blueblood

Driving across Western Manitoba this past weekend, I have seen a disturbing thing. There is a by-election coming soon, and I have not yet seen any Liberal or NDP signs. Not even a couple, I am talking zero. For a national party, wanting to represent all Canadians, I think that is proposterous and hypocritical. Ignatieff looks like a hypocrite for saying he wants to reach out to rural Canada and fix the Liberal brand there, and yet does not even have the stones to even put up signs. Jack Layton is in the same boat is Ignatieff. In all likelyhood, the Liberals and NDP will get destroyed in the by-election, but the fact that they won't even try is IMO insulting to rural Canadians. Do the tories not put up signs in hard left ridings such as downtown WInnipeg? I and probably the average voter do not know who the Liberal and NDP candidates are. If SmallC has found any signs, I would like to know, because this is one instance where I would like to eat crow.

When your upper 1% has extremely good business, management, and capital it makes the country poorer. When you have class warfare, the country as a whole loses. Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, and China get it, why doesn't Venezuela? Jack Layton makes a political career out of marginalizing the upper class, how are his poll numbers doing? Barack Obama is at war with Wall Street, how did the democrats do in the primaries? Would it be immoral for someone to go to your house and rob you so they can pay for health insurance, education, books, the wife to have babies, cash in the bank so they don't have to work, and an overall reduction in family poverty? And how is Chavez going to get the capital to get the oil out of the ground? His idea of getting capital is letting foreign companies build an oil rig and then nationalizing it. Judging by the decline of GDP numbers in Venezuela compared to other emerging economies, the chickens are coming home to roost. Stop the madness!! Why would any company on the planet want poor customers? That cuts into the top line, and hurts growth. There's no giving. Venezuela only needs to look at next door to see how an emerging economy is achieving well over 5% GDP growth in the middle of a massive recession. I would love to see an economist attempt to calculate the opportunity cost to Venezuela as a country because of Chavez's economic stupidity.

If that were the case, then the numbers of people consuming alcohol would plummet. That doesn't appear to be the case. People consume pot because it's perceived as cool. They'll prefer to get their pot from legal sources if the price is right. And with cigarettes according to WIld Bill, on Ontario, bootleg smokes are a problem. So the argument of taxing and hyper regulating is a moot point. Saying that there is line ups at the liquor store helps my case. Ideally, the situation is to get less people on mind altering substances on a regular basis as they are less productive in society than people who don't use them on a regular basis. Booze is considerably more difficult and requires a ton of inputs. To make the amount of bootleg booze in comparable amounts to pot would be impossible because to produce booze on that kind of a scale without being caught would be impossible. Far easier to regulate booze than pot. We also see this comparison with booze and cigarettes. And I didn't say tobacco wasn't harmless. Nor did I say pot was as dangerous as crack, alcohol, or cocaine.

Considering that the amount of people smoking these days to the amount of people smoking in the 30's to the 70's, that's not that big of a deal. Millions of dollars these days to the gov't is a rounding error. Your argument is highlighting a potential problem with legalizing marijuana and taxing it, as what some activists are proposing. We have cigarettes (which use is on a huge decline) being heavily regulated and taxed and legal, and according to you there is a big problem with illegal cigarette manufacturing. Now just imagine if this is the 50's when everybody smoked. I don't think organized crime is going anywhere. And then you have bubber's argument with the potential for escalation which IMO has happened with the advent of legalizing alcohol approx. 70 yrs. ago. Now we have a movement for pot legalization. I'll take the cat and mouse game over something that is "harmless" over the cat and mouse game of the next thing down the line. That and keeping it illegal does keep the number of users down, even though how miniscule it may seem - some people would prefer to obey the law than get high, not much but some.

At least the Green Party has the stones to compete with the tories in Western Manitoba in the by-election. Yes the tory candidate will get more votes than the other candidates put together, but the fact that there are zero NDP and Liberal signs throughout Western Manitoba, does not bode well for these federal parties, especially when Ignatieff is trying to make a play at reconciliation with rural voters.

I agree pretty much spot on with that post. However, there would still be the black market from the taxes that would be levied as there is with cigarettes. However, bootleg cigarettes I don't think have made that big of an issue because cigarette smoking has been ostracized in North American society whereas pot smoking is still "cool". Had there have been sky high taxes on cigarettes in the 30's to the 70's, bootlegging cigarettes would have been a licence to print money. Pot I think is much easier to produce in volume than alcohol. I think its better that the cops chase kids doing something thats won't kill them rather than chase them doing something that will. If pot gets legalized then what's next 70-80 yrs down the road?

I know I voted no, because I thought BHP's valuation was insane. However, I don't know how Equity Funds and other shareholders would have voted. If they bought in when Potashcorp was at a much lower price, that would be quite a nice return on investment. There would be some shareholders liking that BHP has a mountain of cash and a desire to invest heavily in Potash projects to get 30-40% of the world market. The CEO rejecting the sale is completely different than shareholders.

That doesn't matter. As long as the company turns a profit and gives a return to shareholders. There wasn't too much money in potash at the time of privatization either. That argument doesn't wash. Now your the one being ideological. You have no way of knowing a crown corporation outperforms a publically traded company. However I do have history on my side as crown corps that were privatized have been shown to make the government more money, case in point potashcorp. A royalty, and what the market value is for use of the land. That will be sometime next year. Notice the countdown to change signs popping up? It's a good program if your the one benefitting from it. Poppycock. Why is Sasktel competing with private business? If Hydro doesn't make money, why do we have private companies popping up dams in BC and advertising shares on BNN in order to raise money? Seems like the electricity game is more profitable than you think. I'll give you this one. The PC party is polling at 49% right now. Looks like Running a wire down the west side of the lake is a bad idea, and it looks like the whacking stick is out for Selinger. Given the way that government's waste money, I'd say those audits of MB hydro are meaningless. Publically traded companies are "audited" every day on the stock market, and are required by law to release their financial figures. Had Hydro been a private company its board of directors would have been canned by shareholders for anemic growth, and proposing to waste all that money. The US economy is also performing now. It has positive GDP growth, but it can be better. The same goes for Hydro. It all boils down to this, we have CEO's and BNN analysts, and even a CBC personallity stating that crown corporations are not as efficient as publically traded companies. Since these people know how to make money and a lot of it, I'll go with what they say.

Grant Devine only cared about winning the 1986 election. Had he not did what he did, he would have lost. Being a "disaster" is not the point. Brian Mulroney suffered the same fate. High interest rates when dealing with deficits and rapidly deteriorating land values are a recipe for disaster. Surely someone in the housing biz should know that. Winning an election to him was more important than being "smart" with money. That doesn't matter if your impressed, I'll take the word of shareholders of a company with a market cap of 13.37 Billion dollars over an individual in the housing biz. I'll even go as far to say as from the size of Grant Devine's farm, his income from farming will outperform anyone with a mom and pop housing biz. Unless you have a riding arena in your back yard and are on the board of directors at Potashcorp or Cameco, I think your in no position to comment on the financial skills of Grant Devine.

He won a 2nd term in 1986 with people fighting sky high interest rates and bankruptcy. It was either he make the loans or get voted out of office. Any politician with a sense of self preservation would have made those loans. Then there is being chairman of Global Live Bid auction company, a board member of a junior Albertan oil company, and his massive farm. sorry bub, ol' Granty outearns wage earner wyly. Have you seen Grant Devine's farm, it is one of the slickest operations in Western Canada.

Your missing the point, the royalties and taxes paid by potashcorp to the SK government are more than the "profits" of the company than it was a crown. Had Potashcorp stayed a crown, the gov't would have enjoyed higher commodity prices, but at the expense of the efficiency, growth potential, and capital raising power of a publically traded companym, the opportunity cost is far too high for crown corps and you don't get that. The fact that Potashcorp is more profitable as a publically traded company than a crown corporation is utter proof that crown corporations are mismanaged gong shows. Prices have nothing to do with it. You said taxes would go up if a crown corp went and made an IPO. Why would a gov't hike taxes if its making more money with a private company than a crown corp? If Hydro pays dividends, where is my cheque? Potashcorp pays taxes and royalties and writes me a cheque on a regular basis. Sask as a province is better off and so am I. With Hydro, only the province is better off. They are getting the market value for their land. Judging by poll numbers, that will change come election time. The old Kennedy family will have to learn to pound sand along with the rest of the hippies. The reserves are far more reasonable than you think. The tories are hanging their campaign on this promise, if they don't deliver they kiss their gov't goodbye. By hiking taxes, and asking Alberta and other have provinces for more money? That's right it doesn't change the numbers that publically traded companies consistently outperform crown corporations. If crown corporations are so successful, why aren't they being set up to compete with and bury publically traded companies? Please answer that question. And again you have the problem with opportunity cost and the greater accountability of a publically traded company. If a publically traded company doesn't perform, management gets whacked. If a crown corp doesn't perform nothing happens because the gov't won't let it fail. You think that MB Hydro is good enough, I think it can be better. They are slow and inefficient enough to be privatized. There is no incentive to perform because there is no leverage. If crown corps are as efficient as publically traded companies, why isn't Alberta firing them off to mine the oil sands?

Brad Wall explained why privatization happened. Devine was a politician and politicians have one genetic code, and that is to get elected. Do you even know why Grant Devine had to run a large deficit? Here's we go... In the 1980's we had this thing called sky high interest rates. In the 1970's ag producers and oil producers enjoyed a run of strong commodity prices, and property prices. In the 1980's those prices fell and industry was right in the middle of expansion and crippled with high interest rates resulting in massive forclosures and property values being near worthless. Had Devine not offered those low interest government loans to those ag producers and other residents of Saskatchewan, he would have been voted out much earlier than he did. If Grant Devine is such a financial Idiot, why is he on the board of directors of Agrium and makes more money in one year than you will in your entire life?

I think the problem with the US is that it got too wealthy and discovered the wonderful world of outsourcing. For the world in general I think this is a good thing. We have GDP growth in India, Brazil, and China of well over 5% and as high as 8%. North America can only dream of growth like that now. There have been scores of Capital flowing to these countries making investors and citizens of these countries in a much better financial situation. North American and Western European are in for a bath until these countries have the ability to consume their own products. The only thing saving Canada from taking a huge bath resulting from a US downturn is that these emerging economies need our products and that Western Canada has a more diverse export market than the rest of the continent. The US will grow again when the world catches up.

Do Saskatchewan citizens pay higher taxes now than when Potashcorp went private? It would be political suicide for any government to hike taxes when a private company is lining their pockets more than the crown corporation they just privatized. Why would Manitobans pay higher taxes if a private company is going to be giving the gov't more money than the crown corporation? The only thing going up is hydro rates, but that can be cut by our friends stock ownership and dividend payments. You think crown corporations are the best at raising money, management, and results. And management on the reserve is not going to be stupid enough to charge more than the cost of a small detour around the reserve (Not the massive detour across farmland that costs an extra approx billion dollars). Reserves these days are now getting on board the private investment train. They are now realizing that using the government as an industry is unsustainable. Not enough to affect the company's bottom line and to justify a detour. In most cases, I don't disagree. Hooray debt with interest payments and raiding other provinces piggy banks for everybody! Who am I going to listen too, scores of CEO's worth millions of dollars and BNN commentators or a young naive wage earner? If Brad Wall and Grant Devine are going to go on BNN and make the arguement why the privatized potashcorp and how much of a benefit it has been for the province, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. That's not ideology, that's fact. If Crown Corporations were such good money makers as you made them out to be, why would a government want to cook its golden goose and hike up taxes to make up for the lost revenue. Could it be perhaps that private companies are far more efficient at resource extraction, raising funds, management, making money than crown corporations? I'm not quite sure you are familiar with the term opportunity cost. The inefficiencies, and slowness crown corporations take in raising capital and management compared to publically traded companies ends up costing tax payers in the end. This is why the oil sands are in publically traded company's hands and not in crown corp's hands.

You are the one trumpeting how crown corporations are the best thing since sliced bread. The sheer growth of Potashcorp since becoming privatized is proof of how publically traded companies are far more efficient than crown corps. Considering the energy consumption of Ontario and our friends to the south, having MB hydro privatized would ensure a much more rapid growth. By your logic, the oil sands should be all under crown control because a crown corp is the fastest and most efficient way to develop resources. As for Bipole 3, if you think reserves are stupid enough to gouge a privately run hydro company for running a line down there, that's madness. Do reserves in Alberta and Sask take all the profit out of pipeline, oil, and gas companies? Didn't think so. We aren't talking about the resources, we're talking about how best to extract them. Publically traded companies are the best way to do it. Are you serious? Why are crown corporations throughout Canada during history being privatized? Potashcorp has gone from a valuation of 100 million to over 40 billion. You don't get that kind of growth from being a crown corp and having to increase taxes, mooch off other provinces, and take on a ridiculous debt to achieve growth. Shall we get into the amount of projects that publically traded companies have on the go? Do private companies own them? Do you see ads on BNN looking for investors to invest in Manitoba dams? 100 million dollar valuation to 40 billion dollars. Brad Wall and Grant Devine have stated numerous times, that since Potashcorp went private the government has earned more money and Saskatchewan Potashcorp shareholders have a gem of a stock in their portfolio which pays out a dividend (that is getting a check in the mail when dividends are issued just for having money in the company). I hate being right its such a burden. To Bryan: Can you invest in Sasktel?

When Potashcorp was privatized it was valued at 100 million dollars. Now it is valued at minimum 40 billion dollars. Brad Wall has stated that since Potashcorp was privatized, there has been moremoney flowing into the government coffers (which is bad btw). Why has Potashcorp grown like that? Because of the ability to raise significant funds by being a publically traded company. MB Hydro cannot generate that kind of money for the kind of growth Potashcorp experienced because it's a crown corp that answers to some bureaucrat behind a desk who doesn't know their head from their ass when it comes to business. Not only that MB Hydro is wasting a fortune with this Bipole III down the West side of Lake Winnipeg. No private company would be stupid enough to do that. Sask people are in a far better situation than Manitoba people. Not only is there more money in the gov't coffers to spend on roads and other crap like that, the sask people smart enough to invest in Potashcorp have a gem of an investment vehicle and get paid just for having their money in the company. To compare the wealth situation of citizens of MB and SK in regards to MB Hydro to Potashcorp is ridiculous. If MB Hydro was privatized and became publically traded, there would be more money going to the gov't (shudder), the ability to rapidly raise capital for future projects and expansion, and an investment vehicle to improve the financial situation of Manitobans smart enough to invest in it. BC lets private companies build power dams, why not Manitoba? Manitobans and Canadians in general are poorer because of this.

Funds, individuals, companies with Canadian ties. You are correct about the technicalities of who is a Canadian investor, it's all optics. As an investor I have every right to vote which way I want potential deals to go. As a greedy person, this deal didn't make sense. I like Potash Shares because of the nice juicy dividend. I didn't like the bid of 130$ per share considering the growth projections of Potash down the road. You are free to buy shares in Potash Corp or BHP if publically traded companies are in a position to make a boat load of cash. THese companies are owned by many individuals and they have a duty to those many individuals to provide them a return on investment. This is where greed is our friend. 1) Sasktel which is a crown corp offers similar prices for service as MTS. Which is similar prices as the other guys. That is a CRTC over regulation problem, not an MTS problem. I would love for the CRTC to be done away with so companies like Verizon and AT&T can come in provide better service for lower costs and send those dinosaur Canadian phone companies to the dust bin. 2) If MTS is soaking you, buy MTS shares and help control costs that way. That's the beauty of a private company, you can enjoy the party. With a crown corp you can't.

Oh Stop The Madness!!! Do you even know what a publically traded company is? MTS is a far better, far more competitive company than it was before. This is what happens when you take a company to the TSX, the ability to quickly raise capital for expansion and improved services. Manitoba Hydro becoming a publically traded company would be a boon to the province, and Manitobans would be richer for it. The royalties and taxes collected from a private Hydro company would exceed the income from the stagnant albatross MB Hydro is today. The royalties would be in perpetuity. BC has private companies developing hydro electricity, and shareholders are going to benefit from that. The only people that benefit from MB Hydro being a crown corp are its lazy workers with their cadillac pensions paid for by soaking Manitobans. I hate being right all the time, it's such a burden. Just repeat what I have to say and you can be right too.

Viterra and Agrium in Australia. Can you say a significant portion of the Aussie grain trade is now in Canadian publically traded company hands. THe concerns of the Aussies were a mere pitance. Viterra's Australian acquisition saved its bottom line this year. This quote is why business classes should be taught at the high school level, and mandatory. When the company was privatized and became publically traded, that allowed for the opportunity to raise funds on a massive scale. If the gov't of Sask. spent the kind of money that was raised from the stock market on Potash mines, the gov't would be tossed out of office for "wasteful spending". The gov't of Sask I think still has shares, not full blown control. -Wall and clement had to block the sale, their skins depended on it. The thing to remember is that BHP can afford to shut the mines down if Potash prices fall, Potashcorp can't. However, a smart investor would snap up BHP shares if in the event this deal went through which it did not. One thing is for sure, it will take a lot longer to develop potash reserves without BHP involved, which will piss shareholders off. The 25 billion first nation consortium is a joke. As far as BHP is concerned that's pocket change. Canadians are poorer because of this for the sake of preserving miner's jobs.

Some people do not see the forest for the trees here... 1) Any Sask. politician worth his stripes would be opposed to this. Sask. people love their "Sask. companies" Given that Sask. people have political bi polar syndrome, this could be a huge election issue down the road. Had BHP bought a pile of potash shares without the intent of the hostile takeover, they could have popped some directors on the board and for all intents and purposes ran the company and the people of Sask. would have been none the wiser. 2) As an investor I don't like the deal because it is grossly undervalued. Having control of that much potash with corn/soybean prices on an uptrend along with potash prices on an uptrend. 40 billion doesn't cut it. 160-200 per share sounds more reasonable. 3) Where are the Canadian investors? If BHP is proposing 40 billion, why isn't a consortium of Canadian investors stepping up to the plate if it is such a big deal? 4) Better a company that is buying that could pay uncle Blueblood a nice juicy dividend. Far better than nationalizing or Cargill buying it which pays me diddly squat. 5) The potash is in the ground and in Sask. Jobs and tax revenue aren't going anywhere 6) Privatizing Potashcorp has made the SK gov't far more money than a crown corp. Not only that the valuation has gone from a 100 million dollars to 40 billion+. That and BHP has billions upon billions of cash and an extremely large market cap to finance expansion. There isn't a chance in hell governments can finance operations like that without serious political backlash. Financial institutions/investments/publically traded companies are far more suited to that sort of thing than governments are. 7) I can see Harper nixing this deal in spite of all the positives, the political consequences aren't worth giving the OK. Eg. taxing income trusts and nixing the takeover of a Canadian space tech company.

Correct, many others are getting screwed as well.

Just when I think that University has finished raiding my pocketbook, they go and do this. What a waste of money to be spending on second rate football.

But your fine with having your rights taken away because you are giving Putin a heavy endorsement. Now your backpeddling. Why is it OK to have Putin to run a country with few rights, but its not OK for Trudeau to do the same thing during the October Crisis? Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Doubt you have the mental capacity to make much money Not going to happen. I have invested in stocks in April last year, which had the highest rate of return? It's not Gold. Investing when commodities are at highs is foolish. You want to buy in a trough, not a rally. Those jewlers are taking an extremely generous commission buying your gold, people that crazy to buy into that deserve the bath they get. I love it when people try and lecture me, a commodity producer on how to market commodities, it's priceless.

I'd be all for lowering taxes in relation to growth. The cuts would be small, but over time they would add up. If growth stops, freeze the cuts. Services can be cut, and ran more efficiently.

You said yourself governments waste. 27 million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. Imagine if the goverment started making baby steps by saving 27 million dollars here and there. The less money that's wasted the better. Your idea is proposterous. The parties who are in opposition get out voted. What that means is that those parties have a boat load of money and the government has less money to perform its functions. This idea is the utmost of waste of tax payer dollars because it sits in opposition parties bank accounts instead of financing government functions. So basically society loses, and political fat cats win. More taxpayers dollars are wasted than ever before. The political parties can all pound sand. I'll pose this question to you, why do they need all this money? They exist in one of the most heavily regulated media jurisdictions on the continent so getting their message out shouldn't cost anything. So why do they need all our money forcibly taken from us?