One of the PBS
carried British News programs ran a segment this weekend of a contentious UK
documentary series called 'Benefits Street'.
From this was revealed a low (no) income residential street of various
real people. Mostly the lit upon
personal spotlightings were negative. It
gives financial aid - to the poor - a stereotypical bad name.
However, as the
saying goes, "follow the money".
I doubt if those troubled if few people aren't getting the lion's share
of well-intended overall socialism.
If this series were
to be copied for Ontario, Canada, I'd ask who the recipients really are.
The hollowed out U.S.
border city of Detroit, a former icon of economic and artistic American
strength, had filed for bankruptcy in 2013.
Where do our Sunshine members (since 1996, those public sector
individuals earning $100,000 and above) or retirees live? Then we have repeated stories of the
[legitimately] disabled being denied advanced medical treatment. Who should be paid for first? Politicized and organized pensioners, workers
and management (contracted and/or agency), the vulnerable and disabled, or
public debts (capital and operating) incurred throughout most previous years
and decades? Cost Accounting mimics this
system as FIFO - first in, first out. Of those four, which populate - and actively enrich towards - their source
income towns, provinces and/or nation the most, or the least?
deserving: it's a matter of a priority queue.
That's the left-wing half. Now
for the right-wing half:
Canada continues to
receive investment interest from business.
Too much of this (IMO) fizzles out - if it ever develops at all. At first blush, most non-licencing business
excuses sound perfectly valid. I've
written of some of these cases here as well.
Some companies have transacted as solid quality citizens here; some
instead arrive with only a sodbuster's mentality.
I've stated that,
"Work is only 'work' if it is paid." I might also add that, "A business
is only a business if 'it' earns a profit."
Now take the media
industry for an open example. Is it
earning a profit when a series of monopoly clauses are entrenched? In nearby Buffalo, NY, the NBC network
affiliate operates two additional over-the-air subchannels; a partnership with
a Weather network and a stand alone retro-genre channel. Other local broadcasters act similarly,
including PBS. They all have cable
delivery and complicated ownership issues - like Canada's. However, in Toronto, and Ontario, we have
noticably fewer allowed participants.
For those fewer participants their prime business question is usually
less of "can we?" then "may we?".
Take Hamilton's CHCH
station for example. Owned - here in my
West Toronto area - by an "independent", it boasts of an obscure old
movie channel - probably stuck upon a remote digital cable listing of its
broadcasting competitor(s), if at all.
So: "Can they" operate a subchannel - like the ABC affiliate's
channel 67.2 THIS movie station? Or
"may they" operate a subchannel in addition to their main broadcast
line? Who benefits when CHCH is told,
In 2013, book
publisher Simon and Schuster (Canada) was licenced to publish Canadian
books. Why weren't they permitted, like
Random House, to do so before this?
Last fall, I
described CBC's Newschannel as being a subsidy for Canada's cable
industry. It has commercial breaks, and
is popular. The CBC has (or had) an
extensive OTA broadcasting reach.
Neither it, nor Sun Newsnetwork is permitted to be broadcasted as
outside of cable (and now internet) company delivery. For SunTv, its inherited frequencies (in
multiple cities) were taken down by law.
Who benefits from this?
Take the mobile phone
industry as a directly applied gov't investment example. I noted out an apparent 'criss-cross' of
Samsung's co-benefits from both Ontario
- for green energy and Texas - for electronics. Ontario lost.
Would Samsung, via its Android phones, have still defeated Canada's
Blackberry? Probably. Would it have had a self-financed only
capacity to do so as rapidly as it did?
I doubt it. Blackberry, now
plummeted, could have at least had the time to better respond to Samsung's
challenge. Or, take the landline phone
industry. Every Canadian customer still
pays a required monthly touch-tone fee.
Then an added sales tax is applied, as well. Who's benefited more? Society's recycled 13% tax, or the 100%
obsolute product subfee?
Ontario's Beer Store
released a pricing study versus convenience stores, yesterday. Well, I can buy soda pop and potato chips, in
bulk, at any supermarket for maybe half of the expected corner store
prices. Duh. Why not then allow for other legalized
startups of other beer-only retailers?
In my 'FIFO Benefits
Street Canada', I would instead focus upon most of the population
living outside of that expectable tiny slum
Labels: 2014-jfm, business, Cda, govt-money, overseas, politics