robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (08/21/84)
> > I read advocacy of letting things that are not profitable die (e.g. CN > unprofitable lines, DeHaviland, etc.). It seems some people want the > cost of providing a service to a person to be borne directly by that > person -- people don't want profitable areas of the economy supporting > unprofitable areas (e.g. CN unprofitable lines, DeHaviland, etc.). DeHavilland, Canadair, Petrocan and many other Crown Corporations do not provide a service, and for this reason should be self-supporting or allowed to die a natural death. ( Personally I don't think the government should be involved in the private sector in such a manner in the first place ) These comapanies are involved in enterprises that are fully capable of turning a profit, and their inability to do so stems from the fact that they are basically run by politicians and not business people. That some of them should have been laid to rest years ago, but are still around stems from the fact that politicians are incapable of saying 'I made a mistake'. If the government really feels it necessary that Canada should have an aircraft industry ( for example ) then they should do it by way of tax incentives and/or government loans to the private sector ( read Canadian private sector ), and not by creating one more Crown Corporation which is inherently going to be less efficient than its private sector counterpart. J.B. Robinson
elf@utcsrgv.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) (08/21/84)
I am always amused by the argument that business should be left to
businessmen, because they know how to make a profit. I suspect a
large proportion of them are just as adept at losing money as our
favourite whipping post. ("Ah, but that's different, because when
businesses lose money, all that happens is that people lose their jobs
and go on pogey, and then businesses can claim to have a 'lean, tough'
new outlook and apply for government subsidies.")
I am always amused when business leaders blame the government for
their financial woes (invariably getting a sympathetic ear), and
yet when our government says that maybe the policies of our Good
Friends down south have something to do with our financial situation,
the same people cry foul.
I suppose ethnics like me are easily amused.
Eugene Fiume
U of Torontothompso@utecfc.UUCP (Mark Thompson) (08/22/84)
Eugene Fiume writes: >I am always amused by the argument that business should be left to >businessmen, because they know how to make a profit. I suspect a >large proportion of them are just as adept at losing money as our >favourite whipping post. ("Ah, but that's different, because when >businesses lose money, all that happens is that people lose their jobs >and go on pogey, and then businesses can claim to have a 'lean, tough' >new outlook and apply for government subsidies.") Oh really Eugene? I think your suspicions are totally unfounded since a majority of businesses do seem to make a profit (despite the government) otherwise they wouldn't exist very long. The big difference between the private sector and public sector is that incompetents are quickly eliminated in the private sector or the company dies (unless the government decides to buy it or it is swallowed up by a more soundly run corporation). Unfortunately those that bungle up in the public sector are not easily eradicated and they normally are just shuffled off to screw something else up (example: Bryce Mackasey) sp?. This is one of the main problems of socialist philosphy which seems to absolve people of responsibility for their own actions and upkeep. I mean really, who should business be left to Eugene? Flower arrangers? >I am always amused when business leaders blame the government for >their financial woes (invariably getting a sympathetic ear), and >yet when our government says that maybe the policies of our Good >Friends down south have something to do with our financial situation, >the same people cry foul. The financial policies of the United States have certainly helped their economy and have helped bring inflation down throughout much of the Western world. The shear size of the American economy means that effects (good and bad) on other countries are unavoidable. It appears that the countries complaining the most are the ones who through their own incompetence have created economic difficulties in their own countries. The economic policies of the U.S. don't seem to be hurting Japan too much. Why? Because their government in cooperation with industry seem to know what they are doing unlike the turkeys we have had in Ottawa for over 20 years. Canada's economy is closely linked to that of the U.S. and the financial obstacles Canadians face are similar. Then why is the U.S. economy healthier? It could be related to the fact that the government their has decided to butt out of business as much as possible and leave it to those who know what it's about. It may be argued that the deficit created to pay for defense expenditures is priming their economy but it is certainly not the major reason. Canada's federal government maintains a much larger deficit (based on % of GNP) and our economy certainly isn't thriving. Why shouldn't business cry foul when government steps in and screws up the rhyme and reason of things? Just look at what the NEP did to Alberta's economy. When it is said that the federal government should have done more for the economy in the past I am inclined to think that it would have been better if they had kept their noses right out of it. Hopefully if the Conservatives win the election(which thank god seems likely), they will stick by their promise of encouraging business. It should certainly help all Canadians except public sector fatcats and those not interested in earning their own keep. Mark Thompson @U. of T. Mechanical Engineering
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/23/84)
On the one hand, Mark Thomson argues for minimal government interference
with and support of business, and on the other he points to Japan as
a shining example of what can be accomplished. Well, really ...
Ever heard of MITI, Mark? Have you looked at how Japan, Inc. is
organized?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtrobinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (08/23/84)
> > I am always amused by the argument that business should be left to > businessmen, because they know how to make a profit. I suspect a > large proportion of them are just as adept at losing money as our > favourite whipping post. Perhaps, but business people who continue to lose money do not remain business people very long - unlike our favourite whipping post. If you are indeed always amused by the above I guess you must go into veritable hysterics once a year when the Auditor-General releases his report which invariably lambastes the government for its inability to spend taxpayers' hard earned money in a responsible fashion. > ("Ah, but that's different, because when > businesses lose money, all that happens is that people lose their jobs > and go on pogey, and then businesses can claim to have a 'lean, tough' > new outlook and apply for government subsidies.") First off I don't believe in government subsidies for businesses. In a properly operating economy intelligently managed businesses which have employees who are realistic concerning their wages will thrive, and companies not so inclined will die. To ask taxpayers to subsidize companies run by incompetent managers and/or ruled by greedy unions is asking too much. Secondly, I think it is necessary to define just what the role of government in our society is supposed to be. If one of its jobs is to employ people for employment's sake then some of the above has a bit of substance to it. ( That is one of the reasons given for keeping Canadair hooked up to the respirator - "Think of the 2900 employees who would be unemployed if Canadair folded" ) However, if employing people for employment's sake is not one of the jobs of the government, then, theoretically, when a purely business venture of the government ( e.g. said Canadair ) continues to lose money, it should be shut down. The Communist block countries employ people for employment's sake, and they make the Canadian economy look darn good in comparison. > I am always amused when business leaders blame the government for > their financial woes (invariably getting a sympathetic ear), and > yet when our government says that maybe the policies of our Good > Friends down south have something to do with our financial situation, > the same people cry foul. One of the concerns of business people is government over-regulation. A real life example being a music radio station in Windsor which has lost most of its following to its Detroit counter-part. Reason: CRTC regulations which require a minimum amount of spoken words ( as opposed to music ). The Detroit station is not encumbered by such regulations and since people generally listen to music stations to hear music, and not to find out the latest and greatest way to grow tomatoes in your basement using ultra-violet light, the result is that the Windsor station can't compete ( yes, I know that that is a four letter word to some of you out there, but I left my thesaurus at home ) with the Detroit station. ( Yep, I watch W5 too ) [ 10 to 1 odds that the liberty loving Liberals would sooner jam the Detroit station ( if they thought they could get away with it) than loosen up regulations for all Canadian stations ] This may seem like a trivial example but it is symptomatic of the problems facing an absurdly over-regulated country. And, since the future holds for Canada more competition with other countries, not less, this problem will continue to get worse, not better. As for the policies of our Good Friends down South - I've previously voiced my opinion in another article. To blame the USA for Canada's problems is a red herring. The Liberals seem to think they can take credit when everything's rosy, and blame the US when the economy sucks. Well, if the US's policies are so destructive why do they have 7.1% unemployment, while Canada has 11.1% ? Both countries had about 7.4 % unemployment back in 1980. Maybe there is something to that voodoo economics those barbarians are practising down there. > > I suppose ethnics like me are easily amused. > > Eugene Fiume > U of Toronto J.B. Robinson
robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (08/23/84)
Martin Taylor writes > On the one hand, Mark Thomson argues for minimal government interference > with and support of business, and on the other he points to Japan as > a shining example of what can be accomplished. Well, really ... > Ever heard of MITI, Mark? Have you looked at how Japan, Inc. is > organized? > -- As I understand it, MITI will mercilessly allow an unviable company to die. This is something Canadian politicians, unfortuneately, refuse to do. J.B. Robinson
mnh@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mark N. Hume) (08/23/84)
Now that Canadair has been brought into the argument, I thought I might give a little historical perspective to the situation. Remember the Avro Arrow? That's the jet fighter aircraft (with the highly advanced technology) that Diefenbaker scrapped (literally) because it was costing too much. Well, look at us now, buying our jet fighters from the US (with cracks and all) at a cost of BILLIONS of dollars. Not only that but we lost most of our aircraft design speacialists to the US (NASA is one of the main beneficiaries). We keep reading that high technology will be the saviour of the Canadian economy , yet we also keep reading that we should let one high technology sector (aircraft) die, which is what would happen if the government pulled out of Canadair and DeHavilland.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/23/84)
> Ever heard of MITI, Mark? Have you looked at how Japan, Inc. is > organized? Well, this is not a subject that I'm an expert on, but I do know that MITI is much more in the "recommend" business than in the "dictate" business. And companies feel free to ignore their recommendations when they seem silly. There is the classic case of MITI telling Honda that they should stick with motorcycles rather than branching out into the automobile business... -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/23/84)
Incidentally, if it is really desirable for the government to bail out
de Havilland Canada and Canadair -- I'm very much of two minds about
this one -- what about a truly radical idea: why doesn't the government
BUY SOME AIRCRAFT?!? The Armed Forces definitely could use some modern
transports (Dash-7 and Challenger both qualify, in slightly different
roles), definitely could use some Airborne Early Warning aircraft (like
the proposed AEW Challenger), and very badly need more maritime patrol
aircraft (e.g. the "Ranger" variant of the Dash-7).
This would appear to have a number of advantages. The companies know
where they stand, and can run things their own way. It would probably
be good for the export market. The government would have something to
show for its investment. It probably wouldn't cost us any more. And
our Armed Forces might actually get some of the modern equipment they
so desperately need if we are to keep our international commitments.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry