Ed Deak

Have you ever looked at the actual price that CN paid for BCRAIL?

There was an interesting list of questions tabled in the Legislature yesterday - among them this one:
17. Given the government's own forecasts for significant coal mining activity, why were projections based on coal export growth deliberately left out of revenue calculations for the BC Rail line?

I know that's not the subject of this discussion, I just wanted to get your attention and haven't seen you around for a day or so.

Still winter up there?

Can't help but be amused

Well, lets look at the numbers for a while.

http://www.cbc.ca/quebecvotes2007/

When Charest won the election, headlines in the Con/Republican bought media said "Good news for Harper! Charest wins minority government with 33%!" Harper popular in Quebec!". And they ran, "Mario Dumont takes over 31% of the provincial vote. Good news for Harper! Right wing party emerges!"

What amuses me is that the media didn't portray Harper's so called federal stance as being the lucky recipient of provincial separatists clocking low at the polls. The media instead, portrayed Harper as "liked" and electable in Quebec as a result of the provincial election on a personal and ideological level.

And it makes no sense.

Sure, support for the bloc is eroding... according to Ispos/Reid polls that give the Cons a full 5% bias for their Canwest contracts fulfilled, the bloc is at 33% or 38%, if you read between the lines. And the Cons are at 23% or 18% if you read between the lines. So I ask this.

If Charest and Dumont garnered 64% of the vote, how is it that the separatist movement is dead? Low voter turnout in Quebec, new parties emerging... Quebecers are sick and tired of their own politicians regardless of who they represent. And when one follows the headlines of what the "issues discussed" were in Quebec, it would be easy enough to know why there was voter disgust.

Quebecers are politically waking up and they've had reason to. How can a province with $117 billion worth of debt, larger per capita than any other province in this country not ask the question... "have our provincial governments been fiscally responsible?" There is no way one can answer that question with a yes by anyone who is sane in Quebec. The numbers don't lie. And if this country truly cares about Quebec, the feds will have to address the provincial debt at some point, because its staggering.

Compare BC's 36 Billion dollar deficit, population and resources Richard Warnica, and you'll see my point.

So its like this. The federalist solution to Quebec has been immigration... and its working. There are some racial clashes to be sure, but these populations are segregated to city and rural. Immigration is mainly just effecting Montreal... and so it is seen in what francophones think and how they vote.

The guessing game

I'll go on a limb and make a few predictions:

1) The Libs take 80+ seats in Ontario in the next federal election to bolster them towards a minority government.
2) The bloc takes 45 seats and Quebec becomes less of an issue. The bloc will call for an election on their terms and when they do, they will get the wind in their sails again. Con bribery money in the budget gave the Cons a whopping unsleased 20% support in the polls. I personally like to think of it as "the dead cat bounce".
3) The east votes the same way they did last time.

So that leaves the west. NDP polls are misleading federally, for BC gives them the most support. The Cons glitter and glitz is wearing off. Will the Cons sweep Alta a third time? Will Sask go majority Con? Will the Cons be able to hold onto BC support? Sask got screwed with equalization... you tell me. In Alta, they've got nowhere to go but down. In BC...

With all the media hype and hoopla, one thing is glaring in realistic decima polls. Ontario is Liberal heartland and with their support solid flatlined at 40% over the last 6 months or more, the public might be more upset with exaggerated polls and media bias than with the results themselves. I predict a Liberal minority, somewhere's around 125 to 135 seats in the next election, to be held at some point still, this year. The Libs might force it in April with a challenge to Con environmental policy, the bloc is more likely to challenge it later this year if they can make mileage. One thing is for sure. The opposition parties might be more willing to go to the polls sooner than anyone is initially led to believe.

Devolution to the provinces: right...

Devolution to the provinces all sounds mighty fine by me. But I think there is some kind of an other scam hiding under this, as Mr. Deak eludes too.

In regards to comparisons in between BC and Quebec (two provinces I both know very well for having lived in 50%/50%), one must remember that Quebec roots (from the west)date from way back unlike BC where these roots are relatively new. The European influence is huge in Quebec (e.g. culture) while the Asian influence (e.g. $) is huge here. Interesting that they are both two "blue" states.

Lorne

I made the same points on yesterday's 'Quebec' story. As a matter of fact, even Andrew Coyne was in agreement - I think that's a first.

Have a look if you've a minute, and, if you have any thoughts on the question I left up above here for Ed, I'd appreciate hearing about it.

The Opposition tabled a list of 70 questions in the Leg. yesterday that are worth a look too. I know it's not on topic but...

Who Knows

I'm likely to withhold my vote next election. This so-called "small government", "low tax", "business friendly" government has turned out to be anything but.

The most recent example is their attempt to force banks to eliminate the ATM fee. What is this - communism? The bank sets up a teller in a convenient - yes you pay for convenience - location. The bank allows you to access your money after hours, any time of the day. They provide the infrastructure, and they do NOT charge their own members, only customers with different banks. So, they are imposing a "convenience charge" to customers who are withdrawing money at a bank, they don't even bank with....

It IS NOT the government's place to get involved here. This is a free enterprise, providing a convenience based business.

Now they are taxing Hotel REITs and have done little more than bribe Quebec and suburban, two-kid families. I don't believe in targeted tax relief. The government doesn't get to pick and choose who they are going to help - just to get votes. Well, I guess they do - but I'm not going to encourage it.

I gave them until this budget to make things right, and they haven't. They've merely siphoned funds away from business and into the hands of the massess - the middle class. This does nothing to address our productivity problem and nothing to spur investment (we might see Canadian Tire Sales Spike). Go away Flaherty. Get lost. You phony clown.

Cappy...

Don't you think you'd be a "better" effect on the reigning party(s) that have digusted(?) you by getting the voting public to change their vote?

Blondie....

I would - but I can't vote for any of the other parties either. Dion would wreck us, Layton can't be taken seriously. Let's be honest, the Greens aren't really a viable solution. They are little more than a protest vote.

I probably would have voted for Ignatieff. However, Dion - c'mon..

Funny thing Cappy

I've never been a fan of ATMs - don't use them. I like the personal touch and I like to know that my bank charges are still at least partly going to keep real people employed and behind that counter. I can't think of the last time I needed to make a money-run to the local ATM in my nearby branch at 4 in the morning.

DO you get the munchies a lot at times when you're tight for cash - or are you running a little short of your ante at the local table-stakes game in the middle of the night?

ATMs are NOT a public service - they are a huge profit centre for already greedy and too profitable banks.

In fact, just the opposite is true of what you claim. Since the advent of ATMs actual customer service has suffered; branches have been closed and lineups for the fewer tellers left are longer.

This is nothing but a typical lying money grab by the banks and all you have to do to see it is take a close look at their annual financial statements.

You're the phony this time - as usual.

If I were you I wouldn't bother voting either.

You should be out picking up some options on Bell Canada anyway.

The fact that I think Flaherty is a mug

And pee wee is a total disaster won't stop me from commenting in favour of the pitifully few things they may stumble on that are worthy of some mild praise. Doing away with the non-productive work of fleecing people for keeping money in the damn bank is a good idea.

They're probably doing it for cynical political reasons but that's not so unusual, they are, after all - politicians.

Doesn't mean I want them running the shop.

Well, if you can't change

Well, if you can't change the party you vote for maybe try changing the party structure - both front men and the puppeteers. Just giving up shouldn't be an option.

Blondie/G West

I have neither the time, nor the patience to deal with politicians. Who knows - we'll see how they operate under a majority. Though, it won't be my vote that gets them there.

G - you just don't get it. Yes, Banks make a lot of money. What is wrong with that? I took a $30K inheritance from my Grandma in 1995 (or so). I used $15K as a down payment, $5K to pay down my student loans, and invested $10K of it in Bank of Nova Scotia. I paid about $9 bucks (ACB) for the shares, which are worth about $54 today. So, they've went up 600% in the past 10 years!!

I still hold the buggers, in fact, I've slowly added to my position as time has went on - and they've been kicking me dividends every quarter since. Don't tell me about bank profits.

That is the point, Banks operate in a competitive space. They do not operate as a welfare agent. They operate as a business! They provide you and I a very valuable service. It is up to them to meet the demands of their customer base within the competitive landscape. They have invested in the ATM infrastructure and charge you use it. If you are their customer, they DO NOT charge you. If you are somebody else's customer, why should you be able to use their invested infrastructure for free? They are entitled to charge you - and it is NOT the government's place to tell them no....

devolution or evolution?

Warnica presents this as something ominous or not desirable...

sounds fine by me, get rid of Ottawa and stop wasting so much time, money, everything on trying to satisfy their 'image' of a country.

Murdock

I'm with you!

That's not the point

You implied that ATMs were a valuable customer service and convenience, remember?

In fact just the opposite is true, they are just another way for the banks to download services, eliminate branches and lay off personnell while increasing profit margins. If you look at the margins banks make from their ATM and consumer credit services you'd see exactly what I mean.

Funny thing is, when the banks get themselves in a real mess they're the first ones to come crying to the government to bail them out. Some capitalists - just more damn corporate welfare bums.

Banks long ago stopped being services for their depositors and that is simply a fact. They use depositors money to advance their own selfish and greedy capitalist interests.

I could care less about your investments and the fact you now tell us you started your amazing career as a capitalist with a 30G inheritance makes a lot of other things perfectly clear.

As I said earlier, anything Flahery does to make the banks more accountable to their depositors is fine with me and the investors can all go whistle. If I had my way there would be a fair tax system in this country and non-productive parasites who do nothing but move paper and pixels would have to get a real job.

Wipe up those crocodile tears and grow up sonny, it's long past time.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject of this story.

The bigger the lie....

Fiat lux wrote:

I have seen them all, fascists, nazis, communists, capitalists and have a few scars to prove it, but will never understand how they can get away with it ?

That really is an interesting observation.

Certainly when one reads history one ponders over that very question time and time again. Why didn't they see it coming? Why was there no resistance, no action taken to avert the growing tyranny?

But I'm starting to understand it because of the times we are living through.... but like you, Ed, I have no real answer, other than people just seem to choose to not believe what is really happening around them....or that when betrayals are on such a grand scale, it somehow makes them ironically more unbelievable than believable.

Betrayal has a strange psychological dynamic at work no doubt, which often results in an attempt to deny reality, making too many people almost content to do so - maybe because it is tied to the critical decision and necesssity to finally act against the oppressor.

To get people to act, to assert their power against oppression is much more difficult than it seems.

Why that is I am not sure.

Lynn - part of the reason

I think at least part of the reason is inertia and another big part, perhaps stemming from the same attitude, is apparent comfort. Compounded with a false but potent consumer dream.

For a lot of people in the middle things are just too comfortable for them to see or hear the avalanche coming and the easy thing is to pretend that 'nothing' is happening; that 'nothing' will change. Many of the people in this group are so steeped in the culture of entitlement and the false dream of more wealth and personal independence, you know the thing - that one day they'll have those never-ending streams of passive income coming in and they'll be able to 'live' their dream life. You can see the ads every single day on television: an attractive young woman phones her ‘financial advisor’ to advance her plan because she’s gotten a raise; a couple have a lovely sit-down with their bank manager and find out they have ‘more’ money than they thought they had (has that ever happened to you?), a couple tell how they’ve helped their daughter become a doctor – it is the consumer dream. And it’s a complete and utter lie for everyone except a tiny tiny proportion of the population.

Of course, this is the essential con job at the bottom of the capitalistic scam - the dream of the ever expanding economy and the showers of benefits that will come from such a thing.

Moreover, of course it's a lie. No society - other than a criminal one based on enslaving the masses to serve an elite can actually work this way. When it happens at all, whether it’s because of low wage rip-offs in far-away lands; lowball prices for 3rd world suppliers; environmental degradation my western mining firms or a cheap wage economy based on illegal immigrant workers and criminally-low minimum wage rates there is always someone paying too big a price for someone else’s passive streams of income.

Arundhati Roy has been pointing out exactly how this enslavement culture is working in India, as you know, and the same thing will eventually have to happen everywhere for the dreams of the entitled few to come true.

It takes a long time for people to realize they have been conned but it will come. If the current slowdown in the States accelerates just a little; if a few more tens of thousands lose their homes and the price of oil goes up another $10 or so a bbl; if the next UN report on climate change (which is due in just a few days) is as pessimistic as I think it's going to be - well, more and more people are going to start to get the picture.

Perhaps a bit too late mind you.

And right now the latest group of gullible Canadians to buy these lies happen to live in Quebec.

Who should they have voted for?

A friend in Quebec I spoke to today told me that his year end bonus was taxed at 64%. He also said that if he were to move just across the border into Ontario he and his wife could save over $20,000 per year. Is a 64% tax rate reasonable? The two other friends I've heard from are quite happy with the election results. There are all working hard, some raising children.

Shouldn't the third world people be able to sell us their goods? Should we leave them in poverty? We've been traders as a people for ever. What's wrong with that?

Where's Utopia Ed?

Edvard, you must have woken this morning with a nasty bit of constipation. I hear that it's no fun. Headache?

If you've seen it all Ed, then please tell us where we should go to be free of the nasties.

Are you cooking those sausages or swallowing them raw, just to save the planet?

How Capitalism Votes

Dear Capitalism,

You often talk like you have a handle on the world, but you haven't figured out that we're in Canada and not the US. You state that: "I probably would have voted for Ignatieff. However, Dion - c'mon.." In our system you're not voting for a president, you're voting for someone to represent your constituency. Why not look at the candidates in your riding and choose the person who seems to be more competent, whether she or he is Conservative, Liberal, NDP or whatever. That's voting responsibly. Maybe that's why we get so many kooks as MPs and MLAs. Canadians are so distracted by American politics that they vote for the Prime Minister or Premier and the slimeballs slide into power (think Stockwell Day, Gordon Campbell, Glen Clark and, well, the list is long).

Your friend isn't telling you the truth

The top marginal rate of tax in Quebec for 2006 employment income is 48.22%. And that applies only to amounts of taxable income in excess of $118,285.00

In British Columbia it is 43.70% for taxable income over the same amount.

You can check it out if you don't believe me.

Harper buys Quebec

That's fine by me. Harper has a goal to get a majority government. Isn't that his job?
He doesn't care about Garth, BC Mary or the Blonde Pitbull.
Why would he? His goal should, as far as I am concerned, to get a majority government so he can help Canadians prosper, beyond the current expectations.
Toast the CBC, CRTC, Wheat Board, Dairy Council, Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs, inter provincial trade barriers.
All of these things are going to be DELETED. Sacred cows will be eaten.
It's not a hidden agenda.
It's out there, and Canadians understand that we Conservatives are a Trojan Horse entering Quebec, with a goal to help them get real about their expectations from the govt.
You leftist lib's don't have to listen to me, but ignore this message and you will see Alberta separate.
Is that what you want? Or are you stupid enough to thing you can subjugate Alta. ?
More fool you.

R/MAN

See what I mean about Harper's agenda. He may have fooled you, my friend, he hasn't fooled me and he certainly hasn't fooled dear Ron above me here.

Nice company you keep.

Yor are right about one thing Ron. I don't have to listen to you - thank God.

Quebec election mophed into ATM fees

If folks don't like to pay ALM fees, with thier banks, try joining a Credit Union. No fees at any other Credit Union either.

I'm so pleased to see that Capitalist bought shares and made some money.

Most folks who make money don't brag about it on a blog, which makes me wonder if in fact he has done so.
Back to the Quebec election. The people in the province spoke and slapped Charest down. Now the ex conservative, now Liberal, has asked the other parties to work with him. He has no choice but to do so. all those dollars Harper pushed that way didn't get his pal Charest, a majority. Hell it's only our money.
another fellow is writing about Alberta seperating from Canada which is slightly off the subject of a quebec election flop by Harpo's friend of the month.

murdock

I have a better idea, let's get rid of provinces and keep Canada. Most people call themselves Canadians, not British Columbians so if the choice is between the two I think it would be BC voted off the island.

IndyJones

I hear what you're saying. However, if you read Rafe Mair's article, much like in BC, the PM runs the show.

Dion exercises huge control over his party's policy and direction. A Liberal Party under the leadership of Ignatieff is someting I can handle. The one word that I think of when I think "Dion" is "Pathetic". I don't like his views and his would-be influence on Canada and I don't like him representing our country internationally...

You prefer Harper?

And his leisure suit Larry image?

Ah, well, no accounting for taste.

Cappy

Cappy, I agree with you about ATMs and banks being able to charge non-bank customers but I disagree with you where you say Flaherty doesn't have the right to step on bank toes. He does. Banking is too important to be left completely to the whims of the changing personalities at the banks.

I haven't looked at the Bank Act since first year economics but I'm pretty sure Flaherty does indeed have every right.

As for ATMs, charging your own customers to get their money out of your bank should be unlawful. But charging another bank's customers seems justifiable to me.

Frank

As always - you are a sense of reason from the left. If there were more like you, people would take your side seriously.

This I believe is the case. If it isn't, Flaherty is in his right to go after the banks. G's arguement is "look the banks are making so much money" - well, they are a profit oriented business and trying to expand internationally. Scotia Bank does very well in Latin America and is buying Asian assets.

These banks don't exist to subsidize Canadians. They operate to make a profit. They are regulated by competition and the government.

I agree with you - utilities, banking, communications are too important to citizens of this great nation. They need to be regulated. Banks are regulated - from reserves, to rates and business combinations.

However, this $2 fee to get money from a bank that is not yours is not something the government belongs in. If you don't like it, plan, and get your money out the old fashioned way - GO TO YOUR OWN BANK!!!

G

Harper carries himself with dignity and professionalism. He is diplomatic and a great international representative. I think we should be proud to have a man like him as our PM.

He is well principled, well spoken and proving to be much more flexible than originally anticipated.

You may not like his politics, but he is hardly "pathetic". Dion is a wimp. Like I said, the kind of kid that used to get shoved in lockers! Nice guy, I'm sure. Leader of our great nation - no way.

We need the class president (which I was, believe it or not) - not the class dork.

Valid point Frank

But, charging a flat fee of $1.50 for a withdrawal of $20 or $40 of one's own money - whomever provides the service - sounds a lot like usury to me.

Flaherty should regulate away with my blessing. If the private contractors who're moving into this largely unnecessary service can't make a go of it for a reasonable charge that has some proportionality to the amount of the withdrawal - so be it. Unfortunately, many of the people who seem to need the funds in the middle of the night are also the ones least able to afford the usurious charge.

Paying for convenience is one thing, holding someone up for it is quite another.

If the new rules cut into the profits of the Bank of Nova Scotia - I could care less. Banks should be what they were originally intended to be - as service - and not just a bunch of feckless profit centres.

Up with the credit union movement - if everyone moved their case out of the banks they might begin to get the picture that they've become dinosaurs too.

errata

That's moved their 'cash' out of the banks - sorry.

I Tried

I had a personal acquaintance that was the president of a credit union here and offered them my mortgage but they couldn't match a bank that was about 3/4 of point lower.

R/Man

I don't know what kind of mortgage you were after or anything else about your story; but, if it's as accurate as your post yesterday about 60% marginal rates of tax in Quebec....well, you get the picture.

Perhaps if banks weren't ripping off so many customers with small bank balances they'd be less likely to offer special deals to folks with a lot of money and or property. Something they call personal banking. Doesn’t seem to have much traction for working folks who’ve lost a job and are having trouble paying down their consumer credit accounts with the 18.9% interest calculated daily on the outstanding balance.

Anyway, I'm thinking of offering some lectures on the architecture of the Canadian Income Tax system next month - you might want to sign up. Like so many of my conservative friends you don't actually seem to know that much about how the system really works. A lot of folks who constantly complain about levels of taxation don't even know how to calculate the effective rates of tax on their taxable income.

G

What are you talking about now...I think we all know how much tax we pay. In fact, I just cut a personal check the other day to the government. We also know what marginal tax rates are.

First-off - it is Visa, American Express and MasterCard who receive the vast majority of credit card interest. Not our beloved Canadian banks! They have licensing agreements with the major credit cards and receive some profit, though it is primarily Visa who makes the money.

Secondly, Banks don't make a huge sum of money off regular checking accounts. Sure, they are able to lend off customer deposits, however they work to establish a relationship with you, so that you finance through them.

Don't give me this:

If you can pay your bills on time, they'll give you fair rates. What do you suppose they do, lend big amounts of money to customers, at low rates, knowing they won't be able to pay it back???

Believe me, their profits are made through good mortgages, good business and personal loans, asset management and other services. They are not making their money off the little guy with the little checking account. In fact, if it weren't a PR disaster, they probably wouldn't even issue an account to the little guy.

At ScotiaBank, the monthly fee is around $3.95. This gives you unlimited access to internet banking, checks and ATM use - at their banks. Hardly a rip-off.

They'll Give

They'll give anybody a reasonable loan (based on their income and asset base), at reasonable rates, given that they can demonstrate they are able to pay it off...

These guys aren't the enemy. Layton/Flaherty fail to recognize that most of their profit growth comes from their Capital and International divisions.

So, they make money internationally and are supposed to just - give it away - to Canadians...

Cap: " Conserve" your debate

Don't sweat it.

Sometimes it ends up like that "hockey stick graph" the Climate Change types (Leftie version 2007 du jour )worship like the Leftie bible.

There is "some objectivity","some logic" in their posts, then the wall is hit, the subjective rants kick in , then it gets crookeder than a dog's hind leg.

(SEE Leftie debating graph BELOW)

* (Leftie Objective area/zone)
* *******
* *
* *
* * (Leftie toilet flush zone)
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * (Tie Domi/Dion Zone
* (Layton too)
*
*
*
*
**********************************

Hey G...

Maybe you should spend more time reading stuff like this - instead of your little blogs:

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0416/064.html?partner=yahoomag

Cappy

You are wasting my time.

Have a look at the big five banks' financial statements.

The discussion about Tax rates had nothing to do with you – it was with Realisticman and he didn’t know what he was talking about – just like you virtually all the time. R/man is usually not that far off the mark.

Federally chartered banks are covered by the bank act. Flaherty can regulate them - period, end of argument. I think he’d be unwise to tell them they all have to wear pink uniforms but when it comes to certain kinds of regulations and fees I think he’s on solid ground telling them what to do/

Calculate the cost of a $1.50 fee for a $20 withdrawal, come back, and tell me it's reasonable and I'll tell you where to go.

In addition, while you're at it learn to read. I couldn't care less about some character who inherited $30G when he was 20 years old and who subsequently thinks he knows anything about what life is really like for the vast majority of people who work for a living.

Why do you think they all buy lottery tickets?

Would that be STEVE Forbes your talking about?

THis Steve Forbes:

http://www.realchange.org/forbes.htm

No Thanks. I've read enough true crime stories already in the business pages for a lifetime.

ATMs

When it comes to ATMs it might be better if banks simply didn't allow people whose account resides within a different institution to take out $20. Just print out a note saying what they're doing doesn't make any sense for either of them.

Better read the RULES

So if I repeat something I've heard (year-end bonus paid to friend in Quebec 2 days after year-end taxed at 60 something percent) and the poser, presently claiming to be going only by the name GWest but also previously posting commments to and fro under at least one other self-confessed pseudonym) and Capitalism (another commentator) responds to the comment by GWest, then GWest tells Capitalism that it's none of his business since GWest was responding to me.

Well, excuuuuse me. I thought this was a forum for discussion but it's actually just like school and we know who the teacher, sir, is.

ATM Help

Let's create a study group to see how many people are affected by this convenience that they have to pay for.

Perhaps if someone uses an ATM at an institution other than their own, for 20 bucks or less, then automatically a video feed is piped to the ATM screen with a financial counselor gently questioning them as to whether or not they really need and want to do this. If a transaction is concluded then the counselor shall decide if the financial institution be allowed to charge for the service, or whether this was something that should be done free.

If that was meant to be funny, it isn't!

Cappy was discussing ATMs - and the banks.

You made a mistaken reference to the top rate of marginal tax in the province of Quebec.

I dealt with Cappy relative to point he had been pursuing and I felt his reference to taxes rates was redundant. DO you disagree, or are you just upset at being mistaken about the essential underpinning of the point you were trying to advance relative to Quebec taxation? Pardon me for saying so but your penultimate post above me here reads a lot like it’s the latter. Perhaps you’d like to have another look at what you're implying.

As to the ATM thing, why not limit fees for sums of less than $50.00 to 25 cents and if, under those circumstances, the banks no longer care to offer the service perhaps they'll stop doing so. Either that or they can make up in volume what they've lost in price.

Right now, the charges are ridiculous and the government is right to address them. That's twice in 13 months that I've been in nominal agreement with something pee wee has proposed and/or done.

No need for any costly study groups - when the rollback in ATM charges starts to cut into bank profitability I think they'll pull a Matthew Barrett and be back on Parliament Hill cap in hand.

ATM fees

As long as the banks have the choice to not offer the service at all for withdrawals of less than $50 I think that would be fine. None of us know the actual cost of the transaction for a bank. We do know that the cost is the same regardless of the amount being withdrawn.

Article from Forbes

My problem with this article is its narrow focus. It takes a broad brush simplistic approach to a complex subject tossing out a few throw-away facts to back a shaky argument.

The point of the article is that unbridled capitalism is good for poor people because it will make the world as a whole a richer place and even raise the poor up a bit.

Yet we all know that he's leaving lots of facts out of his article. Facts that call into question the point of his rant against "do-gooders". Is it just me that detects a sneer?

I wanted to do a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal but unfortunately I don't have the time this morning. But generally my point is that saying someone has just gone from $1 a day to $2 a day and think thats the end of the story is simply wrong. In many instances there was a price to pay such as privatized water or deteriorating services.

$1 a day and free water is actually better than $2 a day and unable to afford water.

There's also the effects of the environmental destruction that has been wrought in many of those countries such as China.

Anyway, no time today but if anyone wants to discuss that article at length I'd be happy to do so later.

Anyone offering odds on this?

"We're going to have the kind of team that's really going to excite the people of Quebec with the possibility of a voice that will speak for the average middle-class family that's really feeling squeezed these days," the NDP leader said, naming former provincial environment minister Thomas Mulcair and Cree leader Romeo Saganash as possible star candidates.

NDP in Kebec

The only chance for the NDP in Quebec is if the Bloc vote completely collapses and a lot of centre-lefties need to find a federal home. Maybe that's what Layton is hoping for after the Quebec provincial election. Personally I think the NDP's chances in Quebec are about the same as they are in Alberta but that's just me.

The best thing Alexa ever did for the party was to finally make a breakthrough in the maritimes. I'd like to see some focus on that rather than chasing rainbows. There are also parts of Ontario that could become NDP seats given enough work and a favourable political scene.

Green vision

Here's something that the media and left-right spin doctors missed and something that may explain the lack of support for the left in Quebec. The PQ ran a left-leaning slate that was leaning "green" to sway voters. The Quebec Solidaire party, backed by unions and fared poorly across the board.

How many Green candidates came in second? 3: Peter McQueen, 15.97% in Notre Dame de Grace, Patrick Daoust, 12.64% in Westmount-StLouis and in D'Arcy-McGee, the candidate Robert Leibner finished with 7%.

Among the other strong Green showings: Ryan Young (Jacques-Cartier) with 11%, Luc Côté (Outremont) with 11%, Brian Gibb (Pontiac) with 10% and the leader of the party, Party leader, Scott McKay (Bourget), with 8%.

In the end, more than 150,000 Quebecers supported the Greens at 3.89%. This is a significant gain from the previous election in 2003 at .44% and the Quebec Solidaire were behind the Greens this election as well. I'm certain they spent much less in the campaign as well. The Green vote would have been much higher had Anglo and Allophone voters not freaked out at the possibility of the PQ leading parliament. Sound familiar? Thanks First Pass the Post!

On the federal front, the NDP don't have a chance in Quebec, unless they proclaim sovereignty as a platform because the left parties (PQ and QS) are strongly linked to the seperatist cause.

Alberta's second party is the Green Party as well. A stronger presence on the east coast, with May running in Central Nova will show growth there as well (and possibly some wins).

What we need to realize here is that the NDP cannot, at this point, penetrate Quebec or Alberta nor have a strong pressence in the Maritimes.

We should be focussing on building the grassroots Greens that can attract the traditional left and right supporters as well as the youth across the country as a global party -- not regional. That's what created Quebec isolationism in the first place.