The entire reason why Corporations are so favored by government is not just because they are so powerful now, that corporations are appointing politicians (majorly now in the states), but because corporations allow governments to tax income twice. We all know that Corporations are, in fact, under technical terms, an identity... call it "Son of Perdition", if you will, an identity or name without a soul, but, a taxable one. There isn't one finance minister around that would logically say to themselves, "Hey! Lets get rid of Corporations! We don't need their taxes. We'll make it up with personal taxes!"

Let's get realistic. Corporations are here to stay. And then, here comes income trusts. The corporation pays out all profits to the shareholder and suddenly, there is no corporation income to tax. Who pays more tax? The shareholder. What... were supposed to feel sorry for the shareholder now because they are making more money and have to pay more tax? Lets get real. The fact is, when you crunch the numbers, the taxman isn't losing here. The tax losses are being made up with tax gains from higher shareholder taxes.

And what, the States wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole? Of course! There isn't a corporation down south that isn't out for themselves at everyone elses expense. Up here, in Canada, we have corporations that don't care about the profits, its called "INCOME TRUSTS".

Now, there are still dangers to the shareholders, especially with commodity driven income trusts, but the bottom line, here, is that Income trusts, are passing off profits directly to the shareholders and as long as this exists, it will always be against everything corporate america stands for, because corporate america stands for greed, control, exploitation of all resources including life hand human, and naturally, income trusts go against their whole ideological train of thought.

Just think for a moment. Does it make sense to you, to give away all of your profits to your children and leave none to yourself? For those of you who like this idea, because you've got enough wealth already to put your feet up regardless, then, you've just discovered the reason why its here in Canada and not corporate America.

And as far as Lib scandals of leaks, all they are is accusations by the NDP and PC's who, in timely fashion, brought down the government the day after. They say that "where there is smoke, there is fire." But, where there is fire, there is often a gun and who's pulling the trigger? Who is calling allegations a scandal with no proof? My guess is that this one is going to backfire. You know, "99% of the time, the accuser is the guilty one. The finger you point is pointing right back at you." I've followed Ralph Goodale for 30 years. Honest man. End of story.

The $300M the article speaks of is a worst-case scenario estimate.

Effectively, the unitholder pays tax on the income received from the trust, while the corporation pays no tax on the distribution (i.e. treated as an expense) - this differs from a dividend, whereby the corporation and the individual both pay tax - (i.e. the corporation pays the dividend from after tax cash-flow).

The simple solution would be to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. Canada is one of a handfull of companies that has decided it gan gauge investors twice - once from a capital gains perspective (corporations) and once from an income perspective - through the double taxation of dividends.

So, the real scandal I see is the government taxing us one money we have already been taxed on - and I conclude that this article is ridiculous.

The real issue with income trusts surrounds capital re-investment and productivity growth.

Now wait a minute here. Income trusts are purely an attempt to shield revenue from taxation. The example given by Kurt is rubbish because if I were that shop owner I currently don't pay the taxes twice - and neither does the corporation. Furthermore - as a normal wage earning taxpayer I don't get to pay taxes on my "profit" (revenue less expenses) like a corporation or small business - I pay taxes on the substantial portion of my "revenue" - and my "revenue" includes many of the costs of "doing business" that corporations can deduct from revenue.

Corporations consume services from the public purse (government) and should pay for those services (taxes) - pure and simple. Using an income trust is simply an accounting shell game to avoid corporate taxation.

hey jjr - you can deduct expenses directly attributable to your employment. For example, if you drive a lot for work (outside of commuting) ~ and are not provided with a vehicle allowance, you would be able to deduct a portion of your depreciation and vehicle costs.

So - you do pay taxes on the "profit" of your employment.

In this instance, who pays the taxes is irrelevant. The corporation is effectively deferring most of its taxes to the individual investor - who pays a higher marginal rate anyway.

Whereas, dividend paying companies pay far lower dividends due to current tax disadvantages. Therefore, rather than providing investors with income (as Trusts do), they try and provide greater capital gain.

I goes to prove that our taxation regime is completely out of wack, as the average Canadain has not a clue about it. That's why so many are opting for the 'black' market so to speak. Cash price - no taxes!

The corruption in Ottawa just compells more people to illegally avoid paying taxes.

To Mabellbc and jjr: You are both right, except jjr's view on income trusts as being an accounting shell game, because it isn't and the reason why it isn't an accounting shell game, is because we have to put it on an accurate timeline.

Most income trusts have been highly profitable before they become income trusts, yes, with corporate tax breaks and incentives, but there is no shell game here. This profit gets taxed all along the way and profits get taxed in far higher tax percentages on average by the shareholder after it becomes an income trust.

Corporations have better tax breaks, lower flat tax percentages and as you have pointed out, jjr, a fixed tax rate, where personal tax revenue tax rates, on the other hand, go up with increased profit. However, once that corporation turns into an income trust, it doesn't matter how many tax breaks or tax advantages corporations have recieved in the past, because the profitable tax is passed onto the personal shareholder (without the double taxation of dividends) and we all know that the government has much higher tax rates on personal income taxes, especially with those who can afford to play the markets to begin with.

As far as dividends go, mabellbc, you are 100% true blue bang on accurate. It is an outrage to be double taxed with dividends, but in case we haven't noticed, that is exactly what happens when shareholders declare profit from profit sharing to begin with. This double taxation standard has existed since the beginning in dividends, yes, but it has also existed even earlier, with the beginning of the creation of the corporate "identity", itself. My point is, as long as there is corporate profit, there is double taxation... except with income trusts!

Now. The issue of with income trusts surrounding capital re-investment and productivity growth is an issue. But again, lets look at it from a timeline perspective. There is nothing stopping an income trust from changing its stripes and declaring its own profits. This would be a violation of shareholder trust, but... then again, it might not, when resources dwindle on commodity trusts, or contracts expire on service trusts.

Outside of the reasons why it might be morally irresponsible for the income trust to begin delcaring profits again, due to the shareholders trust that the income trust would not change to paying corporate taxes on corporate profits again... the biggest reason why income trusts become trusts to begin with, is human resources (or lack thereof).

Most of these income trusts have lost key human resource elements in their corporate structure. An oil company or mining or service company that has fully developed its resources, with key human losses into discovery of new resources or contracts, is most often the corporation that becomes an income trust. Again, look a the timelines of these corporate trusts, and ask yourselves why they went there to begin with.

Income trusts? No double taxation, but watch your ass with depleted resources and expired contracts. Smart investors make major money. Dumb investors lose their shirts. Same ol' same O.

This article is misguided. As Kurt pointed out, individuals or holding companies or other taxable entities pay tax on the income they receive from income trusts. In Canada, we have the ridiculous and onerous "double taxation" of corporate profits, which doesn't exist in the US. Investment capital knows no borders.

All Canadians are shareholders - directly, or indirectly, whether they know it or not. This article serves only to simply distort the investment/taxation facts for the authors own political gains.

This is yet another example of a dumbed-down argument appealing to the chicken-littles and the easily-swayed ignorant.

Corruption Grumpy? In Ottawa? Try Quebec. I didn't go voting for parties over individuals back east. And what, the provincial governments arent corrupt? I guess we're all saints as long as we don't get caught.

You want to find corruption, start looking at government contracts and their paper trails in health care. I'd say we wasted 50 billion last year. Last I looked, I didn't see alot of healthy Canadians walking around either. They were waddling around. We talk about Montgomery likes its big and major. Its the tip of it. Yah, public works will always have its skimmers and bottom feeders. Look at the big money. Look at healthcare and indian affairs. Thats where you'll find it.

Interestingly enough, sensus contracts that have information given verbally, the big message form Harper, is full of answers that the rest of us don't want to hear. We don't want to hear some 132,000 dollar report on native reserves that have the word racist appear 150 times... do we? A question is going to be asked here. Do we want full public disclosure of every sensus ever made with all of the tough questions that need to be asked? That blank file of Stephen Harper's might be more revealling than we think.

And this bull about putting census contracts to the cheapest bidder. It's not working for the Forest ministries in B.C.. Sure, its sets a lower contract price overall, and you get what you pay for. All Steven Harper is to me, is some anal twit whiner who is likely to get alot of votes, because our electorate just isn't that smart, falling for soundbites rather than facts, especially the things that take brain work like filing taxes. But hey, Grumpy. Its up to the ones who are in the know to do something about it. Brains think for brawn. (sure wish it was there in the media... this article sucks) Do you concur?

Pekes: But there is no double taxation on income trusts, because income trusts DON'T PAY TAXES. As far as the States, go, there is a double taxation there, but the accounting is still so corrupt...

The income trust trend is simply because of a phenomenon that the Bank of Montreal pointed out 5 years ago: at that time, Canada had the highest corporate income taxes in the world. (Now, I think we're #2 or #3). Even in Scandanavia, which has much lower corporate taxes, they recognize that taxing income twice is counterproductive (which is really what corporate taxes do). Only the loony left disagrees.

So income trusts are a predictable, natural and legal extension of the legitimate attempt by taxpayers to reduce their tax burden.

It seems as though the market is ripe for corporate theft stories, so we might as well stay on track
19 cents of every dollar that the Fed Gov’t spends goes directly to the banks, the corporate chartered banks, without passing go. Why can’t politicians or Journalists address this?
The trusts are a product of a twisted and unholy market that values companies at 10x earnings or more. Earnings drive share price like a supercharger in these strange and twisted times, so corporate entities have evolved to make those earnings their centerpiece. The government didn’t make it like this, and neither did the corporations; the market did. The shareholders still pay tax on the portion of the income that ends up being taxable, as well as any capital gain from flipping trusts. This is a non-issue.
Anyone who really cares about corporations stealing their money and sovereignty had better learn about the Chartered Banks in a hurry.

Sportdesk: What are you smoking?

"19 cents of every dollar that the Fed Gov’t spends goes directly to the banks,"

Are you stupid or something? More like 19 cents of all tax dollars raised COMES FROM bank profits. Why do you think the fed gov shelters them so - from foreign competition?

The only theft going on is the misallocation (spending) of your tax dollars; i.e.; theft by government. People have a choice as to which businesses they patronize. Don't like banks? Bank at a credit union.

Brain: I guess you're right...accounting in the US is so corrupt. I guess that's why there are 10 million illegal Mexican immigrants in the US, because the US is corrupt.

Hey Brain: :-)

Hey, Pekes: :-) (He was talking Fed interest?)
You guys want a stock tip? JNI:TSX. This one's been trading at 19 to 24 cents since late November, even though, they sold out their Guatamalan subsiduary with, how ironically, the same name. Jaguar Nickel. They'll have 32 mil cash, with 108mil shares fully diluted, on Jan. 24th, giving them cash with no loans, or book value at 29.6 cents a share. I wouldn't mind owning a company that traded almost a third less then their book, with maybe, say, 5 mil they'll spend this year on Nickel exporation in Canada?
Shareholders really missed it with this one. The news announcements make it sound like the company sold itself for 19 mil to BHP Hilton, when they sold their subsiduary with the exact same name. They'll sit free and clear with 31 mil and all of this will come out on the 24th of Jan.

Martin:
What would you rather have? A low corporate tax rate and a high personal tax rate, A high corporate rate and a low personal rate, or... what we have in Canada, high and high?

As for your tax rates on an international level, we are corporately 20% and the libs want to drop it to 16 and then 14%. I believe the U.S. is 18% corporate Federally. As for the rest of the nations, most of Europe is in the high teens, some African nations are in the 20's, Australia is 20, I believe, and Asia, I'm weak on.

Pekes: You’re correct, except for that part about me being stupid. That’s your arrogance showing and you ought to put a leash on it.

The gov’t – your gov’t – is perpetually in debt to the corporate Chartered Banks, to whom they’ve given a license to print money. The interest paid on this debt becomes the income of those banks. After deducting their expenses, they pay taxes to the gov’t, which the gov’t then uses to pay the interest on the debt, which becomes the income of the Chartered banks. After deducting expenses, they pay taxes to the gov’t, which the gov’t then uses to pay the interest on the debt, which becomes the income of the ?//ERROR: MONETARY FRAUD WARNING. SPORTSDESK MUST SHUT DOWN??//*&

Meanwhile, back in the vault, the incredible amounts of capital that are placed in the reserves of these banks have become their license to do any number of neat tricks in the capital markets and debt markets (and especially the consumer debt markets) that don’t require them to take any risk of their own.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you live in an Oligarchy. There is an elite that are able to make money appear from nowhere while the rest of us have to earn it. Resistance and outrage over income trusts is worthless. RBC, BMO, TD and the like would gladly give up every share of every income trust that they own in order to protect their charters.

There is another important aspect to Income Trusts this article misses. The article seems to imply the unitholders (investors) are the ones laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak.

There's a guy named Al Rosen, a forensic accountant who is an activist in advocating for improvemnets to our very lax (in his view) system which turns a blind eye to much corporate crime, and crooked dealings and accounting by co. insiders.
Our laws, regulators, RCMP and prosecutors are all deficient on white collar crime, in his opinion.

He was one of the first to go public about the questionable stock trading the day before the gov't announcement of new rules affecting dividend paying stocks. The day of the announcement he was already calling for an RCMP and OSC investigation into an apparent leak.

Rosen makes another point about Income Trusts:
they are also a danger to unsuspecting investors who put money into them! And it isn't just "the rich". He says the investment industry has been aggressively marketing these investments to seniors. Many seniors apparently believe these are safe income generating investments like blue chip stocks or perhaps GICs even!

In fact, income trusts tend to be smaller companies and they are anything but safe!
Many have gone belly up or have lost huge amounts of their value the last few years.

Mr. Rosen has also likened trust structures to
pyramid schemes, I guess because of their propensity to sometimes blow up.

Here's an aspect of trusts that can make them dangerous, and like pyramid schemes:
"Rosen explains alarm bells should go off when income funds are paying distributions well in excess of net income. In the case of the Brick Warehouse, earnings for the first six months of 2005 were $7 million, while it paid out $35 million in distributions."

For the rest of this article on dangers to investors of trusts:
http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale/2005/11/13/1306523-sun.html

Bob: Bingo.

It's buyer beware in the capital markets.

Your example about the Brick is perfect. If they paid out 35 mil in distributions, that's 35 mil worth of income as opposed to 7 mil (less expenses?) that would have been paid otherwise.
No WONDER they're gov't darlings.

You've got my head, Bobbing. Thanks again for the info you provided for me earlier. 8-D Good to hear from you Bobb999, got some library books on the way, and I'll give your website a peek.

Sportsdesk:

The banks don't print money. The Bank of Canada (arm of the Federal Government responsible for effecting monetary policy) prints money. The banks have to purchase money.

Banks are allowed to create loans (lend money) based on amount of money they have on reserve with the Bank of Canada.

The Government of Canada is not in debt to banks - quite the opposite. The Gov of Canada has deposits with banks, that influence their (the bank's) reserves.

The Government of Canada owes money to whomever holds Gov't of Canada and various agencies' paper (bonds, notes, Tbills etc). The only way Gov of Can owes money to banks is if banks hold gov paper, which banks do hold as market maker or dealer. On the flip side, Governments hold bank paper (BA's, debt and equities) for money management and as stand alone investments too.

Where did you say you went to school?

Hey, Pekes: ;-)

with interest rates artificially low so bush can finance his war, people have to find yield where ever it is available. income trusts just happen to be one vehicle that offer a high yield. (along with a high degree of risk)

To Bobb999 (and everyone else):

The website makes some excellent points, particularly with the name itself... trusts.
We just can't trust them. They should be treated like any other stock out there, because that is exactly how they behave, with a twist.

Income trusts usually become income trusts because of weakness in management, almost always in discovery, development, business renewal, or all three. Although I like the idea of single taxation, usually, its not good for business to turn over all profits to the shareholder, unless its to finish out an already developed resource, whether its oil in the ground, metal in a mine, or contracts for services rendered. At this point, like the case of oil, for example, accurate resource estimates are critical and towards the end of the resource depletion, trust shares will definitely go down. There really isn't much for secrets here, unless... you are internet illiterate.

Most seniors are one finger louies, from another age... they aren't into sitting in front of comps and researching stocks or trusts all day long. They go to brokers and hope for good council, when GIC's and bonds don't do well. These days, its a crap shoot where you go.

Brokers will take 5 to 6 percent to get you in and out of a stock... the trade commissions aren't cheap at most banks just to play at home online... seniors like long term plays, but there just aren't alot of good long term plays out there. Mega projects with lots of funding in commodities that are in demand or shortages look good, but often we discover them too late. Its always about the discovery.

Tech's just aren't the place to go for seniors as a rule. There is simply to much risk to dilution of shares. I like commodities and the TSE is full of them... but seniors should be looking to banks themselves to invest, something like dividend RRSP's, with a leery eye on the U.S. economy. Problem with dividend RRSP's is they've already taken a big run up, and banks take major hits with recessions, particularly if it deepens into devalued equities in real estate from rising interest rates.

If the U.S. economy misfires, (which I heavily predict a major recession by year end) then the safe money for seniors is the odd, large resource commodity stock that is getting good startup financing (always a good sign that its real) and put large money into short term savings bonds, to re-invest into savings bonds a year to two from now. Interest rates and going down, here. They're going up.

Me again Sportsdesk:

I reread your post. Let's this straight. Banks make money on the SPREAD. Their revenue is primarily derived from the difference that banks charge in interest (primarily mortgage interest) and what banks pay in interest (savings, deposits, BAs). Banks MATCH interest received (Gov bonds included) with interest paid (as mentioned).

The business of banking is about managing risk properly. In other words, banks can create money so to speak by creating a loan, but the loan has to be repaid, otherwise they're stuck with a car or a writeoff.

One of the reasons we have a stable economy is because we have a strong banking industry. If you really believe consumers are not well-served by banks, then you should lobby for increased (foreign) competition so we'd have more banks - similar to the US system. But then I guess you'd argue that nasty foreign corporations would be stealing are money this time. As an aside, I'm willing to wager that you work in Government somewhere, or maybe you're a student.

Brain: I don't quite understand the attractiveness of JNI but thanks for the idea. I like Kinross warrants, as a spec idea.

Matt Price: What have you got against George Bush?

Anybody: Why is PEI a province?

:-)

brain:
Your mention of Jaguar nickel brought back a name I'd lost track of.
I recall it was a hot jr. miner when I was checking out some base metal names in '03 or '04. I ended up buying Dynatec instead at the time as looking like a better value of that moment.
If Jaguar has fallen very far, maybe you've found a good value play! I'll check it out.

For mining stocks, I'm focussed mainly on Cdn gold stocks that interlist in the US on AMEX, but perhaps I should diversify into other metals...Some say we're still in the early stages of a muti-year commodities bull mkt, which should bode well for metals in gen'l!

Good luck with your book research!

SportsDesk: Gov't darlings is right.
It's ironic poor Goodale thought he was helping his party's election prospects by making an announcement Bay Street would like - but the fallout from the leak is creating the opposite of the hoped for effect! Serves them right.
(Except I do hope it's not quite enough to give the election to Harper).

brain:
I agree with you that the US economy is likely headed for recession in '06 or at least a slow down which will pummel the stock mkt., which is due for a major correction anyway, in my view.

It's likely the Cdn mkt will outperform the US, as you say, because of our heavy weighting of resource stocks. Perhaps Asian demand (plus sufficient US demand) will keep commodity prices and stocks strong.

But some unhappy seniors may find some of their trusts falling hard this year if they picked the wrong sector.

I'm growing very nervous about the stock mkts. We're getting a nice pop this week which may last the month, but after that,
it looks ominous to me...I'm trying to prepare
mentally and strategically for the big sell-off.

To Bobb999: I would prepare for a sell off. The Canadian election also looms large in all of this. A PC gov. is bad for international investment. Canadian voters might be slow, but big money sure isn't. There's a reason why we've got good strong currency. Everyone whines about not getting enough money. The provinces, the opposition parties... and the journalism is about as sad as the joker who posted this article up top.

Whether we love or hate Paul Martin, he's the reason why we have a strong economy and commodity driven surplus's. He's a money man. Its called a higher Canadian dollar. If the P.C's form a minority government, the dollar will lose a few cents. If they form a majority, we might see a ten cent drop. Good bye surplus's, hello deficits and low currency. Low currency isn't exactly a money maker when commodities are screaming in oil and metals. Steven Harper? Dangerous.

If the U.S. tanks, the world tanks. Some metals still look strong, regardless from world demand. When recessions hit, the rich flock to oil and gold. Anything in Zinc could be cherry, but I'm weak in zinc. I'm pointing this next one out to you for a long term play. Take a look at EQN:TSX. It's my next play after dumping Jag, likely sometime in Feb. Jag took a 20% jump, today. (people are catching on) Check their latest post on sedar.com at the 21st, 22nd page. Not sure where you could get in if you make a play tomarrow, generally when they jump 20%, they take a breather for a few days, but its hard to say now. Iit could hit .50 on spec. within two months, which is what I'm hoping for, certainly the low 30's, min. before months end. Good luck, if you make a play.

Suggestion: check out why CanWest was doing a major financial reorganization which placed most of its holdings in ... Income Trusts.

History is relevant to modern politics

============================

During the years leading up to the annexation of Austria in March 1938, Adolf Hitler implemented a plan specifically designed to assume proxy authority over an adjacent sovereign nation. It is significant to the Canadian reality, and vital, that we recognize this political annexation mechanism.

The belief that Canada’s political system faces an external threat has been substantiated for some time. George Bush is certainly not the first to attempt to exercise authority across the border.

Hitler realized that though he had already built a strong force, he did not have the resources yet in place to proceed militarily. Adding to the problem, he had not been successful in convincing the world, outside Germany, that he faced a serious terrorist threat. The only option for the takeover of Austria was a subversion of the political process.

For those who have forgotten, Hitler converted Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship by political manipulation of the public perception of the threat of terrorism.

During the years leading up to the move against Austria, ambassadors representing the German leader aggressively sought out sympathetic contacts at all levels of Austrian government. From the Chancellery down to provincial and municipal bodies, a network of political affiliates was established. German operatives also elicited support within police forces as well the military, security services, judiciary, and the media.

Indeed, the clever utilization of an aggressive form of intrusive diplomacy, characterized by an overt manipulation of fear and a brazen contempt for the legitimate Austrian government, yielded Hitler many reliable political insurgents. He legitimized his ambassador’s unprecedented public participation by referring to Austria and its people as family; a natural extension of Germany.

There is little doubt that Hitler was at the root of the terrorism which he so skilfully manipulated to his political benefit. In effect, he used the threat of terror to terrorize the population into allowing him absolute authority. He then used that absolute authority to terrorize his neighbours.

The Bush administration’s incessant determination to influence Canadian government policy, both domestic and foreign, underscores its general contempt for our democracy.

I can’t help but wonder if the timing of the recent announcement of an investigation into Mr. Goodale’s department has its basis in the cozy relationship between RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli and former ambassador Cellucci.

Robert MacKay
Merritt BC

re: Goodale/Trustgate

My suspicion also, RJM. Posted this elsewhere, but it fits better here.

I am worried that this alleged scandal will prove too late to be nothing more than political opportunism. We are vulnerable to interference at this critical time in our electoral process.

Imagine an anti-Liberal think-tank, Canadian or otherwise, that hatches a scheme to nudge Stephen Harper into victory by way of a carefully timed stock market rumour. When traders react predictably, a raucous cry of corruption is raised against the Liberals. Canadians, being sensitive on the subject of government ethics just now, are moved to vote Conservative. By the time the dust has settled, the election is over. What does it matter if the allegations prove to be groundless?

To some Canadians, this might seem far-fetched. However, I think not. Traders buy on the rumour and sell on the news as a part of daily business. As to political manipulation, Americans experienced far worse than this during their past two elections.

Without real evidence of wrongdoing, Canadian voters and media should consider the possibility that they are being had here.

To BC Mary:
You are wise to ferret out Can West's involvement in the push on trusts. I've read your commentary before on Can West. You won't hear any arguments from me with your earlier commentaries. You create the idea, get in at the beginning, take profit over the short term and get out at the climb and peak. It saved their ass at, I can't exactly say everyone elses expense, but most certainly, income trusts aren't a good long term play. They never were, except for, mabye, those who hold units at the beginning, like underwriters and Can West.

There will always we total disasters out there in any market sector, but over all, income trusts can be called a house of cards, because these corporations JUST, DON'T GROW. They just spin out money until they run out of resources, contracts expire or the sales stop and they will run out, expire or stop because there is nothing else in the pipeline. Income Trusts don't grow. They burn out! So, as long as investors know it, they walk into holes with eyes open, but if investors don't know it (and your guess is likely better than mine as to what they told the unit holders of Income trusts), then it turns into the size and scale that makes Montgomery look like a minnow compared to a whale in terms of corruption.
Excellent example.

To Puppyg & rjm:
Yah. You both have a major point new to most, including me. Its the NDP and PC's who complained, so technically, the RCMP have a right to investigate, but... did the RCMP have a leg to stand on to launch a criminal investigation so close to an election? Highly irregular. Wow. Ask the question who benefits and... could be a book in it for one of you, a few hundred thousand copies... I'm a bit busy myself with another book, so...

rjm: Well said. That is my intuition about this latest development as well, which puppyg commmented on on another thread.

Friends in high... and foreign places come to the aid of the party...the Conservative party in this case...

As puppyg says:

Exactly. One only has to remember our BC provincial election last May, and our dear premier's allegation that the BC teachers intended to go out on strike before the end of the school year....

Opponent's momentum broken. Truth blind-sided. Election won. Result achieved.

What this string might reveal is that the Liberals gave a gift to Howe St. in fact all fiscal conservatives being that it is actually going to cost the Government of Canada revenue to the tune of 300 million per year.
A slight gift I say, but one that reveals how desperate these Liberals are to garner votes wherever they can.
I would say this one back fired on them. Everything is back firring on them right at the right time.
This maybe the perfect storm to wash them away.

They also have a choice as to which country they live and pay taxes in. Don't like this one? Move.

Just love the blather from the investment players here who seem to think their right to avoid paying taxes on their wealth supercedes just about everything else.

Oh well, some of them likely also believe it was all god-given to them so why share.

Income trusts, despite the bs that has dripped out of this commentary space, were devised to reduce taxes paid by corporations and shareholders.

It's the other side of the greed equation. Make bundles but share nothing.

They cost Canada valuable tax revenue. Of course some of our better-heeled buddies here will assure us time and again that when profits aren't taxed jobs are created.

The jobs just happen to get created in other countries, if at all.

They'll also sell you a bridge if you wish.

Income trusts are definitely a scandal. I don't think Goodale is guilty of much here but, he does wear the responsibility if there was any wrongdoing beyond the fact they should have been outlawed.

This reminds me of the family trusts that were allowed a few years ago to quietly export billions in wealth from Canada to other countries.

Those billions, some of which today might be described as proceeds of crime, given that it was earned selling bootleg booze to Al Capone et/al, point precicely to what income trusts are, an official tax scam.

BTW, wasn't there a law suit launched over some of those untaxed exports? In Winnipeg?

I haven't heard much about it in recent years, but do seem to remember the federal government was fighting hard to stop the suit on behalf of the troubled family that had to take its money elsewhere.

Some might say that because that poor family subsequently lost most of its exported wealth in a series of really dumb investment moves, they have paid dearly for their deeds.

To that I would simply ask: to whom?

I wonder if they left any as a gift to a political party.

Pekes,

Indeed, let’s get this straight.

The banks make money all kinds of ways. What we’re talking about here (at least what I’m talking about here) is the Canadian Chartered banks, to whom the gov’t is in debt. They are the primary holders of the bonds. They are the recipients of the interest, and in case you’re living under a rock, Canadian Taxpayers are the ones who pay that interest.

I’m interested to find out what exactly you think a banking charter is, if not a license to create money. Yes, the BOC prints notes, but the majority of the money that the Federal Government spends is created as they go in to debt to the chartered banks. Do you catch my drift? Can you read my lips? Do you need me to draw you a picture?

The kicker (and get ready because this one really grabs your nuts and twists once it sets in) is that the government debt could be handled entirely by the BOC, which would then return its profits to the government and the country would be in the black (IMAGINE!).

Instead, we’re in debt and there’s not enough money for (whatever).

Canada having a stable economy is debatable to say the least, but the reason we are a wealthy nation is because we have a tremendous amount of natural resources and a skilled workforce. It has nothing to do with the goddamned banks. In fact, the WEAKNESSES in our economy (massive, never ending debt on all fronts) are tied directly to the banks.

Note to tyee sysop: we need a threaded view for these forums

Further note to pekes: I’m in the financial sector of the resource industry, and nobody cares about your predictions.

allan:

You're off base.

Re-read Bob999's post about income trusts, and especially the link at the bottom. There are MORE taxes paid on income trusts than would be paid (ostensibly) if the businesses were not structured as such.
Many income trusts pay dividends far above what they should, or what they have the money to. They do this to get the share price up.
If you look at the company filings, you'll find that most of these companies go in to debt in order to issue larger dividends.
This is very sick and twisted, not to mention un-natural.
Keep in mind: the money isn't being made on tax breaks it's being made on the manipulation of the fear and greed of investors.

all the best.

Right. There seems to be a lot of potential for abuse of the trust structure by greedy insiders, at the expense of unsuspecting ordinary investors.

On rjm's theory about the leak controversy being perfectly timed for deflation of the Libs leading up to the vote:

A leak apparently did occur. It's hard to argue with the stock ticker the and high vol. buying as evidence.
Someone who was supposed to know must have told others who were not supposed to know. The qu. is WHO TOLD?

Goodale may in fact be a victim of a finance dept. underling whose loyalties are to something other than the Martin gov't...perhaps
loyalties to friends in the investment community or even to Stephen Harper, as rjm speculates. I'm betting we'll eventually find out what happened, and who tattled, and why - but not till after the election - leaving the Libs open to suspicion through the rest of the campaign.

brain:

Just did some surface dd on JNI. 108 million shares is a hell of a lot of stock to be swimming around in. Chart looks alright, though.

brain:
At the risk of helping make the Tyee start to resemble a Yahoo stock discussion board!..

Thanks. I had a look at your Equinox Minerals pick. I like that it has a lot of exploration projects, and especially that at least one is close to development as a mine.
From many unhappy experiences with many jr. miners over the years, I'm becoming more and more conservative. I want to see a mine in the ground or at least a mine definitely in the works!For miners, I tend to like Cdn. interlisteds a lot now, because having a stock easily accessible to a mkt 10 times the size of Canada's gives it an automatic built in boost and a potential floor a TSX-only stock may not have, inmy opinion.

I'll keep an eye on the 2 you mention for looking at sometime later this year, especially if metals stay strong this year, as I hope they will.Right now, I'm more than fully invested (in margin debt),and not in a position to buy anything new yet, and there's nothing I own I'm quite ready to part with.
In the mean time, I hope you do well with your picks.

On a Harper gov't and the effect on int'l mkts and the $Cdn :
I'm not sure the mkts would actually be that upset over a Harper win (although I would be!).
Mkts like politicians who promise to be fiscal conservatives. It is possible though that just the fact of any change of regime could spook mkts (and the $C) at least briefly, because change can upset mkts. But I'm not sure it would last long.
Harper, for me, is scary for other reasons.

Sportsdesk:

is the Canadian Chartered banks, to whom the gov’t is in debt. They are the primary holders of the bonds.

Question: Where do you get your facts?

For Starters, here's the Federal Balance Sheet.
Please note that the total prov/fed/local gov'ts are nearly 800 bil in the hole as of '03.
From there, we can move in to this cute little piece about What a chartered bank is, which helpfully notes that

which is a hell of a lot of bread, and that

Which I'm sure you'll agree have to do with reserve ratios and the amount of money a Bank MUST have in its "till".

this is nice and all, but it doesn't tell us anything about what they do.

It does tell us that

Which I offer without comment.

Put your thinking cap on here, pekes, because this is the part where you're going to have to apply yourself.

The gov'ts are issueing bonds (nearly 800 bil worth by all acounts). Someone's buying them. If I'm a chartered bank, why in the hell would I keep my required reserve in paper cash money that erodes with inflation when I can buy gov't bonds with it that pay x% as a sure thing?
I mean, what do you think they do with those reserves, invest in JNI?

To Sportsdesk and Bobb999:

I love your facts on chartered banks, by the way, and appreciate your exchanges, Sportsdesk and pekes, on both sides, as it get the truth out. As for JNI, 108 mil is a lot of shares... scared me intially. Its hard to go to the markets for money with that much dilution. Nevertheless, Their book value or cash and no loan position is 29.6 cents a share at 31 million after the deal goes through on Jan. 24th. Thats a strong cash position to be in for any junior, especially when they have few exploration committments at this time. Its a pure value play over the short term. It takes bad news to drop share value below cash value. There's good news ahead for JNI. I'd try getting in at .23. Equinox is another good story. The more you'll learn, the more you'll like. I won't go into detail, except to say, go for the detail. Its an excellent long term resource play.
As for the PC's getting in, the loonie dropped by a penny today. The media said it was profit sharing. I say its the polls that came out yesterday after the markets closed, with the PC's ahead of the Libs.
My guess is that the PC's are already affecting currency as of yesterday (and earlier, with their climb in the polls).
If I was an international player with big money, I'd pull out of Canadian currency with a Conservative government in a heartbeat.

Have you heard the news lately? PC runners are using Republican terms like family values... Stephen Harper has compared his own party to the Republican party... that's scary, coming from a western separatist and U.S. lover who bashes his people and country on a regular basis. And Bush's southern Rep's have run so much red ink, why would their Fed rates be so high? (I think highest in the world at this point) Currency crisis from red ink. No one wants to put money into a currency with a Fed gov. that runs major red ink, unless the interest rates reduce the risk of a falling currency. The states is running out of room to go higher and what does that spell? A major currency drop in the American dollar within a year, and a recession and more spiralling deficits. They blew Canada's total fed, provincial and municipal debt combined (800 Billion) in one year. I wouldn't touch their markets or their currency with a 10,000 mile pole.

You've all heard Stephen Harper talk about eliminating fiscal imbalance (ie, surplus's). He's not hiding the fact that he'll run up debt to support his extra military spending and police and, well, if that everyone wants, a goverment that slashes taxes with no federal spending except on hockey dad and daycare cheques outright, and big money spent on military and cops with promises to back Bush's next war... lets just say his fiscal policies scare the hell out of me and these polls. Especially the ones from B.C.. Are we really this slow? I hope not on election day.

A vote for the Liberals is a vote for corruption. If you vote for your Liberal candidate you are saying that you accept theivery and corruption in government. Vote for anyone but your Librano candidate. Do the right thing and oust these scumbags.

A vote for the CONservatives is a vote for just as much corruption, and ridiculous waste on military expansion, along with a further cozying up to Bush and his murderous regime. If you vote for Haper's group you vote for Bush. Do the right thing and distance our country from these pseudo-Christian thugs.

a vote for the conservatives will probably help them form a minority gov't. after a couple of years of this voters will realize that their policies make a lot of sense and that there was nothing to be afraid of. in the next election they will win a majority. in the meantime the corrupt and arrogant federal liberal party will look inward and realize they have to make some significant changes if they want to govern again. this will be good for all of us.

Excellent thread. (well until the last three comments, bugger off and go to a different thread.) Love it when a good discussion happens.

Can't add more to income trusts, but the thread on this one beat the article by a long way. Its funny how most Canadians didn't know they even existed until the scandal came to light.

I like what the Brain had to say about the Canadian debt. And while I can't say too many positive things about the Liberals, the one good policy they had was under estimating the surplus and legally obliging themselves to pay off the debt with most of it. Could have gone much farther as we're screwed once interest rates rise again, but I think the Greens are the only party who is actually addressing it. The tories want to cut government income, the dips want to increase government expenses. And the libs, well they have no trouble spending either (and handing themselves a nice commission). As an under 30, I'm the one who has to pay for all of the parties stupid election promises. By the time I retire, if I ever can, no income trusts going to help me then.

Another item, slightly off topic, but still in a fiscal framework. Is to reduce the upper tax brackets, but at the same time to eliminate deductions across the board. I mean, the only people who actually pay the full rate are the middle class.

I'm in sales, and I can expense meals, vehicle expenses, cell phones, computer leases, and loads of other expenses. The more I make, the more disposable income I have, the more I can structure my income to reduce my tax burden. I'm not going to pay more than I need to the government if the loop holes are open, but at the same time I don't think I nor anyone should be able to claim it.

Even political donations, the tax dollar is paying for anyways through corporate writeoffs.

Sportsdesk: You're wrong again. The banks (big 6) account for 70 % of assets of finacial services; i.e.; they have 70% of the mortgage business, consumer loans, corporate loans, credit cards, currency trading, LCs, brokerage etc - that's what finacial services are.

Your StatsCan facts describe the various kinds of debt and amounts owed by the feds - it doesn't mention who holds the debt.

Sorry, but your rationale above is unintelligible.

The banks aren't in the business of hoarding money with the Bank of Canada. Nor are they in the business of lending money to Government by buying bonds. For starters, why would a bank own a Gov't bond paying 3.5% when they could lend the money at prime or prime plus. Banks are in the business of lending money to individuals (mortgages primarily) and businesses. Governments borrow money from institutions including pension funds, foundations, corporations (insurance companies), other countries etc and the public.

And what's with your other example? It says nothing about banks owning gov debt. It merely states share ownership (of other finacial services companies) rules were modified.

I know, I know - It's hard ot hold a good conspiracy theory up these days. :-)

Sportsdesk: One other thing...mutual funds are also big buyers of gov bonds.

Your original question of why politicians and the media don't investigate your misguided "facts" about banks is simply that your "facts" are not facts at all - they're fiction - much like the premise of this article in the first place.

Bull, the population isn't split between over-65's and under-30s. There are other age-groups and we all pay taxes. Under-30s are not even close to their maximum earning and tax-paying years.

Now what has the under-30 crowd ever done for Canada? The over-60s did win WW2 and create the greatest period of prosperity in human history. I'd love to see the day when the under-30s stop the woe-is-me-I-am-the-future bit and make their contribution to society. But considering that they as a group think democracy and public service is for old people I doubt it will happen.

oH rEALLy? iS dat wHAT A FAINACHAL InsTITUTION dUz?

Myths:
1. This is a Conspiracy theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fraud perpitrated on the Canadian Taxpayers
2. You're sorry.
You're not sorry. You're an *******.

I've been trying to figure out what portion of federal debt is held by whom for a while now with no success. At the end of the day, though, it can be lumped in to two categories: The Bank of Canada and Not The Bank of Canada.
The difference is that the interest paid on money owed to the BOC goes back on the country's bottom line, as opposed to the rest of it which goes to... wherever.
And please remember: We're talking about a hell of a lot of YOUR MONEY.

No disagreement on this article: Price should be ashamed to call himself a journalist. I expect better from The Tyee.

Sportsdesk: I like you too. Thanks for the debate.

If you want to learn more about economic and monetary reform, check out comer.org.

Also, anyone who calls themself a fiscal conservative with a straight face should look in to the Canadian Action Party.

Sportsdesk:

comer.org is pure bunk, BS, mis-information of the worst (or best) kind.

Upgrade your reading list and you too might learn a thing or two. Good places to start are the WSJ or The Economist.

The WSJ and Economist, now there are unbiased sources of information alright. The commentary runs the gamut of the political spectrum from whether Bush is the greatest president ever to the second-greatest president ever.

pekes.

I read the WSJ, The Economist, Bloomberg's , Barrons, The FP, The Reuters Finance wire, The CNW wire, both BusinessWeek wires, Richard Russel (my favourite) and numerous others every day. Obviously, I don't read each of those publications from cover to cover every day, but I've got my nose in all of them.

Lately, Yahoo finance has been the most entertaining.

Frank: That's true for the WSJ, but not The Economist. The Economist is one of the best financial publications out there.

I'm interested to hear about why you don't like comer.org

I agree with Sportsdesk on the Economist vs. the WSJ.
The Economist is a quite balanced, very informative source of info. on world affairs in gen'l,especially in comparison to the WSJ whose take on world affairs is Fox news with a larger vocabulary. I'd think being so blatantly partisan/right wing hawkish would harm WSJ's readership. I bet they've lost lots of former readers fed up with the propaganda,
who are finding alternatives elsewhere for business/mkt news (and current events).

The net is so abundant now with first rate free mkt info sources/investor tools, it's completely unnecessary, in my view, to need to subcribe to any pay services! I've switched off the TV biz channels too.Completely inferior and misleading compared to the best net sites.
I still like some ROBTV guests, but I now pick and choose via their web site where you can watch past programs from the prior week.

CNBC is very bad joke! Their primary allegience is to advertisers (Brokers, etc.). Unfortunately, this badly biases their coverage in many ways.

(Glad I'm in gold stocks today!)

Bob

With any media, and especially business media, and ESPECIALLY especially busines television, it's important to read between the lines and remember who the audience is.

The Web is the king of News. The only pub I pay for is The Dow Theory Letters, and I'm happy to pay it.

We should get an alt. forum to bs about stock so that we don't clutter up this forum.

Sportsdesk:

Monetary Reform...what the hell is that? This is William Krehm's personal website and who is he - some wacky old curmudgeon with a lot of stupid ideas and beliefs. I.e.; interest on debt biggest gov expenditure - correct. Interest on debt paid to banks - false.

If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to believe such flagrant BS, ya gotta prove it to me.

Googling "how much of Canada's debt is held by foreigners or non-residents" I found a 1996 figue of $300B of the $800B total - I imagine the ratio is similar today. Seems to me that interst paid by Gov goes to debtholders.

The banks readily itemize all their revenue sources in their annual reports...which are audited.

What are William Krehm's credentials anyway?

I'm truly surprised that you would subscribe to this BS if you read the business periodicals that you mentioned - you're smarter than that.

The debt being held by foreigners or non-residents is immaterial. The fact that something with the earning power and resources of the Canadian Government is in any kind of long term debt in the first place is incredible.

pekes, I'll bet you fancy yourself a businessman. If you owned... say... Wal-Mart, and you also owned a dairy producer, would you go and buy some other dairy producer's milk to put in your Wal-Mart? Of course not!
So why does the Gov't buy its money from anyone other than the BOC?

RBC's financials list 53b in loans to "business and gov't" in '05, which doesn't seem all that itemized to me. That's just 1 bank.

http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data62/filings/00865063/00000001/C%3A%5CSEDAR%5CFILINGS%5CRBC%5C2005-Annual%5CFinancial-Statements.pdf

Finally: Listen to yourself.
"Monetary Reform!? I've never heard of it, and it's never been mentioned in The Economist or The Journal... it must be garbage."

If you had been paying attention to the WSJ over the past 15 or 20 years, you would have noticed the marked deviation that they have taken in their criticism of financial policy.
Once upon a time, it was bad business to spend more than one earned (or more than the debt has given one the potential to earn). Now, it's the way it goes. "Part of business". Debt helps the banks and if the banks are strong, the economy is strong.
I guess you and I have different bullsh*t tollerances.

SportsDesk:
It's lucky The Tyee seems pretty tolerant about meandering threads. I'm afraid human nature is to meander!

Most of my mkt discussions occur on Yahoo stock boards or with a few of my friends who also play the mkts.

Reading between the lines is definitely required, as you say, in assessing media stories of all types, including business. There are often non disclosed agendas.

I've not heard of the Dow Theory Letters, though I come across commentary about
Dow theory from time to time. I noticed concerned comment in recent months about "non-confirmation" of indices, especially about Dow Transports' breakout rally not getting confirmed by Dow Industrials behaving likewise, because Dow Theory says a healthy bull mkt has those indices confirming one another.

Anyway, I find the myriad technical and other indicators that can give clues about mkts and stocks, to be a very interesting (and rewarding) field of study.

New Breaking News on the Trust Leak Scandal:

I just heard on the radio (4:15p.m.):

As the RCMP investigation continues, we now have 2 new investigations!

-The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has announced it may be launching an investigation.

-And, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced it is launching an investigation into the apparent leak.

The 2 Commissions will be looking for illegal insider trading - anyone who bought shares
based on info. not available to the gen'l public (ie. leaked info) would be guilty of breaking securities laws.

The US SEC also has jurisdiction because many of the stocks in question are listed and are traded in the US as well as Canada, on the NYSE, or other US exchanges. It seems the same questionable trading patterns occurred in N.Y.

What timing for the Libs, with 2 weeks to go in the election, a scandal they wish would go away, continues to spread instead!

Harper and Co. will be high fiving and whooping it up, as this will certainly help Harper who's already ahead in the polls.

I'm no fan of the Libs but I shudder when I think of Prime Minister Harper of the National Citizens Coalition in charge.

Frank, I'm not undervaluing the achievements of the past not their contributions to society. I have a parents and grandparents, and am an avid fan of history. I will respect my elders, as long as I receive their respect. However, if I hear an older person telling me that I don't know what democracy is, or that I am a lazy young whippersnapper, then I also have no qualms with telling them they are a senile old fart who can go to... but thats beside the point.

The point is that we are 800 billion dollars in debt, that we have a thinning ozone layer, depleting energy reserves, a national pension plan that is expected to run out in about 20 years, an aging population that could result in as many people living in retirement as active in the workforce. That the younger you are, the longer you will have to live with consequences of today. (And yes, its unfortunate as well that so few young people get involved in democracy knowing what is at stake.) And yet, its the immediate gratification of today that drives the election rather than our long term survival.

And so yes, while I make my contributions today, it would be nice to know that 50 years from now, I will have all the same opportunities that you have today.

Sportsdesk, sportsdesk, sportsdesk...

How can the fed gov borrow from the BOC when the BOC is an arm of the fed gov? In other words, the gov can't borrow from itself.

I don't think you know the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy.

dangrice, its closer to 500 billion, I assume you're counting provincial and municipal and other public debt?

And I'm not attacking you personally, geez we tend to agree on a lot on things around here, in fact I carefully worded myself to attack under-30s in general. But my dad was quite clear to me one day that yes the world was a bad place and we could be nuked any moment but I was growing up with a hell of a lot more advantages than he did which was on a Saskatchewan farm in the dirty 30's followed by WW2. He voted in every election he was eligible and served Canada during the Korean war. In other words I grew up in the wealthiest period of history and had no reason to complain about anything.

So I look at the stats now for under-30s and the majority don't even vote. Many haven't even left home. And how everything is always seen so negatively. And I hear bs about "30 is the new 20". In other words 10 extra years to avoid work and responsibility and act like an ass.

Obviously this broad brush does not apply to every under-30 and clearly you're both articulate, responsible and so on. And hopefully when my kids have finished school they'll have a clue about the world around them and how it isn't free and they can't spend their lives tuned out of what's really important.

Democracy works, pensions will be there when you need them if your age group make yourselves heard both at the polls and between elections. But negativity about everything will only play into the hands of those who don't want to pay towards anything for you in the first place.

The debt has been used effectively by the federal government especially under Paul Martin to downsize federal social programs. The lowering of the debt has not been a real concern of the privileged in this country - tax cuts have.

If the debt was such a serious blow to the economy, then the debt would have been the top priority for the government to eliminate.

Article 18 of the Bank Act allows for government to borrow on the statutory reserves - if they were still held. Mulroney gave the bank the bailout they demanded when he cancelled them back in the 1990s.

When John Crow was named the governor of the BOC, he imposed IMF policies on Canada as if it was a third-world economy. All part of the plan.

Consequently, monetary policy has become fluctations in interest rates.

The debt was not a problem when the Mulroney government in 1991 gave permission to the Bronfmans to take a family trust valued at $2.2 billion out of the country tax free at a cost to the federal treasury estimated at $750 million. And according to the former Auditor General Desautels, it was public spendings like this that he was concerned may have endangered the tax base for the country. The regressive GST, however, has been a greater generator than anticipated.

Paul Martin too has personally benefited his company by setting up CSL International as a separate division and registered in Liberia so he could also bring back the profits tax free.

Then after promising the House of Commons on February 22, 1994 in his first budget as finance minister to act on the vague vow in the Liberal Red Book of election promises to close out the offshore tax havens, he introduced the legislation four months later that had tossed out Liberia and nine other locations. But not to be mentioned was a new obscurely worded third clause that restored Barbados it lost privileges. Within a year his company switched its registered office from Liberia to Barbados where it is taxed at an estimataed between one and 2.5 percent.

That's Martin's version of ethics and taxes.

Frank, yeah, the figure is combined. I wasn't counter attacking you personally either, but you have to remember the under 30 generation loves to mock "we walked 30 miles uphill both ways in snow" style comments. But there is no point going into that, the one thing in our lives neither of us can change is our age.

My original point was that debt reduction should come before tax cuts. If you look at the debt 30 years ago, it was a fraction of what it currently is.

Tax cuts are stupid election gimmicks. So someone wants to cut corporate taxes by 5% or my income tax rate from 40% to 35%?? What good is that going to do. When 30% of my taxes are already going to debt servicing. If interest rates go up, either service levels will go down or my taxes will go up anyways.

Also, tax rates have very little overall effect. When you look at something like currency fluctuation. So one party promises I can have more $ after taxes. But that really depends on what I spend my dollars on. If I buy from the US, or want to travel, the Canadian dollar has increased nearly 25%. So it means my disposable income can be 25% more if I enjoy things that originate out of Canada. So I pay 2% less GST on something that now costs me 20% less. Big deal. However, if I was a company that exported goods, my income may have just been slashed by 25%. But thanks for that 2.7% corporate tax cut.

Tax cuts are stupid election promises. However, paying off your debt when surplus are high and interest rates are low is not. But who is raising that!!!

It's a known economic fact , in the USA at least, that tax cuts bring more $$$ in taxes than they give away.
Go figure.
Long live tax cuts.

Saturday:
2 new polls , Ekos, and Ipsos, both put the Conservatives in the lead nationally, pointing to a Conservative minority win.

The 2 polls seem contradictory over Ontario though, with Ipsos saying the Cons. are ahead there, while Ekos says the Libs are ahead.

Both polls suggest the NDP too are pulling votes away from the Libs., and we'll likely see an NDP with an increase in seats. Good.

There's no suggestion yet Harper has enough momentum to gain a majority.
So, the 3 other parties will have a potential "veto" over any Cons. proposed legislation, which is some consolation, at least.
For instance, if the Cons. want to push through new draconian anti-drug laws, well, it's not going to happen.

If I was Marc Emery though I'd be concerned about a new External Affairs minister under Harper who may approve and try to fast track Emery's extradition to the US. Emery would face possible life in prison for selling marijuana seeds by mail order to the US!

Heck, in Canada there are out in the open online seed AND marijuana sellers who continue to sell by mail order to Canadians and who are NEVER charged by the RCMP! Yes, you can order BC bud by mail and neither you nor the seller face any risk of being molested by police! Harper, of course, would like to change this, but he may have difficulty doing so.

Saturday:
2 new polls , Ekos, and Ipsos, both put the Conservatives in the lead nationally, pointing to a Conservative minority win.

The 2 polls seem contradictory over Ontario though, with Ipsos saying the Cons. are ahead there, while Ekos says the Libs are ahead.

Both polls suggest the NDP too are pulling votes away from the Libs., and we'll likely see an NDP with an increase in seats. Good.

There's no suggestion yet Harper has enough momentum to gain a majority.
So, the 3 other parties will have a potential "veto" over any Cons. proposed legislation, which is some consolation, at least.
For instance, if the Cons. want to push through new draconian anti-drug laws, well, it's not going to happen.

If I was Marc Emery though I'd be concerned about a new External Affairs minister under Harper who may approve and try to fast track Emery's extradition to the US. Emery would face possible life in prison for selling marijuana seeds by mail order to the US!

Heck, in Canada there are out-in-the-open online seed AND marijuana sellers who continue to sell by mail order to Canadians and who are NEVER charged by the RCMP! And Canada Post has a hands off policy about it. Yes, you can order BC bud by mail and neither you nor the seller face any risk of being molested by police! Harper, of course, would like to change this, but he may have difficulty doing so.

Well stroke up another fatty there Bob, you don't have anything to fear.
The Conservatives, if elected, would want to accomplish much more before they worried about casual use of BC Bud.
They won't legalize it, but they will go with the status quo and leave you alone.
Unless of course you are handling guns and into organized crime. Then you should sweat.
As far as Mr. Emery goes, anyone in power would extradite him, there would be no choice.
It's a two way street and we can't break the trust between our justice departments.

Well, the other 3 parties will not need the (minority) Cons. in order to introduce and pass decriminalization legislation, anyway, if they choose to do so (and they may).

I support pot decrim. or legalization as a human rights issue. I'm not even an occasional user anymore, but I support the rights of those who choose to use, to use.

There are sound legal reasons why Emery may not get extradited, perhaps foremost being that
our system has treated Emery's seed business
with tolerance, no longer even bothering to charge him, as well as happily accepting income tax he has paid to the gov't from "marijuana seed sales" as he has stated on his tax returns.

Part of our extradition law states that a Cdn can not be extradited for activities that are not deemed illegal in Cda.

Since our system has treated Emery's biz
as if it was legal (despite laws on the books), and today continues to tolerate other entrepreneurs (including sales of marijuana itself, not just seeds), some law professors believe Emery has a strong case. If he'd committed armed robbery in the States, it would be a more clear cut extradition case, less arguable. Opinion polls suggest most Cdns believe he should not be extradited.
I bet he walks.

Ron: "It's a known economic fact , in the USA at least, that tax cuts bring more $$$ in taxes than they give away:.

-Ron, there are no such thing as facts in economics. Economics is about speculation. The closest thing to a fact is consumer confidence is good for the economy. If you tell people they have more money to spend or the economy is improving, then people will go out and spent and the government income will increase . But the key part is to have a clear path to controlling spending and reducing debt first of all.

You're are also wrong on the conservative's view on causal marijuana use. Harper believes turning a bling eye on it shows moral neutrality, which doesn't fit into the new conservative vision. He wants to align our laws on these closer with the americans whose war on drugs has failed miserably. However, to his credit, he has made the Libs and Even the NDP chase him on his crime and policy platform, which doesn't validate his positions, but really makes you wonder about who is running his competitors campaigns. Its stupid to think that increased sentences is the solution to criminal activity, when it exists in places with a much more stringent penalty code. And ehs got the land Ns shasing him on this one. The solution is to transfer criminal revenue sources (drug selling, prostitution) from criminals into the hands of licensed individuals and take away the profit incentive.

As far as the trust between our justice departments. Marc Emery never commited a crime in US jurisdiction. Our justice department should get some balls and prosecute him here if they believe his activities were criminal. The reason they won't is because our courts would not treat his activities as illegal, so our justice minister is acting as pontius pilate did, by stating that he is not guilty but we can find a way to punish him anyways.

The NDP mimicked the PC's, the Libs came out with their gun and crime platform several weeks and up to the day before. There are still dramatic differences between sentencing and treating youth between the Libs and PC's or NDP's.

Increased sentences or longer minimum sentences may not do much to deter crime, I agree.
A serious criminal doesn't think about the consequences of his actions, he simply doesn't care.
But what about punishment ? A long spell in jail for these dickheads is at least statement to the public that we are taking crime seriously as well as keeping the perpetrator off the streets for as long as possible.
Punishment is important.

In response to allegations, all allegations have been put forth by the opposition parties at this point. Liberals have Mongomery, and now the opposition parties are manipulating the media into reporting allegations without proof as scandals, knowing that these complaints have to be investigated. This is pure politics and so far, Canadians are buying it.

It's like this. Anyone can describe or point to a wound or scandal. Does allegation give the party pointing the fingers, the moral authority or credibility to be above it?

I have yet to hear what any party will do to stop it, other than what the Liberals have put forth already with auditors and what the PC's have put forth with their proposed bill, and it would do Canadians alot of good at this point, if they are still undecided or have time, to look into what PC proposals are, along with everything else that we'll have to swallow if we are in favor of their proposed changes. No Kyoto. Jails bursting at the seams. Slashed taxes, possible large deficeits, especially budgets are set at high commodity values, as what goes up, must come down, including royalties. PC's are for little governmental control and see, these are the issues.

We don't want to be controlled. We don't want to have to take the test to float a canoe, or register to own weapons, or be controlled in any other way, for that matter. And yet, for equality to exist, everyone must be treated equally and when we aren't... Stephen Harper says, don't control anything. This is perhaps the scariest proposal of all, for as much as we like to own guns without red tape, the cities pay a price without regulation. Where's the equality? As much as we feel its silly to take courses floating canoes and poewer driven boats, there are huge numbers of city dwellers around large lakes new out the gate, that would, if not regulated or instructed, create accidents due to inexperience.
We don't want to be controlled, but... we want to be treated equally and we just can't have both. Neither can any federal government propose legistlation that doesn't effect all canadians unequally, without being accused of favoritism. So fair?

FranK:

I had a hunch voter turnout isn't dropping as precipitously as you intimate. A quick google search turned up an interesting piece of information which can be found at:

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

Your point that young people aren't voting as much may be true, although I didn't google for historical data to prove or disprove a trend towards apathy. Inasmuch as you recognize and honour the fact that it was your father that taught you the importance of democratic involvement, it kinda puts the ball back in your generation's court (making an age assumption, please excuse me if I'm wrong) doesn't it? Unlearning the lessons our parents teach us can take decades.

"In other words 10 extra years to avoid work and responsibility and act like an ass. "

Gee, when your generation's families all lived under one roof was it for that reason too? Probably not. Probably not now either.

Frankly, (no pun intended) our best hope is that today's under-30s will follow the lead of their grandparents and great-grandparents, who tightened their belts as necessary and looked to provide a better future for their kids, not their parents who have arguably been spending their kids' rightful inheritance as fast as you can say 'wilful ignorance.'

regards,
Stump (two score and two years old)

Ron:

re: punishment.

I recommend the book "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes. A fascinating look at Australia's beginnings and an object lesson in the fact that punishment only serves to make the problem worse, whereas opportunity, education, and fair treatment, when properly administrated can rehabilitate. Don't have it here at home to reference the specific chapter which would elucidate you. as I've lent it to a friend, but the whole thing is worth a read.

Stump, you are perpetuating the liberal line of thinking about crime and punishment.
I can't agree, sorry. We need punishment as an ingredient in our justice system.
And it's not vengeance I am talking about.

Sorry to be here again, but I gotta go out and wanted to suggest that we may have a similar string coming soon regarding an RCMP investigation into Pierre Pettigrew, what a circus this is for The Liberals during an election ( gotta love it ).
For details go to the news website called Borque Newswatch. It's an interesting site.

Maybe it's NOT just the opposition parties and media successfully getting mud to stick to Martin! An entertaining wild and crazy conspiracy theory that has gained credibility in some quarters has it that:

-Chretienite Libs may quietly be working
to help make sure Martin LOSES this election to Harper! Why would they want to do this?

An election loss would make Martin's political career toast. This would open up the party's leadership to a potential Chretienite takeover.
A minority Harper gov't could be short lived.
Another election soon would give Chretienites a chance to take over the country again in say '07!
Well, it's logical.
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/01/07/1382506.html

Ron:

I'm not perpetuating anything. I'm offering you an avenue to gain additional information which may change your opinion with substantive facts. Take it or leave it, but don't discount it w/out even finding out what I'm talking about. That's just the kind of narrow-minded.

BTW, R.E. I'm definitely not a 'soft on crime' person, and I'm all for lengthy prison sentences where appropriate. But, locking people up and failing to treat the root cause of their behaviour is just expensive, pointless, and ineffective. That point is made concretely by the book I recommended.

Here's a wiki link about the man in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Maconochie_(penal_reformer)

the gliberals have been in power for over 12 years and now they're going to fix daycare, crime, corruption, education, healthcare, seniors, drug addictions, immigration, and whatever else they can come up with on their next flight. are canadians stupid enough to fall for it this time? quite probably. watch for some very nasty electioneering as they get more and more desperate. jack layton the used car salesman is right about one thing; they'll do anything to get elected. this is going to get very ugly and disgusting.

RE. + election time sentencing changes are gimmicks. Personally, I think longer prison sentences are wastes of taxpayer money. 80K a year to maintain a prisoner? And then we give the PS2s and cable.

Personally I agree with Stump that we need our own Australia.

You know those uninhabited northern islands which we worry about losing our soveriegnty over. I think the threat of getting sent to someplace with 24 hour darkness for 4 months of the year would be much more of a deterent. A much better place for rehabiliatation, and no one would be complaining about shorter sentences up there. Heck, we could even give them a few golf clubs and they could build a golf course.

dangrice, The Prime Minister of Australia is John Howard, a staunch Bush/American supporting conservative. He has people in Canada right now helping to get Steven Harper elected.
I'm delighted that you are onside with the rest of us Canadian conservatives.
I doubt these Australian liberal views on crime and punishment can be taken very seriously.
I would support paying the actual cost of 110K per year to punish criminals.

"Personally I agree with Stump that we need our own Australia."

Ummm, totally not what I was saying. I don't disagree with the idea of exile in concept, but it wasn't the point I was making.

Let me get this right Ron, you'd prefer an expensive solution that hasn't worked to one that's cheaper, allows prisoners to contribute to society, and just might deliver a productive citizen in the end???

None so blind....

Hey Stump, those figures are skewed. Its a percentage of the total population, not the voting age population. Due to the massive post-war baby boom I bet there were a lot more under-18's back then than there are now.

Anyway, I'm not Elections Canada, I'm just going by what I read which is that under-30 participation is around 25% and that's about the lowest, since WW2 of course.

haha, okay, point to you sir but I think this is taking the "blame-the-boomers-thing" a little too far.

Assuming you mean post-20, we didn't. Not even in the same province. 20-30 years ago there seemed to me a lot less 20-somethings living at home. Now I can understand the lack of decent jobs thing. Hard to get a mortgage when you have a college degree and still have to work in fast-food. I sympathize, especially as many in the 50's and 60's could quit school and get a good job at the port or in the bush or at the mill on the same day. I'm quite happy I'm not 21 nowadays. Well, sometimes.

Again, no argument, but let's hope your generation doesn't decide to produce kids the way the generation previous to mine did. Not that it would matter in the long run unless you can get every other country to buy into the same program.

Stump,
You won't find me buying into the Irwin Cotler liberal view of crime and punishment.
To me it's all about punishment. Not vengeance. I am not a supporter of capital punishment , but I want the criminals to be in jail.
There is a liberal view that is contrary to mine.
I say, build the jails and fill them up. At least we will all know where they are sleeping tonight.

Sorry Ron, meant Australia circa 1806, not 2006.

However, isn't John Howard a member of Australia's liberal party?

dangrice,
You are clever, but I am surprised that you would want to excommunicate our criminals.
Not that Mexico wouldn't appreciate the business.
In my area we used to send lepers to De'Arcy Island.
We can't let these outcasts ( and I know that exclusion is a pet word with liberals )
affect our sense of security.

I never advocated sending them someplace warm. Hans Island should do. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4715245.stm

You guys can talk crime all you want, but statistically, increasing crime punishment doesn't reduce crime. Every criminal mind has within them the same thought pattern. "I won't get caught."

What will happen, is higher jail costs. Much higher. and some criminals, especially the career and violent ones, should be locked up for a long time. That's the way it is. But the system isn't failing us with low sentences. Its failing us with how we treat criminals once they are jailed, especially those who have addictions and a history of violence. Repeat sex offenders? Castoration works well.

With all of the criticisms I've heard with new Liberal spending promises... Have they had the ability to afford them before now? Be realistic. And what, allegations are as good as scandal? Get back. And c'mon, guys. To think that accusors can do better, simply because they can point fingers... we ought to think back on the last time we trusted any majority government, never mind Chretien's.

You know, its funny. For as much as we all love to roast the Bloc, they'll be the reason for another minority government... exactly what we need in this country. Sure, their ideology is way off the radar. But the results... oh, the results...

Ron:

Nowhere in my posts do I mention the Liberals. You can avoid the actual issue (punishment without opportunity for redemption is useless) all you like, but from what I've seen of the other posters and lurkers on this site all you're doing is reinforcing our belief that you may be a smarty-pants, but you are bereft of any real wisdom. Too bad. You're articulate and seemingly bright. The world could use a few more people like you re-assessing their beliefs and looking for the places where their ideologies don't stand up to scrutiny. Give it a try.

John Howard is a neo-conservative. Like Blair, it matters not the party's name.

Elliot:

I don't think Mr. Layton has ever been a used car salesman. At least it's not in his official bio. Too bad that name-calling is your best weapon. And, anyway, you're probably a Jimmy Pattison acolyte, so I'm wondering what you have against used car salesmen? Get screwed buying an S-U-V or something? Since I was looking at political bios I took at peek at Harper's. Guess what, he's never had a real job that wasn't some variation on being a policy-wonk. To his credit at least Mr. Layton had the 'nads to put his name on the ballot for Hogtown council... to get elected, and re-elected. Didn't take a palace coup and lots back-stabbing for him to take the leadership of his party either. Howz it feel to have to back a guy you can't trust just because you can't adjust your thinking to encompass the real world?

Frank:
I have my doubts about those numbers too, but I was pointing more to the trend (or lack thereof). Either way, I agree that re-motivating voters (of all ages) is necessary for our democracy to NOT slide into an oligarchy.

"this is taking the "blame-the-boomers-thing" a little too far."

To quote Ralph Wiggum: un-possible! :-)

What a mess. This thread I mean...

Selranospm: Good post. Indeed, Mulroney started this whole mess. Today, his party is ahead in the polls after assimilating a western centered, alegedly fiscally responsible power base. Go Figure. Politics is always more fun through the wide lens.

pekes, you haven't said anything and, frankly, your act is getting tired.
fiscal policy: budgeting, etc. Taking the money available, allocating it accordingly, managing debt responsibly. This is the job of the gov't.
monitary policy: this is what the BOC does. They keep track of inflation and set the interest rates accordingly. They are TERRIFIED of deflation and will do pretty much anything to keep it away. Canada doesn't have a potential deflation problem quite like the states does, but I'm drifting.

The BOC is a crown corporation with its own governers. It's different than most crown corps because it's effectively allowed to run itself. This is so that there is a separation between the ability to create money and the ability to spend that money. The BOC does create money and lend it to the gov't.

As it stands, David Dodge and his crew have the final say on how much dinero gets made in total. It just so happens that a whole lot of it is made by the chartered banks, funds... whatever.

What I'm trying very very hard to get across to you here (and I'm starting to wonder why I bother) is that the BOC, because of its manegarial and gubernatorial separations from the Canadian Gov't, is the ideal lender for the Gov't.
The bank directors can still play maestro with the money supply, just like they do now. The only difference will be that the inflation on the public debt will be going on the federal bottom line, and not to the banks.

nice try stumpy. is used-car salesman your ambition or have you just taken political correctness to even more absurd heights? man you ndper's are something.

Can anyone explain this to me. Yesterday at the Vancouver Center debates, Hedy Fry was trying to take credit on behalf of the Liberal Government for low mortgage rates. I asked her about it afterwards and she said it was because they were doing a good job with the economy.

WTF. Interests rates are low because the Yanks had a run of poor consumer confidence and needed to drop them to spur on their economy. And the BOC (which is independent, if the Liberals haven't over run it with patronage) has to keep their rates fairly close to be competitive. Am I not correct?

Stump, sorry I didn't mean Liberal, as in the political party, I meant liberal as in a philosophy.

Elliot:

Even your potshots don't make sense. Howz it feel to constantly be bested by the people you hate? Pretty crappy I'm guessing, but you keep coming back for more. Occam's razor tells me you dig the abuse.

Ron:

My politics would best be described as fiscally responsible and ecologically ethical. "Crunchy (as in granola) conservative" might be a more fitting label. I vote for the person not the party.

dangrice; hope you're not looking for a rational explanation for frye's comments about interest rates. the woman is a moron, pure and simple. and she will say anything that pops into her simple little head if she thinks it fits the moment. this is who the voters in vancouver centre are about to give a fifth election victory to. go figure. welcome to politically correct downtown vancouver.

Dangrice.com:

Man o man. That Fry is really a piece of work. I had my own conversation with her on a street median the other day and... well... neither of us ended up in traffic, and I guess that's good.
Indeed, Canadian Banking policy must closely mirror that of the US as much as possible. The United States Federal Reserve is TERRIFIED of deflation (prices of things going down). They are perpetually inflationary. Whenever it looks like the economy might slow down just a little bit, they crank out the cheap money. This, by many accounts, is what led to the tech or dot-com bubble and the bursting of said bubble. There was all sorts of cheap liquidity everywhere, so everything became stupidly overvalued. A few people started figuring out that most things were overvalued, and started to unload, it created a chain reaction and down she went.
Now, in the US and some say in Canada too, there is a Real Estate Bubble. Everyone bought homes like they were ATM machines when the interest rates were low. Now, in some parts of both countries, homes are incredibly over-valued. If the interest rates start going back up (and it looks as though they are) there will be less and less buyers for homes that are way overvalued.
Yes, the BOC sets the rates and the gov't has nothing to do with it. Ms. Fry will tell you that the Libs' responsible fiscal management has enabled the BOC to be kind to Canadians with low interest everything, but she won't tell you about RE being overvalued, and she certainly won't talk about inflation.

Go take a spin on the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html
As you do, keep in mind that inflation is tracked by the Consumer Price Index. The CPI leves out costs of fuel and food, ostensibly because these prices fluctuate and make it tougher to get solid data. I guess that means that inflation isn't much of a problem unless you eat, drive or want a warm house.

Forgive me if I get off on a rant here, but IMHO, it's complete bullshit that an institution who is supposed to be the "guardian of our monetary value" is making it so that the value of our money is less and less every day. This serves to force savers in to the capital market, just so that their money doesn't erode.

Dan: I’ve been thinking about this more and more, and it turns out that Hedy might have been telling you the god’s honest truth.

As you pointed out, the “pace” of the Canadian economy is dictated by the interest rates set by the Bank of Canada. These interest rates consistently mirror those of the United states.
The US economy is a complete and utter mess. The market is tepid: it’ s climbing, but it doesn’t know which way to turn. There are technical inconsistencies that are raising a lot of eyebrows in Down Jones circles.
Their society is in shambles – they’ve lost their manufacturing base and have virtually no exports.
However, as if by magic, The United States is able to pay for everything they need with money that drives them in to debt as quickly as it is printed. They are in a perpetual debt, and there are no illusions about them getting out of it.

The reason that they can continue to say that they have a strong economy with a straight face is that, through various international “free trade” agreements, their major economic players are able to control the economies of other nations. This eEconomic Hegemony is most certainly and visibly at work in Canada. In fact, Canadian resources and Canadian Labour are likely some of the largest sources of US income.

So, Fry was entirely correct: Our economy is performing exactly as it has been designed since the implication of the NAFTA treaty. It’s funneling our wealth and resources in to the US economy, and therefore making their markets do well. Remember: the only reason that the debt laden notes are any good is because they have guaranteed revenue.
As the US economy ‘does well’, the US is able to continually keep interest rates low, enabling Canada to do the same thing.
You can call Hedy a lot of things, but not a liar.

So then shouldn't it be old Brian M. who gets to take credit for it?

I have no problem the Liberals taking some credit for the economy. (Well, for all their misdeeds, at least they never installed multicoloured terror flags nor had an economic policy based on telling consumers to go buy plastic sheeting and duck tape)

I personally like their policy of underestimating surpluses and repaying the debt. A good house cleaning of the PMO is in order, but I can live with any minority either way.

And yes, we do call Hedy a lot of things. Or Svedy, as we have taken to calling the combined VanCenter whackos. (Its fun to watch Hedy and Svend go at it in the debates. Any second I expect them both to jump up on the tables and start slapping and pulling on each others Hair. But alas, all we get is Horrible Hedy hissing at Mr. Robbingson.

Sportsdesk

Don't go throwing any stones at the US economy, it can wipe ours out at a moments notice. If I was playing poker it would be their hand I would want to play.
The deficit has come down dramatically, unemployment is very low and all in spite of Katrina, Iraq, and the War on Terror.
You know that if their treasury really needed money, they could even take the last resort of taxing their people more.
They could tax tobacco, alcohol and energy a little more and raise billions.
But unlike Canada, this is the very last thing they would do.
Not like us who would do this first, forever.
The US economy will prevail, I believe.

RE: It depends who the Democrats run in 08.

Ron,

You're absolutely right, but it's important that you understand: They're strong at our expense. It's as if they're able to use our hole cards (and the hole cards of all of the other economies in their hegemony) to make their hand.

I can't resist returning to stocks again briefly...Man, what a week to be owning stocks!

I believe I've made more money on the markets in just the past week than I made in the prior entire year and half!

I hope you other guys in stocks are also getting to enjoy the rocket ride.

'06 is starting out with one heck of a Bang!
As the (straight) cowboys used to say, "Yippeeiokayay!"

ez come ez go bob. Just don't get shaken off of that gold bull.

true that, but enjoy the ride.

I'm enjoying the ride, but I'm prepared to be "shaken off", as I'm pretty skeptical about mkts for '06.
Most technical guys I've noticed commenting believe '06 will be a year that sees a massive sell off ( with perhaps a bit of a recovery at year end).
I hope I'll be paying close enough attention that if and when signals appear suggesting mkts are rolling over, that I won't hesitate to abandon ship. I don't want to be the deer in headlights!
...But for now I'm happy to lap it up!

One of my favourite quotes... real wisdom from Ed Deak.

Lynn,

That's some fine wisdom.
I'd expand it to say that The destruction ofthe jungles is a prime example of a market economy theory based on disallowing regional imput in the economy, and a globalized economy that shifts important decisions away from the regional base.
The US based lumber company doesn't care much for the health of the forest, and why the hell should they? They're not the ones who are going to have to deal with its absence, and once it's gone there's always somewhere else to set up shop.
If the resource decisions were based regionally, the gov't would be free to manage the resource and weigh the benefits and drawbacks associated with the resource's development. As it stands, most places are a) in debt to an international bank who insists that they do business their way, or b) subject to an international "trade" agreement that gives the corp's carte blance on their resources. WHEEEEEE!!!
I don't think there's anything wrong with a market economy, so long as the power base remains with the resources.

Ron, measurements aren't the same. And also, US unemployment figures ignore their extremely high incarceration rate.

Best to look at percentage employed. Less smoke and mirrors.

A Point to Ponder :
One is arguably being more supportive of unethical industries by simply buying their products than by buying their stock.

eg. If you buy lumber made by, say Interfor,
(not in the vanguard for sustainable forest practises)you help generate profit for them that goes straight to their bottom line.
On the other hand, buying Interfor stock does not contribute to the company's earnings. Personally, I do avoid investing in forestry cos,arms makers, tobacco cos., and others(I have mixed feelings my owning gold stocks).

When I build a home ,I'm thinking I'll
go for brick, so as to be less supportive of the forestry industry, as well as ending up with a house that won't start rotting away in a few years!

Also, shareholders have the right to attend
Annual General Meetings, and if there are ethical lapses by a company, you can bring up
such issues during Q & A.
And if you're a really big shareholder, like Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, you have some serious clout.

Thoughts on pension funds and income trusts which may be pertinent (I confess, I haven't gone through the entire debate above, and I wrote the article below:)

http://share.ca/files/pdfs/Income_Trusts_Part_11.pdf

Excerpt

In late November, well-known forensic accountants Al and Mark Rosen of Accountability Research produced The Worst is Yet to Come: The $20 Billion Deception that Dwarfs the Tax Debate, a detailed – and scathing – look at Canada’s income trust sector. In the executive summary, the authors assert that, “Business Trusts could easily be overvalued by 28% on average…” and that, “Investors are simply not recognizing that cash distributions are well in excess of income, and therefore not sustainable over the longer-term.”

“The prospects for serious declines in business trusts are already evident. Twenty-two percent of business trusts are down 30% or more from their initial IPO offerings… Much of the over-valuation of income trusts stems from abuses in the financial reporting, valuation, and marketing of business trusts. We believe that the primary motivation for the conversion of many corporations into business trusts has not been related to income tax advantages. Rather, it has been the ability for selling owners to receive inflated prices well above what strategic investment buyers and professional investors alone would be willing to pay.”