The negative reaction to the big brother controllers of the wireless business is mounting. Look at this aggressive and political approach by CREDO mobile in the States. They are using Karl Rove as a hook to move customers away from providers like AT&T and Verison. Go to CREDO to see what I mean.
Even the business types at the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors are taking a poke at Bell Canada Enterprises on their website. They point out the privatization of BCE (2/3 of it now owned by a private US equity investor) so far has cut $1B in dividends to investors, axed 2500 jobs, wiped away another $1B in bondholder value, and paying $800m a year less in taxes. Ouch!
I love the marketplace - when it knows its place. The marketplace especially cool when consumers take back control by word and deed. The Internet is such a terrific way to take back control as shown by the examples above. No wonder China and big ISPs what to control what consumers and citizens see and do on the Internet. Don't let it happen - get serious about Net Neutrality.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Harper's Base Turns On Him - and For Good Reason
CAITI-On Line is a Blog I follow that speaks for those thousands of folks who invested in Income Trusts and are disgruntled to put it mildly.
They likely voted for Harper last time. But it will not happen this time since Harper reneged on a promise not to reverse the Income Trust policy in the last election.
These people make up much of the hard core fiscal conservative base for the Harper Cons. They are not happy and have turned into engaged citizens and activist voters...the kind of people I admire.
Look at their take on why Harper wants an early election. It is all about manipulative politics, something fixed elections dates were supposed to cure. An election now is all about HIM and his passion for PERSONAL POWER. That come across clearly when you look at this list.
They likely voted for Harper last time. But it will not happen this time since Harper reneged on a promise not to reverse the Income Trust policy in the last election.
These people make up much of the hard core fiscal conservative base for the Harper Cons. They are not happy and have turned into engaged citizens and activist voters...the kind of people I admire.
Look at their take on why Harper wants an early election. It is all about manipulative politics, something fixed elections dates were supposed to cure. An election now is all about HIM and his passion for PERSONAL POWER. That come across clearly when you look at this list.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Harper Should Resign and Dion and Layton Should Form a Coalition Government Until October 2009.
Before Dion meets with Harper to discuss cooperation for the pending parliamentary session he should meet with Layton first. A couple of reasons come to mind. First they ought to see if they can work out a collaboration to see if they can run a minority government until the fixed election date of October 2009.
If Harper wants to resign OK that is his business. But that need not automatically trigger a $400m useless election. The Governor General can accept the Harper government resignation because, as Prime Minister, he apparently feels Parliament is dysfunctional.
That is not the case. He has to admit it, given how he brags that he has delivered on his mandate in the past 2+ years that he has been in power. Harper is such an unabashed obfuscater with his self serving mewing about a dysfunctional Parliament. Consider that he has his henchmen draft a 200 page guide for his Caucus instructing them how use cheap political tricks and tactics just to disrupt Parliamentary Committee proceedings. And he now says Parliament is dysfunctional. Well I wonder who is to blame for that.
I like the idea of Harper resigning now. But I don’t think the only option coming out of that decision is an election. It is entirely within the Governor General’s purview and powers, given the minority situation, to consider inviting a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats to try and govern. I think that is a viable alternative for the short term until October 2009.
I think before any behind-closed-doors horse trading goes on with Harper, Dion and Layton ought to look at cutting coalition deal as an alternative to an election that dishonors the new fixed date election law they all just passed.
Such a Dion/Layton chat would also serve another purpose. These two parties ought to see if they can agree on what conditions they would require of Harper for continuing support. They ought to demand that they meet with the PM together so they don’t get inveigled and misled by the PMO in the post meeting patter, positioning and pandering.
If they can’t meet the PM together, they better take a witness and record the conversation too. Of course they should be able to trust the PM, after all he holds the highest and most honourable office in the land. But this is politics and it is always best to be able to verify what was actually said – just so everyone stays honourable.
I think a few reasonable conditions to present to Harper would be an immediate proclamation of his Accountability Act so it becomes binding on his government now. He honours it now more in the breach and that is unacceptable. Why not demand an immediate alternate strategy to provide for the 250,000 daycare spaces the private sector was supposed to provide but has been swept under the carpet. Struggling young families are not making it just with his taxable $100 per month per infant. He promised these day care spaces but has conveniently forgotten young families.
The Mulroney/Schreiber Inquiry has to be started immediately as well and not be a kangaroo court of his design. It needs to be a full fledged public inquiry to help restore public confidence it he Office of the Prime Minister – at a number of levels. The delays are deplorable and are undermining democracy. And while you at it, insist that Harper drops his U.S. clone copyright proposal called Bill C-61 and start over.
The best outcome I see would be for Harper to go the GG and resign and then she appoints a coalition Liberal/NDP government that would serve until the October 2009 - legal election date. They could go into a fall session and use it to undo some of the mess Harper has made like reverse the political interference in the judicial selection process, restore the arts and culture funding cuts and preserve the safe injection sight in Vancouver. There a many more such Harper ideological screw ups then need reversing right now and no need to wait for an election to fix them.
It is time for Harper to go – and he says is thinking of resigning. But an immediate election is unnecessary to achieve that end. The GG can accept his resignation and then look to other parties to form a government. When the next election happens, in October 2009 according to law, and if we end up with another minority, then Dion and Layton will have some experience in a coalition. Perhaps they can continue to replace the Cons then too, if necessary.
If Harper wants to resign OK that is his business. But that need not automatically trigger a $400m useless election. The Governor General can accept the Harper government resignation because, as Prime Minister, he apparently feels Parliament is dysfunctional.
That is not the case. He has to admit it, given how he brags that he has delivered on his mandate in the past 2+ years that he has been in power. Harper is such an unabashed obfuscater with his self serving mewing about a dysfunctional Parliament. Consider that he has his henchmen draft a 200 page guide for his Caucus instructing them how use cheap political tricks and tactics just to disrupt Parliamentary Committee proceedings. And he now says Parliament is dysfunctional. Well I wonder who is to blame for that.
I like the idea of Harper resigning now. But I don’t think the only option coming out of that decision is an election. It is entirely within the Governor General’s purview and powers, given the minority situation, to consider inviting a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats to try and govern. I think that is a viable alternative for the short term until October 2009.
I think before any behind-closed-doors horse trading goes on with Harper, Dion and Layton ought to look at cutting coalition deal as an alternative to an election that dishonors the new fixed date election law they all just passed.
Such a Dion/Layton chat would also serve another purpose. These two parties ought to see if they can agree on what conditions they would require of Harper for continuing support. They ought to demand that they meet with the PM together so they don’t get inveigled and misled by the PMO in the post meeting patter, positioning and pandering.
If they can’t meet the PM together, they better take a witness and record the conversation too. Of course they should be able to trust the PM, after all he holds the highest and most honourable office in the land. But this is politics and it is always best to be able to verify what was actually said – just so everyone stays honourable.
I think a few reasonable conditions to present to Harper would be an immediate proclamation of his Accountability Act so it becomes binding on his government now. He honours it now more in the breach and that is unacceptable. Why not demand an immediate alternate strategy to provide for the 250,000 daycare spaces the private sector was supposed to provide but has been swept under the carpet. Struggling young families are not making it just with his taxable $100 per month per infant. He promised these day care spaces but has conveniently forgotten young families.
The Mulroney/Schreiber Inquiry has to be started immediately as well and not be a kangaroo court of his design. It needs to be a full fledged public inquiry to help restore public confidence it he Office of the Prime Minister – at a number of levels. The delays are deplorable and are undermining democracy. And while you at it, insist that Harper drops his U.S. clone copyright proposal called Bill C-61 and start over.
The best outcome I see would be for Harper to go the GG and resign and then she appoints a coalition Liberal/NDP government that would serve until the October 2009 - legal election date. They could go into a fall session and use it to undo some of the mess Harper has made like reverse the political interference in the judicial selection process, restore the arts and culture funding cuts and preserve the safe injection sight in Vancouver. There a many more such Harper ideological screw ups then need reversing right now and no need to wait for an election to fix them.
It is time for Harper to go – and he says is thinking of resigning. But an immediate election is unnecessary to achieve that end. The GG can accept his resignation and then look to other parties to form a government. When the next election happens, in October 2009 according to law, and if we end up with another minority, then Dion and Layton will have some experience in a coalition. Perhaps they can continue to replace the Cons then too, if necessary.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Buffett Not Investing In Oils Sand - Not Yet Anyway!
Here is a transcript of what Warren Buffet said this morning on CNBC about his visit to the oil sand last Monday. I’ll still bet I was right, that Gates and Buffett did play some Bridge on this trip.
QUICK: Welcome back, everybody, to this special edition of SQUAWK BOX. We'vebeen talking all morning long with Warren Buffett of Omaha, Nebraska, sincewe're live in Omaha today.And, Warren, we've covered a range of topics, but there has been an awful lotof people who are interested in the trip you made this week. On Monday youheaded up with Bill Gates and you got to take a look at the tar sands. What happened?
Mr. BUFFETT: Well, what happened was Bill and I talked some months ago aboutjust how interesting the whole thing was from a geology standpoint and fromthe standpoint that that represents one of the few big upcoming sources ofmore oil production in the world, or very few. And we both thought we'dunderstand a little bit better if we went up and looked at it than simply byreading about it. So on Monday six of us, Bill and a few other fellows--theKiewit company arranged it. They're--they've done a lot of construction upthere. And we went up to northern Alberta and we saw a very big mining-typeproject. There are two ways that they recover oil from the tar sands. Andthen we went to this in situ project also, and we had some perfect peopleexplain a lot about how it worked both from a economic standpoint and from a physical standpoint.
QUICK: Uh-huh. And was this something that you came up with, that Bill cameup with, your friend, Walter Scott, from the Kiewit company? Who came up withthe idea?
Mr. BUFFETT: Well, Walter Scott arranged it for us.
QUICK: Right.
Mr. BUFFETT: Walter's a whole lot smarter than I am about what goes on inmining and all of--anything to do with the real world. I'm good with numbers.And so he arranged the trip for us. But it was something that Bill and Icooked up by--a couple of months ago when we were talking about the tar sands.We said why don't we go up and take a look? And so we found a date when sixof us could do it. Walter arranged the trip. We had some wonderful people upthere in Alberta at both projects that explained how the things really work,the costs involved. And they just couldn't have been more helpful.
QUICK: OK. So having seen that, there's already been a lot of people who'vebeen speculating that you must be interested in investing in this arena. Areyou?
Mr. BUFFETT: No, no. I go to the movies, but I don't buy movie companies.I mean, I--I'm always interested in understanding the math of things andunderstanding as much as I can about all aspects of business. And what Ilearn today may be useful to me two years from now. I mean, if I understandthe tar stands today and oil prices change or whatever may happen, I'm--I'vegot that filed away and I can--I can use it at some later date. And that'sreally the wonderful thing about investments is your knowledge is cumulative.So if you learn about coal or you learn about retailing or something, 40 yearsyou--it's useful at some point.
QUICK: Wait, does that make you think that an investment in a tar sands company, somebody who's making--taking advantage of that would not be worth it at $120 a barrel for oil?
Mr. BUFFETT: Well, the biggest variable in whether it's a good investment isthe price of oil. Now, it's important to know how much they can get out andwhat their costs are going to be and what the capital costs--all of that isimportant and that fits into it. But you still have to figure out what yourown feeling is about what oil's going to be selling for three years from nowor five years from now. Because you could be the world's greatest miningengineer, but if you were wrong about the price of oil in a big way it wouldnegate all that knowledge. So it--I can tell you that if 100--if you had $120oil from now till, you know, 50 years from now, that the tar sands wouldbe--would work out very well. But I don't know the answer to that. And I mayform an opinion at some point, and I've got it--I'm prepared to form thatopinion now.
QUICK: But you are not actively looking right now to invest in any of thesecompanies?Mr.
BUFFETT: Do I have a buy order this morning? The answer's no.
If you are interested in the video of the interview - here is the link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=828981936&play=1
QUICK: Welcome back, everybody, to this special edition of SQUAWK BOX. We'vebeen talking all morning long with Warren Buffett of Omaha, Nebraska, sincewe're live in Omaha today.And, Warren, we've covered a range of topics, but there has been an awful lotof people who are interested in the trip you made this week. On Monday youheaded up with Bill Gates and you got to take a look at the tar sands. What happened?
Mr. BUFFETT: Well, what happened was Bill and I talked some months ago aboutjust how interesting the whole thing was from a geology standpoint and fromthe standpoint that that represents one of the few big upcoming sources ofmore oil production in the world, or very few. And we both thought we'dunderstand a little bit better if we went up and looked at it than simply byreading about it. So on Monday six of us, Bill and a few other fellows--theKiewit company arranged it. They're--they've done a lot of construction upthere. And we went up to northern Alberta and we saw a very big mining-typeproject. There are two ways that they recover oil from the tar sands. Andthen we went to this in situ project also, and we had some perfect peopleexplain a lot about how it worked both from a economic standpoint and from a physical standpoint.
QUICK: Uh-huh. And was this something that you came up with, that Bill cameup with, your friend, Walter Scott, from the Kiewit company? Who came up withthe idea?
Mr. BUFFETT: Well, Walter Scott arranged it for us.
QUICK: Right.
Mr. BUFFETT: Walter's a whole lot smarter than I am about what goes on inmining and all of--anything to do with the real world. I'm good with numbers.And so he arranged the trip for us. But it was something that Bill and Icooked up by--a couple of months ago when we were talking about the tar sands.We said why don't we go up and take a look? And so we found a date when sixof us could do it. Walter arranged the trip. We had some wonderful people upthere in Alberta at both projects that explained how the things really work,the costs involved. And they just couldn't have been more helpful.
QUICK: OK. So having seen that, there's already been a lot of people who'vebeen speculating that you must be interested in investing in this arena. Areyou?
Mr. BUFFETT: No, no. I go to the movies, but I don't buy movie companies.I mean, I--I'm always interested in understanding the math of things andunderstanding as much as I can about all aspects of business. And what Ilearn today may be useful to me two years from now. I mean, if I understandthe tar stands today and oil prices change or whatever may happen, I'm--I'vegot that filed away and I can--I can use it at some later date. And that'sreally the wonderful thing about investments is your knowledge is cumulative.So if you learn about coal or you learn about retailing or something, 40 yearsyou--it's useful at some point.
QUICK: Wait, does that make you think that an investment in a tar sands company, somebody who's making--taking advantage of that would not be worth it at $120 a barrel for oil?
Mr. BUFFETT: Well, the biggest variable in whether it's a good investment isthe price of oil. Now, it's important to know how much they can get out andwhat their costs are going to be and what the capital costs--all of that isimportant and that fits into it. But you still have to figure out what yourown feeling is about what oil's going to be selling for three years from nowor five years from now. Because you could be the world's greatest miningengineer, but if you were wrong about the price of oil in a big way it wouldnegate all that knowledge. So it--I can tell you that if 100--if you had $120oil from now till, you know, 50 years from now, that the tar sands wouldbe--would work out very well. But I don't know the answer to that. And I mayform an opinion at some point, and I've got it--I'm prepared to form thatopinion now.
QUICK: But you are not actively looking right now to invest in any of thesecompanies?Mr.
BUFFETT: Do I have a buy order this morning? The answer's no.
If you are interested in the video of the interview - here is the link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=828981936&play=1
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Grandinite Gives Some Sound Oil Sands Investment Advice to Buffett
The Grandinite knows what he is talking about in terms of the variables around oil sand investment. This blog post on the 5 criteria to consider for oil sands investment should be worth a consulting fee from Warren Buffett.
Sound analysis with maps and charts...more than you get from most "advisors" these days.
Sound analysis with maps and charts...more than you get from most "advisors" these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)