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: <2591@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 10:07:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2591
Posted: Wed Oct  2 10:07:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:48:06 EDT
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 95

> In article <2578@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes:
> >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).
> 
> I have been in touch with the North-South Institute, they are sending
> me a list of their publications, and I know the study in question was
> done in 1981.  I may have it within 2 weeks (if I can guess the right
> title...)
it would be nice to know.
> 
> You seem to think it's very important what country/countries the
> figures apply to.  I and one other person have said it's irrelevant,
> and made arguments to justify that position.  You simply say it's
> "ridiculous" to discuss these figures without knowing what country they
> apply to.  "Ridiculous" isn't an argument.  Show us an argument.  Show
> us what's wrong with our arguments.  What do you think my original
> posting was trying to prove?  And how is the country those figures came
> from relevant to it?  Demonstrate to us that there's a brain somewhere
> behind that mouth.
Fine. Those figures could easily represent a totally different situation
than that which exists in Canada; they could (given their source) easily
represent a north&south american average which would have little to say
about Canada (or since the U.S. & canadian average balance of world trade
is negative should we assume that canada has a trade deficit?) given our
relative size; or they could be talking about the entire world or some
specific (other) country.  The point is the same: we were talking (it
seems to me) about free trade&canada so what is the point in giving out
figures which do/may not apply to Canada?  Had the figures been
from, for example, the conference board of Canada I would assume that
they were intended to apply to Canada; it seems far from clear that
figures from the north-south institute necessarily tell us *anything*
about Canada.

> 
> It should be obvious to you what country those figures refer to.  But
> is it irrelevant?

Why is it obvious? Because you want them to refer to Canada?
.
.
> >> 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.
> 
> 6000 jobs is less than .03% of the population of Canada.  It just
> doesn't seem worth the hassle to enforce quotas for such a tiny
> fraction of the population...

That may in fact be true - as I said you need to know the size of the
problems available so that you know where to expend (limited) effort.

> >> 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?
> No you aren't.  It's based on figures from the newspaper article.
Ah, now I see why you're so confident of the figures - your a mind
reader.
.
.
> >> 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.
> 
> Textile quotas.  Shoe quotas.  Marketing boards for dairy products,
> eggs, and several other farm products.  (So we pay extra on most of
> what we wear and most of what we eat.) Import duties on most things.
> 
> Textile quotas are only a fraction of the whole thing.
And marketing boards are a *very* different thing from import duties
and quotas applied to foreign manufacturers. Two repeat two points:
1. How much does all this really cost? Is it really a significant problem?
2. Where will government recoup the revenue it now gets from duties?

and, of course:
3. what happens to the (possibly up to 1 million according to the
   cbc evening news) people who lose their jobs through free trade.

and, just since I'm on a roll
4. If free trade if such a solid gold no lose proposition why is it
   that the government feels it's so necessary to do such a con
   job on us (refering to the publicized document on selling free
   trade to the canadian public)
> -- 
> David Canzi
> 
> "It's Reagan's fault.  Everything's Reagan's fault.  Floods... volcanoes...
> herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
Oh yeah; as to your question - is their a brain behind the mouth?  Obviously
not considering how much time I let myself expend in explaining the obvious.