cannuck

No, they really don't want to destroy the rest of the world, we just want unfettered access to the resources (and by "we", I really mean the US). As you so clearly demonstrate, ME countries are a basketcase of ideological fanaticism and the Yanks are simply greedy. There IS a lot of truth to what you say about the two superpowers wanting if not to destroy each other, to castrate the other. What those not familiar with the US could not understand is that it has the ultimate advantage of a culture that has some structural discipline and massive economic potential that only Western Europe can match. Of course, the new kid on the block is China, and it remains to be seen that as their country catches up to the rest of the world if it will have Empirical aspirations.

I imagine so much of what Er Bingo. You hit that nail right on the head.

We need a strong military for a number of reasons. One would be aid to civil power. Another would be to meet our NATO and UN commitments. But, most of all, we need to bolster our flagging reserves - especially the Rangers - to establish our unquestioned presence in the Arctic. Russia is already planning to drill in Canadian territory for oil, and I can tell you that Putin doesn't exactly let environmental issues stand in his way of raking in Billion$$ from his petro empire. AND, I don't think he would be troubled by little things such a borders, either.

You win the interwebs this year!! Fantastic post.

Duh!!!! Liberals = New Democrats = (expletive deleted) Left/. Any "differences" are purely semantic.

I am assuming by this that you have never lived nor worked in an Islamic country?

As opposed to Christendom and Judaism having none?? There is as broad a spectrum of political philosophies within Islam as there is in any other place or group.

I find it a bit disturbing that we have so much trouble distinguishing between religious beliefs and political ones. Yes, there are some genuine jackasses in the Muslim diaspora, but there are some real looney tunes in the Christian one as well. If anyone REALLY gives a flying purple frick about mankind, you would be figuring out how to return to a sustainable level of population (say one billion or so). One of the big problems is cultures where breeding like rabbits is the norm. Blocking them from Canada would do nothing to correct the real problem, it is global.

The Bank of Canada is not a commercial bank, it is a central bank - with NO interface with consumers or business whatsoever, just banks. Central banks are there to use the power and credibility of government to execute monetary policy and provide a backstop to stabilize and facilitate the cyclic needs of the retail banking system. Fraction reserve banking is just what it's name states: regulated institutions are required to maintain a reserve of equity as allowed by their license. As has already been mentioned, every loan (asset to the bank) must have a deposit base (liability to the bank) to have the money to lend. There is no "money from nothing" in that arrangement. The need for reserves is to cover withdrawl of more cash than on hand or the failure of loans beyond security realized (YOU may not get to borrow beyond the security provided, by a lot of very privileged bank customers sure as hell do just that). If depositors demand cash, not many of the banks assets (loans) can be called to cover the demand, so the bank must either use its reserves, or more likely use its reserve of retained equity to borrow either from the Central bank (at the "bank rate") or other commercial banks (LIBOR = London Interbank Borrowing Rate) to cover (sometimes daily) shortfalls. This is why banks PANIC when a loan goes bad over 90 days - the reporting system that determines that banks are within the reserve limits moves that asset (loan) from one side of the ledger to the other (liability, as bank must now financially allow for it to fail). That double whammy kicks them right in the crotch. The real "money for nothing" is done at the central bank/government level. In a sane economy, the money printed and issued would be equal to the approximate value of the country in real terms. HOWEVER: we now have a Casino Capitalist economy in which the value of an asset (real estate a good example) is allowed to inflate due to "market" conditions. Similarly, equities are issued for xx$$, and that money then goes to the company and remains the book value from which the capital in place is used to add value to resources, creating wealth. Where that to happen, the Central Bank would then issue new money to match the wealth created, as that would all balance in the book value plus retained and/or distributed profits. Problem is: the value of that equity is then traded in the Casino to some multiple (even THOUSANDS of times book value) requiring cash to be printed (money supply increased) where no wealth has been created. This is a purely inflationary force the increases the money supply with no increase in the book value of the assets of the company, individuals or nation behind it. This "money for nothing" is unfortunately a debt on the taxpayer - as fiat currency is no longer redeemed for some other artificial store of wealth (gold, silver, etc.) but simply backed by the value of what the taxpayer/country is actually worth when called upon to redeem said currency. If you want to see some REALLY whackie numbers, take a look not at the asset backed instruments out there (mortgages, loans, equities, etc.) but the purely synthetic instruments (derivatives) where literally TRILLIONS in wealth is re-distributed annually by institutions executing transactions backed by nothing at all. AND, the bill for every one of those dollars is passed back to the host country by means of an increase in the money supply to cover the redistribution - literally money for nothing. EXCEPT, it is not "nothing", it is a pent up inflationary force and a liability to the taxpayer that cost the financial institution nearly nothing (i.e. they might have a tax liability they couldn't figure how to duck).

Broke because none of the political parties seem to have a clue how to manage money, and the electorate seems totally ignorant of the consequences of their flagrant abuse of the public purse. Doesn't help that we think the sole purpose of government is to pander to Quebec, aboriginals and any other minority that cares to bitch and whine. Divided because the East has abused the West throughout confederation, and we have a very different set of values from the East. This last Liberal government pretty much defines why the Western separatist movement(s) need to get back into business.

I look at it a bit differently: Being Premier is a paid job, and that job should have some holiday provisions. Where he takes those holidays is of no concern, but taking days he is paid to be on the job, I DO have a problem with. That said, communications in Costa Rica may well be sufficient for him to carry out his required duties. Now the little ***** in Ottawa: I would LOVE to see him take 10 months (or more) a year holiday in Costa Rica, without any phones or computers to distract him.

There was: Bernie. BUT, the left was so confused about which direction they were given by their handlers, they nominated the wrong candidate. Sanders would have caused some very good and very needed discussion on just how the economy works, for whom and why.

Yes, the Uniparty is definitely able to cede its power to Goldman Sucks regardless of who they have in the Whitehouse. Only Bernie Sanders had the sense to realize that. Not sure how Trump will deal with this (if at all) since he is not a wealth creator, just another wealth re-distributor.

I could have cared one way or another about Trump - until I saw how he got under the media and left-winger's skin. Now I love him. While he is not even looking at the biggest underlying problems in the US, at least he is putting the predatory trading nations on notice that their free ride on the backs of American consumers is coming to an end. About time. What DOES worry me is that Obama ran up more debt than the rest of all US Presidents combined, and Trump seems to want to carry on the drunken sailor spending habits. What the election demonstrated is the the US electoral system represents its style of democracy, and even the Democrats can't seem to live with that. Reality TV has never been better.

No actual food scientist (or those from many other disciplines) ever bought into the eggs and butter BS. That started from one extremely flawed "study" in the '30s funded by those who would go on to establish processed food products (margarine at the top of that list). Don't sell science short if you don't bother to pay attention, inform yourself and know about it. There were comments about the government determining what is and is not good for us (nutritionally). It just so happens, that in Canada we not only have a large sick care business, but we actually have some genuine health care. Much of that is provided by...wait for it...our government. The beauty of having such an impartial body is that it is, well, impartial. Particularly free of the bias of industry that you cite (correctly) about our sources of "scientific" missinformation. While nothing is perfect, we have a very good source of information from Health Canada in the form of the Canada Food Guide. I have access to some pretty dedicated and motivated people in food science, and they tell me the CFG is usually out of date by a bit, but overall, not bad information at all.

well, Dr. Spin, that is the choice the left has made many, many times already.

I do work for several energy companies, and can tell you that NONE of them "skimp" on quality of pipelines, power lines, transformers, pumping stations, or ANY parts of their infrastructure. Contrary to the mindless blather of the eco-terrorists, doing so "for profit" is about as stupid as opposing pipelines on the basis of no intelligent or logical thought. Energy infrastructure companies, be they public, private or crown corporations are by the nature of the business in it for the very long haul. This isn't real estate where a developer can double his money in a single transaction - this is a highly competitive and regulated business where paybacks are measureed in DECADES, not years. Any kind of pre-mature failure costs a staggering amount of money, and is avoided at the construction phase by extreme attention to detail on quality and compliance with quality standards set by the project owner. Contractors who would take a shortcut "for profit" open themselves to mega lawsuits for the liability that comes along with the territory. How much do activists and activism cost? Just came back from the Manitoba Hydro Bipole 3 DC transmission line project. It will be a $5Bn project because the former NDP government could not face the activist and aboriginal difficulties of permitting the direct route from Keeyask Generating Station to the Riel Conerter Station - costing an extra $1Bn to the 1 million people in Manitoba. Instead, they chose to route the line down the same allowance of the first and second DC lines - bearing in mind that the third was built because a storm took out both lines in 2009 indicating a different route was needed for supply security reasons. That one single example cost them a thousand bucks a head for ever man, woman and child in MB - and since something less that 1 in 6 people actually do the productive work that pays the bills, that means each genuinely wealth creating person is on the hook for 6 grand.

I actually get asked this question a fair bit when working abroad. For expedience sake, I have a couple of canned answers: 1. When asked about a good purchase, and American will beam with pride at having got 3 of something for the price of one. A European will explain that it cost a lot more than what he had budgeted and took forever, but he got the best one he could find. Canadians are somewhere in between. 2. When an American comes to your country, he will immediately assume you should want to be just like him, and expect you to sign a contract so he can get along to make the next dollar. A Canadian will hang around long enough to get to know you and understand your culture, then try to come to an agreement you can both live with. 3. An American briefly in your country to sign a contract will mistake your good manners for as a sign of affection. A Canadian is more likely to become someone YOU would call a good friend. 4. Every American company will tell you that they are the best in the world (and a few percent of them actually are), but a Canadian company will be surprised to find that you know and value their product or service and maybe one in three who you encounter actually work at an internationally recognized level of great competence. 5. In academia (and other fields) a Canadian will follow the rules, and American will follow the money.

Let's just see what the Trump cabinet can and can not accomplish. IF he can put Pruit in EPA, that will signal something that US business has needed for a LL-OO-NN-GG time - bring that rogue band of loonies under control. Yes, every country needs to take care of its environment, but NOT at a rate and level that will make it uncompetitive and destroy its economy (the real economy that actually makes things and creates wealth, not the Casino Capitalist economy of Wall Street and big finance). I would like to think he could slay the Uniparty's biggest dragon (Goldman Sucks and Wall Street), but it looks as if he will have to stroke the kitty before it can be put in a bag and dumped in the river - IF he can get that far. I am liking this Trump guy more every day.

While I can agree 100% with this, reality is EVERY "economic development" officer at the federal, state/provincial or municipal level thinks jobs are "created" by luring big business into their back yard, and the principal tool they have to do so is $$$$ in tax breaks or outright gifts. Established business (Carrier as a good example) will simply put production wherever the best handout or tax regime might be. So will any other large company with the sales volume and resources to do so. Reality is: new growth and wealth being created comes from small business that grows and competes - but are in no condition financially to make big demands and move assets all over the globe. Essentially, what the hand-out morons do is bring a company in (or keep one) by making their neighbours and competitors subsidize them to do so. They are too lazy and too stupid to do their job in the best interests of the taxpayers who fund them. Now, Trumpet dropping the corporate tax rate is a pretty decent deal - because it SHOULD meet what I consider the ultimate measure of good legislation and policy: EVERY business will be on the same footing and enjoy the same advantage. I think the handouts to Carrier were really about a gesture in the VP elect's back yard to show some kind of meeting of election promise(s).

Quite true. One the Super Hornets, though, a significant portion of that production will be done no doubt in Quebec - as part of the Federal government's full time job of pandering to its every whim to keep them in confederation (and no doubt feed the machine that kicks back a significant amount of money to the political machine). We don't need an air superiority fighter, as our role is covered by MRCA far better. "Creating jobs" in Canada is just like Obama did with QE - brag about corporate welfare handouts deals.

Ever do any business in China??? You have no idea what protectionism looks like - and since China is a predatory trader and the one that has bankrupted the American economy, I am sad to say that counter-tarrifs on ANYTHING that is damaging the real US economy is fair game at this point. Yes, the may well cause a worldwide trade war and "depression", but that is something we need to hang on people who allowed trade without any kind of demand on equivalent standards being met by imported products and their production.

Argus: thanks for pointing that out. BUT: what makes you think that Trump is a "conservative"??

Canada will be hosed. Wongly, though, as we are the only people in NAFTA who actually play by the rules. The US has set itself up to be the target of very biased trade - particularly from China - and needs to get back to work and protect what little is left of the capitalist economy. It is granting Wall Street unlimited privilege to play at Casino Capitalism under the very mistaken belief in speculative gains as "economic activity" that exacerbates the situation.

I can sympathize with your feelings, but Aid to Civil Power has been a longstanding part of Canadian Armed Forces policy (actually law). We don't hesitate to call our reserves or regular forces for floods and fires, but I don't think we should have politicians rattling that sword vis-a-vis citizens who are not terrorists (yet?).