From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:12:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.164343.23474@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>Economies of scale have resulted in recent Canadian plant
>closures; why keep a small Crest toothpaste plant open in Ontario when
>you can consolidate it with the excess capacity in Missouri with the
>attendant profits gained from economy of scale?

the last time i responded to your "free trade consolidation" manure,
i provided at least ten additional reasons why a company might leave
canada in a minute as soon as it was possible. did you respond to any of
them? no. you just repeat the same tired rhetoric, paraphrased directly
from mulroney's lips. "don't worry about the plant closings. it's just
free trade consolidation..." 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?
and that with free trade there's no need for them to have to deal
with being "the enemy" (i.e. a business in Ontario?)
uh-oh, there i go being logical again. sorry. quick! delete it!

you don't want to talk about the other things,
because you might have to admit that you are wrong. instead, you 
conveniently ignore my statements and then claim that "i have not
pointed out anything". your intellectual integrity is growing very
questionable, as is your courage. you're not fooling anyone though.

>By the same token, new
>markets emerge for existing industries -- a plethora of Canadian food
>products have arrived on NYC supermarket shelves alone since the time
>that I commenced grad school at Columbia.  Since the last GATT round
>was concluded more than a decade ago, the FTA has to be the reason ...

i will grant that some canadian companies are profitting from the FTA.
it doesn't have to be all one-way. but your argument means nothing
since you can't tell us why an entrepreneur should start up a company
in canada when she can do so much more easily in the states.
so i repeat the following paragraph from a previous article of mine,
which you force me to repeat by your miserable avoidance and "charles
hasn't pointed out anything" tactics:

CMK:
   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?

* * *

General Boycott:
>>>I have to admit in browsing the canadian thread that, I found
>>>several points interesting. The one that comes most strongly to mind
>>>was made by the socialist I think, oddly enough, who observed that
>>>what works in Canada (socialism-wise) may not in America due to
>>>size. I take this for granted, first as a simple extension of
>>>information theory.  

Gary L Dare:
>Just a clarification: I do NOT consider myself a socialist, Charles
>does (and he's welcome to)

well done, Gary! that's another sign that you *are* a socialist.
most of the socialists i have met refuse to acknowledge that they
*are* socialists. they all want us to think that they are not socialists.
that's part of how the confiscation game works. if they come out
and admit what they are, we *might* realize what they are doing to us.
most of them even want us to believe that they are pro-business.
Bob Rae says he's pro-business Gary! do you believe him?

no doubt you will now call me McCarthy again because you will say
that i leave no possibility of a real non-socialist claiming
he is not. well that is easy: let him argue like a non-socialist.
which you do not.

the policies of the canadian and most provincial governments are
extremely socialistic. you support them. therefore you are a socialist.
care to argue against it? prove it by showing you stand for non-socialist
policies, not just saying "I do NOT consider myself a socialist".
ah, but i already challenged you to do that,
and you left the gauntlet on the floor so you could say "charles hasn't made
any points".

>I'm currently a Conservative supporter.

you can *label* yourself as anything you want. you can call yourself
the Queen of England for all i care. your words show what you are; your
self-labelling is meaningless.

and the Conservatives are also socialist anyway, as they have proven in the past
8 years. i voted for mulroney in '84 when he said he would clean up the
mess and restore financial sensibility. my friends and i cracked open
champagne. he was in power during the boom
years, when he could have been working on the deficit. he didn't.
he proved to be no better than the jerks he replaced (not that the jerks
who might have been in instead of him might not have been worse
than the ones *they* replaced). i'm embarrassed to have supported him.

so don't quote me "i support the Conservatives so i am not a socialist".
they are only conservative compared to the NDP. and as i have said, it's
all relative: in russia, Bob Rae would be "capitalist of the year". doesn't
change the fact that the conservatives are socialist too.
are labels all you care about? 

>Paul is a self-made millionaire who rejected his
>silver-spoon heritage from his father (the writer of the Canada Health
>Act), moved to Montreal, became bilingual and founded companies like
>Canada Steamship Lines (CSL)).

you can deal with the other gentleman on that guy. he seems to disagree
with you, and given your track record he is probably right.
frankly it seems all you can do is repeat the names of prominent
politicians as if that proved anything.

>>but it *doesn't* work, as i have pointed out.  even the health
>>insurance system will eventually collapse. don't believe the 
>>bull about "we spend less on health care per capita than the US". 
>>i don't. it will come tumbling down too.
>
>You have not pointed out anything, with all due respect.

ah! there it is! your pinnacle of deception! well done!

you have got some nerve Gary. when i read this the first time, i was
going to go back and excerpt the *dozens* of points i made which
you summarily dismissed and ignored. but you would do the same thing
to *that* article too, no doubt. so why bother?

i already spent hours writing them in the first place.
you refuse to deal with them, and instead spew endless rhetoric
about the "canadian business establishment" and "your friends in
the hospital". and write long essays about irrelevance filled with
smileys. and claim "it's all a matter of time... I'll try to to get
to [the other issues] later..." while not doing so...
(thought i forgot about that one?)

so i'm not going to indulge your bait by wasting hours more of my time.
if you don't want to deal with the issues, to hell with you.
if you do, go back and re-read them, and respond logically.
i'll re-send them to you if you want.

>You just
>don't like the government taking care of the insurance fund.

that's right. i don't. i admitted as much. at least
i can be consistent about it, mr. "the GST is a replacement for
the MST" and "who cares about saving $5,000 a year on taxes
because of the home interest deduction, i can save money on power saws!
it's all arbitrary anyway!"

>And
>you have avoided that our private health insurance approves because
>the non-market basic care portion entails too great risks to achieve
>universal coverage.

uh-uh, Gary. nice try.
after our considerable discussion on health care, i admitted that
the canadian system may be no worse than the american. i also said
that health care was only one of a large set of issues, and that
i didn't want it to take over the whole discussion.
admission is not avoidance. do i have
to go back and re-excerpt *everything* just to keep you straight?
it is not *i* who has been doing the avoiding here.

that is *one* issue. i concede it as above -- the canadian system may be
no worse than the american.
now, what did you do with the other issues?
on some of them, you got ripped to shreds and still refused to admit you
might be wrong. the rest you totally ignored.
so who is doing the avoiding, Gary?

>Since they funded Paul Martin, Sr.,

him again? what are you, president of the Paul Martin fan club?
read this carefully: I DON'T CARE ANY MORE ABOUT CANADA'S HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM. my health care is quite adequate.
i want to talk about how much it costs to live in canada,
about canada's current financial crisis, how its socialist
policies got it there, and thus why americans should be very careful
about doing the same here.
if you want to continue talking about health care, start another
thread. this one is titled "Death of Canada" not "Why Canada's
Health-Care System is So Darn Wonderful" nor "Paul Martin Sr. and Jr. --
A Couple of Swell Guys".

>
>gld, the tory socialist (-;

you joke. tell me this Gary: tell me how the current tories (conservatives)
are not socialist? go ahead Gary, give it a try.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex