JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...


While the separate arguments he makes looks pretty good on their
face,
when you put them together it seems a bit like leaving the hen house
unlocked, and handing the keys to the fox. Basically, let the bad
oil
companies alone set the price for the raw material they need, as
they
see fit? How's that gonna work?

What are you talking about??? The henhouse is *already* unlocked!
The presence of non-industry gamblers in the hedging process is the
largest part of the problem. Are you saying they *belong* in the
futures market because they somehow keep the oil companies honest???
The world according to Doug Kanter, aka JoeSpareBedroom, sure must be
a rigid one. If I have money to invest or speculate on commodities or
futures why should I be limited to specific vehicles?

Your world doesn't sound like a place most of us Americans want to
live in.

It's already that kind of world. Walk into a brokerage firm and tell
them you want to play with uncovered call options. There's a 50/50
chance that they'll walk you to the door because the regulations are
designed to prevent people from jumping off bridges.
However, if I have enough of a net worth I can play with uncovered call
options.

Anyway...back to the oil subject: Oil is a product too important to be
fiddled with by monkeys. Would you agree that when the price increases by
50%, it affects parts of the economy in negative ways?
Develop another source of usable energy that is more cost effective than
oil is and you could be rich. Otherwise, shut up and pay before you pump.


Irrelevant. Would you agree that when the price increases by 50%, it affects
parts of the economy in negative ways?

Why is it irrelevant? Is it that you don't want to discuss alternatives
because it will spoil you current activity of slamming the Bush
Administration?

How many people have been laid off due to the increase in oil costs? How
many people have gone bankrupt due to the increase in oil costs?

The more interesting piece of economic news of late is the potential
increase in the forclosure rate due to the variable interest rate
mortgages rising considerably over the next two years. The general, pre
oil price rise, trend over the last two years that is predicted by the
FRBS is more troubling. Shouldn't the FRBS be lowering the rate to keep
the current variable rate mortgage payers in paying rather than being
forclosed on?

He says sitting on a 5.75% 30 year fixed interest rate mortgage.

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

" JimH" jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
news
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Don White wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:

The separation between yourself and Jack Goff (childish
namecalling
and all...) is immense. I'm superior in every way. I
even live in a
superior country. I'm sorry for you, Don. :-)


Don't know why you run from your nickname, Jackoff. It
suits you to a tee.


Jackoff should stick with what he does best.
The United Nations lists Canada as one of the best 3 or 4
places in the
world to live year after year.


The US is down in the dumper on most serious places ratings
surveys.


Such as?


Here's one. There are several about:

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/...3372495&d=2005



ROTF! The Economist? Nothing more than a European rag as
obviously reflected in their ratings.



Absurd. The Economist is one of the most respected publications
in the world. And as I said there are any number such surveys
extant. The US no longer leads the pack in such important areas
as democracy, freedom of the press, lowest infant mortality
rates, availability of health care, et cetera.

Finland, usually, leads the pack of quality nations.



Finland? A socialistic country? This is funny. Tell me more.


I'll make you a deal. You explain why a socialist country could not
rate higher in terms of satisfaction, and if you do that, I'll
spend my entire afternoon finding links for you, and not insult you
at all.


Their citizens, or captives, don't know any better or they just
enjoy having everything feed to them in small portions.

Why do Canadian's come to the US for health care? Because they can
see a doctor or get an MRI next week rather the 10 months from now.



If you don't mind paying $700.00 - 800.00 out of pocket, you can get
an MRI scan within a week or two here at a private clinic.


And, percentage of your income do you gladly give to your national and
provincial governments every year?


0%

Harry should scold you for not willingly giving of your hard labor to
your fellow man.

Bert Robbins wrote:
thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


We have about 12 to 15 million people that want a better place to live
than central America and I wonder why they have not just passed through
the US to Canada?


What makes you think they aren't? Canada is more welcoming to the
migrant, with a net migration rate of 5.85 migrants/1000. This is
opposed to the U.S. rate of 3.18/1000. As with most First World nations,
Canada uses immigration to maintain a growing economy.
Canada also has a considerable illegal migrant issue. The difference is
they make it easier for the illegal to become legal than we do.


How many unskilled persons have been allowed to immigrate into Canada
within the last 25 years? Remember, I said unskilled persons have been
allowed to immigrate into Canada? Allowing wealth people from Asia and
Europe doesn't count.


Go to Toronto and see who's immigrating.

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


We have about 12 to 15 million people that want a better place to live
than central America and I wonder why they have not just passed through
the US to Canada?


What makes you think they aren't? Canada is more welcoming to the
migrant, with a net migration rate of 5.85 migrants/1000. This is
opposed to the U.S. rate of 3.18/1000. As with most First World
nations,
Canada uses immigration to maintain a growing economy. Canada also
has a considerable illegal migrant issue. The difference is
they make it easier for the illegal to become legal than we do.


How many unskilled persons have been allowed to immigrate into Canada
within the last 25 years? Remember, I said unskilled persons have been
allowed to immigrate into Canada? Allowing wealth people from Asia and
Europe doesn't count.


Go to Toronto and see who's immigrating.

My next trip to Canada will be to visit Quebec City.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:01:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
om...

If you can't explain why it is such a good thing then you are just
being argumentative.
I don't have to explain it. If a survey of human beings indicates
that
they like their country, who the **** are we to criticize their
economic system? Having said that, I know why you do it: You lump all
socialist countries into one big category, so you think Finland
equals
the USSR. Do as you wish.
Did you forget to take your lithium today Doug?

You are the one that is getting all hot and bothered because people
are
not taking your word as gospel regarding the socio-economic systems
you
prefer.

I prefer this one, so I live here. You, on the other hand, think you
have
information that the Finns are unaware of.

Finland is still a socialist state and all of the freedoms of a country
like and only like the US are not available to them.

Which freedoms?


The freedom to determine how most of your income is spent.
John

We don't have that here. What on earth are you talking about?


You may not. I do. The word was 'most'.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:52:57 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Is giving half of my income to the government work 2.65 years of living?
Don't know haven't figured that one out yet.

I think you have it backwards. The US pays 15% GDP for health care,
Canada @ 10%. As I have said before, in the global marketplace, that is a
major disadvantage.

And where to you get "half of my income"? Canada's tax structure isn't
that much different than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


We have about 12 to 15 million people that want a better place to live
than central America and I wonder why they have not just passed through
the US to Canada?


What makes you think they aren't? Canada is more welcoming to the
migrant, with a net migration rate of 5.85 migrants/1000. This is
opposed to the U.S. rate of 3.18/1000. As with most First World
nations,
Canada uses immigration to maintain a growing economy. Canada also has a
considerable illegal migrant issue. The difference is
they make it easier for the illegal to become legal than we do.


How many unskilled persons have been allowed to immigrate into Canada
within the last 25 years? Remember, I said unskilled persons have been
allowed to immigrate into Canada? Allowing wealth people from Asia and
Europe doesn't count.


Go to Toronto and see who's immigrating.

Toronto is indeed a nice place to visit and we may do so again next year on
our trip next year to Baltimore, New York City, Boston and Freeport, Maine.

The last time we were in Toronto was in the early 1990's. ;-)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

And, percentage of your income do you gladly give to your national and
provincial governments every year?


0%

Harry should scold you for not willingly giving of your hard labor to your
fellow man.

Whooosh!

thunder wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:52:57 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Is giving half of my income to the government work 2.65 years of living?
Don't know haven't figured that one out yet.

I think you have it backwards. The US pays 15% GDP for health care,
Canada @ 10%. As I have said before, in the global marketplace, that is a
major disadvantage.

And where to you get "half of my income"? Canada's tax structure isn't
that much different than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada

What is the overall tax percentage of a typical Canadian and an
American? I am not talking about GDP I am talking about whether 15 to 20
percent of my income, or more, is worth living an extra 2.65 years?

They GDP does not figure into this equation.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:01:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news:NfmdnfqXkrLC_k_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast. com...

If you can't explain why it is such a good thing then you are just
being argumentative.
I don't have to explain it. If a survey of human beings indicates
that
they like their country, who the **** are we to criticize their
economic system? Having said that, I know why you do it: You lump
all
socialist countries into one big category, so you think Finland
equals
the USSR. Do as you wish.
Did you forget to take your lithium today Doug?

You are the one that is getting all hot and bothered because people
are
not taking your word as gospel regarding the socio-economic systems
you
prefer.

I prefer this one, so I live here. You, on the other hand, think you
have
information that the Finns are unaware of.

Finland is still a socialist state and all of the freedoms of a
country
like and only like the US are not available to them.

Which freedoms?


The freedom to determine how most of your income is spent.
John

We don't have that here. What on earth are you talking about?


You may not. I do. The word was 'most'.
John

Oops. I read "taxes".