Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!idallen
From: idallen@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Doing only that which brings the most profit.
Message-ID: <8680@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 12:18:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.8680
Posted: Thu Aug 16 12:18:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Aug-84 00:33:44 EDT
References: <740@ubc-ean.CDN> <1050@dciem.UUCP>, <999@hcrvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25

What is it about politics that leads to such huge articles?
This will be fairly brief.

I read advocacy of letting things that are not profitable die (e.g.  CN
unprofitable lines, DeHaviland, etc.).  It seems some people want the
cost of providing a service to a person to be borne directly by that
person -- people don't want profitable areas of the economy supporting
unprofitable areas (e.g. CN unprofitable lines, DeHaviland, etc.).

The cost of sending a letter to the Yukon is probably far more than
the 35 cents I now pay.  Should the price be increased to make the
service profitable?  Would anyone pay that price?  If not, does that
mean the unprofitable service should be discontinued in favour of the
more profitable business to be had sending mail only in Toronto? 
Should the subway stop at 7pm because the volume of traffic after that
point doesn't pay the upkeep?

I'm curious about how people feel about this.  Personally, I don't
mind contributing tax dollars or artificially high costs for local
services if it allows more people to enjoy the same benefits I have at
the same price.  I certainly don't want to be told that I have to move to
Toronto because it's more profitable for XYZ Corp to provide me with a
phone there than to run a line to my rural farm.
-- 
        -IAN!  (Ian! D. Allen)      University of Waterloo