cannuck

It goes WAY beyond "politics" and the "vague" assertion of the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" is hardly vague at all, but quite real and tangible. However, the US is hardly doing whatever IT pleases re: money supply, but the Fed is doing so largely to the benefit of its private owners and to the detriment of those taxpayers who will ultimately be responsible for the fallout.

uh...no. When a the government and the Bank of Canada need money, they have to issue securities, bonds, debentures, Tbills, etc. into the marketplace to raise that money. The aggregate measures of the money supply are monitored by the Bank of Canada, but money supply changes based on activities of financial institutions. The bank influences (but not controls) these aggregates by its monitary policy = essentially setting the interest rate for loans to banks and thus also influencing the interbank rates. When you say: just print as much as they see fit, you are referring to currency, which IS an obligation to the nation and its taxpayers, but is only a very small part of the aggregate components of the money supply. If any central bank of any country (excepting the USA - a very special case) simply prints more currency the end result is that the real world financial markets simply discount the credibility of such an effort by devaluing the exchange rate of the currency based upon market expectations of the credibility of what is backing that currency. Best current example is Venezuela that tried doing exactly what you feel is possible. The result is a complete failure of their economy. The Maduro government tried to do some magic crypto-currency backed by their imaged standard (the "petro") pegged to some assumed value of a barrel of Venezuelan crude. Here is what happens when a government tries to simply "print as much money as they see fit": https://www.statista.com/statistics/371895/inflation-rate-in-venezuela/ There is the theoretical ability of a central bank to do what the hell it pleases, but in reality the marketplace for forex and settlements will determine the REAL value of said currency, so only a complete idiot (or the privately owned US Federal Reserve) would try to simply do what suits them with impunity. Only the de facto currency with hegemony can get away with that (i.e. the Fed) and even then only within some fairly narrow ranges of constraint.

It wasn't random. It started with the appointment of Paul Hellyer as MND (you know, the guy who pulls his tinfoil hat tight and writes conspiracy theory books) and his white paper. What do you expect when your enemy is USSR then you elect a card carrying Communist who spent his Sorbonne years with "walking trips in Eastern Europe". His mindless son is just carrying out his work.

Excuse me while I LMFAO. Trump is hardly a fan of the National Socialist Party! Your favourite whipping boy Adolph is YOUR fellow traveler, not The Donald's. You seem to have missed my point about infrastructure conditions: We simply don't have very much of it to be maintained, the Yanks do. That is not on any one political party, BTW. A "limited access" road means just what it says. You can't just drive onto it by crossing traffic. ALL interstates are limited access roads.

Finally, a post from you with which I can agree. Merry Christmas.

Well, Monty is a little bit right....sorry, I really meant to say a little bit correct as any thought of him being anywhere but on the left fringe of reality would be ludicrous. Yes, the US infrastructure has a lot more deficit for maintenance and upgrading than that in Canada. Reason? They HAVE a great deal of infrastructure that we do not. Take the interstate system as an example. We don't have even ONE limited access highway that crosses the county. Not hard to maintain what you don't have. The only road we DO have is not at all limited or even controlled access and is a 90kph single lane death trap for most of its length through the richest and most populous province of all. When I have an all-too-frequent brain fart and try to build something in Canada - I am immediately beset by transportation costs that instantly make the product uncompetitive with something I can build South of 49. We're not talking a few percent, but orders of magnitude greater transportation costs here vs. that crumbling infrastructure of the US. Monty's problem seems to be that he is only reading from the Liberal talking notes and has yet to venture out from his Mom's basement.

I really don't have the time to explain how data can be and is interpreted. One can come to any conclusion based on how one processes information and comes to their conclusion. Even in peer reviewed work, bias shows through regularly. You literally need to BE a genuine expert to be able to assess with accuracy, and since this is not my field, I will simply stick with my opinions. I have already shown some obvious and glaring exceptions to the conventional "wisdom" of climate data. BTW: it is exactly your kind of response that someone else who you probably don't understand has loudly proclaimed something that they may or may not understand, and anyone who doesn't accept that must be some kind of sub-human that characterizes something that I would question for credibility.

China is definitely part of the problem, but as I have said in many cases and many times - EVERYONE gets to our economic status by raping and pillaging the environment. We just had our turn long before China figured out how to join the party. They (China and India) will repeat our sins because that is what you need to do to get INTO a position where you can afford to climb on your high horse. The big difference, though, is that instead of grinding along for decades or even centuries as we had, China will move forward as quickly as they have over the last 30 years. There are actually environmental laws in China, and there is a HUGE effort by government to back away from coal. Spend a week in Beijing and you will see why they actually do take this stuff seriously. BUT: they also take the business side of it extremely seriously. When you own the marketplace for renewables but don't use much of them yourself, it should tell you where reality is in these technologies. Also, on the subject of "listening to the experts": one could fill an entire encyclopedia with the sheeple type of behaviour of various technical and scientific "experts" going a long way down the wrong road. I have as yet to see no reason to believe the "global warming"...oh, wait, they now call it "climate change" is any different from hundreds of fad-science trends that proved to be erroneous that preceded.

Yes, people are doing a lot of things regarding carbon, but I don't think those are the real issues with regard to actually solving any problems. Carbon use in the majority of the world will keep on increasing - as long as population and prosperity continue to rise in developing nations. If you look at natural carbon cycles, I just don't think we are the breaking point size of contribution. Nature always has been and always will be. Our contributions are directly proportional to population and prosperity. The cycle of economic development has been on the backs of carbon burning for two centuries - and the solution side of doing that responsibly depends upon mature and prosperous economies that can afford that luxury. BTW: everyone likes to take cheap shots at China for burning so much coal, but they fail to appreciate that the Chinese are simply playing catch up to the West by repeating the exact steps that we all took to get where we are. The difference is that they long ago realized that coal is NOT the long term answer, but is needed as that is what is currently viable. The CPC's central plans have already sworn off further coal fired power generation and is making all new plant designs run on natural gas - until I assume they have nukes in the WalMart scale of production and cost. BTW: the mere fact that the place where all of the low cost solar stuff comes from has to burn coal to keep the lights on tells you where the reality of alternatives is today.

You CAN do something about it: make it a part of your everyday conversation. No, not one person is going to take it over the line - this isn't football, it is war. Have to first strategically win the hearts and minds and then go for tactical gains. It all starts with doing what you CAN do, and that is have a reasoned point of view and express it as often as you can. One of the many weaknesses of humankind is that we react fairly well to crises, but can't get our shit together to avoid the obvious before that.

Yeah, post and run error. I was thinking anthro + change...i.e. wasn't really thinking at all. Thanks for catching that. I would like to think a lot more people appreciate how serious the population contribution to almost all of today's "problems" is, but I seldom see any evidence. The left thinks they can ignore it and it will go away (and the truth is, it WILL, it just won't be pretty) and the right doesn't have the balls to stand up and deal with it.

I have stayed out of this topic because it is far too complex and the battle lines are too deeply involved with ideology instead of hard science. Even the science is horribly tainted. There is no question that anthropomorphic climate change exists, but what the real questions are: how much is our contribution and can we actually make any difference? While the Euroweenies and their fellow travellers march to the "all carbon bad" drummer, they conveniently ignore the two largest factors of all: natural carbon release and human population. A single large forest fire or volcano has far more effect than the total emissions of all of mankind over some measured interval greater than the natural event. Now the extremists claim that the forest fires are caused by our contribution to warming - but anyone with a half a conscious thought will point out that coniferous forests MUST burn to survive, and when they do, they will take whatever else is around them along for the ride. One of the poorest controlled combustion processes is burning wood at atmospheric pressure. One of the very best controlled combustion processes is a modern internal combustion engine. Earth exists in its current form because of the carbon cycle. It has been happening for billions of years, and will continue for billions more - with or without our meager participation. Ever see all of that limestone out there? Where the hell do you think it came from? It is an extremely complicated and poorly understood thing, this cycle of carbon coming and going between atmosphere and geological components of the geosphere. But one thing is absolutely certain - it will continue to go on long after us, and the extremes that nature has produced in the past are well outside of the narrow range we need for mammalian subsistence. Another overlooked detail: temperature trends do NOT match the ideal assumption of most observers. Generally speaking, by far the most active and rapid response carbon sink is the oceans. Usually ocean temp rise, and thus CO2 release precedes atmospheric temp rise, not the other way around. And, NO, I don't have the time to research a thousand links to support, as one can support ANY position one chooses from the endless supply of information on the interwebs.

One big problem in Iran getting back to stability is that the vast majority of people with good education, international contacts and experience are already out of the country. There IS a large support base for the theocracy, and it comes from mostly uneducated rural people - who are in the majority. So, even if by some miracle there was a democratic election tomorrow, the side of reason would not necessarily win.

The difference this time is that Turkey is in total financial collapse already, so not likely any of this nonsense will go forward - ever.

Dollar wise: no argument here. BUT: what I will mention from a lifetime around people who do R&D is that the US doesn't get the best bang for its research buck - because the scientific discipline of being totally objective is often far too biased based upon the source of that private investment or even public investment funding. The US does great business, but often very flawed science.\ Sorry to post and run, but we are travelling and everyone is getting together now.

For me, federally, only one: Erik Nielsen. I know most of Queen Mandy's list quite well, some are even friends, but only Nielesn hit the respect thing bang on the head. Provincially, it would be the late Bill Neudorf.

I guess you are running short of people to hit on to earn your keep. Might I point out that I wrote: "it believes that EVERYTHING is a business", which you read as "EVERYTHING is". Dipping into the New Years sauce at this time of the morning? Where did I say or in any way criticize Canadians who had the sense to seek out the best sick care they can find? BTW: some of the better frequent flier procedures is stem cell related stuff. Many of those I have seen in the US are actually being operated by Mexican and Central American doctors. For that, I congratulate US medical business of having the sense to use technology that can easily be developed and matured outside of the bungling presence of the FDA.

The OECD scores don't reflect what any medical statistician would tell you. The Mao is IMHO one of the brightest spots in the US sick care array. They are a not-for-profit entity. Everything is NOT operated as a business - one prime example is that in most G7 countries, medical professionals are government employees. Where Canada screws that up big time is monopolizing government service delivery for most procedures = nobody else is stupid enough to do that. "Bisomess" can be defined as operating a commercial venture. Social services of any kind are NOT a commercial venture, thus not a business. In the US iteration, medicine is about 50% legal/insurance costs - and THAT is the real problem.

I routinely point out that something over 50% of Americans are covered by government funded sick care - medicare, medicaid, GI/Vet's or some form of plan paid from government employment. Obummercare did little to change that and was IMHO a tragic failure. Of course, the rest of what BC listed is mostly government funded, but my point for sick care was that EVERYONE else in the former G7 has had primarily state funded sick care insurance with some mix of government and private delivery. The US just can't make that work - and pays double what most of the rest do for poorer results. I have no idea what the actual stats for Russia would be, but it may be the one and only thing Russia does better than the US - except of course run a pure Oligarchy with the biggest criminal of all running the whole show. The only Canadians that love to kick the US in the teeth are the same political orientation as Americans who delight in doing the same thing. They do that out of total - or more to the point SELECTIVE ignorance, just as does the OP

Trying not to feed the troll, but it is very hard to resist. I will grant you that one of the principal failings of the US socio/economic model is that it believes EVERYTHING is a business - including sick care. In the rest of the G7, it is a social service with some business services provided. Now, I will be the first to admit I have a big mouth, and I will run it off in criticism of ANYTHING or ANYONE I feel is deserving. Try doing that regarding Uncle Vlad in downtown Moscow, or on the TV, the radio or in print. You won't likely live long. I don't know where you went and what you did in the USA, but you got most of it dead wrong (yeah, that's another Putin pun).

Power lies within cabinet, not the back benches. Those MPs might be seen to represent Canadians, but in the partisan system, they represent only the party when their ONLY real power is expressed - voting on bills. Partisan cabinets can be bought like any other cheap whore.

It still comes back in the partisan system. Not only ban corporate and union bux, but ban parties altogether. Representatives should have an obligation to represent ALL constituents, not just those who can afford political influence. Partisanship is divisive - by its very definition. The election of the most "lightweight" leader and cabinet in the history of Canada, maybe even the world is ample evidence.

No, ex Christian. My handler did the Arabic language, but my friends all speak flawless English. As I said: no secrets.

As a principal, yes one should be able to say anything pertinent to your MP or MLA - except of course tying requests to "donations". Of course without a party, not a difficult thing to track. As a hired gun, no way.

I take that one large step further - make partisan politics completely illegal and lobbying a criminal act - i.e. one that is enforced and prosecuted mercilessly.