Foreign Trade - What's in it for Canada?

Excellent insight! And not one groaner!! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> I whole heartedly support the idea that we should be exporting more than just raw resources. Most manufacturing businesses will relocate to areas where ethier the resources or the labour are cheapest in order to maximize profits. In Canada, the resources are cheap, but the labour is so expensive that it's cheaper to ship the raw materials overseas for production. From your links, one of our major exports is 'Car Parts' (Magna). Why not 'Cars'?? We do export many cars, all the big 3 have several plants in Canada. What we need is a new Canadian company to manufacture finished cars. As to your domed orange grove idea - it's not as far off as you may think. Greenhouses require vast amounts of energy in winter, but there are new greenhouses operating as far north as Yellowknife, because the cost of transporting vegetables there in winter is greater. Plus, delicates like Bananas and tomatoes usually don't survive the trip. We are making great headway in other areas too. Canada (Edmonton) is the leader in a new type of <a href='http://www.engineering.ualberta.ca/nav02.cfm?nav02=30943&nav01=18430'>nanotechnology</a> medical application. Silver has long been known to have incredible anti-bacterial properties. An Edmonton researcher found a way to crystallize Silver into a form that is usable as a bandage, and that bandage is capable of healing rapidly the worst burns, preventing infections and reversing already bad infections. A Fort Saskatchewan company has been <a href='http://www.nucryst.com/index.asp?p=2&s=11'>manufacturing</a> and selling these miracle bandages worldwide. Edmonton is also home to the new <a href='http://www.nint.ca/'>National Institute for Nanotechnology</a>. Many Alberta companies are the best in their fields, from BioDesiel, to Global Positioning Satellite electronics, to renewable energy (corn -> alcohol -> fuel cells). In fact, <a href='http://www.nait.ab.ca'>NAIT</a> just installed a <a href='http://www.nait.ab.ca/fuelcell/'>fuel cell</a> that provides most of the energy the main campus requires! You thought we were just Gas and Oil, right!

Calumni: your preambule are not getting any shorter but here is my response with the usual "People" spin: Foreign trade should be subject to your country governance or "sovereinty" and ultimately its People. But then there is the reality that People act as mainly Consumers and vote as such. The winning politicians are the ones that best cater to this. When acting like consumers, a lot of the thinking about the worker's right, environment, ethics, sustainability, etc... just go away. Hey I can get a dirt cheap wireless LAN card/router coming from China that will make my Internet surfing life so much more comfortable. Or I can get now a beautiful high quality shirt that will make me look better. Or I can get some great vino at just about a soft drink price that will lift my spirit. The list goes on. Perhaps the more educated will opt for the "good conscience" luxury of buying green, fair-trade, ethical, etc... And perhaps snob others in their social class on that basis. But for the majority of people living above their means and struggling to pay the bills, the trade-off is very easily done. A tiny minority may reconsider lifestyle changes. Some will preach, write or chat over this without really changing self either. So until the majority of People stop acting like Consumers, what is in it for Canada is "a lot of consumer goods" without the environmental degradation much better transferred to other countries. We will probably be even more of a magnet for their rich and make these countries even more desparate to lower their costs. What is in it for us too perhaps is some global warming, terrorism, instabilities that we have been able to shield ourself against so far. When our People will no longer be able to afford these goods, they will think differently. Education has a huge role to play. But then the kids are educated into becoming the next generation of consumers. I think the answer has to be a personal one. I doubt very much the current situation can be changed through the existing political systems. Particularly in Canada, the wealthiest nation on this planet with tremendous resources. We would have the most "consumer goods" to lose. My apologies if this response did not lift your spirit.

Actually, just gas. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Within our current economic model it may be in a short term sense be cheaper to export natural resources, have these turned into manufactured products by cheaper labour elsewhere the import the final product. However, this model was not designed on the basis of it being in the long-term interests of a nation like Canada, only on the basis of what makes sense for business from a profit perspective. Folks may appreciate buying cheap shirts from Indonesia at Zellers or WalMart, but is this good for the long-term interests of the nation and its citizens as a whole? I used to try buying Canadian. Then I found I was paying more for what was generally a crappy product, or at least one no better that the Mexican alternative. I later realized that Canadian manufacturers had probably been forced to reduce quality to compete, and still couldn't because there is no way to compete against a product made by somebody making a few dollars a day. Is this model the best for Canada? Who really gets the benefit? Off the topic, I should mention I'm not the type of person who favours changing a system that works or adequately performs the task it was built to perform. I don't like change for the sake of change. So, if anyone is wondering, I'm definitely not a wide-eyed radical who thinks the world should be turned topsy-turvy to serve some strange ideology that exists in my mind. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] When acting like consumers, a lot of the thinking about the worker's right, environment, ethics, sustainability, etc... just go away. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE BY= Calumny] Is this model the best for Canada? Who really gets the benefit? [/QUOTE] Going the long way here to get to my point: What do Canadians know better than Winter? How to survive Winter. I have a friend who works for a large outdoor clothing store. You probabally know the store, Canadian owned, you have to be a member to shop there. Anyhow, they sell many things a good Canadian needs to enjoy this great country of ours. This time of year, they sell many winter jackets. The good, fleece lined, down filled, very durable kind. They stock both Made in USA, made in Canada and Made in China brands. All are good, but the Made in Canada ones are markedly better. And the surprise: they are actually cheaper! Not much, about 5% less. Higher quality than the others let's not forget! So why does this large outdoor good store stock the other brands? Because the customers actually demand them. The Made in China brand outsells the Made in Canada brand about 2:1. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/evil.gif' alt='Evil'> They tried last year to stock more of the cheaper, better quality Made in Canada brand, but members still bought the Made in China brand, and when supplies ran out, demanded that they get a 'rain check' for when stocks were replentished. What has to change is the consumers mindset. It has to be some sort of inconprehensible bias that people are willing to pay more for less quality. Pride in Canadian products and workmanship need to be re-introduced somehow. Yes, I buy electronics from overseas. My favourite motherboard manufacturer produces in Tiawan only. I don't know of any manufacturers of electronics that still produce in Canada. But I try to buy everything I can, from produce to cars, that is made in Canada. I wish everyone did.

That's strange. If I had to choose between better quality and cheaper made in Canada, or even better quality and a bit more expensive, I'd buy Canadian. My experiences have been that I've paid a bit more for Canadian made products that quickly show a lack of quality. If I'm going to get a lack of quality, I'll pay what to me is a lack of quality price and not look at the label. However, consumer price should not be the main issue. If the overall best interests of the nation are served by protecting Canadian manufacturers producing quality products from competition with products having a price they can't beat due to cheaper labour costs, then so be it. In this respect, competition should be from internal, rather than external sources. The alternative is a global system that benefits no one in the long run other than corporate interests.

And don't forget that as peak oil comes around, those items from China are going to be more and more expensive, as fuel costs rise. Hopefully, Canadian manufacturing and supply will not have died by the time that happens.. we're gonna need it! Mike

Calumny, great thread!!! And your original post is long, but you don't dwell on anything, so it kept MY interest piqued. I think the question you brought up on a couple of occasions was "who benefits from the current model?" And you correctly pointed out that while many SEEM to benefit - we all benefit as consumers when we get cheap prices, but as workers we lose our jobs. Corporations appear to be benefitting, but the reality is that trade would occur anyways, and free-market competetion would make corporations a similar profit anyways; they are merely doing what is necessary to thrive in the current paradigm (by exploiting low wages and poor environmental standards abroad). Government makes some money off of imports, but could easily make the same amount of money (relatively speaking) through taxation in a nationalized economy. The net effect of all this is lower prices for individual products. Which, as someone noted above, is essential to those making minimum wage. However, if our economy were a national one rather than a global one, prices would rise, which would lead to a rise in minimum wage. Which would squeeze the gap between the upper-middle and lower classes. So one group that benefits from consumer culture is the rich who wish to remain rich. And I think this has been identified by many, and it leads to distractive leftist politics - the left demands social programs and the right says we can't afford them (very generalized, I know). But social programs are sort of like the left's call for emergency relief; the real prize is better working conditions, higher wages - a general narrowing of the divide between the classes, which allows all a fair chance in life. But I want to return to the original question: who benefits from a consumer culture where quantity triumphs over quality? Well lets rephrase that: who benefits from more transactions? Well, I'd have to say the banks. And the reason is two-fold. First, every transaction you make costs you a little bit of money. Whether you use credit cards or interac or even cash, the bank is making a little profit off of you on every single transaction. But more importantly, when we entered an era of consumer culture, our mindset changed. Suddenly each individual product was so cheap that it didn't really matter if we went that far in debt. Just look around... you can buy a comfy chair, a TV, a stereo, a cell phone - without even having the money. But who profits from this giant debt bubble? Why, the loaner does of course. And if you trace the money far enough up the pyramid, you end up right back where you started - with the banks. I think this has been identified by the Canadian Action Party. And that's why their plan of action is two-pronged. End NAFTA and work out a fair trade agreement. And return the banking system to one that is at least a little be more fair than what we know now! Well, I have a sneaky suspicion that it's the banks.

Now we're getting into some really interesting stuff, Kory. Saw an article today where Celluci was once again hammering home the point re: Canada's need for increased vigilance/security against the possibility of terrorist entering the U.S. from here. (Again diverts attention away from the fact that majority of terrorists have entered U.S. directly from abroad but, that's another thread.). Celluci's main point was that any terrorist incident in the U.S. involving individuals who'd entered the U.S. from Canada could have the most dire consequences re: our trade relationship. So again, we have the trade relationship held over our head. But, as has been pointed out by yourself or others elsewhere, who actually needs who in this equation? Again, glancing at the foreign trade stats, one could hazard a guess that many of our partners require our resources more than we require their goods, manufactured with our resources and able to be manufactured here by us. I mentioned, rather facetiously, that the lower priced goods we import from abroad benefit those working in minimum wage jobs or living on social assistance, etc. about losing the better paying manufacturing type jobs that went elsewhere, e.g., the countries from which the cheaper products are now imported. In terms of the benefit, it's obviously not to the Canadian worker. The Canadian consumer may not have shirts available to them for 15 bucks instead of twenty. However, the big beneficiary will be the corporation whose Canadian shirts sold for 20 bucks cost 15 to make, and whose foreign shirts sold for 15 bucks cost 1 to make. And, as is the way with such things, eventually the shirts will cost 20 anyway. As you point out, the banks from which the corporation may have borrowed to set up facilities abroad may also benefit. What we seem to have gotten ourselves into is an economy based on our selling often non-renewable resources at bargain rates to obtain manufactured goods often created from those resources and sold back to us at a cost of Canadian manufacturing jobs. Is this something that is of an overall benefit to Canada? What it comes down to is whether we wish to deal in a glonal free market or a national free market? If the situation was equal across the world, e.g., workers were paid fairly everywhere, I wouldn't have as many problems with the global concept however, I'd still have some. Selfish or not, the main focus for Canadians needs to be on what's good for Canada in the long-term. If one accepts the notion of a free market and capital is available, costs for Canadian products can be reasonable, Canadians can be employed and we not be putting our fate so much in the hands of others, whether foreign nation or corporations. In a truly free market, competition will always arise to fill a void, e.g., a manufacturer who is greedy will eventually fail because competitors less greedy offering products at lower prices will enter the market, if a manufacturer's products are expensive because unionized workers have achieved wages beyond the actual value of their work, based on a 'real' cost for available labour, the same happens. The problem is that in entering a global market we enter a market were 'real' costs are skewed by national circumstance, e.g., labour pools are larger and thus costs for labour are lower or cost at which workers can subsist or survive is lower. To sum up, viewing Canada's situation in light of the information provided by the trade figures, we do not need to be in a global free market on other people's terms and in fact stand only to lose by doing so, so why are we there. We do not need to be in NAFTA type agreements which compromise our sovereignty or be subject to an Sword of Damocles hung over our heads by other nations. So why are we? These thoughts are nothing new or different than what Mel's been saying for years. Fortunately, as you've indicated, many people outside of Vive also realize this and are trying to hammer the point home. Ah, quality. Something I've thought much about since reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance those many years ago. What is quality? It's funny because we can see this whole battle played out every Christmas in the Christmas Carol (Alistair Sim version at least) in the conversation between Mr. Fezziwig and Jawkins (or whatever his name was). Fezziwig had gained a comfortable living for both himself and, it seemed, his employees, based on the production of quality goods having character created by craftsmen. Jawkins was the wave of the future, mass produced goods of no character provided at lower cost. Fezziwig would not change his ways to accomodate the 'future' and lost. One employee asked Jawkins if he'd be kept on in the bought at as bankrupt 'futurized' operation and was told he could stay on for, as I recall, half his previous wage. Coincidentally enough, Jawkins is later revealed as a looter of the company. Funny when you think of Dickens writing this almost two hundred years ago, and Enron, etc. in today's time. Basically, quality started to bite the dust when mass production began. However, only in recent times have we seen the situation where it's cheaper to toss away a malfunctioning product and by another then have it repaired. Of the topic, when we were looking to purchase a new home a few years back, we looked through a few century homes. One thing that really struck us was the lack of a closet in the bedrooms of some of the homes we viewed. We later realized that this was due to the fact that a wardrobe was enough for a middle class person's 'wardrobe' at the times these homes were built. Now, as I've indicated before, economics isn't an interest I've mine, just one of those courses I dropped pretty quickly in university because it seemed a discipline that makes much out of little, or the obvious, and something that should in fact just be a sub-discipline of history/anthropology (I tend to believe most economists are just an overpaid cross between accountants and tea leaf readers). For this reason, I've never read Adam Smith (read Wilbur Smith, though), etc. and my comments cncerning the free market are basically just my probably misinformed and out-to-lunch thoughts. Greed and monopoly are the anathemas to the free market The free market works functions properly when populated by the Fezziwigs, not the Jawkins (or Gates). The free markets works when the players are competing, not attempting to dominate. If all players are the Fezziwigs, happy to obtain a comfortable living through the production of quality products, the free market functions properly. If the players include those whose only interest is in dominating the market, through whatever means, and accruing far more than they need, the system fails. The bank reference was good, Kory. I'll just point out that the bank wins on both ends in these electronic purchases, hitting both the consumer and the merchant. Our current notion of banks and the powers these possess are part of the overall problem. I could go on re: banks, stock markets, government, etc. in respect of how these can (an do, in my view) often serve to corrupt the free market. But, that's enough for now.

Calumny, you often make reference to the "free market", but I'm unclear as to what model of free market you prescribe to. I won't argue against the merits of competitive motivations, but I do wonder to what degree of free marketism you are referring to. In an absolute free market, it's pretty easy for one person, or a group of people, to monopolize the markets. This is reinforced by the powers of advertising (ie: Microsoft can afford lots of advertising, whereas newcomer Mike Rowe Soft can't). And conversely, in an economy of no free market at all, we encounter the classic weakness of communism - low worker motivation. Looking at these two extremes, it's clear that the optimal level of free-marketism lies somewhere in the middle. And this must somehow be balanced by the powers of government. Right now I feel that our government is outpowered by global corporations. Thus, it would be wise to increase limitations on the free market so that the economy returns to the controlling hands of the people rather than a select few investors. So I ask, Calumny, do you believe we're TOO free market now? Or not free market enough? It's a vital point when you make so many references to the free market. And when you say you 'believe in the free market', do you mean you believe that it's good? That it works? That it's the best option/only practical option? Do you believe that it's efficient? Because that's generally the justification for the free market. However, efficiency depends entirely on what you're measuring. Are we measuring the rate of consuming goods (ie: GDP) or are we measuring the percentage of people who are living above the poverty line? Or are we measuring the gap between rich and poor? I don't think I can properly interpret what you're saying until you address these questions... although I must admit I'm enjoying the direction of this discussion <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

How "free" is the market if the value of the Canadian loonie keeps appreciating while the value of the yank buck keeps sinking. This would mean that the markets recognize more value in our resource, land and people (i.e. educated&healthy&peaceful) based economy than in some illusion of prosperity based on a military US economy financed by the rest of the world so far. The politicians will hopefuly not sell us short on that and screw NAFTA instead. Looks like the Americans have overstretched themselves and the bankers (i.e. the markets) will be calling in the loans. Some overstretched people may start panicking over this one. Perhaps I am over-reacting but I see real good value in Canadian sovereinty. Hopefully much better than getting more cheap foreign consumer goods. Thanks to Calumny and Kory for waking us (or me) up on this.

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] What we seem to have gotten ourselves into is an economy based on our selling often non-renewable resources at bargain rates to obtain manufactured goods often created from those resources and sold back to us at a cost of Canadian manufacturing jobs. Is this something that is of an overall benefit to Canada? [/QUOTE] Let's do a little math here: There are 159 litres in a barrel of oil. At a 5% royalty rate, and $50 per barrel, that's $2.50 earned by Canada. Each Litre cost 1.57 cents to the company extracting it. Now that barrel is refined, and sold as gasoline. Around here today, that $82.9 per litre, or $131.81 per barrel. 329% profit. Nice. I know, they whine about 'increasing crude costs' and 'refining costs', but crude costs are fixed (the oil in the ground doesn't cost more to extract than it did yesterday, and costs of refining go down each year). Plus, they own the refinery, so why would they charge themselves any more than yesterday? Now let's compare Alaska's royalty scheme: 12.5% for the first 5 years, then 15% therafter. At $50 per barrel, that's $6.25 per barrel or $7.50 after 5 years. A difference of $5 per barrell in lost royalties. At the rate of 1,000,000 barells per day for most sites in Alberta, that's half a billion dollars a year! That could be one hell of a tax incentive to the manufacturing industry, at basically no cost to Canada.

I think we both have and do not have a free market economy. It's amazing how many different definitions you can find on the web for the same thing. The one I picked is: [QUOTE] an economic system which allows the supply, price, and quality of products to be determined by the desires of individual consumers rather than by centralized planning.[/QUOTE] In very simplistic terms and not in anyway outlining all possible scenarios, in the above the makers of chocolate bars manufacture and price the bars based on cost to produce, the price market the market will bear and consumer demand, as opposed to a central authority, i.e. government, determining the type, number of and cost of chocolate bars to be manufactured. The wages of workers in chocolate bar factories will also be based on competition, e.g., if a number of chocolate bar makers are competing for my labour, I can sell it to the highest bidder. Classical economic theory proposes free trade and free markets. Cost and availability of products and labor will move upward/downward based on supply and demand in the competitive market and the market will roll merrily along adjusting itself as circumstance dictated. 'Government' intervention was held to be harmful. History has shown this doesn't always work, e.g., the great depression, and that government intervention is at times necessary or a necessity. And there are factors, such as monopoly, which corrupt the market. It also hasn't always worked for labour, hence unions (I support the union concept, if not always in agreement with how the principle plays out in practice, and am a union member myself.). In some cases, e.g., essential public services such as electricity, monopoly may be desirable over a group of competing players, any one of whom could cease business and leave a number of people up the creek in terms of a service they need to survive. In these cases, it may be desirable to have a 'public' monopoly or regulated, consumer cost wise, private sector monopoly. Anyway, my reason for stating I believe in a (regulated as necessary) free market was because I believe this is preferable to a government controlled market and to avoid any 'stupid socialist' comments that may otherwise have come my way based on a misunderstanding of my views in the matter. The question is, is it in Canada's best long-term interests to be in a global free market in all areas, i.e., Canadian manufacturers competing against companies with 1/100 the labour cost, or should the free market be of a national nature in some or most areas, e.g., Canadian manufacturers competing only against other Canadian manufacturers or manufacturers playing on relatively the same field? Now, please note I indicated the interests of Canada, rather than of individual Canadian consumers. There seems to be a notion with some that our current form of capitalism confers the 'right' to an individual to better their own circumstances in whatever legal manner they choose regardless of the real or potential negative impact posed by their activities on others or society. Anyone who questions this rather dubious claim is labelled a socialist, communist, whatever. To put things in perspective in relation to the above-mentioned line of thought, if a few hundred years ago I bought a piece of land and set up a factory that spewed a waste product containing arsenic into a river used by my neighbours, my 'right' to gain a living or profit from that enterprise would not have existed very long. My neighbours would have burnt the factory to the ground, not because of any socialist principle or disagreement with free enterprise but rather because the exercise of my what I may have perceived as a 'right' caused them harm. A national economy, whether based on capitalism, socialism or communism must serve the best interests of the nation's citizens as a whole, not the best interests of a select few. The notion that we have no choice but to participate in a global 'free market' on terms other than our own is false. The notion that foreign trade must be of critical importance to our economy is also false. Any so called global free market that currently exists is solely a manipulative shell game designed to put ever increasing amounts of money in fewer pockets, in the end benefiting neither most Canadians or the majority of the citizens in the countries with which we trade. There is no reason we need to be pulled into a game in which many Canadians have already lost. Politicians bleating about our lack of choices or helplessness in the face of giant multi=national corporations/other governments in this and other matters are either attempting, for whatever reason, to create self-fulfilling prophecies or are just exceedingly dense.

Exactly Doc. Remember those old jokes about Manhattan island and the glass beads (although, as few beads were in the consumer's market the value to the consumer would have been immense.). I keep waiting for someone with a PHD in economics, etc. to show me why I'm off the wall here.

Calumny, you answered that question well enough for this post. I'm still going to pick your brain on it at some future date, but for this discussion that's enough. As for some PhD economist telling you you're wrong, well... I picked up a bunch of my brother's Econ texts last year, and I remember reading "There are as many economic theories as there are economists." So it may well be that some PhD economist will come and tell you you're wrong. And another may come along and tell you that you're dead right. But I'll tell you this much: the economists with the right connections obviously believe you to be wrong. Or else they're incredibly corrupt. I wouldn't doubt either situation. And back to my brother - he recently graduated 2nd in his class with an Honours degree in Economics. Not a PhD, but it's as close as I can provide. I asked him a lot of the same questions - whether tearing up NAFTA was possible, whether the CAP-style restructuring of the Canadian banking system would work. His response was that in principle, both could work. However, he made me read a bunch of his textbooks - his way of demonstrating that the obstacles on the path I was examining were political rather than economic. It is easy to design an economic system that could work. The challenge is getting people to buy into it. As you've said, you believe in the free market. And most do. That's what makes it work. If everyone believe in Communism, it would work too. Same with Socialism. So the real challenge is to design an economy that appeals to a natural instinctual urge. In our free-market system, that urge is greed. Which brings me back to a point I made earlier: the success of the free market is measured in GDP or GNP. Both are measurements of exploitation. How much trade is happening. Neither measures the actual quality of what that trade is accomplishing. Here's an example, taken from Jack Layton's book Speaking Out, but I can't find the exact quote so I'll paraphrase: A car crash is actually GOOD for the economy. This is because it means that more money will be spent. How? Well to replace a smashed car. Or perhaps it will be in medical expenses. Or a funeral. That's what our economy measures - how much money is being spent. There's something fundamentally wrong with that, in my opinion. A car crash should be BAD for the economy because it is a waste of a car and possibly a person. All the labour and raw materials that have gone into that car are now gone. And that's good for our economy? Better than, say, not having a car crash and half the value of the now-not-destroyed-car go to sheltering the homeless. Just an observation...

Ummm, might not want to mention my previously expressed views re: economics to your brother. Oh, wait...I was just kidding (yeah, that's it...kidding...). I wasn't specifically referring to NAFTA. If NAFTA had never existed, we'd still find ourselves with the U.S. being our primary trade partner, an insistence that this relationship was critical to our economic survival and thus prey to the type of 'dire' consequences mentioned by Celluci re: terrorist act perpetrated by individuals entering the U.S. from Canada. NAFTA has further reduced our sovereignty and is doubtless responsible for accelerating the destruction of our manufavturing capacity in many areas however, it isn't the whole problem. The free market system isn't driven by greed. It's only a 'market'in which players trade. At the simplest level, you may have something I need and I may have something you need. We negotiate towards a trade we both feel is equitable. The difference between the free and the controlled market is that in the free, we're deciding what we wish to trade and what we want to achieve from the trade. If neither of us can achieve what we're looking for, we're free to seek better terms elsewhere, e.g., if I don't feel the chair you're offering is worth the amount of my grain you're seeking, both of us can pursue other trading partners. In a controlled market a third party determines what will be available to trade and what the trading terms will be. There should be no reward for greed in the market if it is functioning effectively, e.g., competition is present. If you have a desirable item for which there is great demand, other competitors will enter the market and thus profits will be spread across a number of competitors as the lowest possible price. You won't be able to be too greedy or your potential trade partners will go to your competitors. Greed in fact corrupts the market, in that obtaining a higher than 'fair' return for one's product can only be achieved over the long term through monopoly, a price fixing agreement among all the players offering a desirable product or methods such as importation of low labour cost items to higher labour cost areas, e.g., buy low, sell high. In some cases this equation also requires a market composed largely of the 'more money than brain' segment (teenage with mom and dad's cash, for example.). Depending on your perspective, a global free market can be a good thing. In our current trading arrangements we are to some extent supporting growth in third world nations, if not as much as might be wished. If we choose to balance this off against the harm the arrangement can cause Canadians or wish to think more in terms of the 'global good' than the 'Canadian good', the arrangement may be somewhat palatable. However, the fact remains that most of the good from our current foreign trade arrangement not being felt by our third world peers nor ourselves, the 'good' in fact accrues to a select few. It's true that any economic system must have buy in from the majority to function for any length of time. The buy in for a free market economy comes from a human desire to see a fair return for their efforts. If a fair return is not received, e.g., the Soviet Union or you receive the same return regardless of effort, motivation tends to diminish. I think fair return for one's efforts is the key. Each of us decides what is fair based on what we perceive to be our needs. Until recent times, those needs were pretty basic for most, e.g., comfortable shelter, decent food, satisfied life, feeling of accomplishment. The point has been made that individuals in 'primitive' cultures often have more free time on their hands then those of us in 'civilized' cultures, in that the 'work' performed is to the extent required to provide the life they know and want. It's fair to say that 'primitive' people don't work any more than is necessary. Most 'civilized' folks don't want to work more than is necessary to provide them with a satisfactory life. We all might like the idea of the luxury car, big house with a pool, etc., etc., however, if having these requires 90 hour work weeks, etc., most of us don't feel strongly enough about these items to see this as a desirable trade-off. Most of us aren't greedy or desirous of more than we see as our fair share. However, throughout history we've been plagued by those who do desire far more than most would agree is needed. Unfortunately, there is only so much pie to go around in any society, so if I have more, someone else has less. As many brighter than myself have pointed out, this is true on a global basis. Western society having more than it needs means someone else has less. As I've mentioned before, capitalism is not in itself a bad thing nor the root of all that is wrong in the world. Capitalist free market economies are, similar to guns, not problems in and of themselves however, each becomes a problem in the wrong hands. The basic problem with capitalism and a laissez faire free market is that each is a fertile breeding ground for greed, hence the need for intervention and control by 'government' (read citizens). Where we've run into problems is that we are constantly bombarded with advertising which creates false needs, which we then feel obligated to satisfy, and a resulting consumeristic culture which demands more and more of what it does not truly need, can only have at the expense of others and in the current set-up only siphons ever greater amounts of the pie into fewer mouths. Too long and getting off topic, so that's all for now.