blueblood

The 90's when Reagan's tax slashing policies came to bear fruit were also a golden era of prosperity. Also the longest period of economic expansion. Lucky for him WW2 came along and saved his bacon. Roosevelt isn't somebody I'd pay attention to as far as economic policy goes That depends where you live. In my industry, I'm in a golden age of prosperity.

If the Canadian Gov't is going to take action against the UAE gov't (by not allowing its planes here) why should the UAE gov't have to bend over? They have every right to do what they want within their country. I don't know why people are so quick to come to Air Canada's aid, they have a hard enough time competing with WestJet as it is. There was a chance of even making some money out of this by charging for landing rights, and it was squandered. Not only that, relations with an emerging market have been severely strained, possibly costing us even more money. Not only that, Canadians lose out on a far more pleasant flight experience criss crossing the country. Think about it this way. Imagine a company in the UAE trying to start up a smartphone system and trying to compete with the blackberry. Or that Canadian companies own about half of the Australian Grain Handling Trade. Maybe Canada cannot have 2 major airlines...

Now that we have established that there has been intimidation, you now have to make excuses for it. The Soviets made those same excuses. Don't worry, Chavez is doing a fine job of that. Floating on oil, potential emerging market and negative GDP growth. And this is how we make a country poorer. All that capital and job creation power goes next door. Not only that, pro-Business Brazil has a faster growing middle class http://www.propertybrazil.com/news/the-emerging-middle-class-in-brazil-25 It's worked for Ireland, Canada, USA, China, India, Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Brazil, Europe, South Africa. Ask Castro how going to war with foreign investment is going, he has an island full of poor people, but they are educated. Do you know how much an inventor gets for royalties? Try 3%. A resource is only good if it can be exploited. By Chavez being a capital douche-bag, he is costing his country billions in opportunity costs and impoverishing them. His neighbour next door gets the program and Brazil has one of the fastest growing middle classes on the planet. That's 5 billion dollars the world is poorer thanks to Chavez's madness. Do you know how royalty rates work. Chavez doesn't give the oil companies money. The oil companies give Chavez money. No oil companies=No oil coming out of the ground = no revenue from resource = poorer country. According to you. Does Venezuela have a rapidly rising middle class? No they are still poor hoping for the next little carrot Chavez throws their way to buy an election. And you perpetuate the myth that if wealthy get money they sit on it. Do you not know what opportunity cost is? Shall we bring up my list of countries that have a much better situation than Venezuela that enjoy the benefits of FDI and not punishing the wealthy? The Soviet Union tried that experiment of yours, and where is that country now. What myth, the evidence is all of the emerging countries around the world that are enjoying high GDP growth in spite of a recession. Your numbers say that Venezuela is in recession right now. Hell even the USA isn't in recession anymore. And your trying desperately to find excuses for Chavez who isn't fit to run a lemonade stand. The lower class are still lower class. There is no such thing as free healthcare, free education etc. who's going to pay for that when all the capital leaves the country and Chavez has no money to develop his resources? And you can ignore the facts that he keeps his people poorer than they should be compared to other countries in the world which have more favorable business policies and don't punish those who succeed. No, I just have history on my side. Equity and Debt are better tools for financing than forcibly taking money from people.

Ideally, I'd like all that privatized and the market be the market, but since that won't happen anytime soon due to political will, I'll argue on what gives the best bang for the buck. Whether that be having Fly Emirates planes making trips in Canada or choosing the route of a hydro line. The market applies to governments too, and Quebec is going to find that out the hard way. As far as planes go, with Fly Emirates (a "crown corp" of the UAE) and Air Canada (essentially a crown corp because of all the protection they enjoy), this is an example of market distortion and Canadian Air travelers will have to put up with being hauled around like cows in a cattleliner.

It was the main Character from the Call of Duty Black Ops video game.

Oh come now August, its a bit rich to be starting a thread on this, while at the same time thumbing your nose at the gov't of NFLD for choosing to by-pass Quebec in what is a better deal for them. Canadians should have the right to choose what air line they ride in. Judging by the experience on a UAE plane, it would be wise to let them have the landing rights so that WestJet and Air Canada have to compete to give us a similar flight experience instead of being hauled in the air like animals in a trailer. People, companies, and gov'ts have every right to shop around and look for something that is in their best interest, whether its picking the best plane, or the best route for a hydro line that offers the best returns.

It's a solid enough investment when the company pays out a dividend and it's share price has gone up 90 cents based on this news, sounds like we have some happy investors. August, China is a heavily gov't controlled space, yet it allows for private investment. Companies invest in these emerging markets partly because the gov't gives some reassurance that these companies will get a return on their investment. Ordinary people are freely investing in this project as well as paying taxes for it. The ones smart enough to invest will be the winners. Here's the deal August and you can ask anyone involved with negotiations with landowners to gain access for pipelines and the such, if the landowner wants too much of a cut and it is more cost effective to go around, that's what will happen. The bigger issue is the conference board report that suggests in 2030, Quebec may be in a financial crisis to the tune of 45 billion dollars. Ordinary Canadians are going to be footing the bill because the Quebec government couldn't manage a hamburger stand. Quebec's government is a mismanaged, entitled gong show, and Danny Williams has found some allies with the same resource Quebec has. If Quebec doesn't like it they can negotiate with Williams, considering their debt situation it would be wise too. Quebec's resource has just evaporated with this procedure. Danny Williams has turned the tables on Quebec, and there isn't a damn thing that they can do about it. Considering the mammoth amount of transfer payments that Quebec burns through every year with no return to ordinary Canadians, to complain about a project that costs a fraction of what transfer payments are to Quebec and that this project will provide returns in perpetuity; is flat out hypocritical. If this project reduces transfer payments to Atlantic Canada, then Canada as a whole wins. It's quite simple really, Quebec has squandered this resource much like Ed Stelmach chased out oil developers out of his province into Saskatchewan by hiking royalties. Quebec is about to be in Stelmach's shoes and will have to charge reasonable rates if they want development there. NS has the same resource Quebec does and is giving them a better deal. Considering that Hydro-Quebec is a crown corp that has relied on tax dollars to get set up themselves, to complain about tax dollars going to another crown corp is a waste of time. Can I buy shares in Hydro-Quebec?

Not only that, there is a major private utility heavily involved in this which is paying out a nice dividend. Given that energy use is supposed to keep increasing over time, how is this not a money maker for any party involved? Not only that, hydro doesn't run out.

That will be just for phase 1. There is still yet another part of the Lower Churchill that can be developed. Let's not forget that they won't be shuttering any of those coal and oil plants. Why? They aren't going to be throwing money away. They would be wanting as much electricity to go south as possible. They are just talking about this on the Lang and O'Leary exchange, and the premier of NS stated that this project is a boon to Atlantic Canada and is looking at doing another phase in NFLD. Another thing that they were talking about is that Quebec will have to renegotiate rates, because they could very much be milking a dry cow if they go about developing Phase 2. And considering that by 2030, Quebec could be in financial kaka, they should look strongly at renegotiation.

It would be a good long term hold, considering the growth potential in electricity use, and once that new power plant gets up and running. What I would like to know is that with this undersea powerline coming, is NFLD going to be able to turn off the electricity spigot to Quebec, or is this just for the new plant and Quebec gets no money for the new electricity transfered by the new plant?

Probably because a 6.2 billion dollar deal has been anounced. Anybody can be a shareholder, its a publically traded company listed on the TSX. If you think your power rates will rise, then hedge against that by owning a share in the company that you pay the bill too. Wouldn't be a bad buy now that the price will have come down due to helping finance this project. Oh look here, it pays a dividend for just owning the damn thing. http://www.snl.com/interactive/lookandfeel/4072693/EMA_Dividend0810.pdf

Having policies that people disagree with is not literally giving them the finger. Harper believes his policies will help urban people, it's hard to market a policy different from the Robin Hood policies of the Canadian left which is essentially rob from the rich and give to the poor. That's a marketing nightmare. I wouldn't say Harper is toast in urban Canada due to the gains he made in the last election. I'd almost say he would have had Quebec in the bag had he not said he was going to slash arts funding in the middle of a campaign. If you can't communicate properly as a politician or party, then your toast. The Liberals found that out in Western Canada, and the Tories found that out in Quebec. Had Harper treated urban Canadians in the matter Trudeau treated Western Canadians, the CPC would have to spend years rebranding and blowing up the party. As for the signs, the Libs and NDP finally decided to put some up. Maybe they were reading here...

See this is something I can get behind. Harper needs seats in NFLD, and if he has to pay 375 million, that's bugger all. Considering that this is comparable to Bipole III which other provinces are helping to pay for through transfer payments, Williams has a case here. 375 million bucks is a rounding error. If I'm Harper and if Danny Williams can help get me seats in Newfoundland, that 375 million is a sound investment. Quebec now has a choice, it can renegotiate, or Williams will get his line even if he goes into debt to do it. As for Alberta taking rates on Mackenzie Oil pipeline, I can assure you that they are not charging obscene rates for access, because they know damn well that if they charge too much, that pipeline takes a detour. Quebec is going to take a bath for this. Considering that this whole thing was pretty much done with heavy gov't backing, complaining about further public financing on this thing is a moot point. I'll pose this Question to August, if your so upset about English Canada contributing to a more efficient means of power transfer, are you as upset about English Canada bankrolling the arts industry in Quebec which is propped up by Cancon and gov't financing?

Well since I'm a greedy, heartless and cheap individual, I don't see the point in having a drink. Money spent on stuff like that is akin to me taking money out and lighting it on fire, and being as I'm greedy and cheap, that just won't fly. Having problems is a poor excuse to commit crimes. Many crimes and serious ones at that are commited because people have problems. A great many people can solve their own problems without having to resort to committing crimes.

I'm not denying his democratic victory, I'm criticizing his methods. If you don't think he intimidated his opponents you are living in fantasy land. No great loss. That's tens of millions of dollars out of that economy. If any CEO was responsible for the loss of tens of millions of dollars in company on the upswing, he would be fired. How do you suppose Chavez pay for upgrading his economy when he is chasing out all of his capital. Do you think that oil is a cash machine. Chavez is wasting a fortune through opportunity cost. We have an example in the case of PotashCorp of why private equity is a much better form of financing than the government. Chavez cannot upgrade his oil industry to levels around the world and still pay for his poor people crusade with just government money. He has a choice, he can do a full upgrade on his oil industry or the poor people crusade, he only has so much money. That's not myth that's reality. If you think the wealthy sit on a mountain of cash you need to take some management classes. Sitting on a mountain of cash costs money through opportunity cost. Your numbers show a decline year over year for the past 3 yrs. If Bangledesh has better GDP growth than a country floating on oil, you have a problem That is the most recent projection. This is coming from the Star no less. I'm suggesting that Chavez's ridiculous policies are making his people poorer than they need to be and is hindering his countries economic growth. An emerging market floating on oil should have had 15+% growth consistently considering the growing middle class and exports of a valuable commodity to huge markets like the US and China. I see the bad when Tinpot dictators purposely impoverish their people so they can vote him into power. If anyone wants to keep people poor, it's Chavez. Without poor people Chavez has no political platform. This is what happens when you have Tin Pot dictators running the country and proposing ridiculous economic policy which is unnecessarily impoverishing the country. Norway uses state run oil companies, yet they seem to need private equity as they are listed on various stock exchanges. I wonder what that would be for? Brazil has a pro-business government which is dedicated to making a growing middle class. They don't seem to feel the need to raid MNC's or foreign investment, and their people are in a much better situation than in Venezuela. Brazil's cut from FDI is larger than the pathetic returns of Chavez's nationalized companies which apparently go to helping out the poor. North American's get richer by investing in Brazil, and the Brazilians get richer through a booming economy. .Now your pulling at straws, a drop from alledgedly 10+ down to -1.5% is a disaster. By your numbers Venezuela went from a booming economy to recession in 3 short years, in spite of being a relatively closed economy. Thats as bad as the US if not worse. I'll go with the corporate viewpoint because they are interested in making themselves and their customers more money. And his people are poorer because of it. Poor people that can read and write. What good is an education if you can't use it? Proof? Most if not all corporations are into developing markets because of a potential for customers. Whats good for Western Countries is also good for Latin America. Brazil gets it. Fine, he's an elected Dictator who feels the need to fool around with the constitution so he can stay in power. He's no better than Mugabe. The trend is your friend, I'll go with his neighbours any day of the week. Third world countries are outperforming him, for an emerging economy that's unacceptable. I understand that if you think a country has such a good system in that people want to flee it, it's time for a reality check. It's not hard to improve the quality of life for people when they have nothing. Yet the Venezuelans for the most part are still poor. Being poor is not an improvement of the quality of life, all they are is poor people that can read and write. That's crazy. Poor people support organized crime because they do little things for them to buy their support. Unfortunately they are still poor. Chavez is giving his poor people just enough perks to show an improvement while still keeping them poor, its disgusting and typical thug behavior. Chavez knows that if he had a middle class surge like Brazil, his days are toast. One day the Venezuelans who can read and write will realize if Chavez is such a good leader with a country floating on oil, why is Jose in Brazil so much better off than I am?

It is funny to see that some Left posters are in a tizzy over this when only a year or so ago we had the senate gridlocking tory bills and those same posters were trotting out the constitution. Personally I'd prefer an elected senate similar to the senate set up in the states, but I am only one person, and that would be up to the gov't in charge to have the stones to go to the provinces about that matter, which would take up to much time and money. So, the only thing to do about it is to elect a gov't which is going to try and stack the senate their way. If Harper gets a majority, I don't think he'll be going after an elected senate with so much zeal as he'd have it stacked by now.

I was referring to communism as in the poor getting a free ride and the failure because of it. The Alberta provincial gov't has a flat tax, I like their situation better than in tax crazy Central Canada. Once again I will go with the CEO's and analysts that suggest our tax system is in the stone age. Those same analysts who create wealth for others and for themselves.

Who am I going to believe market analysts and CEO's who make themselves and others money as a living or a University student? It happens all the time. Rich people spend and invest. Rich people don't like sitting on a vast mountain of cash because that costs money in opportunity cost.

So your advocating a free ride for those because they can't afford taxes? That experiment has been tried before and was a failure of biblical proportions. A flat tax is the most fair way of taxation, everybody pays the same for the services and protection from the gov't they enjoy. Not only that, people like me would have more money to spend on stuff we want which improves the top line of companies which results in an increase of tax revenue, not to mention company growth which means jobs and less poor people. Rich people don't only spend money on luxury purchases and if they're into making luxury purchases, they are constantly buying new and trading their old things because of affluence and ego. You have to remember, what's the point of making money if you aren't going to spend it. In my case for example, I have to pay for expenses in cash. Which normally is not the best way of going about things, but my industry is risky and prone to disaster in a weather event/events, so I don't want to finance/lease a combine and then have a drought come along and put me in financial kaka. Yes, I can write off the tax on the expenses, but I still need the cash on hand to finance my operation. This strategy has been very safe for me, but at the expense of growth. So I think you can understand in my situation where a flat tax/lower income tax would be beneficial. That and every year I look at my books and see if I can afford to make a major investment in my operation, and since I do things only when I have enough cash on hand to pay for it, a lower tax would be very beneficial for me. I can't have gnomes work for me in the fall, and not be able to pay them. Also I have to make investments for hedging costs and retirement, and have cash on hand in case of a growth prospect or emergency. By having wealthy people like me in a better financial situatiion with lower taxes, it allows us the freedom to make more purchases/be in better financial shape which results in the government getting their tax revenue anyway from other sources.

That can go the other way as well, in that society has done well because of the wealthy providing jobs and capital. What you get in essence is a circular argument with no end. A good example I can think of going on right now, is in the US with an extremely large voter backlash against the Democrats and their policies and the rise of the tea party movement. The point I'm making is that wealthy people don't bury all their money in the ground or hoard it in a vault behind a painting. Wealthy people buy things, invest, and provide labour, and IMO shouldn't have to be hindered with a punishing 44+% tax bracket and/or double taxation if in the case they are business owners for providing with society with a multitude of non-tax benefits. Society is taxed at a certain percentage in the long run anyway, so what does it matter if the wealthy people pay less tax, and their customers/investments pay more tax by having a larger bottom line?

If that's the case, why isn't there a flat tax in place? If rich people just sat on their money, then there is a case for going after them, but they don't. Rich people are most likely business owners, and as such spend vast sums of money operating their businesses which help out other people, which includes providing employment. Then there is investments into businesses/emerging markets/local economy. Wealthy people contribute a lot to this country, and IMO its folly to put an insane tax bracket on those who contribute more than the average working class person. It's a matter of principle really.

That's what I'm saying as well. Legal booze consumers are high. My point is that there are some people who choose not to do illegal things because they are law abiding citizens and the prospect of getting a criminal record deters from that. However there are a great many people who don't care about that. The criminal record is supposed to be a deterent. Some people accept that and some people don't. That's the choice they make. Ideally the best way to achieve reduction in use is the same way cigarette use has substancially declined. The government had nothing to do with it. It was the ostracizing effect of cigarette smoking being branded as gross, trashy, and uncool. Drug use from what I've seen has not seen that ostracizing effect in the same degree as cigarette use. That's up to society to fix. The only logical reason I see for the gov't keeping it illegal is to keep the use numbers as low as possible, by targeting law abiding citizens with the prospect of jail/criminal record. It's not effective as they like, but it's something. The most effective way is society saying "this isn't for me anymore" and demand evaporates. It is much more difficult to market something by saying "no you can't", than it is by saying "yes you can". Drug dealers have the advantage of being able to have the positive message, and that's what contributes to the problem. What worries me is the more harmful stuff that could come down the line in the future that would be debated for legality or not. It's fine where it is.

And those corporations have taken their ball and are playing with the neighbours next door. The president's handpicked candidate did well in that election, and the poor seeing the benefits of FDI gave the handpicked candidate their vote of confidence. The sliding GDP numbers in Venezuela and rising numbers in Brazil and the rest of the continent are a testament to that. Pretty easy to win elections through intimidation. Chavez can continue to lead a country of poor people while everyone else flees his madness. If the rich don't prosper, no one does. Do you think rich people bury their money in the ground? No the smarter ones left. There's more profit elsewhere in the world. And who would those foreign companies be? He can have fun buying that equipment, and explaining that to his impoverished population. I would like to know where you get those numbers from. Canada is to have positive growth of 2.7% in 2011, and 3.1% in 2010. Hell even poor countries in Africa are projected to do better than Venezuela. http://www.thestar.com/business/investing/article/889761--hitting-the-ceiling-in-emerging-markets It's pretty embarassing for Chavez when Bangledesh has growth of 6.5% slated for 2011. Hmm, tinfoil hattery? China is dependant on the west to buy its products, yet allows for massive foreign investments, so does Brazil, India, etc. Companies are focused on growth and making more money. Keeping people and potential customers poor does not make them more money. Without the West buying their products and pumping money in, China would have been a disaster. I love how sheep such as yourself believe Chavez's spin. Who am I going to believe on fiscal policy, CEO's of investment funds/large corporations, or a Tin Pot dictator who can't compete with his neighbour. India, Brail, Russia, Vietnam, Ireland (pre housing bubble), South Africa, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea... Because a growing economy tends to provide jobs and more money in that economy. You seriously believe that wealthy people just bury their money in the ground. That wealthy ten percent is providing jobs, and capital for infrastructure/industry on a level no government can match. There is a much greater value to bettering the lives of the poor for a profit. That was a major reason western civilization got out of the dark ages in the 1400's, and is why we have growth in emerging markets in spite of a recession in established economies. I would like to see what kind of education Chavez is providing, because if the people of Venezuela picked up on what was going on for the rest of the continent, Chavez would be rode out on a rail.

That would depend on what area and what type of rural resident. I can assure you that myself and other operations like me are doing our share of contributing to tax revenue. If Urban residents are paying more than 16K for property tax, then I shall eat crow. Then there is corporate and personal income taxes, not to mention registration for semi's, dump trucks, trailers, and pickup trucks. Then my expenditures which help to increase the bottomline for various large companies that pay tax as well. There are plenty of rural residents who are putting more than their share of kids through school. However the same goes for business owning urban residents. The problem is the "trailer trash" of both urban and rural areas which are a vacuum of tax receipts.

I can see where your coming from, as its the accounting side of the issue. Do we put money into a place where we know we will get anhialated in an election. That I understand. In fairness to the Libs and NDP they put signs up in the general election, however not this one. What I don't understand is that if Ignatieff during his tenure is making speeches of how to fix the Liberal Brand in rural Canada, yet his gnomes aren't advertising their candidate in the by-election. My point was about optics and it looks horrible. Signs are not that expensive, in western Manitoba most political signs are placed in the ditch beside the road (public property), and the green party with even a smaller war chest than both the Libs and NDP have signs put up. To go along the entire western half of hwy. 16 and not see any Lib/NDP sign is not good optics. The Liberal Brand is pretty much toast in rural Western Canada. Before Trudeau, Liberals had a shot at winning ridings, now its very slim pickings. To have a leader impose NEP which many westerners/economists believe was bad for Western Canada, and to have the PM and party leader literally give western Canadians the finger, results in a brand that is essentially tarnished if not crippled. If Harper was to go into downtown Toronto and give the people at the homeless shelter the finger and say "why should I feed you", the CPC brand would be toast in urban Canada and rightfully so. If I'm a CEO of a company trying to change/establish a brand, I wouldn't be alienating potential customers. The staffers might be the ones who actually do the work, but Ignatieff is the face of the franchise. If I were him I'd be upset with the staffers for making me look bad. To me its not so much a matter as winning elections, its at least putting some kind of an effort, showing the rest of the country and other ridings that you are willing to compete, and are making some kind of an effort to represent them. If Harper doesn't put signs up in urban Canada, that's poor optics as well.