Wild Bill

The portion of the price that goes to the retailer is "mice nuts", likely maybe .02/litre. I've had some experience in that industry and I would say that the price fixing is not done at the retail level but rather at the wholesaler/refinery level. Consider, even the independents have to buy their product from the same refineries as the chain logos. If the Shell refinery says that you are going to sell at $1.40/litre then even Ma's Gas Station is going to comply. If she doesn't she won't get any product to sell. Things can be made even more complicated by using things like volume rebates. This works by having a wholesale price as high or higher than the retail. You buy at $1.42/litre and are expected to sell for $1.38! Your profit comes when the volume of your purchases from the refinery is calculated. If you exceed a certain amount then you get a rebate of .08/litre or whatever. Now you have a profit. The snag is that some retailers may get better volume rebates than others. If the big boys at the refinery don't like you for breaking ranks with retail pricing... I'm not saying this is exactly how it is done, just one possible way. There are countless others. We ordinary folks who don't play in that game usually have very naive assumptions of how the business works. We're supposed to! That's the way the players like it.

I'm surprised that you would forgive them for breaking the law. Most law officers tend to vote Conservative.

You state that "Elections Canada is not biased against the CPC " as if it's a fact, like the sun rising in the east. Is that not rather your own opinion? If this is your premise then to say " And that really is the bottom line - gloss over it how you will." is really more of a religious than a logical argument. You know, where YOU accept that the Bible is literal truth so therefore your argument is absolute and can't be refuted. There ARE some valid reasons to suspect Elections Canada has a bias! If you want to believe on faith then that's your own business but you've given a very weak reason to convince someone else.

I wasn't aware that the entire "right wing" felt that way. I guess you must know them all in order to make that blanket generalization. Does that mean the "left wing" prefers to ignore ALL violence, while NO ONE is afraid? I've been lumped into that "rightwing" category and from some of your earlier posts I was quite surprised to find out that I must be religious! More than that, I must belong to an American fundamentalist christian church! Seriously, when I hear words such as yours it sounds like you are emphasizing perception rather than reality, as if there's no problem except too many people are listening to scaremongers so therefore no action should be taken. Or as if that necessary action should be to cheerlead, rather than examine if our courts or legal system are being effective. In other words, the problem is how we all FEEL about it! If I've misunderstood you, please explain.

Not true! Britain paid her war debts. How do you think Uncle Sam got Hawaii in the first place? De Gaulle, now. That's a different story. Not a friggin' dime!

Well, in the situation back then there was next to no time to have developed increased demand for diesel. I think it obvious that the "suits" simply panicked at the thought of a big switch towards diesel happening in the market and upped the price to remove the incentive. It was a smart business move. Even if more diesel engines showed up because diesel was cheaper to refine anyway they would make MORE profit! Ordinarily when someone cites supply and demand with prices I tend to agree but oil is a special case. We have an oligopoly, not a free market. The entire 20th Century developed modern energy sources as coming from large central suppliers. You end up with consumers dependent on a relative few sources. This is a much easier market to control. You can have gentlemen's agreements respected with no need for written agreements that might cause legal problems. Back in Edison's time there were small independent electricity generators all over the place. Here in Canada few today know that people like Sir Adam Beck who developed sources like Niagara Falls and founded public companies like Ontario Hydro were doing so to deliberately drive independents out of the market. Their hearts may have been pure in thinking that they were "protecting the common man from those evil profit-mongering capitalists" but they were naive in believing that a large public company would not only always act in the public interest but INTELLIGENTLY act in such interest! What they really achieved was to limit the common man's choices, by restricting the number of competitive players. As with electricity came gas and oil. There are not that many players in the market and even fewer refinery sources. No matter what form of energy becomes standard, as long as it comes from only a few large central sources the ordinary Joe will be bled as much as possible, just short of killing him. His only hope is to have his own independent supply, like a solar roof and/or his own wind generator. Or maybe that trash-eating "Mr. Fusion" generator in that time-traveling DeLorean...

That's simple! Governments don't want to pay the price of enforcing their laws. What can they do? Blockade all the roads in and out of reserves and stop/search every car? Bust every blue-haired old bingo playing grandma for buying cheap smokes? Do you really think the natives would just stand back and say "Oh well!"? It's huge criminal money! It's all very well to point out that the crime is in non-natives buying contraband but not only do natives cheerfully sell to non-natives they would likely get EXTREMELY agitated if RCMP tried to stop non-natives from being able to buy from them! Governments seem not to have learned from the last time this happened in the early 90's. Political hypocrits up the taxes and use saving our health as an excuse. Most smokers are well aware of this and have simply lost such respect for governments in this area that they no longer feel guilty about buying contraband. Who can blame them? The article in the link cites the number of illegal smokes as 1 in 3. It's been my experience that such estimates are usually much lower than the real number. I think it was around Mulroney's time when Canadians finally lost faith in "the System". Before that, for the most part we trusted the cops and courts, governments in general and paid our taxes, albeit grudgingly. Today, there have just been too many scandals of crooked cops, overly lenient judges, adscams and the like for anyone to have any guilt whatsoever about cheating on tax reporting and buying contraband. I'm reminded of a similar situation in the late 70's and early 80's, with the explosion in popularity of pinball and video games. I worked in an electronic parts store and served many repairmen at our counter. They told me how anyone who wanted to buy a machine had to pay the "mob" to find them a location. They would come up with a variety store or bowling alley where you could drop your machine and you would pay them a monthly "rent". The amazing thing was that nobody minded! The mob fee was reasonable and they always found you a lucrative location, that they protected in case someone else tried to "muscle in". Meanwhile, all the government had done was to try to get everyone to install a coin counter so that they could ensure their own cut! The feeling was that BOTH outfits were forcing a tax on you but that at least the MOB gave you something worthwhile for your money! Once respect has been lost it can take a long time to earn it back. Governments today have nobody to blame but themselves for the present Canadian perception. So far none of them have shown much sign of doing anything to earn back respect but sanctimonious bleating about how smokers should not buy contraband that is more than a quantum level cheaper because it helps illegal folks is not going to cut it.

I suspect you too are old enough to remember the early 80's, not that long after the shock of OPEC. The auto companies were starting to offer Diesel models. My neighbour's grandfather used to drive a big GM sedan back and forth from Kingston to Hamilton, ON. It was a diesel and got fabulous mileage and incredible engine life. At the time diesel was a lot cheaper than regular gas. After all, regular gas is refined a few steps after diesel. Seeing VW diesels on the road didn't seem to scare the oil companies but a big model Chevy old man's car sure did. Diesel jumped up to par and later a bit above regular gas. If we have a big switch to electricity watch for electricity rates to go up too.

You've put you're finger on it! This is why we have the phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics!" It's NOT just perception! It's actual deception! Politicians and "the system" are embarrassed by attacks that things aren't working as well as they claim. People have noted increases in the amount of crime THAT MATTERS MOST TO THEM! As Argus cites, people fear crime like assault with a deadly weapon, NOT embezzling, as I mentioned! So when stats are released spokespeople pick and choose which ones to mention and highlight. The impression is given that things are working just tickety-boo. No need to address ridiculously light sentencing, no need to address the dangers of the "Projects" in areas of Toronto. Just take comfort in the fact that "crime is down". It's like saying that a part of a tropical jungle now has far fewer deaths by snakebite, after a new government snake eradication program, while the poisonous insect population may have increased tenfold. A lawyer would say that it is not a lie but a common man would consider it a deception.

Wasn't that the whole issue with the NEP? The Liberals would cheerfully pay world price to Venezuela or Libya but wanted Alberta oil for peanuts. Worse yet, we here in the East never received any Alberta oil anyway. The Liberals wouldn't pay for a pipeline. They'd rather buy foreign oil for us, sell Alberta oil west or south at a huge profit with such a low cost and use the huge windfall profits to further their own political ends.

You know, when I hear a view like yours I'm reminded of an incident in my own personal history. About 10 years ago an American electronic parts distributor opened a Canadian office in Pointe Claire, Quebec. I was hired to be a resident outside salesperson, working from my home in Ontario. After about a year or so I was talking with my boss on the phone one day and he said to me: "Don't ever let anyone tell you that we're not a Canadian company! I just cut a cheque to Revenue Canada for over half a million dollars. What's more, we're paying for our salaries and we all pay taxes on that as well!" I always thought that he had a good point. Do you really think that those foreign owned companies get to operate here tax free?

It's interesting that the overall stats about crime decreasing are highlighted in the media but the increase in violent and youth crime is mentioned not nearly so often. To some poor family living around Jane and Finch in Toronto I really don't think they care that the incidence of embezzling is down nationally. They're too worried about their kids having to dodge bullets on the street and in their schools. Oh well, I'm sure that crime will decrease dramatically very soon. The Toronto mayor is moving to ban guns and close all the gun club shooting ranges. "Gangsta" crime and deaths should immediately evaporate.

This is getting to be more and more of a common attitude. It seems to be a reflection of the dilution of our British heritage. I guess I've lived through the transition. I was born in 1952 and in those days we sang God Save Our Queen to open every school day. We all understood that we SHARED a Queen with Britain and that Britain itself did NOT rule us! We were proud of our history. One of our character traits was to be welcoming to peoples from all over the world who came to Canada for a new life. We expected them to be proud of their own memories but to adopt the mainstream Canadian culture. Somehow that all got changed. Those of us with the traditional heritage are now in the minority. Decades of Liberal policies have taught new Canadians that they are hyphenated, with -Canadian second after the hyphen and not first. Our British or even French based history was reduced or even eliminated from our schools, especially our proud service in two world wars. I'm not looking to argue about whether or not this is a good or bad thing. That's a thread that likely could never be resolved. I'm just saying two things. First, while I agree with anyone PRIVATELY supporting an immigrant heritage I'm not at all comfortable with the OFFICIAL policies towards multiculturalism and the devaluing of our traditional culture. There's little or nothing I can do about it but I certainly can refuse to kowtow to it. When people drive around town flying foreign flags from their cars, honking their horns for a soccer win I feel like putting a Canadian flag on my car and cutting into their parade! Second, when someone calls for abolishing the role of our Queen I feel just a little regretful that I helped champion multiculturalism all those years ago. It's like if you welcomed some people into your home and after a few years they want to repaint your decor and change your furniture, without giving a damn how you, the original owner, might feel about it. Oh well, that and $1.50 might get you a large Timmy's...

"Suzy! Suzy Creamcheese!" ---Mothers of Invention

I was quite shocked some years ago to learn that when StatsCan calculates its inflation family "bread basket" as its basis for inflation and living standard changes it does NOT include increases in taxes! Considering that we have experienced a HUGE increase in taxes over the time frame you posited, especially in the form of user fees and little extra taxes here and there, I wonder what that does to your equation to show how "rich" we are or used to be.

Both you and jdobbin miss my point. ALL politicians of ALL parties are suspect! Dumping on the incumbent is mere partisanship. A pox on all their houses. If by your posts you're trying to imply we should not vote Tory you're not being very logical. Sure they smell! They ALL smell! As Canadians we HAVE NO honourable choices! All we can do is pick the one that smells the least. Right now, the Liberals are still far ahead on the "Reek-Meter".

Chump change! Gagliano lost more than that falling out of his pockets onto the floors of those Montreal restaurants! I don't know if the Tories could ever equal the Liberal record! And to think they did it all without a single elected Liberal being charged...wow! That's immunity!

You know, if you truly want to spead your message have you ever considered that your sarcasm might be getting in the way? It's human nature to avoid the unpleasant. Your responses tend to be so derogatory and frankly snide and patronizing that they truly make debating with you an unpleasant experience. People tend to avoid unpleasantness, and also confuse the unpleasantness of the message with the messenger himself. It's a free country (well, that's another thread!) and it's up to you. I just thought I'd pass on my comment. Frankly, I haven't been sure if you want to educate others to your point of view or just vent your spleen.

Perhaps it has to do with WHERE each party chooses to spend money? The Tories square up with Nova Scotia. The Liberals square up with their gun registry, Jane's HRDC scandal, Shawinigate and of course, the bar tab in those Montreal restaurants where they paid for so much "advertising".

Let's see what might happen. Iran keeps threatening to nuke Israel. Israel takes the threat seriously and decides that offense is the best defense. So she attacks Iran. HisSelf of course, doesn't care. Meanwhile, because of the attack oil hits $1000/barrel. HisSelf still doesn't care, 'cuz he rides a bicycle. That winter, HisSelf gets a call from his dear old mother, who is starving 'cuz she's out of food, while freezing in the dark. She wants HisSelf to hop on his bicycle and pedal off through the blizzard to get her a can of tuna for her meagre supper. The can costs $100 because of the now increased delivery/truck costs. She offers to send the money online to his PayPal account. HisSelf tells her "Hey, I don't care!" Ma gets one of her other sons to save her and cuts HisSelf out of her will. She dies that spring and the family discovers that she's been hoarding baseball cards and comic books all those years. The collection is worth a small fortune but HisSelf gets none. Have you forgotten Mr. Burke and his wonderful PBS series "Connections"? We're less independent than we like to think.

OK, let's grant that for the purpose of argument. So how are they going to determine how much tax to apply on what products, for which countries? If there's a dispute, will the government send inspectors to the foreign countries to do an audit? What if that country refuses? How on earth could this be done with just the existing bureaucracy? What if an offending country believes our carbon tax on one of their products is unfairly high. What happens? To whom do they appeal? What if the international Appeal Board is corrupt, like the UN Human Rights body run by the worst offending countries? Isn't this a bit more complicated than might have been first thought?

Quite right! Perhaps the biggest fallacy in any such schemes is the idea that you can prevent industries affected from passing on the increased costs. Industries HAVE to pass on increased costs! Their profits are not infinite so that they can swallow anything inposed on them by some government fiat. If some politician managed to impose a law worded in such a way as to absolutely prevent them from doing so then the industry would have to consider if it could still profitably participate in that market. If it could no longer be profitable then it would be forced to bow out entirely. I've heard no mention from Dion and crew about how to handle imports from countries with no carbon taxes. China and others are driving many of our manufacturers out of business with the resulting loss of jobs right now. What happens when our manufacturers have the increased cost of a carbon tax to consider and the Chinese product does not? Obviously, we can't have a "green" carbon customs and duties ministry. We've already been told that there's no need for any increased bureaucracy. Well, we've never worried about such things affecting the competitiveness of our domestic industries ever before. Why should we start now?

I wouldn't waste your energy. This poster obviously has decided that if he can't win by the rules he'll just try to be a great smartass. He's become the equivalent of a PeeWee Herman - "I know you are but what am I?" Perhaps he'll try a different tack with you but I doubt it. I just put him on my "ignore" list, same as I did posters like "Chauchee". Life's too short. Time to move on.

It seems rather odd to me to make predictions about "$0.40 a litre" from a mythical Harper Plan. To my knowledge Harper has not introduced ANY "Plan" for parliamentary approval! Meanwhile, the national situation has completely changed. Fuel costs have experienced a large and very rapid price escalation while Dion's backroom boys have been sequestered to draft a new eco-GST, totally ignorant of the new environment being experienced by the common man. Politically, the chances are zilch that we will see a choice between an extra 40 cents on a litre of gas or voting for Dion's "Green Shift Tax". BOTH options would be political suicide when gasoline has ALREADY gone up by that amount! With no sign that the increase is going to stop! Just wait until the winter heating bills start arriving. Many, many voters are becoming stretched to their limit. If some Liberal "eco-warrior" candidate knocks on their door while they are deciding whether the last of their paycheque should go to diapers or heating fuel that candidate would be lucky to get even a chance to explain Dion's Plan, EVEN IF IT WOULD WORK! That voter is not some fellow academic at Dion's alma mater, insulated by tenure from the pain of the tanking economy. I think Harper is smart to wait until the writ is dropped before unveiling too much of any "green" plan that would affect the disposable income of the average canadian voter. He'd be a fool to develop a firm strategy for a situation that has already changed. Dion's GST might actually been a campaign starter - six months ago!

Wish I could! With the state of public transit in my town it simply would not be possible, let alone practical. Everybody always makes that suggestion yet I've never seen someone in a position where they can do it! I guess I just don't get out much.