From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America) [long]
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.031539.24973@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>
>>>No, it was quite extensive.  13% on everything that was manufactured.
>>>That's a fairly long list.  It's name was the Manufacturer's Tax ...
>>>not too hard to parse the meaning there, I'd say.
>>
>>much easier, i'd say, than getting you to admit that replacing 
>>a "manufacturer's" tax with a goods AND SERVICES tax and claiming 
>>that one is equivalent to the other is an outright lie.
>
>Hey, I didn't put that tax in! (-;  Those socialist Tories took out 
>the Manufacturer's Tax, put in the GST ... there was a swap ... the
>two taxes were tied together ... with a clumsy, overnight change.

thank you for changing your mind. earlier you were suggesting that
the GST was a reasonable replacement to the MST. now you are trying
to distance yourself from it. i hope the reader will keep that
in mind when assessing the value of your hand-wave dismissal of
all of my arguments at the bottom of the article, assuming anyone
else is still following this thread anymore.

>
>>you also still have not told me how we can "write down the deficit"
>>(fallacy alert) with the funds raised from the GST if the GST is 
>>just a replacement for an existing tax.
>
>According to the news reports, the GST money is sitting in one lump
>in escrow at the moment.  Here's the funny part ... they don't know
>how to pry it loose to put against the debt!!!

sounds like more government tom-foolery to me.
how can they not "pry it loose"? does brian have it sitting in a safe
at home? isn't this the same government that wrote the bloody bill?

they have a majority. they pass a bill, they take the money. what's
the problem? do you believe *everything* the government tells you?

>If you'd like me to
>put in some time to think about how to loosen that dough and pay off
>part of the deficit, you and any other USENET'ers are welcome to go
>and write in my name in the next election ... once I figure out what
>my exact legal residency is at the moment! (-; (-; (-;

write me in.
*i'll* take care of the deficit.

you haven't exactly proven your worth for that job, IMO, though
you certainly are keeping your sense of humor :^)

>>>instead of behind, leading to a more honest sticker price ...
>>
>>rationalization #423,123.  you're right. 
>>the retailers were just ecstatic when the GST was introduced...
>
>Get a basic book on business and look at the composition of retail
>prices ... factor in differences from what the authors present in
>their model to whatever area you're looking at (Ontario, Oregon, ...).

i don't know about that. i *do* remember being in ontario and hearing
the retailers absolutely SCREAM about the extra cost and red tape required
to have two separate taxes on their sales registers and to administer
the extra tax. i also remember them worried, justifiably,
about consumers choosing to deal with their spending power
reduction of 7% (actually 7.5% to be technical) by reducing their
spending by a like amount. why do i need to read a book on retail price
composition? hardly seems relevant.

>
>>you sound exactly like every politician i have ever heard in my life 
>...
>>umm, we can't cut them all at once.. gotta do this gradually... people
>>are hurting out there..."
>
>David Stockman wrote something like that in his book about the time he
>had spent in the Office of Management and Budget.  Ronnie and the gang
>couldn't figure out what to cut but each made sure that their own ox
>wasn't gored ... they got out of that one by borrowing ... Dave quit.

that you would quote those two proves my point, n'est-ce pas?
couldn't have said it better myself. you want me to write *you* in
to take care of the deficit?

>
>>so i tell you what. keep your precious universal health care. but
>>recognize the incredible price you are paying for living in a
>>socialist country.
>
>Fine, let's look at a sample of the federal socialist hit list ...
>Diefenbaker (Conservative), Pearson (Liberal), Trudeau (Liberal),
>Clark (Conservative), Mulroney (Conservative) ... and some longtime
>provincial premiers (3+ terms): Lougheed (Alberta, Conservative),
>Bourassa (Quebec, Liberal), Davis (Ontario, Conservative), Robarts
>(Ontario, Conservative), Hatfield (New Brunswick, Conservative),
>W.A.C. Bennett and later Bill Bennett (British Columbia, Social
>Credit*).  Omigod -- marxists marxists everywhere! (-; (-; (-;

laugh all you want. you'll cry later.
the more you try to belittle my points with smileys and exaggerations,
the more you prove that you don't have anything substantive with
which to counter my position.

or is your position "20 leading political figures can't be wrong"?
"4 out of 5 politicians recommend socialism?"
is that it? that's all ya got? what is this, a toothpaste commercial?

leaving aside the obvious point that i never wrote that list, you did.
i never claimed all those people were socialists. and i never equated
socialism and marxism. those are all *your* words. i take no
responsibility for them whatever.

>
>Before you raise any objections, the reason I've excluded all of the
>NDP provincial regimes that we've had out west is because none of them
>lasted an appreciable time.  A two-term moderate NDP gov't followed by
>a two-term moderate Tory gov't cancels each other out (that happened
>in Manitoba, where I'm from).  Dave Barret's mid-70's rad-left NDP
>regime crashed and burned pretty quickly, one of the shortest terms
>for a government in B.C.  The two Parti Quebecois regimes fizzled 
>upon losing the 1980 referendum, their raison d'etre at the time.
>Lougheed, Robarts, etc. defined eras and affected federal policy 
>in Ottawa.

pretty arbitrary criteria. the PQ may have "fizzled", but look at the
legacy they have left. the NDP in ontario may only be in for one
term, but look at the damage they have caused in just two short years.
who cares if they're only in for three more? it's enough...

>>well, it may be: if you are a consumer, it is. if you are a producer, 
>>it is not.
>
>Northern Telecom has not pulled its bluff to move.  In fact, they have
>stopped making those noises altogether lately ... I never did think
>that they were serious, but I had my worries when I was working with
>them ...

i didn't know about that.

that they would even *hint* at it is dangerous enough. do you have
any idea how bad it would be if they did move? can't you see a warning
sign even when it smacks you right in the face? right, you'll
just say it is "free trade consolidation" or part of the "canadian
establishment conspiracy". *anything* but admit that the climate has
gotten so bad that companies can't be bothered any more? so bad
that the canadian business council came down to harvard business school
this year to practically *beg* canadian business students to come back
to canada "because the country needs them", in true socialist fashion?

how can you take such a thing so lightly?

[
please note: my long list of objections to canadian policy was 
conveniently deleted and summarily dismissed. i'm surprised
he didn't just leave it in and tack a smiley onto the end of each one...
]

>>i want people down here to wake up and realize where this country 
>>is headed if we keep up with the socialist programs and fiscal
>>irresponsibility.  canada is just a few steps ahead on the road 
>>to oblivion.
>
>My record in past excursions through this newsgroup has shown that I'm
>an advocate of fiscal responsibility ... 

i'm new to the newsgroup, but i think what you say is more important
than your record. call me "intellectually entrepreneurial, if you will".

>It's just that I'm not for
>such drastic and sweeping changes as Charles,

you're right. steady as she goes. we'll pull through. no problem.

let's try some simple logic here. current canadian fiscal policy
is *grossly* irresponsible (i dare you to refute it). you are "not
for such drastic and sweeping changes" as me, when all i want is the
systematic elimination of the deficit, which *would* be fiscally
responsible. therefore, as far as i am concerned, you are NOT an
advocate of fiscal responsibility. simple as that. prove me wrong.

>nor do I view things in
>quite a -- *heightened* -- fashion since not all of the programmes
>conflict with my basic pro-business, fiscally conservative-but-
>socially-liberal bent ...

what? did you pull that from your doublespeak dictionary?

>for Charles, I'm just a socialist and 
>that's that ...

that's right. you've admitted as much.
and you haven't even come *close* to refuting my supposition
that canada is a socialist country. instead you make jokes and
call me "mccarthy" for identifying a simple fact you are too embarrassed
to admit.

>fine, but I'm in good company (see the above 
>list of notorious Canadian Reds since the 1950's). (-;

you're right Gary. why even bother to think about this stuff at all?
let's just go with what the leaders tell us. they know best. follow
the majority. they'll take care of you. sheesh.

hey Gary, if 20 other guys jump off the CN tower, would you do it too?
(my mother would love this).

>Rather than just jump on reds-under-the-bed

still calling me mccarthy? i have called canada's policies socialist.
i have explained why they are. you have been unable to refute them
or show why they are beneficial in the long-run, nor have you been able
to justify the appalling combination of over-taxing and excessive budgetary
deficits. you could not even get straight something as simple as the GST
and all the lies associated with it. i guess that's why all you are left
with is putting words in my mouth and projecting your paranoia onto me.

>I've read quite a bit of
>political history and place myself with the nouveau riches (not quite
>there yet, but I'm working on it) who fought for free trade against
>the Canadian Establishment of Rosedale, Westmount, Molson, Labatt's
>and Eaton's that control our Conservative and Liberal parties.  Our
>history of bread-and-circuses for the masses doesn't entirely come
>from Marx unless it's the one from the Royal Bank's previous board 
>of directors ...

ha ha ha.
more humor. you should become a comedian instead of discussing
politics. you're obviously much better at it.

>Also, many of the manufacturing losses pointed to by Charles are a
>result of US-Canada Free Trade Agreement consolidations (Northern
>Telecom did it in the other direction, closing some older American
>plants after modernizing in Bramalea, ON and Bromont, QU).  Nobody
>said it was going to be easy, but that's free trade for long term
>gains (and, other industry is replacing or building up in its place
>such as real product mandates for IBM Canada Research, etc.).
>Socialism, indeed ...

sure Gary. no problems with unemployment at all, right Gary?
just consolidation. sound familiar to anyone?

the reason that manufacturing is leaving canada has a little to do
with free trade, and a *lot* to do with that long list of policy
objections you conveniently deleted. why should a business
locate in southern ontario and have to put up with a socialist
government (they call themselves that, not just me) when they don't
have to? why should they subject themselves to high taxes,
oppressive labor laws, an anti-business climate, a weaker dollar,
an over-priced work-force and a potentially
explosive political climate?

go ahead, delete that too. the truth hurts, i know.

>>>gld (that commie red tory! (-;)
>>
>>i, for one, never called you any such thing. i just called you 
>>a socialist.  that's not rude, is it?
>
>Chill out, I was just having fun ...

yeah Gary. have fun. while you can.
i like to have fun too. i do it in "rec." newsgroups. not while
discussing the future of a continent and a people about whom i
care deeply and am very concerned.

>
>It's all relative on the political spectrum.  I'll probably vote for
>Mulroney the Conservative again.  You know, that socialist guy ... (-;

it's all a big joke, huh Gary?
we'll see who's laughing in ten years.
keep laughing, follow your political leaders.
it's easier than thinking. i know -- i used to be that way too.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc