Toro

What bugs me about the 'burbs is that everything looks the same. Its really, really boring. There's a movement towards building more self-contained suburbs, back to the back-alleys and straighter streets.

So you're not paying income taxes then?

Cool post mirror. Well done Canada.

They interviewed a woman in New Orleans today on NPR. She said that the drug store she went into was giving everything away for free. I thought that was pretty cool.

Bush and Clinton http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9215003/

Wal-Mart donates $15 million http://www.walmartstores.com/wmstore/wmsto...f.jsp&year=2005

Moved

We shouldn't bend the standards to allow a certain type of person onto the police force. Nor should there be any formal or informal bans on hiring any group of people. But a police force is more effective if it better reflects the community it serves. If that means getting more minorities onto the force, then efforts should be made to do so.

Of course not. Americans are too self-absorbed to give us even a passing thought. We're about as important to them as Panama or Luxembourg: that hasn't changed in 130 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not self-absorbed, just realists. Unlike Canadians, who have this bizarre notion that they are important in the world. Perhaps they actually believe PM Paul "we lead the world!" Martin. Anyone can see how important Canada is in the world by the number of dignitaries who flee to the hotel bar when someone from Canada speaks at the UN. There's truth in both these sentiments. America is a very self-absorbed country. However, for those living in Canada, its a bit of a shock that the world pays little attention to us. I've lived in England, and they pay no attention to us either. I think Canadians have a self-inflated view of themselves in the world. But I don't think that's unique to Canada either.

Food is more essential than energy. Why shouldn't the government buy all the farmland, all the food processors and all the grocery stores then? Clothing is essential. Why not nationalize all aspects of the clothing industry? So is housing. The government should own all the raw materials, all the building supplies, and all the real estate in Canada. Transportation is also important. The government should own all the car, bus, train, etc. companies. There is no reason for the government to own anything in the energy business, outside perhaps of monopoly utilities.

The question is, what would be the point of nationalizing? There are two answers. One, that "Canadians own the oil" or "Canadians should benefit from the oil", etc. But that could be said about any business then. Energy exploration and production, and refining are risky businesses. Its not the business of the government of Canada to risk Canadians' savings in such a venture. The price of energy is booming now, but won't day it won't. You should decide where you want to put your savings, not the government. The other argument is that it would keep oil prices down. Well, that should be obvious to why it would hurt Alberta. The taxation scheme is at least in part based on the price of energy. If energy prices are kept artificially low, then Alberta loses revenues. Finally, the argument back in the 1970s for the NEP was that Alberta was benefiting from a cartel, OPEC, keeping the prices high. (That's only partly true BTW.) Thus, why should Canadians have to pay an "artificially" high price. That argument doesnt' hold today because the price is being set by the market, not the cartel.

Those countries aren't exactly the types of models Canada should follow. Over the past few decades, western countries have been selling their energy companies, such as BP, British Gas, Total, Endesa, Eni, PetroFina, Repsol, PetroCanada, etc.

Chavez is unpopular in the States because he has threatened nationalization of the oil industry - there are multinational oil companies in Venezuela besides PDVSA - and because he uses the language of exporting revolution. There have been a whole raft of left wing governments elected in South America, but Chavez is the only one who has received such attention from the US. BTW, the US should not be meddling in Venezuela.

I've always viewed the Bank of Canada to be pretty much but not completely independent.

But investment in R&D is irrelevant if its not put to use properly. America has had higher producvtivity growth than Europe over the past 15 years. That's what matters. It may be that Europe needs higher R&D relative just avoid falling even further behind America because their economy is so structurally worse off the America's. Europe is the one that needs to rethink itself.

I hear no hostility to Canada down here.

I thought Clinton was a pretty good President on most policy. Complete failure as a man though.

My question is, why? What is the incentive to boost business investment any more than what would already occur?

Interesting dilemna. The Fed Funds rate is a full point over the Bank of Canada rate, yet the loonie is poised to hit a 13 year high. However, at 2.5%, real rates are almost zero so they have a long way to go yet.

The Terasen thing is a bad idea. No sense punishing Canadian shareholders. However, delaying the Alaska pipeline is interesting. I'm not sure what the downside would be.

A few months ago, Martin disposed all the remaining shares the government of Canada held in PetroCan. The government of Canada will not be nationalizing the oil industry.

Its a matter of degree Argus. The political discourse in Canada is far more weighted to spending and in America, its cutting taxes. I didn't mean to get into a debate on which healthcare system. Rather, I was demonstrating that the healthcare system in America is a reflection of the will of the American people, not a failure of leadership.

The equity market value of the 11 largest Canadian energy companies is $300 billion. If you want to buy those companies, i.e. nationalize them, you'll have to pay a premium over and above the current values. 30% would get the deal done. So, $400 billion to nationalize those companies then. Where are you going to get the money from?

I know a thing or two about economics and statistics. All statistical methodologies are not perfect. The methodologies of the US government are not materially worse, nor better, than the rest of the industrialized world.

That goes without saying. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why? Its not too dissimilair from Keynes. Keynes argued that government spending should be increased in times of economic recession, even if that means going into debt. What the US government did to fight a recession was to cut taxes to increase spending by consumers and go into debt. That lead to one of the shallowest recessions on record. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the deficit because we should. But if you believe in government intervention in the economy, this was a smart way of doing it.