Monday, March 5, 2012

Pauline Papadopolous and the Politics of Appeasement

First of all, apologies to my Greek friends for any offense triggered by the headline, it wasn't meant to embarrass or humiliate, but rather to make the point that Pauline Marois is as cruelly selfish and short sighted as those politicians that led Greece blindly into a financial sinkhole, all because they sought personal political power ahead of the interests of the country.

Today Greek society has been ripped asunder by a humiliating national bankruptcy, brought on by a ruling class unable or unwilling to tell citizens that there was no money to pay for the bloated state budget that voters had come to expect and this, for decades.

Right up until the end when the Europeans pulled the plug, nothing really changed in Greece, the people and the government were unwilling or unable to comprehend or react to the mess they had gotten themselves into.
Like a deadbeat who runs up the credit card with no intention of repaying a dime, when the spree is finally over, the shock that there is nothing left and nothing coming in, is hard to accept.

And so today the Greeks are shell-shocked at the reality that there is no more money and that the solutions before them, either default or repayment means a generation or two of poverty.

For the Greek youth of the country, it is a situation particularly difficult to swallow, the realization that their parents borrowed money on their name, money which they are now unable to pay, leaving the next generation the legacy of servicing a crippling debt, one that they did not bargain for, nor received the benefit from.

Sadly in all this is the attitude of the Greek baby-boomers, the generation that bled the state dry and borrowed staggering amounts of money to finance their caprice.
For them, taking responsibility is difficult, as if none of this is their fault and as the situation unravels and the cruel reality of going broke sets in, scapegoats are sought.
Who is to blame?
The Germans, the banks, the politicians, the European Union, the Nazis, the Americans etc.etc., anyone but themselves, so deep is the addiction of entitlement and the disconnect between consumption and wealth creation.

Sadly for Quebec, Pauline Papadopolous is following directly in the footsteps of those failed Greek politicians and her supporters are of the same ilk as that Greek generation that cared only about their own pockets without a concern over the public debt they were ringing up.

Like the Greek politicians, Pauline fails to heed the reality that Marget Thatcher described so succinctly;

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

A motivating factor for this post is the recent poll which showed that over 40% of Quebecers agree that tuition fees for university students shouldn't be raised, reflecting the same disconnect with reality as the Greeks, who failed to accept that somebody has to pay for what is consumed.

Is Quebec in the same situation as Greece?
 
Depending on one's political bent, the situation is described as completely dissimilar, or contrarily, very much the same.

One fact is indisputable, there's no doubt that Quebec is one of the heaviest indebted states in the world, whether a country or a province, and that it spends a lot more than it takes in.

I don't want to get into a discussion of whether Quebec is solvent or on the brink of disaster. Suffice to say that if Quebec doesn't change its over-spending ways, it will run into a Greek-style disaster, sooner or later.
Debating the time line is beside the point and deflects from the discussion.

To finance its orgy of entitlement Quebec has run up a monstrous debt and has used transfer payments from Ottawa to soften the impact of deficit spending.
As Quebec fast approaches its debt ceiling and Canadians review their willingness to ship eight billion dollars over to Quebec each year, something has to give.

As Pauline Papadopolous seeks political power she is descending into the politics of appeasement, the very same policy that has ruined Greece.
Say anything, promise anything and make common cause with those consuming elements of society that are looking for a backer to keep the spigot of entitlements wide open.

Her most recent promise to students to reverse fee increases proposed by the government is a grim reminder that she will sell out the province's future in order to get elected.

In a speech to the National assembly she said that in opposing the increased tuition fees, she is demonstrating solidarity with students and the middle class, unlike the Liberals and the CAQ, which she claims are demonstrating solidarity with Ottawa.  YouTube{Fr}
Huh?
She actually made the connection between increased student fees and support for Ottawa, a moronic connection, not dissimilar to the federal minister Vic Toews statement that Canadians who don't support the Conservatives online snooping bill were siding with the child pornographers.
That contention was roundly ridiculed for its foolishness and for blatantly taking Canadians for fools.
Too bad that the same reaction was absent in Quebec vis-a-vis Madame Papadopolous' contention that increased fees are somehow connected to support for Ottawa.

And how did she sidestep the fee issue and the problem of underfunded universities?
By promising a 'summit' to discuss the problem after the election of the PQ.... How convenient..

In all of Madame Papadopolous' pronouncements, I have yet to hear her admit that Quebec's entitlements are excessive or unsupportable, in fact she and her party actually talk up expanding the role of government in Quebec society.
While every other political party in North America, in opposition or in power, admits that government largess must be curtailed, She and the PQ remain 'distinct' in believing that huge deficits and crippling debt are not a problem and that current spending can be supported, irrespective of provincial revenue.

I'm not saying that Jean Charest and his Liberal party are paragons of fiscal restraint, but listening and watching Pauline Papadopolous troll for votes by promising a worker's paradise where entitlements would not only be maintained but expanded, supported by the concept that it could all be paid for by increased taxes on business and the rich, coupled with more money shaken down from Ottawa, makes me cringe in fear.

Madame Papadopolous has all the right jargon, she talks about investing in education, investing in infrastructure, investing in daycare, when in reality she means spending more money than the province takes in.

Looking at the untalented hacks that is the Parti Quebecois, I am struck by the fear that if they ever take power and the likes of Pierre Curzi, Bernard Drainville, Jean-François Lisée  and Louise Beaudoin actually get to implement their half-baked political nonsense, this province will sink rather quickly.

You'd think that in light of the recent debt crisis that has hit nation after nation, politicians would preach restraint to a public prepared to accept less and contribute more to defend the long-range financial viability of their society.

Not in Quebec, where Pauline advocates spending like it's 1990, because we're 'special,' a magical society immune to the financial rules of solvency.
According to her, there is no problem as long as one doesn't discuss or admit to one and until then, as they say in French, it's 'Bar Ouvert'

Looking at the political support Pauline is rounding up, it's clear in which direction she and the PQ are going.
Recruiting the likes of Claudette Carbonneau, the recently retired head of Quebec's most powerful and allegedly-corrupt union, the CSN, to sit on her sovereignty commission as well as new candidates such as Diane De Courcy, the head of the oft-maligned Commission scolaire de Montreal, it underscores the sad reality that she is gearing up to implement the failed Greek policy of political appeasement.

Every separatist nutbar, union demagogue, language militant and 'entitleists' ( a term I just made up to describe those who believe it is their right to soak the government for all it's worth) will find a place in a potential PQ government, which will ultimately be so self-destructive that it will make the Haitian government look professional.

It's a scary situation, because on one side you have a Liberal party that is preaching some sort of fiscal restraint, increased fees and reduced services in an effort to move towards fiscal sustainability.  It isn't enough, but at least it's a start.

On the other hand you have the PQ led by Madame Papadopolous telling the people the opposite, that money is no problem and entitlements will flow unabated with the election of her government.

Mr Charest is offering a plate of humble pie, Pauline Papadopolous a dish of ice cream.

And so the question remains, will Quebecers accept the necessity of restraint or follow the Greeks down the path of financial ruin?

107 comments:

  1. > In a speech to the National assembly she said that in opposing the increased tuition fees, she is demonstrating solidarity with students and the middle class, unlike the Liberals and the CAQ, which she claims are demonstrating solidarity with Ottawa.

    What part don't you get?

    Ottawa = Harper = bogeyman = English = oppression.

    She's doing what the leader of a sputtering and desperate movement needs to -- push all the emotional trigger buttons she knows.

    ReplyDelete
  2. > Recruiting the likes of Claudette Carbonneau, the recently retired head of Quebec's most powerful and allegedly-corrupt union, the CSN, to sit on her sovereignty commission as well as new candidates such as Diane De Courcy, the head of the oft-maligned Commission scolaire de Montreal, it underscores the sad reality that she is gearing up to implement the failed Greek policy of political appeasement.

    So long as the ideology implodes on itself like a controlled demolition without causing any collateral damage on the people of Quebec who have twice told the rather un-democratic PQ "thanks, but no thanks".

    Repackage separatism, repackage asbestos... justify it as being necessary for a small population's survival. It's still poison, no matter how much bullshit you pretend to weave around it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Apparatchik,

    Would you be so kind informing me how to make italics and bold on your post? Thank you in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bolded and Italicized text is something you have to specify the start and end of.
      For example, if you want to bold a particular word or string, you need to "open" and "close" the bold tag, sort of as follows: < b >text to be bolded.

      Note that I have put a space before and after the "b" in the angled brackets, which you shouldn't do. When you type it correctly (i.e. without spaces), it appears as text to be bolded. Same thing with italicized text, replace the "b" with an "i". Don't forget to close your tags.

      Editor did a post about this a while back, which I understand is when the comments section got additional text support... and which I think you might find helpful. Click here (and learn how to do hyperlinks too!).

      Cheers!

      Delete
    2. Looks like the "close tag" in my previous post didn't render correctly... must get parsed by blogger whether I wanted it to or not.

      Anyway, you close a tag almost the same way as you open one. The only difference is that you need to add a forward slash behind the b or the i within the angle brackets.

      Delete
    3. Actually,you add the forward slash BEFORE the b or i to close。

      Delete
  4. Dear Editor,

    If Pauline had any Greek in her, she’d have shame. The Greek politicians will answer to the Greeks, and the Greeks will pay for having trusted them. Their whining generation will get bitch slapped into shape as Greece leaves the Euro Zone and quells the latest attempt at overdone extra foreign control.

    I believe these creatures, the Greek politicians, are a gross insult to the Greek people and their intelligence. The same goes for Pauline Antoinette who has shamed the French Canadians of this province.


    The Greeks have always and will again, overcome all the crap their rulers have put them through, and they will take care of their own. Sadly for us, if we don’t find a way to stop Pauline Antoinette, by the time her separatists are through with their ethnic cleansing, there will be no worthy member of any nationality left to do anything good for anyone.

    All nationalities including French Canadians out!
    We want only the race we’ve made! Le Peuples conquis! Le Quebecois!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All nationalities including French Canadians out!
      We want only the race we’ve made! Le Peuples Conquis, Le Quebecois!

      Sounds about right, don't it? They won't get all the territory though.

      Delete
  5. By the way : http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10355459

    Lisette Lapointe have announces political retirement !

    ReplyDelete
  6. A completely unrelated comment, but Pierre CURZI doesn't sound really "pure laine" to me...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Il est d'origine italienne et puis après?Seriez-vous raciste?

      Delete
    2. Un mélange assez particulier de canadien-français de souche, d'italien, et d'autres éléments autant farfelus qu'hallucinogènes, on dirait.

      Marie Tifo doit quant à elle provenir d'un moule semblable.

      Delete
    3. Il est d'origine italienne et puis après?Seriez-vous raciste?

      You tell me: I am Italian, my wife is Caribbean and my kids are mixed race... also, I'm neither a member nor a supporter of a movement that makes political capital out of ethnic purity.

      So, what about you?

      Delete
    4. Did Pierre Curzi ever claim to be pure laine? Did the PQ ever say they only accepted pure laine members?
      Perhaps you shouldn't take the word pure in pure laine so literally.
      It's not about purity, it just means old-stock. In French we sometimes say someone is an "Américain pure laine" does that mean he's purely American ethnically? What's that? No, Americans themselves use All-American. Somehow they aren't accused of being obsessed with ethnic purity.
      René Lévesque had some English ancestry, Jacques Parizeau has some Scottish ancestry according to genealogical web sites, the PQ has had members with names such as Johnson, O'Neill, McKay, etc. and then there's all the people with French names but with some non-French ancestors up in their family tree like myself, I am part Irish on my father's side and yet my own mother has told me I am "un Québécois pure laine" and plenty of people refer to themselves as such while knowing they have non-French blood. Seems to me this whole purity thing started when anglos picked up the expression pure laine and tried to make separatists (even though federalists say pure laine too!) look like racists while this whole time it wasn't about purity. We simply needed a term to describe people with deep roots here versus immigrants and others. Just like in the past, when we tended to use French Canadian instead of Québécois to describe ourselves, French Canadian also applied to someone with, say, an Irish father and a French Canadian mother, you can see it written in old books and articles, the word francophone came later. Claude Ryan refered to himself as French Canadian despite his Irish name...

      Delete
    5. (continued)
      Using the word Québécois alone in French can mean anyone who lives here hence the need to add pure laine next to it as a synonym for francophone. You have no idea how many francophones are "impure" (whether aware of it or not) and it's not like they are excluded when saying pure laine because it's always opposed to anglophones and allophones so what does that make the huge part of the francophone population with at least one non-French ancestor? Well it doesn't make them anglophones or allophones that's for sure. How can you tell the difference without knowing about their family tree except of course when they happen to bear a non-French name? I come from a region that is pretty much totally French-speaking and though most people have French names, some have Irish, Scottish, English, even German and names of other origins mostly because some 19th century settlers intermarried. Are they a different people, a different ethnic group? Certainly not. They speak French too, some are separatists, some are federalists. No obsession with purity.
      Just like some anglos have French names.

      @ Apparatchik
      « Marie Tifo, née Marie Thiffeault. »
      http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/fr/marie-tifo

      Delete
    6. If the PQ makes political capital out of ethnic purity, then how do you explain this:
      http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120304/mtl_estates_general_sovereignty_120304/20120304
      "The Estates General on Quebec Sovereignty will be led by [...] Tania Kontoyanni"
      Comedian Tania Kontoyanni (who appears on French-language TV), whose parents are both Greek immigrants (speaking of Greece), grew up in Quebec City (she said so on TV once) and this is why she speaks French as her first language even though it's not her mother tongue. Of course you're going to say they're using her to pretend they're not racist but this is not what the PQ is about. The PQ is about the French language, not ethnicity. All are welcome if they are pro-French language. Why would they reject people of other ethnicities when they speak French? It doesn't make sense. Don't put frenchified "ethnics" together with anglicized ones because there is a world of difference between the two. She has nothing to do with English-speaking Greeks in Montreal. You can accuse the PQ of being racists against the latter but why would they be against people like her?

      When Parizeau (who had a Polish wife at the time!) spoke of the ethnic vote, he meant people who don't live in French and vote in block against independence. For example, when someone says the Italians voted against independence, they mean 100% ethnically Italian people that don't speak French at home, not people like Pierre Curzi who have an Italian father and a French mother, hence his French first name and his first language being French. He's far from being the only one who's part-Italian, part-French. You can't expect those people to think and vote like anglicized Italian people because their background is different and so is their language, their culture, etc. Some vote for the PQ, some don't.

      Delete
    7. Oops, my bad, Parizeau's wife was Lisette Lapointe at the time (1995 referendum) but before her he was married to Alicja Poznańska.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Parizeau

      So in the French-speaking world, Parizeau has some Scottish ancestry (and he even said so himself, see link in French below) and spoke in an interview of the fact that many Québécois are ethnically-mixed and he used to be married to an immigrant.
      In the English-speaking world, Parizeau is as bad as Hitler and he is obsessed with ethnic purity.

      http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/06/20080611-064200.html

      Delete
    8. «Là, on serait en train de discuter de pureté de la race ! S'il y a quelqu'un qui ne tient pas à ça, c'est moi ! Jamais ! Jouer dans ce registre est ridicule», dit Jacques Parizeau

      Of course the Gazette probably never published a translation of that.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous wrote:

      When Parizeau (who had a Polish wife at the time!) spoke of the ethnic vote, he meant people who don't live in French and vote in block against independence.

      Yes, I totally agree.

      Parizeau got a bad rap for all the fallout against him as a result of what he said. I disagree about the "money" half about his statement ("money and the ethnic vote") but that's not the part that's become controversial.

      If I live in Iowa, the "norm" is White Anglo Saxon Protestant because that's the majority. So an "ethnic" to an Iowan is, say, an Italian or a Greek or a French-Canadian for that matter. Quebec is 80% French origin so, to Parizeau, that is the "norm" (and I don't mean "normal" which of course has an entirely different connotation) and anyone who isn't French Canadian is "ethnic". that's what Parizeau was referring to and he was completely within acceptable morality to have said what he did.

      The reality is that 99% of anglos and 95% of allos voted "no" in 1995. And those aren't my figures but demographic expert's figures (and, no, 99% is not an exaggeration). As I wrote in a previous post, it was the non-francophones 20% "no" block vote that tipped the scales in favor of the "no" forces.

      So for Parizeau to note in that famous press conference immediately following the referendum that the loss was due to "money and the ethnic vote" he was entirely correct about the ethnic vote part of the statement and he would have been remiss in his responsibilities as the leader of the "no" forces not to point out what he believed was responsible for his side losing.

      I find it the height of hypocrisy that all those pundits in the English Canadian media gave him such a hard time on this when they don't ever say "boo!" when it comes to the real, actual everyday segregation that we have in Quebec as a result of both Bill 101's language of education laws which work in conjunction with the equally racist section 23 of Canada's so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      Delete
    10. "a supporter of a movement that makes political capital out of ethnic purity."

      Qu'est-ce que vous fumez exactement pour être aussi parano?Un conseil :Cesser toute consommation immédiatement car vous semblez de plus en plus atteint.Espérons aussi que ce n'est pas l'effet du gorgonzola combiné au Pelau (cook-up) qui produit cet effet fort détestable.

      Delete
    11. Seems nobody in this thread mentioned John James Charest. As for Jacques "Scottie" Parasite, I don't buy the malarky stated above about what he "meant". Simply put, he was pissed on some kind of booze or cheap drugs, and he was more pissed that it was the non-pur lainers of Quebec that thwarted his plans to become King Jacques I. Any way you slice it, it was sour grapes from a sore loser!

      Delete
    12. Seppie, after all the effort of other posters who apparently share your views, aren't you embarrassed yet at the pathetic contribution you're making? Have you got anything pertinent to say? I've been waiting since I joined this blog. Are you going to prove someday that you're not just destroying useful Oxygen and producing harmful Carbon Dioxide, but you are a sentient being? Hello? Anybody there?

      Delete
    13. More sensibly: to Anonymous Mar 5, 2012 11:44 AM

      OK, you make a good case. I'll take exception to a couple of point:

      1- The first name is not really relevant in this argument: a lot of people (look up Gianni Romme or, if it's too remote, Boris Becker...) name their children with whatever name their fancy takes, regardless of their ethnic origins.

      2- Not sure what you mean about the first language not being the mother-language. The mother-language is by definition the first language: unless you lose the ability to speak your first language and can only communicate effectively in your second, the two are the same. Surely it's more about the language you speak to your mother than your mother's own language...

      Delete
    14. "Not sure what you mean about the first language not being the mother-language."

      Uh, yeah, I mean her mother tongue is Greek but her first official language spoken is French and it's the language she speaks most often.

      Delete
  7. Editor,

    Good article, much better than the language articles (a subject more beaten than a pinhata). And be careful, the Greeks are a sensitive lot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Marco writes:

      Good article, much better than the language articles (a subject more beaten than a pinhata).

      Yes, the language question has been beaten more than a pinata but I've never seen it discussed as well or as in-depth or from the viewpoints that the "No Dog" editor brings to the table. His 3 part "Myths" posts were excellent.

      This is the cutting edge if one wants to be in-the-know and discussing the language/constitutional/future-of-Quebec-and-Canada issue on the internet.

      Delete
    2. First of all, it's piñata. It's really sad to see what has happened in Greece because most of the Greek immigrants I've met are are hardworking, industrious people. One family, whose kids I grew up with until about 15 when they moved back to Greece, one became an orthopedic surgeon and another a chemistry professor with a post doctorate, both now living in the U.S. Their father was a lab chemist and he always pushed the envelope for them to do better in school when they were already outstanding students.

      To me, I figured the Greek economy was heading for big, big trouble after learning the Olympic games they hosted cost them around $12 billion. It took Montreal 30 years to pay off what now looks like a measly ONE billion dollars! I had no idea about the shape of their economy outside of the Olympic debt, so maybe that debt alone was the culprit of the shape of things there today. Then again, I asked a Greek colleague for her take on the situation, and like Quebec, they felt they had these entitlements.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Sauga writes:

      It's really sad to see what has happened in Greece because most of the Greek immigrants I've met are are hardworking, industrious people.

      My father (now deceased) was born in Greece and came to Canada as a small child. He was one of those "hardworking" people you describe above. He was a classically trained musician and professor at McGill for decades, for whom working 14 hours days was the norm. Virtually every Greek immigrant I have known works their ass off (and who knows better than anyone how to properly slice a brisket of smoked meat!).

      I can't help but recall one of the things a German newspaper wrote in a letter to the Greek Prime Minister in response to the Greek protests a few months ago...something to the effect: "wake up earlier in the morning and work harder." (see: http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/COURSE-German-Open-Letter-to-Greeks-WORK-Harder-Longer--ECON-501.html).

      As someone with Greek heritage I did not take umbrage at that; indeed, I agree with it! The way I see it is that Greeks on the whole are not lazy but that the socialist policies of their government enabled them to be put in the position of being lazy as a result of being recipients of a nanny-state that catered to their every whim.

      This "lazyness", for lack of a better word, is something that is more indicative of the human condition rather than a characteristic of a particular people...okay, maybe not Germans or the Japanese but everyone else! :-)

      Delete
    4. Tony: I went to school with a Jewish fellow whose father's career was a smoked meat carver. Who do you think brought delis to Montreal, and all of North America, for that matter. Charcuteries are generally run by non-Jews, and yes, I know the team at Schwartz's these days are not Jewish.

      Speaking of Schartz's, I learned when I ate lunch there on my visit this past weekend that Celine and René bought out Mr. Diamond. I just hope they're not dickheaded enough to change the name to Celine's or something as stupid as that. Now if they want to be bold enough to open a Schwartz's in Toronto, they have MY permission--then I'll never have to come into Montreal!

      Welllllll...that's not true. They'll probably charge 20% more in Toronto and give 20% less. That unfortunately is the way at the Centre Street Deli in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, immediately north of Toronto. It's owned by a daughter of the Snowdon Deli family, but it has been successful now for 24 years. Unfortunately, it's a little pricier and portions are smaller than in Montreal. Rents in Montreal are still cheaper, but taxes are much higher (15% vs 13% on GST and the provincial component in Quebec vs Ontario, let alone their confiscatory income taxes, QPIP premiums, Solidarity Fund premiums, RAMQ premiums etc. etc. etc.)

      Delete
    5. I blaspheme。

      Why? Because I actually prefer the smoked meat across the street at “The Main” than I do at Schwartz's。The Main exists for all intents and purposes as a “spillover” business from the always busy Schwartz's to cater to those that don't want to wait in the perennial line to get in。

      Nothing like a medium-fat(only way to order!)smoked meat, cherry coke, fries,and, on occasion,liver and frank on the side。

      Heaven!

      Delete
  8. For Greece to recover they will have to leave the EURO and get their own currency. The EU has really done all it can to stop Greece from doing so. If Greece abandons the EURO there will be a domino effect. Portugal, Spain and Italy could also leave the Euro. OF course there will still have to be fiscal restraint after leaving the Euro as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were PLENTY of detractors to a common currency before the whole thing started, and everything that was discussed in the negative is coming to fruition. Two little countries, namely the Czech Republic and Slovakia, amicably parted ways right around the time the Euro came into being. They agreed to a common currency upon separation, but that ended after just 39 days. It's asking an awful lot for a country to give up the sovereignty of its monetary policy.

      Now all those Euro countries have to carry each other, like it or not. The fiscally prudent, hardworking Germans are going crazy because they're being dragged down by the unproductive, irresponsible Greeks and their unproductive entitlement-seeking society. It is for this reason I want to see Quebec's equalization and other transfer payments slashed. For one thing, Ontario can't afford to contribute to equalization anymore, or at least not for sometime to come, and I'm sure Albertans are fed up as well.

      Alberta's power base continues to grow, and they're the only debt-free province. Oil revenues are the major reason why, but because they live an economic philosophy of rugged individualism, they simply don't spend on socialist programs and tax their residents for them the way Quebec does. As sung in the opening theme of All in the Family (Those Were the Days), "Everybody pulled his weight". Quebec lives on OPM, and enough is enough! As a loyal Ontario taxpayer now for over half my life, I don't see why we should foot the bill so Quebec could run itself into the ground with social programs that don't exist outside of the overly taxed, overly compensated and underproductive Quebec.

      Delete
    2. M. Sauga - Ontario is now a receiver of equalization payments, to the tune of 3.3 billions a year. Give McGuinty a few more years and it might be higher than Quebec's - how would people deal with the fact that Quebec would no longer be the prime receiver of equalization payments?

      Delete
    3. Never heard about $3.3 billion in Ontario. It was about $337 million, i.e., about 1/3 of one billion! $300-odd Million vs over $8 Billion. No comparison!

      In any case, Ontario is still CONTRIBUTING to the equalization program, so Ontario is still the biggest NET contributor to equalization.

      Delete
    4. Where have you been? It was 347 millions 3 years ago. Seriously, can't you even use google before you go off and embarass yourself like that? For the 2012-2013 fiscal year, Stat Can gives 3.261 billion dollars, or roughly 1/2 of Quebec's 7.391 billions it will receive that year.

      But give it a few years - the trend is that the equalization payments to Quebec have been decreasing, and Ontario's have been skyrocketing, so Ontario may be the #1 beneficiary yet.

      On what basis do you claim that Ontario is "CONTRIBUTING" to equalization payments but Quebec is not? Both send taxes to Ottawa, both receive federal transfers back. Ontario sends more, receives less, both send more than they receive in transfers. Are your federal taxes broken down with "equalization payments to Quebec" one of the items? Otherwise, face the music : Ontario is weighting this country down, just like Quebec. Not as much, so give it a few years.

      :)

      Delete
  9. Occurs to me that Don Drummond (I beleive a formor high ranking economist with one of the large banks) has called for austerity rules in Ontario to control rising debt. From what I can gather the measures were recommended due to the fact that Ontario, within a few years, if spending is not curtailed, will reach a Debt/GDP ration of 50%. In Quebec the Debt/GDP ratio is currently about 94%!!!! Thats a lot of debt!!. In reality, Quebec is in deep trouble at this time and without immediate fiscal restraint, will likely see their bond ratings compromised. This would have the immediate impact of higher interest rates on the debt which of course would further compound the problem. Not an enviable financial position.

    Question is, will the ROC (and particularily the West) continue to pay higher equalizaton payments to Quebec to subsidize this massive debt (and gold plated social programs) , which were brought on by the policitians of all stripes in Quebec in their refusal to give the people of Quebec proper fiscal guidance. I seriously doubt it considering the provinces in the West simply do not enjoy the same lavish social programs that currently exist in Quebec.

    As of late, there is obvious tensions between the east and the west. Dalton (spendthrift) McGinty and Alison Redford of Alberta have had some unkind words for each other over allegations that the high petro dollar is hampering the Ontario Manufacturing Economy. Just over the weekend Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan (another have province now) weighed in to the situation and basically told McGinty in a press conference to "pack sand". In the last election the socialists (NDP) in Saskatchewan attempted to buy off the electorate with huge spending (3.7 billion dollars in programs) which would have raised the provinical debt. Wall's party simply stated they would keep spending at current levels with no increase in programs. The people obviously saw through the charade of the spending "ouverte bar" and gave Wall's party one of the largest majorities in history.

    Question: Is there any political party in Quebec that is promising fiscal responsibility by reudicnt social programs and other austerity measures to control the rising debt. No, I didn't think so!!! Likely of no consequence anyways as the people's attitude, similar to the Greeks, are not in tune with reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, I didn't get to your comments above until after I wrote my comments in the thread above yours. Actually, when Mario Dumont founded the Action Democratique (ADQ), he did advocate fiscal conservatism, but nobody wanted to hear about it. Only once did his party reach the pinnacle of official opposition, he then lost miserably the next time and abandoned politics. Not to worry though, he's now not only drawing one of those platinum-plated MNA pensions AND has a political talk show on SRC, another government freebie that allows every political bigot to come on air and publicly spew their anti-everything-that-isn't-pur-laine crap and drivel and get away with it while on the English side of the network, Don Cherry has to mind his p's and q's when he thinks of talking about French Quebec.

      Delete
  10. While remaining the first to defend freedom, The Unenslavables will survive without social programs and without the EU because they have been doing it for thousands of years!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98y0DSzt7yY&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - M.Thatcher

    "The trouble with state capitalism is that eventually big business and corporations run out of other people's (bailout) money." - adski

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And therein lies the problem. Welfare for the 99% vs. welfare for the 1%.

      Sophie's choice musta been easier...

      Delete
    2. Those who worship Reagan and Thatcher crack me up. These two were the biggest redistributors of other people's money in history. It's just that the money didn't go down the social ladder, it went up it.

      I hate the entitlement that political systems produce, but BOTH capitalism and socialism produce entitlements, only of different groups of people.

      I also agree that social protections produce entitlements, generate inefficiency and do not resolve the problem of greed (look at some unions today), but let's not lose sight of the flip side of the coin: the capitalist reactionaries won't rest until they roll back all the protections we fought for in the past decades. They won't rest until we are all working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, for measly pays. And they are already succeeding to a large degree. Not too fond of the protections we wrestled out from them (they were not offered, we had to fight for them), they've gradually moved production to the third world where protections don't exist. With globalization, they're forcing us to compete with people who can do our jobs for 1/20th of our salary, no medical benefits, and 12-hour shifts. I'm in IT so I know a lot about it.

      Delete
    3. Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. - Ludwig Von Mises

      Currently, we don't have free market capitalism, we've got cronyism (failed banks being bailed out is not capitalism). Governments love cronyism because it makes it easier for them to engage in their favorite proclivity - credit expansion or as Von Mises put it:

      Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.

      Blowing bubbles on our road to a worldwide ponzi collapse - shame the Greeks and Italians
      handed their countries over to unelected bureaucrats (bankers).

      DD

      Delete
    4. Capitalism without cronyism, monopolistic practices, enormous greed, and exploitation of resources both natural and human, would be great. Except it has never been implemented.

      As for governments being in crony relationships with big business - whose fault is this? You rightly blame corrupt state officials, but you forget that big capitalists spend millions of dollars on lobbying and buying off elected representatives. Capitalists are not passive bystanders, they are very active in getting the state (which they purport to hate) to be at their service. So by pointing a finger squarely at state officials, you are sweeping a big part of the problem under the rug. You look at the corrupted, but lose sight of the corruptors.

      I have been very critical of state/government on this forum, but I cannot bring myself to supporting governemnt-less system of libertarian capitalism a la Ron Paul. I agree with N.Chomsky that this would lead to privately-owned tyranny, i.e. all of us being stuck in corporations, working like slaves.

      Governments suck, but the real challenge is to reform them (and shrink them big time), not do away with them. The challenge is to get them to do what they are elected for - to serve us while being accountable to us, not to harass us, milk us through taxation, and comply with their corporate buddies.

      Delete
    5. As a small "c" conservative and supporter of Capitalism, the most effective critique I've read about Capitalism is that it's as much a theoretical model as Socialism: two simplifications of reality that are not really encountered in real life. I can accept that: it's not hard to believe that the world isn't black and white but an infinite number of shades of grey.

      Delete
    6. So by pointing a finger squarely at state officials, you are sweeping a big part of the problem under the rug.

      Not at all adski, merely pointing out the government (through laws), has the ability to
      curtail or encourage behaviors. It prefers the current state and will until people have had enough of the fraud and corruption.

      DD

      Delete
    7. Wow。

      One of our anonymi is quoting Von Mises。This is a man who,had the world listened to him back in the 1930s and onwards,would have saved a lot of grief for billions。

      Quoting Von Mises bodes well for this blog。

      Yet I'm frustrated because this one Anonymous is now lost in the general pool of anonymi and I can't direct my appreciation to any one specific person。

      Delete
    8. OK,economic philosophers above me on this thread, what is the solution? As far as I'm concerned, we're either heading back to the Dark Ages, or we're going to have another Bolshevik Revolution, or some facsimile revolution.

      All political ideologies end up serving SOME kind of master whether it's the government that is the central mind and management of the economy (communism or other very left leaning socialism), or the superrich captains of industry that control the government through lobbying and bribery (raw capitalism, or imperialism). Unliess you become superrich, either by your own wits or inheritance, you're dead--or at least sca-rooooo-oooed!

      Once the concentration of wealth starts to amalgamate, much like it is now, it's imperialism hence CEOs and their cronies suck up multi-multimillion dollar double-digit increased in their compensation packages while the rest of us get tossed a bone with 1% and 2% wage increases, if that much, like hungry dogs. Right now too, government employees are enjoying pay packages far superior to the private sector proletariat, but guess who pays THEIR salaries?

      Delete
    9. While I don't profess to having all the answers Mr. Sauga, I'll offer some fixes we could do tomorrow:

      1. Return to the gold standard - This is not only a must, it is inevitable.

      2. Enforce the law - Much of what is transpiring is blatantly illegal but enforcement agencies are "co-opted" through promises of future rewards.

      3. London's financial district "The City" has no laws regarding leverage. Until that changes, our banks should be banned from having subsidiaries in London. Current practice is for banks to rehypothecate your money without your knowledge and leverage it to infinity on something nice and safe like Greek treasuries (1 year ROI over 1000%)! MF Global made $1.5 billion of customer funds "disappear" and yes Canadian banks are doing it (read your prospectus - look for hypothecate)

      That would be a start as "sound" money would prevent politicians from robbing the future to pay for the present (remember its your children and grandchildren they are ripping off.

      DD

      Delete
    10. adski writes:

      I hate the entitlement that political systems produce, but BOTH capitalism and socialism produce entitlements, only of different groups of people.

      adski, you will most likely roll your eyes when I say what I'm about to say but it is a back-handed compliment:

      You are completely in tune with the Tea Party in the United States! Recall that it was the great Michele Bachmann (my personal choice for GOP presidential candidate), the Godmother of the Tea Party, who either coined or made popular the phrase "Crony Capitalism" that addresses precisely what you do above.

      Unfortunately, the media concentrates on the nut-cases of the Tea Party movement and their personal rants rather than what spawned the movement in the first place: fiscal responsibility. That was and is their main focus: eliminating the deficit. And they are equally angry about entitlements to corporations as they are the social ones. Ron Paul is big on this, too.

      So, adski, if you haven't already had a heart attack over the revelation that you are a poster child for the Tea Party...my hat is off to you!

      Delete
    11. Mr. Sauga asks:

      OK,economic philosophers above me on this thread, what is the solution?

      Okay, if I were, in the immortal words of Leonardo DiCaprio, "King of the World", these are the policies I would put into place:

      1) Immediately -- not over 5 years, not incrementally but now -- pass a surplus budget in the United States of about $500 billion and continue said budget until the debt is paid down (a la the great saviour of Canada, Paul Martin). Yes, this will plunge the U.S. into a possible deep recession or even depression...but it is a matter of feeling some pain now or a whole lot more pain a few years off, a pain that will last a life time.

      2) Implement what I call (my own term) "Bottom-line Socialism". That is, provide those in society who need it access to the basic necessities of life and no more: shelter, medical care, education, basic nutrition, etc. If you look at the budgets of countries such as the U.S. most of what they spend is on entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). Yes, the military is a huge expenditure (particularly since they are in "war time") but that does not make up the bulk of spending; entitlement programs do. Cutting down on entitlement programs is the music we all must face.

      I am not as familiar as I'd like to be with the budgets of the European nations but I suspect that they are as if not more socialistic than the U.S. is and that their government expenditures are top-heavy on the entitlements as well. So this is something that they will have to address as well.

      3) Milk the rich...and you do that by cutting the top U.S. marginal tax rates even more than they are now! And also for corporations as well.

      Obama's own debt commission recommended that he lower the top marginal rate to 25%; note that this is lower than the lowest top rate that Reagan had put into place (28%)!

      4) Increase the lower tax rates so that the poor and middle class pay more taxes. Today, as a result of Bush's tax cuts, the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes and the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. Everyone is under the impression that Bush cut taxes for the rich; but what he did with his so-called "compassionate conservatism" was to cut the rates for everyone by lowering all 5 rates (and actually decreased the lowest bracket -- the 15% bracket -- by creating a newer, lower bracket of 10%).

      Delete
    12. Tony, I agree with Chris Hedges, one of my favorite writers, that Tea Party is not necessarily wrong on all issues, and there is definitely some overlap of my grievances with their grievances. It is a very broad movement though, and on some issues I am light years away from them.

      Delete
    13. Tony, income tax is designed to redistribute wealth from the poor, middle class and small businesses to the rich and large corporations through tax incentives that the former can never qualify for. For an example:

      Income tax theft- Billionaire versus Joe Six Pack,

      The income tax system should be abolished and a "wealth" tax implemented. The majority of people have no wealth, only debt. This is why income is taxed.

      DD

      Delete
  12. I'm a student at UdeM, and the student strike is pissing the f*ck out of me. One of the main arguments I get bombarded with from the entitleists is that we should compare education to Europe, in particular France and Denmark, and not to the US. My retort to them is that you can't compare economical systems, ie we're in North-America and not in Europe.

    While (being a masochist) and reading the news, I came across this very interesting article criticizing France's education system. My favorite quote: "Les étudiants défavorisés ont moins accès à l'université, tandis que ceux issus de milieux favorisés font des études plus longues. Ce sont donc les classes les plus favorisées qui bénéficient de la quasi-gratuité."

    I've shared it with my classmates. Let's see if they, like our very beloved (/sarcasm) Seppie, will remain silent when reality doesn't match up with their much touted dream.

    The article in question: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/education/201203/01/01-4501526-droits-de-scolarite-le-mirage-francais.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Franky boy,vous oubliez que vous êtes au Québec pas aux É.U.Les anglos ont une fâcheuse tendance à oublier que nous sommes une société distincte.Distincte des canadians et encore plus des americans.

      Delete
    2. distincte?

      So distincte that nationhood was granted to you by Harper?

      Yes, Mr.Marco is right. it certainly does stink?

      Delete
    3. I'd be in favor of the tuition increase if it actually meant the students would get better "educations" as a result.

      The fact of the matter is that most degrees are already overpriced considering what we're able to do with them, and the quality of teaching in many majors and faculties leaves much to be desired, irrespective of institution or even language. Academia has a lot of dirty little secrets, not the least of which is the fact that it's a money-making business first, a socially-stratifying movement second, and an enlightenment-oriented institution virtually dead last. That's what's wrong with higher learning institutions everywhere in North America and beyond. And if there's anything about this blog I admire, it's its general tendency not to congratulate or otherwise reward bad, obnoxious behavior that benefits bloat and sloth. That being said, (and as a side-note) I'm surprised the editorial line (as well as several other elements here) has actually bought into the lie that paying more automatically means better institutions overall without calling into serious question WHY the price increases (whether through taxation or through tuition) are at all justified. (I happen to live in one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions on the continent and often I don't feel I'm getting my money's worth). A more thorough examination of this particular matter would deal with what parts of the "academic" offerings are actually going up in price, and whether Quebecers stand to get something for nothing (assuming no tuition increase) or very little for a lot (with costs made up either through tuition increase and/or tax hikes and/or higher overall personal/governmental indebtedness).

      Upping the price of a piece of paper primarily to feed a notoriously bloated and overgrown administrative structures that can't get their own exploding costs under control? Non merci.

      I sincerely believe that this one crosses language and cultural divides. I too am familiar with the children's story featuring an unnamed emperor and his new invisible clothes. Perhaps I identify most with the child at the end of the tale whose youth makes him unable or unwilling to go along with the lie (whether deep down or superficially) because "it's just easier that way".

      To hell with shiny new buildings and mismanaged priorities at the very highest levels. Let's see less wasteful administrative spending BEFORE we justify more more red cent to these charlatan-riddled "degree-factories".

      Mark Twain couldn't be more right when he cautioned not to let schooling interfere with one's education. We really ought to be seeing the forest for the trees, folks.

      Delete
    4. Apparatchik,

      Well said!

      Thanks...

      Delete
    5. " oublier que nous sommes une société distincte"

      Yes, very distinct,,,distinctly broke.

      Delete
    6. "Yes, very distinct,,,distinctly broke"

      Vous devriez regarder du coté des amerlocs maintenant...Ouch!

      Delete
    7. Est cette vrais? sur le cote des amerlocs que vous parlez?


      You see, the Americans really are in debt about 15 trillion dollars.

      Quebec is (if you consider crown corporations (hydro Quebec) included) about 220 billion in Debt plus that of their portion of the federabl debt or about 120 Billion for 340 Billion Total)

      Lets as you say look at the real figures.

      The US has about 311 million people. Quebec has about 7 million people...
      The US debt/capita: 49142.00.00 (based upn 311 million people and total debt of 15 trillion dollars per latest stats)

      The Quebec Debt/capita: 48231.00 (220 billion Quebec provinical debt plus 20% of Canadian debt of 540 billion)

      Not that much difference. As far as Debt/GDP...US is about 102% of GDP,,,Quebec debt is about 94% of GDP.

      I dont see a great deal of Ouch, considering the Americans are 4% of the planet and create 26% of the global GDP. They are also an independent country so can increase or deflate their own currency...Something Quebec cannot do, unless of course they become a separate country.

      I doubt the Americans are going anywhere too soon.

      Delete
    8. Mitt will have a wack at it and I bet he does better than the bumb left and stupit right have

      Delete
    9. Interesting post Apparatchik,

      If you haven't already stumbled upon this video, you should definitely take a look at it:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=relmfu

      Cheers,

      Delete
    10. M. Le Sécessionniste,

      I find it appalling that you support the racist segregation of our province while you show us such a film. When I told you that French Quebec Schools are Separatist Factories, I had no idea that you knew it and still condemn our children to them.
      To be fooled by someone who doesn’t know what terrible harm it will cause is a lot less destructive than to purposely condemn someone to the lobster trap.
      Shame on you for having that kind of knowledge and fighting to keep our children from it in your Separatist Factories you call Quebecois Schools, you elitist troll!

      Delete
    11. Anonymous writes:

      You see, the Americans really are in debt about 15 trillion dollars.

      As bad as Quebec's debt situation is (and, yes, it's bad), the real problem for the world is the U.S. federal government's debt.

      And the problem isn't the $15 trillion, it's interest rates. Today, the U.S. services its debt at about 1.5% interest by selling, amongst other similar instruments, U.S. Treasury Bills. And at 1.5% interest, they can continue to service the debt until the cows come home. Indeed, the debt can double and at such a low interest rate there is no problem.

      The problem is that interest rates go up and go down. They are down now and will be for the foreseeable future and the Fed has told us that they will keep them down for the next few years. But, ultimately, interest rates are market driven...and since the nature of interest rates are to go up and down, they have to eventually change from where they are now...and there's only one way to go and that's up (because they really can't go any lower).

      From there, all one needs is high school math to figure out how this will change the world; just do the math. Last year, out of a budget of about $3.7 trillion, the interest cost of the debt was about 7% of that total (around $250 billion). But even Obama's own budget office projects a $20 trillion debt by 2014 which is just 2 short years away. Well, I've seen 20% interest rates in my lifetime. If interest rates go up to just 10%, that's $2 trillion a year just to service the debt which will be almost 60 cents on every dollar spent going to debt servicing.

      Where will the U.S. get the money to pay Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the military, food stamps, etc.? And despite what you read in the media, the rich are already paying far, far more than their fair share of taxes.

      The only solution is to print more money...and that's what is probably going to happen. And when it does, well, those with gold and other precious metals will be sitting pretty.

      Last year Fox, News commissioned me to publish an article I wrote on the issue. If you're interested, you can see it here:

      http://nation.foxnews.com/democrats/2011/02/09/four-questions-every-liberal-must-be-asked

      Delete
    12. Agree totally with the concept you are speaking too. What did the US do for the bail outs of major corporations, borrowed money and cranked up the printing presses as you indicate.

      On interest rates being market driven, they are for sure and the market cannot take any large interest rate increases. I doubt you will see 20% interest rates again...in my or you liftime TK as it would send the world into total economic turmoil. If it happens, well, most people can kiss goodbye to their pensions and other benefits.

      The powers that be are just not going to allow it out of self interest. (read the IMF, major world powers, major world business)

      What we are really seeing is a contraction of capital in many ways. Those with capital are watching their savings and hard currency disappear due to low interest rates. (eg: 1.5% T bills when inflation is 2.5%...net loss of 1% of capital per year)

      This will likely continue until the markets stabilize to a sustainable level. Remember that one of the biggest benefactors of the low cost of money is government in situation of deficit (which they all are at this time).

      Back to Quebec...the situation is unsustainable even at current interest rates should the level of risk be ascertained to be close to default (which by the way, the ROC, will not likely allow to happen). Higher risk equates to higher interest rates. That is likely the card that will be hard on Quebec, similar to the european countries where the bond yields reach unimaginable figures of 7% and higher.

      On the US,,,where do people run during economic duress and uncertainty...the US dollar as a safe haven.

      Gold and precious metals are somewhat like diamonds TK..The value is the perceived value of the commodity and not the real intrinsic value.



      ABP

      Delete
    13. Anonymous 3h05,

      "Separatist factories" don't start the school day with a Oh! Canada or a pledge of allegiance. You know what we say about seeing the straw in the eye of others?

      Concerning "racial segregation" (you wrote your letter to Tutu yet?), if you ask me there should be one and only school system in Québec.

      Cheers,

      Delete
    14. Ou la distribution de centaines de milliers de drapeaux canayens payés à mêmes l'argent des con...tribuables.Bien dit le sécessionniste

      Delete
    15. ABP said ..Gold and precious metals are somewhat like diamonds TK..The value is the perceived value of the commodity and not the real intrinsic value.

      Gold and silver have been "money" for 4000 years. In fact "silver" is the word for money in over 50 languages. The character for "money" in chinese is a silver house. The "fiat" in your pocket changes (on average) every 47 years. The current fiat was created in 1971 by Nixon abandoning the gold standard. Here's a more detailed explanation:

      Why Gold and Silver - Full DVD - Mike Maloney

      Thanks to the incessant printing, over the last decade gold has increase 500% and silver 890%.

      DD

      Delete
  13. Une société distincte? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow. Que l'on soit au québec, aux É.U, ou en Europe, les questions économiques sont les mêmes: il faut que quelqu'un paye. Vôtre commentaire a tellement pas rapport qu'il a fallu que j'en rie :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laugh at the "distinct society" argument all you want (and I'll laugh right along with you). Bullshit is bullshit no matter where it's being flung around.

      Delete
    2. Franky:

      "My retort to them is that you can't compare economical systems, ie we're in North-America and not in Europe."

      "Que l'on soit au québec, aux É.U, ou en Europe, les questions économiques sont les mêmes"

      Que comprendre de ces deux affirmations provenant de la même personne dans une intervalle de quelques minutes?

      Delete
    3. So, what's your take on it?

      Delete
    4. Que l'auteur de ces affirmations est confus ? :)

      Delete
    5. Let's see, a man in a flak jacket and no shoes and a man with safety boots and no shirt are whacked on the head with a baseball bat. Different circumstances (systems, if you like), same challenge. Where is the confusion?

      Delete
    6. Quebec is distinct alright, but not in positive ways. It has antiquated animal protection laws and is the puppy mill capital of North America.

      Just last week, the Quebecois who killed puppies with a nail gun got off with probation and no jail time at all. Societies can be judged by how they treat animals and Quebec does very poorly in this respect.

      Delete
    7. I'm not for killing puppies or cute baby seals but, gosh, we're a society that eats millions and millions of beef cattle yearly, not to mention chickens, lambs, etc. And the way we kill our livestock is just as or less humane than killing puppies with a "nail gun".

      Indeed, if memory serves me, didn't Anton Chigurh kill his victims with if not a "nail gun" a similar type of implement called a "bolt gun" which is used to kill cattle?

      Perhaps if we then proceeded to eat the puppies killed with nail guns people wouldn't feel so bad about it...

      Delete
  14. one thing for sure is that if Pauline Marois wins the election and form a majority government, then we can all agree on one point, that Quebec will dig its way deeper in the debt hole, reassuring a four year of darkness and more aggravated sufferings than what charest has inflicted so far....Frankly, this doesn't look good AT ALL and besides, her victory needs to be aborted at all cost so that "string of mess" can be avoided...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She will try and buy the people with their own money (and those of others) or more precisely she will try and buy them with their own lines of credit. Could work, as the people of Quebec are preconditioned to the mama government and would through anyone out on their ass who even dared to suggest "fiscal responsibility" and measures of restraint. Just as with Greece, the people will resist electorally any shift to changes in the current status quo.

      Delete
  15. Quand on quote qq'un, on utilise tout: [...] il faut que quelqu'un paye. If you're to dense to get it, I won't waste my time explaining it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben oui,c'est ça!Tu t'es gouré mec...Un peu d'honnêteté svp.
      La prochaine fois "Press reply" afin de maintenir un lien logique des interventions.

      Delete
    2. Ben oui,c'est ça!Tu t'es gouré mec...Un peu d'honnêteté svp.
      La prochaine fois "Press reply" afin de maintenir un lien logique des interventions.

      commented by a loser !!!

      Delete
  16. Although I am more familiar with the U.S. federal government debt (I have a whole web site devoted to it),I just looked up in
    Wikipedia exactly how long Jean Charest has been Premier of Quebec along with his separatist Liberal party。It‘s going on 9 years now。

    Pray tell,what is Quebec's total debt,what has been the deficit for those past nine years,what percentage does the total of those nine years’ deficits represent as a percentage of the total debt,and why in God's name has the editor only given us one token line in his post regarding Charest‘s responsibility in this whole mess and,instead, made Marios out to be Darth Vader?

    (the one line:“I'm not saying that Jean Charest and his Liberal party are paragons of fiscal restraint...”)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and one more thing: start converting all of your fixed assets (savings accounts, bonds, money markets, etc.) to precious metals bullion (gold, silver, platinum) NOW。

      Run,don't walk。

      Delete
    2. And in those nine years property values have nearly doubled. Goes to show you haw as bad as things are, the fact that the government was not promoting the separatist hate, gave us the breathing room to catch up with the ROC. Just think what another four or five years without the racists can do!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous Mar 5, 2012 12:06 PM said..in those nine years property values have nearly doubled

      This is due to monetary expansion. I'll prove it to you. Let's assume on Jan 1 2002 you began a new job paying $1000 a week and were given the choice of being paid in cash or silver?

      Paid by silver, by gold or by fiat - a historical comparison

      Assuming a raise of 3% a year (lol), after 10 years the fiat cash guy is earning $1304.77. Our silver guy (original pay $1000 in silver = 214.59 ounces) is now earning 280 ounces - with a fiat value of $4981.20!

      Measure the value of your asset in something finite (gold, silver, oil, etc.).

      DD

      Delete
    4. What are you trying to say DD? That if the PQ with all the separatist talk would have been in power during these past 9 years the prices would have gone up anyways? i high doubt it.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous @08:08 PM said...That if the PQ with all the separatist talk would have been in power during these past 9 years the prices would have gone up anyways?

      The example shown in the link proves that a 2001 dollar is worth approximately five times a 2010 dollar (due to currency devaluation). Our fiat worker (in spite of an annual 3% raise) is actually having his pay cut (like everybody is now). Your house didn't "double" in value, it lost value! In order to just maintain its value your homes price would have needed to increase by a factor of five.

      The thing to remember is gold (and silver) have the same purchasing power they've always
      had - gas is still 20 cents a gallon in the US if you use silver dimes. When you see gold (and silver) raise in price, that's currency loosing its' purchasing power.

      Whichever bunch of glad-handing, amoral, weasels sit in the provincial parliament is secondary.

      DD

      Delete
    6. The Charts of Real Estate Prices are available for all of North America. The QC chart is similar with one main exception. Although we follow the general pattern, the QC chart since 1960 shows sharp spikes after each provincial election especially since 1976. If the Separatists win, the prices drop. If the Liberals win, the prices rise. The longer separatists are in power, the lower the prices drop.
      In the last nine years the Real Estate prices in Quebec have nearly doubled!!
      Even more interesting is the fact that the heist percentage of growth since the changing of the guard from President Bush to President Obama happened in five regions while most places saw a decrease.
      1) Outaouais
      2) Laval
      3) Mtl South Shore
      4) Quebec City
      5) Montreal
      Notice what happens even in a crappy economy when we don’t have the separatist hate in our face?

      Btw before you reply to that, contact your local realtor and ask for a verification. You’ll be shocked!!
      Didn’t Pauline Antoinette sell her castle recently?

      Delete
    7. You're pricing real estate in (rapidly depreciating) fiat currency without factoring in the depreciation or as stated my post above Measure the value of your asset in something finite (gold, silver, oil, etc.). What you are witnessing is inflation. Here's graphs of eight of the worlds' currencies being devalued simultaneously:

      Your pay was cut in the last 60 days – worldwide ponzi collapse accelerates

      The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God, that inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy. - Ludwig Von Mises

      DD

      Delete
  17. And in those nine years property values have nearly doubled. Goes to show you haw as bad as things are, the fact that the government was not promoting the separatist hate gave us the breathing room to catch up with the ROC. Just think what another four or five years without the racists can do!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Unfortunately for the Von Mises theorists, no state or territory has ever functioned with their idealogy. Even the bolsheviks got their test states. The closest were anarchic areas that got taken over by more powerful organized powers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @tony

    We've experienced similar economic situations with earlier oil shocks. In 1982 gold attained similar if not higher peaks then now. Then gold collapsed to lows for 20 years until the mid 2000s. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CvhxiGcHUgQ/TsvzLrmp4eI/AAAAAAAAFxw/JWVGQ-iUFKo/s1600/gold%2Bprice.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best thing one can do, in my opinion, is put 25% of your net worth into gold and then hope and pray that gold loses 50% of its value!

      Now, why would anyone want to lose thousands of dollars on an investment they just made? Because:

      i) you never put all your eggs in one basket; 25% and no more in precious metals; and

      ii) the only way gold will go down in value is if the U.S. and other western governments miraculously get their acts together and we don't experience financial Armageddon. And if we are "saved" that means the other 75% of your portfolio -- stocks, real estate, bonds, whatever -- won't crash.

      And what would you rather lose your shirt on: 25% of your net worth or 75% of it?

      That's why I believe buying precious metals is a hedge...like buying insurance. If we have the horrible financial crisis that seems so inevitable, we are hedged with gold because its price will skyrocket; if there is no financial crisis, gold goes down in value.

      I don't mind paying for life insurance but I sure as hell would rather lose the money I pay in premiums than my life.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @Mar 5, 2012 02:20 PM said ..We've experienced similar economic situations

      The world has experienced a loss of confidence in a given fiat currency countless times before. What has never happened before is the currency in question being the worlds' reserve currency.

      Mike Maloney – Debt collapse and $20,000 an ounce gold

      Tony is quite correct though I believe silvers' ROI will continue to outperform gold. Why do governments hate gold?

      The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments. Ldwig Von Mises

      DD

      Delete
    3. Anonymous:

      How do you make links that work on this forum,as you do above?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous:

      The Mike Maloney links are great.

      My only reservation about silver versus gold is that I believe people should be actually holding the bullion themselves (under their mattress or in a safe deposit box at their local bank). If one has a reasonably large net worth, it will require much more physical bulk to hold silver than gold. Simply a practical consideration.

      I've never been one of those "build a bunker in your back yard and stock up" kind of guys but I am quickly becoming one. So, I'm for holding actual bullion where one can have easy access to it so one can be able to use it for possible everyday transactions to purchase the basic necessities of life, something that we all may have to do in the near future.

      Otherwise, yes, the potential for silver to rise very well may be greater than it is for gold.

      Oh, and the Second Amendment is looking pretty good at the moment, too.

      Delete
    5. Tony said..it will require much more physical bulk to hold silver than gold. Simply a practical consideration.

      Agreed, though for the average person, silver at around $34 an ounce is more attainable (and has a larger upside). Putting your bullion in a bank is a big mistake. When our broke governments go into confiscation mode, and they will (been there - done that), having your bullion in a central location makes it that much easier for them. Also, when MF Global went bankrupt, one of the things "vaporized" from customer accounts was their silver.

      Yeah, your second amendment is looking good. Unfortunately, you need an FFL (federal firearms license) to order from the web. In Canada, anyone with the basic gun license can order from websites. All that is required is a simple test. Here's the official manual:

      CFSC Manual non-restricted 2008 8.3 MB

      To make hyperlinks requires basic html programming commands, here's a site on hyperlinks:
      Hyperllink Tutorial

      Lastly, Tony, can you not see my signature on my comments lad (DD)?

      DD

      Delete
    6. Yes,I see “DD" but I guess I'm experiencing long-term memory lapse...any more hints?

      Delete
    7. "I've never been one of those "build a bunker in your back yard and stock up" kind of guys but I am quickly becoming one. So, I'm for holding actual bullion where one can have easy access to it so one can be able to use it for possible everyday transactions to purchase the basic necessities of life, something that we all may have to do in the near future."

      A bunker and all the stock are useless if you don't have guns to protect them. So what's next, stocking up on guns and ammo? C'mon...

      Delete
  20. Huntingdon conteste la loi 101, une «politique raciste»

    http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/national/201203/06/01-4502973-huntingdon-conteste-la-loi-101-une-politique-raciste.php

    ReplyDelete
  21. Quebec's unavoidable problem is that it is not a jurisdiction where businesses will be created or set up sufficiently to generate sufficient tax revenues to provide the services that one expects from a government. It is also inevitable that the best and the brightest will leave to flourish in more hospitable jurisdictions elsewhere. Quebec has nothing going for it: language problems, high taxes, a terrible climate, a xenophobic society, a growing welfare state, immigrants who will not accept Canadian values, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Adski

    Loi 101: pas question d'«ouvrir la Charte», dit Québec.

    http://tinyurl.com/753rpq5

    ReplyDelete
  23. Loi 101:

    Qui va payer les amendes?Le stupide maire "kid Kodak" d'Huntingdon?La caisse des contribuables de ce village va en prendre un coup.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Judging by this thread, I was wrong: Seppie and Le sécessionniste are NOT the same person.

    My most sincere apologies to Le sécessionniste.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Actually Quebec's current finances are nowhere near as bad as they seem at first glance. The main issue with the calculation mentioned before is that it ignores a government's investments (basically revenues that come from other sources than taxes).

    And since Quebec's government owns Hydro-Quebec, and has significant parts in various other companies, it's actual debt % is much lower than the rates mentioned before.

    The calculation used to get that figure even goes so far as to count Hydro-Quebec's debt but doesn't count it's revenues. Should the same be done to Canada's debt, it would soar from 33.6% to 66% of it's GDP.

    With this in mind, Quebec's debt becomes far more manageable though it is still one of the highest in Canada, the rate going from 94% to 52.8%. On top of that, Quebec interest rate is still rated AAA (which entails significant savings).

    In comparison, most European states are struggling to maintain such a high credit rate (France just lost it's AAA rating recently).

    For the same reason, the US debt also goes down to 73.8% (remember all those bailouts they did not too long ago?)

    In comparison, Greece is currently at 133%...

    The explanation to that ''new'' figure can be found here : http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/dette-lerreur-de-calcul-qui-tue/12034/

    and here : http://www2.lactualite.com/pierre-duhamel/2012/02/17/peut-on-comparer-le-quebec-a-la-grece/

    ReplyDelete