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'.