Friday, June 25, 2010

$ 1 Billion...

Is that the new Lotto Max jack-pot? Nope it is the cost of the G20 boon-doggle.

What was the rationale for this huge expenditure? show-case Central we are told. You see we had the hugely expensive Olympics to show case Western Canada and so being the fair folks we are, we had to have a hugely expensive event out East to balance things out.

$ 1 Billion. How would I spend $ 1 Billion?

How about $ 1 M each for the families of service-men and women killed in Afghanistan = $ 148 M

Then add in a carton of free milk for every poor kid at school (any who ask for it) = $ 60 M

We know the politicians and bureaucrats want their share - so send them all to an expensive resort to teleconference with each other for a week = $32 M

While we are at it, lets hire 50,000 kids in their university/college breaks to do something useful. Clean stuff up or build something and help them pay for their hugely expensive education. = $ 150 M

That's about it. So we are still left with $ 610 Million. Maybe just use that to repay the debt. Ooops forgot, this is probably borrowed money anyway, since we are running a deficit- so just don't borrow it.

I hope Harper goes in with a bigger message than- 'don't tax the banks'. He seems like a man who's vision for Canada and the world is about as exciting as his suits.

BTW for those of you who still do not believe we have a media monopoly here. Google cost of g20 and click on 'news' - you will get 12 copies of the same article
Without a single word being changed from all the Canwest organs.

The G20 boon-doggle is democracy at it's worst and we have journalism at it's worst covering it.

Here I made it easy for you:

I know I am going off topic. Once we get June behind us, I am thinking of starting the MOI again for different areas. Maybe a different area every few days, so we can how the land lies as we head towards fall and 2011.

Enjoy the week-end.


  1. I got into a pretty heated debate with a friend yesterday about this. There was a news story about people protesting and we both though it was hillarious that the main thing these people were protesting was the insane security costs.

    The irony is that by protesting, it justifies at least some of the security costs as some protestors have been known to get out of hand from time to time. But if there were never any protestors to begin with, security costs would be lower, and less people would feel the need to protest these costs. Oh the delicious irony.

    Anyway we started talking about if these protestors have a point or not. Idealy a protest would have a clear message and everyone in the protest would generally be protesting for that main reason (amongst others).

    We both seemed to agree that there are lots of reasons people are protesting, but the biggest one seems to be the cost. I thought this was pretty valid (despite the irony) as any idiot could tell you that having this thing in the downtown core of the biggest city in the country is going to be a hell of a lot harder to keep secure than say, a nice little resort far off in the bush somewhere.

    Add to that the argument that this whole process is getting to be pointless. In the information age they can all get in touch with each other in a matter of seconds. If you want to take a bit of time you can set up a video conference with touch screens a white boards so they can all talk about things from the safety of their own homes/offices. Is it really worth all this money so they can shake hands and take pictures?

    She argued that a face to face meeting accomplishes much more and security costs what it costs. Obviously we have to keep them all safe and the protestors just increase that cost.

    Either way, we both agreed this was turning into quite the f$#k up.

    And hey, if this is the East's answer to the Olympics, I say we got a great deal. They get a few days of headaches and no real benefit while we got a few weeks of minor inconviences and one hell of a party (at least in my case).

  2. They were interviewing anarchists on TV. They seemd like nice gentle people.

    One was a yoga instructor and one a midwife who did not really have a clear message as to what they were for and against.

    Basically aginst the powerful minority that run societies.

    However the politicians keep changing, but the real moey and power is constant.

    The Media in this country was owned by the Aspers, now it is owned by a group backed by Goldman Sachs.

    Same thing really.

  3. Listen carefully to Stephen Harper's words on the closing of the G8. he says we must not allow another event like the implosion of Lehman to occur.

    He doesn't say, we must not let one single, stupid company run by greedy and reckless SOBs have us all by the balls. he says we must not let them go bust.

    this is tacit approval of the speculation which has plagued us for the last 20 years (since Reagan started deregulating things for his buddies and Greenspan bailed out bad bets and the whole world followed).

    It means we have low B of C rates for the foreseeable future, and the G8 should keep bailing out those who are rich and powerful and greedy enough to put us all at risk.


  4. No doubt the protests will be used as justification for the money spent.

    Hmmm 2 burnt police cruisers $100K. Ten store windows $30K.

    Wasting $1 Bilion on a gathering of the self-important to solve the problems they hlped cause...priceless.

  5. @Anon,

    But whos to say the police presence didnt prevent millions more in damage?

    If you use that argument then there was even less need for security at the olympics. Afterall, a few broken windows were the biggest concern.

    There is no way to know what would have happened had they spent more or less money on security.

  6. Sorry everyone. HAd a flood and will be out of commission for a few more days.