In feed­ing trough, big­ger not bet­ter

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

I am read­ing more on the per­ils of trade deals which will al­low multi­na­tion­als to con­trol fed­eral gov­ern­ments and that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment is li­able for provin­cial gov­ern­ments spend­ing on be­half of their own con­stituents when it is de­ter­mined that sup­port to lo­cal oper­a­tions is a vi­o­la­tion of trade agree­ments.

For years think-tanks have com­pared the op­er­a­tion of gov­ern­ments to busi­ness. In my opin­ion, one of the main jobs of gov­ern­ment is to keep the big from gob­bling up the small.

In­stead of com­par­ing the lead­ers to CEOs the com­par­i­son should be to farm­ers.

In my child­hood on a mixed farm, the feed­ing trough was de­signed so the big an­i­mals, could not reach to the bot­tom where small open­ings were made for the smaller ones to feed.

As long as suc­cess con­tin­ues to be mea­sured in terms of money only, the ones at the bot­tom will con­tinue to fail and even­tu­ally the en­vi­ron­ment will be de­stroyed and even the big­gest at the top of the food chain will fail.

Com­pe­ti­tion and suc­cess are fine and nec­es­sary but there is a right size to as­pire to and big­ger is not al­ways bet­ter and of­ten it is not sus­tain­able. Mar­ion E. MacCal­lum, Char­lot­te­town

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.