing information, ideas, >entertainment to people. I personnally am very happy that they are >losing money. It means that they spend more time producing services >than selling them. On the other hand, a lack of profit could be the sign of an organization which has become bloated due to the fact nobody ever told them to watch their expenditures. >.................................................... Given the >cuts in CBC's budget, it is amazing that they are still managing to >produce such high-quality programs. See above comment for a possible answer to this one. J.B. Robinson