BC Sport Bikes Forum banner
41 - 60 of 60 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
Grrrrrrr.......

Private health care and private health care insurance are two very different things.

Almost all Canadians agree that health care insurance should be provided by the public system. In fact, all the major political parties believe this.

I think portions of our health care system should be privatized, but I also believe the government (i.e. taxpayers) should pay for it.

Don't like your Hydro bill? Too bad you don't have a choice for power providers. People need to understand that economically a monopoly causes a net societal loss. It is not in the benefit of the monolopy to be innovative, efficient or to produce power at a equilbrium ratio of supply and demand.

I say we should privatize power generation as well. It will allow innovative companies to invest and generate power using new technologies. All you greenies should be all over this.


3 of 7 said:
Welcome to the new world kids!
Wait till health care is privatized....

BTW anyone take a look at your Hydro bill lately?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
VanDave said:
Grrrrrrr.......

Private health care and private health care insurance are two very different things.

Almost all Canadians agree that health care insurance should be provided by the public system. In fact, all the major political parties believe this.

I think portions of our health care system should be privatized, but I also believe the government (i.e. taxpayers) should pay for it.

Don't like your Hydro bill? Too bad you don't have a choice for power providers. People need to understand that economically a monopoly causes a net societal loss. It is not in the benefit of the monolopy to be innovative, efficient or to produce power at a equilbrium ratio of supply and demand.

I say we should privatize power generation as well. It will allow innovative companies to invest and generate power using new technologies. All you greenies should be all over this.
Ya, private power providers work great....look at the states, maybe do a google on how much of their power still comes from coal...pretty innovative allrighty....while your at it....do a search on the "broad form deed" and see how private power companies have been able to fuck over entire states for "the good of the nation"
If private health care providers are so good why are the costs for comparable procedures more than what they are in public health care????

I know from your previous posts that your into business and your connected ..Dave and that's ok...more power to you.

It just makes me sick watching things that took our parents and grandparents a lifetime to build, be handed over to private interests that will likely loose them in a takover to somebody we DON'T want running them...

We can control our destinies, or we can go along for the ride and hope it turns out ok...So far, when big business touches our lives it doesn't really seem to end well ..
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
I assume you are refering to the power crisis in California. We actually studied it in our Economics course. The real reason for the failure in California was price caps on electricity combined with forcing generators to sell to the public at a maximum price. This caused companies not to produce at the optimal rate for profit. The maximum profit was achieved by limiting production (what you refer to as fucking over people). The underlying problem was that a free market system was never created.

I didn't say private generators should be free to pollute (e.g. coal). Pollution is a negative externiality that is borne by everybody. For this reason, a tax on pollution is only fair, which may make coal less cost effective than other green energy.

If a private health care provider were to cost more than a government provider, then the government would not give them any business (in the system I propose). The government pays their money to the company that provides the best cost and service. What services are you refering to anyway?

What do you mean that I am connected? I had a chuckle at that.

Who cares who runs something, as long as it is delivered properly. You criticize big business, yet your standard of living is very high due to products that you buy from big business (e.g. car, motorcycle, clothing, food, medicine, etc....).

Take a step back and realize the benefits capitalism has given our society. It works. Would you prefer that a company of 20 people build your car and that North America have 1000's of car companies? Why not let the market decide the optimum size of a company?

Why are we so afraid of change? If we make incremental changes, we won't make drastic decisions. For example, let's try and privatize portions of our health care system and study the effects. If it works, then great. If it doesn't, then let's try something else.

3 of 7 said:
Ya, private power providers work great....look at the states, maybe do a google on how much of their power still comes from coal...pretty innovative allrighty....while your at it....do a search on the "broad form deed" and see how private power companies have been able to fuck over entire states for "the good of the nation"
If private health care providers are so good why are the costs for comparable procedures more than what they are in public health care????

I know from your previous posts that your into business and your connected ..Dave and that's ok...more power to you.

It just makes me sick watching things that took our parents and grandparents a lifetime to build, be handed over to private interests that will likely loose them in a takover to somebody we DON'T want running them...

We can control our destinies, or we can go along for the ride and hope it turns out ok...So far, when big business touches our lives it doesn't really seem to end well ..
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
VanDave said:
I assume you are refering to the power crisis in California. We actually studied it in our Economics course. The real reason for the failure in California was price caps on electricity combined with forcing generators to sell to the public at a maximum price. This caused companies not to produce at the optimal rate for profit. The maximum profit was achieved by limiting production (what you refer to as fucking over people). The underlying problem was that a free market system was never created.
No I wasn't referring to California at all.... The broadform Deed allows mining companies to strip mine private property in Kentucky

VanDave said:
What do you mean that I am connected? I had a chuckle at that.
You mentioned in a thread on the Olympics that your father worked with closely with Jimmy Pattisson on Expo ....If I made a false assumption there I apologize [/QUOTE]


VanDave said:
Take a step back and realize the benefits capitalism has given our society. It works. Would you prefer that a company of 20 people build your car and that North America have 1000's of car companies? Why not let the market decide the optimum size of a company?
The "market" as you say doesn't determine the size of the company at all....The stock market does..... Shareholders are more than willing to let the big boys buy up all the little ones so they don't have to compete with them.

If you bought a North American car lately, it's made from parts that are made by people who will never earn enough to post on here....Probably a bad example

What is the "optimum size of a company Dave? Microsoft? Enron? General Motors? Weyerhaeuser?
VanDave said:
Why are we so afraid of change?
We have the best system in the world (ask anyone who's moved here from anywhere else.... the ones that say it's so crappy, ask them why they moved here.).. It seems really popular lately to take from the middle and lower class to give to the upper class.... ask some single moms and farm workers how many shares they have in Enron..... They ALL have shares in BC Hydro and ICBC and reap the benefits from them being owned by us...

We have good reason to NOT trust big business, and that's who would ultimately wind up holding the reigns.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
I don't know anything about the broadform Deed.

My dad worked with Jimmy and I met him when I was young. I doubt he would remember me. I have had to work hard for everything I have without help from others. No apology needed.

Of course the market determines the size of a company, unless the government or trade barriers come into play. For any given industry (at any point in time), there is a concept called Minimum Efficient Scale (MES). This is the size that a company needs to be in order to produce the lowest cost product. If a company gets too large (far beyond the MES), they can start to lose efficiency. The number of companies that a market can sustain is simply total market share divided by MES. The market will favour companies that operate at an efficient scale. For an automotive company, this is quite large, whereas for a sole proprietorship (say a plumber), it is quite small.

The stock market doesn't determine anything. It only allows buyers and sellers of shares to come together. The shareholders can vote on who runs a company and they determine the direction a company takes.

I think the assumption you are making when you say that the big boys buy up the small boys is that eventually the big boys will screw you over. Wrong. If a business makes huge profits, it is a signal for competition to enter that market since they can make good money as well. With competition, the market is kept in check. With enough time, all industries slide to a point of no economic profit (that doesn't mean there is no profit, just not big profit).

If big business didn't exist, our high standard of living would not exist as well.

You say we have good reason not to trust big business. Why? Examples please. Sure, it's easy to think of exceptions and times when things go wrong (e.g. Enron). Ultimately, the market wins over these negative events.

I'll make a capitalist of you yet.

3 of 7 said:
No I wasn't referring to California at all.... The broadform Deed allows mining companies to strip mine private property in Kentucky


You mentioned in a thread on the Olympics that your father worked with closely with Jimmy Pattisson on Expo ....If I made a false assumption there I apologize


The "market" as you say doesn't determine the size of the company at all....The stock market does..... Shareholders are more than willing to let the big boys buy up all the little ones so they don't have to compete with them.

If you bought a North American car lately, it's made from parts that are made by people who will never earn enough to post on here....Probably a bad example

What is the "optimum size of a company Dave? Microsoft? Enron? General Motors? Weyerhaeuser?

We have the best system in the world (ask anyone who's moved here from anywhere else.... the ones that say it's so crappy, ask them why they moved here.).. It seems really popular lately to take from the middle and lower class to give to the upper class.... ask some single moms and farm workers how many shares they have in Enron..... They ALL have shares in BC Hydro and ICBC and reap the benefits from them being owned by us...

We have good reason to NOT trust big business, and that's who would ultimately wind up holding the reigns.[/QUOTE]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
VanDave said:
I don't know anything about the broadform Deed.

My dad worked with Jimmy and I met him when I was young. I doubt he would remember me. I have had to work hard for everything I have without help from others. No apology needed.

Of course the market determines the size of a company, unless the government or trade barriers come into play. For any given industry (at any point in time), there is a concept called Minimum Efficient Scale (MES). This is the size that a company needs to be in order to produce the lowest cost product. If a company gets too large (far beyond the MES), they can start to lose efficiency. The number of companies that a market can sustain is simply total market share divided by MES. The market will favour companies that operate at an efficient scale. For an automotive company, this is quite large, whereas for a sole proprietorship (say a plumber), it is quite small.

The stock market doesn't determine anything. It only allows buyers and sellers of shares to come together. The shareholders can vote on who runs a company and they determine the direction a company takes.

I think the assumption you are making when you say that the big boys buy up the small boys is that eventually the big boys will screw you over. Wrong. If a business makes huge profits, it is a signal for competition to enter that market since they can make good money as well. With competition, the market is kept in check. With enough time, all industries slide to a point of no economic profit (that doesn't mean there is no profit, just not big profit).

If big business didn't exist, our high standard of living would not exist as well.

You say we have good reason not to trust big business. Why? Examples please. Sure, it's easy to think of exceptions and times when things go wrong (e.g. Enron). Ultimately, the market wins over these negative events.

I'll make a capitalist of you yet.





The "market" as you say doesn't determine the size of the company at all....The stock market does..... Shareholders are more than willing to let the big boys buy up all the little ones so they don't have to compete with them.

If you bought a North American car lately, it's made from parts that are made by people who will never earn enough to post on here....Probably a bad example

What is the "optimum size of a company Dave? Microsoft? Enron? General Motors? Weyerhaeuser?

We have the best system in the world (ask anyone who's moved here from anywhere else.... the ones that say it's so crappy, ask them why they moved here.).. It seems really popular lately to take from the middle and lower class to give to the upper class.... ask some single moms and farm workers how many shares they have in Enron..... They ALL have shares in BC Hydro and ICBC and reap the benefits from them being owned by us...

We have good reason to NOT trust big business, and that's who would ultimately wind up holding the reigns.
The broad form deed was offered in the US in the mid 20's to landowners....for 25c an acre you gave the mining companies the right to mine under your property, this was no biggie untill they started stripmining large areas of land in the 50's...whole communities were plowed under.....anyways, the law was challenged in the 90's under a class action suit and it went all the way to the supreme court, who agreed that the intent of the law was for underground mining and it couldn't be used for strip mining...end of story right?, well, not exactly....It seems the US senate can overturn a court desision if it's for the good of the country as a whole.........You should read up on this, it's pretty interesting stuff

As for being screwed over by a big company, I don't think you have to look far for that Dave, A couple of timber Barons and thier companies were able to lobby strong enough that the US slapped this damned import duty on our lumber......part of the deal is the duties will eventualy be split amongst those US companies that were suppossedly hurt by our "cheaper" lumber.....Well, guess what companies are now logging "OUR" trees on "OUR" land and exporting them to the states while we watch our govt rewrite laws to privatize more public timber lands so they can export more logs...(the quick buck rules in the capitalist world)

Basicaly the industry is in shambles and whole towns are dying as mills shut down for lack of a decent log supply, so a few priveleged induviduals can line their pockets even more......
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
Tariffs are not capitalistic in nature. They are protectionist. I don't agree with the tariffs the americans put up.

I find it interesting that the left hate trade agreements, but when other countries institute trade barriers, the left criticizes it. I find this position to be hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

I agree, the quick buck does rule in capitalism. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar ten years from now. This is a downside of capitalism when long term planning is needed (e.g. environmental policies).



3 of 7 said:
The broad form deed was offered in the US in the mid 20's to landowners....for 25c an acre you gave the mining companies the right to mine under your property, this was no biggie untill they started stripmining large areas of land in the 50's...whole communities were plowed under.....anyways, the law was challenged in the 90's under a class action suit and it went all the way to the supreme court, who agreed that the intent of the law was for underground mining and it couldn't be used for strip mining...end of story right?, well, not exactly....It seems the US senate can overturn a court desision if it's for the good of the country as a whole.........You should read up on this, it's pretty interesting stuff

As for being screwed over by a big company, I don't think you have to look far for that Dave, A couple of timber Barons and thier companies were able to lobby strong enough that the US slapped this damned import duty on our lumber......part of the deal is the duties will eventualy be split amongst those US companies that were suppossedly hurt by our "cheaper" lumber.....Well, guess what companies are now logging "OUR" trees on "OUR" land and exporting them to the states while we watch our govt rewrite laws to privatize more public timber lands so they can export more logs...(the quick buck rules in the capitalist world)

Basicaly the industry is in shambles and whole towns are dying as mills shut down for lack of a decent log supply, so a few priveleged induviduals can line their pockets even more......
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
VanDave said:
Tariffs are not capitalistic in nature. They are protectionist. I don't agree with the tariffs the americans put up.

I find it interesting that the left hate trade agreements, but when other countries institute trade barriers, the left criticizes it. I find this position to be hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

I agree, the quick buck does rule in capitalism. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar ten years from now. This is a downside of capitalism when long term planning is needed (e.g. environmental policies).
Don't get me wrong Dave, I understand the need for business and the benefits of it.... I do believe however that the institutions that we have turned into public corporations, hydro, bc ferries and icbc... were done so because of some very, very ,strong and compelling reasons...

The Socreds knew what they were doing with Hydro, It was expensive but it had to be done quickly... I'm glad they did it...they had vision

The NDP did the right thing with ICBC in the 70's, I'm old enough to remember what private insurance was like before we got ICBC and I have to say...ICBC is way better for young people... Private is better for us old farts, but it's not very fair ( I have kids, and I'd like to see them have insurance when they drive)

The ferries are part of the Trans-Canada Hiway and I think we should keep control of them...Not all of them make money and a private company would likely find a way to shut down the loosers
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
VanDave said:
I find it interesting that the left hate trade agreements, but when other countries institute trade barriers, the left criticizes it. I find this position to be hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.
Nothing hypocritical at all Dave, We have an agreement with the states that covers this.....It's called NAFTA... which BTW, has ruled the duties to be unfounded and contravene the agreement.....the US GOVT has chosen to ignore this agreement as well as the three times the WTO has handed down similar rulings..... Why would they do this?

The lumber companies are strong enough to lobby enough politicians and contribute HUGE sums of money to their campains.... The politicians have no choice ...do what they are told or loose their funding and possibly the next election.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
Jayson said:
off topic, Weyerhaeuser is lame, and no one seems to like working for them
No , it's not off topic at all... they sold stock to buy Mac-Blo,so they didn't have to compete with them and are running it into the ground.... (quick bucks)

Then they did the same thing to Willamette (at the time it was the worlds most profitable forest company)....they immediately fired the board of directors (the Willamette family, who built the company) and are doing the same to it (mill closures ad nauseum)

Now their broke from servicing a TEN BILLION dollar debt they incured buying out the competition.

And they did it with money from the stock markets....it had nothing to do with profits, the companies they ruined both made more money than the whole of Weyerhaeuser did at the time (In fact M&B had 800 million in cash in the bank)... The shareholders were happy, they got more than their stock was worth in the stock trade end of the deal (quick bucks again kids)

They aren't lame.....
Evil is a better word
I don't want them running my power company or the ferries or my insurance company .
 

· I might be dangerous!
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Hey a private company always has the option to NOT SELL OUT. The Willamette's sold out instead of continuing the business. Don't blame Weyerhaueser for buying them up. If Weyerhaueser made a bad financial decision in buying them, they'll suffer for it.

If the Willamette's and MacBlo's think they can make a go of it in today's market, nothing is stopping them from starting up another company.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
Manic said:
Hey a private company always has the option to NOT SELL OUT. The Willamette's sold out instead of continuing the business. Don't blame Weyerhaueser for buying them up. If Weyerhaueser made a bad financial decision in buying them, they'll suffer for it.

If the Willamette's and MacBlo's think they can make a go of it in today's market, nothing is stopping them from starting up another company.
Willamette didn't want to sell, they had no choice ...The shareholders make that decisionWillamette refusal 2001

It took Weyerhaeuser 2 years to get enough of their own people on the board to initiate the stock swap....Willamette repeatedly refused all offers... It was a hostile take over ...the option to not sell out was lost as soon as Weyerhauser got enough voting shares to oust the family and take the company from them....They did it by offering $55 for shares that were worth far less at market value... They will never be able to start over because Weyco owns their timber now...

BTW this deal was engineered in part by the Arthur Anderson Accounting firm that helped to sink Enron, You can read all about the boring financial maneuvering Here

No company that has shares on the market is safe from this kind of take over and thats why we need to wake up NOW!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
I second what you said Manic.

Robert, don't get me wrong, I agree that the government should run some businesses. To me, a private business shouldn't be allowed to run as a monopoly. In these cases, a public monopoly makes more sense. Economists call this a Natural Monolopy. I think health insurance is a good example. I like the idea of a government keeping a monopoly on this. But for delivery, it doesn't matter to me.

Just because, something was a Natural Monolopy before (e.g. energy generation), doesn't mean it should stay that way forever.

I wasn't calling you hypocritical, just people on the left in general (when it comes to the issue of trade). I agree with you that the Americans are wrong on the softwood lumber dispute and that the cause of it is lobbying by a small number of companies. To solve this problem, lobbying should be curtailed, but that will never happen in the states. I like the recent changes in our federal elections that limit donations from corporations and unions. To me lobbying is just legalized bribery.

I am a pragmatic person, so I don't always stick with ideology. I like to look at things from situation to situation.

With regards to ICBC, I haven't thought about it enough to make an informed decision as to whether privatization would be a good idea. On the surface it looks bad given what is happening in the Maritimes and in Ontario.

For the ferries, I like the idea of competition. I don't like how we subsidize unprofitable routes. I don't think it's fair for taxpayer to subsidize somebody who wants a different lifestyle. I would like to live on Grouse Mountain, but nobody will build me a tram to get up there.


Manic said:
Hey a private company always has the option to NOT SELL OUT. The Willamette's sold out instead of continuing the business. Don't blame Weyerhaueser for buying them up. If Weyerhaueser made a bad financial decision in buying them, they'll suffer for it.

If the Willamette's and MacBlo's think they can make a go of it in today's market, nothing is stopping them from starting up another company.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
VanDave said:
For the ferries, I like the idea of competition. I don't like how we subsidize unprofitable routes. I don't think it's fair for taxpayer to subsidize somebody who wants a different lifestyle. I would like to live on Grouse Mountain, but nobody will build me a tram to get up there.
What about the people that live on The Queen Charlotte Islands? They don't deserve to have a ferry?
How about Bella Colla? Germanson Landing? Thier lifestyle isn't different to them....It's probably much the same as it was years ago......except they can buy vegetables in the wintertime now because they have a ferry
These people live there because they work there, go to school there, have families there......They deserve a ferry just as much as Vancouver deserves it's highways and bridges (which by the way the people in these remote places will be paying for in their taxes just like you do, other than the extra couple of cents gas tax)
 

· I might be dangerous!
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
3 of 7 said:
Willamette didn't want to sell, they had no choice ...The shareholders make that decisionWillamette refusal 2001

...the option to not sell out was lost as soon as Weyerhauser got enough voting shares to oust the family and take the company from them....
Then the Willamette's are stupid for not retaining 51% of shares. Either keep them themselves or in the hands of someone who won't turn on them - no matter how good the offer is!
 
41 - 60 of 60 Posts
Top