Loading...
Times Advocate, 1984-08-22, Page 4Pogo 4 Times -Advocate, August Sit, 1984 • Ames Times Established 1873 Advocate Established 1881 Amalgamated 1924 1 MIN Serving South Huron & North Lam Published by J. W, Ei I ORM. EERY Publisher )IM BI CM. fT Act,rrtning Manager 13111. BATTE Editor HARRY DEVRi[ Composition Mail, ger /.' dvocate North Middlesex nce 1873 ations Limited ROSS HAUGH Assistant Editor DICK )ONGKIND Business Manager Published Each Wednesday Morning at Exeter, Ontario Second Class Mail Registration Number 0386. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Canada: $22.00 Per year; U.S.A. $60.00 C.W.N.A., O.C.N.A. CLASS 'A' and 'ABC' Few are Our neighbors to the south marked a rather dubious event last week. It was the 10th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon. He became the first president in that nation's history to ever give up the post through such action; precipitated primarily because he enjoyed listening to himself on tapes he used to record most of his White House conversations. Those tapes came back to haunt him as they were used to refute his stated ignorance of government wrong -doing in the Watergate incident. It would have been expected that his successors would have benefitted from the situaton by realizing that extreme care must be exercised whenever micro- phones or recording devices were in evidence. However, President Ronald Reagan obviously fail- ed to grasp the seriousness of the problem when he sat laughing *CNA Expecting a resurgence of mosquitoes? before a microphone prior to his weekly radio broad- cast. Thinking the microphone was dead, he facetiously announced: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you we have signed legislation today that would outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." White House aides and Regan have attempted to dismiss the incident as nothing more than a -harmless joke, suggesting that the culprit was really the open microphone and not the President's moutkj Few people are "laughing. The reason they're not laughing is due strictly to the content of the unguarded comment. A President who can jest about the prospect of world destruction is frightening. It is even more so when he appears to be particularly consumed with the notion. There are a great many people who wish he would stay away from open microphones... and take some heat off the cold war. Good news could turn I've got good news and bad news." For a small army of standup comics, that standard opener has meant money in the pocket over the years. But behind the laughter has been the realization that for every silver lining there is a cloud - and vice ver- sa. It's all a matter of perspective. Take, for instance, statistics released recently by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on the rate at which firms with less than $2 -million in an- twaJ.§ales have been forming or dissolving qver the last ,3-1/2 years. From one perspective, the figures paint a sad pic- ture of business deaths - 57,00, one year, 84,000 the next, 64,000 the next. Each time a business closes, especial- ly in a small community, it leaves a gap. Any small business, successful or not, represents a great deal of hard work on someone's part, and to see that come to an end is indeed an unhappy occasion. But from another angle, there is good news. Those same statistics show a vibrant sector of the economy working to survive the recession and steadily reasser- ting its vitality. Using data collected from its member firms and applied to federal government statistics, the CFIB found that even in the dark days of 1982, when 84,000 small businesses closed + 10.7 per cent of a total of 785,000 such firms), 87,000 new operations opened. That alone points to the tremendous flexibility in the sector. Last year 64,000 companies went under (8.1 per- cent of the existing 787,000 firms), but births were'up 10 percent to 96,000. And in the first six months of this year the trend continued, with business deaths occuring at a rate of only 7.4 percent or 30,000 firms. These numbers tell us a number of things, not the least of which is that oft -quoted bankruptcy figures do not accurately reflect what's happening in the sector. In 1982, 10,765 firms went bankrupt, federal figures show. The CFIB added that to its information on businesses that closed voluntarily or went into receivership to arrive at its estimate of total deaths. Similarly, last year, only 10,260 of the 64,000 deaths were bankruptcies. It is also apparent that the death rate is declining while more and moire people are starting their own operations. Most important, though, is the difference between births and deaths - the net growth of the sector - for it is to this area we can look for relief from the burden of unemployment, particularity among the young. Why? At least one study has shown that fully two- thirds of young people get their first jobs in small firms. And a recent CFIB study showed that from 1975 to 1982 all net new jobs created in Canada were in firms of 50 employees or less. The implications are clear, particularly in an elec- tion campaign: candidates must be prepared to say what policies they would implement to increase the business birth rate and reduce the death rate. Unless they grasp what's at stake, the good news could turn bad. Numbers coming up steadily As everyone knows, good and bad Tuck usually comes in multiples of three. People who have had some good torture pass their way 00 two occasions. quickly rush out to buy every available lottery ticket in sight in the anticipation that the third incident will send there onto easy street. Conversely, two sudden deaths in the family or similar misfortunes can send people scurrying for cover or to check over their Inst will and testament Well, the T -A staff can attest to tine fact that misfortunes chino( come in multiples of three. Their frequency is much greater than that! This has been "one of those.. years for the staff. We've had three people in hospital with serious ailments, one has been involved in an auto accident, one employee's spouse has suffered , heart attack, an offspring of ;mottle' was hospitalized for a month and a halt. there have been deaths in the immediate (;rnri- ly of two others...and on and on it goes That's why no one was particular Iv ur prised when the advertising manager came anat.er- came through the hack door Iasi week with his arm in a cast. Mind you, the level of misfortunes ex- perienced by staff members should not have dulled the sense of regret over the ad manager's injury to the extent that it did, nor resulted in such a total lack of sympathy being expressed. But the odds appear to be stacked so high against the staff that it has reached the point where had news is almost ex- pected and there is therefore some relief when someone else's number has come up before yours. The writer takes some consolation in (he fact that his number has already come up. Others have not been so fortunate vet and still have to suffer through the agony of wondering what will be entailed for them when their turn arrives. Speaking about numbers coming up, • • that will soon be the case for the can- didates running in the September 4 federal election. Over two-thirds of them will see their work of the past several weeks go down the drain as they see the totals mount against them. To say that the election has been quiet and lacking much interest in this area is BATT'N AROUND with the editor probably an understatement. it has elicited little more than a passing interest from the majority of people. Hopefully, it will start to pick up in- terest over the concluding few days of the campaign as the parties and candidates attempt to peak with some attention - getting action. indications at present are that Prime Minister .John Turner is going to need a particularly strong finish to recoup the lead which he has squandered since call- ing the election. Severe organizational problems have plagued him, as well as his rather disjointed speaking manner. The whole effect appears to have portrayed him as a person stumbling for a suitable explanation after being caught with a hand in the cookie jar. Certainly, voters should consider more carefully what is said than the manner in which it is said, hut with "image" now be- ing such an important part of a can- didate's or party's success, Turner does appear to he fighting an uphill battle. Whether Turner can regain the polish and positive image that carried him through to the Liberal leadership is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of the campaign windup. While the writer finds Turner's jerky mannerism a negative point, PC leader Brian Mulroney suffers from just the op- posite malady. Ile's just a little too smooth, leaving one with the impression of a con artist at work. Obviously, the ideal candidate is somewhere in between those two ex- tremes. However, because they are the only legitimate contenders for the Prime Minister's job, I'll have to weigh something besides their speaking manner. I'm probably among the many Cana- dians who stoop to considering such at- tributes because there just doesn't appear to he a great deal to choose between the two leaders or the two major parties. They both recognize that the Canadian economy has to he given a boost, unemployment has to be righted, and judging from the most recent TV debate, women's issues have to be faced. The problem is, neither has really in- dicated any clear-cut solutions to the pro- thlems. Whether they choose to do so in the remaining days at their disposal is a mat- ter of conjecture only. Merely recogniz- ing the problems is not enough. Practical- ly every Canadian knows what they are; it's the solutions to those problems we'd like to hear enunciated. Pinning them down has been about as challenging as pushing a rope and both have effectively managed to walk that tight -rope. Analysts who aired their opinions after the debate on women's issues could only find a couple of areas in which the two leaders had any concrete ideas on the issues on which they were asked to com- ment. That's not much to show for a bor- ing two-hour debate. Obviously, one attribute both men have is the ability to use a great number of words to say little of much consequence.. wag rte`!:\40. , No helmets please Since 1 have been slightly under the weather, we have a guest columnist this week, my daughter Kim. So the Bill Smiley column this week is writ- ten by Kim Smiley, who writes better than I do anyway. By Kith Smiley Some people actually pay money to have their brains teased. Compila- tions of quizzes and men- tal challenges can be found in any large book store; usually under the Games section, next to Humor. In smaller establishments, brain- teaser books, which always assure buyers that currect solutions signify genius, are lumped together with Humor, a connection that escapes the MENSA hopefuls who buy them. "But why pay money for what you can get free?" horse sense inquires. The following brainteaser, free of charge, was recently seen in the window of a Variety store in a small Canadian town: • "Please do not wear helmets inside store." We've heard of having to wear certain items of apparel in stores, like shoes, but not being allowed to wear something? This is new: and almost as inventive as a sign currently adorning a gas station in that same small town: "Free hat with exhaust system in- spection." In my day. not so long ago, it would have been a simple "Free glass with fill -up." But what rich oppor- tunities for the flexing of the imagination this gas station affords lucky passers-by. What king of hat, one wonders. One size and color only or a smorgasbord of hat choice? A hat you wouldn't be seen dead in Sugar 'and Spice Dispensed By Smiley cynics will conclude, reasoning that the use of the term "hat" rather than "cap" means the bonus offer couldn't be some variation on the timelessly fashionable baseball cap. The speculative sit-ups on even this modest, but free, brainteaser could keep one mentally Fonda - fit for a week. How much more so the intriguing "Please do not wear helmets in store." I put my brain on the wrack. Here are the only reasons I could come up with for the no -helmet rule in the Variety store. They range from dumb to real- ly dumb. 1. Hardness of helmet causing potential damage to perishable goods and persons. 2. Potential theft, there being room to tuck stolen goods in space between top of head and helmet. 3. Managerial prejudice We One thing that I have never done in the past was to ally myself with a par- ticular party and say that "i am a Liberal, New Democrat or Conser- vative" and that whatever happens in the Parliament that 1 will vote for that person. l want to be able to look at what is going on and vote in the next elec- tion accordingly. However i will state categorically that i will not be voting for the Liberal party on September 4 even though i very much respect the gentlemen running in my own area. Over the next two weeks I'll tell you why I'm real- ly angry and why I feel we need a change. Basically it comes down to a political party which has been in power for six- teen years and has totally lost touch with the average person in the against motorcycle drivers, as opposed to, say, construction workers. Notice, the sign specifies "helmets," not "hard hats". 4. Related to above, sim- ple helmet phobia on the part of the store manager. Isn't there something frightening about the par- tially disguised face and overly -protected head of the helmet wearer? 5. Storemanager's plan in event of holdups is to use club he keeps behind counter on thief's head. Manager lacks imagina- tion to devise alternate plan and therefore forbids helmets in store. 6. Potential use of helmet as weapon - helmeted customer, enraged at rising costs, charges bull -like at store- keeper. 7. Store manager is in league with gas station owner offering free hat with exhaust system in- spection. Hats offered are, in fact cheap Taiwan - made helmets. While motorcyclist leaves his helmet draped on handlebars to dash into store for a Coke, gas sta- tion owner's thug steals heimet and fouls up ex- haust system. My own mental system exhausted, I offered the list to my family for in- spection. Discussion settl- ed chiefly around possibility Number Two - potential theft. They decided that the purpose of the sign in the window must be to prfevent so- meone from entering the store with a helmet tuck- ed nonchalantly under his arm, then furtively plac- ing a can of beans or a pound of bacon on this' head, quickly donning the helmet and walking through the cash, coolly buying a pack of gum, just to cover up, you unders- tand. Against my protests that allowable purses, bags or large pockets would serve just as well and be less painful, they stood fast. Well, I finally just ask- ed. I went down to the store, and, under the pretext of coolly buying a pack of gum, asked the burning question: "How come you can't wear helmets in the store?" She laughed a little, "Well, they garble, you know." It took me several moments to even begin to see. "But they just have those mouth guard things, don't they?" I made mouth guard gestures, thinking of kids' hockey helmets of 20 years ago. "No," she explained, "they have fact, visors. A lot of people keep their visors down and we can't make out what they're saying." need a change country, the person who has ended up paying the bills for the shambles the economy is in, yet has lit- ing fun of Robert Stanfield for suggesting that wage and price controls should be introduced then turning Perspectives By Syd Fletcher tle or no say in what is go- ing on. Here are some issues which the Liberals have either ignored or made much worse. An unemployment rate of over 11 percent, and far higher in some parts of the country. Regular deliberate Tying (or misconstruction of the facts if you wish) by the prime minister: a) mak- right around and introduc- ing them himself not long afterward h) mocking Joe Clark for talking of an 18 cent excise tax on gasoline then turning around as soon as he was in power and introducing one almost twice as large. it's interesting to note that the stated purpose of the excise tax was to buy Petro -Canada but you can be sure that once that company was paid for that the excise tax was never removed. By 1967 this country had a net federal debt of $18 billion. By April of 1985 that debt will have reach- ed $180 billion. The government now borrows over $20 billion a year just to meet its interest payments!! nterest rates that have skyrocketed may be blam- ed on the United States quite easily and 1 have easily forced the lenders to set up a variable repay- ment schedule (similar to what they have now) so that even though the in- terest rates rose smaller amounts of principal could have been paid off keeping the payments lower. In- stead the government allowed hundreds of peo- ple to lose their homes and thousands of businesses to go bankrupt. More next week.