White Doors

Perhaps you forgot the various treaties that were signed and the reductions in sulfur emissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emiss...uction_Protocol Do you have citations for it being all nonsense? You still think it came from ducks? haha rich! perhaps you forget that these historic treaties were signed by two 'new-cons'? hilarious.

"At Quebec City, the two sides appointed special envoys to study the acid rain problem. The Americans saw this as being enough to mollify Ottawa at that time. Mr. Reagan wasn’t convinced acid rain was a problem. At a National Security Council meeting he pointed out “we haven’t had air as clean as we now have for decades.”" http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editoria.../2004/0915.html Acid rain and pollution all in one comment. You're suggesting that the right wing was an early believer in air pollution and acid rain? Citation for that? Brian Mulruney was awarded as the greenest PM in history and he is conservative. you can find your own 'citation'. it was common news.

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years. That's a head scratcher ain't it?

How would you do that, pray tell? and at whose expense? "Here dollar-dollar-dollar! Here dollar-dollar-dollar!" Excellent! Why would we want to DIScourage our buyers by ENcouraging a high dollar? As Riverwind said, when our dollar is low more people buy more of our stuff. This is a good thing. Unless you want to see a foreign company buy CTV.. How about GLOBAL? National Post? G&M? Toronto Star? As a liberal ultra-nationalist, do you have ANY idea what you are advocating here? I agree with equal markets and low trade barriers but do you? I doubt it. None of these companies are protected by federal foreign ownership rules. A cheaper dollar makes them much cheaper for a foreign company to purchase them however.

Wishful thinking. Many Canadian businesses have built a business model around a certain cost structure. You cannot expect businesses to change suddenly simply because the dollar decided to increase by 40% over two years. In the long term Canada is better off with a stronger currency, however, the sudden and unpredicatable changes create havoc in the short term. People who cheer the dollars rise should consider that. I would not complain about the same appreciation if it happened over 10 years instead of 2. it is true that the pace of change wether higher or lower is the cause for concern, however it has been proven that a higher dollar is better for our economic health.

How would you do that, pray tell? and at whose expense? "Here dollar-dollar-dollar! Here dollar-dollar-dollar!" Through interest rate policy for one but I can tell that you are not in the mood for a serious discussion. I think that there may be an off topic forum for toddlers. You can go there if you like.

Aye

But it is these same 'details' that it is apprent you did not look at AT ALL. Bell and Telus were pushing to be able to compete with the cable companies on fair grounds. The days of Stentor are gone. You don't need a phone line to have a phone anymore. You don't even need a landline anymore. This deregulation is reflecting that new reality. The Cable companies have a very large head start as they have more bandwidth into your home. It will take alot of $$$ for the Telco's to catch up.

Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place. Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them. Nowadays, people who want governments to nationalize or direct major industries exist only on university campuses, on Internet forums or in Cuba. ---- And Saturn, would please stop destroying otherwise good threads by clicking on reply and copying previous posts? ??? Are you saying that replying somehow damages the threads? I suppose not replying will make for a great discussion. You can always put me on your "ignore" list. In fact, the govenment created legislated monopolies, so you are darn wrong. Creating monopolies and then deregulating and letting them do whatever is best for them is not good for the consumer. It is the govenment's business to ensure that there is enough competition first and then to deregulate second. All the new changes do is remove regulations that were placed to ensure that newcomers to the industry are not shut out by the industry giants. This is why the industry giants fought and lobbied so hard to overturn these regulations. They don't want to share the industry with anyone else - they want to stifle competition before it even begins. Sorry, i didn't see where Rogers was shut out of the phone market. Lawst I checked they were doing very well. Why shoudl Roger's be unfettered with local phone service and Bell and Telus not? Again you're lack of knowledge on this subject is startling especially for someone that is taking such an adversarial approach to it. One would expect you to have at least done your homework.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $). What about in rural Canada where there is only 1 provider... I'm screwed Well, in rural Canada you'll get an almost immediate increase in prices so that your provider can charge below cost in urban areas to undercut the competition. In effect, you'll be subsidizing the good deals city dwellers will get. Sorry. Again, you are simply wrong. Telco's remain regulated in rural markets where there are less then 3 providers. Does your partisan clap-trap always end up getting your foot in your mouth?

A 40% rise in the dollar over 2 years affected every business that exports goods or services. This includes manufacturing but it also includes tourism and software development. The only reason resource companies were not screwed was because resource prices rose as well. However, you will see a lot of carnage in the BC forest sector in the next couple years as the price of wood drops faster than the dollar.Anyone who thinks a rapid rise in the exchange rate is a good thing should give their head a shake. Well call me a fool but I would like our natural reource RAW exports to be expensive but our 'value added'- exports be competitive. Any economist worth his salt will tell you the same for long term economic health. Your looking at it the wrong way. Capital allowances similar to the oilsands development need to be extended to heavy oil refiners in Canada. Agreed 100%. Not sure how I am 'looking about it the wrong way' though. add the value here, I'm sick of sending raw materials to other countries. If they want to buy it, let them buy the finished product as much as we possibly can.

How would you do that, pray tell? and at whose expense? "Here dollar-dollar-dollar! Here dollar-dollar-dollar!" Excellent! Why would we want to DIScourage our buyers by ENcouraging a high dollar? As Riverwind said, when our dollar is low more people buy more of our stuff. This is a good thing. Unless you want to see a foreign company buy CTV.. How about GLOBAL? National Post? G&M? Toronto Star? As a liberal ultra-nationalist, do you have ANY idea what you are advocating here? I agree with equal markets and low trade barriers but do you? I doubt it.

A 40% rise in the dollar over 2 years affected every business that exports goods or services. This includes manufacturing but it also includes tourism and software development. The only reason resource companies were not screwed was because resource prices rose as well. However, you will see a lot of carnage in the BC forest sector in the next couple years as the price of wood drops faster than the dollar.Anyone who thinks a rapid rise in the exchange rate is a good thing should give their head a shake. Well call me a fool but I would like our natural reource RAW exports to be expensive but our 'value added'- exports be competitive. Any economist worth his salt will tell you the same for long term economic health.

Saturn, I don't know what you are trying to argue with that post quoting some academic who quoted extensively the NDP critic Charlie Angus on broadcasting.The fact is the telecoms are amongst the biggest schmoozers in the business. Rogers and Bell and the others played both sides of the street contributing both to the Liberals and the Tories. They all have former senior civil servants in their ranks, often with experience from the CRTC. If you are trying to suggest that the telecoms are influencing government policy, you're about 40 years too late. The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. It exists to protect the telecom industry. Bernier has signaled that this protection racket is about to end. Ottawa CitizenModern technology means that there is an abundance of competition in all the various media markets. If the CRTC ever had a reason for being, it certainly does not have one now. From the same article: Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now. P.S. As for the "academic" quoting NDP critic so and so, you are free to get Oda's donations from Elections Canada. Academic or not, the list of donations won't change. Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

Don't make me laugh. In the real world increasing marketshare is most often accomplished by buying the competition. ......and please, if you don't understand the pressures on CEOs to improve shareholder value, leave your strawmen at the door. Well they should feel the pressure of the shareholders to increase value! The shareholders are the boss of the CEO - as it should be. Tell me what is inherently wrong with increasing shareholder value? Perhaps you should do less laughing and more explaining.

No way would Chretien have sent troops to Iraq, ever. He only sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the reconstruction and since Steve has been voted in our troops are at war. Steve just spent $217 million to send our tanks to Afghanistan. Do you know how many rusting Russian tanks dot the countryside over there? STRAW MAN ARGUEMENT DETECTED! What are you saying? That the one squadron of the outdated Leopard tanks out of a total of 66 in the CF will be left to rot in the sandbox? Or that all the tanks that go to Afghanistan get destroyed? Or that we should be attempting to use the old Russian T-34 and T-54's lying around there? haha

Yet, I laugh and laugh.....sorry, they want both, cause, you know, that's what the shareholders want too.... eh? Increasing market share is most often done though offering a superior product at a low price. This deregulation allows more companies to do this. You think this is bad? Do you understnad what you are talkign about here? Why are shareholders bad? I bet that %60 of the people on this forum have shares in the afreomentioned companies.

wrong. it's vital to our manufacturing economy, not our resource based economy. True. I bet with every cent it falls the manufacturing companies breathe a sigh of relief. i think we shoudl encourage a higher dollar and give affected companies tax incentives to become mroe efficient. Relying on a lower dollar makes them complacent.

wrong. it's vital to our manufacturing economy, not our resource based economy.

An attack on me or my family will be treated as a lethal threat and dealt with accordingly. what he said.

The consumer will not get "competition". Competition is bad for monopolists/oligopolists. If we were getting more competition through these changes, the industry giants would be quite opposed to the changes - not supporting them. Again - you are simply wrong. They were fighting for less regulation so that they would be able to offer 'bundles' like the cable companies can for example. They want market share, not higher prices. Clearly you are way over your head here. Maybe try another topic to spread your socilast clap-trap because it's not working here.

CBCThat's how the CBC would choose to present this decision. I would say rather that my vote for the Conservatives has been vindicated and only a Conservative minister from Quebec could do this. Dion Liberals couldn't. Whatever Harper's government does in its short mandate, this decision implies the greatest long term effects for Canada. Hats off to Bernier. Well, time will bear out whether this benefits the customer or not. But when such policy choices are made, they should also be accompanied by removal of artificial barriers to entry as well. Do you know what the current competitive status is? Can any Canadian company work anywhere? Can US phone companies serve us? If these restraints remain in place, then Bernier's policy will not really be fair to consumers. No, but that's what conservative policy on "competition" amounts to: Let the private monopolies run things the way they want and then "argue" that this will somehow benefit the consumer. So you are in favour of the government reulate how much you pay for your phone service? Let me ask you this - Did you pay mroe or less for Long distance calls before competition or after? California let such "competition" in its electricity market and consumers ended up paying 5 times as much for electricity. Here we are not talking about allowing more competition (which is good for the consumer), we are talking about letting the current industry players charge us more for the same services. If it was about competition, the big players wouldn't be working so hard to change the rules - competition is bad for them. Well not only are you blindingly partisan, you are simply un-educated about the issue (i'm sure you could care less however). The CRTC forced the big players to charge MORE. The big players were fighting to be able to charge LESS. I'd call you an idiot but your posts here clearly make that assertion on my behalf.

Or could we could have a civil war. Use the American example and kill for what you believe in. Don't be a surrender monkey. Canada can hardly be said to have never killed for what it believes in. Cut the juvenile crap. Makes you look like an idiot.

Saturn, I don't know what you are trying to argue with that post quoting some academic who quoted extensively the NDP critic Charlie Angus on broadcasting.The fact is the telecoms are amongst the biggest schmoozers in the business. Rogers and Bell and the others played both sides of the street contributing both to the Liberals and the Tories. They all have former senior civil servants in their ranks, often with experience from the CRTC. If you are trying to suggest that the telecoms are influencing government policy, you're about 40 years too late. The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. It exists to protect the telecom industry. Bernier has signaled that this protection racket is about to end. Ottawa CitizenModern technology means that there is an abundance of competition in all the various media markets. If the CRTC ever had a reason for being, it certainly does not have one now. The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. But the consumer still has some minor influence over the CRTC through voting and opponents to the industry have someone to lobby too. The removal of the CRTC means that voters will have absolutely zero influence over it and the consumer will the stuck with and forced to consume the BS the industry shoves down our throats. Switch your provider and vote with your $$. Is everything so partisan in your world? must be a small, sad world.

CBCThat's how the CBC would choose to present this decision. I would say rather that my vote for the Conservatives has been vindicated and only a Conservative minister from Quebec could do this. Dion Liberals couldn't. Whatever Harper's government does in its short mandate, this decision implies the greatest long term effects for Canada. Hats off to Bernier. Well, time will bear out whether this benefits the customer or not. But when such policy choices are made, they should also be accompanied by removal of artificial barriers to entry as well. Do you know what the current competitive status is? Can any Canadian company work anywhere? Can US phone companies serve us? If these restraints remain in place, then Bernier's policy will not really be fair to consumers. No, but that's what conservative policy on "competition" amounts to: Let the private monopolies run things the way they want and then "argue" that this will somehow benefit the consumer. So you are in favour of the government reulate how much you pay for your phone service? Let me ask you this - Did you pay mroe or less for Long distance calls before competition or after?