Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: High Duties => Increased Competitiveness? Message-ID: <2578@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 16:26:35 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2578 Posted: Sun Sep 29 16:26:35 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 02:29:07 EDT References: <1394@utcsri.UUCP> <2188@mnetor.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 58 > 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,, 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'.