Make Canadians angry. Its not a good thing.

When people or countries or groups show their true colors, its time to act on that. Its likely the time to figure that out and act on it was long before that, but in any case, when its finally clear what you are dealing with and the mistake you have made, you take action.

Its been clear to many of us that getting in business with the Chinese, and even more, allowing them to take control of entire areas of our cities, and further, acquire a massive amount of market share in businesses was a massive mistake. A mistake driven by greed and selfish interests of those at the top who will continue to profit from what the Chinese do best....which  is make stuff very cheap, use devious measures to gain market share, steal trade secrets, and then leverage the crap out of all that to put entire companies out of business.

That is exactly how Huawei did it. There are many others. None of that matters now. What matters is that our leader, our Prime Minister, stops with the diplomatic BS, and comes right out in public and gives it to the Chinese straight. Don't fucking mess with us. You are making

a massive mistake. That is the one thing Donald Trump does do well. He does threats well. Unfortunately, he ignores facts. So, here are the facts the Chinese need to hear, and then, be mindful of.

China has a massive trade surplus with Canada. For every 18 billion we export to them every year, they export 54 billion to us. That can stop on a dime if we want it to. We have no trade deal or agreement with them. Why can that stop? Because we don't need them.

Huawei 's stock has lost half its value in one week. That is while they are still doing business and making a good profit. If they insist on keeping on with this game of chicken and pissing match, they will lose it. They will go to zero, be wiped out. That is the ultimate power Canada and the Western world has here. We can put these

companies out of business by simply shunning them and making them worthless. That isn't probably preferable, but it can and will happen if they push us to that point. That point is approaching based on the Chinese actions this week. Money talks, bullshit walks.

That is because we have all we need here. We have some of the best schools in the world, and in fact many Chinese send their kids here to be educated because of that. That can stop too if they are hell bent on acting like bulls in a China shop. We have all the oil we will ever need. We have more fresh water, power and natural resources than anybody else, per capita. We have a highly educated and skilled population, and we have the infrastructure to back all that up. Simply, other than cheap goods, we don't need the Chinese. Its nice to save 40 cents on toothpaste at Walmart, but we can do without that.

Canadians don't like to be threatened and bossed around. We have a rep around the world for being nice, being polite, for doing the right thing. But, a little known fact is that Canadians are very tough and if you get on their bad side, we will cut you like a bitch in a heartbeat. If your response to us honoring an extradition agreement with another country when someone breaks the law, lies about it, and continues to do that, is to pick up innocent Canadians in your country, you will pay a sever price for that.

The Chinese, as a country, not the average citizen, are bullies. They are communist, restrictive, dictators.That is fact. They control the media and they have absolute power over any company that derives or operates there, no matter where they actually do business in the world. We don't need that kind of thing here. Neither does any other country, and if China thinks they will get trade deals with other Western Countries if this is how they act, they are delusional.

The Chinese have made a huge miscalculation here. Whether they get that or not, I don't know. But its time for our Prime Minister to lay all that out for them so they get it.

Release the two Canadians, immediately, or you will be the one to face very serious consequences.

You are fucking with us. We are not fucking with you. If you don't believe that, keep detaining more innocent people. You will find out what its like to make Canadians angry. Its not a good thing.

Andrea Howarth: Delusional, hothead moron. Enough is enough

"Most Ontarians know, that the NDP hasn't formed government in Ontario in some time. But we're looking forward to doing so."

-Andrea Howarth

This delusional, hothead moron gives you evidence of why that is never going to happen. Pigs will fly before they get power with her in charge, and probably anybody in charge that thinks you can just force GM to keep the plant open.

Its dead. Deal with it.

The fact is, Howarth was handed the election when Wynne was a lame duck, and Ford was the easiest goof to take apart. But, he won a large majority, because, Howarth is not anybody's leader.

I'm not a big fan of Doug Ford, but at least he doesn't lie down when someone like Howarth wont let up and starts to make it personal. He went right after her and gave her the facts. She had every chance to stop this from happening when she supported the Liberals for about 5 years, but she never did. Nobody in their right mind would sleep well at night with her as their leader. She thinks, like all NDP's, that spending your way out of the problem is the answer, and that workers are entitled to high paying jobs even if that means the taxpayers have to pay out of their own pocket to support that.

We all lose jobs and our livelihoods at points in our lives. We deal with it. We find a way. We use the things that government already does for us....EI, job retraining, student loans and grants, lots of things. In this case, 3000 to 5000 people are going to lose their jobs, but with one years warning and pay, and then another year of EI and other benefits. I wish I had that kind of net when it happened to me. I didn't see anyone standing up in Parliament and crying tears for me. Because they didn't.

I think 2 years is plenty enough time to find a way to get back on your feet. And if the NDP thinks the plant is viable, and profitable, and the union does as well, then buy it, get a car maker like Tesla to make cars there, and then operate it.

I'm not making excuses for GM, they have their issues and are as greedy as fuck, just like every corporate company that has to answer to shareholders and customers first, then workers and nations last.

But, as a third party here, I expect these displaced workers to do what the rest of the 13 million Ontarians would have to do. Find another job and get new skills, or move where the jobs are. Take less money, alter your lifestyle. The time for handouts and special considerations are over. At least with Doug Ford, he seems to get that. Nobody, this time, is bailing out GM or the workers. Those days are over, thankfully. As is Howarth's career. When she loses the next election, she will just crawl away, with, of course, a huge government pension package for life. No need for anyone to stand up in Parliament for her when she is jobless.

You can't rectify it if you are forced to do that.

A couple of nights ago, I saw a story on the news about a bank screwing up and simply not willing to fix it. Until they were forced to fix it because of public pressure.

The tagline of the story is that a "widower goes public over bank mistake". But why did he have to go public? If you watch the clip you will note that the bank, The Bank of Nova Scotia (which is one of the big 5 banks in Canada) refused to correct a mistake that they made wholly on their own, for which they readily admit they did. Any common sense would suggest that they would fix it at their own expense immediately to avoid the kind of publicity they just got. They tried to avoid paying 35k worth of mistake and they just lost millions of dollars in business. That makes no sense whatsoever.

"They lost the paperwork and sat on the file for months."
 
To make it worse, they caused him trouble with the CRA, which is the IRS of Canada, and also it was the money of his wife who died 5 years ago of breast cancer, leaving him to raise 5 kids by himself in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, which is a very nice place but not exactly the easiest place to live in the winter. He had more than enough on his plate than to spend 5 years fighting with the bank for a stupid mistake they made. And admit to. And covered up to make it worse for him. If I was him, I would have sued them for damages on top of everything. All he wanted was his money back and them to pay the bill they caused him to incur.

"I get a $30,000 tax bill that I didn't cause."

So, because of public pressure by the CBC, they decided to finally pay up and rectify it? But did they?



 "I would like Scotiabank to fix this so it wouldn't cost me a dime."

The bank manager told the man that they were sorry but they wouldn't pay. They had many opportunities to fix it over time, 5 years, without it ever going public. So, what did they do?
They said they wouldn't pay. That was until the CBC decided it would go on air. Once that happened, they decided to pay $37,000 to make it go away.
But did it go away? Has it? 

If you really want to rectify it, then you have to fire anybody who had a chance to rectify it without the news getting involved and didn't bother. That is the only way you show me that you really understand what you did. Since, you just threw money at it at the last minute because the news pressured you to do so, it shows me that your bank is simply not fit to do business with.

"I believe the larger financial institutions are not necessarily focusing in on the individual. You become a number in a banking system....you're no longer a person."

-Don Taylor,  a financial planner interviewed for this story.

Am I naive enough to think the other banks aren't the same? No, certainly not. But, I know you certainly don't care at all about the customer or making it right by doing the right thing and fixing YOUR mistake unless you are under duress. So, until I see evidence of other banks that way, I can deal with them. For you, Scotiabank,  I have no interest and I never will. Until you show me that you have completely changed your ways. I see no evidence of that. The same people who were responsible for this are still there.
This is very similar to the Carnival Cruises fiasco. Sure, I don't think they are the only Cruise ship company who lack total common sense when it comes to customer service and satisfaction. But, I know for a fact now that they don't care. So, I can operate going forward with certainty that I don't want to deal with them. It doesn't matter what others might do or be doing, you have been caught and you don't care to rectify that problem. 
You can't rectify it if you are forced to do that. That isn't how it works. It just tells me that you aren't worth the bother to deal with.

"They left me feeling confident that everything was going to be looked after."

What is the ultimate moral of this story? Never, ever, trust the bank (any bank) or government to do anything on good faith. Check up on them. You shouldn't have to, but you have to. They are ignorant, arrogant monopolies and they don't think the rules of common sense, decency and good faith practice apply to them. They make unreal sums of money and they have no incentive to do the right thing and try to keep your business with good business practice and fairness.

The bank calls this a "rare and regrettable occurance."
Do they really think we believe that? 

Never forget that.  
Get it on paper and get proof, or it isn't done.

What defaulting on the debt really means for you and me.

 "I think we had a debt downgrade (in 2011) because creditors are looking out long-term and realizing, “Huh, the U.S. just blinked again, they kicked the can down the road, they’re not solving the problem.”

-Senator Ron Johnson

Most experts and the journalists who follow the shutdown and understand the actual consequences have mentioned that the shutdown is more a nuisance than real destruction. That isn't to minimize that real people with jobs, mortgages, kids and lives on the line are getting hurt and will continue to feel that pain. They are feeling real pain. No doubt.
However, the real danger (for the big picture) is defaulting on the debt. It simply can't happen. Here is why.
What would happen if the U.S. defaulted on their debt? Well, in reality, they can't. It would mean that at the very least, the next time around they will pay a ridiculously higher rate of interest and basically never be able to get out of the hole (assuming you believe they still can, which I don't anyway) they are in now, which is getting deeper as we speak.
But what they can do, and might do, is delay paying the bondholders. That isn't defaulting per say. Default means you don't pay ever, and the debt has to be written off or assets seized by the bondholders to cover it. 
Like all people who loan money, you don't have a choice when that happens. You make a deal and you have to get paid when the debtor can pay. But it raises red flags and your credit rating goes down. People who might have loaned you money or bought your debt now might not because they view you as a much poorer risk. The U.S. still has that reputation of being a safe investment, unlike many countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal and countless others who appear not able to pay what they owe.
But here is the ultimate off-shoot and result of not paying on time. In the future, the people who loan the money will require penalties that are extremely stiff and enforceable if you don't pay on time. That means that the debt and deficit will get deeper and there won't be much discussion about the debt ceiling. 
The ultimate effect: America is going to have to face up to the fact that they can't make ends meet and pay their bills and people have to get used to getting less than they have come to expect they deserve. 

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/08/inside_the_mind_of_the_tea_party_sen_ron_johnson_talks_to_salon/ 

"And I, I utterly reject the administration’s claim that this isn’t about new spending, that we’re just paying off old bills. Well, well, the reason you have to increase the debt ceiling is because of new deficit spending. If we weren’t running deficits, if we weren’t spending more than we were taking in, there would be no reason whatsoever to increase the debt ceiling. So if you manage things properly – and listen, I’m a business guy, I’ve got to prioritize spending in all my business career to prevent my business from going bankrupt. The federal government has got to start doing that eventually as well."

-Senator Ron Johnson

 Now, I am not siding with the Tea Partiers. Ron Johnson is part of that. But, just because I don't side with their ideology and tactics, that doesn't mean they don't have a point and make sense. At some point, you have to stop increasing debt and start paying it down. Shutting down the government isn't the answer. But neither is continuing to build up debt when you can't pay the bills you have now without printing money.
Whether it is the President, the Congress, the Senate, Republicans or Democrats it won't matter. The worlds bankers and lenders will make that decision for them.
And if they are thinking they can just print money as a way out of this, they have tried that and we see where that gets them.
It is time to face up to reality. Get used to having less. That is what all this will mean no matter how is shakes out.
And if you think  I am wrong, just take a look at Detroit, who spent 40 years kicking the can down the road to the next guy until they couldn't turn the street lights on at night anymore and are hopelessly beyond bankrupt. 
That is what it ultimately means when you default.

Embrace Stupid People. They are a gift from God.

Today, I was mildly and briefly involved in a discussion on why people bet thousands of dollars, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars, to make a couple of hundred or even a thousand. Anybody who follows horse racing knows this is a sucker bet which will beat you over time. One loss will wipe out 40 or 50 times being right and end up with a net loss for a very big risk. So, why do they do it, when the math alone tells you that it is stupid.
There is a simple answer for that. They are stupid and they don't understand math or probabilities. So, they are stupid. So what. Is that useful information to have?
Well, you can look at them as simply stupid, misguided people, or...you can embrace them for what they are. A gift from God.
Because every time someone does something stupid like that, they are giving you a chance to get ahead without doing anything but taking advantage of their stupid actions. 
Why compete with those who are on equal footing with you when you don't have to? If they are willing to throw their money away, you should be willing and eager to take it. These instances don't come along everyday. So, watch out for them. Take advantage of them. They are nothing if they are not consistent in making the same mistake over and over again, until they don't have the means to do that anymore.
But, alas. No worries. When they are out of the game, there are plenty like them ready to take their place. 
This goes for everyday life as well. People overpay for all sorts of things, like stocks and bonds and anything else you can think of.  P. T. Barnum put it best.


                "there's a sucker born every minute."

If there is a sucker born every day (or minute), then there is also a smart person born every day who can benefit from that. Are you that person? Which are you? The sucker or the one who takes advantage of the suckers?
Because of you are not that person who takes advantage, then in reality, you are as dumb as the stupid person. Think about that. They are stupid, but you are even dumber if you know they are out there and you do nothing but mock them. Others simply don't bother to mock them, but spend their time wisely searching them out, watching what they do and making a profit off of them. Mocking is for show, capitalizing is for dough.
So, embrace these stupid people. They are a gift from God. 
And the most important advice you can give any bettor of horses, or any other is to, 


    "Never look a gift horse in the mouth."

When you can pick his pocket with his blessing.

Here is why...like...I will never like"ly" use Twitter.

Watching the news last night and I saw a story on Twitter and its newly released IPO. To the surprise of many the amount of actual  money losses is far greater than anybody realized. 
Yes, Twitter has a lot of users, but they don't appear to make money, have any chance to make money or have a plan to make money. In fact, so far, according to their filing, they have lost a staggering 419 million. That doesn't seem to be a trend that is changing.
So, I wondered why that is? Is it simply a bad business model and practice? I am sure that is a part of it. But I think it goes deeper.

"It just keeps me up to date with, like, the stuff I enjoy most, so its  just like, art, fashion, like..music more importantly."

"It puts your interests out there too. Like...hey, I am eating at X restaurant."

Those are direct quotes from the news item. From college students.

As the news item points out, Twitter has more than 200 million users who tweet more than 500 million tweets a day. But who are these people?

I have never used Twitter. My perception is that most of the content is fluff and is posted and responded to by those who are less than impressive when it comes to their level of education and ability to hold any kind of conversation, light or heavy. In fact, many of these kids are the types who should be studying a lot more and spending a lot less time on Twitter and their life prospects--and they money they have to spend because of that will reflect that. One of the subjects in the news story had 3 separate Twitter accounts. I suspect that is closer to the norm than the exception to the rule.
That is not to say that it is everyone on Twitter who is like that. It isn't. Many intelligent people are there and they have intelligent, poignant, witty and funny things to say. But they are the extreme minority.
Advertisers get this. The people with money, who ads are mainly targeted at, are not there. And wont be, as far as I can tell.
As noted in the news piece, Twitter is wildly popular, but not anywhere near being profitable, nor does it seem on any track to change that. 
I have money. My friends have money and we are not there, nor do we have any inclination to do so.
Nor are we ever "like" ly to be. 

You can't beat them

So, I finally did it yesterday. I installed AdBlock. Because I just couldn't take it anymore. It has been so good to listen to 4 or 5 songs on You Tube without hearing the same stupid ad, over and over and over again. I hesitated doing that for a while, because I know Adblock are a bunch of evil terrorists, who don't tell you that they don't actually block all ads. They block the ads of those who wont pay their extortion fee to be excluded. They don't care a hill of beans about me. They just found a way to extort money from companies and pass it off as helping me avoid ads, which I actually don't get to do if someone pays them to stop blocking them.

 Here’s how Adblock Plus’ “Acceptable Ads” program works. The Adblock Plus “community” flags new ads as completely beyond the pale or as acceptable. A group of 200 or so “open source” volunteers then builds Adblock Plus filters designed to block ads that fall into both categories. But for most small websites, blogs or news sites, the “acceptable” ads are “whitelisted” by default. That means, they’ll go right through. They won’t be blocked.......“Large companies,” says Faida, are held to a different standard. To pay for the cost of operating Adblock Plus for everyone, the company charges such companies a fee to participate in the “Acceptable Ads” program. If they pay the fee, their non-obtrusive, community-acceptable ads go through.....So if Google fails to pony up, all of the ads that support Google’s services –- including text ads and sponsored search result ads that Adblock Plus users have already decided are acceptable — are blocked..... For the little guys to get their acceptable ads whitelisted automatically, those who could “afford to pay” must contribute.
But it still sounds to me like something that bears more than a passing resemblance to a protection racket. Pay up, or we’ll break your windows! Pay up, or millions of Adblock Plus users will never see any of your ads.

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/02/the_internets_next_victim_advertising/

That is how they fund it to give it to us for free. For me, I would pay 5 bucks a month to have it, and would rather they block everything. Not that that matters anyway.....
Because there is always a downside. I know that. So far, it is like getting free chocolate for the rest of your life. And not the crappy stuff. The really good stuff you buy upstairs at Macy's. The kind your grandma got you for your birthday. The ones in the pretty box with the double wrapping and the dividers and the chart telling you what each one was made of. That kind.
So, what bad thing will happen next? Because bad shit always follows something really good.
Coming next, they will just imbed the ads right into the videos and shows, and you wont be able to have one without the other, or be able to skip over them. And not just the new shows. But every video out there, right back to the Honeymooners and every show, music video and sporting event since.
You can't beat them, you can only beat them for a while, while you can. I will enjoy it while it lasts.
I actually don't mind the ads. Sure, I would rather not have them. But I would be willing to tolerate them if they were presented in a fair way, and not run over and over again to the point that they are extremely annoying. On one TV channel I watch the news, they run the same exact ad over again four times in each ad slot, and sometimes that means I have to watch it 16 or 20 times per hour to see the news. That sort of thing has driven me and others to the point we will block the ads. If they treated us fairly, we might not feel the need to bother.
There just doesn't seem to be any will to do it in a fair way. Many are excessively loud like these days. I guess the theory there is that while they run the ads, we are looking away, at Facebook, or at some handheld device like an Iphone, and they have to try and get our attention back. 
I am okay with ads. Would I pay to avoid them? Probably if I could and it was a reasonable price. But if I couldn't, I would still watch, as long as it is reasonable, which watching on You tube and many TV channels on the net has not been for a long time.
I have a different solution though. Maybe it is time for the companies to get out of the sponsorship business when it comes to programming. With things like the internet now, or even on your phone, what about paying me to watch your ad, instead of advertising on a show? Something to think about. If you paid me a certain amount, I would probably watch your ad...once..and maybe even buy your product if you made your case within the time it took me to watch the ad. Or possibly, you could give me a rebate on the product if I watched the ad and then went to purchase it.
With that money, or savings, I could then pay for the shows and videos I want to watch, and get them with no ads to ruin the art. 
Just a thought.
I know you can't beat them, but maybe you can join them and make it so everyone gets what they want.
For now I will try to beat them and block the Ads. I know at this very second there is a team of really smart Harvard graduates who are working to make Adblock redundant and bypass it without paying a cent of extortion money to them. 
While they are busy doing that, I will beat them and then I will try to join them when the new thing comes along. It would be great if they tried to join me instead of trying to beat me--over the head--with their ads. But, that won't happen.
I have lived long enough to know better. The world doesn't work that way.

Rush Limbaugh and Alex Rodriguez have two things in common.

News comes today that Rush Limbaugh is finished. The sponsors have finally pulled the plug on him.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/29/rush_limbaughs_finished_with_or_without_cumulus/ 

"Cumulus Media, the second-largest broadcast radio station owner in the country, may drop Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from its stations, according to Politico’s Dylan Byers. Limbaugh and Hannity are the two highest-rated right-wing talk radio hosts in the country. Byers says they currently air on “more than 40″ Cumulus-owned channels (in markets that include New York City). Limbaugh is highly rated but maybe not that profitable, especially since the boycott took off. 
 ...Whether Limbaugh ends up parting ways with Cumulus or whether this entire Politico article is part of one side’s negotiating tactics almost makes no difference. Limbaugh will remain on the radio in most of the country, with millions of listeners. In a month he may still announce that his contract with Cumulus has been renewed. But however this shakes out, it will still be the case that the Limbaugh Era is over."

Also in the news, it appears Alex Rodriguez will be suspended for the rest of this season and all of the next. This effectively ends his career as well.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/22924166/report-arod-offered-deal-to-sit-out-1314-avoid-lifetime-ban 

 "A-Rod is, in fact, facing a lifetime ban from Major League Baseball due to what is reportedly "voluminous evidence" in connection to the Biogenesis scandal. MLB is, however, offering a deal. If A-Rod takes his medicine now and doesn't fight a suspension, he'll be suspended for the rest of this season and all of next season. That would mean A-Rod could return to the Yankees in 2015. The report indicates MLB wants to hear back from A-Rod on the matter by Monday."

In reality, both of them have been finished for a while now. Limbaugh's numbers and listeners have been dropping sharply for a couple of years now and A-Rod was benched last year in the playoffs and hasn't played a game all year due to injuries.
But while their careers are over, their lives and futures are all set. 
Lets look at these two, and see how similar they are. And how they did it.


1. They both gamed the system.

One took drugs to get there. The other ranted, lied and pandered to the disenfranchised and well-to-do to do it. Neither really did it the old fashioned way. With hard work. 
And why should they? When you can earn hundreds of millions of dollars by cheating and/or calling people names, then there is very little incentive to work hard for your success. That is the new American way. Many Americans tried buying homes this way, but that didn't work out so well when the boom turned bust. Buying your home with money you don't have and never will doesn't work nearly as well as taking performance enhancing drugs to get a huge contract or calling people names to get sponsors to pay you multi-millions. If you are going to cheat, you better learn how to do it well. These two have perfected it.

Here are the facts. How they both got rich.

According to a 2001 article in U.S. News & World Report, Limbaugh had an eight-year contract, at the rate of $31.25 million a year. In 2007, Limbaugh earned $33 million. On July 2, 2008, Matt Drudge reported that Limbaugh signed a contract extension through 2016 that is worth over $400 million, breaking records for any broadcast. 

-from  Wikipedia 

He got that by going on radio and bashing the Democrats and anything they did. When that wasn't good enough anymore, he went after women and minorities. If it becomes popular to bash someone to get rating, Limbaugh is on it. Before he did that, he bounced around from station to station, barely able to keep a job. But he figured it out. Bashing works very well.
 
Rodriguez became a free agent after the 2000 season. He eventually signed with the Texas Rangers, who had fallen to last in their division in 2000. The contract he signed was at the time the most lucrative contract in sports history: a 10-year deal worth $252 million. The deal was worth $63 million more than the second-richest baseball deal.


On November 15, 2007, the New York Yankees and Rodriguez agreed on the "basic framework" of a 10-year, $275 million contract that would have him playing until he is 42. The contract, finalized December 13, includes various multimillion dollar incentives for breaking career home run milestones.


-from  Wikipedia 

While A Rod was a very good player while he was on Seattle, before he cashed in with Texas, he is on record to having used performance enhancing drugs to get to that next level. As long as he performed, teams were very happy to make him the richest player ever to play baseball. And he was happy to cheat and take their money.


Now, once the glamor boys of their professions, they are both loathed.
And they are both rich and won the lottery of crime pays in America.
They have taught us that in the good old USA, along with the hedge fund managers, derivative traders and the like that hard work doesn't really matter anymore. Cheating and finding a shortcut to success is the way to go these days if you want the spoils of society.

Rush Limbaugh and Alex Rodriguez have two things in common. They both cheated the system and they both got rich beyond belief because of it. 
And now, they are both finished. And probably both don't care.

Some Random Thoughts on Detroit.

I intend to do a long essay on the Detroit situation, but that will likely take until the end of the week, at the earliest. In the meantime, here are some random thoughts about it that I am playing with in my head.

1. When you are really a one industry town, you are 100% susceptible to the boom and bust theory that plays out at some point. No matter how big you are.

2. Detroit has pretty much been considered the most dangerous city in America for a long time by most Canadians, and tourists from other countries, and many within America, and many who live just outside Detroit. When you get a reputation like that, your city is basically dead.

3. When mostly uneducated workers are making 30 to 40 dollars an hour, as most were in the heyday of Motor City, if those jobs go away, due to whatever factor, you have the recipe for a slum. And disaster. You now have more than half of Detroit's population who are not employable above the poverty line. How do you fix that? I don't know, but it doesn't look good for this generation.

4. I find it shocking and an embarrassment that the President of The United States found time to comment about one murder in Florida, but has not found any time to speak about a major city going bankrupt, and what he plans to do to stop it, fix it or deal with it.

5. White flight is real and a very serious issue for America, which threatens to turn it right back into a segregated society again, even though nobody will call it that. When that completely plays out, the level of violence and crime we see now will only be a fraction of what we can expect.

6. Cities are not people or businesses. They cannot go bankrupt. Not if you want the financial system to support infrastructure building and repair, as it does now. You can't renege on your bonds. It simply breaks the system. There has to be another solution.

7. Funding pension plans that wont come to full fruition for another 40 years based on current economic activity that must continue to make the books balance is just plain insanity. If you can't pay that portion now, then you never will be able to pay it. 

8. The shocking reality is that while it is tragic that Zimmerman shot Martin in Florida, if this Detroit thing is not solved very quickly, there will be thousands of these types of shootings in Detroit and places like them that are on the brink of becoming just like Detroit.

9.  I don't know if Rick Snyder has the solution. But he is right. You can't keep kicking the can down to the next guy forever. Somebody is going to get stuck with the hot potato at some point. That point is now. It probably was about 10 years ago, but somehow it got kicked a bit longer and now the hot potato is a grenade.

10. Even though he doesn't want to do it, and really shouldn't, the President will have no choice but to bail out Detroit. Because if a city like that goes down, then the American dream is officially dead. And nobody wants that on their watch. The only question is what type of conditions he is going to add to the money when he does it. Once you bail out banks, and car companies, and mortgage lenders, then you have opened the floodgate. You can't say no once you have begun to say yes.

Canadian Bank CEO's make millions a year. Am I angry? Nope. I am indifferent.

"Feels out of balance."

"At some point we have to have some sense of equity."

Last fall, when I was making my way by car from Toronto to Vancouver, I stayed in a lot of hotels. When you do that, you notice certain things about the people who are there to serve you. Some are better than others. Some are a lot better than others. And because of that, I am sure that the ones who are more qualified and do the better job make more money. I am even more certain that those who rise to be managers and maybe even the CEO of the company are the cream of the crop. Not always, because they could just be the child of the founder (see Paris Hilton and others), but for the most part, the cream always rises to the top.
When I was in Nebraska, I stayed at one hotel (Motel actually) which brought this point home crystal clear. It was called America's Best Value. If I really cared, I could have gone to the front desk the next morning and asked what their interpretation of "value" was. 
I arrived around 11pm, which was after a drive from Chicago to Lincoln, Nebraska. It was a long day. At that point, all I was looking for was some sleep and a bit of quiet. I got neither. I had to be on the road again by 7am, because I had a 10 hour drive from Lincoln to Rock Springs, Wyoming. Below is a synopsis of what I encountered.
The two guys running the night shift at the front desk consisted of a hillbilly, trailer trash type of guy who was greasy and certainly not very presentable. Okay, what do I care? I don't. He did seem like a nice guy. I will give him that. But when you add that to the fact that he didn't know how to use the computer, the printer or pretty much anything else, it spoke plenty about his value to the company and where his future was heading. At least he told me he made a great breakfast. As it stands today, I wouldn't know. I didn't stick around to find out. But as I passed the front desk in the morning, it didn't smell good. I wasn't about to find out if it tasted good or if he cleaned the pots and pans the night before. No thanks.
The other guy was a bit smarter, but not by much. And he mocked the hillbilly. But he wasn't smart enough to figure out that you should fix the rooms before the guest arrives. Or, that you should probably not mention every little thing that is wrong with the place, and blame the hillbilly for it...in front of the guest. Does not inspire confidence. All of that I could have accepted. The price was cheap and what did I care. Just there for the nights sleep, as I said before. But then the guy mentioned that the door for my room didn't work properly, and that I would have to fiddle with it to get it open and keep it closed. Oh, and he "should have fixed it, but he was too busy to get around to it."
All that wouldn't have really mattered, except for the extremely rowdy party animal University kids one room over, who kept me up all night. But I had nothing to worry about..seeing as my door was so secure and the night desk was on top of things anyway.
Back in my early working days, I ran a few factories and companies. I was, for the most part, very well compensated for that. I felt I deserved more, because I was smarter, worked harder and did more than the rest. And although many don't like to hear this, there is no way that almost all of the ones below me could have done my job, or at least done it as well. In many ways, I think they knew that and most were happy to do the job they had and happy to have it. That sort of sentiment seems to be lost these days on what I would term the "I want to complain about every little injustice in the world" generation. 
Does that mean that I was a better person than them? Nope. But it means I was more valuable in the workplace, and I was compensated accordingly.
Why did I just tell you the last two stories from my life?
There is significant outrage and just generally distaste for the amount of money certain bankers in Canada, and all over the world, make these days. It is certainly tough to swallow when you look at your bank account at the end of the month and realize that you likely are two or three paychecks away from being dead broke. This is in spite of likely working most or all of your adult life and doing all the right things, the things that society tells you to do. Pay your taxes, work hard, raise a family, save for retirement, etc. I get that frustration and anger. But is it always justified? No, it is not. Lets take a look at the latest furor and target of that frustration.
News came out this week (covered in the video clip I posted above) that most of the CEO's of the countries big banks make 7 to 12 million dollars per year. That is certainly not news. What is news to most is how big the gap is becoming between what the common man makes now relative to the CEO and how much greater that gap has become.
In many cases, in the early to late 1960's, a CEO made about 20 times what the average mid level manager made. Today, it is closer to 200 times, and in many cases it is 400 times greater. Or larger.

"No man is worth 4 times another."

But let us not forget who is getting paid and who is paying them.
The Royal Bank of Canada (and all banks) is a private institution. What they decide to pay any of their employees, be that a teller, Bank Manager or the CEO at the top is none of my business. If it really bothers me on a personal, moral or any level, I can simply choose not to do business with them.
Here is what I know about any business: If they could get away with it they would pay any employee as little as they could  while still getting the best value and performance out of them. So, if they pay Gord Nixon (The CEO of the Royal Bank) 12 million dollars a year, he must be worth it. As well, others could not do that job and get the returns for the bank that Nixon does. If they didn't give him fair market value, another bank or mutual fund would steal him away and pay him more. Simple law of supply and demand.
According to the report, Mr. Nixon "led the bank to record profits in 2012." Could you do that? Probably not. I am pretty smart financially and I certainly could not. He gets paid what he does because the people that pay him think he is worth that. He likely had a pretty good track record long before he got the job. He certainly didn't start at the top. Nobody does. He proved his worthiness and he has delivered the results expected. That is why he continues to be paid the way he is.
There is some argument that it is the Canadian laws and government, and its banking system that insures that Canadian banks don't suffer the fate that the rest of the Global crisis caused, and because of that, it doesn't really matter who is running the show. Is that true? 
Maybe, to some extent. But even so, that doesn't mean they would make a great rate of return in the good times too. Because each makes a different amount for stockholders. So, that is why one CEO is inherently better than the other. If they weren't, all the banks would make exactly the same amount of profit. One has to be that much better than the other, and in so thinking, much better than you or I in terms of doing whatever it is that they do.That we can't.
No Canadian banks needed bailing out in the 2008 financial crash and crisis. Why was that? Because they are well managed, and in spite of the huge losses big banks like Citigroup, Bank of America and others incurred, Canadian banks still made huge profits during that period. That has got to be worth something. It is.
The issue isn't why Gord Nixon gets 12 million for performance, it should be why American and European bankers get that and more for non performance, and then you and me have to pay out of our taxes to square that up.

Now that bothers me. 

It shouldn't happen. When people do great work and the people that pay them or invest with them benefit, we should never complain that they are compensated well for that. That is supposed to be the basis for our system. 
We used to complain about the Communist way of life. But, aren't we simply saying now that we have a problem with Capitalism and the reality that some do better than others because of it? I think so. But, because of Capitalism, we could argue that most of us do pretty well, relative to the rest of the world.Would you want that to change? I wouldn't. I like the fact that I can do better for myself if I do better for others.
Work hard and smart and prosper and you will be rewarded. If the system didn't work that way, what motivation would most have to gain more knowledge, work harder and do a better job. The desk clerk in the Motel in Nebraska has to have that hope that he can work his way out of that job to at least attain whatever level he is qualified to have. If not, then the system is rigged from the start. None of us want that.
Maybe the desk clerk simply gave up and can't be bothered trying to improve his lot in life. That is his choice to make. But at least he has a choice, as do we all. It isn't about what others make, it is about what opportunity we have to help ourselves.
We pay our Prime Minister about a million a year. Yet, ultimately, he is responsible for trillions of dollars. Does that make sense? Nope. We complain that the leaders we elect don't do a great job. I would argue that is because the cream of the crop doesn't want the job. The rewards don't match up with the performance expected. It isn't surprising that they fail when you start from that point of view.
If you are producing great results for your employer, and you feel you are not getting your slice of the pie, what would you do?

1) Quit and go elsewhere
2) demand more money
3) make the case why you should get more and your employer will lose (net effect) if it isn't you in that position.

It is all about fairness. Return for services rendered. It is too bad that almost all of us can't be at the top of the food chain, but that is how life is. We can still have a very good life and we do. 
We often complain about many things in life. 

Walmart is sending jobs to China and ghettoizing towns and the whole country.

Don't shop at Walmart.

Monsanto is controlling the whole food chain with the things they do.

Don't eat GMO foods.

Big banks are paying obscene sums of money to CEO's and traders.


Don't bank at banks that seem to be greedy and immoral.

Most companies are using slave labor in places like Bangladesh, China and Mexico to maximize profit and undercut the actual price of production.

Don't buy clothes at stores that use cheap slave labor.

Job outsourcing. Service fees. Fake food. Slave labor. You have options. Speak with your wallet. That is where you can actually make a difference. Getting angry about something that has no real effect on your life because it just doesn't seem fair and equitable is just a waste of your time.

Here is a newsflash for you ostriches who have not been paying attention to the world since you entered kindergarten. The world isn't balanced, fair and equitable. Those who are special, who are smarter, faster, can do more and produce will get a lot more reward for whatever they do than you will. That was true then, it is true now and it will be true in the future. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it won't keep happening. It isn't something to really fret over, so stop doing that. If it really bugs you, don't give them your business. That is the statement you can make.
The bottom line is this: The banks are not public entities. We don't really have a say in how they pay their staff. The people who own the entity do, and those are the shareholders and depositors. If they are unhappy, or don't feel they are getting value for their investment of salary, they will get someone else who gives them more for their money. Currently, they aren't doing that.

"If they can afford to give these high paychecks to the CEO's, then they can afford to lower service fees"

It doesn't work like that. That is a backwards argument. Service fees are based on price vs. service relative to what the overall market offers. If the bank down the street gives me the same services for 20 percent less cost, then I can go and get that service there. What the CEO makes is not relevant to that. 
What this really boils down to is that we feel that the people who make the top dollar and those who pay them that money aren't held accountable if they fail. And in that respect, we are complaining about the wrong thing. When they fail, we should make sure now (not later when it happens) that they don't get to put their hand out and want us to cover their losses. If the shareholders want to pay them the big bucks, they are the ones who should be left holding the bag when it backfires on them. If there is anything to be angry about, it is that our government seems so deep in the pockets of these bankers, because we don't pay them (the government officials) enough in the first place, that they let the system get rigged by the bankers. In that way, they get us coming and going. They make the big bucks when they are right, and we pay out of our taxes when they are wrong.
Now, that is something to be angry about. We should focus on fixing the thing that is actually wrong, not whining about the part that isn't.  
No bailouts. That is the key. If they want to do it their way, and pay what they do, then the big banks, their top people and the shareholders shouldn't be looking for a bailout when they fail to execute. That is what deposit insurance is for.
And if you invest in stocks, then who would you rather have trying to increase the value and dividends paid on those stocks? The nicer, better person, or the person who, at the end of the day makes you the most money after you pay them. And if they fail, you would not expect the government to bail you (the shareholders) out and they (the CEO's) would be fired for non performance. That is how it works in the real world.
So, all I can say is that I am indifferent to how much money a bank CEO makes. It doesn't matter either way to me and I don't bother with it. But if and when the day comes that the government that was elected by the will of the people then decides to take my tax money and give them a piece of that, then I get angry. 
At that point, it becomes my business. Otherwise, it makes no difference to me. And it shouldn't to you either. It isn't your money the bank is paying the CEO's with. That is a tough thing for most to realize, but it is the fact of the matter. You might not like that the world is not a seemingly fair place, but it is.

(Note. All quotes in this blog taken from the video at the start.)

Overbooking flights: Shouldn't the ones who cancel pay the price?

I was watching the news last night when I saw a story on airline passenger rights and compensation when airlines overbook flights and then have to bump you off your flight.
This is one of those blogs that will not be very long. The point I want to make is so obvious to me that I don't need to make many high concept arguments to back it up. It boils down to two things.
Fairness and customer service.

 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/airline-passenger-rights-032800922.html
 
The crux of the story is that Air Canada, the major airline in Canada, is being told that if they bump passengers it has to pay a heavier price than it currently does. As with most government actions, while it is a step in the right direction, it completely misses the point.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/28/f-air-canada-passengers-overbooked-flights.html 

Shouldn't those that book a flight and then cancel have to pay the bulk of the difference so that airlines are not forced to inconvenience those that pay up front and reserve their spot? That only seems logical to me. To be bumped off when you have a reservation is not a true reservation.

I don't understand. I made a reservation. Do you have my reservation?

Yes, we do. Unfortunately, we ran out of cars.

But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservations.

I know why we have reservations.

I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car.
See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation. The holding. Anybody can just take em.

Why does this continue to go on? In Canada, mostly because the airlines have a monopoly and don't have to be competitive. We have two significant, major airlines. Air Canada, which uses this overbooking strategy to ensure full flights, and WestJet, the newer kid on the block, which does not. If Air Canada had to be more competitive and care about customer service, then they simply would not employ this strategy. The government lets them get away with this. Changing the penalty, while a start, is not enough. For this reason, I rarely fly anymore, and certainly make every attempt to avoid Air Canada. I am willing to pay a bit more if need be, but like Jerry Seinfeld, when I make a reservation, and then I show up, I expect that to be honored. Period. That is the way it should be. 
I don't want greater compensation for being taken advantage of. I have money. I am not looking for money. I am looking for services rendered for money paid. Simple as that. In my view, overbooking should be illegal and the government should make that a law.
If airlines wanted to hedge their bets, then they should change the cancellation option to a graded penalty, depending on how close to the flight you cancel. In other words, if you cancel a month early, maybe 3%, two weeks early, then maybe 20%, two days before, 50% and the day of, no refund. For those who want to hedge their own bets, they can buy insurance to protect themselves, much like the cruise ships offer you when you book your trips with them. As the customer who books early, pays up front and then shows up and wants what I paid for, when I paid for it, why should I have to suffer for others who don't, and companies who don't respect and appreciate me as a very good customer? 
I shouldn't.
Once a flight is booked, then it is booked. Overbooking is not even a concept that should be considered. And if enough cancel and pay the penalty, then they can resell the spot and double dip on those seats. At the end of the day, they will come out even. And right now, they aren't going to, because people are getting fed up and will find another way around dealing with those who don't honor their obligations and promises.
Like me. I would rather drive. My car, sitting in the driveway is never overbooked when I go out to start my trip. And I don't have to pay airport fees either. Keep giving me reasons to not fly and I will keep taking them.

The important difference between Boston and West, Texas

In the safety business, you have to be perfect. If you aren't, people likely die, or at the very least get maimed. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10006354/Texas-explosion-questions-over-safety-record-of-West-Fertilizer-Co.html
 
Airlines, nuclear plants, chemical processors, food preparers, all sorts of business's where good enough is not good enough.
The Boston Marathon bombings were an act of terror. No amount of safety precautions can really stop that.
Lets be realistic here. It isn't difficult at all to build a pressure cooker bomb and haul it to an event, if you really want to. Or, make a dirty bomb and detonate it at city hall in any city during the lunch hour on any given day. If you want to do it, you can. And you will. Then, eventually, you will get caught and dealt with. And then, within a certain amount of time,  someone else will do it again.
And there is nothing any of us can do about it. We can only hope it isn't us in harms way when the time comes. But it will be somebody. Just like it will be somebody when a drunk driver who doesn't have any consideration of life gets unlucky and doesn't get home safely,  taking some innocent persons life and possibly their own. These are the realities of life we accept and can't really do anything about. 
But what has happened in West, Texas is something totally different. That plant has had safety violations and fines more than once. But that did not stop them from carrying on. 

The 2012 fine levied by the US Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cited the company for "failing to develop and adhere to a security plan" and was negotiated down to $5,250.
The fines have raised public concerns over the management of the plant, as further record searches showed it was fined $2,300 in 2006, according to ABC News, following an inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency.
That report criticised the company for failing to develop a formal written maintenance programme and a risk assessment strategy that met Federal standards for the estimated 54,000lbs of anhydrous ammonia stored on site.
The report, obtained by the Dallas Morning News, stated "no" under the section for fire and explosive risk, adding that the "worst case scenario" laid out by the company was a "10-minute release of ammonia gas that would kill or injure no-one".
 
What we know about  the West Texas Fertilizer plant is something that is a reality of our society. Money is valued above life. To close a plant like the one in West, Texas, it means people will be out of jobs and the city would lose taxes. So, safety violations are tolerated, until there is a fire and the place blows up, killing dozens. Then the finger pointing starts and the trail always leads back to money.
The right thing to do is state the clear cut safety rules that must be adhered to strictly. All the time. And then inspect them. The first mistake, and you close the plant for good. No exceptions. If that means that fertilizer costs go up, so be it. If that means that food costs go up, so be it. If that means the cost of flying on an airplane goes up, so be it. If higher cost is the price we have to pay to make sure that there isn't a first time for any of these types of things,  then so be it. You simply can't make mistakes in these types of businesses. People will die.
This already happens now, and we seem to be okay with it. Since 9/11, you get a surcharge any time you fly out of any airport for safety checks. Look at your bill for the flight, it is right on there, every time. Nobody that I know of complains about this. Why is that? Because we believe that while it won't catch all the terrorists who want to hijack planes, it will catch most of them and we are therefore safer because of that. We agree to pay for that safety. 

 Courtney Adair, 20, a great-niece of the owner of the facility said the family was in shock. "They don't know what to think or what's going to happen," she told the Washington Post, adding that her great-uncle had no enemies in the town, and believed the fire was a tragic accident.

Both incidents this week were tragedies. But neither were accidents. One was a deliberate intent to kill (in Boston) while the other was simple negligence that was bound to result in deaths. Just like the next one will. And the one after that. And the one after that.
And in this case, one you could not have stopped, while the other was easily avoidable. But only if you value life over money. 
Sadly, in our society, we don't.