cannuck

People in general don't understand how dynamic ANY business and market is. Look elsewhere and read on this forum about how the oil business is a formula to cruise to easy wealth. So, go out and buy a small production company pulling WY asphaltic sour out of the ground, at a cost of near $30 a bbl. and watch the cash roll in when you sell it at the posted price at the wellhead of $1.29/bbl. GM was once (WAAAAY back when I was in the retail end of car biz) one of the top three franchises to make you big bux with (Caterpillar, McDonalds and GM). Impossible to imagine then that GM go bankrupt in my lifetime and IBM would go from dominating the world of computing to a mere shadow of its former self. No one single factor wiped out GM, but no question the union contracts played a huge part. What nobody bothers to mention is that GM management SIGNED those contracts in the first place. Companies that size are similar to a very large ship. Once you tell it to do something, it can take a VERY long time for it to respond and once on that new course, you will not be able to stop or turn before hitting something you did not foresee (I call that "capital inertia" and is why big companies are such easy targets for sharp entrepreneurs to aim at as competitors). What GM is doing may seem a catastrophe for narrow minded observers, but what Ford already did and GM will follow is to re-configure their company to survive. Yes, I think they are going the wrong way, but it is not my company to run. The problem on the Canadian side of the border is that we have really only one major export business - cars and car parts. Unlike the US, where entrepreneurs can easily finance new business since the marketplace, infrastructure and culture to do that is in place, once you leave the car biz, there is no other place to go. Our lack of value added manufacturing diversity is the real issue - otherwise everyone should be excited to be able to pick up GM facilities, equipment and people for pennies on the dollar to do something else.

Tier 1, just not in NA. I believe the issue is not competing directly with their customers at home. While the yanks were going tits up and taking massive bailouts, Johnny Canuck was raking it in hand over fist.

Uh..the LARGEST outsource subassembly supplier on the planet is hardly "lower tier". BTW: which US "Big 3" manufactures cars for Jaguar and BMW?? Yeah, just what I thought - all "lower tier" manufacturers/assemblers.

I consider someone's credibility and value to the world when it comes to "environmentalism" (and many other topics and issues) based on their actions, not the blather. I have zero regard for someone telling (usually demanding) what I should be doing for them, and total respect for those who can show me what they have done for me (i.e. to actually make the world a better place). I won't even attempt to get into the realities of the carbon cycle, as any level of science and common sense is simply beyond those who seize onto politically backed ideologies.

Well, the plants are not in USA - the full vehicle manufacturing plants. Magna International is not only the largest independent outsource for automobile production (with dozens of plants in the USA) but builds complete cars sold as BMW, Land Rover and a few others. Those Magna plants are in Europe.

The Canadian nuclear industry is kind of stuck in limbo between government and private sector. AECL was such a HUGE loser to the government, it was sold for peanuts to stop bleeding the treasury dry from the billions time each Candu project ran over budget/bid. Unfortunately, after trying for 3 years the only company that would take AECL was SNC Lavalin - probably the most corrupt company (behind Bombardier, maybe?) to come out of Quebec. They also bought the utility assets of Enron that included their nuke division, and add that to AECL and SNC is a bit player compared with the big 3 of the nuclear industry. So, as it stands, and Candu sales will be strictly commercial - and since it is mostly obsolete technology, don't hold your breath to see any new sales any time soon. About the only thing good I can say about AECL is that Canada leads the world in use of Thorium as a Uranium substitute in fuel bundles. BTW: the former President of that division of SNC is from Saskatoon (same engineer who conceived full scale Clean Coal tech project sold to Sk Pwr at Boundary dam. Also: you don't have any fellow conservatives, this is Canada.

You are now getting closer to the truth. This is NOT a GM problem, it is a worldwide problem. Companies are no longer owned by manufacturers, entrepreneurs, etc., they belong to finance businesses who hold and manipulate large blocks of stock - not for the purpose of producing a better product and reaping the profits gained, but to move the share price - since they are speculators, not (or seldom) investors. Problem is: governance is changed to have finance friendly boards, who in turn hire finance friendly officers - all of whom will rob real shareholders blind with the ridiculous compensation packages. Boards and "shareholders" don't care because they are only speculators, not investors. You could pay the janitor billions and nobody cares because there are no real owners to be seen, only those who are there just for the speculative gain/game. Solution is simple: stop giving speculative gain a free ride on the tax system - since it creates no wealth - worse yet is solely inflationary when it does its thing. Tax the living crap out of anything that does not create wealth and stop beating the golden goose of actual work and industry to death.

THAT was a rhetorical question, but I will explain anyway. 1. The concept of "freedom" is totally lost within the religious dogma of socialism. If you are able to force me to join a union, I am not free in any way. If you are able to force me as an employer to HAVE a union, I am not in any way free. EVERYONE should enjoy the right to work, not just those who choose to join a union or those unfortunate enough NOT to choose but be forced to join or accommodate. 2. Because as it stands, Canada Post has a monopoly on the service of delivering mail. The alternatives do NOT have access to the volume of letters to have sufficient sorting capacity to do so cost effectively. Allowing ANYONE with a monopoly to hold a gun to the public's head is simply not right.

Until there is right to work legislation coast to coast, the whole labour mess is far too lopsided towards the damned unions for anything to work out well. Government NEEDS the ability to legislate end of strikes until there is some kind of actual freedom in this country.

The PCLL (you can probably figure out that acronym without me having to spell it out) is so enamoured with Euroweenies that they only pull their head out of their rectum to see which way the Euros are going next. Reality is just plain out of their realm of understanding. We live in a hydrocarbon economy, and the TRILLION$$$ of existing infrastructure is not going to disappear overnight. The end of HC resources IS somewhere down the road, but NOT just around the corner. Alternatives need time to develop and mature to compete effectively. The Morons of Cabinet (and several cabinets around the Western world) think that they can leave their jobs as drama teachers, truck drivers and babysitters and chose winners and losers in global scale economics. All they end up doing is screwing up marketplaces and racking up debt.

I think the money should be used in an orderly windup of the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.

First of all, we don't punish them, we put them up in comfortable surroundings, feed them three squares a day, watch colour TV, allow conjugal visits, they can buy all of the drugs and make all of the booze they want (the resourceful ones) and spend their days learning how to exploit the fruits of everyone else's labour inside and outside of jail. Real conservatives object to government agencies taking far more money out to their unionized members to go through the appearances of "giving" someone else's money out for just about any reason. Take a trip down to RUH (and so many other places in Saskatoon) and note how many of those genuinely conservative people gladly open up their wallet and give MILLIONS to all kinds of causes that have no possibility of ever benefiting them directly. You are just spouting the party line of divisive politics upon which the NDP was founded. I have hired ex cons and welcomed them into my home. Have you?

No, they seldom sniff gas. They have ready access to unlimited quantities of alcohol and marijuana - that they use liberally. Dependent adults are no different from dependent children - having nothing else to do all day and free resources most will replace sex, drugs and rock and roll with sex, drugs, violence and country and western.

Right. Making the existing University of Crime into a five star resort is going to be a hell of a deterrent. You seem to forget that Norway is a different country in so many ways. You are cherry picking statistics to prove a supposition that suits your ideology. Go spend some time with violent criminals and tell me you still think the same way. Economically preventing crime in the first place is a hell of a lot more cost effective than cheaper incarceration costs. BTW: we already have a precedent for the mollycoddling model - healing lodges. Seems the miracle of Norse gaols does not transfer well to that part of Canada.

I have done a session of trying to train inmates for a specific task, and got to know my students quite well. I also have a good friend who went from being an armed robber to owning several privately operated detention and rehab facilities. From those long ago experiences, I came to believe there are 3 classes of people in jail: those who didn't realize they were going to be there (most DUIs for instance), those who want to be there (they find the environment safe and stable) and those to whom the time is part of their chosen career path - and use it to further their skills and affiliations. I can see seperation of the first two groups - as they have a far better chance of some kind of "reform", but the latter (much more prevalent in Fed pens than provincial gaols), but the latter are the ones that should NEVER be exposed to each other or other inmates. Note: I did not say everyone, just other inmates. They should be able to interface with caregivers, jailers, counselors, faith peddlers, etc., but NEVER other inmates. THESE are the real source of the criminal problem - professional criminals.

I don't expect them to become "better citizens" but as it stands now, they become much better criminals from the experience.

I am speaking for all of the aborted children past and present - because they obviously can't speak for themselves.

There you go again - every inconvenient pregnancy to you must have been rape. . Spare us the rest of the bullshit. "abort" simply means murder. Also you ASSUME that an "unwanted" child will in fact BE an unwanted child and that only children raised in some kind of Norman Rockwell painting deserve the chance to live. Plenty of wanted and unwanted kids grew up in true shitholes and grew up to be fantastic people. Plenty left the Norman Rockwell family to become career criminals. The time to have all of these discussions is BEFORE you knock up the little broad next door, not when you have to murder another genetically distinct individual to accommodate your twisted ideals.

So, if careless parents can simply kill an unwanted child, why can't I simply kill any criminal I find inconvenient?

As seems to be your pattern: you present the outliers to justify the murder of hundreds of times more innocent vicitms. They are two very different things, but to you, they are all wearing the gold star, so they should go straight to the gas chamber.

Being responsible means using birth control or abstinance. Murdering your child is about as far away from "being responsible" as you can get.

It is the very definition of capital punishment - without any conviction by jury of peers. That is better known as murder.

So, the one in ten thousand pregnacies due to rape means we should condemn the other 999 to death? You are so right. It is apples to oranges. One is a convicted criminal, the other is an innocent victim. I guess I can see how socialists get elected: they use the same kind of logic in selecting their representatives.

Right, a life that has developed to commit crime, harm and kill people, teach and encourage others to do the same is sacred. A child who's only offence is to be a possible inconvenience to the mother does not deserve to live. I really can not fathom what could drive the "logic" of a socialist mind.

So, you oppose abortion on demand?