Path: utzoo!lsuc!nrcaer!heraclitus!rayt
From: rayt@heraclitus.UUCP (R.)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: What does it mean to be a Canadian?
Message-ID: <6742@heraclitus.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 89 22:41:24 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> <6713@cognos.UUCP> <1042@jtsv16.UUCP>
Reply-To: rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.)
Distribution: can
Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 70

In article <1042@jtsv16.UUCP> Brian A. Jarvis writes in response to my
contention that advocating a laissez-faire market to decide the survival
of national industries (Canadian versus American, in this case) is
idealistic,

>If we are to maintain core industries, export markets, a decent balance
>of trade/payment and a standard of living, we obviously don't want to
>waste time, effort and money in some venture we have precious little
>chance in success; let us instead concentrate on items in which we have
>advantages.

I'm not sure how to take this. The problem is in the ambiguity of `we',
which can either imply a collective effort (i.e. under governmental
supervision and control) or be merely referring to `every Canadian': the
former being a strain of socialist planning, the latter shrewd capitalist
entrepreneurism. Your previous argument against subsidizing farmers (rather
than taxing luxurious consumption via tariffs), however, leads to me believe
that socialist planning is your intent; if this is so, I'll just point out
two very potent counterexamples to success: England and France. France being
perhaps more to the point here, missing the safety-shoe rabidity which befell
the island race, it nevertheless succumbed to traditional rationalistic hubris:
planning itself into near bankruptcy via the albatrotic Concord and other
national capital monoglyphs. Undoubtedly, part of the problem arose through
the lack of national bank autonomy, but the overall scheme, firstly lacks
the requisite information (i.e. planning is NOT a more rational substitute
for the market), and secondly, necessarily undermines individual freedom
as it shoe-horns everyone into the most suitable place as envisioned by the
general plan.

Shrewd capitalistic entrepreneurism, while lacking the control which would
allow one to have a nationally focused economic purpose, gives one a broader
economic base by promoting idiosyncracy, and relaxes the white-knuckle grip
on personal freedom underlying regimental viewpoints. I have already noted
some problems which obviate the pure implementation of this methodology,
however, but these centre on the necessity of the government to ensure that
the short-sightedness of sections of its population (BOTH producer and
consumer) do not effect the viability of the whole. This is not necessarily
a recipe for guarenteed national prosperity, nor one which will appeal to
those who would sell everyone's freedom for idyllic reveries of justice
and sloth. Regrettably, the more skewed the balance produced by those who
wish to partake of the benefits of such a scheme but undermine its foundation
in practice, the more the government is lead to generally restrictive
countermeasures. One always gets the government one deserves (nationally
speaking).

>To wit:  the vast size of our nation has forced upon us
>certain problems in communications.  Solving them have given us a slight
>edge in some respects of long range telemetry and telecommunication.
>The harsher climate has forced development of better home insulation
>and many cold-resistant products.  The list goes on. 

I agree; I also understand that such entitites (company/government department)
as Northern Telecom do an admirable job in keeping in the forefront of this
technology. Software, interestingly enough, is another Canadian strong point
which can stand on its own merits. Heavy industries like steel and concrete,
however, are considerably more vunerable; essentially because the innovations
are not so much in the PRODUCT as in the MEANS of production. Thus keeping
pace means reworking an enormously expensive plant: Pacific rim countries
are reaping a very nice benefit here as emerging industrialists, for example.
To let these local industries perish on this account with the hope that the
balance of payments can be achieved through higher volumes in the more
successful few, I do not see as realistic. But if you have contradictory
evidence or argument, I am quite interested in reviewing it.

							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