Louis P. just responded in the general debate "The Canadian Government just signed a compromised treaty with a tiny Indian tribe and the ramifications are turning British Columbia into a maelstrom." Now as someone (from BC) who has followed the history of this negotiation for some time, I would like to know what "compromised' treaty means (is this some anti-native appelation?), why Louis thinks that making a treaty with a "tiny" (they occupy most of the area) is somehow demeaning to the indians, and that the opposition from the "liberal" party which represents the forestry and mining interests constitutes turning BC into a political "maelstrom". None of my relatives who (mostly) all live there have failed to tell me about this political maelstrom. Come on Louis, lighten up! John Craven, on the other hand, tells us, "iff you are for markets, you are not anticapitalis." Give us a break. Barkely and I who have studied China, Slovenia, etc. can ( I think) make the argument that the market is not cotermwith anything but capitalism. I would argue that there is such a thing as a "socialist market". If that is not acceptable on this list then mayby Me, Barkley, and Bhoddi should be banished to to the hot fires of beaurocratic/administrative trading exchanges. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
