myata

You're given the choice of a two-year old. You grumble and whine, like a two-year old and still eat it, what you're given on a plate, time after time. Yeah let's have this stinky soup looks slightly better than the other one, gone rotten through and over. How is it not an objective, factual picture? Nope, nothing personal.

Yep "overall" on paper inflation sure. Bell dings you for 1% more every six months. Union comes to get their extra %% on every renewal. Monopolistic grocery, construction and gas etc suppliers like why should we be left out of the party? Hurray we have an "overall" inflation of 2% here! Hope you getting your automatic annual rise - like us, out of your pocket. Show must go on! My Internet provider hasn't changed rates in years. I guess they could have bumped it up a buck or two, but it wouldn't eat up terribly into their bottom line and they value the relation with the customer higher. Why would Bell do that, if and as soon as they can squeeze extra buck from millions of their customers? Monopoly economics and "overall" inflation, only an innocent coincidence.

For unknown years or centuries, news industry in the world worked this way: you ask for a permission to reprint a news item or article; or you refer to the news from another source, citing it and no cash involved. Then, Trudeau's Liberals in their supreme and all-encompassing wisdom decided to change that. Like making everybody pay everybody would be a total nonsensical mess and they would be a laughing stock of the world. But, they figured, they could go after the big fish. Maybe their buddies in the great Canadian quasi- pseudo- "independent"" media - as seen live in the past couple of years, inspired them for the courageous act? And now look who's screaming foul. There cannot be not a slightest doubt that Meta, Instagram, Google etc are producers of media content on a scale greatly superior to the traditional media. Traditional media, if they seek attention of the consumers should promote their content in the social media platforms, not antagonize them. I have zero interest and tolerance to Liberal know better than yourself highhanded policies. It looks and smells more and more as clueless to the point of dumb; counterproductive; and self-serving way to govern. Good luck with the election campaign by the way. Hope Meta and Google will take note and give it a deserving thought.

It's just a fact of this life, yes a smart three-year old won't choose between a sucky porridge and a smelly soup. They could say no, don't want either. An average five year old will do just that, for sure. And you're stuck picking between less sucky of the only two options that someone gives you, for perpetuity and no change allowed. Again for the lesser of the two oh suck but have to what can one do. So how smart does that make you, for the grown up folk? See it's only the objective reality of it nothing personal. Just maybe not that you see in that funny mirror.

The pre-inflation ones. You have to try real hard to prove that the production cost of potatoes grown in Canada has gone up to 50% in just a few years. Same with bread, peaches etc. You're still paying the same, the cheapest possible or very close for the labor. Maybe the fertilizer gone up some and transportation but its fraction of a cent, per unit. So why 50%? Distribution costs? Why the cost of distribution has to hike 50%? Not until I see it line by line will I believe in the "global" ghosts of inflation. Much more likely guess hurray 'inflation', yes we can. Right, unfortunately you've never seen what a real, free and competitive market is like. Or long forgot. Prices are different. Players compete. You can find places with good deals. Real market does that. In a pseudo-market, they never go back. Why would they, who's interested?

Maybe in precise economy studies the terminology makes difference and you're correct of course, but by "monopolistic" I generally mean a part of economy that is controlled by a small number of agents and their interests, rather than free market forces. The difference can be seen immediately in the behavior. In a genuine free market prices move up and down because agents genuinely compete; and in a pseudo-market oligopoly they move mostly one way; once reached certain level there's no incentive for the players to reduce them. I can and want to be proven wrong, if after the pandemic crisis and this new inflation one we will begin to see normal prices for groceries, gas etc. But having an idea of Canadian economy, wouldn't count on it.

But that's in you mirror too.. the same funny one where 2+1 is an impossible can of worms never to be touched with a 100-miles stick. So what do you know, really?

You aren't only talking about it; living it too probably from day one and for as long as you're here. Monopoly sure oligopoly paradise.

Sure except... how would you know that? By seeing things in that mirror, the greatest ever, top of the world, made perfectly right from the cradle no need to grow up, learn or do anything? Good luck!

You must know a thing or two about sadness. All of the democratic world has learned to count past two long ago and for you it's still an impossible feat. Good luck!

A small number of players controlling large part of the market. 3 / 80% or 5 / 65 is details. And now, the examples?

Oh horror horror 2 + 2 no such a can of worms and GG wouldn't approve

What further qualifications are you needing? Grocery monopolies? Gas? Construction monopolies (in the city had to bump up the tag couple of billions apparently because everybody's been so busy couldn't stoop to pick up); communications? media? No we can make it more fun: name one or two essential product / service that is not controlled by some sort of monopoly.

Of course, it's only obvious logic. Once the populace, for whatever plausible cause, got used to "temporary" higher prices there's absolutely no reason, none at all for the monopoly to reduce them even when the cost pressure eases. It'll find 1,001 reasons why the drop in the "global" rate that caused it in the first place should have no effect on the current prices. And of course, not me just saying. Look at the mobile and Internet rates in a "controlled" price area. I get Internet in Europe for 10 Euro / $15. How many more decades, or centuries? you would need to pay an entitled expensive restaurant regular client ombudsh@ck obscene salaries and benefits to see a microscopically detectable change in the prices? I know the answer.

Like a monopoly for example. The "global" prices are going up hurray!... ... what, "market" "down", sorry can't hear you try again some time have to run.

Oh right, I understand the problem here... it's counting above two sure. Yes, makes sense. Smart three year olds can do it, most at five year. So a democracy for two-year olds, politically how would it look like? Just leave it to the adults dear, here the sucker.

So when the "global factors" ease off, the prices will go down here. Like, "global" bread or potato prices. Right? Right?!!!

What would it take to understand that the whole notion of running a country without any real accountability, like kings of old, in this age is sheer unbelievable nonsense? The sticker, label, band aid doesn't matter.. who wants to wake up?

Stick a bandaid on an old rusty and throttling thingy and hope it'll run as new again (fixing it or get a new one? No no not possible). We can always hope, right? Let's try... again!

Restricting the choice to the barest minimum; funny counting; dissatisfaction and disappointment with the performance of unaccountable and irresponsible governments gives an illusion, an empty facade of strong support and confident governance. Little else; or nothing. Someone figured out a while back that yes, you can do that rather than competing fairly and earning the mandate to govern in a fair competition against worthy opponents every time. This is like lightyears different.. another political and social universe. Those funny "parties" feel proud getting 35% of the vote giving them unconditional and unrestricted powers to govern, a "landslide". But wait, we have only 2+ parties, so the average share of vote would be 100 / 3 comes to same thing, a bit less (screw up) or more (your twin buddy screwed up hurray, "landslide" and you didn't even have to do anything). How would they perform in a fair competition with ten or more parties that are actually focused on citizens interests, with a fair, objective vote counting? Would they get even ten percent? Get past the threshold? No you can't tell: it a big unknown they wouldn't let anyone to know. Nothing is real here. Mirages, shadows and facades. Yes this is the main reason why any meaningful change is so difficult to come by here. Yes, it's that stupid and not much else. Wanna play?

And capable of erasing the public debt and boost the stagnating economy all in one magical pass? Wow, what could people think.

The ages old idea of turning an ideological program into an instrument of power. Old and boring; and yet the society bought into it without much struggle almost naturally.

So again, on the election prospects in the greatest democratic system - you rule like some king of old, no checks, accountability, balances or controls but with a circus period (this was important for some reason but we forgot). Till you screw up as many time as you like or can obviously, because see above. - some folks, 10-20% get p*ssed off with you eventually and swing. So the other guy, your twin buddy gets a "landslide" majority. - he rules like some king of old till... From landslide to landslide (or screw up to screw up, more or less same thing see above). Wanna play, again?

Any time. And now, something to go to the elections" with, proudly.

Wouldn't you want to ask another question: why? Like, why it was so easy, in the true, north, strong and free?