Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: High Duties => Increased Competitiveness? Message-ID: <1707@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 05:08:56 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1707 Posted: Sat Sep 28 05:08:56 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 04:15:19 EDT References: <1394@utcsri.UUCP> <2188@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Organization: University of Woolamaloo Lines: 42 Summary: 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,, so what? If somebody robs you of $5 one thousand times, that's different. -- David Canzi Got a vote to sell? Brian's buyin'.