Feeds:
Posts
Comments

While Social Security in the United States is projected to be in deficit by 2010, Canada’s is projected to be solvent until 2075. The difference? Canada fixed its system in 1997 with a combination of higher premiums and lower benefits.

In November 2009, I first heard about the Ontario “Provincial Benefit.”

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) states: “The Provincial Benefit ensures reliability by providing adequate generating capacity for Ontario. It accounts for differences between the spot market price and the rates paid to regulated and contracted generators. As a result, its value may be positive or negative, depending on the fluctuation of prices in the spot market.

In other words, if Ontario pays more to your electricity supplier than the market price, you pay the difference, otherwise, you receive a credit.

Here are the average annual provincial benefits I calculated from 2005-2010 to date, in cents per kilowatt-hour, from the IESO’s monthly numbers:

2005    -0.6175
2006     0.229167
2007     0.438333
2008     0.530833
2009     2.9075
2010     2.97

It’s no accident that I didn’t hear about it until 2009. That’s the year the “benefit” exploded in cost to around half of the price of the first 1000 kWh of electricity. It’s been Orwellian since its inception, with the potential to be a charge, not a benefit, and has since been a charge every year since 2006.

Someone on the forums at somethingawful.com included this site as one of their best news sources, and categorized it as liberal/progressive, along with the top 1% rated crooksandliars.com.

Perhaps it’s because he read these articles:
“CIGI’09: Towards a Global New Deal (Without the Average Person),” or
“The Voice of the Working Man,” or
“Voters in 14 out of 15 states with a higher than average number of households making $200K+ voted for the presidential candidate who promised to raise their taxes!”

But I wonder if the author knew that 4 of my articles have been posted on Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com, or if he/she read any of these articles:
“The first step in health care reform: recognizing that health care is not a right,” or
“President Bill Clinton in 1996: “The era of big government is [NOT!] over — 13 years later,” or
“Why the Federal Reserve central bank of the United States is illegal”

Still sound liberal/progressive to you? FauxCapitalist.com: beyond definition!

I saw this article by David Olive of the Toronto Star today that highlights Warren Buffett’s inconsistencies between his investment approach  in principle, and in practice.

Some highlights are:

  • He said not to buy banks, because of their ability to  doctor their numbers so much, as we saw with the financial meltdown of 2007-2009 and beyond, yet is a major investor in several banks.
  • He said not to make acquisitions with undervalued company stock, yet did exactly that with his company’s largest ever acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, for $26.4 billion.
  • He called financial derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction,” yet invested in them heavily and subjected shareholders to $4.6 billion in associated losses in 2008.

Here’s a my comment on an article about Apple CEO Steve Jobs saying that Google’s “don’t be evil” slogan was rubbish:

Most slogans aren’t serious. Like Ford’s “Quality is Job One,” despite making the faulty Pinto, and deciding it was cheapter to settle lawsuits than recall it. Or Microsoft’s, “Where Do You Want to Go Today?”, which is a rhetorical question, since they give you whatever they want to, since they have a monopoly.

Since 2009, I have heard two prominent financial analysts repeatedly make the claim on multiple programs, including two major ones with over a million weekly listeners, that gold and silver are all you can rely on. But what about platinum?

How much can you really rely on gold and silver, when gold was confiscated by the U.S. government in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, and silver in 1934. And how can you specifically rely on gold when it’s the commodity most controlled by the international bankers, and a reserve currency for national and international banks?

Unlike gold and silver, a confiscation of platinum is unlikely for several reasons:
1) It’s not a reserve currency for national and international banks like gold is.
2) It isn’t as widely held as gold and silver.
3) Its historical investment and currency use is shorter than gold and silver.
4) Its decreased demand relative to gold and silver in a recession, due to its overwhelming industrial demand, leading to better performance during the subsequent recovery.

When I mention platinum as an investment comparable to gold and silver, I’ve been told that platinum has little to no historical use as a currency. As I wrote previously, platinum has an international currency code along with gold, silver and palladium. Since 1988, one ounce platinum coins from the Royal Canadian Mint have a legal tender value of $50. Since 1997, American Platinum Eagles from the United States Mint have a legal tender value of $100.

From 1967-1978, the first and only regularly minted gold coin available for the masses was the South African Krugerrand. However, due to trade sanctions imposed by many Western countries on South Africa for their policy of apartheid, the Krugerrand’s availability was severely limited from the 1970s until 1994.

It got some serious competition in 1979, when the Royal Canadian Mint began minting Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coins. Just nine years later, at the height of sanctions on the import of Krugerrands, one ounce platinum coins were minted by the Royal Canadian Mint between 1988, and continued to be minted until 2002, and were reintroduced in 2009.

Not only can you rely on platinum as a historically non-confiscatable metal, you can also rely on it historically trading at a substantial premium over gold. Over most of the past decade, platinum has traded at a 50 to 100% premium over gold. At a 38% premium over gold at the end of January 2010, it still has plenty of room to appreciate to its historical trading premium relative to gold.

Recently, platinum outperformed gold in 2009, and for the first month of 2010.

Now ask yourself why you’re being told that gold and silver, and not platinum, are the only things you can rely on, why gold and silver are being pushed so much, and not platinum, and why most of you haven’t these things about platinum before.

On October 22, 2009, Charlie Rose conducted one of the most impressive interviews with any political leader I have ever seen. Former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, who transformed the country from third-world status in 1965, to one of the “Asian tigers” and leading port city in the world, by 1990. His intelligence, focus, communication skills, and, in my estimation, impeccable and accurate insight, show how he accomplished what he did. I believe the U.S., Europe, and people from all around the world would do well to heed his words.

The major world changes currently taking place, and the 300-year recovery of India and China:

LEE KUAN YEW: I see in Iraq and Afghanistan as distractions. That is not going to change the world whatever happens in Iran or Afghanistan, because the major changes that are taking place is the recovery of China, and to a lesser extent of India, places occupied three centuries ago before western colonization blanketed them.

Three centuries ago, they were, between the two of them, 60 percent of the world GDP, just the population and the production they put out.

On when China will catch up to the U.S. economically:

LEE KUAN YEW: Even in three decades it won’t reach its full strength. In three decades its per capita is still about one-third of America.

CHARLIE ROSE: It’s gross domestic product.

LEE KUAN YEW: For it to reach America’s standard of living and standard of technology will take more than 100 years.

On India compared to China:

LEE KUAN YEW: (INAUDIBLE) . if India were as well-organized as China, it will go at a different speed, but it’s going at the speed it is because it is India. It’s not one nation. It’s many nations. It has 320 different languages and 32 official languages.

So no prime minister in Delhi can at any one time speak in a language and be understand throughout the country. You can do that in Beijing.

On Japan’s future demographic and financial challenges:

LEE KUAN YEW: I think the Japanese need an overhaul.

CHARLIE ROSE: In terms of their political system?

LEE KUAN YEW: Yes, and in terms of their acceptance of immigrants. Their birth rate — their fertility rate is just slightly higher than ours. We’re 1.29 and they’re 1.30. They are shrinking.

But Japan does not want immigrants, so they’re stuck. Today they have 3.2 working persons to support one adult. In 2055, they’ll have 1.2 persons to support one adult.

On the Chinese mindset:

LEE KUAN YEW: For the Americans, you have got to cease to think in terms of the Chinese as they are today. The Chinese as they are today are people who have been suffering for a very long time, especially under Mao, and who feel that the world is cruel to them. And therefore they’re very edgy.

They are — if you talk to Chinese leaders now, those over 60, they are with Russian as their second language. In 20, 25 years time, they’re going to meet a generation who are now in the lower ranks who have been to America and Britain and Europe and will be English-speaking and have different models in their minds.

And they will know that they’re not going to be the sole power in the world. Not ever again, because this is a globalized world, and they know that they’re dependent on the world for their growth. The resources that…

The importance of technological development to drive economic and social development:

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you make an argument that a country who leads in technology and science, it will go a long way in terms of their place in the world?

LEE KUAN YEW: Yes, of course. That’s why I think the U.S. will still be a very powerful and considerable inventor and creator of new products.

On the continued essential importance of the U.S. in world affairs:

LEE KUAN YEW: I think the U.S. could be a benign stabilizer of the of the world order.

CHARLIE ROSE: But you also say with the United States, it has to realize most problems need an American participation in order to be solved.

LEE KUAN YEW: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

On the 21st century:

LEE KUAN YEW: Two things. First, that the 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific because that’s where the growth will be. That’s where the bulk of the economic strength of the globe will come from.

If you do not hold your ground in the Pacific you cannot be a world leader. A world leader must hold his ground in the Pacific. That’s number one.

Number two, to hold ground in the Pacific, you must not let your fiscal deficits and dollar come to grief. If it comes to grief in the short term and there’s a run on the dollar for whatever reason, because of deficits are too big and the world — the financial community and the bankers and all the hedge funds and everybody come to a conclusion that you’re not going tackle these deficits and they begin to move their assets out, that’s real trouble.

What surprised him:

LEE KUAN YEW: That the impossible can happen. I never thought the Soviet Union would implode so easily, and I never thought the Chinese would abandon the communist system and move into the free market so readily. It was unthinkable 20 years ago.

Both have happened. The world has changed.

Who China is and where it’s going:

LEE KUAN YEW: No, you don’t have to encourage them. You just have to understand that they are — look, they don’t want to be an honorary member of the west, unlike Russia. They’re quite happy to be Chinese and to remain as such.

So when you tell them you ought to do this or you ought to do that, they say yes, thank you. And in the back of their minds, we have lasted 5,000 years. Have you?

(LAUGHTER)

The Beijing Olympics if you watch it, what was the message?

CHARLIE ROSE: We’re back.

LEE KUAN YEW: No — 5,000 years, and don’t forget, we invented all these things, and we’re going to go ahead in the next 5,000 years. It’s the only country where a language has survived 5,000 years, the only country by the present generation shares the same basic thinking as the past. And they’re very proud of it.

You read Hu Jintao’s speech on the 60th anniversary, translated on the web — what is it? We have 5,000 years of civilization. We’re going to get there.

And it’s a rousing speech. It may take us a long time, we have to work very hard. We will do it. So you don’t have to encourage them.

The imperative social responsibility of a leading world power:

What you have to get them to understand is with it goes responsibility. Hungry Africans, hungry, sick other people. This is a global problem. You can’t just take copper and gold and take it. You have to have a responsibility for the people’s whose copper and gold you’re mining. It goes with the job, and they will have to learn that.

I think they are already beginning to learn that, so they’re giving something back.

I came across the following recent review of this site, on “The Commentator’s” blog at friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com. Here’s an excerpt:

Faux Me! Blog of the Day

Who: Mysterious and minimalist. What: Plain good content.

Perfect.

I want to be his friend. Or hers. Or it.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was on the Charlie Rose show, and gave some candid assessments, most notably, about the current state of the U.S. First, some background:

CHARLIE ROSE: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is here. He`s chairman of the Kingdom Holding Company, the Saudi investment firm with billions invested across the globe. “Forbes” ranks him as one of the world`s 25 wealthiest people. “Time” magazine once dubbed him the “Arabian Warren Buffett.”

His firm has major stakes in banks, real estate, hotels, and media companies. His largest investment is in Citigroup, the embattled bank where he is the largest shareholder.

Then, he made the following candid statements about the U.S.:

CHARLIE ROSE: And what do you think of America and our future?

ALWALEED BIN TALAL: I like to summarize, but if you want I can elaborate. America is down, not out.

CHARLIE ROSE: But that`s not good.

ALWALEED BIN TALAL: I know, but you`re down now.

CHARLIE ROSE: Down in what way?

ALWALEED BIN TALAL: There was a book written about the Islamic world ”What Went Wrong.” I think right now you could write a book about the United States what went wrong politically, economically, financially, you know, the crisis that you`re in right now. You`re a mess. You are in a mess in the United States. I have to be honest with you, because I love the United States. I admire the United States.

In 1996, the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario scrapped rent controls for new tenants.

According to the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, core inflation from 2007 to 2009 was 2.95%.

As an example, one apartment I know of went from $850 a month in rent to $935, after only two years — an increase of 10%. The controlled rent increase over that same period was 3.2%.

Older Posts »