Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!peterr
From: peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: High Duties => Increased Competitiveness?
Message-ID: <1508@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 10:51:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1508
Posted: Thu Oct 17 10:51:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 12:20:50 EDT
References: <2591@watcgl.UUCP> <36@ubc-cs.UUCP> <39@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1714@dciem.UUCP> <437@looking.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 48

> In article <1714@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
> >
> >If you carry this through to its logical conclusion, you must include
> >the problem of unnatural geographic monopoly, as well.  Canada is a most
> >unnatural country, that has been held together only by communication
> >subsidies to long-distance communication, and by a distaste for being
> >swallowed by the USA.  The former, I think, has been more vital.
> >In my ideal Canada, Canadian citizens would travel free on any carrier
> >(e.g. mostly Newfoundland businesses).  If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland
> >to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that
> >Central Canadians enjoy.  The same applies to the Far North.  I think
> >that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance
> >within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be
> 
> 	The point is that in an artificial situation like this you
> 	destroy the country by stagnating the long distance
> 	communications and transportation industries.  Without a proper
> 	profit incentive, people aren't going to go out searching for
> 	ways to make these things more efficient.  This is the usual
> 	result of quick-fix interventionist solutions.  With an artificial
> 	fixed rate, people don't go out and invent things like communications
> 	satellites and fiber optics.  What's worse for Canada, when we have
> 	an artificial structure and the USA does not, these things get
> 	invented in the USA.  And then all we can do is complain about
> 	brain drain and having to import our high-tech.  Enforced monopolies
> 	have a *very strong* vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I *know* this is awkward, to bring up facts that is, but some facts just
don't go away, like the fact that Canada, with its "artificial rates" had
the first domestic communications satellite, has done a lot of original
work on fibre optics, and in general has a very advanced communications
sector.   There are probably dozens of reasons for that, from the
money being available for research (possibly because Bell is a protected
company), to Canada's geography, to possibly even particular individuals
who happened to manage particular research projects well.  Damn it,
don't you see that looking at everything in terms of a few simple
concepts like supply and demand is a betrayal of intelligence, a gross
distortion of reality?

One thing I'd like to get clear: to those advocating massive reductions
in government influence in society, are you advocating this because
(a) it will make people happier, healthier, etc.?   or
(b) because it is more ethically correct, by your system of ethics?
If it's both, which reason do you think is more important?  I guess
I should add a third option, (c) some other reason, which might include
(for the Machiavellians out there) "because it will benefit me personally".

p. rowley, U. Toronto