Filming in Canada

On Jun 16, 9:09 am, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> I'm curious; since Canada is sometimes called socialist, with
> healthcare
> being the usual example, why is it more economical to film in Canada,
> as so often happens? One would think that a socialist country, if
> Canada is one, would have more laws inhibiting business than the U.S.
> does. What gives?


Canadians, from a very dated article I last read, as an example, were
losing technical knowledge gained from study and training to
advantageous incentives offered technically talented Canadians from
U.S. interests. Economic advantage occurs, across the board, at a
reduction of monentary measures less talented board members, on
average, then remain to command. What gives is a fluidity of command
determined by demand. Would it be as likely not advantageous to film
in the United Kingdom, since both are socialist, than from an unity of
socialist interests, present in many countries, across a global
frontier of filming endeavours? Again, that article really was very
dated.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 16, 12:41 pm, Alric Knebel <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 12:13 pm, Alric Knebel <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:
> >>RogerM wrote:
> >>>Only Americans (oh, and Rich) think Canada is a socialist country.
> >>Most Americans see it as an all-or-nothing thing. You're either
> >>practicing laissez faire or you're a gray socialist prison.
> > Another silly statement from Mr. Knebel, or his evil twin,
> > whichever it may be.
>
> Actually, Calvin, it was a dead-on description of how YOU think. Right?

That's closer to the truth than the way you worded it, but we
haven't had laissez faire capitalism since the 19th century, if
we had it then. I believe in some basic controls, such as child
labour laws, laws against bigger companies selling at a loss to
drive smaller companies out of business, laws against companies
getting together and fixing prices rather than competing, and
other laws that we both could name and on which we would agree.

But I'm sure that I would not be in favor of many laws and
restrictions that you would endorse wholeheartedly.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 16, 9:09 am, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> I'm curious; since Canada is sometimes called socialist, with
> healthcare
> being the usual example, why is it more economical to film in Canada,
> as so often happens? One would think that a socialist country, if
> Canada is one, would have more laws inhibiting business than the U.S.
> does. What gives?

Because Canada isn't a socialist country.

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm, RogerM <roger.mc... RemoveThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Harkness wrote:
> > Because Canada isn't a socialist country.

> Unfortunately.

Thanks for the laugh.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 16, 1:20 pm, Harkness <John.GHarkn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 9:09 am, Calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm curious; since Canada is sometimes called socialist, with
> > healthcare
> > being the usual example, why is it more economical to film in Canada,
> > as so often happens? One would think that a socialist country, if
> > Canada is one, would have more laws inhibiting business than the U.S.
> > does. What gives?
>
> Because Canada isn't a socialist country.
>
> John Harkness

Commonwealth and of a parliamentary nature derived from the United
Kingdom, I'd suspect. Apart from Plato, politics being furthest from
interests. However, closest (possibly second closest) I've almost been
to married was to a Canadian preacher's daughter (all the rumors are
true, indeed, and more). Her father once confided to to me: 'For all
that Canadians are taught and know about the United States is a small
measure of reciprocation.'
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 17, 11:36 am, RogerM <roger.mc... RemoveThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Padmar Mushkin wrote:
> > By his standard, every country in the world except the US is
> > socialist. Every country that isn't too poor to have universal health
> > care has it. Except the US.
>
> Which is strangely appropriate, since the US has gotten rich by
> impoverishing other nations.

uh huh
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, RogerM <roger.mc... RemoveThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 11:36 am, RogerM <roger.mc... RemoveThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > the US has gotten rich by impoverishing other nations.
> > uh huh
> That's how empires work, Calvin.

The U.S. is not an empire.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:20:17 -0700, Harkness
<John.GHarkness DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 16, 9:09 am, Calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>> I'm curious; since Canada is sometimes called socialist, with
>> healthcare
>> being the usual example, why is it more economical to film in Canada,
>> as so often happens? One would think that a socialist country, if
>> Canada is one, would have more laws inhibiting business than the U.S.
>> does. What gives?
>
>Because Canada isn't a socialist country.

By his standard, every country in the world except the US is
socialist. Every country that isn't too poor to have universal health
care has it. Except the US.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 17, 11:36 am, RogerM <roger.mc....TakeThisOut@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ... the US has gotten rich by impoverishing other nations.

The U.S. hs gotten rich by practicing economic freedom, free
trade, and capitalism. If other countries did likewise, the
whole world could be rich.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 17, 3:38 pm, RogerM <roger.mc....TakeThisOut@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It is impossible for everyone to be rich. "Rich" is a condition of
> having more than others.

Only for the envious. I mean rich as having more than
necessities, enough for increased quality of life beyond
struggling for survival.

But if you want to define rich in a relative way, everyone
can be rich under one system compared to what they would
have under another system.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 16, 1:05?pm, Alric Knebel <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:
> So my statement wasn't so silly after all, right? Most Americans don't
> understand that how a government institutes a system makes all the
> difference. For a lot of people, SOCIALISM is a trigger word, conjuring
> images of a grim Soviet state. They'll be ignorant of the fact
> dictatorships come as the capitalistic variety as well. To them,
> capitalism is some sort of manifestation of DEMOCRACY while socialism is
> the outcome of totalitarianism. If you understand the difference, good
> for you.

And start talking about doing away with the socialism the US already
has--from land grant universities to social security to the GI Bill to
Medicare--and there'll be a whole lot of new people in office next
election.
The promise of the US is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
and we're lucky if we get two out of three: more of Jefferson's watch
what I say, not what I do. The promise of Canada is order and good
government, and they usually deliver on both.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada 

On Jun 17, 8:29 pm, tomcervo <tomce....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> And start talking about doing away with the socialism the US already
> has--from land grant universities to social security to the GI Bill to
> Medicare--and there'll be a whole lot of new people in office next
> election.
> ...

Conservatives are well aware of the socialism that is already
in the United States, but that doesn't mean that we should
welcome more of it.
 >> Stay informed about: Filming in Canada