From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:24:49 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>The old hidden MST raised about $15 billion, ...
>
>i don't know whose numbers to believe. maybe if you guys differed
>by *less* than an order of magnitude...

The numbers are consistent; you accidentally misread, but given the
volume of material that has been generated that's understandable as
one races through quickly over coffee ...

>they didn't do it enough. they campaigned as conservatives. they
>claimed to oppose the liberal policies but they did very little
>to alter them when they were elected.

Ronnie and Mags had the same problem.  Helmut Kohl campaigned against
the irresponsibility of Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, yet Kohl was
the one who was pushing for a Labour Charter at Maastrichte.  The real
world interrupts your plans once you take power.  Otherwise, you enjoy
the "luxury of the Opposition".

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>>
>>>>The provinces can harmonize their PSTs with the GST whenever they 
>>>>want.  Mostly for political reasons they have chosen not to do so.
>>>
>>>ah, but we were discussing Gary's claim that the GST had some 
>>>beneficial aspects to retailers. 
>>
>>Eh?  Where'd I say that? I just said that it removed the wholesale
>>tax to give a straighter sticker price.
>
>gee, that sounds like a beneficial aspect to me. you *do* understand
>english, don't you?
>
>how about when you said, and i quote:
>"Now it's 7.5% up front instead of behind, leading to a more honest
>sticker price... That's enough to spur the private sector to greater
>efficiency"

Yes ... forgive me for assuming that you're familiar with comments
that have been made on USENET in the past about the distribution
system up north, but I did touch on briefly about the Canadian
Business (<--- grep your news on that) magazine survey listing all the
middlemen mark-ups put in along the way.  This is a historical vestige
of the wholesale distribution system that worked fine for opening up
Western Canada, or sending stuff out to the Maritimes during the era
of Green Gables/"Avonlea".  It's still around.  I can relate 'cos when
I was a kid, I remember going through Hudson Bay Wholesale catalogues
and others that our family restaurant business bought its goods
through -- being a cheeky little one, I often asked Mom or Dad why 
we couldn't just buy the stuff directly like we bought the meat and
vegetables ...  <shrug> "Dunno."  With the wholesale tax out, the
sticker price is more honest ... where are the differences vs. The Wiz
in metro New York coming from, outside of economies of scale?  Albert
Cohen at Sony Canada should cancel his wholesale contracts and ship to
the stereo stores directly (hopely, he has done so).

>>>sorry -- you can't refute my argument by redefining the laws of math.
>>>maybe it isn't 7% -- maybe it's 7% times $16 billion over $18 billion.
>>>so? 6%?
>>
>>Parity check ... bzzzt!  (see above)
>
>what the %@$#^%@ are you talking about?
>if the new tax takes in more than the old, there is a loss of
>purchasing power. period. even if it is 2%. the government wanted it to
>sound like a *replacement* tax, which it wasn't. so did you.

Gerald Olchowy pointed out that a GST rebate was paid out from the
funds collected.  I believe that you were still in Canada at the
time to collect on it.

>>>>It is also a more "honest" tax in that, unlike the old MST, it
>>>>is not (usually) hidden in the price of the good or service.
>>
>>That certainly bears repeating, Jim ...
>
>how about the honesty of replacing a manufacturers tax with one
>that taxes SERVICES, smartypants? that deserves repeating too.

Gerald and Jim have presented a sufficient breakdown of the process
that I don't have to repeat.

>>>did you ever consider that the only reason they had a "small plant
>>>open in Ontario" in the first place was to avoid the tariffs they 
>>>now don't have to avoid?
>>
>>That was the reason why I gave that example about free trade ...
>
>that's irrelevant and you damn well know it. they have no reason to 
>be here except to avoid tariffs. not much of a country then, is it?

That's also the reason why Ford manufactured the Opel in Europe.  And
with the EC, they are consolidating factories.  My father-in-law is
currently on assignment in Sicily, where his firm has consolidated its
manufacturing of certain over-the-counter lines.  Many economic issues
come into play, 'cos I was first surprised they they'd move to a sick
economy like Italy in the first place.

>i repeat: why should an entrepreneur put up with all the disadvantages
>i have listed several times when they don't have to, especially
>with free trade now in place?

But they do and there are plenty more besides Corel (who arrived on
the NYSE a few weeks ago) and Ogivar ... people from two work groups
in my old subdivision at BNR Montreal have spun off into a pair of 
their own start-ups in cellular telecom -- and that's in tax-heavy
Quebec.  I'd recommend going to the library and checking out the
business section of the Globe & Mail; it's not complete since they
concentrate on Ontario (hey, "Canada's National Newspaper", right?).

>with no backing theory or economic argument whatever.

The evidence is implicit in all my presentations for anyone who keeps
up with the business press.

>gee, Gary, when you are looking for a job, does the interviewer
>ignore your questions about the stability of the company and how you
>will make drastically less money than if you worked elsewhere and
>instead say you should come work for them anyway because they 'need'
>you?

The stability question is rude (and probably suicidal (-; ... you did
not get the job, I take it?), and the possibility of less money is not
a real problem if there is potential in stock options especially when
talking to a start-up.  Less net income is a reasonable trade-off if
quality of life is factored in ... the West Coast is one of my top
three targets after a life of living inland, and I'll forgo the
ability to own a house in Austin or Regina if I can live in a measly
studio (which'll be enormous compared to my present Manhattan digs)
grab my wetsuit and surfboard for a Sunday afternoon spin in Santa
Cruz.  And before, I was making decent money at BNR Toronto (I was
there briefly before moving to Montreal) and while at a free Parachute
Club show outdoors at Harbourfront, I thought to myself, "hey, I can't
get this in Conneticut!"

>>Yeah, so what about it?  If I lived in a log cabin on the Kootenay
>>range in the Rockies, that's all I'd need.  Living in a society, I
>>also believe that "no man is an Island unto himself" (John Milton?)
>>and the balance of the two are the basis of our western capitalist
>>democracies having numerous persons.  Jefferson and Disraeli are great
>>for individual rights and freedoms, as is Napoleon for codifying civil
>>responsibilities.  I guess that combined makes me a bore ...  I'm glad
>>that I'm not one-dimensional ...
>
>no comment. let the readership decide what you are.

Yes, a radically moderate bore.

>canada had no choice but to agree to free trade, for your
>information. if there had been any alternative, i seriously doubt
>mulroney would have done it -- it almost cost him an election,
>remember? whoops, there i go, using logic again. sorry.

Free trade was a political hot potato that people still feel can be
played with (I do not); consider that the Liberals started it and the
Tories were against it, but then they turned around their positions
when the Tories found that nouveaux riches comprised the majority of
their 1984 landslide caucus and they could "do it": the western
Canadian entrepreneurs spearheaded by Albertans, beneficiaris of the
post-1980 "Quebec Miracle", Michael Wilson and his Bay St. investors
and of course, ex-truck driver Mulroney. (-; The only constant was
Donald MacDonald, whose Royal Commission was started by Trudeau and
delivered its report to Mulroney.  It is probably one of the most
solid logical documents every produced up north, I wish that the
Americans read it 'cos some parts of it were more aggressive than the
final FTA that the Tories stumbled among themselves over, and it would
have satisfied the Reaganites over other ideological objections.

>Bill Clinton is a *democrat*. Mulroney claims to be a *conservative*,
>which is supposed to be akin to being a *republican*!

Don't flame me, this was in UPI news.  Clinton is pretty level-headed
and conservative.  Parties don't quite map across, 'cos for one I've
found that the Reform Party (a traditional Conservative split-off in
Western Canada) are quite akin to the liberal Republicans we have in
Manhattan and on Long Island, once occupying the Tory right rump much
like elements still in the French Gaullistes and German Christian
Democrats of Helmut Kohl ... the same Kohl who was pushing for a
Labour Charter at Maastrichte.

            __
Carlos Marx OO
            ==
             &####@  "You bet yer life!"

PS: BTW, Jim, I didn't have the space to fully say that you have
been requesting people to consider what Reform is trying to say
outside of the hogwash that has been flung around (and remember
that I got caught by the Reform/Manitoba Reform (actually CoR)
fiasco during a previous quick trip to Winnipeg ... "Reformer"
was a quicky that I could dash off fast on the keyboard.  As you
have seen above and in Soc.culture.canada, I've taken your advice.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics