Trade agreements are always about “concessions” in which foreign suppliers are grudgingly given — or, more often, indignantly denied — the right to sell Canadians goods and services at prices lower than what we pay now. Let’s be clear here: lowering the price of consumer goods and services has the exact same effect on household welfare as an increase in incomes. But I defy you to name an elected politician who will list “the ability to buy cheaper stuff” as the most compelling reason to support free trade: more than 200 years since Adam Smith wrote that paragraph, our trade agenda is still written by and for producer interests.
We’re stuck with a system in which producer interests — most notoriously the dairy cartel that operates under the name of “supply management” — hold the rest of us hostage. Dismantling the dairy cartel is an act that would significantly increase consumers’ buying power, but this is a measure that the Conservatives have all but ruled out under any circumstances, and the NDP has made maintaining the cartel a condition for supporting any sort of trade agreement.
Why would the [major parties] stubbornly insist on sticking to a policy that makes consumers worse off at the expense of producers? Because it’s a popular position. It’s one of the marvels of the Canadian electorate. Show Canadians a special interest group that uses its government-granted privileges to fleece consumers, and they’ll embrace it as a “national champion,” a “uniquely Canadian way of life” or some equally vapid catch-phrase.
This is from the Wikipedia entry for Stockholm Syndrome:
Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.
What we suffer from is the economic policy equivalent. Call it “Canada Syndrome”: a tendency for consumers to identify with the producer interests that are holding them hostage.
Stephen Gordon, “Our Stockholm Syndrome about supply management”, Maclean’s, 2013-03-05.
November 24, 2020
QotD: Canada’s economic Stockholm Syndrome
December 23, 2009
iPhone fans “suffering from Stockholm Syndrome”
I think it’d be safe to say that Victor Keegan‘s inbox will be overflowing with anguished defences of the iconic iPhone after this article:
The iPhone isn’t perfect
With most examples of new technology, the owner’s desire to be seen at the cutting edge blinds them to admit any faultsWhen hostages defend their kidnappers, it is known as “Stockholm syndrome”. Something similar happens to iPhone users, according to the Danish analyst Strand Consult, when they fall so in love with the device that it blinds them to its defects such as a poor camera, lousy battery life for heavy users and no Bluetooth facility that can transmit photos.
This provoked a predictably outraged response from iPhonistas, but the truth is that a kind of Stockholm syndrome happens not just with iPhones but with most examples of new technology where the owners’ desire to be seen at the cutting edge irrationally blinds them to admit any faults.
There are lots of things you could call the iPhone, but “perfect” certainly isn’t one of them. I’m very happy with my iPhone, but the camera isn’t as good as the one I had on my old Treo 600 (introduced in 2003) and the battery life is quite significantly worse. I don’t use Bluetooth, so that deficiency isn’t important to me.
