Sure. I think the point is quite right. Firms in Massachusetts are not flooding into Arkansas because the taxes are lower. The problem is, you get government services for taxes, and good government is about providing cost-effective services for the taxes. That's what we need to think about.
In terms of the concentration of wealth, I think you're also right. I've done some work on this. Economists like to talk about an efficiency-equality trade-off, that if you have a little bit more inequality, you can get more efficiency and the economy grows faster. It turns out my research shows that's true if you look at inequality due to new wealth, due to entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or like the guys in southern Ontario who made Research in Motion come true. If you look at old money wealth, if you look at the amount of inequality that's due to inherited wealth, you get both inequality and inefficiency at the same time. You escape that trade-off, and not in a way anybody would want to.
I worry that by restricting Canadian ownership.... We're now seeing our cable companies passing on to second- and third-generation control; they're becoming old-money family companies. I'm afraid the evidence is that old-money wealth isn't a good way to do corporate governance. My own research shows that old-money inherited corporations, both in Canada and around the world, tend to perform relatively poorly--barriers to entry entrenchment, just what the previous question was about, I think.