We make most of our money by selling people crap they don't really want."
Slate runs occasional columns on the business of movies, called "The Hollywood Economist". Your typical piece of crap usually dies at the box office after its first weekend. In fact, according to Slate, in 2006, the big six studios spent an average of $38 million per new release on advertising and promotion, even though their films grossed an average of $24 million at the box office. The studios make their money on DVD's, pay-TV, foreign rights, and as Mel Brooks would say "Moichandising!". And, to some extent, they run on the same model as venture capitalists - lose money on rotten movies/crummy Web 2.0 business plans, but make up for it with a "Dark Knight" or a Google.
So, I would amend your statement to "We make a lot of crap people don't like, but make our money with one or two blockbusters a year that people do want to see." And with the ancillary revenue streams so important to their profits, I can understand why they want to stop piracy.
Let's not forget that Monty Python hasn't produced anything new in the 25 years since "Meaning of Life". If no one pirated movies for five or ten years after they were released, I would bet the studios might be more interested in releasing material on youtube.
It's not even a question of whether someone "makes a fuss", or not. Many of the science "facts" I was taught in high school were later adjusted while studying engineering - and even then they didn't always get it right. I even remember a tenured professor, having dinner at our fraternity, explaining why an 8-bit processor with 512k RAM and a 10 MB hard drive sitting on your desktop would violate "7 fundamental laws of physics". (One of his contentions was the system would generate so much heat that you'd need a refrigerator next to it.) That was in 1978, AFTER the Apple II was introduced.
I agree with all posters who think critical thinking should be the goal of teaching. Unfortunately, given the lack of accountability for teachers (who continue to fight against standardised testing wherever possible), the lack of motivation of most students (and certainly, at my local high school, the fact that 25% of the kids were stoned most of the time), and the utter callousness of the school trustees (in Toronto, we've recently seen cases where trustees used their official funds to pay for vacations, home decor, etc.), I think the system is broken all the way through.
What we need is for the schools to evolve, but I fear we don't have enough time.
This is quite common at buffets in the Philippines. I've even seen it at a few sushi restaurants in Toronto, although these are places where you order bit by bit, as opposed to walking up to a table full of food and serving yourself.
Um, Canadian banks are larger than the American ones? Don't tell the people at Citi, or JPMorgan Chase, or Bank of America, or any of the other three US banks that are larger than Royal, Canada's biggest bank. Citi had revenues of $131 billion in 2006, while Royal had revenues of $24 billion. That's less than 20% of Citi's take.
And the reason we're not having a mortgage crisis is most people still get their mortgages from the banks, who expect to be repaid. In the US, the creation of CDO's spurred the growth of mortgage brokers, who sold their mortgages almost as soon as they were signed. The brokers were not on the hook for the money - their exposure was zero. So, they gave anyone with a pulse a mortgage - the broker gets his commission, his boss makes his numbers, and everybody's happy. It has nothing to do with government regulation; Canadian bankers do their due diligence, confirming income, employment, and demanding some money down. US mortgage brokers didn't do any of that, which is why there are so many dodgy loans.
And ATM fees? If I use a system from another bank, they had to pay for the machine, refilling it, maintaining it, etc. without getting a dime of revenue from me. Why should I get a free ride? And if you think the big banks' fees are expensive, try going to one of the "white label" ATMs. I had a friend who used one (he's not very bright), and he was charged $6.50 to take out $20. I'm pretty frugal (i.e. cheap), so I tend to use TD's machines only, but sometimes you just need cash right away. However, I haven't paid an ATM fee in over a year; I just plan so that I can get cash when I need it. Debit cards help too.
Please - the Conservatives are not "pissing" the surplus away; they are paying down debt - over 37 billion. If you assume a 5% interest rate (which is the average rate the government pays), that saves $1.85 billion in interest, which the Tories have said would all be returned to taxpayers via tax cuts. This is in tremendous contrast to the US, where the national debt recently hit $10 trillion. US GDP is about $13 trillion. In contrast, federal government debt in Canada is only $450 billion, or about 1/3 of our nearly 1.5 trillion GDP. That's why I agree with Harper that Canada isn't like the US, and that we are not in bad shape. Layton and Dion are scaremongers who ignore the facts, or more likely, don't understand the issue.
I agree about May, though. I think she was one of the best performing politicians in the debate
Not a chance - she was rude, hectoring, and constantly interrupting Harper. Harper, in contrast, was polite, and calm. I thought the purpose of a debate was to give one person the right to speak at any time, and since I was on my debating team at high school, I know whereof I speak. The three wannabes were all terrible. Duceppe actually impressed me; it's too bad he wants to break up the country.
He's a smart guy but unfortunately the language barrier is a bit of an issue and one which the Conservatives are quite prepared to mock him for. (To their discredit)
Oh please - the French press didn't crucify Joe Clark for his lousy French? Even the English papers typically prefaced any mention of his French with "awkward" or "clumsy". And Dion doesn't appear all that bright to me - his "Green Shift" is a ridiculous policy - and in a widely distributed clip of his appearance on ATV, he didn't understand a simple question, and had to have an aide explain it to him.
Oh, please. Don't you see Layton's TV ads where he claims he will hire 1,000 doctors? Forget that health care is a provincial matter; just remember it takes 7 years to train a doctor, so building new spaces at universities (Layton's "plan") won't have any effect until 2015.
The Tories have a much more practical plan. They will make it easier for foreign professionals to have their credentials recognized. That will increase the number of new doctors almost immediately, and it doesn't cost as much.
Layton is not a good person - he and wife Olivia were both city councilors in Toronto, and they lived in a city owned co-op even though they were pulling in more than $100k/year. That meant a poor family was denied that apartment. He claims to be for the little guy, just not where his own bank account is involved.
What financial training do you have? Eco 101? I manage 7 figures for my extended family, and we are up year-on-year, again, despite recent market turmoil. I'll put my record up against yours any day of the week. Let me address your "points" in reverse order:
"I read it on the net" - I did, it was a reputable source (i.e. not Wikipedia) but it was late at night and I didn't feel like spending 20 minutes on google trying to find it again. If you're so sure I'm wrong, PUBLISH SOME FUCKING CONTRARY FACTS OR STFU.
Second, I noted in my post that people are already taking out their money - and not just mutual funds, but actual fucking cash. Apparently your reading comprehension skills are on par with your financial acumen.
Of course the CDS market (which I NEVER addressed in my post; refer to the reading comprehension comment above) is a total mess. But again, if these hadn't been rated "AAA", most banks - and by that, moron, I mean "banks" like First City of Podunk, not "investment banks" like Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc., which are as much like ordinary banks as warships are like yachts - and pension funds and mutual funds WOULD NOT have been allowed to invest in them. This would have put a damper on the business, and would have also put a damper on the CDO market, preventing this crap from exploding to where it is.
you feel bad for the poor bankers who loaned all their cash out and don't have any for small business. Again, learn how to read. I didn't profess any sympathy at all for the BANKERS - I professed it for the retailers and manufacturers who don't have access to working capital because it's not there. Since you apparently have no idea how fractional banking works, let me try to explain it to you briefly: you deposit $1,000 in the bank. The bank doesn't bury it in its vault; it turns around and loans out $900 of it to another customer. Repeat for as many customers as you can. Eventually, at say 1,000 customers, the bank has $1 million in deposits and $900k in loans. (This assumes that none of the borrowers put their money back in the bank, which leads to recursive effects; we'll ignore those to keep the analysis simple enough for you to follow). Now, the $100,000 in cash on hand ("reserves" is the word we use to describe those) is usually enough to handle the day to day cash needs of the customers; most of them don't need access to all their money every day. However, if only 200 of the thousand customers demand all their cash, the bank is suddenly insolvent - it doesn't have enough cash on hand to pay out the claims. (This was the point of the "It's a Wonderful Life" reference - go back and watch it 20-30 times until you finally understand). At this point, the bank has to take on a fire sale of assets that are probably good assets - business loans and mortgages that were made to customers who are paying them off right on time. In regular times, the bank may have to sell off $200k worth of loans at 90-95 cents on the dollar, and if things are kept relatively quiet, the run can be staved off. Alternately, the bank can seek fresh injections of capital to retain its reserve ratio. Either way, a perfectly solvent and well maintained institution can be fundamentally damaged because its depositors suddenly develop an irrational fear. And, if one bank fails, the fear can spread to other, even more solvent banks, none of which can withstand a demand for complete withdrawal of a significant portion of depositors' cash. (I remember, as a boy, that savings accounts in Canada reserved the right for 30 days of notice of withdrawals, although this was almost always waived. The intent was to prevent panics, which have happened repeatedly in US financial history; try reading about the "Panic of 1907" for example.
Finally, you contend that there aren't three guys in the world who can understand or price CDO's or MBS's. Well, that's perhaps true in your corner of the world, which is demonstrably populated by at least one idiot who thinks he understands financial markets but cle
While I agree with much of what you have to say, I do object to the characterization of many of the investment interests as "junk" or "fraudulently valued". I read somewhere on the net that of even the worst performing group of mortgages, the "NINA" (no income, no assets) mortgages of 2006, over 80% were still performing - that is, still making their payments, and not in default. Yet the SEC wants to enforce "mark to market" rules which, in the face of a buyers' strike, effectively values those mortgages at zero. Are the CDO's worth what they would be if 100% of the mortgages were current? Of course not. But, when 80%+ of the mortgages ARE performing, are they worth zero? Again, clearly not.
What I object to was the inclusion of so much unrelated crap in the bill. Relief for a racetrack? For a maker of kids' toy arrows? For PR Rum distillers? What kind of nonsense is this?
Try visiting "dealbreaker.com", and reading some of the stories there. People withdrawing all their money from their savings/chequing accounts, and hiding it in their safe deposit boxes (or burying it in the backyard, for all we know). The run on physical gold (try buying some gold coins or bars today - good luck finding any). Then, go rent a copy of "It's A Wonderful Life", and try to understand what Jimmy Stewart's saying when he's trying to prevent a run on the building and loan. If a bank has no capital, it can't lend. If everyone tries to withdraw all their cash from the bank, it breaks the bank because it lends out all that cash to others. Without access to capital, the economy freezes up.
For example, with the busy Christmas retail season coming up, many smaller retailers are unable to get the short term loans they need to finance their inventory. Other industries need short term loans to cover the inevitable lag between the time they purchase raw materials, and sell finished goods. They're having trouble finding loans as well. Something had to be done.
Was this bill the best way to do it? I, and many others, think not. It was too diffuse, too laden with pork, and most of all, too rushed. And to me, the worst culprits in the whole mess (the ratings agencies Moody's and S&P) got off scot free. If they had done their job, and not rated the crappiest tranche of CDO's as "AAA", none of the pension funds, smaller banks, and many other mutual funds would not have been allowed to buy them, and much of this mess could have either been prevented, or contained to much smaller amounts. But the ratings agencies didn't do their due diligence, and everyone else has been so conditioned that the ratings were always correct, they didn't bother to do their due diligence either.
I'm Canadian, and our big banks have avoided most of this mess simply because those banks write most of the mortgages here, and they do put people through wringers before they OK a mortgage. The banks ensure you have a steady job, some money to put down, etc., before forking over the cash. DUE DILIGENCE. Remember those two words, apply them to your own investments, and you'll never go broke. It's when you get lazy, and think others are going to look after you, that you get burned.
I would have been interested to see what exactly happens to the CO2. Do they just compress the gas, which presumably would lead to storage problems eventually, or do they actually break it down into carbon and Oxygen? Or is the CO2 stored interstitially in the "scrubbing material"? (I had a friend in my engineering class that worked on storing hydrogen in steel bars; he said you could store more in the bar than you could in a compressed gas cylinder of the same size.)
The Liberal leadership (and others) was (is probably still) too weak to vote down something for fear that it would bring down government and invoke an election when they didn't have favourable polling numbers. So, much for that, eh. Harper went against his own bill and did it anyway.
Right - so we had a situation where the Opposition could bring down the government any time they chose, but the government couldn't call an election. I would like to see the bill redrafted so that it only applies to majority governments.
Limiting use of something so very general is against reason no matter how long/short the time limit on it is.
Again, if you bothered to actually READ the bill, it is limited to preventing companies who haven't paid any fees to the COC/CPC from trying to profit from the Olympics. As others have noted, there is a company called "withglowinghearts" in Canada (they make wool products, I believe) and since they were in business before March, 2007, they are exempt from the restriction, unless they decide to come up with a special design for the Olympics. News organisations are exempt from the regulations, The only people who will be prevented from using these trademarks are free loaders.
Many high tech companies regularly repurchase their shares. Those who decide to sell get their "dividend" in the form of cash receipts from the sale of stock. Cisco, for example, authorized $10 BILLION in share buybacks last year.
Nope - the previous government passed a law restricting contributions from corporations to $5,000, and the new Tory government reduced that to $1,100 and completely outlawed contributions from companies or unions - only individuals can make contributions. Interestingly, the Tories, who are thought to be right wing, have always received the majority of their contributions from individuals. It was the Liberal party, who campaign on the left but actually govern from the centre, which received the most corporate money. Which is one reason that they're actually broke, and unable to run many TV ads in this election.
Yes, Canadian law does have trademark provisions. However, if you looked at the bill, you'd see that most of the words and phrases included would normally not be eligible for trademarks - like "Gold", "Silver", "Winter", etc. And, again if you'd read the bill, you'd see that the intent is to stop people from free-loading on the Olympic symbol.
From the government of Canada's website re: Bill C-47
Commentary
Bill C-47 enhances the protection for Olympic symbols beyond that normally afforded to trade-marks. Although existing intellectual property law in Canada could arguably be used to protect Olympic symbols and marks, the sheer volume of possible violations, within a short window of time, are presumed to be the justification for the enhanced protection.
There has been substantial debate about tactics used in connection with sporting events to discourage the use of ambush marketing. In the United Kingdom, a statute was recently passed that, among other things, will outlaw ambush marketing for the 2012 Olympics.(10) A coalition of advertisers argued that this legislation was draconian and overly restrictive. Citing one example, the legislation would not allow a business to say "come to London in 2012."(11) Advertisers in Britain viewed these restrictions as potentially damaging to the economic "halo effect" that the Olympics promises to bring, stating that "London businesses in particular will be paying for these Games but they are being deprived of benefiting from them because they will basically have to pretend they are not happening."(12)
There are also accusations that prohibitions against ambush marketing can be carried too far. In one of the more bizarre examples of an attempt to prevent ambush marketing, more than 1,000 Dutch fans at the FIFA 2006 World Cup match in Germany were forced to relinquish their orange lederhosen during a game against the Ivory Coast. The lederhosen were stamped with the name "Bavaria," although Bavaria Brewery (Netherlands) was not an official World Cup sponsor. When Dutch fans tried to enter the stadium, they were required by FIFA officials to abandon their lederhosen, and were forced to watch the game in their underwear.(13) Before this incident, Heineken, an official sponsor of the Dutch football association, had taken legal action against Bavaria Brewery in Holland but lost; the Dutch judge had ruled that fans could wear whatever they wanted.
As proposed, Bill C-47 appears to address some of these concerns. Although it clearly strengthens the ability of the COC, CPC, and Organizing Committee to seek injunctions against any marks presumed to be encroaching on the Olympic brand, it also imposes limits on the legal reach of these powers through the exceptions. Criticism, for example, is protected, as is the use of Olympic symbols in news coverage. Firms whose use of related symbols pre-dates the Games are similarly protected, as are wine and spirit makers who use any of the terms listed in schedules 1, 2, and 3 to describe the origins of their products. Similarly, the interim injunctions in which irreparable harm need not be proved, could be, under Bill C-47, made available only for a short window of time.
This is from the government's website describing Bill C-47:
Trade-marks used before 2 March 2007: Anyone with a trade-mark - or license to use a trade-mark - who used that trade-mark before 2 March 2007 or before publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette of an order that adds an Olympic or Paralympic mark to Schedule 1 or 2 of the proposed legislation can continue to use the trade-mark. However, only the same goods and services or goods and services of the same general class as had been sold before Bill C-47 was introduced are eligible for this exemption.
Did you actually READ the bill? It's intent is to stop free-loaders from slapping "Olympic" and the like on products, and making money without contributing to the Games. All the trademarks expire at the end of 2010, so it's not like they have the rights forever. And, if you have a business like "Olympia Restaurant" and you were in business before March 2007, you can continue to use the "trademarked" term. Any business with a large public profile is fairly vigilant about protecting their name and brands; why should the IOC be any different?
Oh please. The Conservatives are in a minority; if the BQ, Liberals, and NDP wanted to quash it, they could have voted it down. But, just as the opposition has completely turtled on every bill the Tories bring in, they did it again.
And I read the bill; it doesn't deny anyone the right to use IOC trademarks such as "Olympic" or "Olympia" in connection with a business as long as they were using those names before March 2007. And all the trademarks expire at the end of 2010.
What did amuse me was that they also trademarked "Gold" and "Silver". So I guess if you're starting up a precious metals mining business, your name choices will be somewhat limited.
Well, considering Trudeau changed the words in the 80's, I haven't sung it for nearly two decades. Can you imagine Reagan trying to change the words to the "Star Spangled Banner"? He would have been shot for sure.
Just wondering - did that 66 Impala have air bags? Shoulder belts? Air conditioning? A CD player, or for that matter, an FM radio? Power locks? Power windows? Cruise control? Anti-lock brakes? Electronic ignition? Fuel injection? I used to work at a service station, and we had a short mechanic who could actually climb into the engine bay, there was so much space. Take a look at an engine bay now; you can barely fit a cat in it. Yes the prices have gone up, but you're getting a much more sophisticated car.
That reminds me of the time the president of the Toronto Blue Jays told a reporter they made a $5 million profit that year, and the vp of finance quickly chirped "And I can make that a $5 million loss if I have to".
I don't know where you live, but if you have ever stood shivering in 10 degree F temps, which happens quite frequently in Toronto, and the bus that was supposed to be there at 8:30 doesn't show up until 9:00, you'll understand the attraction of cars. Also, it's time - I live just north of Toronto. In a car, I get downtown in 40 minutes; taking public transit takes me 2 hours. Same thing going to my grocery store; on public transit it takes about 30 minutes. When I ride my bike, I get there in less than 10 minutes. I don't know about you, but I think my time is worth something.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Goldensteinberg, you insensitive clod.
Slate runs occasional columns on the business of movies, called "The Hollywood Economist". Your typical piece of crap usually dies at the box office after its first weekend. In fact, according to Slate, in 2006, the big six studios spent an average of $38 million per new release on advertising and promotion, even though their films grossed an average of $24 million at the box office. The studios make their money on DVD's, pay-TV, foreign rights, and as Mel Brooks would say "Moichandising!". And, to some extent, they run on the same model as venture capitalists - lose money on rotten movies/crummy Web 2.0 business plans, but make up for it with a "Dark Knight" or a Google.
So, I would amend your statement to "We make a lot of crap people don't like, but make our money with one or two blockbusters a year that people do want to see." And with the ancillary revenue streams so important to their profits, I can understand why they want to stop piracy.
Let's not forget that Monty Python hasn't produced anything new in the 25 years since "Meaning of Life". If no one pirated movies for five or ten years after they were released, I would bet the studios might be more interested in releasing material on youtube.
I agree with all posters who think critical thinking should be the goal of teaching. Unfortunately, given the lack of accountability for teachers (who continue to fight against standardised testing wherever possible), the lack of motivation of most students (and certainly, at my local high school, the fact that 25% of the kids were stoned most of the time), and the utter callousness of the school trustees (in Toronto, we've recently seen cases where trustees used their official funds to pay for vacations, home decor, etc.), I think the system is broken all the way through.
What we need is for the schools to evolve, but I fear we don't have enough time.
Self-inflicted deafness?
This is quite common at buffets in the Philippines. I've even seen it at a few sushi restaurants in Toronto, although these are places where you order bit by bit, as opposed to walking up to a table full of food and serving yourself.
And the reason we're not having a mortgage crisis is most people still get their mortgages from the banks, who expect to be repaid. In the US, the creation of CDO's spurred the growth of mortgage brokers, who sold their mortgages almost as soon as they were signed. The brokers were not on the hook for the money - their exposure was zero. So, they gave anyone with a pulse a mortgage - the broker gets his commission, his boss makes his numbers, and everybody's happy. It has nothing to do with government regulation; Canadian bankers do their due diligence, confirming income, employment, and demanding some money down. US mortgage brokers didn't do any of that, which is why there are so many dodgy loans.
And ATM fees? If I use a system from another bank, they had to pay for the machine, refilling it, maintaining it, etc. without getting a dime of revenue from me. Why should I get a free ride? And if you think the big banks' fees are expensive, try going to one of the "white label" ATMs. I had a friend who used one (he's not very bright), and he was charged $6.50 to take out $20. I'm pretty frugal (i.e. cheap), so I tend to use TD's machines only, but sometimes you just need cash right away. However, I haven't paid an ATM fee in over a year; I just plan so that I can get cash when I need it. Debit cards help too.
Please - the Conservatives are not "pissing" the surplus away; they are paying down debt - over 37 billion. If you assume a 5% interest rate (which is the average rate the government pays), that saves $1.85 billion in interest, which the Tories have said would all be returned to taxpayers via tax cuts. This is in tremendous contrast to the US, where the national debt recently hit $10 trillion. US GDP is about $13 trillion. In contrast, federal government debt in Canada is only $450 billion, or about 1/3 of our nearly 1.5 trillion GDP. That's why I agree with Harper that Canada isn't like the US, and that we are not in bad shape. Layton and Dion are scaremongers who ignore the facts, or more likely, don't understand the issue.
Not a chance - she was rude, hectoring, and constantly interrupting Harper. Harper, in contrast, was polite, and calm. I thought the purpose of a debate was to give one person the right to speak at any time, and since I was on my debating team at high school, I know whereof I speak. The three wannabes were all terrible. Duceppe actually impressed me; it's too bad he wants to break up the country.
Oh please - the French press didn't crucify Joe Clark for his lousy French? Even the English papers typically prefaced any mention of his French with "awkward" or "clumsy". And Dion doesn't appear all that bright to me - his "Green Shift" is a ridiculous policy - and in a widely distributed clip of his appearance on ATV, he didn't understand a simple question, and had to have an aide explain it to him.
Layton is not a good person - he and wife Olivia were both city councilors in Toronto, and they lived in a city owned co-op even though they were pulling in more than $100k/year. That meant a poor family was denied that apartment. He claims to be for the little guy, just not where his own bank account is involved.
"I read it on the net" - I did, it was a reputable source (i.e. not Wikipedia) but it was late at night and I didn't feel like spending 20 minutes on google trying to find it again. If you're so sure I'm wrong, PUBLISH SOME FUCKING CONTRARY FACTS OR STFU.
Second, I noted in my post that people are already taking out their money - and not just mutual funds, but actual fucking cash. Apparently your reading comprehension skills are on par with your financial acumen.
Of course the CDS market (which I NEVER addressed in my post; refer to the reading comprehension comment above) is a total mess. But again, if these hadn't been rated "AAA", most banks - and by that, moron, I mean "banks" like First City of Podunk, not "investment banks" like Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc., which are as much like ordinary banks as warships are like yachts - and pension funds and mutual funds WOULD NOT have been allowed to invest in them. This would have put a damper on the business, and would have also put a damper on the CDO market, preventing this crap from exploding to where it is.
you feel bad for the poor bankers who loaned all their cash out and don't have any for small business. Again, learn how to read. I didn't profess any sympathy at all for the BANKERS - I professed it for the retailers and manufacturers who don't have access to working capital because it's not there. Since you apparently have no idea how fractional banking works, let me try to explain it to you briefly: you deposit $1,000 in the bank. The bank doesn't bury it in its vault; it turns around and loans out $900 of it to another customer. Repeat for as many customers as you can. Eventually, at say 1,000 customers, the bank has $1 million in deposits and $900k in loans. (This assumes that none of the borrowers put their money back in the bank, which leads to recursive effects; we'll ignore those to keep the analysis simple enough for you to follow). Now, the $100,000 in cash on hand ("reserves" is the word we use to describe those) is usually enough to handle the day to day cash needs of the customers; most of them don't need access to all their money every day. However, if only 200 of the thousand customers demand all their cash, the bank is suddenly insolvent - it doesn't have enough cash on hand to pay out the claims. (This was the point of the "It's a Wonderful Life" reference - go back and watch it 20-30 times until you finally understand). At this point, the bank has to take on a fire sale of assets that are probably good assets - business loans and mortgages that were made to customers who are paying them off right on time. In regular times, the bank may have to sell off $200k worth of loans at 90-95 cents on the dollar, and if things are kept relatively quiet, the run can be staved off. Alternately, the bank can seek fresh injections of capital to retain its reserve ratio. Either way, a perfectly solvent and well maintained institution can be fundamentally damaged because its depositors suddenly develop an irrational fear. And, if one bank fails, the fear can spread to other, even more solvent banks, none of which can withstand a demand for complete withdrawal of a significant portion of depositors' cash. (I remember, as a boy, that savings accounts in Canada reserved the right for 30 days of notice of withdrawals, although this was almost always waived. The intent was to prevent panics, which have happened repeatedly in US financial history; try reading about the "Panic of 1907" for example.
Finally, you contend that there aren't three guys in the world who can understand or price CDO's or MBS's. Well, that's perhaps true in your corner of the world, which is demonstrably populated by at least one idiot who thinks he understands financial markets but cle
What I object to was the inclusion of so much unrelated crap in the bill. Relief for a racetrack? For a maker of kids' toy arrows? For PR Rum distillers? What kind of nonsense is this? Try visiting "dealbreaker.com", and reading some of the stories there. People withdrawing all their money from their savings/chequing accounts, and hiding it in their safe deposit boxes (or burying it in the backyard, for all we know). The run on physical gold (try buying some gold coins or bars today - good luck finding any). Then, go rent a copy of "It's A Wonderful Life", and try to understand what Jimmy Stewart's saying when he's trying to prevent a run on the building and loan. If a bank has no capital, it can't lend. If everyone tries to withdraw all their cash from the bank, it breaks the bank because it lends out all that cash to others. Without access to capital, the economy freezes up.
For example, with the busy Christmas retail season coming up, many smaller retailers are unable to get the short term loans they need to finance their inventory. Other industries need short term loans to cover the inevitable lag between the time they purchase raw materials, and sell finished goods. They're having trouble finding loans as well. Something had to be done.
Was this bill the best way to do it? I, and many others, think not. It was too diffuse, too laden with pork, and most of all, too rushed. And to me, the worst culprits in the whole mess (the ratings agencies Moody's and S&P) got off scot free. If they had done their job, and not rated the crappiest tranche of CDO's as "AAA", none of the pension funds, smaller banks, and many other mutual funds would not have been allowed to buy them, and much of this mess could have either been prevented, or contained to much smaller amounts. But the ratings agencies didn't do their due diligence, and everyone else has been so conditioned that the ratings were always correct, they didn't bother to do their due diligence either.
I'm Canadian, and our big banks have avoided most of this mess simply because those banks write most of the mortgages here, and they do put people through wringers before they OK a mortgage. The banks ensure you have a steady job, some money to put down, etc., before forking over the cash. DUE DILIGENCE. Remember those two words, apply them to your own investments, and you'll never go broke. It's when you get lazy, and think others are going to look after you, that you get burned.
I would have been interested to see what exactly happens to the CO2. Do they just compress the gas, which presumably would lead to storage problems eventually, or do they actually break it down into carbon and Oxygen? Or is the CO2 stored interstitially in the "scrubbing material"? (I had a friend in my engineering class that worked on storing hydrogen in steel bars; he said you could store more in the bar than you could in a compressed gas cylinder of the same size.)
Right - so we had a situation where the Opposition could bring down the government any time they chose, but the government couldn't call an election. I would like to see the bill redrafted so that it only applies to majority governments.
Limiting use of something so very general is against reason no matter how long/short the time limit on it is.
Again, if you bothered to actually READ the bill, it is limited to preventing companies who haven't paid any fees to the COC/CPC from trying to profit from the Olympics. As others have noted, there is a company called "withglowinghearts" in Canada (they make wool products, I believe) and since they were in business before March, 2007, they are exempt from the restriction, unless they decide to come up with a special design for the Olympics. News organisations are exempt from the regulations, The only people who will be prevented from using these trademarks are free loaders.
Many high tech companies regularly repurchase their shares. Those who decide to sell get their "dividend" in the form of cash receipts from the sale of stock. Cisco, for example, authorized $10 BILLION in share buybacks last year.
Nope - the previous government passed a law restricting contributions from corporations to $5,000, and the new Tory government reduced that to $1,100 and completely outlawed contributions from companies or unions - only individuals can make contributions. Interestingly, the Tories, who are thought to be right wing, have always received the majority of their contributions from individuals. It was the Liberal party, who campaign on the left but actually govern from the centre, which received the most corporate money. Which is one reason that they're actually broke, and unable to run many TV ads in this election.
From the government of Canada's website re: Bill C-47
Commentary
Bill C-47 enhances the protection for Olympic symbols beyond that normally afforded to trade-marks. Although existing intellectual property law in Canada could arguably be used to protect Olympic symbols and marks, the sheer volume of possible violations, within a short window of time, are presumed to be the justification for the enhanced protection.
There has been substantial debate about tactics used in connection with sporting events to discourage the use of ambush marketing. In the United Kingdom, a statute was recently passed that, among other things, will outlaw ambush marketing for the 2012 Olympics.(10) A coalition of advertisers argued that this legislation was draconian and overly restrictive. Citing one example, the legislation would not allow a business to say "come to London in 2012."(11) Advertisers in Britain viewed these restrictions as potentially damaging to the economic "halo effect" that the Olympics promises to bring, stating that "London businesses in particular will be paying for these Games but they are being deprived of benefiting from them because they will basically have to pretend they are not happening."(12)
There are also accusations that prohibitions against ambush marketing can be carried too far. In one of the more bizarre examples of an attempt to prevent ambush marketing, more than 1,000 Dutch fans at the FIFA 2006 World Cup match in Germany were forced to relinquish their orange lederhosen during a game against the Ivory Coast. The lederhosen were stamped with the name "Bavaria," although Bavaria Brewery (Netherlands) was not an official World Cup sponsor. When Dutch fans tried to enter the stadium, they were required by FIFA officials to abandon their lederhosen, and were forced to watch the game in their underwear.(13) Before this incident, Heineken, an official sponsor of the Dutch football association, had taken legal action against Bavaria Brewery in Holland but lost; the Dutch judge had ruled that fans could wear whatever they wanted.
As proposed, Bill C-47 appears to address some of these concerns. Although it clearly strengthens the ability of the COC, CPC, and Organizing Committee to seek injunctions against any marks presumed to be encroaching on the Olympic brand, it also imposes limits on the legal reach of these powers through the exceptions. Criticism, for example, is protected, as is the use of Olympic symbols in news coverage. Firms whose use of related symbols pre-dates the Games are similarly protected, as are wine and spirit makers who use any of the terms listed in schedules 1, 2, and 3 to describe the origins of their products. Similarly, the interim injunctions in which irreparable harm need not be proved, could be, under Bill C-47, made available only for a short window of time.
Trade-marks used before 2 March 2007: Anyone with a trade-mark - or license to use a trade-mark - who used that trade-mark before 2 March 2007 or before publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette of an order that adds an Olympic or Paralympic mark to Schedule 1 or 2 of the proposed legislation can continue to use the trade-mark. However, only the same goods and services or goods and services of the same general class as had been sold before Bill C-47 was introduced are eligible for this exemption.
Reading can really educate you.
Did you actually READ the bill? It's intent is to stop free-loaders from slapping "Olympic" and the like on products, and making money without contributing to the Games. All the trademarks expire at the end of 2010, so it's not like they have the rights forever. And, if you have a business like "Olympia Restaurant" and you were in business before March 2007, you can continue to use the "trademarked" term. Any business with a large public profile is fairly vigilant about protecting their name and brands; why should the IOC be any different?
And I read the bill; it doesn't deny anyone the right to use IOC trademarks such as "Olympic" or "Olympia" in connection with a business as long as they were using those names before March 2007. And all the trademarks expire at the end of 2010.
What did amuse me was that they also trademarked "Gold" and "Silver". So I guess if you're starting up a precious metals mining business, your name choices will be somewhat limited.
Well, considering Trudeau changed the words in the 80's, I haven't sung it for nearly two decades. Can you imagine Reagan trying to change the words to the "Star Spangled Banner"? He would have been shot for sure.
Wish I had mod points! I followed the link, and laughed my head off for an hour.
Just wondering - did that 66 Impala have air bags? Shoulder belts? Air conditioning? A CD player, or for that matter, an FM radio? Power locks? Power windows? Cruise control? Anti-lock brakes? Electronic ignition? Fuel injection? I used to work at a service station, and we had a short mechanic who could actually climb into the engine bay, there was so much space. Take a look at an engine bay now; you can barely fit a cat in it. Yes the prices have gone up, but you're getting a much more sophisticated car.
That reminds me of the time the president of the Toronto Blue Jays told a reporter they made a $5 million profit that year, and the vp of finance quickly chirped "And I can make that a $5 million loss if I have to".
I don't know where you live, but if you have ever stood shivering in 10 degree F temps, which happens quite frequently in Toronto, and the bus that was supposed to be there at 8:30 doesn't show up until 9:00, you'll understand the attraction of cars. Also, it's time - I live just north of Toronto. In a car, I get downtown in 40 minutes; taking public transit takes me 2 hours. Same thing going to my grocery store; on public transit it takes about 30 minutes. When I ride my bike, I get there in less than 10 minutes. I don't know about you, but I think my time is worth something.