- Email: [email protected]
Canadian nationalism
observes is still a challenge to religion. He cites attacks on business and advertising for " . . . making the customer want what business has to offer." In such attacks, one must presume that the critic thinks such a practice is bad because (at least according to the critic's standards) the product, somehow or other, is not good for man or should not be wanted. But ff businessmen can, as charged, persuade men to accept products which they do not (or should not) want, are we to be content with less success on behalf of a product which is being offered as capable of satisfying man's ultimate want? JAM~S W. CwLrroN
Dean, College o~ Commerce University of Notre Dame
To THE EDITORS: Your article on "A Marketing Analysis of Religion" appearing in the Spring issue of Business Horizons evoked an immediate response in me . . . Ordinarily I do not like articles that mix religion, business, and sales, but I do think you have made some very strong points, principally to businessmen, that needed to be said. D. E. MEGATHLIN
The Kendall Company Walpole, Massachusetts
CANADIAN
NATIONALISM
To THE EDrrom: It is paradoxical that many people in the United States, highly nationalistic as they are, often fail to recognize the force of nationalism elsewhere. This laek of understanding is clearly exhibited in the article "Proposal for a North American Common Market" by William H. Peterson [Business Horizons, Summer, 1959]. The entire tenor of his article is that mutual free trade is the simplest and most logical way to have good relations between Canada and the United States. This is definitely not the ease. Canada has deliberately and since its inception placed national cohesion and maintenance of a separate political identity above economic efficiency. W e have paid a high price for it. Everyone knows this, and Canadians are perfectly willing to continue to pay the price-at least so long as we are not povertystricken. Thus the general thesis of the article indicates a basic misunderstanding of the Canadian psyche. Completely free trade would destroy Canada as an entity and would force reliance upon 14
BUSINESSHORIZONS- FALL, 1 9 5 9
a few staples. Such a policy has in the past left the economy subject to extreme fluctuation. Indeed, much of our economic policy has been to get away from being "hewers of wood and drawers of water." The problem Canada faces is that ff we raise tariffs against imports, this has but a negligible impact on the United States; but the converse is not true, since so much of Canada's crop consists of exports to the United States. In short, the importance of international trade with the United States is far greater for Canada than is Canada's trade to the United States. Thus an identical tariff policy wreaks serious harm upon Canada but is like a gnat on an elephant for the Ur~ted States. Mr. Peterson recognizes some of the problems but labels these as economic nationalism. This is quite wrong. I~ is nationalism, pure and simple. Canadians would like the higher real cm, per capita that would come from integration, but economic integration would destroy other values which Canadians, however misguided, prefer. Thus the strictures against protectionism, which Peterson emphasizes, are freely acknowledged by Canadians. We wish to maintain our identity-we can do without whatever increase in cm, would come from integration. I also doubt very much the statement that "The secret of North American prosperity has been free enterprise and free trade . . . . " After all, the resource endowments of other countries mentioned are not similar, as the author later admits: " . . . Canada is a "have" nation in natural resources, perhaps second only to Siberia." These nations ( India, Brazil, Russia, and China) have also been subjected to war, pestilence, disease, and redundant population, and not all of these can be resolved by free enterprise. North America has been happily free from such catastrophes on a grand scale. The article is economically correct but, for better or for worse, economics is not the key problem; hence, mutual free trade cannot come about until Canada achieves a size and diversification of industry comparable to that of the United States. The free trade argument is not completely relevant to economies with such a vast size discrepancy. The real basis for contemporary frietions resides in the vast size discrepancies between the two nations and the Canadian desire to preserve a precarious national identity. Thus Mr. Petersen's artiele misses the mark by a wide margin and merely repeats the well-known homilies of free trade. GEOaGE W. WILSON
Associate Pro[essor, School oI Business Indiana University
Dean, College o~ Commerce University of Notre Dame
To THE EDITORS: Your article on "A Marketing Analysis of Religion" appearing in the Spring issue of Business Horizons evoked an immediate response in me . . . Ordinarily I do not like articles that mix religion, business, and sales, but I do think you have made some very strong points, principally to businessmen, that needed to be said. D. E. MEGATHLIN
The Kendall Company Walpole, Massachusetts
CANADIAN
NATIONALISM
To THE EDrrom: It is paradoxical that many people in the United States, highly nationalistic as they are, often fail to recognize the force of nationalism elsewhere. This laek of understanding is clearly exhibited in the article "Proposal for a North American Common Market" by William H. Peterson [Business Horizons, Summer, 1959]. The entire tenor of his article is that mutual free trade is the simplest and most logical way to have good relations between Canada and the United States. This is definitely not the ease. Canada has deliberately and since its inception placed national cohesion and maintenance of a separate political identity above economic efficiency. W e have paid a high price for it. Everyone knows this, and Canadians are perfectly willing to continue to pay the price-at least so long as we are not povertystricken. Thus the general thesis of the article indicates a basic misunderstanding of the Canadian psyche. Completely free trade would destroy Canada as an entity and would force reliance upon 14
BUSINESSHORIZONS- FALL, 1 9 5 9
a few staples. Such a policy has in the past left the economy subject to extreme fluctuation. Indeed, much of our economic policy has been to get away from being "hewers of wood and drawers of water." The problem Canada faces is that ff we raise tariffs against imports, this has but a negligible impact on the United States; but the converse is not true, since so much of Canada's crop consists of exports to the United States. In short, the importance of international trade with the United States is far greater for Canada than is Canada's trade to the United States. Thus an identical tariff policy wreaks serious harm upon Canada but is like a gnat on an elephant for the Ur~ted States. Mr. Peterson recognizes some of the problems but labels these as economic nationalism. This is quite wrong. I~ is nationalism, pure and simple. Canadians would like the higher real cm, per capita that would come from integration, but economic integration would destroy other values which Canadians, however misguided, prefer. Thus the strictures against protectionism, which Peterson emphasizes, are freely acknowledged by Canadians. We wish to maintain our identity-we can do without whatever increase in cm, would come from integration. I also doubt very much the statement that "The secret of North American prosperity has been free enterprise and free trade . . . . " After all, the resource endowments of other countries mentioned are not similar, as the author later admits: " . . . Canada is a "have" nation in natural resources, perhaps second only to Siberia." These nations ( India, Brazil, Russia, and China) have also been subjected to war, pestilence, disease, and redundant population, and not all of these can be resolved by free enterprise. North America has been happily free from such catastrophes on a grand scale. The article is economically correct but, for better or for worse, economics is not the key problem; hence, mutual free trade cannot come about until Canada achieves a size and diversification of industry comparable to that of the United States. The free trade argument is not completely relevant to economies with such a vast size discrepancy. The real basis for contemporary frietions resides in the vast size discrepancies between the two nations and the Canadian desire to preserve a precarious national identity. Thus Mr. Petersen's artiele misses the mark by a wide margin and merely repeats the well-known homilies of free trade. GEOaGE W. WILSON
Associate Pro[essor, School oI Business Indiana University