Comments are welcome at X.Efficiency@gmail.com
This weekend is the Liberal Leadership Convention. Out of those eight candidates, who would you pick?
posted by X at 9:47 p.m.
|
0 comments
I think I have to learn how to read PROPERLY, or get a new pair of glasses.
The plan, unveiled along with Minister Flaherty’s Economic and Fiscal Update, features a new national objective to eliminate Canada’s total government net debt in less than a generation and further reduce taxes for all Canadians.Now, the "net debt" is not exactly the "real national debt" (i.e. currently sitting at about $500 billion) that a lot of us preceive. From Finance Canada, and I quote:
net federal debt (dette fédérale nette)So, the government is not exactly planning to eliminate the $500 billion debt by 2021, because the net debt will account for other assets (i.e. money in the Canada Pension Plan, foreign reserves, federal buildings and properties, etc.) to offset the liabilities.
The accumulated total of all past federal deficits and surpluses since Confederation. The net federal debt is the gross federal debt minus the federal government's financial assets such as loans, investments and foreign exchange accounts.
posted by X at 7:10 p.m.
|
0 comments
posted by X at 8:24 p.m.
|
0 comments
Again, via Mankiw, this is a pretty interesting trend.
“Some of usare becoming the men we wanted to marry,” Gloria Steinem proclaimed 25 years ago. She meant, of course, that women in large numbers were seizing the places in higher education and the professions that had formerly been closed to them, becoming the doctors, lawyers and executives that they once hoped only to wed. Over the past generation, the liberal notion of egalitarian marriage — in which wives are in every sense their husbands’ peers — has gone from pie-in-the-sky ideal to unremarkable reality. But this apparently progressive shift has been shadowed by another development: America’s growing gap between rich and poor. Even as husbands and wives have moved closer together on measures of education and income, the divide between well-educated, well-paid couples and their less-privileged counterparts has widened, raising an awkward possibility: are we achieving more egalitarian marriages at the cost of a more egalitarian society?
Once, it was commonplace for doctors to marry nurses and executives to marry secretaries. Now the wedding pages are stocked with matched sets, men and women who share a tax bracket and even an alma mater. People, like other members of the animal kingdom, have always been prone to “assortative mating,” or choosing to have babies with a reassuringly similar partner. But observers like Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico and author of “The Mating Mind,” suggest that the innovations of modern society — from greater geographic mobility to specialized work environments to Internet dating — have made this matching process much more efficient. “Assortative mating is driven by our personal preferences, but also by whom we meet, and these days we have many more opportunities to meet others like ourselves,” he says. (As with most contemporary sociological phenomena, “Seinfeld” was there first: a 1996 episode featured the comedian finding “the female Jerry.”)
In particular, Americans are increasingly pairing off by education level, according to the sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare. In an article published last year in the journal Demography, they reported that the odds of a high-school graduate marrying someone with a college degree declined by 43 percent between 1940 and the late 1970s. In our current decade, the researchers wrote, the percentage of couples who are “educationally homogamous” — that is, share the same level of schooling — reached its highest point in 40 years. Assortative mating by income also seems to be on the rise. In a 2004 study of couples wed in the 1970s through the early 1990s, the researchers Megan Sweeney and Maria Cancian found an increasingly strong association between women’s wages before marriage and the occupational status and future earnings prospects of the men they married.
Why is this happening? For one thing, more couples are meeting in college and other educational settings, where prospective mates come prescreened by admissions committees as discerning as any yenta. Husbands and wives who begin their relationships during their school years are more likely to have comparable education (and, presumably, income) levels. Secondly, men and women have become more alike in what they want from a marriage partner. This convergence is both cultural — co-ed gyms and bars have replaced single-sex sewing circles and Elks clubs — and economic. Just as women have long sought to marry a good breadwinner, men, too, now find earning potential sexy. “There are fewer Cinderella marriages these days,” says Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.” “Men are less interested in rescuing a woman from poverty. They want to find someone who will pull her weight.” For this reason, the “marriage penalty” once paid by highly educated women has all but disappeared: among women born after 1960, a college graduate is more likely to marry than her less-educated counterpart. And finally, there’s what Schwartz calls the growing “social and economic distance” between the well educated and the less so, a gulf even ardent romantics may find difficult to bridge.
This last theory holds that disparities in wealth influence whom we marry, but there’s reason to think that our mating patterns could be producing economic inequality as well as reflecting it. A model constructed by the economists Raquel Fernández and Richard Rogerson, published in 2001 in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, led them to conclude that “increased marital sorting” — high earners marrying high earners and low earners marrying low earners — “will significantly increase income inequality.” A 2003 analysis by Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, found that a rising correlation of husband-and-wife earnings accounted for 13 percent of the considerable growth in economic inequality between 1979 and 1996.
Burtless himself does not think that assortative mating is necessarily becoming more prevalent. In fact, he says he believes that “the tendency of like to marry like has remained roughly unchanged over time. What have changed are the labor-market opportunities and behavior of women.” In this conception, men have always married women of their own social class, but such stratification was obscured by the fact that the female halves of these couples often did not work or pursue advanced degrees. Now that women who are in a position to do so are attending college and graduate school and joining the professions, the economic consequences of Americans’ assortative mating habits are becoming clearer.
If assortative mating does contribute to our growing gap between rich and poor, does that matter? Few people would question any individual’s romantic preferences. And yet as the current clash over gay marriage demonstrates, private choices about whom we marry — or don’t marry, or can’t marry — can have loud public reverberations. Not long ago, the marriages of whites and blacks, and the lifting of laws that once prohibited such unions, revealed a nation beginning to open its mind on matters of race; likewise, rates of marriage across lines of education and income provide an index of social mobility. If there are fewer such marriages, then there are “fewer sources of intimate ties” between groups, Schwartz says, making marriage one more brick in the wall that separates America’s haves and have-nots.
Of course, men and women don’t choose each other on the basis of education and income alone. Putting love aside, as men’s and women’s roles continue to shift, other standards for selecting a partner may come to the fore. Indeed, the sociologist Julie Press recently offered what she called “a gynocentric theory of assortative mating,” moving the focus from what men now desire in a marriage partner to the evolving preferences of women. What would-be wives may be seeking now, she proposed in The Journal of Marriage and Family, is “cute butts and housework” — that is, a man with an appealing physique and a willingness to wash dishes. Could this be a feminist slogan for our time?
posted by X at 8:48 p.m.
|
0 comments
Found this article on the Globe & Mail web-site.
-------------------------------When the Grey Cup was broken Sunday night during the B.C. Lions celebration in Winnipeg, it was just another chapter in the colourful history of the 94-year-old trophy. The following story is from 1998 when the Calgary Stampeders defeated the Hamilton Tiger-Cats 26-24 to win the Grey Cup.
From the archives:
It has been lost, forgotten, stolen and even held for ransom.
Such is the rich and colourful history of the Grey Cup.
The Grey Cup wasn't supposed to honour a football champion. It was originally to be awarded annually to Canada's top senior hockey team, but Sir Montague Allan beat Earl Grey to the punch, issuing the Allan Cup. Grey later donated the trophy to recognize the Canadian rugby football winner.
Wally Buono and the Calgary Stampeders nearly added another wacky chapter to the Grey Cup's colourful history last year. Hours after capturing the CFL championship trophy with a wild 26-24 win over the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, the Stampeders almost left Winnipeg without the hallowed Cup, which is valued at $53,000.
The Stampeders returned to their hotel for a reception after the game. They then headed to the airport for their chartered flight home only to realize the trophy had been left at the hotel.
As panic set in, salvation arrived in the form of the trophy, which someone had placed on a bus headed to the airport.
"There were so many people getting their picture taken with it [at the reception] so I left early to get the buses organized assuming someone else would take care of it," Buono, who had signed for the Cup on the club's behalf, said at the time. "All of a sudden we don't know where it's at.
"Fortunately, when the third bus came, someone was smart enough to have put it on. It was a big relief."
The Cup is insured, but whoever signs for it is responsible for its safe-keeping. If it is lost or irreparably damaged, the signee is on the hook for its replacement value.
But the Stampeders' faux pas last year wasn't the first time the Cup had been forgotten.
In 1964, the B.C. Lions sent someone back to their hotel to retrieve the Cup after arriving at the airport empty-handed. And in 1984, hours after a team celebration, former Bombers general manager Paul Robson sheepishly returned to an empty Winnipeg Arena to find the trophy sitting on a table at centre ice.
Former Toronto kicker Mike Vanderjagt lost the Cup in November 1997. Vanderjagt took it to a bar in his native Oakville, Ont., where it was stolen.
Early the next morning, a college student who reportedly joked she'd give $100 to have the Cup in her apartment found it in her kitchen. Police were called and the trophy was returned to a relieved Vanderjagt.
It was also stolen in 1969 from Ottawa's Lansdowne Park and held for ransom. When the CFL balked, Toronto police found the Cup in a hotel locker.
Other incidents include:
--The University of Toronto won the first Grey Cup championship in 1909, but didn't receive the trophy until the following March. And when they got it, they held on to it for two years, figuring they didn't have to return it until another team beat them for it. That happened in 1914 when the Toronto Argonauts captured the title. Since then, the winning team has made the trophy available to next season's champion.
--In 1947, it was almost destroyed by fire while on display at the Toronto Argonaut Rowing Club. The office was gutted, but a slightly tarnished Cup survived.
--In 1987, the trophy was broken when a celebrating Edmonton Eskimo sat on it. In 1991, tape held the neck of the Grey Cup intact when it returned home with the Toronto Argonauts. And in 1993, it was again broken when Edmonton's Blake Dermott head-butted it.
posted by X at 12:28 a.m.
|
0 comments
Well, the BC Lions are the 2006 Grey Cup Champions!!!
posted by X at 10:07 p.m.
|
0 comments
Thanks to my friend Andrea. These clips are hilarious!!
posted by X at 8:14 p.m.
|
0 comments
Friedman is a great economist, and it is sad to see him go.
Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, died Thursday. He was 94.
Friedman died in San Francisco, said Robert Fanger, a spokesman for the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in Indianapolis. He did not know the cause of death.
In more than a dozen books and in his column in Newsweek magazine, Friedman championed individual freedom in economics and politics.
His theory of monetarism, adopted in part by the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, opposed the traditional Keynesian economics that had dominated U.S. policy since the New Deal. He was a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board.
His theories won him a Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.
© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
posted by X at 7:38 p.m.
|
0 comments
As much as I love my Saskatchewan friends (and most of them are Riders fan), I just can't betray my roots. Sorry guys, my Riders blanket will be in the closet tomorrow, and the Lions will kick the Riders again this year at this important game.
posted by X at 11:05 p.m.
|
0 comments
I am still not too sure if this is a good idea (the company sounds a bit like "high-end pimps" to me), but if I have that much money, I probably won't need this service.
Next Friday evening, several hundred leggy blondes, voluptuous brunettes and auburn-haired bombshells will take the elevators up to the seventh floor of The Carlu, Toronto's art moderne meeting place, to be greeted by a phalanx of beauty, fashion and makeup consultants.
The event is not a run-through for Canada's Next Top Model, but rather a rigorous audition and party to celebrate the launch of an online matchmaking service called Millionaire's Club Canada. Its lofty goal: to pair superrich gents with fabulous-looking women.
About 400 to 800 ladies are expected to attend the soiree, where a handful of judges -- including Global TV news anchor Leslie Roberts, celebrity hairstylist Jie Matar and Michael Wilkings, president of the European record label Ministry of Sound -- will pick a roster of femmes fatales and future wives to join an international clique that now numbers about 15,000.
Many Canadians (we are a fairly conservative lot) may feel sickened by a dating service that is so blatantly mercenary and shallow. In essence, Millionaire's Club is like a big-box retail store full of eye candy for flush men on the prowl.
But owner Mark Healy is fervently unapologetic about the service he'll be providing. "We are simply offering Canada's A-list bachelors a chance to meet women of distinction," says the 44-year-old entrepreneur and former investment banker. "If you're a high-profile person, you can't be seen hanging out in bars. Nor do you have time."
Millionaire's Club was first launched in Los Angeles seven years ago. Founder Patti Stanger says she now has 5,000 paying male members, who can buy one of four packages starting at $10,000 (U.S.) a year. This includes unlimited dating in men's home province or state, plus date and relationship coaching, image consulting and a hypnotherapy session.
For $150,000, there's the VIP option as well. Currently, only one European, who needs a translator when he travels to the United States, has signed up for this level of membership. It provides gents with a personal matchmaker who will "travel with billionaires on the go," as Ms. Stanger puts it.
(The membership has always been open to women too. Some have expressed interest, but none have wanted to pay for the service.)
The whole notion sickens Elizabeth Abbott, a researcher at the University of Toronto and the author of A History of Mistresses. "It's seems to be an extraordinarily shallow criteria: just rich, just pretty, and in the same geographical location," she scoffs. "The whole thing seems very cold and calculating. Like it's more of a financial arrangement than a dating service."
Still, it's an arrangement that seems to work. The club claims that nearly four out of five men develop relationships through their services. And last year, Ms. Stanger says, her agency was responsible for 25 marriages, with countless more couples living together (although they don't condone common-law relationships).
To kick-start the process, the club carefully selects prospective male members. They are asked where they vacation, how many houses they own and what kind of car they drive. And they can pay only by cheque. Ms. Stanger finds the five-figure fee quickly separates the posers from the real deal.
Women candidates (who do not pay to use the service) are also put through fairly rigorous vetting. This involves the submission of a current photograph, soul-searching questions about their favourite fashion designers, restaurants, their attitudes about ethnicity, looks and money -- and whether they have a criminal record, an alcohol or drug addiction or any restraining orders against them.
Given the recent charges against 47-year-old Joseph Garcia of Irvine, Calif. -- who reportedly raped three women he met at rival dating website MillionaireMatch.com -- such screening is key.
"We screen each and every person. And if a client is not right for us, we send them to an affiliate program. Maybe you're Jewish and you want Jewish," says Ms. Stanger, who is a third-generation Jewish matchmaker herself. "I don't do Jewish, so I'll send you to a local Jewish matchmaker in your area."
The application drill certainly didn't faze Ainslie Cyopik. A former dancer with the National Ballet of Canada, she now runs a successful dancewear company out of Vancouver. But the 44-year-old has tried to meet Mr. Right to no avail. When a happily married friend told her about Millionaire's Club Canada, she decided to send in her picture and profile.
"There are many ways of meeting people and I thought I'd try this one," she says. "I think there's nothing wrong with true wealth. Money surely is not everything, but it can be part of a wonderful and fulfilling life."
Lisa Daily, the Florida-based author of Stop Getting Dumped, has no moral issue with Millionaire's Club either. "It all has to do with efficiency, which is the whole reason the online dating thing, in general, is so popular," she says. "Millionaire's Club ensures you're in a very specific pool. And if dating a wealthy man or a beautiful woman is something that is really high on your priority list, then it's for you."
As for Mr. Healy -- who operates out of the Toronto headquarters for Millionaire's Club Canada along with his wife, Cynthia, and one other "consultant" -- he got into the business because he liked the low overheads and the potential upside. "Right now, online dating is a $1-billion U.S. a year industry," he says.
And he's confident that up to 800 women will show up at the door of The Carlu next Friday night to sip Moët Chandon and put their best face (or any other asset) forward. "I see it kind of like a Canadian Idol," Mr. Healy says. "They'll come through, have their photos taken, questionnaires filled out." Then the party will go into the wee hours.
Of course, Ms. Stanger is flying into town to kick up her heels alongside the other ladies next weekend. She's sure this offshoot will attract the same pedigree of women as her L.A. service -- none of whom are gold diggers, she insists.
"If you're a rich man, you want a gorgeous woman, and if you're a gorgeous woman, you want a rich man. That's just the way it is. The women are not allowed to ask anything financial," she says. "It's no different from back in the old days, when families arranged marriages based on financial necessity. You don't have to be a supermodel to get a millionaire. There are millionaires everywhere, and they're all looking for sweet Sally with the perfect little smile. They don't go for va-va-voom."
At least, Ms. Cyopik says, that's what she is counting on. "Mae West once said, 'Money ain't everything, but it's somethin!' So it made me think, maybe it's time to dare to ask for all our hopes and wishes to come true. Why not? And if there are people along the way who want to help make that happen, then all the better."
Gayle MacDonald is a feature writer with The Globe and Mail.
The commandments of millionaire dating
For men:
1. Thou shalt think quality, not quantity. Remember: You're in this to meet the love of your life.
2. Thou shalt leave a maximum of two phone messages for a woman. If she doesn't call you back, she's not interested. Period.
3. Thou shalt never ask a woman out at the last minute -- it's extremely disrespectful.
4. Thou shalt always have a plan for your date. Women prefer men who have direction.
5. Thou shalt ask a woman thoughtful questions. Topics: how many people in her family? where she grew up?
6. Thou shalt avoid drinking too much on your dates. Although it is certainly tempting, it will cloud your judgment.
7. Thou shalt not brag, and under any conditions, discuss Millionaire's Club or any other women you have dated, are dating, or are about to date.
8. Thou shalt be a gentleman. When you decide to have sex with the woman you are dating, it is advisable to wait 90 days -- which we call the "win me phase."
9. Thou shalt be careful and genuine in your offers. Don't bring up the subject of high-end jewellery or clothing designers unless you really mean it.
10. Thou shalt simply contact Millionaire's Club to report any problems. If you don't want to see or hear from a date or prospective date, we'll handle the situation.
For women:
1. Thou shalt return calls promptly and honour thy dating commitments. When a man calls you, he will offer you dinner. You have the right to reduce the date to drinks, lunch or coffee. If a gentleman does not offer you a five-star dinner on the first date, please notify the club immediately.
2. Thou shalt let the man take the lead and shalt avoid bringing personal baggage to the table. Let the man lead the conversation in the beginning and ask the questions.
3. Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, discuss Millionaire's Club or any other romantic relationships.
4. Thou shalt be engaging. Witty banter is important. Be a good listener.
5. Thou shalt not drink too much on the first date. Never allow yourself to become sloppy or drunk.
6. Thou shalt not be a gold digger. Never ask or hint for anything of monetary value. If a gentleman offers to buy you a designer watch or handbag or anything else of worth, you may accept -- but DO NOT bring up the subject. It is against club policy to even hint for extravagant gifts, your rent being paid, allowance, a new car, etc.
7. Thou shalt act like a lady. This means being polite and following common laws of etiquette such as saying please, thank you and excuse me. Do not cuss.
8. Thou shalt (if interested) express some interest. Once you have decided you like a specific male, it is important to show your appreciation and reciprocate. But do not offer to outright pay for something: Once a woman touches money/credit cards in front of a male, she becomes "masculine energy" -- which is undesirable.
9. Thou shalt not become intimate on the first date. When it comes to sex, it is important that you realize that "in is in": In other words, any kind of intercourse -- oral, vaginal or otherwise -- is considered sex, and should not be indulged in until you are both monogamous. It is against club rules for a man and woman to live together unless they are married, or engaged with a ring and a date is set. If a man doesn't propose to you by the end of one year, you must end the relationship and move on, unless he agrees to therapy.
10. Thou shalt inform Millionaire's Club of any problems.
-- Abridged from Millionaire Club's book of rules
© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
posted by X at 5:08 p.m.
|
0 comments
It is official. Believe it or not, Wal-Mart is now being attacked by both the Left and the Right.
November 9, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
Wal-Mart Contributes 5% Of Online Sales To Homosexual Group
Sign the pledge not to shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club on the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving. Time is short. Act today!
Dear W,
Help recruit 1,000,000 families who will agree not to shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club (owned by Wal-Mart) on the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving. Here's why:
In a show of support to help homosexuals legalize same-sex marriage, Wal-Mart has agreed to automatically donate 5% of online sales directly to the Washington DC Community Center for Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender People. The cash donation will come from online purchases made at Wal-Mart through the homosexual group's Web site. This move follows Wal-Mart's joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and agreeing to give generous financial help to that organization also.
Every purchase made online for books, music, videos, clothing and accessories, children's clothing and toys, and electronics at the site will automatically send 5% of the sales to the CCBLBT People. The agreement is an indication that Wal-Mart is totally committed to supporting the homosexual movement.
Wal-Mart also gave a generous cash donation to the Northwest Arkansas Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center, helping to provide a place where homosexuals can come together to "socialize."
Many observers feel it would have been a wise business decision for Wal-Mart to remain neutral in the cultural battle over homosexual marriage. But this was an ideological decision by Wal-Mart - not a business decision.
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
You are receiving this mailing because you participated in an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert. You are subscribed to AFA ActionAlert as wylo1219@yahoo.ca.
posted by X at 10:45 p.m.
|
0 comments
For all those nay-sayers about NAFTA and free trade, here you go!!
Canada's economy has flourished under the North American free-trade agreement, and with the right policy moves, could repeat that experience as it deals with the trade shock from Asia, a new study suggests.
In a paper to be released this week, Royal Bank of Canada examines a wide range of data showing Canada's economic performance before and after free trade with the rest of North America.
"Canadians have prospered," conclude economists Craig Wright and Derek Holt.
"Few countries have provided as shining an example of how to adapt and prosper in a post-freer trade world than Canada."
Before Canada signed on to the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement in 1988 and the North American free-trade agreement in 1993, critics charged that Canadian production would move south, exports would evaporate, jobs would dry up, foreign investment in Canada would deteriorate, the tax base would shrink, and the restructuring would force the country into a painful and long-term funk.
The adjustment was not without pain, but the end result, after 18 years of free trade, has made the criticisms look frivolous, the paper argues. The paper, provided to The Globe and Mail, is to be presented at the Canadian American Business Council's annual forum on competitiveness this week.
Exports have soared and foreign direct investment in Canada has risen substantially. Government coffers are full to overflowing, and Canada's fiscal situation is the envy of many a rich country. And while many of Canada's top companies have been bought by foreigners, often American, Canadian companies have been just as busy buying up U.S. firms, the study says.
Still, public opinion is not completely onside, and many trade experts and politicians alike have raised questions about the value of NAFTA in light of Canada's failure to prevail over the United States in the costly softwood lumber dispute.
As well, wage growth has been disappointing, and Canada's record on productivity has been lacklustre since the agreements came into effect. But those problems predate North American free trade, and were well entrenched in Canada in the 1980s, Mr. Holt argues.
Over all, the initial adjustment to the FTA and NAFTA was painful at first, but successful after a few years of restructuring, he says. And Canada can hope for a repeat of that experience as it deals with intense trade competition from China and India, as long as it takes some key steps to ensure a strong footing.
With adjustment to NAFTA under Canada's belt, the economy is in the midst of yet another major transition, this time dealing with the rise of Asia — now a major source of goods and services of every kind.
The resulting global restructuring has taken a steep toll in Canada. As of June, 2006, Canada's exports of goods and services compared with a year earlier had grown by only 2.4 per cent — well below the industrialized countries' average of 9.6 per cent, and paling in comparison with its NAFTA trading partners. Mexico's exports of goods and services grew by 13.2 per cent over the year, and U.S. exports jumped 8.2 per cent.
Canada's manufacturing sector, which makes up about 17 per cent of the country's economy, has taken a beating in the last two years. Global competition, high energy prices and the rising Canadian dollar have worked together to force a major restructuring in the sector. Growth is anemic, and tens of thousands of factory workers have lost their jobs.
"Notwithstanding the accomplishments of the Canadian economy, policy makers cannot afford to be complacent in feeling that they have handed businesses all they need in order to drive a freer-trade prosperity agenda," the bank economists say.
They suggest:
--Reducing taxes on businesses and capital so that they don't act as a disincentive to investment.
--Improving government-to-government programs to make cross-border trade more efficient.
--Upgrading infrastructure so the flow of goods and services is not hampered.
--Becoming more active in furthering trade liberalization, both internally and globally through the World Trade Organization.
--Better integration of immigrants to alleviate skilled labour shortages.
--Working toward a common understanding on protection of intellectual property rights, both with the United States and globally.
posted by X at 10:52 p.m.
|
0 comments
Thanks to Mankiw. This is as good as this (of course, you have to use the sound board to create prank calls.)
posted by X at 10:55 p.m.
|
2 comments
