You know about centimetres vs. inches. You know about C vs. F. About litres vs. pints, quarts, etc. And kilos vs. pounds. Speed: km/hr vs. mph. And even loonies vs. greenbacks.
But generally speaking, time is time. Different cultures may celebrate different time-based holidays. The actual dates of the new year and even religious holidays like Christmas and Easter are up for grabs to some extent.
But an hour is an hour, a minute is a minute, etc. Right?
Yeah, sorta. But I have heard a time-related unit of measure only on this side of the border. (Yes, I know -- not a scientific survey at all.)
It's "sleep." As in, "Two sleeps till Christmas!" It's used in my own house, by the jolly crew on Canada A.M., and in the For Better or For Worse comic strip. Plus I've heard other people around town use the phrase.
I have not heard it used south of the border.
My husband, who is good at answering questions even when he doesn't REALLY know answers, thinks using "sleep" as an alternate for "day" comes from Native culture. Which you'd think would have been an influence south of the border as well, particularly in Oklahoma. However. I heard it here first and I'm sticking to that story.
It's my favourite Canadian measurement so far because it's easily understandable (darkness, then light) and requires no translation.
I also like it because it uses downtime as the measuring tool. Not the "day" part, in which we're supposed to rush and rush and get stuff done and compete and achieve and measure our successes by wins and dollars and citations and deals.
Nope. Instead, it celebrates the "sleep" part, when we are allowed -- encouraged, even -- to do nothing. Our bodies may be busy repairing the day's damage at the cellular level, but our consciousness can rest and perhaps even create some interesting stories to entertain us while we sleep.
And that's how I hope more of us can experience this coming weekend -- a holiday for some of us, an enforced weekend away from work for others. I hope the time is about BEING, not DOING. A time for refreshment and renewal.
But meanwhile, I have a little rushing around to do before my next sleep.
UPDATE: After googling, my husband now says that Native cultures tend to use use "sleep" as a unit of distance. As in, "Grandmother's house is two sleeps away." Its use as a unit of time is more a mainstream-culture thing.
All I know is, I heard it up here first.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Who, Indeed?
Did you hear the one about how The Government can track your location based on the currency you carry?
I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)
Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.
The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.
Here's the AP story. Note this part:
"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?
I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.
You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.
But then again, who knows?
P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.
No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.
Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.
I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)
Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.
The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.
Here's the AP story. Note this part:
"I don't think it is an issue of the Canadians being the bad guys," the Pentagon's counterintelligence chief wrote, "but then again, who knows."
"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?
I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.
You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.
But then again, who knows?
P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.
No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.
Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thanks for Sharing
A couple of days ago I got the weirdest letter from the IRS.
Let me just say that the last couple of weeks--months, even--have been rather odd. Lots of activity, lots of things going on. Also, connections fraying. Lots of doors slamming shut in my face. While I firmly believe in closed door/open window and all that, a slamming-door time is still not exactly pleasant.
So on a slamming-door day, I also received a missive from the IRS. Ulp. My initial thought: "What ELSE??" I ranted on from there for awhile before calming down to read it.
The letter says that they can't process the amended return I submitted for my 2007 income tax because I amended something that I'm not allowed to amend.
And that's all it says.
There's no bill. There's no "Please respond with an X within Y days or we'll Z." Nothing.
Now, I have watched enough Oprah to know that when a real-live person says "I have a problem," the appropriate response from me is, "Wow, sounds like you have a problem." If I like the person, I can expand on this: "What's your plan?" or "How do you feel about it?" or "Thanks for sharing." The main thing is, this person has a problem and fixing it is her job. Not mine.
I don't even have to say, "What would you like me to do?" unless I really really want to. Of course, the person can ask me for help, and that's a different situation. But until I'm asked for specific help, I don't have to offer any. In fact, it's often best to not offer solutions. For one thing, the person may have excellent ideas of her own and just need to tell me about the problem. And for another, I really can't read minds, so figuring out what she needs is problematic at best.
I understand that the IRS is not a real person. However, it seems as if the IRS has a problem, and I don't have an indication of what action they would like me to take.
So I sent BACK a letter explaining why I made the amendment I made (because the amended version accurately describes my situation here) and asked them to suggest actions I could take that would help them resolve their issue with processing my form.
Because I am in NO position to figure out what the IRS needs. In fact, that's how this tax form became problematic in the first place--I had a particularly strange year in 2007 and could not figure out how to fill out the forms. And that was with instructions.
So now, I'm just waiting to find out how I can help out the IRS. In the meantime, IRS, thanks for sharing.
Let me just say that the last couple of weeks--months, even--have been rather odd. Lots of activity, lots of things going on. Also, connections fraying. Lots of doors slamming shut in my face. While I firmly believe in closed door/open window and all that, a slamming-door time is still not exactly pleasant.
So on a slamming-door day, I also received a missive from the IRS. Ulp. My initial thought: "What ELSE??" I ranted on from there for awhile before calming down to read it.
The letter says that they can't process the amended return I submitted for my 2007 income tax because I amended something that I'm not allowed to amend.
And that's all it says.
There's no bill. There's no "Please respond with an X within Y days or we'll Z." Nothing.
Now, I have watched enough Oprah to know that when a real-live person says "I have a problem," the appropriate response from me is, "Wow, sounds like you have a problem." If I like the person, I can expand on this: "What's your plan?" or "How do you feel about it?" or "Thanks for sharing." The main thing is, this person has a problem and fixing it is her job. Not mine.
I don't even have to say, "What would you like me to do?" unless I really really want to. Of course, the person can ask me for help, and that's a different situation. But until I'm asked for specific help, I don't have to offer any. In fact, it's often best to not offer solutions. For one thing, the person may have excellent ideas of her own and just need to tell me about the problem. And for another, I really can't read minds, so figuring out what she needs is problematic at best.
I understand that the IRS is not a real person. However, it seems as if the IRS has a problem, and I don't have an indication of what action they would like me to take.
So I sent BACK a letter explaining why I made the amendment I made (because the amended version accurately describes my situation here) and asked them to suggest actions I could take that would help them resolve their issue with processing my form.
Because I am in NO position to figure out what the IRS needs. In fact, that's how this tax form became problematic in the first place--I had a particularly strange year in 2007 and could not figure out how to fill out the forms. And that was with instructions.
So now, I'm just waiting to find out how I can help out the IRS. In the meantime, IRS, thanks for sharing.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Buy Eh-merican
I have been known to hold forth a time or two about things that I believe in. (See posts with "soapbox" labels.)
Recently, I have struggled again with what it means to "buy American" or "buy Canadian," expecially as those concepts intersect with "buy local." One example I used was apples, and how Wisconsin apples are more "local" here in Thunder Bay than BC apples are.
The New York Times recently ran an interactive feature that helps make my point in relation to the auto industry. Go here. It's pretty cool. Not a fabulous example of interactivity but not bad for a staid, traditional print newspaper.
Anyway, it's useful. You can see from this feature that, for example, the Mazda B-series pickup is assembled in St. Paul, MN, from transmissions that come from either Japan or France and engines from either Germany or the U.S. So are Mazdas assembled in Minnesota really "furrin" cars?
But what about a Ford, a quintessential "Murrican" vehicle? The Ford Explorer, say? Well, according to this feature, the Kentucky plant takes transmissions from the U.S. or France, adds in engines from Germany or the U.S., and makes an "American" car.
So yes, it's possible that all the parts come from the U.S. and are assembled in the U.S. But it's also possible that these "American" cars are part Canadian, part Mexican, part European, and part Asian.
Now scroll down to the bottom. Here are "American" cars assembled in Mexico and Canada.
And can I just add that it's entirely possible that a car fully manufactured and assembled in the U.S.--even from U.S.-made components and raw materials (unlikely)--is made in a plant using energy that relies on oil imported from Canada?
One part of this whole "buy whatever" discussion that makes me nuts is that for years--decades--we've heard lots about the "global economy" and the "shrinking world" we live in.
As in: "We take advantage of today's global economy to outsource our materials acquisitions to Canada and Africa, our customer service to Brazil and India, our manufacturing to Indonesia and South Korea, and our marketing to citizen journalists, all of which lets us rightsize our domestic workforce and achieve economies of scale." Bleah.
So suddenly those international agreements and supposed advantages of the global marketplace aren't important? What?
How about, instead of buying "American," we buy things we need instead of things we want? Let's buy high-quality things that are designed well, work well, and last a long time. Let's make art and tell each other stories. Let's take care of each other, including those in other countries whose work has made so much possible for us. Let's go outdoors and play, under our own power. Quick, while it's sunny.
Recently, I have struggled again with what it means to "buy American" or "buy Canadian," expecially as those concepts intersect with "buy local." One example I used was apples, and how Wisconsin apples are more "local" here in Thunder Bay than BC apples are.
The New York Times recently ran an interactive feature that helps make my point in relation to the auto industry. Go here. It's pretty cool. Not a fabulous example of interactivity but not bad for a staid, traditional print newspaper.
Anyway, it's useful. You can see from this feature that, for example, the Mazda B-series pickup is assembled in St. Paul, MN, from transmissions that come from either Japan or France and engines from either Germany or the U.S. So are Mazdas assembled in Minnesota really "furrin" cars?
But what about a Ford, a quintessential "Murrican" vehicle? The Ford Explorer, say? Well, according to this feature, the Kentucky plant takes transmissions from the U.S. or France, adds in engines from Germany or the U.S., and makes an "American" car.
So yes, it's possible that all the parts come from the U.S. and are assembled in the U.S. But it's also possible that these "American" cars are part Canadian, part Mexican, part European, and part Asian.
Now scroll down to the bottom. Here are "American" cars assembled in Mexico and Canada.
And can I just add that it's entirely possible that a car fully manufactured and assembled in the U.S.--even from U.S.-made components and raw materials (unlikely)--is made in a plant using energy that relies on oil imported from Canada?
One part of this whole "buy whatever" discussion that makes me nuts is that for years--decades--we've heard lots about the "global economy" and the "shrinking world" we live in.
As in: "We take advantage of today's global economy to outsource our materials acquisitions to Canada and Africa, our customer service to Brazil and India, our manufacturing to Indonesia and South Korea, and our marketing to citizen journalists, all of which lets us rightsize our domestic workforce and achieve economies of scale." Bleah.
So suddenly those international agreements and supposed advantages of the global marketplace aren't important? What?
How about, instead of buying "American," we buy things we need instead of things we want? Let's buy high-quality things that are designed well, work well, and last a long time. Let's make art and tell each other stories. Let's take care of each other, including those in other countries whose work has made so much possible for us. Let's go outdoors and play, under our own power. Quick, while it's sunny.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Un-Patriotism
Hi, my name is Marion, and I'm un-patriotic. In both countries. And I'm taking advantage of this sweet spot between Canada Day and Independence Day to clear the air.
Here are a few of my un-favo(u)rite Canadian things.
However, for the most part, I am unapologetic about the content of my un-favorite American things. The top of that list, today, is Michael Jackson. I know: icon, maverick, influential, yeah yeah. Don't like him. Didn't like Elvis, either. I can appreciate the importance of their contributions without liking them. And therefore, I do.
But about having un-favo(u)rite Canadian things: it seems churlish, having chosen to live in this country, not to be out front leading the parade with my face painted like the flag, red bars on the sides and maple leaf down my nose. I should be singing "Ontari-ari-ari-oooooo" and "Can-a-dah!" I should see nothing but fabulousness. I shouldn't complain about the weather, the healthcare system, the roads, the gas prices, the difficulty an immigrant has in establishing credit, the political leadership...well, you get the idea.
I do enjoy many Canadian things and people. I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen, Holly Cole, and Molly Johnson. I like butter tarts and Nanaimo bars. I like meeting people with all kinds of interesting backgrounds who speak many languages.
But mostly I enjoy living in a country where patriotism takes the form of a mild smugness. Canadians think their country is pretty great, but they would never be so crass as to say so aloud. And that's darn refreshing.
So--Canada, I'm sorry about that "don't like" list but I know we can still be friends. And U.S.--well, I'm wishing you the best from elsewhere and hoping you have a fine holiday. (Pssst. Canada Day was better.)
Here are a few of my un-favo(u)rite Canadian things.
- Diana Krall. I know I should like her music but I don't. I just don't. I really want to, but I don't. I have tried. I don't like her public performing persona. I'm sure she's a wonderful person. I just don't like her. I also don't like performances by Celine Dion, Shania Twain, or Rita MacNeil (though Rita writes reasonable songs). I'm not nuts about Anne Murray. Yeah yeah--icons, wildly successful, I get that. But no, I don't like them. Sorry. Oh, and Mike Myers and Keanu Reeves. Nope.
- The Listener. It's a Canadian program that's also popular in the U.S. and I'm supposed to be supportive and happy, but this program is ridiculous. It's certainly no Flashpoint, which is the best of that lot. And CBC doesn't necessarily do a better job of original programming. The Border is waaaay melodramatic but I have managed to sit through entire episodes because the content is interesting to someone interested in the Canada/U.S. border. Reaching back in time, Intelligence and DaVinci Goes Viral are both too dark. Not dark in content--literally dark. I can't see a thing and the content doesn't inspire me to try harder. And you remember last summer's vote-Maria-off-the-island reality show. Brrr.
- Lloyd Robertson, anchor of CTV news. I should admire his ability to mince while sitting behind a desk, but that seems a dubious distinction. His delivery is just plain distracting, even when he's not stumbling over the words. Peter Mansbridge, CBC anchor, bellows a bit but he, at least, reads reasonably well. Though he needs to stop it with that "Next on most CBC stations: Geoooooooooorge Stroumboulopoulous! and The Hour."
- Persians, a dislike that makes me doubly traitorous because they're unique to Thunder Bay. But blech. Also poutine: don't get the point. And I'm not a fan of either Tim Horton's or Robin's Donuts. I'm supposed to support Tim's again because it recently moved its headquarters from Delaware back to somewhere in Ontario. But sorry.
However, for the most part, I am unapologetic about the content of my un-favorite American things. The top of that list, today, is Michael Jackson. I know: icon, maverick, influential, yeah yeah. Don't like him. Didn't like Elvis, either. I can appreciate the importance of their contributions without liking them. And therefore, I do.
But about having un-favo(u)rite Canadian things: it seems churlish, having chosen to live in this country, not to be out front leading the parade with my face painted like the flag, red bars on the sides and maple leaf down my nose. I should be singing "Ontari-ari-ari-oooooo" and "Can-a-dah!" I should see nothing but fabulousness. I shouldn't complain about the weather, the healthcare system, the roads, the gas prices, the difficulty an immigrant has in establishing credit, the political leadership...well, you get the idea.
I do enjoy many Canadian things and people. I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen, Holly Cole, and Molly Johnson. I like butter tarts and Nanaimo bars. I like meeting people with all kinds of interesting backgrounds who speak many languages.
But mostly I enjoy living in a country where patriotism takes the form of a mild smugness. Canadians think their country is pretty great, but they would never be so crass as to say so aloud. And that's darn refreshing.
So--Canada, I'm sorry about that "don't like" list but I know we can still be friends. And U.S.--well, I'm wishing you the best from elsewhere and hoping you have a fine holiday. (Pssst. Canada Day was better.)
Monday, May 25, 2009
Destination: Winnipeg
We're just home from four days in Winnipeg: two days of walking bookended by two days of driving.
I enjoyed the whole experience. Winnipeg is a large city but not so large as to be daunting. As we would say in the south, Winnipeg is not "all eat up with" its own importance. It was like visiting a U.S. city that's larger than Des Moines (but with that prairie feel) but smaller than Minneapolis/St. Paul (but with that sense of nearness of trees).
It has a functional downtown, although the buildings have their fair share of empty storefronts. I also saw few amenities for people who live and work downtown. For example, I didn't see a regular grocery store in the heart of downtown, as you would find in other cities, though some markets had some fruit and packaged stuff.
Skywalks and tunnels make it possible to get around in inclement weather, though they're set up less for convenience (they meander) and more as dowtown revitalization projects. The shops ranged from your basic mall stores to collections of inexpensive imports and the ubiquitous (in Canada ) A Buck or Two dollar-amas. We didn't investigate the bus system, but the city would need a really good bus system to make life navigable without a car.
However, for geeks, it's a pretty fun place. It has a surprisingly large museum and planetarium (and two children's museums) and an Imax theatre. If you're into walking to see what's around, both sides of the Red River have interesting buildings. We happened into a tour of the St. Boniface cathedral, which burned and was rebuilt 40 years ago. Interesting story and interesting choices by the architect.
The Forks is an indoor/outdoor market/waterfront area (and a natural, government-protected area) that is the envy of (and possibly the model for) the new Thunder Bay waterfront development. Throughout Saturday, people (tourists, locals) actually showed up there to hang around. The photo above is from a special display of mining equipment (it was Manitoba Mining Week or some such) there.
Those with sincere interests in things like ballet, opera, concerts/shows, comedy, music festivals, cultural and ethnic displays, history, or food can find entertainment and stimulation.
But one of the strangest parts of the experience, for me, was driving somewhere that wasn't into the U.S. No border crossing and passports. No translating currency; no need for a dual-wallet system. Just a trip--not even to visit family. Just for relaxation. A getaway. A vacation. In the same country where I already live. Huh.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Taxes: That's Why They're Called That. Or Maybe Not.
I started on a research project to determine whether taxes are called that because they are taxing or whether taxing became a descriptor because a thing is "bothersome, like a tax." A chicken/egg investigation.
The answer seemed to be that I couldn't figure out an answer easily, because apparently "tax" doesn't mean what we think it does, so I stopped thinking about that for now.
However, here is something I learned about income tax recently.
In the U.S., income tax is based on citizenship. Are you a citizen? You pay U.S. income taxes, or else you tell the IRS why you think you don't have to. And that's a real "or else." The IRS doesn't care where you live: you're a citizen, you owe me. Fork it over.
In Canada, income tax is based on residence. Have you lived in Canada long enough to warrant paying income tax? If so, great. Fork it over. We don't care what country you're a citizen of. Pay up. But if you're a Canadian citizen living elsewhere, pay where you live and let us know when you're back.
The residence-based system is sometimes known as "the British system," which must be why the U.S. doesn't use it. (We don't need no stinkin' British anything.) However, the U.S. is not alone: about half of the world uses one system and the other half uses the other.
In any case, if I were a Canadian living in the U.S., I'd pay tax only in the U.S. As a U.S. citizen living in Canada, I'll pay taxes in two countries forever.
Except that actually, I don't have to PAY taxes in both countries. I just have to file paperwork showing the U.S. that I'm paying in Canada. (Or vice versa, but that's how I'm doing it.) Which is where the IRS and I are having a difference of opinion. I've sent an amended form for 2007's taxes, because the IRS sent me a nasty-gram in the fall and rather than investigate then, I just paid it. But now, I can show that I didn't owe it. Or so I believe.
The British system seems friendlier. It also seems to require less paperwork. Nobody has to file a form saying you don't have to pay. You just don't pay. What does the IRS do with all those "I don't have to pay" forms once they're filed? It just seems wasteful. However, I'm sure the IRS thinks I don't see the whole picture.
One thing is certain: writing about taxes is infinitely preferable to collecting information for taxes and figuring out what one owes. I just hope the same goes for you, the reader--but then, you can click away at any time.
The answer seemed to be that I couldn't figure out an answer easily, because apparently "tax" doesn't mean what we think it does, so I stopped thinking about that for now.
However, here is something I learned about income tax recently.
In the U.S., income tax is based on citizenship. Are you a citizen? You pay U.S. income taxes, or else you tell the IRS why you think you don't have to. And that's a real "or else." The IRS doesn't care where you live: you're a citizen, you owe me. Fork it over.
In Canada, income tax is based on residence. Have you lived in Canada long enough to warrant paying income tax? If so, great. Fork it over. We don't care what country you're a citizen of. Pay up. But if you're a Canadian citizen living elsewhere, pay where you live and let us know when you're back.
The residence-based system is sometimes known as "the British system," which must be why the U.S. doesn't use it. (We don't need no stinkin' British anything.) However, the U.S. is not alone: about half of the world uses one system and the other half uses the other.
In any case, if I were a Canadian living in the U.S., I'd pay tax only in the U.S. As a U.S. citizen living in Canada, I'll pay taxes in two countries forever.
Except that actually, I don't have to PAY taxes in both countries. I just have to file paperwork showing the U.S. that I'm paying in Canada. (Or vice versa, but that's how I'm doing it.) Which is where the IRS and I are having a difference of opinion. I've sent an amended form for 2007's taxes, because the IRS sent me a nasty-gram in the fall and rather than investigate then, I just paid it. But now, I can show that I didn't owe it. Or so I believe.
The British system seems friendlier. It also seems to require less paperwork. Nobody has to file a form saying you don't have to pay. You just don't pay. What does the IRS do with all those "I don't have to pay" forms once they're filed? It just seems wasteful. However, I'm sure the IRS thinks I don't see the whole picture.
One thing is certain: writing about taxes is infinitely preferable to collecting information for taxes and figuring out what one owes. I just hope the same goes for you, the reader--but then, you can click away at any time.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Beat Me To It
It's that time of year again, when from Main Street to Wall Street, we emerge from our holiday staycations and examine our collective carbon footprints.
Or, you know, not so much.
Lake Superior State University has issued its list of banned words again. Most of what I wrote above is on it.
As I might have said when living in Arkansas, I was fixin' to do a post about the Wall Street/Main Street (Canadian: Bay Street/Main Street) "thing" myself. The essense of my message: Stop. Please. Now. Possibly the dyad was clever the first time anyone said it, decades ago, for a completely different recession. But now, stop.
I think that phrase bothers me more than most of the rest of the delights from LSSU, but one other merits comment. I agree that "First Dude," while possibly appropriate for the spouse of the president of the local skateboard club, is not at all appropriate for the spouse of a candidate for U.S. vice president. And my response to that is possibly linked to eight years of the Frat Boy President. Fortunately, the term now has the opportunity to pass quietly into oblivion.
But back to the battle of the Streets: I dislike the Wall-Bay Street/Main Street comparison because it's not particularly accurate. Wall-Bay Street and Main Street are neither so far apart nor so close together. For one thing, Wall-Bay Street is NOT synonymous with the economy. In either country.
And although it's meant to, Main Street actually does NOT represent local economies, either. These days, local companies more likely to have addresses like "One Innovation Way, Building 29," or "Three Four Five Research Park Drive, Suite 1450."
And another thing, and this is my main irritation with this phrase: Us "regular folk," who aren't like those supposed bazillionaires working on Wall-Bay Street, don't exist only in relation to Main Street (or what is meant by that phrase), either. Us regular folk are fully rounded human beings, who interact with each other, and money (as well as pizza and the weather) in a variety of ways. We don't wear financial goggles all day, every day--although these days, it's hard not to, since that's all that anyone in power ever talks about. Still, if pressed, we would acknowledge that not all of our activities relate to money.
Instead, we would recognize our activities relate to each other--actual people--and sometimes involve money. Probably in much the same way as the activities of those who work on Wall-Bay Street. Like us, they likely go home to families, and laugh and cry, and cook or order in or go out to eat, and curl or play hockey and wish something other than reruns were on TV.
We--the people on all four streets in both countries--are more than this shorthand. If policymakers remember that, they are likely to make better policies that do more than react to short-term fear. If we can remember that, we are likely to enjoy our lives in 2009 more than we will if we focus only on what we lack, instead of what we have.
Or, you know, not so much.
Lake Superior State University has issued its list of banned words again. Most of what I wrote above is on it.
As I might have said when living in Arkansas, I was fixin' to do a post about the Wall Street/Main Street (Canadian: Bay Street/Main Street) "thing" myself. The essense of my message: Stop. Please. Now. Possibly the dyad was clever the first time anyone said it, decades ago, for a completely different recession. But now, stop.
I think that phrase bothers me more than most of the rest of the delights from LSSU, but one other merits comment. I agree that "First Dude," while possibly appropriate for the spouse of the president of the local skateboard club, is not at all appropriate for the spouse of a candidate for U.S. vice president. And my response to that is possibly linked to eight years of the Frat Boy President. Fortunately, the term now has the opportunity to pass quietly into oblivion.
But back to the battle of the Streets: I dislike the Wall-Bay Street/Main Street comparison because it's not particularly accurate. Wall-Bay Street and Main Street are neither so far apart nor so close together. For one thing, Wall-Bay Street is NOT synonymous with the economy. In either country.
And although it's meant to, Main Street actually does NOT represent local economies, either. These days, local companies more likely to have addresses like "One Innovation Way, Building 29," or "Three Four Five Research Park Drive, Suite 1450."
And another thing, and this is my main irritation with this phrase: Us "regular folk," who aren't like those supposed bazillionaires working on Wall-Bay Street, don't exist only in relation to Main Street (or what is meant by that phrase), either. Us regular folk are fully rounded human beings, who interact with each other, and money (as well as pizza and the weather) in a variety of ways. We don't wear financial goggles all day, every day--although these days, it's hard not to, since that's all that anyone in power ever talks about. Still, if pressed, we would acknowledge that not all of our activities relate to money.
Instead, we would recognize our activities relate to each other--actual people--and sometimes involve money. Probably in much the same way as the activities of those who work on Wall-Bay Street. Like us, they likely go home to families, and laugh and cry, and cook or order in or go out to eat, and curl or play hockey and wish something other than reruns were on TV.
We--the people on all four streets in both countries--are more than this shorthand. If policymakers remember that, they are likely to make better policies that do more than react to short-term fear. If we can remember that, we are likely to enjoy our lives in 2009 more than we will if we focus only on what we lack, instead of what we have.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Whew (Technically)
Canada's in a recession. Yep. I think most of us saw that "let's face facts" moment coming.
But, we are relieved to learn, we really don't need to worry--it's only a technical recession, according to the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister. Well. Whew, indeed!
During the recent Canadian election, mere weeks ago, the Prime Minister said, "The fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong," in that "you're too stupid to breathe" tone he adopted from the Decider-in-Chief to the south.
I suppose that insistence explains why the current recession is only technical.
And we all feel better. Technically.
Sheesh.
But, we are relieved to learn, we really don't need to worry--it's only a technical recession, according to the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister. Well. Whew, indeed!
During the recent Canadian election, mere weeks ago, the Prime Minister said, "The fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong," in that "you're too stupid to breathe" tone he adopted from the Decider-in-Chief to the south.
I suppose that insistence explains why the current recession is only technical.
And we all feel better. Technically.
Sheesh.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Another Message While We Wait
For those in the U.S., here's a request. Please please please. If your candidate loses, please don't say, "I'm moving to Canada."
I know you're just joking, but seriously. It's not a good joke. Don't even say it, and for sure don't come here. Your responsibility is to stay home and stay involved in your community. Put your beliefs into practice. Help someone else, even if that person voted for the "winner." Maybe even especially if that person is a "winner."
Let me back up. I know that I may look like the world's biggest pot calling hypothetical kettles black. However, as anyone who actually knows me knows, I moved here for reasons of real estate and stayed for reasons of love. Politics didn't enter into it. Sure, Bush and Cheney and their ridiculous vision for the U.S. made it easier to stay here. But they didn't cause me to leave.
There are people in this world who are REAL political refugees. They tend not to come from countries that are democracies, where raspberries are available in grocery stores year-round, where public libraries and the Internet hold more information than we can comprehend in a lifetime, where roads are paved, and where food safety failures are cause for outrage and lawsuits.
You are not a political refugee. You're just hurting a bit right now. You really don't want to come up here--you just want to run away from the hurt. Believe me, I know how that feels.
But you're lucky to live where you do. You're lucky that voting for the "loser" doesn't mean that supporters of the "winner" will appear at your door with a machete. Count your blessings. Lick your wounds. Stay put.
If you still think you're really serious about moving here, you should know a few things. Actual pieces of information. The capital city of the country. The names of a few of the provinces (no, they're not states here). The name of the current prime minister and, oh, at least one other from the past 140+ years. (Hint: look at the money.) This knowledge isn't too hard to find. Try Google.
But mostly, if you want to move here, think about this: how can you contribute to this country? That's right--how can you GIVE? It's about GIVING, after all, not GETTING. You don't get the benefits of the healthcare system without contributing to society.
Is this too hard? Yeah, I thought so. It's OK. I knew you really wanted to stay in the U.S. all along. Give it a little time and then get back out there and do something nice for someone else. You'll feel better. And so will we.
I know you're just joking, but seriously. It's not a good joke. Don't even say it, and for sure don't come here. Your responsibility is to stay home and stay involved in your community. Put your beliefs into practice. Help someone else, even if that person voted for the "winner." Maybe even especially if that person is a "winner."
Let me back up. I know that I may look like the world's biggest pot calling hypothetical kettles black. However, as anyone who actually knows me knows, I moved here for reasons of real estate and stayed for reasons of love. Politics didn't enter into it. Sure, Bush and Cheney and their ridiculous vision for the U.S. made it easier to stay here. But they didn't cause me to leave.
There are people in this world who are REAL political refugees. They tend not to come from countries that are democracies, where raspberries are available in grocery stores year-round, where public libraries and the Internet hold more information than we can comprehend in a lifetime, where roads are paved, and where food safety failures are cause for outrage and lawsuits.
You are not a political refugee. You're just hurting a bit right now. You really don't want to come up here--you just want to run away from the hurt. Believe me, I know how that feels.
But you're lucky to live where you do. You're lucky that voting for the "loser" doesn't mean that supporters of the "winner" will appear at your door with a machete. Count your blessings. Lick your wounds. Stay put.
If you still think you're really serious about moving here, you should know a few things. Actual pieces of information. The capital city of the country. The names of a few of the provinces (no, they're not states here). The name of the current prime minister and, oh, at least one other from the past 140+ years. (Hint: look at the money.) This knowledge isn't too hard to find. Try Google.
But mostly, if you want to move here, think about this: how can you contribute to this country? That's right--how can you GIVE? It's about GIVING, after all, not GETTING. You don't get the benefits of the healthcare system without contributing to society.
Is this too hard? Yeah, I thought so. It's OK. I knew you really wanted to stay in the U.S. all along. Give it a little time and then get back out there and do something nice for someone else. You'll feel better. And so will we.
Friday, October 31, 2008
A Sign of Maturity
That's what I'd like to think, anyway. Because here I am to tell you how wrong I was. That's right, Fonz--I was WRONG and I can say the whole word.
In June, I posted about my irritation with irony. In it I said I disliked This American Life, a public radio program hosted by Ira Glass. And now I am here to take it all back.
While we were driving across several U.S. states, both red and blue (but mostly red), we heard a couple of different segments of This American Life that explained the housing market implosion and the credit crunch. They were informative and entertaining and only slightly voice-in-the-back-of-the-throat ironic.
You can listen to the first show here, and those who wrote that show have created updates you can find at that link, too.
I'm still no expert on the vagaries of money, and dealing in money that is only theoretical. I suppose money itself is theoretical, since the paper at one time represented a certain amount of gold hidden somewhere.
At the Shell Museum on Sanibel Island in Florida, there was a huge exhibit about the use of cowrie shells for money. Those days are gone and it makes life more convenient for people like me--I'm off to check my bank balances online, in two countries.
In June, I posted about my irritation with irony. In it I said I disliked This American Life, a public radio program hosted by Ira Glass. And now I am here to take it all back.
While we were driving across several U.S. states, both red and blue (but mostly red), we heard a couple of different segments of This American Life that explained the housing market implosion and the credit crunch. They were informative and entertaining and only slightly voice-in-the-back-of-the-throat ironic.
You can listen to the first show here, and those who wrote that show have created updates you can find at that link, too.
I'm still no expert on the vagaries of money, and dealing in money that is only theoretical. I suppose money itself is theoretical, since the paper at one time represented a certain amount of gold hidden somewhere.
At the Shell Museum on Sanibel Island in Florida, there was a huge exhibit about the use of cowrie shells for money. Those days are gone and it makes life more convenient for people like me--I'm off to check my bank balances online, in two countries.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
(Unparallel) (but not Unparallelled) Notes from the Road
Homemade but professional-looking bumper sticker seen in the window of a car in a Venice, Florida parking lot: "McPain"
After last week's election up north, one news program ran a bumper across the bottom about Harper's conservative victory. One. Yep. One.
One pundit also tried to make something of this for McCain--see, Canada is turning rightward from its socialist tendencies. That bodes well for McCain. Two exiles snorted and said, "Harper couldn't get the majority he wanted when it was practically given to him with both hands."
What is with elections and candidates "debating" while sitting at a table? Whose idea was this? Weren't the Party Honchos watching the weird debate with the five of the Canadian candidates sitting at a triangular table? Oh wait, silly question. See, Party Honchos, there's this country called Canada. They had an election, too!
Today's weirdest moment: seeing the airfield where the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly planes. Across the street was a nondescript apartment building where they lived. My Aunt gets email at the public library--where they confiscated the hard drives because terrorists had also been emailing from the public library. OK, a few weird moments.
It's amazing how quickly I get used to using $1 bills as opposed to coins. My wallet is flatter and lighter, too. Getting lighter all the time, in fact.
Speaking of getting lighter, gas sits at $2.79 a gallon--slightly less than we paid at the border and less than through the middle of the country. And way less than its high of $4+ just about a month ago.
So far, so good with the "Tour de Hurricane." Back soon to the land of jackets, shoes, and socks.
After last week's election up north, one news program ran a bumper across the bottom about Harper's conservative victory. One. Yep. One.
One pundit also tried to make something of this for McCain--see, Canada is turning rightward from its socialist tendencies. That bodes well for McCain. Two exiles snorted and said, "Harper couldn't get the majority he wanted when it was practically given to him with both hands."
What is with elections and candidates "debating" while sitting at a table? Whose idea was this? Weren't the Party Honchos watching the weird debate with the five of the Canadian candidates sitting at a triangular table? Oh wait, silly question. See, Party Honchos, there's this country called Canada. They had an election, too!
Today's weirdest moment: seeing the airfield where the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly planes. Across the street was a nondescript apartment building where they lived. My Aunt gets email at the public library--where they confiscated the hard drives because terrorists had also been emailing from the public library. OK, a few weird moments.
It's amazing how quickly I get used to using $1 bills as opposed to coins. My wallet is flatter and lighter, too. Getting lighter all the time, in fact.
Speaking of getting lighter, gas sits at $2.79 a gallon--slightly less than we paid at the border and less than through the middle of the country. And way less than its high of $4+ just about a month ago.
So far, so good with the "Tour de Hurricane." Back soon to the land of jackets, shoes, and socks.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Ooo, Shiny!
More snow this morning--an inch or two of the heavy kind that drags down the branches on all the evergreens and looks quite picturesque. But it has jump-started a dormant yearnin', burnin' in me. That's right, folks--I want something clean and new and shiny.
My car actually does okay because it sits outside. I do a lot of scraping (and swearing when I forget to allow time to scrape and am late getting into town), but each storm that dumps precipitation leaves the material for a "carwash." When the snow finally melts, presto! clean car. Roy's car, however, gets filthier and filthier from driving and then is parked in the garage, where it is protected from the elements but never gets cleaned.
But between storms, my car gets pretty gross with salt and dirt. So yeah, the urge for shiny started one afternoon when I was sick of trying to avoid even brushing up against the car, because that always leaves a stain on whatever I'm wearing, which means work. I had this momentary desire for a new car, but $anity returned.
Then I saw ads for iPods on sale and thought "Oooo, I want an iPod." They're such great colors, and I don't have all the music around I'm used to having, and replacing it all on CD seems like an expen$ive proposition, but if I got an iPod, I could download just the songs I want...you get the picture. (I'm excellent at rationalization; it's what's allowed me to live this long.)
What actually stopped the iPod purchase was the color choice. I got all hung up trying to decide between a fuschia one and a blue one (orange is OUT but yellow is still on the table, and an aqua one...well, who'd be able to resist that). And then I realized I don't really want one iPod; I want all the colors as displayed because they're cuter all together than separately. So I resisted the urge and turned on the TV.
On the TV, they were advertising this great sale on Blackberrys, and I thought "Oooo, I want a Blackberry."
And then, in a "wow I coulda had a V8" whack to the forehead, sanity prevailed. The last thing in the world I need is a Blackberry. With my father gone, the only person who ever needs to find me is my husband, and he enjoys the short walk downstairs. We have cell phones only because occasionally I drive to town without him and "everyone" needs one to call 911 if there's a problem. It's a miracle when I remember to turn the damn thing on.
Furthermore, I don't want a Blackberry. I don't want to be available 24/7 (though I basically am, even without my cell phone, because regular phones are in most places I am). I have never wanted a Blackberry and have only grudgingly accepted a cell phone. When I found myself wanting a Blackberry, I knew I was possessed by something--my own version of March Madness, Spring Fever, whatever you want to call it.
But I have to admit, I haven't completely ruled out an iPod. I was forcing myself to wait till the first day of Spring to see if I still wanted one. And now, with the new snowfall, it's not so much that I still want one as that I want one again.
Time to check the ads for Future Shop and Staples...
My car actually does okay because it sits outside. I do a lot of scraping (and swearing when I forget to allow time to scrape and am late getting into town), but each storm that dumps precipitation leaves the material for a "carwash." When the snow finally melts, presto! clean car. Roy's car, however, gets filthier and filthier from driving and then is parked in the garage, where it is protected from the elements but never gets cleaned.
But between storms, my car gets pretty gross with salt and dirt. So yeah, the urge for shiny started one afternoon when I was sick of trying to avoid even brushing up against the car, because that always leaves a stain on whatever I'm wearing, which means work. I had this momentary desire for a new car, but $anity returned.
Then I saw ads for iPods on sale and thought "Oooo, I want an iPod." They're such great colors, and I don't have all the music around I'm used to having, and replacing it all on CD seems like an expen$ive proposition, but if I got an iPod, I could download just the songs I want...you get the picture. (I'm excellent at rationalization; it's what's allowed me to live this long.)
What actually stopped the iPod purchase was the color choice. I got all hung up trying to decide between a fuschia one and a blue one (orange is OUT but yellow is still on the table, and an aqua one...well, who'd be able to resist that). And then I realized I don't really want one iPod; I want all the colors as displayed because they're cuter all together than separately. So I resisted the urge and turned on the TV.
On the TV, they were advertising this great sale on Blackberrys, and I thought "Oooo, I want a Blackberry."
And then, in a "wow I coulda had a V8" whack to the forehead, sanity prevailed. The last thing in the world I need is a Blackberry. With my father gone, the only person who ever needs to find me is my husband, and he enjoys the short walk downstairs. We have cell phones only because occasionally I drive to town without him and "everyone" needs one to call 911 if there's a problem. It's a miracle when I remember to turn the damn thing on.
Furthermore, I don't want a Blackberry. I don't want to be available 24/7 (though I basically am, even without my cell phone, because regular phones are in most places I am). I have never wanted a Blackberry and have only grudgingly accepted a cell phone. When I found myself wanting a Blackberry, I knew I was possessed by something--my own version of March Madness, Spring Fever, whatever you want to call it.
But I have to admit, I haven't completely ruled out an iPod. I was forcing myself to wait till the first day of Spring to see if I still wanted one. And now, with the new snowfall, it's not so much that I still want one as that I want one again.
Time to check the ads for Future Shop and Staples...
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Power of a Name
Did the people at Bear Stearns, which sold yesterday in a frantic weekend deal for something like 1 percent of its value of a year ago, really think through the ramifications of their company name?
A bear market is a bad thing--it is not growing. A bull market is a good thing--it is growing.
So why name a financial company Bear Anything?
Roy happened on the news of the weekend deal last night and watched the Asian markets tizzify themselves, and we talked about what the Canadian and U.S. markets might do today. Then last night I dreamed he and I had had a pet beaver (Americans: symbol of Canadian industry) that fell nine stories to its death in a small pond in an atrium. We were on the balcony it fell from, and we couldn't save it.
And the moral of that story: add "discussions about falling stock markets" to "scary movies" on the "list of things not to not even THINK about at 10:30 p.m."
A bear market is a bad thing--it is not growing. A bull market is a good thing--it is growing.
So why name a financial company Bear Anything?
Roy happened on the news of the weekend deal last night and watched the Asian markets tizzify themselves, and we talked about what the Canadian and U.S. markets might do today. Then last night I dreamed he and I had had a pet beaver (Americans: symbol of Canadian industry) that fell nine stories to its death in a small pond in an atrium. We were on the balcony it fell from, and we couldn't save it.
And the moral of that story: add "discussions about falling stock markets" to "scary movies" on the "list of things not to not even THINK about at 10:30 p.m."
Friday, February 29, 2008
Baby Needs New Shoes
Canada's Finance Minister brought the budget to the House of Commons on Tuesday. The day before, he went to a men's clothing store, where instead of buying the traditional new pair of shoes, he had his old ones re-soled. This was a huge media event.
Pundits analyzed the "re-soling instead of purchasing," proclaiming it as a harbinger of the budget to come. In fact, the whole event was as serious as the Canadian groundhog day event (and of course they have their own groundhog, though they also monitor the U.S. rodent). On February 2, anyone who looks at a calendar and a map knows two things: yes, spring is inevitable; no, it won't feel like it for awhile. Why even ask a rodent?
But back to the shoes--quaint custom, eh? It's stuff like this that makes Canada seem cute, like one of those small European countries, maybe the one in the first Chocolate Factory movie--all turrets and red tile roofs. And let's not forget the abject poverty and four grandparents sleeping in the same bed to stay warm. Canada has that side, too.
Which the budget doesn't much address. Tax cuts for "ordinary Canadians," coupled with corporate tax breaks, have drained the surplus. The Conservatives bailed out the auto industry but left forestry high and dry. Still, the Liberals don't think it's worth bringing down the government for this budget.
It's snowing today, and my calendar confirms that it's still winter. So although Canada may be ready for a change in the season--weather or political--they have a few more weeks, at least, to wait.
Pundits analyzed the "re-soling instead of purchasing," proclaiming it as a harbinger of the budget to come. In fact, the whole event was as serious as the Canadian groundhog day event (and of course they have their own groundhog, though they also monitor the U.S. rodent). On February 2, anyone who looks at a calendar and a map knows two things: yes, spring is inevitable; no, it won't feel like it for awhile. Why even ask a rodent?
But back to the shoes--quaint custom, eh? It's stuff like this that makes Canada seem cute, like one of those small European countries, maybe the one in the first Chocolate Factory movie--all turrets and red tile roofs. And let's not forget the abject poverty and four grandparents sleeping in the same bed to stay warm. Canada has that side, too.
Which the budget doesn't much address. Tax cuts for "ordinary Canadians," coupled with corporate tax breaks, have drained the surplus. The Conservatives bailed out the auto industry but left forestry high and dry. Still, the Liberals don't think it's worth bringing down the government for this budget.
It's snowing today, and my calendar confirms that it's still winter. So although Canada may be ready for a change in the season--weather or political--they have a few more weeks, at least, to wait.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Tick-Tock Taxes
I get lots of mail at this time of the year--none of it particularly fun. I'm getting more than ever this year because my father had funds at a dozen different investment companies, portions of those funds transferred to me on his death, and now some of them require tax reporting. I keep thinking, "Next year won't be so complicated" but "next year" seems always to bring its own complications.
I file income tax in Canada. I also file a form--a fully filled-out income tax form--with the U.S., saying that I pay Canada taxes so don't owe anything. It makes for a lot of paperwork.
Although Canada gives you till April 30 to file, they make up for it in another way. You have to contribute to your retirement package by February 28. None of this "set up an IRA on April 15" stuff. You have to commit ahead of time. So meeting with an accountant is like getting a pedicure the week of Valentine's Day--you can do it, but it might be rushed.
Sometimes I feel as if I'm drowning in paperwork. I think longingly of the days when I lived all on one side of the border. Actually, I never did--my heart was always here, though my body and the paperwork were in the country down south.
But this morning, a red fox trotted past, intent on dinner. Yesterday afternoon, a pair of yearling does kept me company (outside the sliding glass doors) while I emailed in my office. Later this afternoon, we'll head out on cross-country trails that start just outside our door and keep us busy for an hour.
So yeah, that's worth a bit of paper.
I file income tax in Canada. I also file a form--a fully filled-out income tax form--with the U.S., saying that I pay Canada taxes so don't owe anything. It makes for a lot of paperwork.
Although Canada gives you till April 30 to file, they make up for it in another way. You have to contribute to your retirement package by February 28. None of this "set up an IRA on April 15" stuff. You have to commit ahead of time. So meeting with an accountant is like getting a pedicure the week of Valentine's Day--you can do it, but it might be rushed.
Sometimes I feel as if I'm drowning in paperwork. I think longingly of the days when I lived all on one side of the border. Actually, I never did--my heart was always here, though my body and the paperwork were in the country down south.
But this morning, a red fox trotted past, intent on dinner. Yesterday afternoon, a pair of yearling does kept me company (outside the sliding glass doors) while I emailed in my office. Later this afternoon, we'll head out on cross-country trails that start just outside our door and keep us busy for an hour.
So yeah, that's worth a bit of paper.
Friday, December 21, 2007
"Newsmaker" of the Year
It's time for the "wrap-up" stories--the biggest newsmakers, biggest celebrity disasters, ten most important news stories you don't know about, etc. In the U.S., Time chose Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year. Maclean's chose Conrad Black. Time Canada chose--the loonie.
Yep, thanks to the credit crunch in the U.S., the loonie had a banner year. Compared to the U.S. greenback, the loonie is worth more, although its actual purchasing power in international markets apparently isn't all that different. However, what has mattered (to me) in 2007 is that the loonie's rise and fall seems inversely related to where I need to have money. When I'm bringing money over to Canada, the loonie rises and I "lose" on the exchange rate. When I have money in Canada to use for bills in the U.S., the loonie falls.
Thank goodness it's hanging around close to par these days. The banks still have to get their share, and nothing that's "equal" really is so. Still, I have less mental arithmetic to do, and that's always good.
Yep, thanks to the credit crunch in the U.S., the loonie had a banner year. Compared to the U.S. greenback, the loonie is worth more, although its actual purchasing power in international markets apparently isn't all that different. However, what has mattered (to me) in 2007 is that the loonie's rise and fall seems inversely related to where I need to have money. When I'm bringing money over to Canada, the loonie rises and I "lose" on the exchange rate. When I have money in Canada to use for bills in the U.S., the loonie falls.
Thank goodness it's hanging around close to par these days. The banks still have to get their share, and nothing that's "equal" really is so. Still, I have less mental arithmetic to do, and that's always good.
Monday, October 1, 2007
More Parity
The loonie closed higher than the greenback one day last week and after that I stopped tracking. Sigh.
The dollars have been pretty much at par long enough that people north of the border are now starting (starting?!!!??) to do some comparison shopping. And, Omigosh! the reporters say breathlessly, Canadian consumers have been getting ripped off!
Even when the exchange rate was greater, Canadians were paying 25% to 50% more for consumer products--mostly big-ticket items like cars, but also weird stuff like shoes and even toys. (How could they not know this? Could they not do the math before?) Now, with the dollars at par, why are Canadians paying higher prices for the same consumer goods?
Recently, American car dealers in places like Buffalo have been ordered by their parent companies to not sell to Canadians. Even with duty and import fees, cars are cheaper to buy in the U.S. and import than they are to buy north of the border. But Canadian dealerships don't like it, and the automakers are bowing to the pressure from them. It remains to be seen whether customers exert similar pressure.
Retailers up here are complaining that customers expect prices to drop too quickly; they bought their stock with a different exchange rate and don't think they should be expected to take a loss. Consumers aren't impressed with this reasoning--retailers can certainly jack up prices at a moment's notice. Why not cut the consumer a break this time, for once? And while you're at it, improve your customer service.
One benefit from all the news stories about cross-border shopping: the newspaper recently listed all the products that are exempt from duty at the border. Books are on this list, as well as artwork and most articles made in the U.S. or Mexico. You have to declare this stuff, but you don't have to include it in the total value of goods you're bringing back from the U.S. when you cross into Canada.
("You" meaning Canadian residents and citizens. Canada customs doesn't care what you Yanks bring in, as long as you're not leaving it.) (Except potatoes. Prince Edward Islanders grow lots of those, so you can't bring spuds in.) (And there are probably laws about alcohol and tobacco, and there are definitely serious laws about firearms, but I don't even begin to try to keep up with those.) If I'm gone 24 hours, I can bring in $60 worth of goods. If I'm gone longer (I think a week), I can bring in $400 in stuff. And now I know most of the stuff I buy, except during the odd trip to Kohl's, is exempt!
Woo-hoo--another reason to buy books in the U.S. The Canadian prices on the back covers are often some 33% higher than the U.S. prices, and they're printed on there, so no Canadian retailer is going to be selling for less any time soon. And now that I know I won't pay duty on them--well, Drury Lane Bookstore in scenic Grand Marais, here I come.
I'm not normally a big shopper. But since I bring money across the border to live, I want to be sure that I take advantage of exchange rates as much as I can. The banks and retailers sure are.
The dollars have been pretty much at par long enough that people north of the border are now starting (starting?!!!??) to do some comparison shopping. And, Omigosh! the reporters say breathlessly, Canadian consumers have been getting ripped off!
Even when the exchange rate was greater, Canadians were paying 25% to 50% more for consumer products--mostly big-ticket items like cars, but also weird stuff like shoes and even toys. (How could they not know this? Could they not do the math before?) Now, with the dollars at par, why are Canadians paying higher prices for the same consumer goods?
Recently, American car dealers in places like Buffalo have been ordered by their parent companies to not sell to Canadians. Even with duty and import fees, cars are cheaper to buy in the U.S. and import than they are to buy north of the border. But Canadian dealerships don't like it, and the automakers are bowing to the pressure from them. It remains to be seen whether customers exert similar pressure.
Retailers up here are complaining that customers expect prices to drop too quickly; they bought their stock with a different exchange rate and don't think they should be expected to take a loss. Consumers aren't impressed with this reasoning--retailers can certainly jack up prices at a moment's notice. Why not cut the consumer a break this time, for once? And while you're at it, improve your customer service.
One benefit from all the news stories about cross-border shopping: the newspaper recently listed all the products that are exempt from duty at the border. Books are on this list, as well as artwork and most articles made in the U.S. or Mexico. You have to declare this stuff, but you don't have to include it in the total value of goods you're bringing back from the U.S. when you cross into Canada.
("You" meaning Canadian residents and citizens. Canada customs doesn't care what you Yanks bring in, as long as you're not leaving it.) (Except potatoes. Prince Edward Islanders grow lots of those, so you can't bring spuds in.) (And there are probably laws about alcohol and tobacco, and there are definitely serious laws about firearms, but I don't even begin to try to keep up with those.) If I'm gone 24 hours, I can bring in $60 worth of goods. If I'm gone longer (I think a week), I can bring in $400 in stuff. And now I know most of the stuff I buy, except during the odd trip to Kohl's, is exempt!
Woo-hoo--another reason to buy books in the U.S. The Canadian prices on the back covers are often some 33% higher than the U.S. prices, and they're printed on there, so no Canadian retailer is going to be selling for less any time soon. And now that I know I won't pay duty on them--well, Drury Lane Bookstore in scenic Grand Marais, here I come.
I'm not normally a big shopper. But since I bring money across the border to live, I want to be sure that I take advantage of exchange rates as much as I can. The banks and retailers sure are.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Parity
Back in the day--when I was moving here three years ago--I complained a lot about the relative values of the loonie (Canadian dollar) and the U.S. dollar (sometimes called the greenback but often just called "the dollar," with the "U.S." part understood). At that time, the loonie was worth about 80 cents U.S.
Oh, woe was me. I longed for the days when the loonie was worth 60 to 70 cents and hovered conveniently around 66 cents for several years. Back then, I got very good at the mental arithmetic for converting loonies to dollars--divide the Canadian price by three and multiply by two, and you have the comparable price in U.S. dollars.
Three years ago, I was even nostalgic for a loonie worth 75 cents. The arithmetic was tricker--divide by four and multiply by three--but I adapted. And I still felt that I could get incredible deals in Canada, on the rare occasions I shopped for something.
Now I'm nostalgic for the 80 cent loonie of three years ago! Yesterday, the loonie and the U.S. dollar were equal in value--for a few minutes--for the first time since 1976. The loonie ended the day yesterday at 99.something cents. Today, the currency opened at par and has pretty much stayed there. Pundits have been predicting this state of affairs for the past few months, but most thought parity would happen by Christmas. Few thought it would come this early in the year.
Many people up here are enjoying this moment. The TV stations show those "what were we thinking?" moments in hair and clothing fashion from the last time the loonie was so valuable. However, not everyone is tickled by this news. Canada exports so much to the U.S. that the high loonie actually hurts much of the Canadian economy; U.S. companies have much less incentive to buy Canadian when Canadian costs as much as buying American and carries shipping charges, too.
I have a slightly different concern, aside from my own selfish concerns about my financial situation. (It requires incredible juggling to be sure that I have enough money in each country to cover the bills in that country.) My concern is two-fold, and both folds are those nebulous cultural things.
First, the Canadian minister of finance said yesterday that it's not so much that the Canadian dollar is worth more; the situation has arisen because the U.S. dollar is worth that much less. (Note: not "worthless"; just "worth less.") The dollar has dropped in value compared to the Euro, the yen, and the British pound. So the U.S. dollar is a lower target than it used to be. Achieving parity might actually mean that both dollars will buy what 90 cents U.S. bought a month ago.
It's like deciding you can't get to Mars, so you'll stop at the moon. There's nothing wrong with getting to the moon; it just isn't Mars.
Here's the second fold: Dollar-loonie parity doesn't mean anything about the relative value of the cultures or peoples. (I would say that parity also doesn't mean that much about the relative values of the economies, since they have such different bases, but I really don't know what I'm talking about, so I won't.) Last night, news programs showed Canadians celebrating their loonie and Americans blue that their greenback is less valuable. It's personal. But why?
Canadians are not now somehow "more equal" to Americans than they were last week. Parity doesn't mean that last week, any Canadian was worth only 95% of any American, but now--hoo boy, look out, buddy, we're just as good as you. Huh?
And here's my bottom line: the Canadian economy needs to aim higher than a loonie at par with the U.S. dollar. And the Canadian cultural psyche needs to aim higher than a feeling of "equivalence" to Americans. In both cases, I hope Canada and Canadians find different yardsticks, or metre-sticks, to measure themselves against.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Seriously, Do Not Call Me
Today's invisible line separates sales calls from harrassing calls. Also, you will see evidence that Canadians aren't always polite. Or at least their business practices are every bit as annoying as those in the U.S.
Yesterday I received a telemarketing call. I have previously supported this organization, so it isn't unreasonable that I receive a call.
Except.
Except that in December, I wrote to the telemarketing company, asking that my name be removed from their list and explaining why. In short, here's why: They tell you they call you "every year" when they call you every six months minimum. They lie to you when you ask when they last called. They also have a very smarmy script that I find offensive, and I'm not even part of the group they're marketing for, but I didn't go into that. Anyway. I asked, in writing, to be taken off their call list.
Except that I received another telemarketing call in about March. I explained that I had asked, in writing, to be taken off this list and explained again why. The man who called said I would be.
Except that last week, I received yet another call from the telemarketing company on behalf of this same organization. I said again that I have asked to be removed from the list and, after hearing a petulant voice from the caller, simply hung up.
As you can see, I have been patient. Except for yesterday. I said that I had asked in writing to be taken off their list and had been called three times since, and that if I were called again I would sue them for harrassment.
Then I decided to check to see if I can do anything else about stopping these calls. According to the website for the Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada established a Do Not Call list as of 2004. However, also according to the CRTC, only in July 2007 did the process begin to select a vendor to manage the Do Not Call list. Meanwhile, each telemarketing company has been "required" to uphold certain guidelines. The guidelines include giving people the phone number and address of a person who can take the callee off their list.
I can see that next time I will have to be more patient. I will have to ask the person calling me for the name of that person and how to contact that person. Perhaps the person I have already written to is not the correct person.
And then I will patiently explain that although I live in Canada and am generally a kind and gentle American, I am still an American and therefore litigious by nature. I can only hope that Canadian telemarketing companies will return the favo(u)r and live up to their national reputation of being polite and accommodating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
