August1991

All of the people involved in Alberta's energy industry were properly compensated for anything they did. I don't see how, afterward, anyone of them can claim to have special "dibs" on the oil. If you hire me to build your house, I get paid and you own the house. End of story. The issue of who owns Alberta's oil is more fundamental. If, purely by chance, you discover oil under your house, whose oil is it? Should it belong solely to you? Should it belong to all the people in your province? Should it belong to all the people in your country? When the world price of oil goes to 50$/barrel, Alberta's oil is like a lottery win. How do we share the prize?

US GDP in inflation-corrected US $: 2000 .. $9876 billion 2003 .. $10697 billion or an increase of 8.3% over 3 years (2.7% annually) US population: 2000 .. 284 million 2003 .. 292 million or an increase of 3.0% over 3 years (1.0% annually) Federal Reserve Cdn GDP in inflation-corrected Cdn $: 2000 .. $1020 billion 2003 .. $1096 billion or an increase of 7.4% over 3 years (2.4% annually) Canadian population: 2000 .. 30.7 million 2003 .. 31.6 million or an increase of 3.1% over 3 years (1% annually) Stat Canada On average, Americans saw income per person rise under Bush. On average, income per person rose faster in the US than in Canada over the past three years. More pointedly, average US per person income is roughly 25% higher than in Canada.

In the US, Bush cut taxes. Everyone said the cuts were for the rich. In Canada, let's cut taxes for the poor. Why in Canada do pension and EI contributions stop at about $30,000? Why not eliminate these contributions and fold them into general tax revenues. This would lower or eliminate (and simplify) payroll taxes. Then, let's give a general personal exemption of say, $15,000 or more. Many people would not have to file at all - saving administration costs. And this would simplify tremendously small business taxes and make it easy for them to hire people. Taxes should be easier to pay than they are to avoid. Done wisely, the government would get the same tax revenue.

Bien dit, tout dit. She spent 41 million last year. A buck 30 from each of us.I couldn't give a good God damn if Brittany Spears got my buck 30. But let us do it here, our own way. Les Cowboys would do it for 78 cents, certain.

I'll repeat this exchange between Hugo and myself above (I ask for patience): But this problem is already resolved, in the form of condo fees, or "bundling" as it is understood in economic terms. Basically, you agree to pay for the public goods when you buy the private. If you don't like it, you find another condo. You can't do that. The condo owners own the condo. Unless the city government owns the city, the same example cannot be used. Of course, if the city government did own the city, it wouldn't be a government any more. Hold on, that's a non sequitur. How does a town council equate condo owners? How can you own something to "an extent"? Either you own it, or you don't. You don't own something "slightly" or "just a bit." You can own just a bit of something, but that is a different concept entirely. OK, Hugo. You don't accept my city analogy. So, imagine the condo is on an island with no one else. The 100 condo residents are now the "town". The "condo fees" as you call them could just as well be called "local taxes". The "condo managment committee" could be the "town council". You tell me Hugo, they're on an island. The condo owners set up a council - does the council "own" the condo building (the island)? Or do the condo owners own it collectively. Who cares! Hugo, gotta problem with collective ownership? Who owns Microsoft? [Hint: I have a few shares in my portfolio I think.] Hugo, gotta problem with owning something to an extent? Easy. I own my car but I can't drive it on your lawn. There is no "property". There are only "property rights". Since you are sometimes arrogant Hugo, allow me this: For a Libertarian, you are sometimes pathetic. ---- Ungracious comments aside, let's be clear. People like to deal with one another. They like to work together, talk, trade. Why? Because both sides of a deal benefit. Government is just another way to allow people to deal with one another, work together. Like the market, the government offers another way to cooperate for everyone's benefit.

Figures later. ['Kimmy's right,' says the Red Queen. I answer, 'No, she still doesn't get it.']Forget the Red Queen. Let's start with liability and responsibility. You buy a house on a quiet street. After a few months, the quiet pub next door becomes a noisy club playing loud music until late with noisy patrons. Irritated, you go to a city complaint bureau to have the club shut down - or at least returned to its Olde English Style. What does the city zoning inspector decide? At issue here is: who owns the "atmosphere" on your street? What's the connection of this case and the tainted restaurant food? Well, you go into a restaurant and buy a meal. Later, you are sick. You decide to go to court to sue the restaurant. What does the judge decide? At issue here is: what did you buy exactly? (What did the restaurant sell you?) Hugo, inventing a new world order, glosses over the problem of property rights - and manages to conclude that governments are otiose. I disagree. But getting back to the issue of responsibility and liability, what does the city official or judge decide?

Exactly. They have no concern for anything but the bottom line. Why should we place our trust in such institutions?BD, people compare two different things all the time - apples and oranges. Mathematics allows us to put a number on something so that we can compare things more precisely and more generally. There are tremendous benefits from using numbers to make otherwise complicated comparisons. A corporation's "bottom line" is just a numerical way of asking: do we consume more than we produce? Are we spinning our wheels and wasting people's time or are we doing something positive for the world?A misunderstanding of "profit" is one reason I believe Leftists are bad at mathematics. At least, you could refer to something like "social accounting". garret, before you start asking loaded questions, it might be wise if you understood the subject.This forum amounts to about 20-odd regular posters exchanging opinions, gossip and facts. Multiply this forum by about 10,000 and you've got a very conservative estimate of the number of people in North America exchanging opinions, gossip and facts about shares. For them, an external audit is just more info. Rumours of the CEO's love life too. Just like we trade stories, they (10,000 fold) trade stories. Cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me. Look garret, it's all about risk.No one would ever buy shares in one business only. Stock analysts knew all about this, and a heck of a lot more.I will return to my original point. There are about 7500 companies listed on the two largest markets in the US. What percentage are accused of "accounting problems"? More pertinently, corporate managers have a strong incentive to increase shareholder value. If they succeed, they earn a reputation which is worth far more than any amount they could steal now. For a corporate manager to get money out of my wallet, there are only two ways: she must sell me a product/service I choose to buy or sell me a share/bond I choose to buy. For a civil servant to get money out of my wallet, she puts in a budget for the next fiscal year. Regulated by whom? Not knowing what one is buying? WTF? garret, I suppose you're one of those people who thinks the stock market is just an organized horse race.---- I am not anti-government. (I've got the scars from duelling with Hugo.) I'm arguing that corporations and governments operate in a fundamentally different way. People on the Left should understand this. Otherwise, all thinking people will simply dismiss their arguments.

But our efforts are obviously different - and they are rewarded differently. It is not democracy that ensures the fruits are enjoyed, it is free markets that do that.The rewards are not given because that is fair. The rewards are given because otherwise the effort wouldn't exist. If you find a well-paying job, should you be restricted from accepting it? (ie. profiting from something you own - your own talents?) I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. We all own ourselves and some of us choose to lend voluntarily our talents and efforts in return for compensation.If I understand your point, you feel that some people don't get the compensation you think they should get. (IOW, salaries are too low.) Is that your point?

There are about 3000 firms listed on the NYSE and about 3500 on the NASDAQ. You mention four companies. Do you think that's representative? I would expect managers to take decisions in the interests of the shareholders. Anything else would mean the shareholders will go elsewhere. Corporations are not charities.Should a corporate managers keep on staff an employee who costs more than the employee generates in additional revenue? Should a corporation in effect "destroy" value? Apart from the immorality of wasting resources, corporate managers that keep such an employee will soon find the company's share value at zero, the company in bankruptcy and their own jobs in jeopardy. Widespread?Quick buck artists may want to cheat but the really big bucks lie in having a good reputation. And the investors on the stock market are not usually easily bamboozled. In any case, it's just a question of risk and there are many ways to deal with that. ---- But BD, you haven't addressed the fundamental difference between the managers at Public Works Canada (HRDC, Fisheries and Oceans, Indian Northern Affairs) and the managers of a private corporation. I read the article. Other than the Toronto Star's basic ignorance of how financial markets operate, I found nothing shocking nor appalling. What did I miss, MS?

How so? I'd say it's more a matter of class warfare: certain segments of the population are going to be more vulnerable than others.The government can take your money (old fashioned tax) or they can take your time (draft). Same diff.Another way to view it is to say that the government could impose old-fashioned taxes to get the cash necessary to offer high enough salaries to get soldiers to volunteer. The difference is that the draft is a tax that applies only to young men. (Will young American women be drafted too?) Old fashioned taxes are paid by everyone, particularly the rich, unless they can avoid the tax. Some potential draftees (rich and poor) would presumably avoid the draft; that is, avoid paying the tax.

First of all, welcome. (Salam alaykoom).You will find a tremendous variety of views on this forum ranging from the thoughtful to the completely ridiculous. IOW, you can try different ideas and see where they lead. Most posters are usually respectful.

Instant reaction ABC News I haven't paid much attention to the US election so I was happy to listen to the two candidates. If I were an American, I'd feel the debate was informative. It made me even more embarrassed about the debate circus we had.

I just found this poll although it was done in April 2004. The answers make sense. Gallup If you haven't seen this before, it makes for interesting reading.

Fox was never banned and it was also never denied a start up license. The CRTC gave approval for "Fox News Canada" but Fox News chose not to work with Global TV to offer that service.At present, there is an application pending before the CRTC to offer Fox News. (The relevant CRTC links are above in this thread.) TS, do you have other information?

Do you really believe that garret?Do you believe that life is a pie of fixed size and the 2 rich guys basically stole the pie from the others? Well, tell me, how is that we are much richer now than, say, 100 years ago? Where did this extra income come from? Who did we steal it from? Who did we make it off? Maybe, garret, we created it. It wasn't there before and we took it from no one.

Just watched the US debate. It was much better than our Canadian debate. I think both Kerry and Bush came off well. I haven't seen a US presdiential debate as good as this one. Both were calm and expressed themselves well.

Kamerschein's web site Cute story but I think the numbers are a little off. The interesting point is whether the tenth guy will or can leave. Here's the Urban Legends take.

No, MS, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that corporations and governments are very, very different beasts. But they both can do good.The incentives for politicians and bureaucrats are such that we must always be careful. The incentives for corporate managers require much less concern.

I believe he supported the CCF in the 1950s and after the NDP was formed in 1960, he supported them federally in the elections of 1962 and 1963. As late as 1964, he wrote articles critical of the Liberals.Trudeau first ran for the Liberals in 1965. He explained that he wanted to have power and he realized that the NDP would never form a government. Trudeau's main preoccupation was, as he put it, "to make sure Quebec doesn't leave Canada and to make sure the rest of Canada doesn't kick Quebec out." This preoccupation far dominated any of his leftist-leanings of the State Intervention sort. In any case, he also said "create counterweights".

I wouldn't go as far as saying that external audits are pure fiction. They have several useful purposes.But I see a big difference between an audit in the public sector (Public Works) and an audit in the private sector (a transnational). Managers in transnationals compete for my money - whether it be in selling me products or getting hold of my savings. If I feel that the managers of a transnational are being dishonest, there are many other transnationals out there. From the investors standpoint, the choice is almost limitless. Dishonest transnational managers will be punished in the marketplace very quickly. IOW, managers in transnationals have a strong incentive to tell the truth. There are long term, big bucks available in having a reputation for honesty. The managers in Public Works (including our politicians) have no incentives of the sort. If anything, it is in their interest to dissemble. They have my credit card and my debit card and they can use either at any time they want and I can't stop them. The government and transnational corporations are two entirely different beasts.

Bakunin, good web site.

Trudeau ordered it. Do you know of Lord Durham? Lord Elgin? Guy Carleton?Lord Elgin has a statue in front of Quebec's National Assembly. Why? Why do the Conservatives never get seats in Quebec? Who was Louis Riel? What was Ontario's Regulation 17? Who was Clifford Sifton? Who did Laurier choose for his first cabinet in 1896? Canada - this place - has a history. And it's nothing like the Liberal/CBC nonsense we usually hear.

Got me there. Let me go figure.

I said "positions" not "such positions". How did you get your job? How did your Mom/Dad/Brother/Sister get their jobs? Wife/Husband/Son/Daughter their jobs? Family ties? Connections? Would you like to apply for a job and then learn you had no chance? Is it good to hire people based solely on family name? Contacts? Why is that woman's face on our money? I wonder whether patronage would be less rampant if we were a republic.

I don't quite understand these faces.Trees growing in a forest reach for sunlight. Call this a competitive reach for the top. Whether all trees achieve 5 meters or 10 meters, they'll get the same light. So, it's the proverbial race to the bottom, or the sky. The trees kill each other to win. Now, consider a race where a third party benefits. That's what happens in a price race. In French, it's no longer la compétition. It's la concurrence. (In English, there is "competition" and "price competition".) Now, in the tree story - like competion in general - it helps to threaten others. "Don't even try to grow as tall as me, loser." But in the price story, it helps if the third party knows what the price competition is all about. Restaurants compete on price but they want to identify who they are. They don't signal to threaten. Clear?