Frum Envisions More Canada-U.S. Business Ties

Surprise, Frum gives a ringing endorsement of deep integration and Stephen Harper as the man who will take us there. And the business community applauds.

---
"When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC

The big business, collectivizer community, not the real, small private enterprise community, applauds any and every political ideology that cuts down the powers of democracy and human rights.

This is why and how money and stockmarkets survive on and promote. Watch them rise when thousands are fired and fall when any kind of human, or ecology friendly legislation is introduced.

Environmental destruction and human rights expropriation are the sweet smell of profits.

Ed Deak.

"I venture on the topic of the Bush White House with a little nervousness, because I’m given to understand that President Bush is a little less than unanimously popular with Canadians,"

Thanks for the update, Captain Obvious.

Haven't you got a country to betray?

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

For sure. Neoconnery is the big business equivalent of soviet marxism. Frum is (one of ) their apparatchik(s).

Why should Canada be tying itself to a sinking ship? America's fiscal house is in sad disarray and only one small market hiccup away from crashing.

No, instead of sucking up to the criminal government of George Bush we should be finding new markets for our goods - including energy. It's the smart and practical thing to do - to diversify your market. Sheesh -that's business 101. But this isn't about business though they will shield their true intentions around business and security. It's all about the fire-sale of the greatest nation on earth.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

"Why should Canada be tying itself to a sinking ship? America's fiscal house is in sad disarray and only one small market hiccup away from crashing."

Another couple of Katrinas and they're sunk. That should be by this fall if all hurricanes are in order.

Anyone notice how Frum, or Fred Flintstone as I see him, and all the rah rah enless war pushers have slithered out into the airwaves the minute Harper was elected. Shiver.

Frum doesn't want Canada-USA ties and neither does Harper. They both want Canada gone and will be working on that the whole time Harper is in the PMs office.


---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Perhaps I'm changing the subject here, but I've never really understood your distinction between "good" private enterprise and "bad" free enterprise. You don't have a problem, it would seem, with private ownership of "the means of production". But you do seem to have a problem with private enterprise once a particular company grows beyond a certain size or once a multiple companies start to compete for a given set of customers.

So, if I interpret this correctly (and please correct me if I don't) you like companies that are (a) very small and (b) monopolies in their market. And given that you are anti-competition, the monopoly would have to be awarded to the company by the state or some regulatory body affiliated with such. Is this an accurate portrayal of your beliefs? I ask in all sincerity.

And at the risk of going further off topic, while I have your attention Ed, you say that your theories on economics are based on thermodynamics and other hard sciences. What are your thoughts on the other side of economics - basically, how to decide what inputs get transformed into what outputs (essentially, the demand side of things)? That strikes me as the most important decision in economics - what goods get made and what services are provided.

It seems to me that the greatest advantage of free market economics is its emphasis on satisfying individual needs and wants. The individual decides what he needs, and uses his income to purchase it, and has his choice of vendors. If a particular vendor offers a shoddy product or service, the consumer can go to another. Price becomes another basis for comparison, and competition. A monopoly, on the other hand, can charge what it wants and, if the consumer cannot get by without buying the good, produce it in as shoddy a manner as it wishes.

You point out that competition will often generate a monopoly (or oligopoly) anyway, but at least these companies have demonstrated that they can produce a decent quality product at a reasonable price. A government-granted monopoly would not have proven itself in that manner.

You'll notice that I've made no sarcastic remarks or insults. I'm genuinely curious.

Mr. Frum praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government for investing in Canada’s military.

"This is going to make Canada a very important consumer of military technology," he said. "It is going to develop relationships between Canadian consumers and American producers.

"This is again going to bring the two countries together in pursuit of common security and common economic growth."

Looks as if the USA see's rising profits from the NEW CANDIAN MILITARY built to USA standards, wants and desires!
But can they trust Canada, that depends on if Canadians will do as we are told to do instead what we feel is in our best interests.

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Yes, they want to finish Canada off. They have to make moves fast because their game plan is being spread all over the internet. Along with their game plan is the history of what they have done and how they did it and what their objectives were. The US dollar is set to collapse now that China and Russia have told the US to keep their blood soaked hands off of Iran. The trolls are busy jabbering about free enterprise and competition and other equally non existent economic activities. The trolls don't want anyone to notice that everything is connected and that there is a reason why everything happens. The trolls want us to think that what we think, say and do is trivial and inconsequential. If this is true, why do they waste their time trying to convince us?

The house of cards that our ghastly western civilization is constructed out of is about to collapse. Our institutions are being exposed as agents of which ever malevolent country we live in. We have not reached critical mass yet and we may be stopped by more 911 / Pearl Harbor attacks upon us. This gives our potentates the excuse to declare martial law and to turn on the dark ages. Will we throw off our oppressor's chains and realize the first global civilization or will we have a stillbirth?

We don't need anymore ties to the empire's business interests. We don't need anymore Canadian chartered banks creating non existant Canadian dollars to lend to the empires agents so that they can buy more chunks of Canada for dollars that have less value than the beads/wampum with which the original inhabitants of this land were said to have accepted as payment for their lands.

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

"It seems to me that the greatest advantage of free market economics is its emphasis on satisfying individual needs and wants. The individual decides what he needs, and uses his income to purchase it, and has his choice of vendors."

There you go again Individualist. I asked you some time ago how do I get the sports channel I want with no ads.? I'm still waiting for your reply. Let me know quick, the first hockey series is half over.

Frank

Frank.

Easy. Offer to pay the amount in fees that would normally be subsidized by the advertising. If enough of you do that, a commercial-free provider will give you what you want.

Oh, you still want the subsidy, but not the commercials? Sorry, can't help you.

Yes I want the subsidy in the form of a WELL FUNDED public national TV station, which the CBC should be. If there were such a station, programmes could be of a much higher quality than they are now. This goes for all types of program, sports, childrens, documentary etc. The drivel that is presented currently as advertising drags the quality of all programs down. We don't get what we want, we get what the advertiser wants us to get, and he/she obviously doesn't think much of our intelligence.

Frank

Oh, so you want *other people*, particularly those who earn more than you, to (involuntarily) subsidize *your desires* in terms of TV programming.

So you want the freedom to make choices not just for yourself, but for other people. That's exactly what CBC is - the entire set of taxpayers in the country being milked to subsidize minority/elite tastes.

Individualist says:

"Oh, so you want *other people*, particularly those who earn more than you, to (involuntarily) subsidize *your desires* in terms of TV programming."

As I've said twice before, what I want is Tv without the ads. I regard your comment above as a cheap shot since you know nothing about me but you imply that I want something for nothing. This is not true but rather than reply in anger, which I am tempted to do, I'll tell you something about myself. In 1957 I volunteered to do 2 years in the army although I was not required to do so. I volunteerd because there were others who had no choice but to go. No doubt I lost two years on the promotion ladder because of it. I regard this as a subsidy from me to society in general. Later in life I taught computer classes at night at a local College whilst I had a full time day job. When I include the time to prepare notes, prepare tests, mark
papers I reckon I earned about $5 an hour. Who was subsidizing who then?. I did this teaching because I felt an obligation to give back something to a society I am proud to belong to. No doubt I have subsidized other peoples education and health as they have mine, I'm glad to do so. It is certainly true that there were many Canadians earning more than me when I was working, it is more true since I retired, however I try to give something
back by various unpaid volunteer jobs. I repeat, I am quite willing to pay my share to subsidize a couple of channels showing nothing but ads. 365/24/7, so anybody that wants to can tune in to admire the marvels of the
free market anytime. I will tune in to the channel that has eliminated the drivel. As to your second point, I certainly don't expect or want to influence the content of TV programs, all I want to do is eliminate the ads. Take a look at this quote from the BBC web site. It seems to me that the BBC has earned a reputation as the best media outlet anywhere, go to their web site and take a look at the comments from around the world.
Are the Brits. "being milked to subsidize minority/elite tastes.?"

"What your licence provides
The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence. This allows it to run a wide range of popular public services for everyone, free of adverts and independent of advertisers, shareholders or political
interests. 95.6% of the UK population used the BBC every month in 2004/5.
The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, over 50 local TV and radio services and bbc.co.uk (see BBC channels). These provide local and national news, documentaries, arts, drama, entertainment, live music and children's programmes. The BBC also runs social action, education and minority language programmes. Its considerable investment in British programmes supports production and craft skills throughout the UK."

Frank