August1991

If you were planning on retiring in the US, then I disagree with your broker! Absolute dollars? As opposed to relative dollars? Huh? This example barely does justice to the idea:If you put your house up for sale, that increases the supply of houses, and makes house prices fall a little. Other sellers "lose" - but house buyers "gain" the same amount. So far, it's a wash, a zero-sum game. Where is the net benefit? Your benefit from getting into the market and selling your house. It is my experience that people on the left generally do not understand this idea at all.

Is that your philosophy MS? Steal from the rich and give to the poor? Robin Hood, 21st century.If so, shouldn't we steal from all Canadians and give to impoverished people in Bangaldesh? I mean if we look at all 6 billion people in the world, the 30 million Canadians are in the club of "rich greedy bastards".

It is very easy to spend someone else's money. That is the crux of the matter.I too would be in favour of spending your money on our health system. If the government cuts taxes now, you will have more money to leave to your children in your will.

I don't know about Tom de Lay (but I note that Andre Ouellete is still on full pay). As to the lumber tariff, it is a tax that was paid to the US government by Americans importing Canadian softwood lumber. You tell me MS, who should get the money?

Hugo could make the defendable argument that this state of affairs is an improvement over the situation prevailing prior to 1991. IOW, compare comparables. And to be frank, the notion of government as we understand it in Canada is unknown in most countries of the world. In many places, a president can issue a decree but it means absolutely nothing when it leaves his desk. Same as Yemen.

Uh, if the US dollar is going down, and the price of gold is quoted in US dollars, does it not make sense that the price of gold will go up?Also, is it not ironic that "European Bankers" want the US to do something so that the euro is not worth so much? eureka, doesn't new technology lead to redundancies and unemployment? In fact, I think that's the whole purpose of new technology - to eliminate jobs. Cartman, I'll play the leftwing advocate:The government should decide dollar values and we should not let the market decide such an important matter since currency markets are unfair, volatile and nothing more than speculative crap shoots to rip off ordinary people. ---- When the price in any market rises (or falls), there are going to be some happy people and some unhappy people. The happy people will benefit more than the unhappy people lose.

US EIA So I guess I'm guilty of some hyperbole. The EIA has constructed a quantity index of "energy" (oil, natural gas, electricity, coal) and then compared this index with GDP in 1970 and 1997. To simplify, it takes 1/3 less fuel to heat an American home to 70 F. Canada has a higher ratio for the simple reason that we export our abundant energy through the products we manufacture. When the US and Europe import Canadian paper and aluminium, they in effect import Canadian electricity.

BD, you could hardly pick a better example of the absurdity of government regulation than SUVs.The EPA imposed minimal gas consumption regulations on the fleet of vehicles built and sold by manufacturers. The EPA left trucks out of the definition of the fleet. To get around the regulation, manufacturers started to make small trucks and sell them as big cars - the SUV was born. If the EPA had never passed the regulation, SUVs would not exist today. Some Web Site (This site explains the problem but then entirely misses the point by implying that SUVs should be regulated.) The very best protection for the environment was the rise in oil prices in the 1970s. That's when Toyota dislodged General Motors as the world's largest car manufacturer. Consumers became interested in gas mileage.

And actually does not really exist any longer; You may have considered him a "benevolent" dictator I did not. Nor do I find Bush to be a "benevolent" dictator; but a dictator all the same. Perhaps not techinically, in the USA but he is making decisions outside of the USA where we do not get to vote. Caesar, I wake up to find this. Caesar, I believe that you are seriously clueless. I have reported your post. Caesar, do you know what democracy is? Do you know what Mussolini did? Do you know why many Canadians have gravestones in Europe? Do you really believe Bush is like Mussolini? Caesar, have you ever visited a country under dictatorship? Caesar, do you have any idea what dictatorship is? I believe strongly in the right of an individual to express what she or he thinks. But that freedom does not mean that I must read nonsense. I ask you again, because it bothers me, did Canadians die in Europe so that you would have the right to say Mussolini was as good a leader as Bush? I enjoy the freedom of this Forum but if I have to wade though such nonsense, I too will retire politely.

Of course, caesar. Your peaceful world of 1997 was good. There was no longer a threat of nuclear war. No Soviet Union, no Iraq and no terrorism. We had multiculturalism, John Lennon idealism. It was better then. Of course, caesar, you want to return to that world. But those damn Saudis flew the planes into the World Trade Center. Then Bush started these wars. Why did they do that? ---- In August 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev flew back to Moscow after a failed coup. The Soviet Union was still intact but in fact it wasn't. It takes time for people to understand reality.

J'y suis. J'y reste. Mon pays, c'est l'hiver.

BD, I refer you to this web site. I don't know how the Americans will be remembered in Iraq - Falluja or Hama. (No one is suggesting that the Americans killed 30,000 in Falluja so I suspect the Americans will come out as determined but not bloodthirsty.) BTW, Assad built a hotel over the empty space left. You can see it here. I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans do something similar.

Thelonious, since 1973, people have been predicting that we will run out of oil. Jimmy Carter made energy policy a major feature of his administration. Invariably, the reserves grow faster than our consumption. (One reason for this is that publicly-traded oil companies must be careful how they value reserves on their balance sheet.) People mistakenly believe that one day, there suddenly won't be any oil. It doesn't work that way. As the price rises, certain oil fields become profitable. IOW, as we use oil, its price rises. The general trend of oil prices has been upward but oil is cheaper now than it was in the late 1980s. As the price of oil rises, not only does this make previously difficult fields profitable but it also makes alternative energy sources attractive. One source is conservation. Today's big SUV is more energy efficient than a 1970s hatchback. The US requires less energy to produce a "unit of GDP" than at any time in the past 100 years. (Think of airplane enginesand lighter packaging.) ---- As to your Walmart example, I don't quite understand what you mean. The US government, by invading Iraq, is not going to "get" any oil. The US government is not in the oil business. International oil companies will sign contracts with Iraqis to take delivery of crude oil at world market prices. The Iraqi government will no doubt impose a hefty royalty on any oil taken out of the ground. The situation is no different from what happens now in Venezuela or Alberta. Indeed, that's how Saddam Hussein did business before 1990. Do you mean to say that the US wants to protect itself from a possible embargo? The US fears a cartel of oil suppliers could block oil sales? Well, the US now trades with the rest of world on may items and in theory, the US could face an embargo on many items. US foreign trade is only 10% of its GDP and as I've noted, its principal foreign oil suppliers are Canada, Venezuela, Mexico and so on. No cartel embargo against the US would ever work. The incentive to cheat would be too great. Then Mexico would charge $98, Nigeria $97 and away we go.---- It strikes me as obvious that the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for reasons (misguided or not ) of national security. The events of September 2001 motivated the reaction. Afghanistan was obvious. As to Iraq, Tony Blair made the argument that Saddam was simply too dangerous to be left ignored. Saddam seemed as good a place as any to respond. There has been a tremendous amount of spin since September 2001 but the basic message is out. Everyone in the world knows that the Americans are going to fight back. Howard and Bush were both re-elected. Blair will likely be re-elected too. (I note that Qaddafi has made peace with the British.) I think BD made a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. IMV, the comparison is legitimate. Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War. The Americans won the Cold War but they didn't win every battle. I'm not certain their tactics were always the best. But they won. The same applies in Iraq. In fact, this is an ongoing war that I suspect is in its final stages. The war started in 1914 and it concerns primarily the freedom of the individual. Note to TheloniousMonk: I'm reading now about the fall of Hongkong, then I'll take a look at this. I must say that I am immediately suspicious of any author who refers to oil when discussing the Iraq war.

In my experience, that is false. That is true. It is impossible to run a political shop without loyalty. (Alliances are based on concurrent interests - politics makes for strange bedfellows.) Powell was a member of the team as much as Rice. I think Powell was "too military". (I was always surprised how the left painted Powell as a "friend". I suppose part of this comes from being at State.) WTF? Kissinger certainly blabbed when he headed the NSA. She must appear before a Senate subcommittee and be confirmed by the Senate.---- For the Left, she's a black woman and her predecessor was a black man. Bush Jnr couldn't give a damn about that at all. More power to him. Confused by symbols and style, the Left misses content and reality. My favourite Condi Rice phrase: "Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia".

True, freedom of speech is vastly overrated. True, responsible government is usually incompetent government.We just comemorated 11 November and you guys think the world of Mussolini.

Some paper I kind of liked BD's description. Soon the US will be able to destroy any Chinese Embassy directly from the US.

Your initial reaction was probably right.Think. Galileo, Newton, Copernicus. Think, what is the scientific method? Be an intelligent sceptic.

No, we haven't discussed this issue, MS.McQuaig et al claims it's all about oil. I think she (and the others) are wrong. This issue seems fundamental to the US war in Iraq. Let's discuss it. ---- Does the US need/want to steal Iraqi Oil?

Many people make the argument that the US invaded Iraq to "get" its oil. I have started this thread to discuss this topic. Al Jazeera Here, the top three are Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Canada. Energy Information Agency We can play around with numbers but basically, I think Americans do not require Middle East oil. They produce oil themselves, or get it from countries outside the Middle East. They also use natural gas and electricity (often imported from Canada). Americans have been quick to devise ways to use less energy. (American cars are now light plastic/ceramic, not heavy metal.)

Newf, MS's point is that it's a private, for profit company. No doubt, MS believes that NS Power has cut corners to make capitalist, fat cats richer and ordinary people are now suffering. If I understand, NS Power was once a government-managed organisation. Privatised in 1992 (?), it is now a firm with American links (oh no!) subject to a provincial regulatory board. [Anyone know if I've got this right?] Why the mess, twice, after a storm? First, the province could have regulated the monopoly better, if that's the problem. Second, how much safety do people want? If Nova Scotians want, they could have electricity all the time regardless of weather or even earthquakes if all transmission wires were put underground in duplicate. The cost of such guaranteed power would be tremendous. IME, Canadians manage and Maritimers more than most. The cost of this outage is far less than the cost of the outage two summers ago because of a boo-boo in Ohio. For the Maritimes, I say guarantee that hospitals get power and maybe servers before the UPS dies. After that, Nova Scotians can manage the risk on their own - like Newfoundlanders. Incidentally Quebec is independent from North America, at least in electricity (so is part of Texas). The 120 volt AC current has a 60 cycle synchronized across North America. IOW, plus and minus occur simultaneously everywhere except in Quebec (and part of Texas). Why? Historically, the Quebec system tended to crash and North Americans didn't want this volatility included in their grid. They ostracized Quebec. I have a suspicion this tendency to crash is part of the NS system too. It's typical of our geography and reliance on hydro for our power. (Hydro is a truly Canadian word, shared with Norwegians.)

Boondoggle, you seem to be under the mistaken belief that if you provide many quotes and links, your argument will somehow become more valid. Your belief is false. A good argument can often stand alone although it may require a judicious use of quotes and links for questionable points or to reinforce a point. You seem to use the machine-gun approach, to little effect. (Boondoggle, are you an American?) 1. Kissinger quote. Boondoggle, there are many web sites that repeat the quote but none say when and where Kissinger said it. I suspect it's either an Urban Legend or taken completely out of context. In any case, is it really relevant what a retired Sec of State says? And is the quote critical evidence of some dastardly plan to take over the world? 2. Kuwait and Iraq. Seriously, Gillespie and all, blaming Kuwait or the US is a bit like blaming Poland or France for September 1939. (Poland should have been more polite and France more belligerent. Huh?) I remember extremely well that summer and the events surrounding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (Incidentally, your crazy and wrong theory misses out on the much more interesting factors hidden behind the invasion. Iraqis and Kuwaitis are very different people.) 3. Sanctions. The purpose of sanctions, as you have noted, was to isolate Iraq, put pressure on Saddam's regime and with luck, render Iraq less of a threat to the region. Many of the people opposed to the Coalition invasion of Iraq (Gulf War II) argue that sanctions should have been maintained and left to work. What's your argument exactly? 4. Oil. I repeat, the US imports its oil largely from Canada. Japan imports its oil largely from the Middle East. Do you mean that Americans are fighting on behalf of Japanese car drivers? In any case, it's much easier to buy oil in a market. There are very few 19th century imperialists around now. 5. Liberal Party, Clinton, Bush Snr and Bush Jnr. I think you are missing Jacques Chirac and Boris Yeltsin. How do they fit into your grand theory? (BTW, what is your grand theory?) 6. Halliburton. Did you check out its share price over the past 10 years? You'll be surprised. The market players are not so dumb after all. Lastly, I am sorry that you interpreted my previous posts as sarcastic. I think it's admirable that you have a mission to inform the world, through this forum, of the dark secrets of world affairs.

We did not agree to what you say. In any case, our negotiators were not "manipulated". They knew fully what they were doing - as did the Canadian public who elected Muylroney in 1988. Lastly, according to many on this Forum, the oil is not Canada's - it belongs primarily to the Albertan government.

Sorry, Boondoggle, I have had to report your post for infringement of copyrighted material. You need only provide a short quote - with an explanation of its pertinence to your argument - accompanied by a link. ---- As to your points: 1. US vetoes. In the past 20 years or so, the US has been the main user of vetoes. So what? The Palestinians have tried to use the UN to advance their cause - the US has stopped this. In fairness, any organization that names Libya to head its Human Rights Commission deserves scrutiny. 2. Oil for Food. I don't get your point. Even the articles you cite refer to fraud of various sorts. France, Saddam and the US are called into question. I'm not surprised in the least. A heck of alot of money was involved. In any case, I don't quite get your argument. Are you suggesting that the UN Security Council ganged up on Saddam when it imposed sanctions? Or do you mean to say that the US manipulated the UN? Lastly, many Americans couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the UN or what it does. I suspect that it's a fact of nature now that Americans intend to defend themselves as they see fit.

Some web site When I see things like this, I become extremely suspicious. No web site reporting the quote provided a source. Many of the sites referred to Kissinger's "famous phrase". Kissinger is also claimed to have said "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." (This was in reference to Chile.) Kissinger was vain but not foolish. Kissinger did say this: “The main point…Well, yes, I’ll tell you. What do I care? The main point arises from the fact that I’ve always acted alone. Americans like that immensely. Americans like the cowboy who leads the wagon train by riding ahead alone on his horse, the cowboy who rides all alone into the town, the village, with his horse and nothing else. Maybe even without a pistol, since he doesn’t shoot. He acts, that’s all, by being in the right place at the right time.” Oriana Fallaci Interview ---- America is much less dependent on oil now than 25 years ago. Furthermore, it depends on its own oil or Canadian oil. The tar sands represent arguably the largest reserve in the world.It is the Japanese (and Europe) who are dependent on Middle East oil. In any case, it is alot easier to merely buy oil rather than start a war and invade a country. Saddam never had any scheme to forbid the sale of oil. It is Saudi Arabia that is the bulwark of the OPEC cartel that withholds supply to keep prices high. Eureka, you insist on believing the US government is evil and wants to dominate the world. I see things differently. Do you believe, Eureka, that the US government has bought and manipulates the Canadian government? We've got oil. The American soldiers will come home and then American oil companies will pay top dollar for any crude they get. Let's hope the Iraqi government uses wisely the collected royalties.

I have no desire to go through that data again. We are better off now than 20 years ago and certainly 80 years ago (when your grandmother or greatgrandmother raised her children).IOW, people work less time now to obtain any particular item or service they may desire. In many cases in the past, the item or service was not even available. (Penicillin, DVD, Internet.) I would agree that the growth data is more pronounced for the US than Canada in the past 20 years. The data is on a per capita basis. Productivity data in the US shows growth over the past 20 years.I agree that women working at home are neglected from all national accounts data. ---- I doubt that very much.However, people have alternative ways now to enjoy their leisure time that were not available in the past. May I make only one suggestion? People used to have children to take care of them in their old age. With State pensions and State medical insurance, kids are less necessary now. Or so many people have indirectly concluded. The next generation to retire may well be the one to discover that family is a more trustworthy institution than the State.