Toro

Phyllis Schlafly? C'mon...

I agree completely. However, that's exactly what property taxes are.Property taxes are not the same as wealth taxes because they are not calculated as a fixed percentage of the asset value. What usually happens is the city figures out how much money it needs and sets the mill rate based on the current property values in the city. In other words, it is a way of dividing up the cost of running the city that could have been done in other ways that would produce the same result. For example, property taxes could be levied on the number of square feet of property or the number of bedrooms - both measures correlate with the property value. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They are the same thing. Its a tax on the value of unsold income regardless of the mechanism or reason. The more the appraised value of your property, the more you will pay. Its true that the rate may vary from year to year, but the effect is the same. That's why some have to sell their homes in jurisdictions where property prices have skyrocketed because they cannot afford the taxes, i.e. Vancouver.

Capital/wealth taxes are the most vile form of taxation. If someone saves money they should be entitled to keep it forever. If that asset generates income the tax the income. If some sells an asset the tax the profit from the sale. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree completely. However, that's exactly what property taxes are.

You'll have to distinguish distaste rising from a perception of inequity with "hatred". Canadian corporations pay about 19% taxes. Low-end income earners pay more than that. I perceive inequity... don't you... Is that 19% the absolute or marginal rate? What rate do you income earners pay? I thought there was a level at which no one paid tax then the marginal rate kicked in once the person made crossed a certain threshold.

Here is a non-doomsday scenario for the end-of-oil:Once supply cannot meet demand the price will rise to the point that people will find alternatives. As these alternatives become more widespread and economical they will likely compete with oil even at lower prices. The result will be lower prices for oil even as the supply shrinks. Eventually, we could get to a point where oil is only used for applications that really need oil like plastics manufacturing amd air transport. That could mean that the world would have an infinite supply of oil since the demand will be much lower than it is today. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is what will eventually happen, or some variation thereof. As oil gets too expensive, people will swtich to/develop alternative sources. Nuclear power is coming back. Buy Cameco stock.

Corporations can greatly enhance their wealth and infrastructure without calling them profits. People can't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People call their profits "savings."

No need.

I don't know but their grammar and spelling is terrible.

Calgary's a fabulous city BTW. Really dynamic.

There is a fundamental premise in economics that the further you are from population density, the less processing that will occur. This is because value-added processing requires human capital, transportation, infrastrucuture, etc. But the idea of manufacturing as the driver of the economy is outmoded. Its not manufacturing but technology that drives the economy. Manufacturing was the cutting-edge technology 200, 100, 50 years ago, but it is no longer. Cutting edge technology is in services, and it is why knowledge-based production will replace manufacturing. If its doesn't in Canada, then we're in trouble.

From Mirror's link Germany and Japan have very positive trade balances yet their economies have barely grown over the past 10 years. A trade surplus is not necessarily indicative of economic strength. It can also be one of economic weakness since it may signify a weakness in domestic demand, as it does in Germany and Japan. How does he know this is the composition of the service workforce? I haven't looked at the breakdown of the Canadian service labour force in years, but if its like it is in the US, where we also hear the same argument, most of the gains in service employment have not been in low wage jobs. By its very definition, lower productivity jobs will grow faster than higher productivity jobs. This has to be the case, unless there is a great technological breakthrough, since it takes more people to do less productive work. And productivity lags in Canada compared to the US for other reasons. The same forces driving manufacturing out of Canada are also doing so in America. Canada is a trading nation and has benefitted enormously from the global liberalization of trade over the past 60 years. Didn't work that well in the 1970s and probably won't work well today.

McCain would be great but I don't think he'll survive the primaries. The hard right does not like him at all. But he'd pretty much crush any Democrat. Guiliani would also be a good candidate except he's never run for anything except mayor of New York. Plus he left his wife for another woman, which isn't kosher with the right. Hillary would lose. The Dems shouldn't nominate her. They should look at Gov. Warner of Virginia, a moderate who has been successful in a very Republican southern state.

I used to sell beer to the LCBO. We imported Lone Star from the States. We purchased a flat of 24 cans from the brewery for $3.80, tacked on a quarter for ourselves and sold it to the LCBO for $4.05. The LCBO retailed it for $28. I don't know what the figure is today but a decade ago, the LCBO brought in $800 million to the Ontario government. At the time, I don't think LCBO employees were allowed to strike because they were essential service, though I may be wrong on that. Its so bizarre that you cannot buy alcohol in the grocery stores in Canada.

Well, that would definitely be a first.

For information and reference http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html Breakdown of US consumption Oil Gas So, 11.8 / 0.58 = 20.3 MM bbl/d total US oil consumption 1.6 / 20.3 = 7.8% of total US oil consumption comes from Canada 7.8% x 40% = 3.1% of all America's energy needs are derived from Canadian oil 4.1 / 22 = 18.6% of US natural gas consumption comes from imports 18.6% x 80% = 14.9% of total US nat gas consumption is imported from Canada 14.9% x 24% = 3.5% of America's energy needs are derived from Canadian gas 3.1% + 3.5% = 6.6% of America's energy consumption is from Canadian oil and gas imports.

I'm honestly not entirely sure what you mean here, except for the last statement about the US trying to devalue its currency. In that, I definitely agree, though I think this is a side issue. The Federal Reserve's policy over the past five years has been to mitigate the after-effects of the stock market bubble, of which the Fed is at least partly responsible. When the market slowly crashed from 2000-02, the Fed decreased the reserve rate to 1% and monetary aggregates were growing as high as 20% in an effort to avoid a serious economic downturn, which in turn, lead to a debasing of the greenback. The Fed mostly succeeded, but we don't know what the effects of the Fed's policies will be. What appears to be happening is that the stock market bubble has been replaced by a housing/fixed income/commodities boom/bubble, of which we have yet to feel the effects of it popping, which in fact, it may have already begun doing. Yes, absolutely. America has relied on consumption, which rose to 71% of the economy, the highest of all-time, and above the 67% mark over the past few decades. At best, what the Fed's policy has done was borrow from the future to the present, thus slowing future growth. At worse, it merely prolonged and exacerbated the inevitable. When central banks look for a reserve currency, there are three things they look for - liquidity, stability and growth. Only America provides all three. It may be that the yen has gotten stronger than the dollar but JGBs have yielded next to nothing, the banking system has been a mess, the country has been in a deflationary funk and there is no growth. As for the Euro, the mark may have been a strong currency, but its hard to argue it is now, not with serial devaluers such as Italy, Portugal and Greece putting a strain on its value. Half the countries in the eurozone are in technical violation of their own standards, including France and Germany. Plus, you are hearing grumblings from some countries such as Italy that they want to leave the euro. And finally, with Germany and France growing 1-2% per year and the populations screaming loudly against market reforms, Europe will remain low growth for some time. That's why America can get away with what its been doing over the last 5 years. The world wants another reserve currency, but we may be a few decades away before another currency challenges the greenback. Despite America's prolifigate ways, that may not be until China begins to challenge the US, which may not happen for another 50-100 years, if ever. I think Canada gets a lot of credit for its performance over the past 10 years. Canada had a serious debt problem in the mid-90s and have dealt with it. Over the next 10 years, I expect Canada to at least equal, if not outperform the US economy because I think we are in the middle of a commodities bull market (that may be at the beginning of a correction) and the fact that the Canadian economy doesn't have the imbalances America has right now, particularly the combination of the trade and fiscal deficits. Beyond that, however, Canada has some structural issues, particularly concerning productivity, that will have to be addressed if Canada wants to keep up with the Americans. Many in Canada like to think themselves as more European that American. I don't believe that to be the case. Canada fits more in the Anglo-American model than in the European model, with Canada leaning slightly more to the "Anglo" side than to the "American" side.

Xie is a Hong Kong based economist for Morgan Stanley. From something he wrote a few weeks ago (sorry, no link) Several years ago, Byron Wein, who also works for Morgan Stanley, said that Europe risked becoming an open air museum if it didn't change its economic policies.

Generally, the price ratio between the nat gas price to oil about 6:1. Thus, if nat gas is $8, then the price per barrel oil equivalent is $48. Billions of dollars are pouring into the Tar Sands. That doesn't mean they're correct, but the guys doing the investing know the math.

Somebody should really just do a Ceaucescu on this guy. But its important to have him stand trial if, for anything, it demonstrates the rule of law.

Harper will not become the Prime Minister. The Conservatives will have to find another leader. Bernard Lord is someone they should look at.

Oil above $40 makes the Tar Sands viable. Nat gas and other energy sources are included in that price. BC, NWT and producers in Alberta will sell to whomever offers the highest price. Thus, the producers in the tar sands will bid up the price of energy to the point where marginal price meets marginal cost. As long as oil stays above $40, its really not an issue.

Thanks. From a pracitical standpoint, the trade-weighted value of the dollar is a good measure of the value of currencies, but it doesn't have much application in currency markets in the near-term. Investment flows do however, which are a function of many of the things I posted earlier. I don't have the figures in front of me, but its not just the Chinese who have funded the enormous deficits in the US. Its the Japanese as well, and even more so. The Japanese are sitting on something like $600-$700 billion in dollar reserves, most of which has been accumulated this decade, while China's is somewhere between $200-$300 billion. Of course, both have a vested interest in keeping the dollar propped up so they wouldn't dump the dollar specifically. The dollar accounts for about 65% of the world's global reserves whereas the US economy accounts for about 40% of global production. It makes sense for central banks to move away from being so dollar-dependent. OPEC members first started talking about moving to the Euro to settle accounts a few years ago when the dollar was plunging against the Euro. Because oil is settled in dollars, as are all commodities, the value of their product was falling, hence the chatter to move to another standard. But since that time, the value of oil in Euros has also skyrocketed, so that angle is gone. However, OPEC is filled with Arab countries, and the US isn't too popular in that part of the world right now, so moving assets out of dollars into euros makes sense for politics alone. There are only three possibly global reserve currencies at this time - the dollar, the euro and the yen. At this time, only the dollar is a viable currency as a reserve currency - though the Fed has done a good job to undermine this the last few years. There is little growth in the Eurozone and it remains to be seen if the euro can last since its own members are undermining its existence running high deficits and voting against further integration. The Japanese are still mired in a deflationary funk. Of those three, only America provides growth. 50, 100 years from now, one should expect the yuen to also be a major force in world currency markets. I was speaking over longer periods of time, decades as opposed to years. Movements in currency prices in individual years are often transitory. A strong currency over the long-term is indicative of a strong economy, and vice-versa. A country that is further along in debt issues should have a stronger currency. And actually, though Canada has done a very good job with its fiscal accounts, government debt to GDP is about same in Canada and the US at around 65%, so the two countries are about the same. At the current rate, Canada will do better than the US going forward but Canada was worse off because the figure went as high as 100% in the mid-90s whereas it never went higher than 75% in the US. You can find these figures on the OECD web site.

The "price" of the dollar is dependent on largely emotional investment runs in the short run, not the "value". There's a difference. The "value" of the dollar is dependent on interest rate differentials, a trade-weighted basket of goods, use of the greenback as the global reserve currency, economic growth, capital flows, productivity, demand for goods within the country, etc. The 75-80 cents is roughly the trade-weighted value of goods between the two countries. That has not changed much over time as the structure of the two economies have not changed much over time. In fact, the US has become more competitive because productivity is higher. Plus, currently, short-term interest rates are higher in America than Canada. Keeping the currency deliberately low is inflationary and makes Canadians relatively poorer in the world. It also distorts capital flows as it channels savings into export industries that may or may not be competitive in the long run. Strength of the currency is a sign of strength in the economy. Weakness of the currency is a sign of weakness in the economy. Also, there have been a few studies which have shown the link between a hard currency and economic growth. The harder the currency, the stronger the growth over time. This makes sense because, over time, a harder currency should mean lower interest rates.

Fabulous example. I point to this example all the time. Africa is messed up and the problems are deep. Its naive and somewhat arrogant, though certainly well-meaning, to think that the West can fix the problems of Africa. However, if you want to improve the odds, lower trade barriers for African goods and stop these insane agricultural subsidies.

The fact that Castro wants his brother to succeed him pretty much says it all. So, the best person in the entire state of Cuba is - Castro's bother? Let Rauol stand for election - a real election - and if he wins, fair enough. But Castro is just another nepotistic despot.