blueblood

I think that would be an extra handling cost that would end up making the oil more expensive. Better to one stop shop.

We did it before, it was give is your money or starve.

The microwave is only good for making things somewhat warm. You get the hot on the outside cool on the inside phenomenon with it, and when you think about it the microwave is primarily used in prepping food that isn't that healthy or warming up leftovers. It's funny in the fifties there was pop and candy all over the place, but people's attitudes toward them were different. It was a rare treat and gave much more satisfaction because it was consumed so rarely. Notice there wasn't an obesity epidemic in those days. Its not about losing pounds, it's about less inches on the calipers.

I think it's pretty much electronic now anyway, and any transaction I make is more easily trackable than ever which makes accounting far easier. I find it's getting more and more so anyway. If you watch the Peter schiff goes to OWS videos, he makes an interesting point. It's not the lobbying that's the problem, as lobbying is a logical activity. The problem is gov't having created so much power to have for sale in the first place. Look at it this way, if gov't wasn't so large and powerful as it created for itself; what would the lobbyists be getting?

If we had the money in Canada, we would have been able to buy potashcorp and not have to have gov't intervention. 2 refineries would be what the stimulus was and would have not employed as much people as this one is trying to do. The nuke power plants were cheaper back in the day, less red tape, and govts willing to go into deficit to pay for it.

Apparently they got seif al Islam, and they plan on keeping him alive this time. Ctv

Except refineries cost 10s of billions of dollars to build and that kind of free capital to start a project like that doesn't exist in Canada. It's far more efficient to refine the products where the customers are because each of the refined products are a separate product and can't be transported together. Like you said it's only 2 billion to upgrade a USA refinery vs. Tens of billions and red tape to set one up here.

Was there outrage at pot prohibition in the 1930's. No, it was all about the booze, now it's all about pot. If pot becomes like alcohol, what's next? I don't want to take that chance. These things take decades to go through, look at it long term. The number of people buying legal tobacco depends on the tax rate. We want less people smoking altogether in general, not an increase of revenue through sin taxes. Why the big push to decriminalize pot? What did people try fitting in at high school by getting high, and now they want to fit in with society, is that it? That experiment with the free for all with mind altering substances was tried and society was most definitely worse off because of it.

No central banking doesn't need to end. There needs to be central bankers who can accept that they can't change reality, the central banks have a purpose, arbitrarily setting interest rates isn't one of them.

I left the door wide open for that one!

The branding nightmare returns! Oh for piss sakes!!! I disagree with OWS and their methods, but they are most certainly not black block. They are not ripping up the city. At least look at the facts of what they are doing. At least yesterday when they were protesting, they kept it civil.

If you decriminalize one, you have to do it for all the rest. Pot is the line, like alcohol used to be. Decriminalizing pot would lead to people doing harder drugs. Far better for the cops to be chasing around something that doesn't have near as bad effects as cocaine or heroin. I've seen what effects pot has on people, laziness, paranoia, lung problems, and memory issues. One of my neighbors is an old hippy who is probably high all the time. His work doesn't get done, his cows are barely fed, and he lives basically off of crop insurance, which screws everybody over because of high premiums to cover people like him. If you tax pot like you say you want to, your still going to get a black market with tax free pot just like the cigarettes, and we have more high lazy people to deal with.

And if I report to the cops and say some kids are smoking weed by the movie theatre, tell me are the cops going to haul ass to the movie theatre?

Fat people at least are somewhat productive in society. A heroin addict on the downtown east side not so much. If we're to have a public health system then a fat tax of some sort would make some sense as to help cover their medical costs, but that's about all the problems fat people do. An addict is a far bigger problem. Driving bad is also illegal. You drive bad enough and jail time is a possibility. One only needs to look at the late 1800s for evidence at what a free for all concerning drug use can do. I think drug users aren't condemned enough for their stupidity. The legal side is the only area that they receive consequences. They are given a free pass in the media and in society as misunderstood. If they were treated the same way we treat smokers, there wouldn't be a drug problem to begin with.

Except in the long run society pays for drug users even if they don't get caught. Your from bc, taken a drive down to vancouver's east side? Your idea is running away when a problem arises. If you think That people should be free to do drugs, then society should be free from bailing the drug users out when they OD, get hurt, end up homeless, etc. And I didn't say a crackhead stole the stereo in my situation... As a gun owner you know all the laws and restrictions that go with owning a firearm, and if you screw up they seize and melt that firearm. Your use of a firearm has a far less chance of harming society than if you were to start using drugs, especially some of the ones that get a person addicted after the first use. Not only that drug use can affect one's ability/decision making when in possession of a firearm.

You do know that Canadians have done better with republicans in the white house than dems?

Of course banks don't like large reserves, that's why the interest rate in a free market would drop to encourage more borrowing which is the banks income stream. A borrower would like to go to a bank with large reserves because theoretically that borrower should be getting the more attractive interest rate as the bank has sound money to borrow out. However there gets to be too much money in the economy and liquidity dries up, the problem is instead of rates rising and people saving to correct that, the printing press gets fired up. IMO the free market can mandate reserve levels by having interest rates rise and fall accordingly. The problem is when someone thinks they know what rates should be and artificially sets them, which plays havoc with reserve levels through open market operations and increased borrowing when there should be savings. IMO interest rates should be set by market as to send signals to people in the economy on what to do with their finances.

The concern is not of specific people down the street, it's a lot of people on a lot of streets that are messed up on drugs that are costing society. The drug laws are a method of deterrence, although it doesn't deter enough. What business is it of yours if someone down the street gets their stereo stolen?

I'm sure if you studied the comings and goings of the late 1800s you can understand why there was pressure put on govts to do something about mind altering substances.

And no mortgages there. Have you ever walked in one of those communities? It's what happens when You have big government running all aspects of life.

Welcome to the club. I've been posting his stuff for some time.

The rising interest rates would encourage savings which should build up reserves for future lending. I agree that there would be fewer borrowers, but there has to be a sweet spot at which there are enough borrowers paying highest possible rates to ensure max recapitalization of banks. Its been theorized that the low yuan has benefitted the USA consumer by the usa getting rock bottom prices for goods at the expense of more expensive usa labor. I think if the yuan rises, the chinese worker gets more purchasing power and thus goods from said factories should become more expensive, in the short term hurting the usa economy's spending power, and prolonging getting out of the woods.

NCAA investigating Penn State. Interestingly football is worth approx 75 million to that school. If the NCAA institutes the death penalty, it might be a death penalty for the school.

I have a question. Wouldn't it be more efficient for central bankers to set interest rates based on market values instead of arbitrarily low to try and inflate one's self out of a recession? Take now these days, banks had lent out too much money because of low interest rates and now are trying to recoup those loans, why not let the rates rise, let the banks build up reserves to the point that they need to make loans to get their income stream back going. Yes, I know its harsh and things will slow down, but how else do you get out of this without creating a further bubble down the road? It was tried in 1920-21 and in the early 80s. I think had there been higher interest rates in 2001-2002, the recession would have been a little worse, but debts would have been paid and the market would have regulated the housing market by having interest payments out of the affordable range of people who shouldn't have bought houses in the first place.

I hope you mean the nva got the pyhrric victory as they won the war while essentially losing their army.