Toro

Yet those countries that have not opened up their economies much have lagged those that have participated more so in the global economy. And the poorest of the poor in those globalizing countries have seen standards of living increase more than those that have not. The poorest countries were always poor by today's standards. That may not have been the case 200 years ago. Maybe they were the richest societies. But the difference is that the rich countries developed while they did not. Your analysis of the IMF is incorrect, BTW.

More on Globalization http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL05.htm

The Overview The Paper From the paper

Globalization and free trade have increased incomes in the developing countries. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/09/dollar.htm

There have been a couple. The one that jumps to mind is Canada and the US got into a beer dispute about a decade ago after Canada continuously ignored the GATT/WTO on at least three rulings the GATT/WTO made against the Canadian beer industry.

I'm pretty sure that Canada is a net importer of American power at this point. We may ship them oil, but we import electricity to make up for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Canada is a net exporter of energy, including electricity to the US. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html

With oil at $60 and nat gas at $12, those projects would have gone ahead anyways. Perhaps not on the same time scale, but the incentive is there right now, with or without government tax credits, to get at those deposits. Then why did he fight it so hard?

Probably not. From Chretien's point of view, if he is going down, he is not going down alone. But do you really think Martin was involved? Interesting OT question for this post. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no idea. My belief is that Martin would have, at best, been on the fringe of it all. However, whether or not he was, Chretien coming out and accusing Martin will muddy the waters, and it won't be as easy for Martin to whitewash the whole thing.

I'm sure that when Chretien speaks, Martin won't look quite as lily-white clean.

Corner Gas is one of the best comedies on TV in Canada or the United States.

Wow, you sure are a bitter angry man. I know I would be if there was a political party I loved which had perpetuated one of the greatest frauds in Canadian history. Must be pretty tiring constantly defending the criminal actions, justifications and rationalizations of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This Halloween thing by Chavez is great. The best way for someone to discredit himself is to have people start laughing at him.

Oh, the irony of that statement, coming from a Liberal. I'm certainly not surprised that the commission exonerated Martin. There didnt' seem to be much evidence pointing to him in the first place. However, it is still the Liberal Party that committed perhaps the greatest fraud in the history of the country - one that is imperiling the standing of the federal government in Quebec and emboldening the separatists. Thus, the Liberals must be thrown out, at the very least to send a message to the party that its arrogance cannot be tolerated and that the interests of the Liberal Party and the interests of the country are not the same thing. Otherwise, Canadians have absolutely no right whatsoever to complain about corruption in government if they keep voting for the party that allows it to happen.

There will not be an invasion of Iran. There may be a military strike however. These comments increase the odds of that happening.

1- Do you remember where you were when this referendum happened? Watching it on TV. I went to Montreal for the Canada rally. Don't know if it helped. 2-How did you feel at the time? Relieved and extremely frustrated that Chretien came so close to blowing it. And that Canadians didn't seem to fault the federal government on their gross incompetence. 3- How have you felt since up to today? I haven't. 4-Would a vote for succession have a better chance today than it did 10 years ago? I have no idea. But Quebeckers must understand that if they are going to vote for separation, its independence. There is no sovereignty-association bullshit. And that the government sitting on the other side of the table isn't going to give a shit about Quebec. They're going to be looking out for Canada's interest. If that screws Quebec, too bad. 5- Does it matter to you today like it did 10 years ago (assuming it mattered 10 years ago)? Yes. Maybe more. If Quebec separates, its more likely Alberta will separate. There is just no way that the west, or at least Alberta and BC (and maybe Saskatchewan) will live in a federation dominated by Ontario. I am also more likely to remain in the United States if it does happen. This never-ending referendum is really getting tiresome. That's one of the benefits of living in the States. It never gets mentioned and you never hear about it.

99% of all Canada's energy exports go to the US. That's the way it will be too in the future. The government of Canada cannot and will not dictate to the likes of EnCana, Canadian Natural Resources, etc, whom to sell to. And Canadian exports of natural gas and oil account for 7% of all America's energy consumption, so let's not blow Canada out of proportion.

Economic Left/Right: 4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

While your sentiments are laudable, your assessment is a bit off. Slavery retarded the progress of the American economy and American society. America today would have been better without it.

Dean appeals to the liberal Democratic base. But the liberal Democratic base isn't big enough to win on their own. And the rhetoric he's using to appeal to that base can turn off the independent voter, which the Dems need.

And its why governments shouldn't get involved in the ownership of businesses. The Liberals were so dead sure that oil was going to $100. But it didn't.

All the Mormons will move to Canada. Can't wait to see the NDP defend polygamy. Ridiculous... Myth... Polygamy is not practiced by Mormons... Maybe 200 years ago, but in the USA, like in Canada, it is illegal... Its not a myth. In some religions, polygamy is okay. If its law, then its secular society imposing its values on the religion. If the NDP is going to respect a religion's right to determine its own definition of marriage, then it would have to repeal polygamy laws. Plus, what if some religions bar gay marriage? If a gay couple in that religion wants to get married, is the NDP, since they're going to allow each religion to define the terms of marriage, disallow a gay union? Otherwise, this policy has no meaning. This is nice, but recall the posts about about the Left offerring idealized solutions without fully understanding the secondary effects. The topic appears to be marijuana useage... Try having a record for getting caught with one joint when you were a teen in the '70s, and see if you can take a holiday in Florida... Or if you can attend your uncle's funeral in Michigan... The idea is to protect Canadians against ridiculous right-wing draconic, hypocritical laws. I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I thought it had to do with nationals of Middle East origin who held Canadian passports. A huge number? Can anyone post the share of viewership in Canada? I had read somewhere that CBC's share was something like 5-10%. If that's true, that's not huge. Does it not trail Global and CTV? That's who you compare the CBC to, not Fox News.

I can. If the government is going to deem certain types of work equal to other types of work, i.e. janitor v. secretary, then the government is getting into an area in which it has no clue. All it does it increase regulation, adds bureaucracy, makes the labour market less flexible and certainly increases the costs to the taxpayers. It also sets a very bad precendent if the concept of equal pay for "equal value" becomes enshrined in law as it will drive up labour costs and thus unemployment, all while making the Canadian economy less competitive. I think that looking at programs for low-income, single parents is a good idea, but only for those people. But I don't know why the government has to run a for-profit center. I doubt the cost would be much lower than private care.

This is an interesting situation; it explains why the bank is listed as a private corporation. Actually a comparatively elegant solution. Is this a unique situation in the first world? Thanks for the information. I do not know of a central bank that is a private institution today. But many once were. The Bank of England was once a private institution but was nationalized around the same time as the BofC. I do not believe the Federal Reserve Banks were ever private institutions.

I understand the White House has DirectTV.

Howard Dean, the political pundit, is definitely not what the Democrats need. However, he is attempting to find a brand for the Democratic Party so voters have an idea what the Democrats stand for. This is a good idea because the GOP have been very successful labelling the Dems.