Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!fred From: fred@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Nationalization/Crown Corps. Message-ID: <1188@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 15:15:36 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1188 Posted: Fri Jul 5 15:15:36 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:43:18 EDT References: <1121@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1110@mnetor.UUCP> <1229@utcsri.UUCP> Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 68 Summary: 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