Renegade

It is not clear at all. Much of our "morals" are learned. Morality is an individual and subjective assessment. What is "right" to one individual or culture may be immoral to another. Who defined ths "moral absolute"? And how do you know which is which? Is it by your own subjective standard of morality? Even the moral standards of the majority is not an absolute standard.

Does it not strike you that what you are describing is a pyramid scheme, and one which is not indefinately sustainable? Not only that, an increasing population base consumes resources and increases environmental impact. The standard of living is only sustained by the retirement community based upon taxes generated by the working population. Perhaps the solution is for the group approaching retirement and at the top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living.

Yes, it is factored in, as I said "if you include immigration". And what is the answer?

No this is the replacement rate, not the fertility rate. If you include immigration, then the fertility rate can be much lower than 2.1, Even at our current 1.5 rate, the population continues to grow. -------------------- People seem to take as a given that unending and continual population growth is a good thing. I have to ask why. It would seem to me that there are as many good arguments for population stability, or decrease as for growth.

I have a vested interest because I believe the banks will do what it takes to maximize profitibality, including closing ATMs if necessary. I have already shown you that they have already done so. My opinions sways where I vest my interest, not vias versa. Yes. White label ATMs are great for banks. They collect revenue every time you access your account through a white label ATM. On this we agree. The nature of people, and the high cost and pain of switiching make it likely that customer won't use the leverage the power they have. Time will tell.

No it isn't quite a reciprocal situation. Some banks have invested in an extensive branch and ATM network, others less so. In a reciprocal arrangement the institutions with the smallest ATM infrastructure would benefit most as it makes the entire competitive ATM network available to its customers. If this reciprocal arrangement were in place, it is an incentive for banks to invest LESS in an ATM network as its customers can essentially poach the ATM access from other institutions. This reciprocal arrangement is not in place now. Banks and Interac charge each on a per-transaction basis for access to the other's ATM infrastructure. The bank simply pass on those costs to the end customer with a mark-up. If it were precluded from charging the end-customer, it woudl simply embed those fees in other ways, and force customers which use its own ATM network to subsidize others who use the competitors network. It is both. They pass on the cost and add a markup for profit. And the customer IS willing to pay it as evidenced by the growing presence of white-label ATMs. Are you aware that there are less bank-owned ATMs today than we had in 2000? The number peaked in 2000 and has been in gradual decline ever since. link However, the overall number of ATMs, has increased, made up largely by white-label ATMs. The white-label ATMs are only too pleased to take $4.50 fee instead of the $1.50 the banks charge. As customers we seem to be only too pleased to pay them. I am vastly more pessimistic than you that suddenly the customer will be "pushed too far". People have been complaining about banks for as long as I can remember. Simply people's inertia is so high, that despite the moaning and complaining they do, the vast majority of them won't actually move to a competitor. That is why i'm holding on to my banking stocks.

If all those accounts need is a few bytes, no problem. However those accounts still require access to branches, ATMs, require statements, back-office support, issue paper statements, the bank must still apply anit-money laundering legislation, and know-your-customer regulations on those accounts, and the list goes on. geoffrey is bang on.

No, the ATM fees in question only apply if a non-bank customer uses the ATM. Bank customers do not incur the surcharge. Let me give you an example. Let say a bank has an ATM in a shopping center (but no branch). Lets assume that ATM is used primarily by non-bank customers. If forced to give access without charge to non-customers, what incentive does the bank have to keep that ATM operating. It is likely that operating costs will outweigh any revenue for that ATM. There will soon be a push to alternatives to cash. Such as pre-paid cash cards. Such cards can be refilled without an ATM infrastructure. Yes, but until enough sheep break away and use the competitive offering, banks will continue to be extremely profitable. You are making some vast generalizations. For example, many of the bank's customers are unprofitable. These are the people who have low balances and basic accounts. The revenue generated by the banking plans aren't sufficient to cover the overhead to cover these accounts. The banks would willingly cut services and let competitors take these customers. The only thing that prevents them from moving more agressively to cull unprofitable customers is the further degradation they would suffer in public perception.

When I refer to "rigid roles", I mean rigid definitions of roles. In a "traditional" marriage, the husband's role was to be the breadwinner and "head of the household". The wife traditional role is as baby bearer, child sitter, and responsible for the maintainance of the house. It is completely fine that two people agree to be bound into their duties and responsibilies for mutual benefit. You yourself have stated that you would be a stay-at-home dad. All of this is fine, but it isn't a "traditional marriage". It is a modern marriage, and the fact that we have become enligntened enough to have flexibility in the roles is a cause for celebration.

For once, I'm with you BD. We should all celebrate the decline of "Traditional" marriage which bound parties into rigid roles.

I make no such assumption. What I assume is that they will discrimminate regardless of what they should or shouldn't do inorder to pander to the voting public. If only there was a way to make it so.

You are quite wrong. The way in which they will reduce services is by providing a more cost effective alternative and then charging for the original service, forcing customers to choose between a higher fee or the alternative. They have already done this. Once there was no such thing as a transaction limit or inactivity fee, now you have one virtually everywhere. Passbooks have been eliminated. Pretty soon paper statements will go or be charged for. If not reductions in services, then what are they? Yet banks continue to retain customers and continue to be profitable.

Why is it that feminism didn't replace the women who left the home with men in the home?

Why not just dissolve the institution of Marriage. If it makes people unhappy, and locks people into situations they may not like, get rid of it. Just do contracts. They can be as loose or tight as desired. Negotiation can be done between the two parties before the 'signing'. The ceremony can be called the Signing Ceremony. People can say they are Under Contract. Excellent suggestions. That's something I would support. It's going to leave the government with a problem however, since it seems to want to discrimminate on the basis of marital status. How's it going to do that if there is no agreed definition of marriage?

Apparently you have never heard the commonly used term "happily married" or "unhappily married". Apparently you have never seen or experienced the emotion shown at a wedding or a divorce. No, I don't think that marriage brings on a permanent state of unhappiness for everyone, however a "traditional marriage" structure traps some people into a long-term arrangement which they are not happy with. The only way out of that unhappiness for them is the dissolution of their "traditional marriage".

Because people decided that they would rather be happy instead of married.

Yes, but that turned out to be wrong. Overall, branches were not closed and there are more branches than ever. Customers got an additional channel to access services they never had before. It seems logical that they pay for it if they want to use it. There is noting wrong with that. Their shareholders demand it, as they should. Same is true for any for-profit industry. The consumer has the choice, but chooses not to go. Why? Because either they value the brand supplied by the Banks, or the transition costs outweight the inconvieince of fees. Either way, it is easier for the consumer to moan and complain for the government to act, instead of acting for themselves. Ultimately the bank's business relies on the consumer (both business and retail) to generate revenue. Investment involves risk and are gambles. Sometimes they pay off, many times they don't. Most of the bank's shareholders are conservative by nature, want to bank to undertake low-risk endevours. There are other ways the bank can make money other than getting it from the customer, but I doubt the customer would accept it. For example, the bank can pepper you with 3rd party ads in the ATM and online channel. It could sell your information to 3rd parties to be marketed to. Unfortunately, it would seem that for many reasons, society doesn't let that happen. ATMs were supposed to close branches, but customers reacted unexpectedly. Instead of transferring use to efficient channels, they increased the volume of their banking interactions and used multiple channels. Further, communities started complaining about the loss of jobs and branches, as the bricks and mortar structures closed. Ultimately, if we want an extensive channel infrastructure, we ought to be willing to accept the cost, or move to a more efficient competitor.

Yes he should. Not because he will get anywhere, but because it is a good political ploy to be seen as attacking the "big bad banks". People choose what they want to pay for. It is not a surprise that they are charged for another banks ATM. ATM fees have got much more notice because of "white-label" non-bank ATMs. These ATMs charge much larger fees than Banks. Sometimes $4.50 a transaction. They have replaced Bank ATMs in prime locations because white-laberlers have offered to pay floor-space rental to merchants who host the machine. Banks refuse to do so, and have been relegated to their own facilites. The implication of forcing a bank to reduce or elimnate ATM fees are: 1. The revenue will be generated elsewhere through higher other fees, lower account interest, or higher loan interest. All of these are worse options for the cusotmer. 2. The bank will reduce future investment in the ATM channel and may close some ATM locations. 3. The bank may choose to restrict access. It makes no sense to give its competitors customers access to its infrastructure. You will possibly see the emergence of a for-pay banking plan, which gives you access to other ATMs, and without with you have no access. All of this to say, the government, Conservative, NDP, or whomever, are best off leaving things alone.

Not true. The bank can also increase profitability is by reducing costs. If it were precluded from generating additional free revenue, it could iincrease profitibility by decreasing costs of the ATM channel. I can do that by reducing the numeber of ATMs or by restricting access to its own customers.

Of course you do. But you have just contradicted yourself (within an hour). Didn't you previously say this: You have a right to free speech. Your free speech right doesn't give you the right to probhit behaviour you speak about. The majority doesn't have unlimited rights to do as it pleases as a "perk". That "perk" is limited by the Charter of rights. Even if the majority did not have the good sense, and condoned slavery, the charter would prevent that law from being upheld. You refuse to believe that. It makes no difference to me whether you do or don't. What's important is that the Canadian system governmental and court system is structered that way. Yes, when it infringes on a set of guaranteed rights. You have still failed to answer on how incest or polygamy affects YOU. If the only effect is to make you feel disgusted. Then go ahead. Feel disgusted. Express it. Shout at the top of your lungs how disgusted you are. That is your right. However, it should not be your right to throw someone in jail for consentual behaviour. Sorry you don't like it, but it is that way in virtually every democracy. Nonsense. Are you saying WWII was an example of democracy in action? If you are, it is clear that you know nothing either about the war or democracy, or the motivations of the countries involved.

We don't outlaw pedophelia because it is disgusting. We outlaw it because the 14 yr old is presumed not to have the capacity to understand the implications of consent. See my response to jbg. Exactly. And that's the kind of society you want? Laws are not without limits. That's why some laws when challenged are deemed unconstitutional despite what the majority decides. See the law on homosexual marriage as an example. You have no such right. Show me some basis upon which you claim this right. Possibly, but so are many other relationships in our society which we don't ban. See my response to Remiel. Yes, the charter protects rights, even those you are disgusted by. It would seem that any protections for behaviour which you do not agree with are called "abuse" of the Charter. Yes the charter is meant to undermine democracy when democracy infringes on the rights of individuals. That is exactly what the charter is for. Do you think that the majority should have the right to dictate the religion of the minority? Do you think that the majority should have the right to sell the minority into slavery, or perhaps just exterminate them in a "final" solution. Hmm, I seem to have heard someone else who also had that viewpoint. My definition of society is one which respects individual liberties and rights. I would hardly call that consistent with Lenin's or Trotsky's.

The laws are there in part, to protect individual rights. Car thieves don't have the right to steal cars. Individual car owners do have the right to have their property protected. Individuals in society do not have the right to prohibit behaviour which they find disgusting oblivious to the rights of those affected. Please explain how incest or polygamy "punishes" the majority. Please explain what an "orderly society" means. This is your definition of society. It is not mine, and I would guess it not the definition that most of the Western world would agree to. It is remarkably consistent with the definition a society like Iran uses. Basically what you are saying is that the minorities should be grateful for the level of tolerance shown by the majority and at the majority’s whim. The Charter is in place to keep exactly that kind of attitude in check.

To accept that animal's consent, it is not sufficient to assume that passivity to the act implies consent. It must also be shown that the animal has the capacity to understand the implications of the act and what they are consenting to. For the same reason we have laws on statutory rape. In general we deem 12-year olds not to understand the implication of the act they are involved in, so despite their apparent consent, participation in the act is prohibited.

Jbg, I apologize for my hasty response and poor spelling. I should have realized that not everyone has the mental capacity to infer the meaning of words despite obvious misspellings. In future I will endeavour to run my responses directed to you, through a spell check first. For your benefit, I have corrected my post. Hopefully it is enough so that you understand the intent of my response and are able to articulate a coherent one of your own.

No, they didn't wait for the majority to stop being "disgusted". They sued in court and won the right via court decision, despite the views of the majority. If you remember as recently as the late 90s parliment, representing the majority of voters, voted to reaffirm the santity of hetrosexual marriage to the exclusion of hetrosexual marriage. Why does anyone's outrage even matter? As long as the behaviour in question doesn't affect the freedoms of others they have no business being outraged. It is only your personal assessment that the benefits are "small" and "marginal". Those affected may view the benefits as significant. Staying out of jail IMV is a Significant benefit. You can't escape the fact tht it is discrimminatory regardless of if the discrimmination affects only a few or affects many.