Page 4, The Herald, Friday, November 16, 1979 EDITOR'S JOURNAL BY GREG MIDDLETON The voters should have by now taken a look at the candidates and the issues and made up their minds as to how they will cast their ballot. So, rather than an editorial just urging you to vote or ‘attempting to sway the remaining undecided to vote one way or the other through an anlysis of past per- formance or campaign promises, here is simply a prediction. Based on some observation of the can- didates, it is a prediction as to how those will do you elect. Jack Talstra, the quiet little lawyer, will continue to act as a moderating influence on council while he serves his apprenticeship for the mayor’s job. Helmut Giesbrecht will, if he's a bright as he seems, work hard to become again the excellent alderman he was rather than continue to be, as some people see him, Vic Jolliffe’s appointed gadfly. The matriarch of the artsy craftsy, Molly Nattress, will serve as ambassador from the make betieve world of theatre she created, and act as a powerful’ lobby for that group while she learn about the real world. Alan Soutar, the prince of pretty, might get another worthwhile renovation and redecoration project through council before taking the knowledge he gained about council back to his business. Skiing competitor Mickey Johnson would fight his one battle. Russell Mercer, if he does his homework, could be labor's hope for the future. Lily Nielson, a nice little lady really, would go a bit further afield. And in the best regional district race: Les Watmough, the would-be king of Thornhill, will fight to the death of his empire. Nadine Asante, with skills well developed as a journalist and an advocate, could let the people know what was going on and voice their concerns, whether they like it or not. Roy Greening, too nice a fellow to stab in the back, would find out the children in his school are less wilful and vindictive than politicians. LETTERS TO | THE EDITOR Dear Sir: ‘ I have read Mr. Pease’ epistle of Wednesday, Nov. 14th, which could better be described as Pea-ism. ‘In it he refers to the titty” wie Hal tricks campaigns thatchava . prenticeship been used in past Terrace elections. Anyone reading the back issues of newspapers can see the record for themselves. To siiggest that he lost the 1973 election because of a pamphlet put out by an unnamed group in which they suggested persons worthy of support, which included amongst others, himself, myself and Alan Soutar, is going a little too far. I was not pleased with seeing myself linked with Pease, However, I would have to be small minded to attribute my election loss for mayor by thirty-seven votes to that fact alone. The record for the election of 1973 shows the following: For mayor, Rowland received 922 votes; Jolliffe received 685 votes — a 37 vote margin. For Alderman, 2 year term — elected were, Maroney 1012, Green 941, Clift 971; also rans were, Rushton 641, Pease 505, and Highe 493. Pease received ap- proximately half the votes that any of the three suc- cessful candidates received, and was 466 votes belaw the nearest successful can- didate. For Alderman, 13 month term — Buncombe was elected with 878, Soutar lost with 618, Gowe received 272. Mr. Pease should look elsewhere for the reasons for his lossea at the polls. He has, after all, only been elected on one occasion, but has offered himself many times as a candidate, If he will check my record, he will find that I have been elected to public office lx times. By offering myself as a candidate for mayor con- sistently for 12 years, I have provided an alternative for the voter, with varying successes and close failures. It ig interesting to note that since [ withdrew from of- fering that alternative for the last two elections no one has come forward to contest the position of mayor — a very unhealthy situation for a community of 10,000 ation. Pte cost of running for mayor as an independent withoul @ group behind you can be very expensive in- deed — have spent per- sonally out of my own savings over $200,000 providing that alternative, something that I am no longer prepared to do. T challenge Mr. Peasé to compare his own record of public service and achievement against that of myself or any others who ve, ter q he be considered capable of being a qualified critic. Sincerely V.C, Jolliffe Dear Sir: : The Regional District Administrator, Mr. John Pousette, is attempting to cloud the issue of the ski hill deficit by blaming it on the | fees of my Jawguill Whe iene facts at ; $30,000 last year through mismanagement on one of: its best snow seasons ever, And the very fact that the regional district is involved in a court case over breach of contract shows mismanagement. ° Through mismanagement the season's pass rates have Zone up too high for an area which is owned by the people. An adult day-night season pass has increased from $130 last year to $215 this year, an increase of 65 per cent. A miaximum family day-night pass has increased from §350 to $575. If our politicians don't take more interest and show more direction, the ski hil! will price itdelf out of the market. For example, family of four could ski at Smithers for $210 less for a season's pass with seven days a'Weak operation and a th: donger season. This issue has to be tooked into. Log Mickey Johnson Dear Sir: . This letler Is to register my objection to your labeling me as a person who ‘‘waffles on the issues", incidently, the only definition given for “Waffles” in the dictionary is “a soft but crisp cake of Pancake balter'*! Your staff interviewer states that I have Laken firm glands on issues but “like most politicians’ another label, Iam a “fence sitter'’ label number three. The only thing he can use as an example is my con- Unual statement throughout this campaign that, the decision to amalgamate Terrace and = Thornhill should be given a full in- vestigation and that the final decision should be made by the taxpayers of both communities,’ Is this waifle? He was right, however, In staling that ] am enthused by the possibility of working on Council. Yours truly, Molly Nattress: similar, records, After Met. erved" Hid'"ap- The deve ly-then wills soward,, the . CONNECTIONS “ PART VII Technology and change INCENTIVES FOR INOVATION By NATHAN ROSENBERG This Is the eighth of a weekly, ilfteen-part general interest, non credit, educational series on technology and change, called Connections, offered by the Open Learning Institute. Each week, an article will appear in this paper. On Sunday, at 8 p.m. on Channel 9 (Cable TV), you can watch the weekly PBS television series, Connections, part of this multi-media continuing education program. As well, you can purchase eo Viewer’s Guide from the Open Learning Institute (see coupon at the end of this article), In this article, Economist Nathan Rosenberg of Stanford University explores the problem of providing incentives for new technologies: that will meet society’s needs. - . Technology and the economy Hapid and pervasive technological innovation has been primarily responsible for the long-term im- provements in material well-being that have characterized western industrial societies. But it has also been responsible for such undesirable consequences as damage to the environment and depletion , of some natural _resources.. opmpit 6p anCetfective set of policies. gendratinn+of new technologies--: technologies that will meet our social goals--is therefore one of.the highest priorities confronting our society. ‘ Technological innovation has, of course, done more than just increase the output of goods with unchanged characteristics. Its effects are not adequately sum- marized in terms of so many more automobiles, bushels of wheat, or square yards of cotton textiles. Rather, and more importantly, technological in- novation.over the past two centuries has dramatically. af the eki bill dst © tattsformed the composition of the economy’s output as well as increasing its volume. In doing this it has also transformed our lives. It would be an unproductive intellectual exercise even to look for 18th century equivalents (or even the recognizable antecedents) of certain products that we take for granted today--jet airplanes, computers, Plastics and synthetic fibers, vast quantities of electric power available at the touch of a switch, television, telephones, antibiotics. ‘ Technology and capitalism Historically, this technological development has been very closely connected with the rise of capitalist institutions and the powerful incentives that these institutions have provided, through the profit motive, for new technologies. The point was forcefully highlighted will over a century ago by even the severest critics of capitalist society, Marxand Engels, « in the “Communist Manifesto,” published in 1848: hundred years, has created more massive and more | colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together, Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry } and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground-what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces Slumbered in the Jap of social labour?” Note that Marx and Engels do not attribute this explosion in productivity to the emergence of science, or to a religious ethic, or to some new impulse to human ingenuity, They attribute it specifically to the > TEST YOUR , gael’ KNOWLEDGE OF 4 3 i i. aS etl... ) a recall for Sharpen your pencils and Courses by Newspaper's first national exam, based on the series “Connections: Technology and Change." This challenging multipte choice test will measure your understanding of the topics that are diecussed weekly in The Daily Herald... . ot ; The Courses by Newspaper Teal will appear at the end of the course. Watch tur it! rise of bourgeois (that is, capitalist) institutions. In a capitalist market place, the possibilities for profitmaking through ‘the introduction of new technologies are vast. Indeed, Marx and Engels take an even stronger position: not only does a capitalist economy offer powerful incentives to innovation; it is also essential for the very survival of the entrepreneur ‘that he innovate as rapidly as possible. As they had pointed out earlier: “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments af production..,.”’. Profit motive Subsequent history has lent support to this aspect of Marx's analysis of capitalism. The market economy, in which private entrepreneurs actively seek to in- crease their private profits, has proyen to be im- mensely effective in mobilizing inventive and in- novative talent. « ““': At the same time, the market economy has strongly shaped the direction of technological innovation as well as its rapid rate. Unfortunately, the profit motive has not always worked to advance society’s interests. Consequently,. the government has supplemented the operation of the market place with public institutions or financial support for specific kinds of activities. These include agricultural experiment stations and a wide range of public subsidies to basic scientific research, from which private profits are not readily available and for which market incentives alone are therefore in- sufficient. Adaitionally, we have become increasingly con- cerned in recent years with aspects of the innovative process to which we were surprisingly indifferent in the past. New technologies often inflict certain ¢osts upon, their natural and human environment that _ desexve, to be recognized in any social accounting but aré not ordinarily part of private profit accounting. ese include environmental pollution in a variety of “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one fotns and. safety and health azards to workers and cqgsimers. oe éw policies: We urgently need new public polictes that will offer centres for innovation and at the same time protect against some of the undesirable side effects of shiition es Developing such policies will call for litical courage and leadership as well as social imagination. The task of reconciling conflicting group interests and priorities without, at the same time, dulling or even destroying the incentive mechanisms underlying technological innovation will be an ex- tremely delicate undertaking. Large issues are at stake. History makes it clear that private business is strongly incluenced by market forces concerning the direction as well as the pace of inventive activity. Thus, for example, the abundance of forest lands and the cheapness of forest products in colonial America (and later) led to the invention of a vast array of ingenious technologies for exploiting wood. The abundance of good farmland in the American mid-west in the 19th century generated an incredible profusion of machines enabling a single farmer to cultivate a far larger acreage than his European counterpart, And the exhaustion of high quality mineral deposits in the 20th century has already prompled the development of techniques for ex- ploiting low quality ores that were previously neglected. ; : Our history also shows us that technology is ex- tremely versatile and that it is highly responsive to changes in incentiv.s and rewards. It should nol be beyond our ingenuity to use the incentives of the market place to demetop new technologies that will deal much more effectively with such current con- cerns as environment ‘and energy. It is hardly surprising, for example, that private enterprise developed technologies that fouled the air and treated watercourses as open sewers for their effluents when no cost was imposed upon them for doing so. On the other hand; we .can, confident] predict that a system of taxes or other’ charges io industrial activities that pollute the environment will eventually lead to the development of new technologies that produce far less pollution. Indeed, in many industries far less polluting technologies are already emerging. It is a mistake to regard technology as simply constituting part of the problem, although that has undoubtedly sometimes been the case in the past. Technology is an extremely powerful force whose shape and thrust can be incluenced to a far greater extent than is generally recognized. But we cannot shape technology if we reject or straitjacket it, as has. been increasingly the case with some of the regulatory activities of the government in recent years, Rather, we should seek ways of increasing the rewards for technological innovations of the kind that weregard as socially desirable. Prizes, patent grants, and favorable tax treatment are some of the mechanisms devised in the past to encourage In- novation. =~ : By strengthening such incentives and developing new ones, we can assure that technology will, in the future, be more consistently arrayed on the side of the solutions rather than onthe side of the problems. NEST WEEK: Robert P. Multhauf of the Smithsonian Institution discusses the relationship between science and technology. ABOUT THE AUTHOR NATHAN ROSENBERG has been an economics professor at Stanford University since 1974, having previously been on the faculties of the University of Pennsylvania, Purdue University, and the University of Wisconsin. He has authored numerous articles on technological change, and his books include “The American System of Manufactures," “Technology and American Growth,” and “ Technology.” » and “Perspectives on —— Plog scial oie ia Viewers cuides tv al SBS each Unytudes snide ot Ta thag) Daten asin § Iv cheque ar mone whe ‘ Naniy Aubliens oh Post Crate: TERR ACE/KITIMAT daily herald General Office - 615.6357 Clreulation - 635-6357 “Published by Sterling Publishers GEN. MANAGER - Knox Coupland EDITOR Greg Middleton CIRCULATION. TERRACE. 635-6357 KITIMAT OF FICE .437-2747 Fublished every weekday af 3212 Kalum Street, jerrace, B.C. A member of Verified Circulation. uthorized as second class mall. Registration number 1201. Postage pald In cash, return Postage guaranteed. NOTE OF COPYRIGHT complete and sole Ccapyright In oduced and-or any editorial Photographic content Ublish Herald. Reproduction Is not permitted. ain the Herald.