CONSUMER AFFAIRS:

BOTTLED WATER "BUGS" ME:

The world is full of scams. One only has to look at American religious TV to get examples that are so blatant that it's a wonder anybody falls for them. But most people aren't theologians. Neither are they nutritionists. The oft-quoted figure that 95% of "diets" are either ineffective or harmful is actually a "success" rate that equals the best legitimate medical diagnoses. People keep buying nonetheless. Hope springs eternal and bottomless money pits remain bottomless. One of the multitude of scams is that of bottled water, and this scam has the cachet of ersatz elitism attached to it. There are literally restaurants that offer a "selection of waters" like others offer a wine selection. Somehow the various waters are supposed to "taste different" or have some magical health benefit. Homeopathy in drag ??

Most of the bottled water on the market is actually simply tap water from somewhere else, but the very process of bottling it, storing it and shipping it elsewhere adds risks other than that to your pocket book. Here's an interesting article from the Montreal Gazette about just one of the problems, the bacteriological content of bottled waters. Now, applying that highly complex, ultra-high tech sensitive instrument known as common sense, this stands to reason. What can water shipped across a continent and stored on shelves be other than stale water, and the staler the water the more bugs it will have. It's nice, however, to see common sense verified by scientific studies. Here's the article.

BWBWBWBWBWBWBW
Bottled water worse than tap: lab
Very high bacteria count; Some brands had levels 400 times higher
By ALLISON CROSS, Canwest News Service May 26, 2010

Canadian researchers say they've discovered some bottled water in Canada contains more bacteria than what comes out of the tap - although they won't reveal which brands are the culprits.

Researchers from C-crest Laboratories in Montreal bought and tested several popular brands of bottled water, and found many of them had heterotrophic bacteria counts that were "surprisingly high."

Heterotrophic bacteria require an organic carbon source in order to grow.

More than 70 per cent of popular brands they tested did not meet the standards set out by the United States Pharmacopeia, a non-governmental agency that sets safety standards for medications and health-care products.

No more than 500 colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria per millimetre should be present in drinking water, according to the USP.

"Heterotrophic bacteria counts in some of the bottles were found to be in revolting figures of (100) times more than the permitted limit," said Sonish Azam, a researcher on the study, in a news release. Some brands had as much as 70,000 cfu per millilitre - or 400 times higher than tap water - Azam said.

The average number of colony-forming units in tap water samples they tested in order to compare results was 170 per millimetre, she said.

"Despite having the cleanest tap water, a large number of urban Canadians are switching over to bottled water for their daily hydration requirements," Azam said. "The consumer assumes that since bottled water carries a price tag, it is purer and safer than most tap water."

This kind of bacteria doesn't normally cause any disease in healthy people, but could make pregnant women, infants and the elderly sick, she said.

Although researchers didn't actually find any pathogens - or germs - in the bottled water, they said the high bacteria counts mean Canadian regulations should be stricter, just in case.

According to Azam, Health Canada hasn't set an allowable limit for heterotrophic bacteria in bottled water, and neither has the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Their intention is to change Canadian regulations, said researcher Ali Khamessan, and not point the finger at specific companies.

Health Canada points out that bottled water is already regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. "Under these regulations, bottled water is required to be free of disease-causing organisms. Like most foods, bottled water may contain naturally occurring bacteria which typically have little or no health significance," it said in a statement.

It contends that a recent World Health Organization study concluded "heterotrophic bacteria counts in drinking water are not a health concern to the general public."

Researchers presented their results yesterday at the general meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in San Diego.


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Bottled+water+worse+t%20han/3071292/story.html#ixzz0pYg5Egs7

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS/LOCAL LABOUR:

IWW RELIEF FOR HAITI:

The situation in Haiti is grim, and the immediate impulse is to send money for relief through whatever channels are available. Still, there are channels that are more reliable than others. Some of this judgement is easy. If a relief organization has a religious bent to it it is suspect from that fact, and the closer it approaches to American evangelism the more likely it is to be a scam. American evangelism is one of the few movements in human history that has raised dishonesty to the point of a defining characteristic.

At6 the same time, while I was immediately alerted to the unpleasant religious nature of 'World Vision' and I both searched down their previous scandalous history and decided not to donate to them I was unaware of the recent scandals of the Red Cross. to my mind their most recent scandal was in the early 1980s with the tainted blood scandal here in Canada. I guess I don't pay enough attention to events outside of my own country because there have been many other incidents since then.

The following post gives you a way to contribute to Haiti relief directly to ordinary Haitian working people without having to go through government controlled quangos. There is also an alternative pathway to contribute, via the IWW, at http://pledgie.com/campaigns/7950 . The following appeal is from our local IWW group here in Winnipeg. While I think that at least some of the aid organizations now working in Haiti are legit, and even those who are not do at least some good work I would urge my readers to contribute via the IWW recommended sites to assure that their contributions won't be sucked away by an aid bureaucracy. Here's the appeal.

IPIPIPIPIPIPIPIP

IWW Fundraising for Haiti Earthquake Relief :

On behalf of union workers in Haiti, the Industrial Workers of the World is raising funds for relief in the wake of the tragic earthquake that struck January 12th, 2010.

On the decision of the International Solidarity Committee of the IWW, all funds raised through these donations will be distributed to Batay Ouvriye and the CTH (Confederation of Haitian Workers), workers organizations in Haiti that the IWW has had contact with.

Since the IWW is a 501c5 Labor Organization, these donations will not be tax deductible.

ISC Haiti support is for long-term labor assistance and Development. For short-term disaster relief, the ISC suggest a donation to Partners in Health (http://www.standwithhaiti.org/haiti)

CANADIAN LABOUR:
NORTEL MANAGEMENT SNEAKS AWAY WITH BONUSES:
The arrogance and dishonesty is almost unbelievable. Bonuses paid for driving a company into bankruptcy. Unless, of course, you believe, like Molly does, that managers are a parasitic class who contribute nothing to the production of goods and services and who have replaced the nominal owners of most companies (the shareholders represented by diversified stock in RRSPs and pension funds) as the real "ruling class". If you believe as Molly does then looting a bankrupt corporation is pretty well much par for the course, and thus I am not surprised by the following. Merely disgusted. First, from the Toronto Star is the mainsteam media report on what has happened.
↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔
Ex-Nortel staff slam executive bonuses
Payment in leaked file to keep bosses on board:
Iain Marlow Business Reporter
Nortel Networks Corp. pensioners reacted with disgust on Friday to reports of new lavish bonuses for the company's top executives.





It was yet another blow to Nortel's distressed pensioners, retirees and long-term disabled former employees, who have dealt with financial uncertainty since the former Canadian tech darling declared bankruptcy in January.





"It seems so aberrant, in terms of the executive of the company awarding themselves really, really rich pay raises for doing the job of taking the company apart," said Tony Marsh, who retired from Nortel in 2000 after 30 years.





"Those of us who built the company up, into arguably the world's No. 1 telecom company, could never have dreamed of such riches," Marsh added.





An internal Nortel file "outlines a new compensation scheme for 72 Nortel executives that will see them get a total of $7.5 million U.S. on top of their current salaries in 2009," according to CBC News.





The company has argued that bonuses are necessary to keep executives aboard what is essentially a sinking ship following Nortel's filing for bankruptcy protection and the subsequent selling off of the company's assets. ( Molly would suggest the least educated, experienced and effective accountants in the whole country of Canada as better people "on board" than the past Nortel executives. Wanna argue ? )





Nortel would not comment on details of the plan. It issued a statement saying: "As Nortel works through the highly complex tasks of this restructuring, it is critical to have the right specialist resources in place ... Any steps taken around these individuals has been within the context of a previously approved compensation plan, taken in consultation with the creditor committees, external legal counsel and the Canadian Monitor."





Earlier, former CEO Mike Zafirovski claimed $12.3 million (U.S.) for back pay and bonuses. In March, some 100 executives were awarded $45 million in retention bonuses.





The company's divisions are being auctioned off in a process dragged out by bankruptcy court approvals. Retirees are worried that when Nortel's various global divisions are entirely sold off, they will be stuck with even less than they are now, which is not much, Marsh said.
↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔
Here's what the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) who have the misfortune of representing the Nortel workers and the pensioners/disabled workers have to say about the subject.

↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔
CAW Condemns Corporate Bonuses at Nortel, while Retirees and Former Workers Left for Broke:
November 27, 2009, 10:55 AM EST
CAW President Ken Lewenza is denouncing the news of more corporate bonuses and salary increases at Nortel Networks Corp, while workers are still fighting to get their due severance, termination pay and pensions.





"This is the worst kind of abuse of corporate power - laying off workers and leaving them with nothing while the executives who drove the company into the ground fill their pockets," said CAW President Ken Lewenza. "This is deplorable and must be stopped."





Lewenza criticized yesterday's Ontario court ruling that Nortel retirees and former employees will not receive the severance or termination pay as set out in their separation packages.





"This is another example of why we need urgent changes to the bankruptcy laws in this country," said Lewenza. "Companies like Nortel can go into bankruptcy protection and eliminate their financial responsibilities towards former workers. In the case of Nortel, it is even more offensive since they are still paying out huge corporate bonuses, while completely ripping off retired or laid-off workers."





"It is exactly this kind of manipulation of the system that plunged the world economy into crisis last fall - it's truly repugnant that we've learned nothing from this experience."





Lewenza said that the union will continue to fight on behalf of the current and former Nortel workers. The union will be ramping up pressure on government to bring about necessary changes to the bankruptcy legislation, which currently sees workers bumped to the end of the line when companies go into bankruptcy. The union is also pressing for a national guaranteed pension fund which would help cover the pensions of workers whose employers go into bankruptcy protection or bankrupt.





In the company's heyday in the mid 1980s, the CAW represented approximately 5,000 Nortel workers in five locations.





The story of a new round of corporate bonuses at Nortel surfaced yesterday through a report by the CBC, who obtained the internal corporate document.

CANADIAN POLITICS/ECONOMICS:

BANK BAILOUTS BY STEALTH:

The following was inspired by a comment on a previous post on this blog concerning the 'OCAP March on the financial district in Toronto'. It actually provoked an intelligent comment whose essence was "when have Canadian banks ever been bailed out ?". I don't have words to express my gratitude when I get a sensible comment from "the other side". Not that all comments from other anarchists are foolish. Platformists and other mutualists like myself have often corrected me in my mistakes, and I am grateful for those corrections. I have even had intelligent commentary from Trotskyists.

Molly is fairly good at 'tracking' (do I have a paranoid attitude ?), and the comment asking about "when" Canadian banks were ever bailed out came from a Royal Bank of Canada employee. I give this guy full marks as a worthy opponent. His comment was brief and to the point and it had validity "on the surface". The Royal Bank, by the way, tracks this blog routinely.

In any case, as I mentioned in my reply to the comment "corporate welfare" is a long established tradition in Canada, and, if you eliminate the subsidies to murder of the US military-industrial complex it is probably a greater factor here than in the USA. As I mentioned in my previous reply the long standing support of "corporate welfare bums" has been an issue that spans decades here in Canada. From left to right I have given the proper references ie The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Fraser Institute. It is not a question of fact. Corporations in Canada do live off government welfare, and commentators from left to right find this both offensive and counterproductive. In other words it's not a matter of opinion. Corporate welfare exists as a real fact, and all sorts of commentators oppose it for various reasons.

Ah, but the "banks" and any "bailouts" you may ask, as the employee of the RBC asked ? Here is an article from the Global Research site way back last January about how Canadian banks were "bailed out by stealth". One may "like" the idea that the Canadian government was proactive in stabilizing our banks, but one cannot deny that this was a "bailout" that was done before a crisis appeared. Intelligent bailouts are still bailouts.How Canadian of us, to do the same thing as the Yankees with less fuss and bother. Read on....

C@C@C@C@C@
Canada's 75 Billion Dollar Bank Bailout
The $64 Billion Federal Budget Deficit is intended to Finance Canada's Chartered Banks
by Michel Chossudovsky
The Conservative government has leaked the details of Tuesday's budget. They have announced a $64 billion deficit.

The Harper government, which has consistently committed itself to a "balanced budget", now claims that deficit spending is required to boost the economy at the height of a major economic recession.

Does this constitute a turnaround in federal government economic policy?

Is the government really committed to running a budget deficit with a view to stimulating demand and reversing the tide of economic decline.

Or is there a hidden agenda? A modest $500 million farm modernization program, a $1 billion fund "to send workers from hard-hit industries back to school", the reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST)... The figures do not seem to add up to a staggering $64 billion.
Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit.

Bear in mind that barely a month ago, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had projected "a $2.3-billion surplus for the current fiscal year" (Edmonton Sun, December 24, 2008) Canada's Bank Bailout

The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise.

It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election.

The bank bailout received close to no media coverage; its budgetary implications were not analyzed.

In a statement by Prime Minister Harper on October 10, the bank bailout was casually presented as a commitment by the Federal government to purchase an initial $25 billion in "secure" bank mortgages from the Canadian chartered banks. The transaction would be implemented through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp:

"Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada." (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Supports Canadian Credit Markets, CHMC Press Release, 10 October 2009)

The decision implies a money transfer into the coffers of Canada's financial institutions. The money is "fungible" and can be used by the banks as they see fit:

"The federal government's [initial] $25-billion takeover of bank-held mortgages to ease a growing credit crunch faced by the country's financial institutions is not a bailout similar to recent moves made in the United States and other Western countries, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Friday."This is not a bailout; this is a market transaction that will cost the government nothing," he told reporters at a campaign rally in Brantford, Ont., ahead of Tuesday's federal election."We are not going in and buying bad assets. What we're doing is simply exchanging assets that we already hold the insurance on and the reason we're doing this is to get out in front. The issue here is not protecting the banks." (CBC News October 10, 2008, emphasis added)

The 25 billion dollar allocation was announced four days prior to the elections. Two days following the federal elections, the first mortgage purchase took place leading to an initial cash injection of 5 billion into the coffers of the chartered banks.

Barely a month following the federal election, on November 12 2008, another $50 billion allocation was announced.

It received no news coverage. Moreover, opposition party leaders did not analyze the official statement of the Ministry of Finance. The likely consequences of the Canada bank bailout on the federal fiscal structure were not the object of discussion or political debate.
The text of the official statement reads as follows:
"The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.This action will increase to $75 billion the maximum value of securities purchased through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) under this program."At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada's financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding," said Minister Flaherty.(The Main Wire, November 12, 2008, emphasis added).

At the height of the election campaign, Prime Minister Harper stated emphatically that: "this is not a bailout... it will cost the government nothing." (CBC News, October 10, 2008).

According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: "This program is an efficient, cost-effective and safe way to support lending in Canada that comes at no fiscal cost to taxpayers."(Ibid)
Yet Finance Minister Flaherty contradicts his own statement when he acknowledges that the project will drive up the public debt:

Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $25 billion. Then CMHC will ask the banks and other financial institutions to ascertain how much debt they would like to sell to the agency, using a process known as a reverse auction. ...

Flaherty said the action would "make loans and mortgages more available and more affordable for ordinary Canadians and businesses."(Ibid, emphasis added)

The official Ministry of Finance statement confirms that the operation will be financed by the Treasury. Prime Minister Harper claims that "it will cost the government nothing" because the net public debt from an accounting point of view remains the same. While the operation is casually described as a transfer of assets from the banks to the CMHC, what we dealing with is a cash injection equivalent to 4.6% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is financed through a massive public debt operation. The necessary funds (requiring the issuing of government debt in the form of T-Bills and government bonds) are transferred to the CHMC, which in turn upon completion of the mortgage purchases, channels the funds to the chartered banks:

"The first tranche of the program, for purchases up to $25 billion, was announced on October 10. These purchases will be completed by November 21. Under the initiative announced today, Canadian financial institutions will have access to up to an additional $50 billion of longer-term funding, bringing the total for the IMPP to $75 billion. The extension of the IMPP will be financed through increased issuance of Treasury bills and bonds. The Government will be consulting with market participants about the operational plan in the coming weeks." Ministry of Finance, Government of Canada Announces Additional Support for Canadian Credit Markets 2008-090 (November 12, 2008)
First Tranche: October 10: $25 billion. Already disbursed.
Second Tranche: November 12: $50 billion.

The total is a staggering $75 billion ( which, by the way is very much equivalent on per capita basis to the bailout in tghe USA- Molly )handout to the chartered banks.The initial $25 billion tranche has already been disbursed and nobody in Canada seems to be concerned.
The Government is Financing Its Own Indebtedness
The recipients of the bank bailout are also the creditors of the federal government. The chartered banks are the brokers of the federal public debt. They sell treasury bills and government bonds on behalf of the government. They also hold a portion of the public debt..
In a bitter irony, the banks lend money to the federal government to finance the bailout, and with the money raised through the sale of government bonds and T-Bills, the government finances, via the CHMC, the bank bailout. It is a circular process. The banks are the recipients of the bailout as well as the creditors of the State. The federal government is in a sense financing its own indebtedness.

While the Canadian bailout procedures differ from those of the US Treasury under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), they essentially serve the same purpose. Both programs contribute to bank centralization and the concentration of financial wealth.

Under TARP, some 700 billion dollars bailout money was allocated to major Wall Street banks. Canada's population is slightly less than 11 percent of that of the US. The numbers are consistent. The 75 billion dollar Canadian bailout is slightly less (numerically US dollar for Can dollar) than 11 percent of the US 700 billion bailout under TARP.
No Parliamentary Debate
The $700 billion US bank bailout under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, was the object of debate and legislation in the US Congress.

In contrast, in Canada, the granting of 75 billion dollars to Canada's chartered banks was implemented at the height of an election campaign, without duly informing the Canadian public.
Canada's media and financial press bears a responsibility in this regard. The matter was barely mentioned. It passed virtually unnoticed a few days before a federal election.

Media coverage was minimal. There was no parliamentary debate. No discussion, no debate as one would have expected from the opposition parties at the height of an election campaign as well as in its aftermath.

Nobody seemed to have noticed. Most Canadians do not know that there was a 75 billion dollar bailout of Canada's financial institutions.

The decision was casually presented as an effort "to ease the credit crunch" and encourage Canadian banks "to loosen their purse strings and extend more lending to businesses and consumers."

The impact, however, is likely to result in exactly the opposite: the centralization and concentration of financial wealth to the detriment of the real economy..
Mergers and Acquisitions
We are not dealing with a Keynesian style deficit, which stimulates investment and consumer demand, leading to an expansion of production and employment.

While, the bank bailout is a component of government expenditure, it does not constitute a positive spending injection into the real economy.

Quite the opposite. The bailout is a handout to the banks. It contributes to financing the restructuring of the banking system leading to a massive concentration of wealth and centralization of banking power.

The bailout money will be used by Canada's chartered banks to consolidate their position as well as finance the acquisition of several "troubled" financial institutions in the US. (See text box below)
The Destabilization of the Federal Fiscal Structure
This is the most serious public debt crisis in Canadian history.The bank bailout potentially destabilizes the federal fiscal structure. It leads to a spiraling budget deficit, which must be financed at tax payers expense. The entire structure of public spending is affected including federal-provincial transfers. The (federal) public debt is slated to increase by 14 % over a two year period. The provincial debts are also likely to increase dramatically.

The 75 billion dollar bailout is to be partially financed by increasing the public debt.

The Minister of Finance has intimated that further measures are envisaged "to bolster the availability of credit" with the government "injecting capital into banks if necessary." (Bloomberg, January 23, 2009) It is worth noting that in addition to the $75 billion, the government has pledged "to backstop more than $200 billion in interbank lending so banks can boost their lending capacity." (Toronto Star, December 13, 2009). The implications of this decision remain to be carefully analysed. What we can expect is a combination of budgetary compressions coupled with an increase of the public debt. Most categories of federal expenditure (excluding defense) are likely to be affected.

The federal fiscal structure is in jeopardy. The budget deficit finances the bank bailout.
What is likely to occur are more government "handouts" to banks and corporations coupled with a massive austerity program and a spiraling public debt.

The size of the public debt is also affected by the economic crisis. Company layoffs and bankruptcies seriously affect the revenues of the State. Unemployed people and bankrupt companies do not pay taxes. The increase in unemployment and the contraction in salaried earnings will backlash on tax revenues, which in turn contributes to exacerbating the fiscal crisis both at the federal and provincial levels.

CANADIAN LABOUR-NEWFOUNDLAND:

MOLSON RETIREES PROTEST BEER CLAWBACK:

Finally, here's a labour cause that every right thinking, patriotic Canadian should be able to get behind. Beer, of course, real beer that is as opposed to the dilute urine sold south of the border, is definitely one of the things that define this country. Retired Molson workers in Newfoundland are protesting a claw back of one of their retirement benefits on the part of the company. The clawback involves the company saying that it will no longer supply its retirees with the traditional 6 twelve packs of beer per month. See the end of this post for further Molly comments on this matter. For now all that I can say is that any Canadian who doesn't recognize this for the atrocity that it is should be hung by a lamp post at dawn for the crime of treason. The story from the CBC...

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL
N.L beer protest still brewing
CBC News
Retired brewery workers gathered outside a Molson plant in St. John's for the second time this year to protest the company’s plans to cut back the amount of beer pensioners receive every month.

Right now, retired workers get six dozen beer per month from the company but Molson plans to reduce that to one dozen beer per month, as of Jan. 1, 2010.

The company says it will drop the allocation altogether in five years.

This is the second time retirees have protested the change. They also protested last June when Molson retirees across the country received a letter from their former employer outlining the planned changes.

The letter says the changes are necessary because of "competitive pressure and the current economy" which have forced the company to "monitor costs and look for innovative ways to control and reduce them."

At the time, the pensioners union representative spoke out against the new policy.

"There's been no consultation with the members, and they've taken beer from them, which is a taxable benefit," said Greg Pretty of the FFAW/CAW, which represents approximately 45 Molson retirees in St. John's.

"The people who brought this company to where it is today … are now being discriminated against based on their age," he said.

There are about 50 retired Molson workers in the province.

A Molson representative told CBC that supplying 2,400 retirees across the country with free beer was costing the company over $1 million a year.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

MOLLY NOTES

The whole idea that Molson's is "suffering" under the present "economic conditions" is, of course, absurd. If there is one business that is recession proof it is booze. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. Glance up to the photo that accompanies this article. Note the sign about the Montréal Canadiens. Molson is "suffering" so much that they were only able to clinch a deal to repurchase the Habs earlier this year for a paltry $500,000,000. That's half a billion dollars. I wish I could suffer so badly.

But there's another indication of the degree of Molson's suffering beneath the surface of what the above article says. Here comes your math test kiddies. Let's assume the round numbers supplied in the above of 2,400 Molson pensioners and about 1 million in expenses to be about right. If this is true then the cost to Molson's of the 12 pack that they supply to the retirees is about $5.78. the cost of a Molson's 12 pack to the general public varies across Canadian provinces, from a high of up to $24.95 in some outlets in Alberta (where privatization was supposed to work its magic via competition and reduce prices) to a low of $19.25 here in Manitoba. As I wish to be kind and generous to the poor suffering, ill fed managers of the Molson Corporation I will take the price here in Manitoba, the lowest in the country, for the following calculations. Here in Manitoba the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) applies the following markups to domestic beer: $0.122 per liter and 75%. With good old high school algebra this works out to a buying price of $10.71 paid to Molson's. Before you get too frothy and libertarian about the evil government monopoly consider that 75% is less than the 85% profit margin that Molson's makes from selling its beer at the lowest price in Canada. Also note that in places such as Alberta where the sacred god of competition rules that prices are higher and that the profit margin is also higher.

Now there are a great many businesses who would think they had died and gone to heaven if their profit margin was 85%, let alone if they were able to swing a half billion dollar corporate acquisition. So think of the guys in Newfoundland the next time you choose what beer to buy.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-SERBIA:

STRIKE WAVE SWEEPS SERBIA:

As we speak there is a wave of strikes across the country of Serbia, one of the successor states to the ex-Yugoslavia. Sad to say these fragments of Yugoslavia which was once a far better socialist alternative to the Russian Empire's so-called "communist" (read managerial ruling class) regimes have proven, post-Tito, as one more example of how a Leninist experiment leads to disaster in the end. Never mind how it has been conclusively!!!! proven that Marxist propaganda can never eliminate ethnic hatreds. That is the saddest thing. What is also sad is that the new ruling class (usually recruiting heavily from the old managers) seems to be repeating the worst patterns of larceny that occurred in the ex-Soviet Union. Those to whom the Serbian state sold assets have been engaged in a systematic pattern of theft, looting the factories, violating contractual obligations, refusing to pay wages for work already done. etc.,etc.,etc.. The word kleptocracy has been coined to describe such behavior in the former communist states and in parts of the Third World.

The following article from the Inter Press Service describes the situation and the response of ordinary Serbian workers to this looting. People won't take this laying down, but the general hope for a "solution" in re-nationalization is, in Molly's opinion a vain hope. The Serbian state is divesting itself of property for many good reasons. Calling for re-nationalization is a vain hope, a dream of a past utopia that never was as good as memory makes it (during Tito's regime Yugoslavia's main export was workers for foreign firms). The anarcho-syndicalist alternative of factory take-overs and reorientation of production is nowhere so obvious as in this sort of situation. While the Serbian anarcho-syndicalists presently lack a website(even though they are quite active) many of the other states near to Serbia have such. Molly urges her readers to consult the 'Other Anarcho-Syndicalist Links' section on this blog for further information on this part of Europe and workers' struggles there.

ILILILILILILILIL
BALKANS: Strike Wave Sweeps Serbia:

By Vesna Peric Zimonjic

BELGRADE, Aug 28 (IPS) - A very hot summer of workers' discontent has taken over Serbia. Some 33,000 people go on strike daily in 40 to 45 firms, according to union statistics. They are mostly employees of privatised companies who have not been paid salaries or social and health security benefits for months now.

Since mid-August, protesters have been blocking traffic for hours outside the offices of the Serbian Privatisation Agency and other government buildings in Belgrade.

Earlier this month, in central Serbia, police were called in to remove hundreds of workers who lay down day after day on railway tracks near Lapovo town 150 km south of Belgrade. The now private owner of the company manufacturing spare parts for automobiles and electricity generation has not paid them for months.

In a dramatic case, a worker from the southern Serbian textile factory Raska, 254 km south of Belgrade, cut his finger off in public to protest against a new business owner.

"We are desperate, afraid for our future, betrayed by our new owner," says Stevan Sreckovic from the Ikarbus bus factory in Zemun. "Ours is one of a thousand factories throughout Serbia that have been ruined by privatisation," he told IPS at a protest last week outside the offices of the Serbian Privatisation Agency.

Since the ousting of former leader Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, the Serbian government has relied heavily on privatisation to revitalise the economy. (or simply to pay the bills by selling the family jewels ????-Molly)The state has received some 2.9 billion euros (3.7 billion dollars) through privatisation since 2002.

The government has sold 1,828 public firms, and now only 300 remain to be privatised. That is due by the end of 2009.

The protests this summer point to what workers call "the ugly face of privatisation". They come after the Privatisation Agency admitted in mid- August that of the 1,828 privatisation contracts, 472 - almost 25 percent - have been annulled because the new owners failed to honour the deals.

According to the law on privatisation, the new owners are obliged to pay the government for their newly acquired companies in up to five instalments. They are also obliged to compensate workers they cannot keep in line with an agreement with the Privatisation Agency. The sum mostly ranges from 100 to 800 dollars.

The agency is obliged to monitor developments in newly privatised companies for two years.

"After that, we practically have no further obligations," head of the Privatisation Agency Vladislav Cvetkovic told IPS. "Our task is to prepare privatisation, announce tenders and collect necessary documentation, and to make this part completely transparent."

Analysts say that the state sold many assets hastily because of an urgent need for fresh funds. Most sales were done by early 2006.

"The climate for such sales was very good, and the state filled its coffers with badly needed money," economics professor Milojko Arsic told IPS. "The money was supposed to go to pension fund, further investment in Serbian industry, and bring new jobs."

But things have been going wrong over the past year after the end of supervision by the agency.

In March, machinery from the privatised textile factory Clothing in Leskovac, 282 km south of Belgrade, was taken by its Cypriot owner to Romania earlier this year.

In May, workers from the textile factory 7. Juli in the southern town Kursumlija learnt that their machinery was gone. The Serbian owner apparently sold it abroad as scrap.

"New owners refraining from fulfilling their obligations, such as revitalising production, paying regular salaries and health insurance to workers is surfacing now," analyst Slobodan Kostic told IPS. "This is bringing people to the streets and is leading to strikes."

International consortiums from tax paradises ("tax paradise"- I love that term-Molly )are often involved in purchases. Kostic says many assets were sold to people with a murky past and with murky money.

Several heavy industry machinery and textile factories have been sold to consortiums located in Cayman Islands, Cyprus or Virgin Islands, only later to be made sites for luxurious apartment blocks or shopping malls. ("luxury apartments" and "shopping malls" in Serbia ? Molly senses an extra layer of criminality beyond the obvious here )

The agency says merely that new owners did not meet their obligations. "It is not our job to control financial resources," says Cvetkovic.

A major tycoon sought earlier this year to buy the industrial zone of Belgrade harbour and turn it into a marina to be surrounded by lavish apartment blocks and high rises. Public outcry stopped the sale.

Amidst mounting speculation that privatisation was not regular in many cases, Serbian Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic (not related to Vladislav Cvetkovic), who was head of the Privatisation Agency in 2003 and 2004, admitted to reporters last week that "by the end of that period we became aware that something was wrong." He did not elaborate.

"I will personally insist that all the contracts that have been annulled be checked," he added. But to many workers this is not enough.

The striking workers have their critics. "What we hear more often now among workers' demands in strikes is calls for the state to take over their companies," Miroslav Prokopijevic from the Free Market Centre told IPS. The Centre is one of the leading Serbian NGOs backing a free market economy. ( Welllllll...Molly has given her opinion of this above. )

"That sounds like the times of socialism (the Serbian and former Yugoslav version of communism), when the state took care of everything, and provided lifelong guarantee of employment, but those times cannot come back," he said.

ILILILILILILILIL

MOLLY NOTES:

Just for amusement let's do a little cross cultural survey of what would be labour's response to such things in various countries. Let's begin at the bottom. The usual American (in a country where you sue a restaurant if you spill hot coffee on yourself) response would be a lawsuit. Up here in Canada there would be an endless series of appeals to this that and the other government agency, punctuated with a possible battle on the picket lines and a stirring resolution from the NDP. The whole matter would be eventually be exhausted by endless debate. Over in Italy they'd have their riot and rapidly move on to the next occasion. Down in the land of the tango the factory in question would have been occupied a long time ago, and the present battle would be about its legalization. Over in France the factory would have been occupied and the managers kidnapped. Not so bad actually, as they would get to eat really good cheese and drink really good wine (no McDonald's fare for those hostages) until a compromise was worked out. In Korea the factory would have been occupied, and this would have provoked the government to send a para-military force to recover it. In China the workers would have rioted and killed the managers. All told I prefer the Argentinian solution. Can it be used elsewhere ? I certainly hope so.

CONSUMERISM:

EARTH DAY AND MARKETING:

Earth Day is coming tomorrow, whoop de ding dong. Most good ideas are subject to the law of inevitable chintz, and the whole hoopla around Earth Day may indeed be the primary modern example (though I am sure that there are many close competitors). What exactly is more absurd, the declining portion of leftists who imagine that 'ecology" poses some "fundamental paradigm" for changing society(and their absurd religious apotheoses in our dear "primitivists) for the better or those who buy into the "propaganda model" as promoted by the official sponsors of such events as Earth Day ? Who knows ?

What I do know is that the official promotion of Earth Day by government and corporation has gutted the original concept of any useful meaning. What I did't realise was how far this process had progressed. the story below is from the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, and it questions the idea of the overwhelming corporate sponsorship of Earth Day. What Molly finds most jaw droppingly amazing is the idea almost mentioned in passing ie "Earth Day shopping". Do people actually do this ? That is truly amazing. Holy Jesus H. Christ ! Turn your back for a minute and the kids and the dog are wrecking the house. It is right up their with the anarcho-nonsense spewed across the internet (using the height of technology) to promote some idea of the end of civilization. The difference is that large numbers of people buy the former idea while the latter is confined to an ever diminishing cult. I guess it's the old Biblical adage of the beam in one's own eye.

In any case, if you don't find the idea of "consuming for the ecology" silly then what can I say ? Welcome to Orwell's dystopia.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

MARKETING EARTH DAY(AND OTHER STUFF) TO CHILDREN:
Between Sesame's new green Elmo and Nick's Big Green Help, the children's media and marketing industries are going green in a big way this Earth Day. Or are they? In today's Huffington Post, CCFC's Susan Linn and Josh Golin lay out the harms inherent in the environmental lessons promoted by companies whose profits depend on inculcating consumerism in children.

In the coming year, CCFC will work to make the connections between marketing to children and environmental degradation more explicit. If you have ideas for campaigns that highlight this link, please send them to ccfc@jbcc.harvard.edu.

A link to the article is below. Happy Earth Day!

---------------
Marketing Earth Day (and Other Stuff) to Children
By Susan Linn and Josh Golin
Have you done your Earth Day shopping yet? Between greeting cards, jewelry, mugs, and teddy bears commemorating the day, its roots in environmental activism have all but been forgotten. Now corporations use Earth Day to sell us on the belief that we can buy our way into ecological sustainability. We can't.

Reducing consumption is essential to preserving the earth's resources and preventing its degradation. The same companies that are painting themselves green depend on the profits they earn convincing us to buy more than we need.

Nowhere is this more obvious, and more troubling, than in the world of children's media and marketing, where companies like Disney, Sesame Workshop, and Nickelodeon are eco-marketing as never before.

Read the rest at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-linn/marketing-earth-day-and-o_b_189466.html

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT/CANADIAN ANARCHIST MOVEMENT:

INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE VANCOUVER 2010 OLYMPICS:

The following statement comes from the A-Infos website, but its origin is at the Northwest Common Action platformist organization. As the 2010 Winter Olympics draw nearer the opposition to the games grows stronger. Out Vancouver way the recent news of gang warfare (a great tourist attraction) has overshadowed the financial scandals that are growing day by day as to the contracts for construction that may or may not be completed with extra heapings of government money. In actual fact very few, if any, Olympics have ever been held without a hit to the public purse, however much some private businesses may profit. Here's the statement of solidarity with the opposition to the games. The following has been edited to eliminate repetition errors in the original.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

International support for Statement: Solidarity and Unity in Opposing the 2010 Olympics:

The Olympics Resistance Network is a space to coordinate anti-colonial and anti-capitalist efforts against the 2010 Games within Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories. Our organizing is based on the recognition that the Olympics is taking place on unceded Native land, and exists to create a movement for all anti capitalist, Indigenous, anti poverty, labour, migrant justice, housing, environmental justice, civil libertarian, anti war, and anti colonial activists to join forces. We come together on the basis of anti-oppression principles and with a respect for diversity of tactics. In addition to building ongoing educational and resistance efforts, we are working towards a convergence between February 10th-15th 2010, based on the call by the Indigenous Peoples Gathering in Sonora, Mexico to boycott the Games.

We recognize that we, the Olympics Resistance Network, represent part of a wider movement opposing the 2010 Olympics. Therefore this statement aims to encourage solidarity and unity amongst the diverse groups, communities, and movements who are opposed to and/or critical of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

The negative effects of the upcoming 2010 Winter Games are already quite clear:

* Expansion of sport tourism and resource extraction on Indigenous lands.
There are over $5 billion worth of resort plans since the Olympic bid, despite
significant grassroots Indigenous opposition for example around Kamloops and
Mount Currie. According to the Native Youth Movement, "The Olympics opens up our
land, our sacred sites, and our medicine grounds to big corporations, but we
want them to know that our land is not for sale."
* Increasing homelessness and gentrification of poor neighbourhoods
especially Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. It is projected that the number of
homeless in Vancouver will triple from 1000 homeless people since the Olympic
bid in 2003 to over 3200 people by 2010. According to a report by the
Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, the Olympic Games have
displaced more than two million people around the world over the last 20
years.
* Unprecedented destruction of the environment. This includes massive
deforestation in the Callaghan Valley to build the Whistler Olympic Center,
clearcuts of Cypress Mountain which is a designated 2010 venue location; massive
sand and gravel mining operations to build construction materials; and the
destruction of Eagleridge Bluffs due to the Sea-to-Sky Highway construction. In
2007, 71-year old Pacheedaht elder Harriet Nahanee and 78-year old
environmentalist Betty Krawcyzk were two of the arrestees at a blockade opposing
construction at Eagleridge Bluffs. Harriet Nahanee contracted pneumonia at the
Surrey Pre-Trial Center. She died a few days later, while hospitalized, on Feb.
24, 2007.
* More privatization of public services and ballooning public debt. The
total cost for 2010 and related construction will be close to $6 billion, with
Olympic venues alone costing over $4.5 billion. For example, taxpayers are on
the hook for $875 million for the 2010 Olympic Athletes Village's construction
costs alone.
* Union busting through imposed contracts and vulnerable working conditions
especially for migrant labour. There are an estimated 3,000-5,000 temporary
migrant and undocumented workers in the Olympics-fuelled and speculation-driven
construction industry that are prone to hyper-exploitation and are vulnerable
given their lack of full legal status.
* Increased funding (up to $1 billion) for the police, military, and border
control agents in the name of so-called national security. Sociologist David
Lyon has dubbed Vancouver 2010 "the Surveillance Games" since security
operations will include over 13,000 RCMP, military & other security
personnel as well as joint US-Canada military & North American Aerospace
Defence Command operations.
* Criminalization of the poor. Former Mayor Sam Sullivan has written "I
believe we have a tremendous opportunity to use the upcoming 2010 Games as a
catalyst to [solve public disorder problems]." Plans to "cleanse" the city's
core of the poor include increased funding for private security initiatives such
as the Downtown Ambassadors; passing of the Safe Streets Act which prohibits
sitting or lying down on city sidewalks; banning dumpsters from the downtown
core; and more.

Given this devastating reality, we are aware that there is wide-spread opposition to the 2010 Winter Olympics. This ranges from those who are opposing the negative impacts of the Games to those who seek to boycott the Games; from those who desire to raise public awareness about the Games to those who choose to engage in direct action against the Games and its sponsors; from those who are concerned about single issues surrounding the Games to those who are concerned about the overall impact of the Games.

Despite our differences in analysis and strategies we believe we have a significant opportunity to come together and voice our opposition to the 2010 Olympic Games. This statement of unity does not call for us to fully agree or stand by each other's tactics or ideas, although we believe we have much to learn and understand from one another. Rather, this statement calls for a basic unity in expressing our critique of the 2010 Olympics Games and committing to finding ways to work and support each other in our complementary efforts to expose this two-week circus and the oppression it represents to so many communities and sectors.

Leading up to the 2010 Olympics, police and security forces already have and will continue to surveil, target, infiltrate, repress, and attempt to divide our movement ( http://www.no2010.com/node/614). We realize that we may have many differences in analysis and tactics and such disagreements are healthy. However we believe such debates should remain internal and we should refrain from publicly denouncing or marginalizing one another especially to mainstream media and law enforcement. In particular, we should avoid characterizations such as "bad" or "violent" protesters. We respectfully request that all those in opposition to the 2010 Olympics maintain our collective and unified commitment to social justice and popular mobilization efforts in the face of massive attempts to divide us.

Please share this statement with others. We ask that if your group agrees with this statement and the basic principles outlined within it, to please email your endorsement to olympicresistance@riseup.net.

In solidarity, Olympics Resistance Network.

Endorsed by 2010 Watch, Alliance for People's Health, Anarchist Blackcross Melbourne, Anti Poverty Committee, AntiWar @ Laurier, Christian Radical, Community Solidarity Coalition (Victoria), Edmonton Small Press Association, F.ck off and Dance, Free Lex Wotton - Australia, Gerald and Maas Inc, Grandview Woodlands Area Council, Healing the Earth Radio, Indigenous Action Movement, Indigenous Peace Education, Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement-Guelph, Industrial Workers of the World, Joey Only Outlaw Band, Native 2010 Resistance, Native Youth Movement, No2010.com, No2010 Victoria, No One Is Illegal-Ottawa, No One Is Illegal-Toronto, No One Is Illegal-Vancouver, Oil Sands Truth, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, Rising Tide North America, Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group, Sound Resistance Radio, St'at'imc NYM, Stratford Action For Equality, Sudbury Against War and Occupation, Teaching Support Staff Union Social Justice Committee, The Grey Tigers Seniors Group, UBC Colour Connected Against Racism, Vancouver Island Community Forest Action Network, Vancouver Status of Women, Warrior Publications, Wild Earth, Work Less Party, Common Action.Related Link: http://www.nwcommonaction.org/

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Oh yes, Olympic games are always touted as an unalloyed benefit for the communities that host them. The reality is usually quite different. Here's an article from the No Olympics on Stolen Native Land site. that talks about what the real cost to Vancouver may be.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Olympic Glitter Not Always Gold:

"So this is really just...profit for the hotels and that goes back to shareholders back at the corporate headquarters back in New York City rather than actually sticking in the Vancouver economy"

"In Lillehammer, host of the 1994 Winter Games... 40 per cent of the hotels went bankrupt and two new alpine facilities were sold for US$1 to prevent bankruptcy."

Olympic glitter doesn't always mean gold: Economists:

By Stephanie Levitz,

THE CANADIAN PRESS (Feb 28, 2009)
VANCOUVER, B.C. - The colours of the Olympic rings, history says, represent the nations of the world. But when prospective host cities look at them, they see gold.

Each Olympic bid is preceded by reams of impact studies that promise billions in economic benefits to a Games host.

For the 2010 Winter Olympics, the figure cited most often is $10.7 billion, which takes into account the number of jobs created, the value of having a new convention centre and tax revenues.

But rarely are the same studies applied after the Games, economists say, making it almost impossible to judge whether a host's Olympic dreams do come true.

"People are apprehensive about what they might find," said Edward Mansfield, an associate partner at Price Waterhouse Coopers, which is conducting a multi-year study of the 2010 Games for the federal and provincial governments.

Before the bid was awarded to Vancouver, consulting firm Hardy Stevenson went to past hosts and did their own study of the actual social, economic and environmental outcomes of the previous Games.

Expectations and reality didn't always meet up, said Dave Hardy, the firm's principal.

"There are some cities where they weren't met, some cities where they feel they were met but they're putting on a brave face, and other cities where I think they were considerably exceeded," he said.

That's in part due to how hard Games committees and host cities work to leverage the Olympics, he said.

In Lillehammer, host of the 1994 Winter Games, not enough was done to capitalize on potential tourism, he said.

The result was that 40 per cent of the hotels went bankrupt and two new alpine facilities were sold for US$1 to prevent bankruptcy.

Pre-Games studies also use variables that can't take into account unknown factors, like the weather or how well the city performs as a host.

They also don't reflect the cost.

When a trio of sports economists looked at the 2002 Salt Lake Games, they found all that glittered wasn't exactly gold.

In a 2008 study of tax receipts from the period during the Olympics, hotels and restaurants did do extremely well, as forecasted.

But they didn't do well enough to make up for the US$167.4 million lost in other areas of the economy.

"Most economists who are not working for the sports leagues or working for the event managers always come up with numbers that are a fraction of what the event organizers promise," said Victor Matheson, an economics professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts and one of the authors of the study.

One factor almost never taken into account, said Matheson, is how much money being spent by or during an Olympics actually stays in the local economy.

An increase in hotel prices doesn't mean hotel employees' wages go up too, he pointed out.

"So this is really just money that is kind of a windfall profit for the hotels and that goes back to shareholders back at the corporate headquarters back in New York City rather than actually sticking in the Vancouver economy," he said.

The study most often cited in connection with perceived benefits for the 2010 Games was done by Intervistas in 2002, long before this fall's spectacular economic collapse.

But the authors say they don't feel the current economy will have much of an impact on 2010, as the payoff from a Games is more closely tied to Olympic construction and the legacies left by venues and increased tourism.

Ticket and merchandise sales for Vancouver's Olympics have already exceeded expectations.

The Calgary Olympic Development Association estimates that the '88 Winter Olympics facilities have contributed $925 million to the gross domestic product since those Games.

Canada's tourism industry is getting more than $40 million to capitalize on the Games, but linking tourist visits to the Olympics is a figure that's very difficult to quantify, Mansfield said.
"What we're trying to do is say . . . how many visitors do we think we would have gotten and then contrast that to what we actually get," he said of the work his firm is doing.

"And then say well, is that suggestive that Olympic exposure had a role."

The $10.7 billion that B.C. politicians use is the highest end of the estimates in the 2002 study.

The figure includes potential spinoff from the $900-million expansion of Vancouver's convention centre, though the centre isn't included in the province's own Olympic budget.

Without including the centre, the highest economic impact is estimated at $4.2 billion.

B.C. politicians stress that given the current economic climate, any benefit provided by the Games is worth it, especially since the province is running a $740-million deficit for the next two years(So...let's make it more via "boosterism", a classic right wing trait-Molly).

But when they tout Games' benefits, they don't mention that the deficit is only $20 million less than the provincial Olympic budget.

"It's basically going to be a subsidy to the rest of the world, if you want to think of it that way, for hosting that event," said Rob Bauman, an economist who worked with Matheson on the review of the 2002 Games.

"Whether that ultimately pays off, that remains to be seen."
Public Debt and 2010

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The public budget for the coming Olympic Games is fantastic, and still gowing as the public gets stuck for more and more of the cost. Here's another article from the No Olympics on Stolen Native Land site about what that money could be better spent on.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

What $6 Billion Could Buy:
Got $6 billion to spend? Let's luge! Or maybe not
By Pete Mcmartin, Vancouver Sun, February 24, 2009
But by our incomplete tally and with another year to go until the Games (the cost of the 2010 Winter Olympics, not including an added $725 million for security) it's about $6,000,000,000.

For $6 billion, you could fund the entire budget of the seismic-upgrading program for B.C. schools four times over. The program has been criticized repeatedly for its slow pace. To date, of the hundreds of elementary and secondary schools that need upgrading across the province, only 32 have been completed. The B.C. auditor-general, in his report of Dec. 4, 2008, wrote that "the approved budget of $1.5 billion will fall far short of the amount required to retrofit the at-risk schools identified in the original assessment."

- For $6 billion -- assuming that a first-class fourth-year constable in Vancouver costs an average of approximately $100,000 in annual salary and benefits -- the city could hire 3,000 new police officers for 20 years. Beset by increasing gang violence, and the rising costs of investigations due to that violence, the Vancouver police force claims that for large metropolitan areas, its police per capita ratio remains among the country's lowest. [No2010 note: bad idea]

- For $6 billion, you could pay the tuition fees of 345,383 University of B.C. arts students for their entire four-year program, or the four-year tuition fees of 314,004 UBC science students, or the four-year tuition fees of 287,853 UBC engineering students, or of 100,963 UBC medical students.

- For $6 billion, you could pay the salaries of UBC's 587 full professors -- who, according to UBC's media relations department, earn an average salary of just over $140,000 -- for 73 years.

- For $6 billion, you could pay the cost of educating all 550,000 elementary and secondary students for 1 1/3 years.

- For $6 billion, you could build not one but four Evergreen Lines to Coquitlam, and still have a few hundred million left over in change. The future of the line, which has been promised for years, still appears to be in doubt because of a lack of financing commitments from the federal government.

If one chose to build only one Evergreen Line, the remaining billions could not only eradicate the expected $100-million-plus shortfall in TransLink's 2009 operating budget, but any shortfalls for decades to come. There would be plenty left for new buses.

- For $6 billion -- assuming that the cost of social housing is now about $300,000 per unit, up from the 2007 estimate of $200,000 per unit -- you could build 20,000 units of social housing in the city, or a number about equal to the entire existing stock in Vancouver.

- For $6 billion -- assuming a recent investigation by the Province of government money being spent in the Downtown Eastside is accurate -- you could fund all of the several hundred social welfare institutions in the DTES that receive federal, provincial or municipal funds for more than 16 years. That includes social housing, food banks, charities, drug and addiction services and welfare payments.

- For $6 billion -- if the ballpark figure kicked around in previous discussions about redevelopment is accurate or even, indeed, within the ballpark -- you could build not just one new hospital to replace the aging St. Paul's Hospital in downtown Vancouver, but six of them.

- For $6 billion -- and my thanks for this to colleague Vaughn Palmer, whose knowledge of all things government is encyclopedic -- the government could waive the sales tax for a little over a year, or waive the property transfer tax for six years, or pay the entire public service payroll for more than two years.

Also, for $6 billion, Palmer's note stated with what I believe was a hint of mischief, you could run the premier's office for 500 years.
It wouldn't be my first priority.
pmcmartin@vancouversun.com604-605-2905anti

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Finally, once more from the the No Olympics on Stolen Native Land site, a report on a more recent Olympic screw-up, the recent beijing Olympics. If even those uber-capitalists, the Chinese Communists (irony intended) can screw up is there any doubt that others will do likewise.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Beijing's Olympic Building Boom Goes Bust:

Beijing's Olympic building boom becomes a bust
By Barbara Demick, February 22, 2009, LA Times
Reporting from Beijing -- "Empty," says Jack Rodman, an expert in distressed real estate, as he points from the window of his 40th-floor office toward a silver-skinned prism rising out of the Beijing skyline.

"Beautiful building, but not a single tenant."

Completely empty.

"Empty."
So goes the refrain as his finger skips from building to building, each flashier than the next, and few of them more than barely occupied.

Beijing went through a building boom before the 2008 Summer Olympics that filled a staid communist capital with angular architectural feats that grace the covers of glossy design magazines.

Now, six months after the Games ended, the city continues to dazzle by night, with neon and floodlights dancing across the skyline. By day, though, it is obvious that many are "see-through" buildings, to use the term coined during the Texas real estate bust of the 1980s.

By Rodman's calculations, 500 million square feet of commercial real estate has been developed in Beijing since 2006, more than all the office space in Manhattan. And that doesn't include huge projects developed by the government. He says 100 million square feet of office space is vacant -- a 14-year supply if it filled up at the same rate as in the best years, 2004 through '06, when about 7 million square feet a year was leased.

"The scale of development was unprecedented anywhere in the world," said Rodman, a Los Angeles native who lives in Beijing, running a firm called Global Distressed Solutions. "It defied logic. It just doesn't make sense."

Construction cranes jut into the skyline, but increasingly they are fixed in place, awaiting fresh financing before work resumes.

Boarded fences advertise coming attractions -- "an iconic landmark" or "international wonderland" -- that are in varying states of half-completion. A retail strip in one development advertised as "La Vibrant shopping street" is empty.

In a country where protests are rare, migrant workers stand in front of several construction projects, voicing their grievances.

"Our boss ran away with the money and he is nowhere to be found," said Li Zirong, a migrant worker from Shaanxi province, who was a supervisor on a stunning building with windows shaped like portholes.

What makes this boom-and-bust cycle different from those in the West is that there is no private ownership of land in China, making local governments de facto partners in the real estate industry, which earn huge fees from leasing and transferring land.

Huang Yasheng, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, traces the blame for the bust to the Chinese Communist Party and its reluctance to allow a true market economy.

"The lack of land reform fed into the real estate bubble and now it's coming back to haunt them," said Huang, author of "Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics," published last year.

"There should have been more checks and balances on the ability of the government to acquire land."

The government spent $43 billion for the Olympics, nearly three times as much as any other host city. But many of the venues proved too big, too expensive and more photogenic than practical.

The National Stadium, known as the Bird's Nest, has only one event scheduled for this year: a performance of the opera "Turandot" on Aug. 8, the one-year anniversary of the Olympic opening ceremony. China's leading soccer club backed out of a deal to play there, saying it would be an embarrassment to use a 91,000-seat stadium for games that ordinarily attract only 10,000 spectators.

The venue, which costs $9 million a year to maintain, is expected to be turned into a shopping mall in several years, its owners announced last month.

A baseball stadium that opened last spring with an exhibition game between the Dodgers and the San Diego Padres, is being demolished. Its owner says it also will use the land for a shopping mall.

Among the major Olympic venues, only the National Aquatics Center, nicknamed the Water Cube, has had a productive afterlife. It's used for sound-and-light shows, with dancing fountains in the swimming lanes where Michael Phelps won his gold medals.

All around the Olympic complex, there are cavernous empty buildings, such as the main press center for the Games, that still await tenants.

A shopping arcade that stretches for a quarter of a mile across the street from the complex is empty, the storefronts papered over with signs reading "famous stores corridor."

"They wanted to build 'the world's biggest this' and 'the world's biggest that,' but these buildings have almost zero long-term economic benefit," economist Huang said.

Moreover, the makeover of Beijing for the Olympics led to an estimated 1.5 million residents being evicted from their homes, according to the Geneva-based Center on Housing Rights and Evictions.

In this vibrant capital city of 17 million, there is an insatiable demand for housing, yet prices remain far out of reach of most residents. American-style free-standing homes are being advertised for more than $1 million in gated communities with names like Versailles, Provence, Arcadia and Riviera. Within the Fourth Ring Road, a beltway that defines the central part of the city, two- and three-bedroom apartments are offered for $800,000 in compounds named Central Park and Riverside.

"These are like New York prices, but we are Chinese. We don't have that kind of money," said Zhang Huizhan, a 55-year-old businessman who owns a Chinese furniture factory. He has been looking for five years for an apartment for him and his wife within their budget of $150,000.
The average salary in Beijing is less than $6,000 a year.

Louis Kuijs, a senior economist at the World Bank in Beijing, said a lack of government supervision of the real estate industry tempted developers to build only for the luxury market and to ignore the mass market.

"If you think demand is endless for anything you build and you have just 200 square meters of land, you will build high-end apartments to make the highest profit," Kuijs said.

To its credit, the government recognized in 2007 that the real estate market was headed toward a bubble, economists say. In an attempt to make real estate more affordable, restrictions were introduced on ownership of second homes and on foreign home buyers. But the measures came too late, accelerating the crash of an already weakening market.

The Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics reported this month that housing sales in the city dropped 40% last year. Chinese economists have predicted that housing prices will drop 15% to 20% in Beijing this year. Shanghai has experienced a similar decline.

"You can look at this perhaps as a healthy correction in the market," Kuijs said.

In the longer term, he said, "China's urbanization and overall development is going to lead to a very large additional demand for housing in the city."

Before that happens, the situation could get worse. Most of the real estate has been financed by Chinese banks, which have avoided writing down the loans. Eventually, they will be forced to, and that probably will have a ripple effect throughout the economy.

"At the end, somebody is going to have to pay the piper," real estate expert Rodman said.
barbara.demick@latimes.com
Nicole Liu and Eliot Gao of The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-beijing-bust22-2009f...