RB

the only sentiment i confer with is that i don't buy into politics which i summarise as artful dishonesty in all its glory and sophisication as it realates to what is government so again the US is protecting its interest. I don’t see the US currency falling is causing EVENLY disturbance against other currency - yes. The trade deficits for the US is growing, their current account deficit is the highest in history ever at 5% of their GDP. Your American buddies are importing more than they are exporting and among other reason given: one is immigration, and more likeable one a bountiful supply always of goods from fast supply region such as china. china and japan are nuisances to create a balance of trade. get this if the exch. rate falls - prices do not fall. you should know about keeping market share, china would rather cut profits than raise prices. the asians are preventing the US an adjustment to the current account.

the way the economies are today, the US and canada need to protect itself first. Regarding those currency china (65%) and japan (36%) reserves in the bank is by far the largest in the world. if they decide to fix their money against the us dollar - their current account increases in surplus the americans would not like the asian currency appreciate and they are more incline to an exhange rate regime (this is not happening) - the trouble is the us is accumulating in foreign debts, and china is not helping with imbalances, and making a long-term problem worst. with japan its financial system is not stable and hence locking reserves into a weak economy. so the US rightfully want to twist some arm - telling the yen what to do - keep it down japan with some good monetary and fiscal policy and a good inflation policy can get out of its spiral but its what is best for the US economy and canada

do we know what the others at the stock exchange are paid - you'd be surprised the board is not surprise though they are the ones who approve the compensations

i have not read this entire thread - so forgive me if i repeat i believe killing anyone is wrong and now killing arafat is wrong. it is not justified and immoral the arafat of the palestine was elected as a leader by the people who want to be governed by such as person, nevermind we disaggree that he has no negiotiation skills, is as akward as he is incompetent - he was choosen. isn't there such a process of "overthrowing" a government by its people. or is it better to have the neighbor decide? there is something symbolic about an elected person that represent identity, identity that have been experience, that had taken it toll of worries, and tribulations - is far too tragic there is media feeding freezy about arafat and bombs whether it is sucide or other but really when it all boils down, no one can point to some shed of evidence to justify a truth association it is not moral to shed someone of their dignity and make them examples of "political martyr" believing this will indeed be a lesson and "standard" for future leaders in the mean time think of the creation of explosive outrage from the people of the land - who knows in what emerging form. these folks are far too rooted in evil to offer a simple solution of killing their direction.

isn't this the problem....unsupervised and mostly wild aggressive journalism - searching and scuming the earth to report not only what is thought to be "dirt", but exaggerated, and interpreted for news this would have been a low profiled case pursued by the government had some folks owe up to judgemental errors the bbc needs leadership, someone who can carry and hold responsiblity of output of news especially when it is a risky story.

just a couple of what is legal and adopted as law for you - i didn't search for more for the fear of wasting time, but just in case you are interested rather easy to find more @ www.lexum.umontreal.ca Employment and racism I was pleasantly surprise with this one Stephnie Payne sat on the TDSB board of trustee she was discriminated against because she is a Black African Canadian Woman Payne v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (May 9, 2000), (2000-05-09) ONCA C31619 Source: http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2000/200...000onca259.html Sex and wage discrimation -Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des communications de Radio Canada, 2002 Docket(s): T-1219-00 Source: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2002/2002fct793.html -Reid v. Vancouver (City), 2003bcsc1348 Sex discrimination contrary to s. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act -Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 Source: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1989/1989scc47.html Age Discrimination -Tiwana v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), (2000-11-29) FCT T-60-00 Source: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2000/2000...00fct11378.html and if you would like detailed explanation let me know

however much we would like to deny it, admitingly there are contamination in a selection process for hiring. these are some consistent ones: initial screening here is what you can gather from a resume: - sex of the applicant - approx. age of applicant (say if you know a work history with dates, year graduated from college etc.) relatively easy to calculate - not difficult to figure orgin of names like: Enrigue, Lui, Ahmad etc - if they spoke other languages - whether a stable worker - maybe soical status based on school selection the more subtle errors of contamination are: - recency error, like a recent experience determines who get selected - "i look like you syndrome" - halo effects, e.g. shirt is not tucked in properly therefore you are not intelligent - basic unconscienous prejudice so there is a problem getting job opportunities firstly for certain folks. then equal pay for equal work. most large companies have a band of pay structure which categorized where you start, and based on performance/"merit" it increases with in the band - there is lots of grumble here as those within the band might be doing the same work - but usually sort itself out. a distressing problem arises when the band is exhusted and there is competition for other opportunities who gets selected? and how high can they go?

nova_satori no one would like to invest where r are high, this contributes to slow economy, leads to recession, over valued dollar etc. when policies are in place to curb inflation such that it really should not rise, and if it does, more dilemmas, well, it also slows growth performance so what happens then the bank increases money supply, and the rest of the stabilizers follow esp. price, and mostly speak of money flows, value of money. There are some economists who share a sentiment that the central bank should stop financing the budgets and governments should concentrate on balancing the same and eliminate deficits, increase competition and accountability. the US would like to make inflation = 0 or eliminate it altogether, this apparently is a stability, in Canada our policy is to keep inflation at 1% or 3% anything higher is proven a detriment to the economy. If you calculate a cost association of keeping inflation at a low level, then you can agree that both monetary and fiscal policy is needed to protect a domestic economy, trade and currency exchange. put good policies in place, stabilizers will do a good job. the last thing that is needed excessive undue pressures of public on governments.

Nova before you post ad hominem appeals, look at a bigger picture. your post is lame and insufficient to the matter of inflation. post you are debating above is VERY correct in its analysis. It looked at the entire monetary equation, well you can't make credible arguments without all the variables. so all i am going to do is to restate what is essentially said already that inflation: - causes a noninal increase in interest rate - creates tax distortions, as inflation goes up the tax rate on capital gain did not change - pushes people into higher income tax brackets (called creeps) -creates money illusions, people accept reduce real wages - here is the only point you mentioned that inflation is more variable as it increases therefore bonds etc. is risker - affect growth outputs (in the long run) for the yen today our inflation rate is 1.7 which is excellent, if you like the low inflation prepare to accept higher levels of unemployment but i disagree that banks should not control money supply, and manage the interest rates. one of the benefits of inflation is money creation, can result in less borrowing and lower taxes.

what's not likable about the charter, it is vague enough to be contentious, and is also subjected to easy foreign and other influences

craig our charter of rights and freedom are clear when they offer listings of freedom regardless of age, color, creed, sex, religion etc. there are no constitutional law that clears up a provision of: - guaranteed income to people (min. wage is taken into consideration) - political gap - social disparity - differences aa attempts feebly to include groups into what is considered equal, and representation of groups for those latter reasons. i didn't bring up history because i believe it is just that. well now all colors are allowed to vote, women juxtaposition second class has risen – really all boils down to minor events. and what a finale, well now we have nothing else to do – so might as well add diversity to those events. my feeling is that there are slight acceptances that there is separation of groups and a shift in paradigm has occurred but continues to exist in a psychological vacuum. it is regretful you fellows just keep denying what is real

well there is enough evidence posted already to support that some groups are descrimated against. but do i sense some fear if AA continue to exist. what I meant is that some of the postings above are contending that there will be/ are: -shifts of burden from one group to another. -some in the disadvantage group emerges as better off than others -the poorer you are the poorer you remain well no worry at all, AA does not preclude any one group but strives for inclusion of groups that are discriminated against however blatant or subtle. laws intended for equality, discrimination, fairness do not just happen along. there are enough accumulation of evidence to suggest laws are needed to protect and pre-empt misgivings. so now fairness should be given to groups that are consistently: - disadvantaged - under-represented as in: -employment (I don’t like the education link because I believe if groups can financially look after themselves they can access the correct education) - are economically burden in a cycle such as an institutionalized social system - are marginalized by the system if you believe in equality like: - equal opportunity - a chance - equal results then all I can add is that preference really should be given in the short term to remedy a system, such that “fairness” rules are used improve the situation BUT not create an altogether new system the only other alternative is to award fairness individually to those who need help the most rather group selection.

or maybe they can use some grassroots economics such as in "Ithaca dollars" system operates just as barter, hours are set at a min. wage $10 and paid in trade services and goods you can only see a multiplier at work money is kept locally, social structure is enhanced, honest labor, no big corporate culprits, mostly cooperation etc. this system actually works in NY so you can't loose PEI

- thats heading for a capitalistic society, some poor countries cannot handle such imbalance of poor and poorest - i am all for nationalisation build a society that can support itself based on staples and manufacturing i buy-in to those "ideal" when the economy of the countries have grown, and maybe some countries are at that point where they can capitalise on the ideas

FastNed well there is a relationship between the poor and policies whether it is with science or the environment. Low-income folks are perhaps the worst people affected by the policies – you just have to look at some geographical areas and decide…goes for industrial and developing lands. i don't want to defend anyone, but it is a truth, and you are right, sometimes i feel that the people who make the policies are far removed from the problem itself is alarming. So question arises should we impose the same polices for highly develop and lesser develop regions, perhaps we should customized it, and then who wins? The third world are always insisting the we are locking them out of trade, putting up much barriers that it is enough to keep them subservient and poor. i was in the feed industry when NAFFTA included Chile in the agreements. for the opportunist a whole new market was open for trading, and the demand for the products increased so much that we turned to other markets such as Peru, and Equador for trading. so maybe trading blocs still work. Incidentally, we had more trouble than you can perceived anchoring ships in Florida, but usually the interpretation of those agreements sort itself out with a loss of 3 days. production is what drives wages, maybe in the third world it is time for both sexes to go to work instead of male grooming, or the female look-out. there is something called personal growth, and hard-ons are not considered personal growth would only result in explosion of population. I meant there is usually only a single income household with many children. so i suggest government has a major role to play in the development, maybe settle for something of a cooperative economy. despite popular believe I think government sometimes have to right to interfere with markets to impose policies even when it creates distortions to protect a country’s interest but not be used to solve market failures of prices/production. the economies have to look internally first and look after their people. some help can be offered from the developed land, CIDA is operating some projects in the third world to give women tools needed to become self-sufficient, and education on birth controls-grass-roots projects. I believe in what is science and advancement of it. “precautionary principle has sparked major controversy, raising issues around equity, “green protectionism”, conflicts between environment and development priorities, the use of science, and the role of stakeholders in decision-making around risk” Genetically Modified foods is a frontier of science and but issues such as refusal (shipments GM foods from the US rejected by starving nations such as Zambia - based on some local professor’s write-ups) compromises lives. I don’t need to bring up what industries do to the environment or the psyche of the various diseases that are associated with GM foods to humans. But there is no evidence so far to show accumulation of harm done by GM foods, but ok there is a history of lawsuit around environmental concerns Would it help then in changing some system such as switching taxes from say subsidy from labor intensive to the protection of environment and in the end try to achieve sustainable employment in coordination with the environment. Reading the precautionary principles I don’t believe an alternative such as self-regulation was given (the post above mentioned something to that effect though), as oppose to external regulation but REGULATION is very big when it comes to science, and research. What i meant is regulations enough to accept GM politics, environmental politics and with much emphasis on imposition legislative laws. I do however believe that sometimes too much importance is placed on uncertainty of new products and new ideas whereas there is less flexibility, ignorance prevailed and this is what is truth for the third world. But i am glad the the fact that these issues are debated is a step in the right direction. out of the Asilomar conference, because of concern for safety present had issued guidelines to prevent hazards, to people or the environment, and that’s what a preventative/anticipative action is. research regulation attempts to ask the question as to how far and how creative should we get with genetics, and the result of modification it constitutes. i meant we know that stakeholders and big corporations are major winners to the detriment of people’s lives? Even when the companies losses they win. but cost-benefits are always in favor of companies. Here is a relatively simple example: company produces toxin waste that affects people downstream. In economics the measure is: - the cost of producing the good - the cost of environmental clean-up - the cost of moving the people to different location the benefit in cost outweighs the outcome – say it is cheaper to produce and clean up – the people will have to survive the outcome. It is evident that more discussion is needed and an assessment cannot be completed unless risk analysis is included. Well the need exist to transcend this CIRCLE we keep going around to what is REASONABLE. Sadly for decision making whether governments bureaucrats, scientist, or the public makes the note, the issues are not that easily sorted out from reason and the people with self-interest such as: "the activist" will find themselves in compromising positions so there will always be bitter i mean better on-going debates. But my take is whatever good or evil will result from this all these discussion and debates will be determined by society's perennial need for a better world – can the third world see a better world? or do they see the US as being the better world?. Some folks believe that the benefits of science, or harm to the environment do not outweigh its potential dangers, and its use should be halted. Other folks will argue that it should be used to help with starvation, increase production, or in the case of bio-technology cure and prevent diseases but its other applications should not be pursued. Those like myself believe it is a worthwhile risk to take, and people should accept technology for what it is. and this is always true for economics whenever something is gained, something is lost; we have to decide what is better. for me it is clear the future of technology and humanity depend only on our decisions and on our direction.

FastNed My response to you is that if you see public polices are failing terribly, fiscal polices such as subsidy would not sway your opinion on matters you attribute to perverse incentives, as it must but surely be used to justify “root causes” of environmental worries or and as Mr Craig points out a “growth direction” in the wrong way of poverty. what i meant is that it makes sense to see these “hand outs” given to farmers who will increase production of intensive farming that leads to environmental worries. Afterall the farmers are deleting ecological resources. or could it be another wasteful way for what is tax dollars. well any subsidy that comes out of the current account, we have to be careful that it not to the detriment of “opportunity cost” like it is better spent elsewhere. or maybe the is real inefficiency when subsidy is provided among producers, ideally, we do prefer markets to have an equilibrium like leave the market to operate freely in its natual state, and now will refrain to engage about a social responsibility But I do wish to take up the economics of subsidy, and mostly domestic support for some industry. here is who gains: producers perspective subsidy is good, well they capitalize on some fixed price from the government, increase production level government perspective it will increase domestic production, and also allow for exports, look after domestic market with domestic policies. consumer perspective because of surplus of good, with a steady demand, price will fall, will get domestic prices for good (well there are all sorts of “ifs” around this e.g. hopefully the consumer can take the lower price and not do without the good), well if there is inelasticity in demand (perfect) then consumers can benefit totally from the subsidy rather simple comparative analysis now, it was found for those countries participating in subsidies say for wheat, including EU there was increased production so increased trading (not mentioning market glut for now), but for canada less subsidy less production - get the drift, result in crisis. really, we are not fair to ourselves in competing globally and domestically you can deduce from the above, and argue subsidy actually causes: - increased production - oversupply of goods - distorted productions as the producers based their planting choice of subsidy levels on D & S or market signal - result too much of one commodity - which sells at lower prices - and furtherdecreasing prices - result decreasing wages consider local economies would you rather shortage of supply of good with high prices with inflation, with alternatives of imports offering much lower prices. The major trading agri countries are using subsidy to push their products. you don't follow suite you will pay dearly. well, maybe the solution would be to reduce the amount of subsidy offered worldwide and to include 3rd world trading with bigger ecomonies. But protectionism for domestic markets is really looking after yourselves first. who will look after your economies when it collapses with its dollar, i need'nt mention countries such as brazil. imposition of higher tarrifs encourages domestic production. it would'nt surprise me if we see some more distrortionary forms or increased of tax/tarrifs and other forms of disguise trading barriers from the US to other countries, they need to look after their own economy currently and to remain economically viable, stable with their dollar, and an economic superpower. subsidy to certain industries encourages domestic consumption and growth. for wages there are only few huge players in the agriculture field and for sure they are the culprit to wage determinants

Ronda Recognising that racism is a very serious and contentious issue, interactive discussions as in this forum is very pro-active in dealing with sometimes mostly denials well had to find and re-read that post and i am afraid i didn't go though it all, but i wasn't sure i had written much about racism there is no doubt that all the reasons you give contribute to some failure. i was mostly contending that there is a distinction between wealth and education, a social difference, and a political gap. Hard to say but there is descrimation and unless we are prepare to accept a reality, we will continue to deny: - equal rights and opportunities to all individuals Policies for equal opportunities in the workplace is not set up for policy sake. There are identifiable causes for such actions. Enough cause to amend it, to correctly match the current issues and to make sure it is enforceable by law there is nothing wrong when lobbying groups advocate to let everyone know of their rights and obligations

Those developing countries depend solely on staples and exportation of the same. Firstly, they are victims of colonisation and then given an independence and more victimization in other forms such as high tarrifs. you disagree Craig, but in economics it makes complete mathematical sense to provide subsidy, the gaps for trade-off is too obvious not to provide subsidy, and even now as i write would recommend subsidising some goods. Recognizing of course that the producers are the eventual winners and much more burden to consumers. Beet sugar is of course miniscule cheaper than cane sugar, an industry that is highly monopolized by a few companies owning or partial owners worldwide until recently (mega mergers and sell-off to the same folks). But note that sugar prices is highly regulated by the USDA which is available every Monday @ 11AM and is used worldwide religiously. There is no hedging here or inside trading and i am not even mentioning ADM. as the products become complex rules of origin ensue There are probably other reasons but my sense is that Tate & Lyle PLC worldwide bent on diversifying really rules the world in sugar and by-products, and when you are leaders of the world and your chairman cum knighted SIR cum pass parson anything goes sir. susidies is just the explanation confirmed. Sugar is a far too stable product for any competition. I mean who will compete, I beg to differ not rogers, dominion sugar, or western sugar, or PM Ag Products, A.E. Stanley or the rest owned really by T&L. makes perfect sense, being capitalistics for EU and the hawks of the bully countries how to make money from products that is much needed

aa should not subsititute or deviate from its main intension to promote freeness from unintended discrimination if you DENY there are groups "demographic" groups that have been socially disadvantaged you continue to live in your ideal concept of what is and therefore is these are some of the groups that are identified by HRDC as being at a social disadvantage - visiable minority - youths - over 45 - single parent (both female and male) - disability - women disadvantage of equality in the workplace include: - inequality in hiring sexes - not prepared to hire disabled - wage discrepancies - training and development - career advancement - no aa policies i don't need to go on - these are REAL issues that must be addressed however subtle they are i have had the opportunity to work with folks from the west indies - and do confirm that it might be the education that have worked for them to "fit in" which is in fact based on the British educational systems for those then colonies, but a majority the folks do "fit-in" and do well for themselves. i have also observed a culture difference, they are humble, more flexiable, a readiness, take charge of my life attitude, different mentality from say those that originate from other countries say sri lankans who appears to be haughty in all it glory - i don't intend on country bashing, this is just a shared experience

in ontario i am not sure what percentage are impoverished, of a decent income, and the wealthy - but i bet based on the immigration settlement, there is a high percentage of family that cannot help themselves in terms of privatisation, and your proposal of fee for service for everyone. the main sufferers would include: - the old drawing the old age pension - the children - the separate single families, where the female is the main provider - and the identified groups that are at a social disadvantage so the question is how do you compromise the health care to suit the wealthy whose argument is legitimate - we have toiled, and strive to be somewhere, and now worked very hard for what is ours. now we see each paycheck of ours feeding all those families each month while we now have to struggle to retain what we wish for as lifestyle, and to top it off we are punished severly if we decided to increase that wealth. but for sure there are no compromises with those blessed taxes, death and debt

for the ratios, i don't believe there are less males in colleges but an informed female increase accessing colleges and as we know there are more females than males in the population and to add the females are getting wiser and smarter

i don't have a problem with family bonding, but its stressing our healthcare. my street is full of multi-family such as one family owns the home and mostly both spouses parents are also there. thats good for me - disconnected our alarm system as the folks are always home but at least 30% of those parents are in the country 3 years or less and judging from their appearance i don't think they were able to contribute to any net system - and more good news there are others in my street awaiting their parents to arrive - and i am told they can access the health care system within 3 months of arrival and they don't even have to work - such good canadians we are. but here is my take on the new immigrant, i think the immigrants need to be “Canadians” first when they arrive. this is to create some national bonding, identity and belonging. Currently they are unprepared for the immigrant experience that includes culture shock, dismayed at the land of opportunities, dejected at what is Canada they turn inward to what they always know “homeland” somewhere else – I don’t see a country prospering when ½ of the population is bearing their souls elsewhere. recognising immigration is very important to our economy, i like that the immigrants should speak at least at some grade level either official languages, have employable education and skills and we should have some system in place to direct folks on employment matters, or how to start up new business etc. in the quickest turn around time in order for them to contribute immediately, and in additon to other requirement, NOW they must also play one national sport such as hockey...like own some hockey items, like know what is a puck to what is power play, and also have some pride and root for a hockey team in order to become Canadian

there was a report posted about 2 years ago in the financial post i believe regarding wealth and education with a conclusive view that the financially equipt child had done better than other students, and the geographical areas of where the students live supports their social structure and mix e.g. it was found that the york region student were getting better grades than say the students in say toronto....maybe they had the required 3 meals a day but also they had access to lots more resources, and their parents were also of some educational background discrimination is not a thing of the past. and i allude this to a stuggle with a division of economic, social, and political unbalance between various groups of people. some folks will never able allowed to rise above a level if no one will represent, lobby and speak on their behalf - your non-educated parent will continue to produce the not so bright child, because the not haves will never have, if you get the drift but my point is if you were to conduct a survey to ask who is it that favors racial preference programs or AA. It would be those visible minorities and women because these are the people that need it most. i was a diversity seminar recently, and one of the questions that surfaced is how many women in the group would consider NOT having kids because of racism – and more that half of the room of "the identifiable groups" hands shot up, the others I suspected wanted to be correct in their answers but there is always a glimmer of hope i am incorrect in this assumption. as long a legacy exist dream on about competing equally for employment, competitive schools etc. your repeal of AA is mostly of nonsense to you but for others it is a tiny light of hope and has made a difference in many lives for what you subscribe to prescribe as constitutional charter of rights and freedoms, and as in equality, and what is fairness and whatever...some economic integration mostly is dismay

well, i do recognize that a family is important for all the reasons listed since your threads such as for reproduction, socialization and maintenance of child, sexual control as in marriage (hope you said that one) I don’t discount your arguments at all, I happen take a different view...a mere perspective…AN OPEN INQUIRY, and would like to reduce the role of tradition. it is always troubling when the unanimous conclusive argument winds up in supporting men’s position in the family unit, this is from both men and women arguments. somehow, i feel that we always are more incline to give the correct answers, or give the normative societal replies rather than deviate to what we truly want to say for fear of non-acceptance. I don’t have the percentage but I am nearly sure that greater than 60% men have had at least a sexual relationship outside of marriage, women much less for sure…so what is so wrong if we up the percentage to match that of men…not the old double standard now, mind you the reports actually say that there is a rather high number of women who actually do not make the orgasm, well I don’t disregard what is relevant. Divorces, well the take is for it to become much more contemporary and sophisticated instead of emotional and drawn-out. There are many theorists out there who actually support expansion of individuality and promotion of self-happiness, whatever makes an individual feel good. Maltase’s population theory would congratulate birth control, and other forms of keeping a sizable people All I am proposing is exploration, and that these functions of a family can be performed separately and can be as efficient as in a family – family is just another instrument to keep institutions together such as: marriage, religion. My question is who says this should be the only one way?

three options for marriage for myself Abort, Retry, Fail? traits of failure are analogous to computer usage - Login incorrect - Windows is never open - Incompatible programs - Operating systems continues to run on DOs - Minimize button is use more than frequently - Shutdown feature is in usage - the network driver didn’t want to run in promiscuous mode, hence the systems hardware probe feature became less useful - installshield feature is now used for protection, the option to be completely uninstalled if so desired without the loss of cache and other sys resources - on the contrary, RAM is officially more important than ROM - The motherboard did accept incompatible plugin - "Don't remind me again" button was push to limit and expired - "Abort" button was use carelessly - backup to server was never in usage - Server's poor response not quick enough for browsing. and usually times out i am sure there are other wacky reasons, but i have no regrets and i was able to reconcile this with much more confidence