cannuck

I would really like to argue with you just for the sake of being here, but when you're right, you're right. BTW: Merry Christmas to all of the Christians here, Happy Hannukah to the Jews, and happy something to whatever the hell everyone thinks of for the holiday.

Andrew Scheer is a very long way from being conservative in anything but name.

Virtue signalling is not a Conservative/conservative value in any way. I have to agree, though, that religion of ANY kind has no business being anywhere near politics (to me, it is no different from the bacon/lettuce/tomoato community stuff). The walk that a Conservative government SHOULD be walking would have given us a right to work nation, constitutional protection for personal property, an end to deficit budgets, and end to most of the government bureaucracy, sick care insurance that is universal, but service delivery that is unrestricted, direct democracy with recall provisions, fair taxation (flat tax on earned income) and an awful lot more that has not been touched - barely any of it even uttered.

I have to disagree with that. The CPC IS a middle of the road party. Yeah, some talk the talk, but they sure as hell don't walk ANY of the walk.

Respectfully: that is pure BS. When you buy an existing equity, you are NOT investing. Only the IPO or any subsequent PO goes to the company. After that, it is 90% speculation (allowing some for dividends - which should NOT be taxed). Putting capital into the hands of speculative transactions is punishing business (i.e. Main Street) by diverting trillion$$ into the hands of banks/finance instead of putting it where it needs to be - in the hands of productive endeavor. We all saw how that went sideways the last time (1929) and what really went wrong is that in 2008/9 when it should have crashed and once more been fixed by legislation, instead of paying for their treachery, finance was rewarded with trillions of "too big to fail" bailouts for schemes that had no business surviving.

I edited the last post while you were posting, it explains some of this. Investing capital in productive ventures is NOT wealth redistribution. You put "$XX" into the company and it shows as "$X" on the balance sheet, and since you OWN those shares, you have not redistributed wealth, you just moved it from your bank account to company's. It is still your money and same value. We call that capitalism. Giving money to a bank, fund, etc. to be traded against the "market value" creates no wealth (the actual money is already accounted for on the balance sheet = "book value"). That is why the market value of a stock does NOT appear inside of the balance sheet, it is a note that has literally NOTHING to do with the actual business. That abstract redistribution of wealth is called "Casino Capitalism" and creates not one penny of wealth (i.e. value).

Sorry, not the truth at all. Wealth can only be created by two means: adding value to a resource or delivering a service in support of same. ANYTHING else merely redistributes wealth. When you have a capital gain (i.e. speculative change in value) you will indeed have one winner, but to redistribute the wealth, you must also have a corresponding loser. It is a zero sum game since when Casino Capitalism increases the money supply, you simply devalue the actual value of the currency in which it was inflated. It is a zero sum game that merely takes money from those who may well be productive and redistributes it to those who are not productive, but parasitic. When you do actual productive work or business, you create wealth. Since someone gets value for the improved resource or service, you increase the actual value of the state that is behind the value of its money supply and currency. It is a 100% win. It is vital to understand that increasing the price is not the same as increasing the value. The most powerful influence on human financial behaviour is taxation. You tax the crap out of transactions that create no wealth, but tread very, very lightly on wealth that has been created. The end result is that to earn money, one would invest in productive business instead of simply gambling on how the value of the stock might change (or, please note, interest would be paid on debt - that should be similarly taxable). The only way to prevent another 1929 only on a MUCH bigger scale is to defund Wall/Bay Street and fully fund Main Street.

The other component of GAI or whatever you want to call it would be IMHO complete removal of almost all government services for able bodied people. No more welfare, no more unemployment enjoyment, no more treaty money, etc. People should not have to beg to overpaid bureaucrats for the right to survive. Add to that: none of this "progressive" taxation BS that penalizes success. From the first to the last dollar earned by WORKING, one tax, flat tax. Very different deal for capital gains or any other kind of wealth redistribution that creates zero wealth = tax the crap out of it so investment money ends up being productive, not speculative. Life on GAI should be near miserable for those able to work but you would free up business to find an appropriate wage for the value of the work being done. It would also reduce the idiotic need for child care - as taxing speculative gain would burst the real estate bubble and allow families who wish to do so to live on a single income.

As much as I am disgusted by the corruption and waste within the UN, I think there really needs to be a forum for international co-operation. BUT: I also think that the major donor (s) need to grab it by the throat and prosecute wrongdoing within as well as representing THEIR tax payers and seeing that money is not wasted. BTW: I think the whole thing would be very different today if Garbechov had prevailed instead of Putin. Garby was actually one of the good guys...quite a thing to say about a former KGB head.

Paying a higher wage than what? If you raise all wages (as in minimum wage going up) all of the costs simply flow through and things everyone has to buy go up proportionally - and the minimum wage earner is right back where they started. MARKETS need to set wages, as no fixed number from a bureaucrat can possibly account for regional, even local differences. IF wage was the only factor, a business simply has to be paying more than its competitors (as in responding to market forces). At the bottom end of the scale, there is not much required in the line of skills, experience, etc. and those without that and language competency are simply not worth as much money as those with. Again, MARKET forces, not something a governement can do. Shit, I have yet to see a government that could organize a piss-up at a brewery, never mind run an economy (or a government for that matter). People in business from the left tend to be employees and/or those using O-Pee-uM (Other People's Money). Entrepreneurs who are fully vested are the polar opposite of the left, and for the most part, since they have to deal with reality, realize that a business has to be a business, not a social service.

Not into the religious thing, but like to wish everyone "Season's Greetings" as I have to cover everything from Dec to Chinese New Year. We still do the Christmas tree and gift exchange thing, though.

As usual, the left side view of minimum wage is that is all you can earn. If you don't like what an employer is offering and paying, you simply go somewhere else. If you don't like minimum wage, learn to do something. If you want to earn more and keep your job, just show up on time, do what you are there to do, make an effort to do it better and show some responsibility and initiative and you can earn more. Sniping at employers is the stock in trade of the left playbook, but if you/they ever got off their ass and TRIED to actually be in business - at ANY level - you/they would find out in a hurry that it is not all that simple to be in and stay in, and a hell of a lot harder to actually make a profit in early stages or most small businesses. The stakes for an employee are negligible, you can simply leave. The business owner is usually all in, and can NOT just walk away from his obligations. The marketplace determines what is and what is not a fair wage, not possible for some government bureaucracy to set some fixed number that works in more than one place or so. THAT is why I actually support some kind of GIA (at a VERY low level - that of barely surviving) and eliminating all of the welfare schemes that tend to trap people in a dead end. Also, though, it needs flat tax on every penny earned from day one.

Time magazine is a big player in the world of media communication, and they have always tended to come at it from the left side of the political scale. The Gretta thing is a perfect example: https://100percentfedup.com/time-chooses-angry-teen-climate-actress-for-person-of-the-year-overlooks-college-student-who-discovered-way-for-bacteria-to-eat-plastic/ The link DOES come at it from a right side bias, but that is fine to balance the left bias of most of the electronic and print world. The points they make, though, are valid. This girl in Oregon through real intellectual pursuit and hard work, supported by a school with great values is doing something to actually FIX the real problems of the environment (and a rather significant one at that) while the actress is just flapping her gums as a puppet for those with an agenda.

By George, he's got it.

India passed a law giving Bengali immigrants and refugees an easy path to citizenship. Sound familiar, USA Democrats? People who would suffer the consequences aren't exactly thrilled, and are letting their leaders know: https://globalnews.ca/news/6297299/protests-india-muslim-citizenship-law/ Brings up a few things in my mind: 1. India excluded Muslims from the same treatment. 2. Western media (except BBC) simply choose to ignore this, since only white people are allowed to be racist in the PC world. 3. Can we call these Bengalis "Dreamers"? 4. IF the Dems ever get back in power, will Americans react as violently if they give a free pass to one group, while continuing barriers to others? 5. Does anyone in the LPC ever watch the news?

Lisa missing from the list. MacKay would be my first choice, so hope so for others.

I don't know where you got your numbers, or what period of time they are supposed to represent, but Venezuela doesn't get the oil money, PDVSA does. Since PDVSA makes not profit, and 100% of oil revenue is used to operate PDVSA and pay PDVSA's corporate bonds, Venezuela per se gets nothing. Maduro, on the other hand, and his cronies do quite well. Similarly, royalties are but one small part of the revenue to government from Canadian oil production. Alberta is about half with SK/BC/Nfld making up most of the rest. From the quarter billion dollars A DAY that Canada grosses (using that properly) Alberta's royalties are only a small part of what governments see. Corporate taxes, individual income taxes, property taxes, GST and PST (obviously not that one in AB) eat up some significant fraction of that gross domestic revenue. From employee compensation alone (the largest component of cost) over half goes to taxes at various levels.

No, WCS (Western Canada Select Blend) is around $40/bbl. Canada produces an awful lot of light crudes, that sell for similar to WTI prices. Synthetic crude from the upgraders in the Athabasca sands sell for a premium over WTI. Venezuela produces very little light oil, mostly extra heavy from the Orinoco belt and that sells WAY below any lights or medium crudes. Not only that, but Venezuela has dropped to 750,000 to 900,000 bbls/day over last half of 2019, whereas Canada is up around 4.8MM bbls/day. So, no Venezuela comes no where near Canada's gross oil revenue.

their production is WAY down because the government got rid of all of the non-party people in PDVSA, thus their exports are in the toilet and refineries don't have the cash to do maintenance, and nobody there who can, so terrible fuel shortages. You can't even get a valid Q&Q cargo survey since they can't pay the independents and the PDVSA labs have no reagents and little working analytical equipment. Who ever is telling you they have no problems hasn't got a frigging clue. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/01/29/charting-the-decline-of-venezuelas-oil-industry/#4ded89e74ecd

Not quite true, the OTHER socialist paradise that the Liberals/liberals would like to make us resemble has pretty much destroyed theirs as well (of course, I mean Venezuela).

LMFAO!!! That was a good one.

Hey, you over there in left field. Read the writing on the wall: NOBODY is going to stop using oil until there is actually a viable replacement - and that is still a very long way off. So, whether you like it or not, oil is going to be shipped, 15 or so million barrels a day. So ship it safely is what an intelligent answer would be. Barking at the moon is kind of silly. Burning down innocent people's homes, towns or even just their farm fields is idiotic (and oh so Liberal).

I blame the party for Scheer's predicament. While he was in no way leader material, he could have useful in cabinet after he grows up.

First of all, thinking that there is any real difference among the Uniparty is folly. Goldman Sucks has owned every administration for some time now, lock, stock and barrel. Bush and Obama were merely sock puppets for Wall Street, who cashed in for TRILLIONS in the crash, instead of going TU as any real business would have done.

That is 100% right. Other than selling them a few resources, we are simply not a big enough market for them to give a flying purple frick about. Not only that: we have a gutless wonder for a leader, backed by a cabinet of total morons. So, why would China take us seriously.