blueblood

I would like to thank you for pointing that out for me and wiki was an interesting albeit wordy read. I personally would rather have mercantilism than feudalism. Keynes also makes some valid points as well that I agree with. Wiki says that thing about England and Portugal trading. I believe that in an ideal world that would work out if they were both on even ground. You must remember that traders aren't the people with the most integrity, (as is China with being able to produce cheap goods at the expense of it's workers being poor) With a reasonable amount of intervention the economy can prosper. With these two lines of thought you would get a bell curve of sorts and the right mix will get the peak. Which has always been my line of thinking. Much the same with left/right politics of Canada. This appears to be one of those chicken/egg type arguments that can go on and on and on.

I don't see how they are a fake problem, care to elaborate on that plz?No. I do not care to elaborate because it does not exist. YOU brought it up, therefore, YOU should explain how a trade deficit is a problem. Citing "Trade Deficits" as a problem sounds great for winning votes from people who know nothing about trade. It is the same as Dr. Seuss saying "Krade Lefficits" are a problem. All of the people who know ZERO about trade economics will say "Rah! Rah! Rah!" and agree. I give up. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference. I am not getting into a debate about trade deficits, I'll agree with the side that says it's bad due to the fact that I personally don't like being in debt and I like seeing my coffers full in order to purchase things and not having to borrow all the time. I'd say look at the U.S. trade deficit with Canada concerning oil and i'm seeing how rich alberta is, that's my only point on it.

So am I, which is why I suggest that to curb this problem if you don't want a kid in the first place to keep your legs shut or the birth control (which isn't 100% by the way). If the pregnancy was preventable you should go through with it. Look at it this way if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, should she be subjected to 9 months of torture for something she didn't do? I think it is equally as cruel bringing an unwanted child in the world and that child not having the proper care of a natural mother and a father. What kind of life is that for a child? If she's raped she should get the option, she should not be punished for having to give birth to an unwanted baby, forcing her to give birth is IMO right up there with islam law concerning rape which you point out time and again.

I don't see how they are a fake problem, care to elaborate on that plz? That's a good point, but look at it this way, if we're already getting cheap light from the sun and the moon, why would we need to bring in lightbulbs in the first place, mind you with the previous point we are assuming the sun and the moon provide light all the time. That is one way of looking at it, the sun and the moon could in essence be local producers and the lightbulbs are the imports. Also if we're assuming its not light all the time as in reality. We have both lightbulbs and the Sun/Moon. What your saying is we don't need to be paying for lightbulbs, we have the Sun and the Moon for cheap, more efficient way of making light, so the lightbulbs go out of business. We are also assuming in this scenario someone is controlling the moon as its cheap light and not free light, he could be thinking "i'm the only one doing this, I think I want a little more money, i don't have to compete, and if they want light they'll pay". what about when it's night time during the part of the lunar cycle when the moon isn't visible, or when a person is indoors. By paying the local lightbulbs a steady price, we are ensured a constant supply of light. Also, what can we export to the sun and the moon in exchange, money? According to this analogy, the money goes to the sun and the moon and we don't see it again. The analogy was cheap, not free. If the money goes to the lightbulb makers, they will spend it on things they need locally. If we could in the scenario cut off the sun, because they won't take anything from us that we can get money for, it would be in our best interest to do so as we can supply ourselves with adequate light and keep money circulating through the economy not sending it to the sun. If you were saying that if both lightbulbs and sunlight/moonlight in this scenario were free I'd agree with you.

Yeah life sucks sometimes. An abortion is a ghost that will haunt you your whole life. Don't think otherwise. So is a forced pregnancy

Not if the imports are cheaper. not if it results us getting into a trade deficit, and not if the imports eliminate local competition which results in inflated prices.

That's simply the attitude that gets everyone into this trouble. Reducing tariff boundaries first benefits Canadian consumers. And it will encourage others to lower tariffs as well. Why should it always be us lowering tariffs first of all, we shouldn't be caught with our pants down in a situation like this, either it's all free trade or not at all, none of this in between garbage. I wouldn't see how reducing tariff boundaries benefits the consumer, your implying that the retailer is more chivalrous and noble than King Arthur. the price would be kept around the same as its always been, just the retailer gets a lot more money for the product. I think India could care less if we drop our tariffs, that 85% is going to stay there unless they are in dire straits as far as supply is concerned.

Do you then feel the same way about; heart transplants, by pass surgery, Type 2 Diabetes treatment, joint replacements from sports over use? And I could name several other extremely costly conditions that we pay for even though people have consiously made the selfish decision, to eat unhealthily, to smoke, and to ignore Drs warnings, and still they expect society to foot the bill? Framing the terms around the woman being the victim of rape being the only one society should pay for is illogical, and unenforcable.. Plus, there is no such things as a "selfish mistake", mistakes are just mistakes, to ascribe selfish to it means the person premeditated it and then it is NOT a mistake. Nor do women go around getting pregnant just so they can have an abortion! Getting pregnant is a lot more preventable than heart disease, diabetes, and broken limbs. A person who is healthy can get these through no fault of their own. Framing the terms around the woman being a rape victim is logical, she couldn't help it if she was raped. Missy who got pregnant from a one night stand could have kept her legs shut or used birth control, sounds logical to me. Enforcable, it would be very easy to enforce, you just show up with a police report and away you go with the abortion. A one night stand that results in regret and/or STD and/or pregnancy is the definition of a selfish mistake, she wanted a piece of ass did she not? There are a lot of unwanted pregnancies though explain that? If people would take sex more seriously and weren't so selfish there wouldn't be this type of mess.

Well if you look at it that way, then in reality that's what farming is. Selfish attitude? Every business person in Canada has an attitude like that. We want to make money, what do you have against that? I seriously think that you have it in your head that when a farmer gets paid he buries his money in the ground. Paying other countries for stuff we can make ourselves is like burying money in the ground. Canada and the US are in trade deficits because of attitudes like yours. I don't care if the consumer enjoys playing games as I sure don't like playing hes. A selfish attitude is wanting something for nothing at the expense of other people, you would rather see us starve than pay for our product. This tiny fraction of the population pays a lot of taxes, probably a lot more than you. By your logic we might as well not pay taxes if we're so insignificant, the sales tax on a new combine is probably worth more than your income taxes. As long as we pay taxes we get a say in what's going on. What makes you entitled to cheap food? I'd be no less of a thug than the rest of the industries that use the governments help to get the price they want, what's good for them is good for me What??? I think that's a free market. The government had to put its hands in the business because poor people are going hungry. Supply management would have prevented that due to producers being forced to meet quotas, which increases the supply and keeps prices reasonable in this case. what happens in mexico is what happens in the free market without competition. This proves my point. Importing stuff we can make for ourselves is completely ridiculous.

What do farmers bury their money in a hole? No they spend it on things they need themselves (which the other siblings provide) The siblings do get their money back. This is like with the residential school survivors getting their massive cheques, I was annoyed at first then I thought to myself where do they spend a lot of their money, the good old gov't controlled liquor store. that's business and how it works. Why should I as a supplier flood the market and drive down the cost of my produce and suffer because of it? OPEC is doing this, they feel oil prices are too low and are turning off the spigot. It would be more efficient to help out the suppliers who will directly help out our economy, provide jobs. I'm surprised you haven't commented on what happened in Mexico concerning corn which this is all about. That is what happens when the "free market" happens when the players aren't on the same footing. Supply management would have helped out there, and it would have been in fact the farmers complaining about not getting a high enough price in that situation. You open it up to milk, the lack of competition will drive up prices similar to that concerning Mexican corn. I'm sorry my country comes first. I wish I had supply management for my crops, I wouldn't mind seeing Iran coughing up more money for my wheat.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...02363fe&k=18275 The Toronto autopsy shows hit and run. End of story. But now they are claiming the body is more beat up now (two autopsies might have something to do with that). I thought that he was brutally beaten to death. Now the damage is worse but the corner says even now it's not enough for a brutual beating to have taken place. Sheesh. As soon as they figure they can't sue for one thing, fabricate something else. There is no story here, just angry idiots frankly. The mother today said she no longer believes in Canada and doesn't want to be a Canadian, right there on the 6:00 news. Funny that she said it with an accent. Buh bye. It looked suspicious when the family that was so vocal about this all over the news suddenly didn't want to release the autopsy report, must have been something they didn't like.

It's safe to say all countries in one way or another have unfair trading policies. Link Free trade should be in reality free trade. If others aren't willing to step up to the plate why should we?

And I'll continue to bitch at someone who consciously makes a selfish mistake such as getting pregnant and expecting society to foot the bill. Close the legs and/or use birth control then the problem only applies to rape victims which then I can see covering the costs for an abortion.

So what your saying is for the women who don't choose to use birth control while having sex not to worry if you get pregnant, someone else will pay for your mistake. What the hell is this Russia??? For someone who has been audited for 80,000 dollars I find that attitude extremely offensive. Why should I pay for someone who is too dumb to keep their legs shut or use birth control??? Some women can die from complications due to pregnancy. she shouldn't have to die because of an idealism like that, especially if she didn't want it in the first place. She shouldn't be forced into 9 months of torture as well, I wouldn't want to carry a baby especially one I don't want. If people took sex more seriously and weren't so selfish we wouldn't have these problems. Call 1900 society oppressive, but I'm pretty sure there weren't a lot of unwanted pregnancies in those days. Having choices also means having responsibility and realizing the consequences of your actions. An innocent life shouldn't be brought into the world and neglected/unwanted all because missy wants a piece of ass.

The tories could use this to their political advantage, by slamming Mexico and sticking up for their countrymen they could get their approval rating up. Look at what Danny Williams did to Paul McCartney with the Seal Hunt.

I consider that baby to be a person who is entitled to their own rights as an individual regardless if it's in or out of the stomach. If the mother does not want to care for the child, then the state shall and take the baby away where it can be cared for by loving parents. You are right for the most part as far as the baby's rights go, but I have concerns. If the mom does not want to care for the child and wants to terminate the pregnancy should the state be performing C-sections on women during their first trimester, I think the woman wouldn't like being forced into surgery or being forced to give birth. If a woman doesn't want to care for a child she should take appropriate measures to combat that like abstinence and birth control. Then again there is rape which refutes the previous point.

Yes, American Protectionism will always be #1 in the minds of all elected officials. What Canada can look forward to is winning more in NAFTA and WTO rulings only to cave in under the pressure. Canada's Federal Government proven itself weak in this regards. Canada can win all the rulings until judgement day. I'd like to see anyone try to make the americans comply. That would be like a science nerd trying to boss around a linebacker.

No. That would make the whole family poor. Let me put it in an other different way: when parents play favorites, the family falls apart. However, I doubt this analogy will make any difference in your understanding. I suggest taking a high-school economics course. Some people have it in there head that it is best to "buy local" to insure our "money stays in Canada" but that is the height of absurdity. My sister does woodworking for a hobby. Should I get her to make my bookshelves? It takes her a year to complete one shelf and she butchers half of the planks of wood she touches. By the way, I can only afford cheap wafer-board prices and my sister only knows how to use hard-woods. None of that matters. Can anybody understand what MarGrace is trying to convey? Spending the money outside the family and not getting any back makes the family poor. How is it playing favorites when the siblings are going to end up getting their money back? You are also assuming that all stuff made locally is inefficient, that is absurd and you know it. I'd like to see any farmer overseas attempt to match me and my neighbours for efficiency and quality in grain and canola production. Some people also have it in their head that since they are the consumer they are entitled to rock bottom prices for whatever they want. You want something you don't have, you pay for it, bottom line. Link The mexicans in the article did things your way, and look at them now, a country with a broken ag economy and poorer people for it, all because they didn't want to buy locally, now the only people benefitting are american corn producers. Had supply management been in place this would not have happened. The mexican corn producers would be benefitting, the consumers would not be gouged by high priced (due to lack of competition) imports that they could have made themselves. Your idea of economics is similar to feudalism. With supply management there is a maximum and a minimum which one produces.

I buy it, I've seen it happen with my own eyes. I'll say with all the people I know that smoke pot 75% went on to worse stuff because of the same reason they tried pot in the first place. It's not worth the gov'ts time to be pissing around wasting time and money decriminizing/legalizing it. There are more issues that are way more important than that. If you don't want a record then don't do the crime, it's that easy.

Just one thing though, do non-catholics attend catholic schools? Aren't catholic schools fairly large and a lot of people go to catholic schools. Are religion classes mandatory there or can you take other classes. If that's the case they are a school similar to public schools, more similar than others...

Actually, free trade to some degree has allowed a much more efficient solution to develop. Oil costs money to transport, actually in pipelines it costs alot of money to transport. To send our oil to hubs in the Midwest is costly, but people in the Midwest are pretty much in a geographical situation where it must be piped to them. So we do. Now looking at Eastern Canada or Toronto, it's much cheaper to transport oil in tankers... however suprising that may sound, people don't account for the massive costs of pipelines building, maintenance and land issues. So you get your oil from the Gulf Coast US, Venezuela or North Sea/Norway (possibly some Middle East oil in there too). Proximity to the St. Lawerence Seaway gives you cheaper oil, adding the additional transportation costs through pipeline would add perhaps 2% to the cost of your oil... that's a big deal in the big picture. It's a rather good (with some exceptions) market solution that gives Alberta more money in profits, Ontario cheaper oil and the US a secure supply. That having been said wouldn't it be cheaper still and better for our economy to open up the East Coast Oil reserves then?

Oh, you clueless but are as opinionated as a fat girl when it comes to ice cream anyway. You want proof - go find it yourself. 1) Importing when we are a net exporter doesn't make sense, it's a waste of our dollars going to another country when it could be spend here. 2) A fat girl wouldn't have an opinion on ice cream as it's all good. 3) Not backing up your claims without proof is no good, I'd like to thank Madmax for putting up some numbers

No, there are no Muslim men with 5 wives, because having 5 wives is illegal under Islamic law. The maximum number of wives a Muslim man can have is 4. With Muslim men in Canada, instead of "These are my 3 wives" it's usually "This is my wife and this is her sister and this is their cousin". Those are some pretty wild allegations, for someone who is all about political correctness and all that malarkey, I wouldn't even go that far.

It's the result of the FTA and the backlash to the NEP of the 80s. Oil is sold to the Market, where Canada has been the #1 Supplier to the USA. We then have to import oil at market prices. From the Canadian Association of Petroleum Products. Exports: Crude Oil: 1.58 million barrels per day Imports: Crude Oil: 927,000 barrels per I don't know why you wouldn't believe it. Probably because it doesn't make any sense in a Nationalistic Sense. But I am certain Geoffery can provide the economic details. He's proven to me he is pretty solid in this regards. Why not buy our own oil at market price and boost our economy? Importing while we're a net exporter don't look that good. Wouldn't we save money on transport costs?

WTF are you talking about? Your oil goes to the US. We buy very little of it and most of our oil comes from overseas. That makes as much sense as a fat girl who has a career in nutrition. Why would we as a net exporter of oil import oil? We export Canola oil to Europe for biodiesel now for goodness sakes. I don't believe that at all and would like some proof.