Oxford vs Cambridge

[stlukesguild]

It's motivated by self-interest and other things. It's always been false to suggest that naked self-interest is the only motivation. Less people will doctors if they pay is cut ridiculously but most will stay if the pay is cut a little because people do things for reasons other than money. Anyone suggesting that people only work for comfort is doing a great disservice to those around them, I feel.

Perhaps... but then I don't live in Candyland; I live in the real world, and the real world people put forth effort in expectations of a certain return... a reward. I highly doubt that students make the decision to enter medicine or the law based largely upon altruistic impulses. Certainly, there are exceptions... but really, if we were to cut the salaries of lawyers and doctors across the board by 1/3rd do you honestly still imagine that there would be such a glut of students continuing to major in the field? The vast majority of students major in Law, or Medicine, or Engineering, or some other practical field of study as opposed to Philosophy, or Music, or Art History, or Comparative Literature because of what?

It's not what i've experienced, even from some right scum. I don't particularly think British doctors' wages should be cut, doctors are ace, though nurses aren't being paid enough...

Certainly most professionals do their job to the best of their abilities... and even come to love their jobs. There are surely rewards in the role of the educator that goes beyond money... but I'd give it up in a minute if I weren't paid enough to support myself and my family to a standard I feel is worthy of my efforts. I'd give it up even faster if I won the lottery. Anyone who says otherwise has probably not worked long enough in the real world.

SLG Quote-In the US we already have a degree of animosity between the Middle Class and the Poor as many who work hard to maintain their economic situation are resentful that the Poor can churn out 6 or 7 kids (all receiving full medical coverage) and eat better than the middle class on Welfare and food stamps'

ie what they have has, immediately, is a problem with the image of the poor presented to them. And, perhaps, with a better welfare system (America's whole welfare system being notoriously bad) there wouldn't be so many cases to demonize the poor with.

I'm sorry... but in my profession I have gotten to know more than a fair share of the poor. Certainly there are those who are working to improve their situation, but there are also far too many abuses of the system. There needs to be greater oversight: a limit to the time spent on Welfare (outside of special circumstances such as physical or mental disability), a limit to the number of children one may have at state cost. There also needs to be the expectation of repayment. You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?

You honestly think we can't level the playing field more than at the moment. Wow. Yes, some people are simply more intelligent, more daring etc.'simply better equipped' em, that's just sneaking the whole issue by. Of course they're 'simply better equipped' because they're bloody rich. 1 in 3 British MPs come from a 7% percent pool of the population because they were more intelligent and daring? No, because we live in a fixable unequal society.

Certainly we can level the playing field to a greater extent. In the US I would say this can be (needs to be) most obviously addressed at the grade-school level. The disparity between the schools in the wealthy districts vs those in poorer neighborhoods is unconscionable. How far though do we go to achieve this? At what point do we cross the line where the tax burden upon the wealthy and the middle-class become so large that they begin to look elsewhere. Why do you think the economies in places like China, Abu Dubai, and the former Soviet Union are booming? Undoubtedly it is a fact, albeit a cruel fact that the highly motivated and the wealthy are the greatest asset to a nation. The poor are a liability. The ideal is to give the poor every possible option to pull themselves up without so overburdening the wealthy that they will begin to look for other options (be it hidden bank accounts, fraudulent tax returns, or moving elsewhere.)

No. People who do well in business (ie are rich) pay more taxes than everyone else because they are part of our society, they got rich of it and they can give back to it. <---- 1 issue

Somehow I suspect society wasn't there when they started out... working two jobs to go to pay for college... risking their hard-earned income upon some business venture without the least guarantee of success... putting in 12 and 16 hour days at the start... but after all the hard work pays off suddenly its all due to the efforts of the society as a whole?

It's easy to scare people into not wanting this kind of change by suggesting that you're really just punishing the better off. No, you're asking them to pay their dues to society - the society that gave them what they have and you're helping up the unfortunate.

Marxism died miserably years ago. The only one's who take it seriously at all anymore are academics and students. You would suggest that some great abstraction such as "society" is deserving of all the credit for this or that individual's success? Undoubtedly it is also all society that is to blame for their failings as well. It wasn't the individual who decided to rape and kill 13 girls... its all society's doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Perhaps the question is "how much is enough?" Free housing, free food, free pre-natal care, free medical care... where do we draw the line?
We already have free medical care (and so obviously prenatal care). For the rest of them... there is council housing and dole money etc - which basically adds up to what you're saying. Works far better than the system America is running, I think. Jeez, let's not get into a free health care debate, haha.

Abuses of the welfare state are hugely exaggerated here, I imagine they are in America too.

Or perhaps it is simply the reality of government incompetence. Again we have the problem of the lack of motivation. Those government employees who oversee the vast Welfare systems have no motivation to do more than the minimum required. Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.

The problem is really not that the poor aren't working hard enough and our job isn't to cater to the middle classes sense of resentment.

So you imagine you can simply sell the notion of increased tax burdens upon the rich and the middle-class with the idea that they simply "owe everything they have to society"? And how long do you imagine that a government that panders to the poor at the expense of everyone else can stay in power?

How does a person look for a job when they're working on the highways? How do they gain skills to progress in life whilst they're working on the highways? They don't.

Hmmm... That's strange. If I recall I worked a full-time job physically demanding job (40 hours spread over a three day weekend) and more in the summer in order to pay for my college education. Unsurprisingly, I took my education very serious and maintained the highest grades. Neither do I imagine that I am exceptional in this manner.

As I stated earlier... I agree that there are many things that are unfair and that can or should be changed about public education (at both the grade school and college level). I also agree that there are aspects of huge disparity between the very rich and the poor that need to be addressed... but in playing the Devil's advocate I am challenging the simplistic notion that these problems can all be wiped away... and that we shall beget a society of equality, opportunity, and egalitarianism simply by increasing the tax burden upon those whose efforts have resulted in larger income.

[meh!]

Perhaps... but then I don't live in Candyland; I live in the real world, and the real world people put forth effort in expectations of a certain return... a reward. I highly doubt that students make the decision to enter medicine or the law based largely upon altruistic impulses. Certainly, there are exceptions... but really, if we were to cut the salaries of lawyers and doctors across the board by 1/3rd do you honestly still imagine that there would be such a glut of students continuing to major in the field? The vast majority of students major in Law, or Medicine, or Engineering, or some other practical field of study as opposed to Philosophy, or Music, or Art History, or Comparative Literature because of what?

Because you charge them horrendous amounts of money to go to university? Lots of people do engineering etc here, but lots of people do English, history etc. Not very many of the some 100 thousand history students are HoA though . Also, a third is a HUGE pay cut. I think that most people would only consider being Doctors because they pay is alright and because they want to help people. If they pay is cut a bit they will still want to be doctors, if it's cut loads they won't. They want their effort justified but they are also directing their effort specifically for specific reasons. At least, that's what I gather from speaking to medical students.

'
I'm sorry... but in my profession I have gotten to know more than a fair share of the poor. Certainly there are those who are working to improve their situation, but there are also far too many abuses of the system. There needs to be greater oversight: a limit to the time spent on Welfare (outside of special circumstances such as physical or mental disability), a limit to the number of children one may have at state cost. There also needs to be the expectation of repayment.'

The emphasis is already in the wrong place if you're seeing a problem with the poor and then saying 'we need to be more careful about welfare'. You need to be better with your welfare, you need to spend it in the right places not just spatter it about to vaguely please the 'liberals'.

'You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?'

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.


Certainly we can level the playing field to a greater extent. In the US I would say this can be (needs to be) most obviously addressed at the grade-school level. The disparity between the schools in the wealthy districts vs those in poorer neighborhoods is unconscionable. How far though do we go to achieve this? At what point do we cross the line where the tax burden upon the wealthy and the middle-class become so large that they begin to look elsewhere. Why do you think the economies in places like China, Abu Dubai, and the former Soviet Union are booming? Undoubtedly it is a fact, albeit a cruel fact that the highly motivated and the wealthy are the greatest asset to a nation. The poor are a liability. The ideal is to give the poor every possible option to pull themselves up without so overburdening the wealthy that they will begin to look for other options (be it hidden bank accounts, fraudulent tax returns, or moving elsewhere.)

Well, Britain seems to manage fine at its current level of tax and public services which, whatever your view of whether they should or not, do more than America's. Fears that the wealthy will suddenly get up and go seem bizarre. Most people just don't do that, and business won't whilst there is profit to be made.

And the rich look for those 'other options' whether they 'need' (hahahahaha) to or not. Anyone with a hidden bank account is not 'overburdened', they are crook. I understand you're speaking practically, but let's not forget the facts about these people.


'Somehow I suspect society wasn't there when they started out... working two jobs to go to pay for college... risking their hard-earned income upon some business venture without the least guarantee of success... putting in 12 and 16 hour days at the start... but after all the hard work pays off suddenly its all due to the efforts of the society as a whole?'

Everyone of business owning age in Britain went to university for free. You paint an emotive picture but it's ... bleh. Some may well have done that, or the others that started off rich and got richer. Or those who use the small business grants that our governments provide to help people start businesses and such. Society provides them with the education, the health - it does create people. It creates the successes and the monsters.

'
Marxism died miserably years ago. The only one's who take it seriously at all anymore are academics and students. You would suggest that some great abstraction such as "society" is deserving of all the credit for this or that individual's success? Undoubtedly it is also all society that is to blame for their failings as well. It wasn't the individual who decided to rape and kill 13 girls... its all society's doing.'

The only ones who take it seriously are the educated, he cries! (I kid ).

And, no, Marxism (whilst partly discredited in this fake 'post-ideology' age - a swindle) has much more power here than you might think. Until the longstanding issue of Scotlands standing within the UK and a reaction against New Labour caused a swing to Scottish National Party which wiped out all the independent/small sparty seats Scotland had 6 or 7 Socialist MSPs. Socialism has a strong tradition in Scotland and Britain that it's simply false to dismiss. I don't know as much about the rest of Europe, though obviously it's still strong in France. And no, society is responsible for all of society.

Society is so clearly not a great 'abstraction'. When people get together they form a society. They are no longer individuals, they are individuals within a society.

'
Or perhaps it is simply the reality of government incompetence. Again we have the problem of the lack of motivation. Those government employees who oversee the vast Welfare systems have no motivation to do more than the minimum required. Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.'

This is part of why I tend to avoid arguments with Americans. Priorities are just different.

'
So you imagine you can simply sell the notion of increased tax burdens upon the rich and the middle-class with the idea that they simply "owe everything they have to society"? And how long do you imagine that a government that panders to the poor at the expense of everyone else can stay in power?'

I'm not actually up on the podium right now. Nor am I arguing particular practicalities of politics right now. These are what I consider to be the facts, we can try and articulate them better later.

'Hmmm... That's strange. If I recall I worked a full-time job physically demanding job (40 hours spread over a three day weekend) and more in the summer in order to pay for my college education. Unsurprisingly, I took my education very serious and maintained the highest grades. Neither do I imagine that I am exceptional in this manner.'

So I take it the government is going to provide a way for these people to work on the highways and go to college then? Work on the highways over a three day weekend?

Having to work 40 hours a week and a fulltime uni education is called unhealthy. Guess who doesn't have to work 40 hours a week whilst at college? Me! Isn't that better? Exam time must have been a right bastard for you.

'As I stated earlier... I agree that there are many things that are unfair and that can or should be changed about public education (at both the grade school and college level). I also agree that there are aspects of huge disparity between the very rich and the poor that need to be addressed... but in playing the Devil's advocate I am challenging the simplistic notion that these problems can all be wiped away... and that we shall beget a society of equality, opportunity, and egalitarianism simply by increasing the tax burden upon those whose efforts have resulted in larger income.'

I've never suggested that these problems are simple, don't patronise me. I'm just articulating views that should be aired when someone, i can't remember how this came up, brings up the points they brought up.

There are many important issues. Redistribution of wealth is just one of them.

[islandclimber]

the biggest problem with the whole system in my opinion is the passing of wealth from generation to generation, and I am not suggesting that this could ever change, but the fact that generations of families are uber wealthy no matter the generation's particular capabilities and merits, shows the complete fallacy of the "each according to ability" theme of neo-liberal capitalism...

How do we address this... or do we? Should I not have the ability to see to it that my children and spouse are well taken care of after I die if I have put forth the efforts needed to build a personal body of wealth?

By the way... the entire quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and it is as far from Neo-Conservative Capitalism as possible... it was a quote popularized by Karl Marx. The problem with the concept is that again it does not address the issue of motivation. I may have the greatest abilities but I probably would be less that thrilled with the concept that I employ these for the good of the state with little thoughts to my own desires. The reality is that motivation comes from desire as much as need. None of us NEEDS to go to college, or live in a big house, or own a nice car, or eat steak on Sundays, or travel when we wish... but we desire them. Do others/society owe it to me to see that my desires are met?

but you confuse things here, I know the entire quote, what I was talking about is the way capitalism chooses to suggest it is "TO each according to ability" unlike the "FROM each according to ability" of Karl Marx... I would have thought this would be apparent... and again this motivation issue is pure rubbish, those children you mention above that you should be able to leave fabulously wealthy, they don't have to be motivated at all, and in reality this is often the case, they can sit back and float through life providing nothing to the state, just take and take... and that is the problem with inheritance of wealth and possessions... but do I really care? no.. this will never change, and neither will the extremely damaging ideal of the American Dream, the rags to riches through hard work ideal... all it does is provide an excuse for the government to say we don't have to help the lower class as through enough hard work they can help themselves, which is total BS.

and again in this discussion you have dropped into suggesting that wealth is due to people working harder then others and that is beyond absurd.. most of the time it has nothing to do with that.. I know quite a large number of small business owners through my own work, who work seven days a week, long hours just to stay afloat in the current economic situation, and even in good economic times would never be called anything but average middle class earners.. and yet you suggest all these multi millionaires and billionaires deserve the money they make because they were "more motivated", "worked harder", "put themselves through college"... etc.. this is nonsense.. I know people who worked to pay for college, started their own businesses with their own hard earned money, worked excessively for 30+ years at it, and are they rich? no, they are middle of the road, still worried about having enough work to bring the income in... where are their millions? they are certainly deserving according to the criteria you make mention of? I'm just confused as to how you define if someone deserves these millions of dollars?

I've never suggested we raise taxes on the middle classes, I think that would be a terrible idea, but allowing a person to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year is ridiculous... especially considering the plight of the impoverished... and to be honest, I know this will never happen as the poorest people are the least educated and never seem to understand that more government intervention in the economic system helps the poor, higher taxes help them, lower taxes and an extra say $500 a year in their pocket is far outweighed by the losses in things like public education and healthcare that necessarily follow tax cuts...

[JBI]

No, allowing someone to make hundreds of millions to me isn't ridiculous - allowing them to make it without being heavily taxed though, and at the expense of others is. It's just silly that the rich always find ways to cheat the tax system, yet someone in a poor bracket who gets caught stealing a few bucks gets punished far worse. In general, I'm just for adding more progressive tax systems, and for publicizing industries - something Canada should have done a long time ago, as we have enough of them to support the whole country, yet allow certain people to get rich, such as the American oil giants, at our expense.

But look at it this way - a rich person, assuming they get into university, can get private tutors to write all their essays for them, can get extra exposure to things because of their wealth - can live on campus in a better, larger room, and can have the ability to not work to support himself, thereby giving him extra time to get better grades.

The system is rigged, even if you get there - keep in mind, Dubyah is a Yale graduate, yet he cannot even speak his own first language properly.


Now, there has been a study in Canada, for instance, that suggests College attendance, with tuition at around 2,000 does not have a correlation between parent's income and attendance, whereas universities, at around 6,000 a year give or take, when tuition increases, show a strong correlation of people from lower incomes not attending, or changing to part time status. Now, if, for instance, university too was 2,000$, then I bet the attendance would be much higher, and the actual output of the students far greater, as the burden of funding an extra 4,000$ for tuition would be removed.

The education system from the beginning is rigged - more so in the US than in Canada, but here, and in Europe too - it is the government's job, the way I see it, to make sure that all children have the same opportunities when it comes to education - it certainly would increase the productivity of the nation as a whole, at any rate.

[stlukesguild]

You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?'

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

It was nonsense when Marx wrote it and its nonsense now. What it describes is a parasitic relationship. I'm entitled to what you worked for, right?

Well, Britain seems to manage fine at its current level of tax and public services which, whatever your view of whether they should or not, do more than America's. Fears that the wealthy will suddenly get up and go seem bizarre. Most people just don't do that, and business won't whilst there is profit to be made.

Obviously you don't know the least about economics, do you? Corporations relocate all the time. They move their manufacturing plants to Mexico or China or the Philippines because they offer far less overhead: lower taxes, less red tape, less government oversight, lower wages. This happens on a smaller scale when cities compete with each other offering special considerations such as tax abatement to gain a new corporate office complex or new manufacturing plant. It happens equally with individuals. In the US there are states and regions that continue to lose population... especially the best and the brightest because they recognize they have the potential to earn more elsewhere.

Everyone of business owning age in Britain went to university for free.

Certainly quite different from the US. Perhaps the CEOs of major corporations have a degree from Harvard or Stanford, but I would guess a great majority of the business owners have little of no college background. Opening a restaurant, a chain of beauty salons or coffee shops, an auto repair business, an auto dealership, or investing in real estate demands no college experience. Yet everyone who wishes to attend college and major in Eastern Philosophies is entitled to a share of what these people worked hard for?

It (Society)...creates people. It creates the successes and the monsters.

Ah... there is the crux of our difference for I don't accept that at all. The individual is responsible to and for himself or herself. I am responsible for my decisions and my actions... not some abstraction like "society". As individuals we may accept the social contract which presumes that we surrender a share of what we have earned in order to fund a government (as opposed to the chaos of anarchy or the violent Darwinism of the survival of the fittest). We elect this government and vote upon which services we deem are necessities that should be funded: assurance of minimal food, shelter, health care, police and fire departments, defense, etc... We also decide where to draw the line between a "need" and a "desire". Every child "needs" and deserves a quality education that meets a certain minimal standard. But does every adult deserve a free college education? That's debatable.

And, no, Marxism (whilst partly discredited in this fake 'post-ideology' age - a swindle) has much more power here than you might think. Socialism has a strong tradition in Scotland and Britain that it's simply false to dismiss. I don't know as much about the rest of Europe, though obviously it's still strong in France.

Marxism is "partially" discredited? Lets see... its over in the former Soviet Union (where it was such a success), it's effectively over in China... although there remains a strong strain of Socialism... but let's face it, the Chinese have a long tradition of being a communal society. Even their philosophy and their art avoid the concepts of the value of the individual. The West is quite different... and I would suggest that the United States, founded upon immigrants... those who got up and left believing they could construct something better for themselves... has a deeply ingrained belief in the "rugged individual".

And no, society is responsible for all of society.

Which essentially comes down to the idea that each individual is responsible for all of society. I don't know too many individuals ready to accept this responsibility.

Society is so clearly not a great 'abstraction'. When people get together they form a society. They are no longer individuals, they are individuals within a society.

Ah... we are not individuals but members of the State, eh Comrade? It is intriguing, is it not, that the worst abuses of the last century were perpetuated by the very societies where the state or society as a whole was valued over the individual (the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, etc...). Most of these societies had no problem with eliminating any individual who was deemed a threat or a liability to the state. A great majority of these would be the very "poor" of whom the Socialist ideal was sworn to upraise.

Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.'

This is part of why I tend to avoid arguments with Americans. Priorities are just different.

Ah... but Europeans with all their history have no reason to fear the abuses of big government? Or perhaps you only speak for yourself.

Having to work 40 hours a week and a fulltime uni education is called unhealthy. Guess who doesn't have to work 40 hours a week whilst at college? Me! Isn't that better? Exam time must have been a right bastard for you.

On the other hand, it may be argued that I am the one who was far better prepared for life. The reality is that getting up and going to work each day is far more difficult than college ever was. And while I go to work I still must put in the time to keep up the house, do the lawn work, take care of the care, spend time with the family... and as a working artist... put in the hours working on my art work.

[WICKES]

It's surprising how many of the great British writers didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge: Chaucer, Shakespeare, Keats, Jane Austen, Alexander Pope, Charles Dickens, D H Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, George Orwell, H G Wells, PG Wodehouse...

[Drkshadow03]

America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup."

Shh, you're going to piss them off and they'll go on strike! Then who will make us our maple syrup? We'll have to get it from Vermont or something!

------------------------------------------------------------------

To the rest of those in this thread, you do realize that the rich already pay significantly more money than everyone else in their taxes, at least in America, right?

[JBI]

I'm sorry Lukes, but do you know why the Auto Industy has such a strong connection to Ontario - it isn't because we work for cheaper, but the simple fact that our government pays for health care, so the union does not need to cover the expense, which is like 1000$ per car, in order to insure everybody. As is, in the US, all the production is done in Mexico and China, so the argument that they will all pick up and leave seems rather silly - they already have.

I've seen commentary suggesting that the autoworkers and the cheaper cars up north problem is at least in part responsible for the current debate over health care in the US - that is, the actual plan to move forward. It has been argued that it is not the point of view of the people who changed, who, for the longest time, have been saying they want it, but rather companies realizing that their system is rigged, since under unions they end up having to insure everyone, and, because of the lack of control, end up paying far far more per person, due to inflated treatment rates, and medical expenses.

[stlukesguild]

I'm sorry Lukes, but do you know why the Auto Industy has such a strong connection to Ontario - it isn't because we work for cheaper, but the simple fact that our government pays for health care, so the union does not need to cover the expense, which is like 1000$ per car, in order to insure everybody. As is, in the US, all the production is done in Mexico and China, so the argument that they will all pick up and leave seems rather silly - they already have.

JBI... perhaps you might visit the US and do a little reading on something other than Canadian-first anti-American critiques (which amount to little more than sour grapes) before posting. The US has more than a few Auto manufacturing plants. Just within the immediate vicinity of perhaps 25 miles there are at least 4 or 5 major manufacturing plants for GM and Ford. About 50 miles from here is a major Honda plant (yes... the Japanese have plants in the US... cheaper that shipping across the Pacific), there's a large Saturn plant to the immediate south and certainly any number of other plants further out of which I am not aware. There are also untold thousands of smaller manufacturing plants that sub-contract to the major auto workers. We would not be so concerned about the financial problems of GM if there were not so many (literally millions) of jobs tied directly to the Big Three auto makers.

As for the cost of doing business in Canada... certainly medical insurance is part of the overhead considered. However, you grossly overstate its cost. I have medical insurance that easily rivals that of the UAW auto workers. Were I to be forced to purchase such coverage myself it would probably cost me $800-1000 per month. Obviously the corporations purchasing coverage in such huge numbers can attain such coverage at a fraction of what the individual can. Even if it were to cost them $800 per employee per month that in no way adds up to anything approaching $1000 per auto. You must also consider increased taxes on autos made in Canada and shipped to the US and well a shipping cost (trucks or trains). The UAW salaries in the US, however, are more than generous for physical labor... far more than what might be expected from Mexico, the Philippines, etc... Plants in Mexico, for example, save hugely on salaries and other benefits, but also on construction costs for expansion, and on taxes as well as red tape such as pollution requirements.

By the way, a sort history of Canada's auto industry:

Canada is currently the 9th largest auto producer in the world, down from 7th a few years ago. Brazil and Spain recently surpassed Canadian production for the first time ever. Canada's highest ranking ever was 2nd largest producer in the world between 1918 and 1923. The Canadian auto industry traces its roots to the very beginning of the automobile. The first large-scale production of automobiles in Canada took place in Walkerville, near Windsor, Ontario in 1904. In the first year of operations, Gordon McGregor and Wallace Campbell, along with a handful of workmen produced 117 Model "C" Ford vehicles at the Walkerville Wagon Works factory. Through marquees such as Brooks Steam, Redpath, Tudhope, McKay, Galt Gas-Electric, Gray-Dort, Brockville Atlas, C.C.M., and McLaughlin, Canada had many domestic auto brands. In 1918 McLaughlin was bought by an American firm, General Motors, and was re-branded as General Motors of Canada. Driven by the demands of World War I, Canada's automotive industry had grown, by 1923, into the second-largest in the world, although it was still comprised of relatively inefficient plants producing many models behind a high tariff wall. High consumer prices and production inefficiencies characterized the Canadian auto industry prior to the signing of the 1965 Automotive Products Trade Agreement with the United States. The 1964 Automotive Products Trade Agreement or “Auto Pact” represents the single most important factor in making the Canadian automotive industry what it is today: a strong, successful industry that has a significant positive impact on the Canadian economy. Key features of the Auto Pact were the 1:1 production to sales ratio and Canadian Value Added requirements. Magna International is Canada's biggest domestic firm in the sector, and is the world's third-largest auto parts firm, producing entire vehicles at its Magna Steyr plant in Austria.

It seems the auto industry did not flee the US to Canada, but was rather there all along... and later purchased by US auto corporations. The trade agreement between the US and Canada stipulates a 1 to 1 production to sales ratio. This means if Canada produces 15% of all the autos built by the North American auto industry GM plants, they are assured 15% of all the sales of these autos within the North American market (and probably the world-wide... although that is not spelled out). By the same token, in order for this trade agreement to pass the union, the Canadian workers would be compensated on essentially equal terms as their American counterparts. The Canadian health system undoubtedly saves GM, Ford, and Chrysler a good chunk of money, but in return it is assured that if the US manufactures 80% of all the cars made in North America, 80% of those cars sold in Canada (and world-wide) will be American made.

It also appears they are in no way any better of than the US counterparts:

A C$4bn ($3.3bn:£2.2bn) bail-out plan as an aid two US car manufacturers with operations, according to a Canadian statement. The offer of emergency loans follows the US government's decision on Friday to provide $17.4bn in loans to help General Motors and Chrysler survive. It was a regrettable but necessary step to protect the Canadian economy, according to a statement by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The amount promised represented the 20% share Canada has in the North American automobile industry, he said. The money will help the two companies continue to operate while they restructure their businesses. The federal government will provide C$2.7bn in short term loans, with a further C$1.3bn coming from Ontario, where the manufacturers are based. "These are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary measures," said Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty. Mr Harper said there were "hundreds of thousands if not millions" of families in Canada potentially affected by the ongoing difficulties in the car industry. He said the deal ensured that Canada was looking out for their interests... The North American car industry employs millions of people and businesses had said the bail-outs were desperately needed.

[meh!]

'It was nonsense when Marx wrote it and its nonsense now. What it describes is a parasitic relationship. I'm entitled to what you worked for, right?'

This argument relies on a fallacious view of the individual. Saying, 'we are what we are because of the society (in all its forms) that exists around us therefore, when we are successful, we give back and, when we fail, we are looked after' would just be to restate a point i've made several times. Call it 'parasitic' if you want, it's just emotive rubbish.

'Obviously you don't know the least about economics, do you? Corporations relocate all the time. They move their manufacturing plants to Mexico or China or the Philippines because they offer far less overhead: lower taxes, less red tape, less government oversight, lower wages.'

Of course I know that. A practice that should be stopped, as it happens, by the government. It still remains a fact that countries with far greater levels of public service and tax remain economically viable even in times of duress.

'
Certainly quite different from the US. Perhaps the CEOs of major corporations have a degree from Harvard or Stanford, but I would guess a great majority of the business owners have little of no college background. Opening a restaurant, a chain of beauty salons or coffee shops, an auto repair business, an auto dealership, or investing in real estate demands no college experience. Yet everyone who wishes to attend college and major in Eastern Philosophies is entitled to a share of what these people worked hard for?'

Yes.

'
Ah... there is the crux of our difference for I don't accept that at all. The individual is responsible to and for himself or herself. I am responsible for my decisions and my actions... not some abstraction like "society".'

A concept of individuality that buts its head up against reality and fails every time. You are what you're made. To put in a way that might come across as less overbearing:

We are created with a sense of our selves as distinct from others. What the self will be is determined by the circumstances we encounter throughout our lives. We need a system that respects the sense of our selves as individuals making free decisions (Whether this be true or not, which it doesn't really seem to be) but one which accounts for the limitations when it becomes apparent that our supposed individuality is causing problems. Ie, when someone grows up in a poor background and becomes a criminal is it because he's an individual? When 5 out of 10 poor people people are criminals, and 1 in 10 middle class people are criminals is it still individuality? No, it's our selves and actions being dictated by circumstances outside our control.

'

Marxism is "partially" discredited? Lets see... its over in the former Soviet Union (where it was such a success), it's effectively over in China... although there remains a strong strain of Socialism... but let's face it, the Chinese have a long tradition of being a communal society. Even their philosophy and their art avoid the concepts of the value of the individual. The West is quite different... and I would suggest that the United States, founded upon immigrants... those who got up and left believing they could construct something better for themselves... has a deeply ingrained belief in the "rugged individual".'

If you think Marxism's influence can be boiled down to 'China and the soviet Union', you're just being ridiculous. The Labour movements, old bastions of socialization like the NHS and the BBC that people won't suffer the removal of?

'got up and left'? or were 'forced out of their country by poverty or actually by the lords/government'. That's certainly the case with emigration from Ireland and the UK. It's romantic and silly to think of America as founded by the 'rugged individualists' who were willing to strike out on their own.

'
Which essentially comes down to the idea that each individual is responsible for all of society. I don't know too many individuals ready to accept this responsibility.'

No it doesn't come down to that. Because individuals, on their own, aren't responsible for society. All individuals, as members of society, are responsible for society. A burden many people are actually perfectly willing to share. Because it is shared. An important distinction which you can't sidestep.

'
Ah... we are not individuals but members of the State, eh Comrade? It is intriguing, is it not, that the worst abuses of the last century were perpetuated by the very societies where the state or society as a whole was valued over the individual (the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, etc...). Most of these societies had no problem with eliminating any individual who was deemed a threat or a liability to the state. A great majority of these would be the very "poor" of whom the Socialist ideal was sworn to upraise.'

'individuals in a society'.< <----

And no, it's not that intriguing to be honest. Bringing up the Soviet Union as a bugbear to scare away all argument should have gotten tired out after McCarthyism went. There's this thing called 'balance' and many countries have achieved just such a balance.

'Ah... but Europeans with all their history have no reason to fear the abuses of big government? Or perhaps you only speak for yourself.'

Germany retained a welfare state without regressing into Nazism. So did basically every western European country. Everyone values the NHS in Britain which, as someone else rightly pointed out, is one of the biggest causes for 'big government' in Britain - indeed it's the 3rd largest employer in the world (after the chinese army and Indian Rail). I don't just speak for myself.

And no I don't speak just for my self. Would anyone with socialised health care like to venture an opinion on the American health care system? What is socialised health care but BIG GOVERNMENT working for the people.

'On the other hand, it may be argued that I am the one who was far better prepared for life. The reality is that getting up and going to work each day is far more difficult than college ever was. And while I go to work I still must put in the time to keep up the house, do the lawn work, take care of the care, spend time with the family... and as a working artist... put in the hours working on my art work.'

Just seems like pointless conjecture. Are you saying people in other countries aren't 'prepared for life'?

[WICKES]

. The Labour movements, old bastions of socialization like the NHS and the BBC that people won't suffer the removal of?

Ahhh... the NHS and the BBC (esp. Radio 4), along with Stephen Fry they are still the best things about living in Britain. Even Cameron came out and said the NHS was one of the greatest achievements of post-war Britain. Mind you, he knows there would be a revolution if he dismantled it. Not even Thatcher, at the height of her power, dared to tamper with it. It's one of the few things the Brits would still get out onto the streets over.

[wessexgirl]

Ahhh... the NHS and the BBC (esp. Radio 4), along with Stephen Fry they are still the best things about living in Britain. Even Cameron came out and said the NHS was one of the greatest achievements of post-war Britain. Mind you, he knows there would be a revolution if he dismantled it. Not even Thatcher, at the height of her power, dared to tamper with it. It's one of the few things the Brits would still get out onto the streets over.

Aah, good old Radio 4. I'm on holiday now from school, and there's nothing better than pottering around while listening to R4. In just the last couple of days we've had dramatisations of Ruth (Gaskell); Bookclub with an audience with C.J.Sansom; an analysis of Tennyson's Ulysses; Villette as the daily serial; Book of the Week is a biography on Muriel Spark; With Great Pleasure this morning where a guest chooses their favourite prose and poetry; Great Lives today will be on Tennyson.......not to mention the classic comedies, like Just a Minute which is back, after a short run of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, review programmes like Front Row, The Film Programe, Open Book, A Good Read etc. etc. I love R4.

The NHS is our crowning achievement, but I do think Thatcher tried to tamper with it. After all, we have to pay for eye exams etc now, which was not what was originally intended. I think Cameron has more sense than to try and do anything too excessive though.

[WICKES]

Aah, good old Radio 4. I'm on holiday now from school, and there's nothing better than pottering around while listening to R4. In just the last couple of days we've had dramatisations of Ruth (Gaskell); Bookclub with an audience with C.J.Sansom; an analysis of Tennyson's Ulysses; Villette as the daily serial; Book of the Week is a biography on Muriel Spark; With Great Pleasure this morning where a guest chooses their favourite prose and poetry; Great Lives today will be on Tennyson.......not to mention the classic comedies, like Just a Minute which is back, after a short run of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, review programmes like Front Row, The Film Programe, Open Book, A Good Read etc. etc. I love R4.

.

My great fear is that (under the name of 'inclusiveness' or something) Radio 4 will start being criticised for being too elitist, pretentious or some such nonsense and will start dumbing down. I don't want regional accents. I don't want programmes about 'yoof' culture presented by Richard Blackwood. I want Radio 4 to be elitist. It is a little refuge for intelligent, civilised people in a noisy, ugly, brash, vulgar, Americanised world (regardless of their class, ethnicity and gender).

[meh!]

I don't think radio 4 should be dumbed down, but the argument about 'regional accents' always comes across as rather hypocritical. It's the implied assumption that RP isn't an accent. Which it is. It is no more and no less an accent then every other accent. The only difference is that mostaccents signify where you're from, RP signifies how you were educated.

accents =/= noisy, ugly, brash etc and if you (in the sense of 'one') thinks that, then that's your problem. It's simply a reflection of the actual people who are in this country. People who are interested in Tennyson and I'm sorry I haven't a Clue have 'regional' accents.

People on national radio should be clear and understandable, no more than that.

[Emil Miller]

I don't know if you have noticed Wickes, but that is exactly what the BBC has been doing for a number of years, there are now more regional accents on BBC than ever. A few years ago they even did a radio adaptation of Maupassant's Boule de Suif in Yorkshire accents;thereby completely destroying the characterisation. You are right about the "inclusiveness" angle though. There are probably more foreign broadcasters than native speakers working at the BBC although, thankfully, many of them are well spoken.
Accents can mar programmes by making it difficult to understand what is being said. By chance, I was listening only yesterday to a programme that highlights the problem. It was a gripping investigation into the cold war spying scenario in which the presenter discussed with former Russian KGB officers and their British equivalents in MI6 the methods that were used to acquire information, always under the the fear that they might be caught.
It made James Bond look like a kids comic-which is what it essentially is.
Apart from the quiet ruthlessness that underlined their stories, the British all had the same accent i.e. Oxford English and was perfectly understandable. The Russians, however, spoke with heavy accents and it was very difficult to catch what they were saying for part of the time.
That wasn't the BBC's fault of course but it's an illustration of what can happen if other programmes that don't need foreigners neverless use them in the cause of "inclusiveness."