When the Boomers are Dead?

[Wilber]

You arent slow, and Iam serious

Don't know where you are from but riding in the back of a pickup on a public road is illegal in BC and seatbelt use is mandatory. I have yet to see a pickup with seat belts in the bed. There are Federal laws regarding the maximum capacity of boats (placarded on each boat) and the minimum safety equipment required for each passenger.

[guyser]

Don't know where you are from but riding in the back of a pickup on a public road is illegal in BC and seatbelt use is mandatory. I have yet to see a pickup with seat belts in the bed. There are Federal laws regarding the maximum capacity of boats (placarded on each boat) and the minimum safety equipment required for each passenger.

Seatbelt use is mandatory, but not when there arent seats. Thus , not illegal.

Those placards on the transom of pleasure boats...?....not legal info. Of course you must have a lifejacket for everyone, but if you can fit 20 people (w l/jacket) in an 18 foot runabout with only 4 seats, you are legal.

[kuzadd]

'

How does refusing to allow someone to put his kids in the back of a pickup penalize those who act in a responsible manner?

I hear what you are saying but I think you picked a poor example. That one is a no brainer for me.

As an example, are you saying we should allow people to drive drunk until they kill someone?

apologies and to clarify

the statement I made hear

Our laws therefore cause an undue hardship to what end , really.?

when education and awareness is the way to go

Not penalizing everyone else for the person who is choosing to act in a reckless manner.

is in reference to the situation :

:

A store clerk at one chain of stores that I know of has to incur the cost if the mistake is made of selling a cigarette to a minor.

The fine is huge!

So some minimum wage earning working person is now responsible for what your kid may try to get away with. Fake and borrowed Id's.

What about the kid? What is the kids responsibility for buying cigs?

Nothing.

Will the parent's ever even find out?

This is the law that passes the buck from the responsible party/making there own choice (kid buying cigs) to someone else, who could (Fake and borrowed Id's.) have to pay for that.

[guyser]

This is the law that passes the buck from the responsible party/making there own choice (kid buying cigs) to someone else, who could (Fake and borrowed Id's.) have to pay for that.

I recall the reason for the fine against sellers came about as a result of an investigation that looked at the retailers.

It was apparent that many retailers were selling cigs to kids, repackaged in sets of 5 for $2 or something crazy pofitable like that. (back when cigs were much cheaper)

The thought was instead of criminalizing a bunch of underage kids, the gov went after the sellers since they, being adults, were flouting the law for profit. I suppose much like busting dealers and not pot smokers per se.

[kuzadd]

I recall the reason for the fine against sellers came about as a result of an investigation that looked at the retailers.

It was apparent that many retailers were selling cigs to kids, repackaged in sets of 5 for $2 or something crazy pofitable like that. (back when cigs were much cheaper)

The thought was instead of criminalizing a bunch of underage kids, the gov went after the sellers since they, being adults, were flouting the law for profit. I suppose much like busting dealers and not pot smokers per se.

Though I do not recall any reason such as the one you remember, the reason is irrelevant to the point I am making.

The fine passes the buck, if the kid knows it's illegal to buy cigarettes and goes to the store and get's away with it. Why is it the store and the store clerk that pay?

alot of times the sellers are not adults, they are just kids working in corner stores.

It's a law that takes the responsibility off of the person who should be responsible for their own actions and onto a store or store clerk, often a kid and often working for minumum wage.

This law infact if applied to a person committing a break and enter, would see the homeowner fined for having something in their possession, worth committing the crime for.

Edited February 13, 2008 by kuzadd

[guyser]

Though I do not recall any reason such as the one you remember, the reason is irrelevant to the point I am making.

The fine passes the buck, if the kid knows it's illegal to buy cigarettes and goes to the store and get's away with it. Why is it the store and the store clerk that pay?

alot of times the sellers are not adults, they are just kids working in corner stores.

It's a law that takes the responsibility off of the person who should be responsible for their own actions and onto a store or store clerk, often a kid and often working for minumum wage.

This law infact if applied to a person committing a break and enter, would see the homeowner fined for having something in their possession, worth committing the crime for.

It can join the l line of things we dont charge kids with. No seatbelt on an underage passenger, the driver gets the fine. Selling booze at the LCBO, the store gets the fine (although the kid could too)

It is not that I disagree with you, just that those who made these laws did not want to criminalize the kids.

[kuzadd]

It can join the l line of things we dont charge kids with. No seatbelt on an underage passenger, the driver gets the fine. Selling booze at the LCBO, the store gets the fine (although the kid could too)

It is not that I disagree with you, just that those who made these laws did not want to criminalize the kids.

thanks guyser, it;s not that I want to see kids get criminal records for youthful folly.

It is that I do not see the sense in the store clerk/store paying for that.

[guyser]

thanks guyser, it;s not that I want to see kids get criminal records for youthful folly.

It is that I do not see the sense in the store clerk/store paying for that.

You know I just thought of something.

Isnt the law worded that it is "against the law to sell to minors"...? and not that it is against the law to possess the cigs?

[kuzadd]

You know I just thought of something.

Isnt the law worded that it is "against the law to sell to minors"...? and not that it is against the law to possess the cigs?

I think you are correct about that, therefore the "seller" is criminalized.

and not the possesor.

[Wilber]

I think you are correct about that, therefore the "seller" is criminalized.

and not the possesor.

Isn't that what advocates of the decriminalization of marijuana want?

[Drea]

No.

Decriminalization will not work.

How about if it were legal to own a car, but illegal to sell one to someone?

Doesn't make much sense does it?

Only full on legalization and regulation is realistic.

[Wilber]

No.

Decriminalization will not work.

How about if it were legal to own a car, but illegal to sell one to someone?

Doesn't make much sense does it?

Only full on legalization and regulation is realistic.

I was just pointing it out, not taking a position. I happen to agree, half assed solutions never work properly. The idea of not selling cigarettes to kids is to try and discourage them from smoking, not to criminalize people.

[August1991]

1) I conclude that you know how to cherry-pick data.

You got me, offisher. Guilty as charged.

1972 was a good year - like 1939, when The Wizard of Oz lost to Gone With the Wind.

2) I conclude that like Drea and Jazzer, you've also missed the point. The point, once again, was that the bulk popular music (or, as you've sought to extend the scope of the discussion, movies, or TV for that matter...) does not stand the test of time. I suspect the same is true for the movie crop of 1972. If you want to prove me wrong, why not scoop up a list of the top 50 grossing movies of 1972, and we'll look through them and see which ones stand up well. I'll grant you The Godfather, and even Deliverance (though it's mostly just known for hillbillies, banjos, sodomy, and Burt Reynolds' buff pre-Cannonball physique.) How about the other 48, chief?

First of all, you missed the Swedish movie nominated in 1972. It had been nominated in 1971 too. Since, IIRC, you had a Scandinavian/Ukrainian background (?), I though that you would know about this movie (and its excellent sequel - also nominated).

Secondly, you raise a good question: Are some years better than others? I think so. For movies, 1972 was better than 2006. Why did the late 18th century lead to so many wonderful new ideas and such sophisticated music? Why is the 14th century known for so little? Why is the fashion style and music of the late 1970s so bad?

Bottom line: Some eras produce better works than other eras - or in Kimmyspeak, some eras produce less dregs.

And by the way, citing the Motion Picture Academy's views on anything seems oddly incongruous with your usual views. You often like to argue along the lines that peoples' value of something is reflected in their willingness to pay for it-- you've suggested this as a reason why cable TV is better than free TV, why satellite radio will be better than broadcast radio if I recall correctly, why a tax on pollution is a necessary step in improving air quality, and so on. How, then, is the opinion of a small and insulated "elite" of value in determining the artistic merits of movies? The academy voters don't even have pay to see the films. They don't even need to have watched the nominees to vote, in fact.

-k

Now, that's an idea. If you can buy and own something, then the maker will probably pay more attention to quality. IOW, best creative efforts occur when the maker gets credit or compensation for the creation. (Nice idea but it doesn't explain the late 1970s and OJ Simpson's movie career.)

----

Returning to the OP, I'm still wondering what a world without Boomers will be like. In Quebec, the birth rate collapsed around 1960 or so. You can see Quebec's Boom and its Echo and sub-Echo here.

The Boomers (Warren Kinsella b. 1960) will soon quieten down and then they'll die. What will the world be like then?

Or, you can just look at this question in terms of investment opportunities:

1. The entire Baby Boomer generation is the first generation en masse to use the financial markets as their mainstay for retirement

2. The Baby Boomers are a plurality of the population

3. And are in their prime income earning years

Is it any shock the average S&P 500 P/E ratio has been consistently trading above its 80 year average of 15?

The question is what will happen when the Baby Boomers start to retire? And instead of contributing every month to their 401k’s like sheople, they withdraw?

Link Edited February 15, 2008 by August1991

[kimmy]

First of all, you missed the Swedish movie nominated in 1972. It had been nominated in 1971 too. Since, IIRC, you had a Scandinavian/Ukrainian background (?),

True.

I though that you would know about this movie (and its excellent sequel - also nominated).

I wasn't aware of these films. My knowledge of things Swedish and my knowledge of foreign cinema are both sadly lacking.

However, thanks for mentioning them. Perhaps I will try to find these movies. They sound like the kind of story that I've said on at least a few occasions should be something that Canadian kids learn about in school, yet (in my recollection at least) didn't merit more than a paragraph or two in the textbook we had when I was learning Canadian history.

Secondly, you raise a good question: Are some years better than others? I think so. For movies, 1972 was better than 2006. Why did the late 18th century lead to so many wonderful new ideas and such sophisticated music? Why is the 14th century known for so little? Why is the fashion style and music of the late 1970s so bad?

Bottom line: Some eras produce better works than other eras - or in Kimmyspeak, some eras produce less dregs.

Now, that's an idea. If you can buy and own something, then the maker will probably pay more attention to quality. IOW, best creative efforts occur when the maker gets credit or compensation for the creation. (Nice idea but it doesn't explain the late 1970s and OJ Simpson's movie career.)

"Produce better works" and "produce less dregs" aren't synonymous.

I think (as you touched on) economic factors are a key in determining how much of both (dregs and better works, but particularly dregs) gets produced.

I would think that the relative cost of making a movie and the relative chances of marketing it will determine whether it gets made or not. There are some movies that will probably always look like a sound investment for studios and investors (big name actors, popular subject matter, lucrative franchises, and so on...) But there are other projects that are just not as safe a bet. Take the past year's "Juno": unknown stars, subject matter that was probably not going to appeal to a lot of people... but, the people behind the movie had a strong belief in their product, they were successful in getting it made, and their faith has been borne out: it's a huge critical and commercial success and has generated an astronomical return on its investment. Entrepreneurship at its finest, right? Let's take another hypothetical movie (I can't think of a handy example right now, for obvious reasons) that the producers also have a strong belief in, are successful in getting it made ... but it flat out sucks. It is garbage. The producers believed in their product, but they were just so wrong. So what went wrong?

Well, how easy is it for a crappy movie to get made? I honestly don't know. I've never tried making a movie, and I don't know how hard it is to get people to give you money. Maybe it's not actually very hard at all nowadays. Maybe there are investors out there who are so wealthy that they'll give you $50,000 just to see what happens. Maybe that investor can write off the whole thing on his tax return if it's a financial failure. Now, I've further heard that given factors like international distribution, DVD sales, and the sale of TV rights, most movies make money eventually, even if they flop in initial release. With the advent of direct-to-video and subscriber movie channels during the .. 1980s, I suppose it was, I suspect there is probably a lot more opportunity for crappy movies to eventually turn a profit than there used to be. So maybe it is a lot easier for dreck to get made now than it used to be.

-k