Path: utzoo!lsuc!nrcaer!cognos!rayt
From: rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: What does it mean to be a Canadian?
Message-ID: <6713@cognos.UUCP>
Date: 2 Aug 89 00:13:15 GMT
References: <615662921.9256@myrias.uucp> <568@UALTAVM.BITNET> <609@philmtl.philips.ca> <1458@apss.apss.ab.ca> <1989Jul27.235845.24886@tmsoft.uucp> <1034@jtsv16.UUCP>
Reply-To: rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.)
Distribution: can
Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 52

In article <1034@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes regarding Elizabeth
Doucette's challenge:

>As for going to the U.S. to buy, damn right I will.  And it has *NOTHING*
>to do with a [un]willingness to support Canadian industry; if we can't
>compete, then pack up your bags and find an industry where we *can* compete.
>I have no sympathy for textile industries or grape farmers; if we can't
>do it well enough to keep our markets within the U.S. and Canada, then we
>shouldn't be doing it.

There are a couple of problems with this view as I perceive it. First, one
must recognize the effect of scale: the American's with a ten-fold population
advantage can reap a larger benefit from large-scale production, and while
it might be contended that that market would also be available to any would-be
Canadian producer, American's DO have (or are very seriously acquiring) a
buy-American attitude as a response to the Asian economic strategy. Second,
and this relates directly to the `free-trade' agreement, Americans have an
interesting view with regards to subsidies: that they are primarily a Canadian
phenomenon; US government contracts etc. being `something' else. Both of these
imply that the market is NOT free, that there is a considerable American
bias, and thus that Canadians, should they fall prey to such idealistic
illusions as you advocate, will find themselves without primary industry.

Another problem is that, even under complete laissez-faire market conditions,
buying foreign products to save a few cents is undermining your local economy
as the balance of payments becomes skewed. This may be fine under a system
wherein the labour force can migrate without constraint, but national boundaries
curtail this equalization enormously. Thus, once again, concerns beyond a
pure, hypothetical, market economy must predominate.

Lastly, there is the issue of `community'. To buy foreign product in disregard
of local manufacturers, is to have no regard for the effects which, even should
they be absorbed within the national boundaries, are detrimental to one's own
living environment (a sort of political ecology). Clearly, there must be
cooperation. Should absurdly high prices be demanded, and the article for
sale is of secondary import (e.g. entertainment products), then an alternative
to buying foreign goods, is to not buy at all! This has both the desirable
effects of maintaining a balance of payments AND showing dissatisfaction with
the pricing strategy being employed. Automobiles, for example, fit well under
this scheme since, rather than buy an unsatisfactory product, one maintains
the current manifestation. I acknowledge that this strategy is unrealistic,
but claims of industrial `survivalists' who advocate `pressuring' manufactures
by buying foreign products, quite conveniently ignore this alternative while
sanctimoniously indulging in their every desire. This is not always the case,
but of significant occurrence to warrant mention.

							R.
-- 
Ray Tigg                          |  Cognos Incorporated
                                  |  P.O. Box 9707
(613) 738-1338 x5013              |  3755 Riverside Dr.
UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp            |  Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4