Will the Tories actually sell the CBC?

[Machjo]

If the government were to sell off the CBC as a workers' and consumers' co-op, who would buy a share among you?

As for me, I don't know. It would depend on if I intended to actually use it. I'd decide based on that. But undecided yet.

 

[johnnyhangover]

What leads people to think that the CBC's quality would necessarily suffer just because of funding cuts? There will always be people who will appreciate good programming, and so a market will always exist for it. What is everyone so concerned about?

I've never tasted apples grown by the Canadian Applegrowers' Crown-Corporation, but I'm sure they'd tase just as good as the apples I'm eating now. To claim that the quality of the CBC would drop if it were privatized is just as preposterous as to suggest that the quality fo apples would improve if apple fields were nationalized.

You're analyzing the problem improperly.
The CBC is a public good, by which I don't mean that it is owned by the government, I mean it is non-excludable and non-rival in consumption. Meaning that one cannot be excluded from listening to public radio, nor does one person's use of public radio diminish anyone else's use. This is the economic definition of a public good. The government recognizes the value in having a broadcaster that produces Canadian stories for a Canadian audience, but also recognizes this may be commercially unviable. Economically, this is an under-production in the market, meaning that the socially optimal level of public radio is not being produced. The government recognizes this and subsidizes the CBC so that it can produce public broadcasting at the socially optimal level.

So you see, it has absolutely nothing to do with quality. The marginal quality of each production would stay the same. It is the quantity that would decrease, and politicians decided long ago a public broadcaster is beneficial to all Canadians.

 

[Scott Free]

I have a solution for this. Make our direct taxes charity deductible. That way I could give my tax money to schools, international development, etc.

You could give yor money to the CBC.

And Conservaties could give their money to the military.

It'll all balance out.

Taxes are a confinement technology if they are not voluntary. I quite agree that they should be volunteered not pilfered as they are.

 

[Machjo]

You're analyzing the problem improperly.
The CBC is a public good, by which I don't mean that it is owned by the government, I mean it is non-excludable and non-rival in consumption. Meaning that one cannot be excluded from listening to public radio, nor does one person's use of public radio diminish anyone else's use. This is the economic definition of a public good. The government recognizes the value in having a broadcaster that produces Canadian stories for a Canadian audience, but also recognizes this may be commercially unviable. Economically, this is an under-production in the market, meaning that the socially optimal level of public radio is not being produced. The government recognizes this and subsidizes the CBC so that it can produce public broadcasting at the socially optimal level.

So you see, it has absolutely nothing to do with quality. The marginal quality of each production would stay the same. It is the quantity that would decrease, and politicians decided long ago a public broadcaster is beneficial to all Canadians.

Why could it not be done through private contributions? If I'm not mistaken, Vision TV is public too, yet funded though in part by the government, also in part by voluntary tax-deductible contributions.

Why not just make more of our direct taxes charity deductible and then let us give to the charity or public institution of our choice?

 

[johnnyhangover]

Then why not transform it into a workers' and consumers' co-op? That way those who care about it could put their money where their mouths are by buying a share and then watch it to their heart's content.

I don't think you truely understand what the CBC does.

Firstly, The mandate of the CBC is to provide Canadian content to Candians. Excluding Canadians by selling shares is not part of the mandate.
Second, You can't exclude anyone from listening to the radio, or watching CBC television, so your solution would introduce the problem of "free-riders", similar to what you would find if you tried to charge people to watch a fireworks display.
Third, well, I don't have a third. But I really don't think you thought your argument through very well.

 

[johnnyhangover]

Why could it not be done through private contributions? If I'm not mistaken, Vision TV is public too, yet funded though in part by the government, also in part by voluntary tax-deductible contributions.

yup, you could do this. the only problem being the CBC would have no clear idea of what their budget would be from year to year. But it could work, PBS in the states does that.

 

[Machjo]

I don't think you truely understand what the CBC does.

Firstly, The mandate of the CBC is to provide Canadian content to Candians. Excluding Canadians by selling shares is not part of the mandate.
Second, You can't exclude anyone from listening to the radio, or watching CBC television, so your solution would introduce the problem of "free-riders", similar to what you would find if you tried to charge people to watch a fireworks display.
Third, well, I don't have a third. But I really don't think you thought your argument through very well.

Couldn't we argue the same for the military? It's a public service, yet different peopel have different opinions about it.

Like I said, why not just make our taxes charity deductible?

That way, if I choose to give that money to schools or international development projects, I won't mind if your child benefits from my contribution to the schools. That would be my contribution to society. I woudl also not care that my contribution to international development doesn't benefit me either. That's not what I'd be giving it for.

So in the same way, you could gie all your money to the CBC if you cared so much about it. And just as I wouldn't mind your child benefitting from my school contribution, I'd hope you would also not mind my tuning into CBC radio on occasion when I'm bored? What would be so unCanadian of each giving where he wants all all benefitting from each other's unique contribution?

 

[Machjo]

yup, you could do this. the only problem being the CBC would have no clear idea of what their budget would be from year to year. But it could work, PBS in the states does that.

PBS

Seems like they've got a pretty good website at least.

 

[johnnyhangover]

Couldn't we argue the same for the military? It's a public service, yet different peopel have different opinions about it.

Like I said, why not just make our taxes charity deductible?

That way, if I choose to give that money to schools or international development projects, I won't mind if your child benefits from my contribution to the schools. That would be my contribution to society. I woudl also not care that my contribution to international development doesn't benefit me either. That's not what I'd be giving it for.

So in the same way, you could gie all your money to the CBC if you cared so much about it. And just as I wouldn't mind your child benefitting from my school contribution, I'd hope you would also not mind my tuning into CBC radio on occasion when I'm bored? What would be so unCanadian of each giving where he wants all all benefitting from each other's unique contribution?

Good point about the military, that's a classic example when economists study public goods. One persons use of national defense doesn't diminish anyone else's, and if a Canadian decided not to pay for it, they'd be covered anyways. That's why the gov't provides it using tax dollars, it can force you to pay your fair share.
The problem is this: If people got to decide where their taxes went, you'd end up with too much popular stuff (free daycare, etc.)and not enough of the unpopular (but necessary) stuff, like defense. Then the gov't would reallocate your tax dollars anyways, and in doing so would waste money by determining the proper allocation.

 

[Machjo]

Good point about the military, that's a classic example when economists study public goods. One persons use of national defense doesn't diminish anyone else's, and if a Canadian decided not to pay for it, they'd be covered anyways. That's why the gov't provides it using tax dollars, it can force you to pay your fair share.
The problem is this: If people got to decide where their taxes went, you'd end up with too much popular stuff (free daycare, etc.)and not enough of the unpopular (but necessary) stuff, like defense. Then the gov't would reallocate your tax dollars anyways, and in doing so would waste money by determining the proper allocation.

But not everyne agrees as to how much money the military should get, or how important it is. Some think we need a force capable of going overseas. Some might think a force just strong enough to protect our borders is enough. And yet others wonder why a few countries don't get together and just share a force to save money. So then how does the government decide how much money it should get?

If it were covered by voluntary contributions, then we would decide collectively on how much it should get.

 

[L Gilbert]

Honestly, I watch little TV and listen to litlte radio. So why should I be funding what I don't even use? And it's not an essential service either.

I'm all for funding things I don't use myself if they are essential or if they can help a person considerably in his life. The CBC is not among that list.

You bet. People who don't have kids are taxed for education. People who never get sick are taxed for healthcare.
However, our quality of life here in Threestationville, BC would take a bit of a dip if CBC radio went pop or news or much of anything other than what it broadcasts now. I don't think I'd be alone. I don't think Threestationville is the only area in Canuckville that would be a bit put out either.

 

[johnnyhangover]

But not everyne agrees as to how much money the military should get, or how important it is. Some think we need a force capable of going overseas. Some might think a force just strong enough to protect our borders is enough. And yet others wonder why a few countries don't get together and just share a force to save money. So then how does the government decide how much money it should get?

If it were covered by voluntary contributions, then we would decide collectively on how much it should get.

yeah, I mean you make a valid point, and the same goes for the CBC.
you're talking about a much deeper form of democracy than what we have now, but let me point out a problem to you:

Our military was pretty puny leading up to 9/11. If after 9/11 you allowed people to voluntarily give to the military, paranoia was so high, they may have given a huge percentage of their tax dollars to the military. So the gov't takes its new winfall and buys up the whole show; newest and latest everything, hiring like mad, you name it. You now need a steady annual budget to maintain all this equipment and personnel, it's not a one time deal. All of a sudden it's 2009, and cooler heads prevail and not many tax dollars are heading the ministry's way, well, personnel are being layed off, equipment that still has a huge lifespan is rusting, etc. You see, the problem is that it is highly inefficient to manage money that way. You need predictability in budgets in order to maintain levels of service. Economists have recognized for a long time that if you want something done quickly, it'll cost you more.

 

[L Gilbert]

Taxes are a confinement technology if they are not voluntary. I quite agree that they should be volunteered not pilfered as they are.

I am NOT paying for your kids' education or your healthcare. DIY. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

yup, you could do this. the only problem being the CBC would have no clear idea of what their budget would be from year to year. But it could work, PBS in the states does that.

I agree that it might be a viable alternative.

 

[L Gilbert]

Good point about the military, that's a classic example when economists study public goods. One persons use of national defense doesn't diminish anyone else's, and if a Canadian decided not to pay for it, they'd be covered anyways. That's why the gov't provides it using tax dollars, it can force you to pay your fair share.
The problem is this: If people got to decide where their taxes went, you'd end up with too much popular stuff (free daycare, etc.)and not enough of the unpopular (but necessary) stuff, like defense. Then the gov't would reallocate your tax dollars anyways, and in doing so would waste money by determining the proper allocation.

Good on you. I was struggling with how to put that argument forward. Now I don't have to. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

But not everyne agrees as to how much money the military should get, or how important it is. Some think we need a force capable of going overseas. Some might think a force just strong enough to protect our borders is enough. And yet others wonder why a few countries don't get together and just share a force to save money. So then how does the government decide how much money it should get?

If it were covered by voluntary contributions, then we would decide collectively on how much it should get.

250,000 people in Canada donating $5 each doesn't add up to much of anything to decide on.

 

[Machjo]

yeah, I mean you make a valid point, and the same goes for the CBC.
you're talking about a much deeper form of democracy than what we have now, but let me point out a problem to you:

Our military was pretty puny leading up to 9/11. If after 9/11 you allowed people to voluntarily give to the military, paranoia was so high, they may have given a huge percentage of their tax dollars to the military. So the gov't takes its new winfall and buys up the whole show; newest and latest everything, hiring like mad, you name it. You now need a steady annual budget to maintain all this equipment and personnel, it's not a one time deal. All of a sudden it's 2009, and cooler heads prevail and not many tax dollars are heading the ministry's way, well, personnel are being layed off, equipment that still has a huge lifespan is rusting, etc. You see, the problem is that it is highly inefficient to manage money that way. You need predictability in budgets in order to maintain levels of service. Economists have recognized for a long time that if you want something done quickly, it'll cost you more.

If the military should hire competent consultants knowledgeable in accounting, psychology, sociology, and political science, they could forsee this and so advise that the military not spend all of the money but store some of it as a rainy day fund. This would also make the military more conservative in its mission planning. Instead of committing so much to this or that mission, it would first assess whether it could afford it based on past ability to attract funds.

It would adjust over time.

 

[Machjo]

250,000 people in Canada donating $5 each doesn't add up to much of anything to decide on.

That would be their choice. Some people woudl rather give their money to other causes. Sure we all have a responsibility to society, but who is the government to tell us to which public institution that money goes to. Make our taxes charity deductible, and then we can decide. If everyone gives only 5 dollars each to the military, then that would be more money available for other services.

 

[johnnyhangover]

If the military should hire competent consultants knowledgeable in accounting, psychology, sociology, and political science, they could forsee this and so advise that the military not spend all of the money but store some of it as a rainy day fund. This would also make the military more conservative in its mission planning. Instead of committing so much to this or that mission, it would first assess whether it could afford it based on past ability to attract funds.

It would adjust over time.

Nope. I disagree. First, nobody will want to work for the federal government, because they'll have no job security. Second, that is a huge and inefficient overhead cost to hire people for every department who are going to predict the behaviours and whims of taxpayers. Why would they do this when they may not have enough money to cover their mandate? You are proving my point about how inefficient this would be. You would be wasting taxpayers money on trying to predict psychological behavour, before even thinking about providing the departmental service. Third, (yay, I have a third!), what taxpayer would be happy to hear that the gov't is saving their tax dollars "for a rainy day"? I can't even keep a straight face typing it.

 

[L Gilbert]

That would be their choice. Some people woudl rather give their money to other causes. Sure we all have a responsibility to society, but who is the government to tell us to which public institution that money goes to. Make our taxes charity deductible, and then we can decide. If everyone gives only 5 dollars each to the military, then that would be more money available for other services.

Not necessarily.Perhaps the military would be the only thing those 250,000 choose to contribute to. And one thing for sure, it would leave Canada with something like a hundred doods and a helicopter. It might be a help if there was some sort of emergency here at home (as long as the emergency wasn't too far away from where the chopper was based), but if they had to rescue some Canuck overseas from some twit or other, it'd be a tragedy.
But, JH had a good point; the gov't would just reallocate funds for it anyway.