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.