Page Tutor provides a very useful visual reference to the terms Million, Billion, and Trillion:
Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it.
H/T to Tim Harford for the link.
Gregg Easterbrook points out the stupidities of many municipal recycling programs:
Freeze! Drop That Discarded Dishwasher or I’ll Shoot! The New York Times recently reported that unwanted appliances — old washing machines and so on — placed on the curb for disposal in New York City have been “disappearing.” With scrap metal prices strong, what the article calls “thieves” have been driving along streets scheduled for used-appliance pickups — in New York City, this happens by published schedule — and taking away the unwanted junk before the city’s officially approved recycler arrives. The “thieves” then sell the unwanted junk as scrap metal.
Set aside whether it’s theft to take an unwanted item that has been discarded in a public place. New York City bureaucrats think so; they’ve instructed police to ticket anyone engaged in recycling without government sanction. Twenty years ago, New York City bureaucrats were demanding that citizens recycle whether they wished to or not, and imposing fines for failure to comply. Now if the average person is caught recycling, it’s a police matter.
This issue is not the cleanliness of streets or the environmental benefits of recycling — it’s control of money. The New York City Sanitation Department pays a company called Sims Municipal Recycling about $65 million annually to pick up and recycle metal, glass and aluminum. Notice what’s happening here? Recycling is supposed to make economic sense. If it did, then the recycling company would be paying the city. Instead the city is paying the company. Montgomery County, Maryland, my home county, imposed recycling rules saying they made economic sense. Now the county charges homeowners $210 annually as a recycling tax. If recycling made economic sense, government would pay homeowners for the privilege of picking up their valuable materials. Instead New York City, Montgomery County and many other government bodies charge citizens for something they claim makes economic sense.
Recycling of aluminum makes good economic sense, given the energy cost of aluminum and the high quality of recycled aluminum. Depending on where you are in the country, recycling of newspapers may make sense. Recycling of steel and copper usually makes sense. But recycling of glass, most plastics and coated paper is a net waste of energy. Often the goal of government-imposed recycling program is to use lack of understanding of economics to reach into citizens’ pockets and forcibly extract money that bureaucrats can control.
Notice what else is happening here — New York City pays a company millions of dollars to do something “thieves” will do for free. The “thieves” harm no one, and could save New York City taxpayers considerable money. But then bureaucrats wouldn’t be in control. And surely no-show jobs and kickbacks have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with New York City sanitation contracts.
The town failed to fully fund the pension plan for their employees, and it ran out of money in 2009. In spite of state law, they stopped paying the pensioners:
Since then, Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, has filed for bankruptcy. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, has gone back to work as a shopping mall security guard to try to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport.
Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”
The situation in Prichard is extremely unusual — the city has sought bankruptcy protection twice — but it proves that the unthinkable can, in fact, sometimes happen. And it stands as a warning to cities like Philadelphia and states like Illinois, whose pension funds are under great strain: if nothing changes, the money eventually does run out, and when that happens, misery and turmoil follow.
Prichard is only the start: far too many local governments are approaching the same situation.
All joking aside, how is this allowed to happen?
The NYT reports on a growing phenomenon of wrongful foreclosure by US banks on homeowners who are caught up on their mortgage payments — and on homeowners who have no mortgage at all. In some cases, homeowners return from vacation to discover their locks changed and their every earthly possession sent to the dump (one woman lost her dead husband’s ashes when her bank burgled her ski chalet). Prominent in the list of banksters who rob innocent people of their homes and all their belongings? Those upright guardians of morality at Bank of America, who have decided that their customers can’t choose to contribute to Wikileaks’s defense fund.
H/T for the headline to commenter “Doramia“.
Kelly McParland looks at the efforts of the Canadian and provincial governments to come to some sort of agreement over pension reform:
If you want a hint of the difficulty of winning agreement on an issue like Canada’s creaking pension system, consider this carefully considered statement from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty:
“It’s a multi-jurisdictional challenge to get a consensus on the CPP,” he said.
If you speak politics, you realize that “multi-jurisdictional challenge” means that getting the country’s federal and provincial leaders to agree on anything beyond what time to quit for lunch is beyond the power of mere mortals. It is especially hopeless on an issue as fraught with electoral danger pensions, which, after all, are all about old people and their money. Who votes in far bigger numbers than any other demographic? Old people. What gets them more excited than half-price fares to Florida? Their money.
An interesting post at the Bridge City Tools blog about how Americans (and Canadians) are actually willing to pay the outrageous price of $5 for a single 1/8″ drill bit:
About 10 years ago I was in an OEM Chinese factory that made bench grinders. You have seen them, 1/2 HP motor, two 6” grinding wheels, pig tail cord, a small plastic face shield and no nameplate — these would be attached by the American companies that bought them. The total cost per grinder, landed in the US was $7.15. Of course at this price it would be asking too much for a UL tag.
These grinders were, and still are being sold here and the prices range from $49 to $200 — awesome margins by any standard.
Behind the factory floor there was a small mountain of insulated wire that had been pulled from old cars, appliances, televisions and the like and it was replenished daily. Surrounding the wire mountain were a couple of dozen women who were stripping the wire of insulation. These wire remnants were then spliced together and used in the grinder motor windings. Completely illegal, and dangerous. But cheap.
I thought I was shocked until I walked into the factory section that made twist drill bits. Here they were making, for the AMERICAN MARKET, those 59, 89, 119 pc drill sets found at the box stores and other discount joints for $19.95. Again, there were rows of women who were dipping the bits in what looked like Easter egg dye.
I asked the interpreter what they were doing. He replied, “They are making all the bits the same color as these four.” The four bits he pointed out were the 1/8”, 1/4”, 3/8” and the 1/2”.
I asked why.
I learned that those four bits were properly hardened. The remaining 115 bits were made with what I call pot metal. The reason?
“Because those are the only four hole sizes that Americans use.”
I asked, as politely as I could, if there was any guilt or remorse for duping their American customers. The reply was shocking.
“In America, if it cost less than $20, nobody complains about quality — everybody in China knows this.”
It’s an interesting explanation . . . and has the ring of truth to it: I’ve got several sets of drill bits, most of them bought from a reputable source (Lee Valley Tools), but I have one “big” set bought from a big box store (I think it’s branded as DeWalt, but probably made in China).
Most of the sizes of drill I use in woodworking are from the Lee Valley sets, but I think I’ve only used the 1/16″ and 1/8″ bits from the big box set. I wonder what’d happen if I tested all the rest of that set?
I have to admit being guilty of this:
More recently, I found myself at the local paint shop to purchase a Purdy paint brush — I have always liked them. So when I walked into the store I asked the sales rep to show me the most expensive brushes…
“I don’t get asked that very often…” he replied.
I then learned that the cheapest brushes outsell the flagged end bristle brushes by about 20 to one. The reason?
So people can throw them away rather than clean them.
In my defence, I can say that I get several uses from each of the “disposable” brushes because I do clean them after each use, but I do eventually throw them away. Once the quality of the applied stain or finish starts getting worse, it’s time to get rid of the brush.
As this article asserts, I don’t remember where I heard the “fact” that gay couples had higher incomes than heterosexual couples, but it seemed likely to be true. Apparently not:
The myth of gay money holds that “gays” (really just gay males) are high-income or rich. Why? Mostly because they don’t have kids, especially not when two guys live together. (That would make them DINKs.)
This myth was relentlessly propagated through the 1990s and persists today. Maybe you couldn’t put your finger on where you heard it (perhaps in a newspaper article?), but the stereotype is out there. And it isn’t true.
[. . .]
Why do gay males have generally lower incomes than straight males?
- Gay males have more education than straight males, but they do not choose male-dominated professions as often as straight males do. In fact, they choose female-dominated and/or service professions much more often. Male-dominated professions (like construction) have generally higher wages than female-dominated professions (like secretarial).
- Gay males work fewer hours than straight males.
Why do lesbians generally have higher income than straight females? It’s almost the inverse of the gay-male trend.
- Lesbians also have more education than straight females, but they work longer hours — because, generally speaking, they are less likely to have children to take care of at home.
- Lesbians are overrepresented in male-dominated professions that pay better than female-dominated professions.
What about discrimination? It’s a ready excuse to explain away the “few” gays who don’t meet the stereotype of being affluent. (That’s what press coverage would tell you – that just a few of us aren’t affluent. In reality, it’s most of us.) But the statistical evidence for discrimination as a cause of lower gay incomes is weak at best, and of course falls down completely in the case of lesbians, who, most studies agree, have higher incomes than straight females. Discrimination is clearly a factor sometimes; it just isn’t a credible explanation for the whole effect, which doesn’t apply to half of the population we’re talking about.
H/T to Freakonomics blog for the link.
. . . all players in the game have revealed themselves to be interventionists. (Okay, we knew this already but confirmation is nice.) Regardless of party, they see the economy as something to fix by turning a knob here, pulling a lever there, and stepping on a pedal over yonder in order to get the desired performance: higher consumer spending, lower unemployment, increased investment, and so on. It’s as though the economy were a machine in need of adjustments and a few quarts of oil. But an economy is not a machine. It’s a network of people engaged in myriad exchanges of goods and services — pursuing end-oriented activities informed by subjective values and expectations. Such information is largely unavailable to politicians, bureaucrats, and their economic advisers.
With unemployment officially at 9.8 percent, the economy indeed remains in the doldrums. None of the palliatives that George W. Bush or Obama tried has worked, but instead of realizing that government and its corporate-state policies are the obstacles to a flourishing economy, the ruling elite remains committed to the managed economy. So it’s decided not to raise taxes — for two years — and to reduce the employee payroll tax — for one year. These expiration dates are signs of political management. Understanding the necessity of a freed market would lead one to call for permanent — not temporary — government retrenchment.
Some questions were apparently overlooked. If tax rates may go up in two years, why make tax-sensitive long-term plans? If the payroll tax is to be two points lower in 2011, that implies it will most likely be two points higher in 2012. Will people spend the extra money next year or save it in anticipation of the tax increase to come? At any rate, they will need to make an unpleasant adjustment in their household economies on January 1, 2012. People do think long term, even if politicians don’t.
Something worth noting about the debate is that there was scarcely an acknowledgment that money subject to taxation belongs to someone and not the State. You’d think it magically appears in a common pot and the government’s job is to ladle it out effectively and fairly. I can recall hearing only one member of Congress say, “It’s their money,” during a television interview about why tax rates shouldn’t go up on high-income people.
Sheldon Richman, “A Boost for the Managed Economy: What did you expect?”, The Freeman, 2010-12-17
I haven’t actually listened to the Freakonomics podcast on whether expensive wines taste better, but I suspect the answer will be “no”.
I’ve been interested in wines for quite some time now, but I’ve found something that caps the amount of money I’m willing to pay for a bottle of wine to well under $100. Either my palate is insufficiently developed to taste the differences between a $40 wine and a $90 wine, or there really isn’t that much difference.
For most people, most of the time, once you get above the bargain-basement level of wine, you can usually find good, flavourful wine for between $15 and $20. What you may not be able to find is a wine in that price range that will impress your date or your guests. If you’re trying to impress, price will have to be one of the most important part of your decision: fewer people will be as impressed by your really good bargain as will be impressed by the big ticket bottle of “Chateau de Fancy French Name” . . . even if they taste the same.
Believe it or not, the most dominant flavor may be the dollars. Thanks to the work of some intrepid and wine-obsessed economists (yes, there is an American Association of Wine Economists), we are starting to gain a new understanding of the relationship between wine, critics and consumers.
One of these researchers is Robin Goldstein, whose paper detailing more than 6,000 blind tastings reaches the conclusion that “individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine.”
So why do we pay so much attention to critics and connoisseurs who tell us otherwise?
That’s the question we set out to answer in this podcast.
Aside from all the ugly new terms coined to describe the phenomena, the evolution of security is one of the most under-appreciated stories of the decade. The next decade is going to be even more important to how we live our lives:
There’s really no such thing as security in the abstract. Security can only be defined in relation to something else. You’re secure from something or against something. In the next 10 years, the traditional definition of IT security — that it protects you from hackers, criminals, and other bad guys — will undergo a radical shift. Instead of protecting you from the bad guys, it will increasingly protect businesses and their business models from you.
Ten years ago, the big conceptual change in IT security was deperimeterization. A wordlike grouping of 18 letters with both a prefix and a suffix, it has to be the ugliest word our industry invented. The concept, though — the dissolution of the strict boundaries between the internal and external network — was both real and important.
So, that was then. This is now:
Today, two other conceptual changes matter. The first is consumerization. Another ponderous invented word, it’s the idea that consumers get the cool new gadgets first, and demand to do their work on them. Employees already have their laptops configured just the way they like them, and they don’t want another one just for getting through the corporate VPN. They’re already reading their mail on their BlackBerrys or iPads. They already have a home computer, and it’s cooler than the standard issue IT department machine. Network administrators are increasingly losing control over clients.
This trend will only increase. Consumer devices will become trendier, cheaper, and more integrated; and younger people are already used to using their own stuff on their school networks. It’s a recapitulation of the PC revolution. The centralized computer center concept was shaken by people buying PCs to run VisiCalc; now it’s iPads and Android smart phones.
I’ve certainly noticed this myself: it was forced to my attention a couple of years ago, when a change of employment required me to buy and maintain my own “business” computer and software. Without seriously stressing my wallet, I was able to buy far more capable equipment than my previous employer had provided. Being able to check my email on multiple devices was very important, and once I’d started doing that, I realized the need to do many other things regardless of the machine I happened to be using. There are, of course, trade-offs involved:
The second conceptual change comes from cloud computing: our increasing tendency to store our data elsewhere. Call it decentralization: our email, photos, books, music, and documents are stored somewhere, and accessible to us through our consumer devices. The younger you are, the more you expect to get your digital stuff on the closest screen available. This is an important trend, because it signals the end of the hardware and operating system battles we’ve all lived with. Windows vs. Mac doesn’t matter when all you need is a web browser. Computers become temporary; user backup becomes irrelevant. It’s all out there somewhere — and users are increasingly losing control over their data.
Anyway, there’s lots more interesting stuff. Go read the whole thing.
Having solved all other problems, the Japanese government is now attempting to impose stricter controls on the thriving Manga book industry:
A battle has erupted between the normally placid manga community and Tokyo’s conservative governor over a new law that heavily restricts sales in the city of manga comic books with what the ordinance calls “extreme” depictions of sex.
The brouhaha has become so big that even Prime Minister Naoto Kan is attempting to bridge the divide between the industry, producer of one of Japan’s most cherished cultural exports, and Tokyo’s metropolitan government. A group of manga artists and publishers has said it will boycott Tokyo’s massive International Anime Fair in March.
That threat could hobble sales of the country’s beloved comic books. As Japan’s economic star continues to be eclipsed by China, cultural exports remain one of Japan’s few globally robust sectors.
Of course, there’s more to the story than the headlines indicate, as not all manga produced finds markets overseas:
The vast majority of manga in Japan aren’t pornographic, with internationally known titles such as “Dragon Ball,” “Naruto” and “Sailor Moon” attracting global readers of all ages.
But what sets Japan apart from much of the West is that here it is considered socially acceptable to read manga depicting sexually explicit acts. It is common to sit next to a suit-wearing Japanese commuter who is nonchalantly paging through cartoon sex scenes. Pornographic magazines with women dressed as Japanese schoolgirls on the cover are available at convenience stores around Tokyo, without anything obscuring the cover.
The only concession is that such publications are labeled “adult-only” and sealed shut, preventing browsers from peeking inside.
Okay, they’re not even pretending to be fiscally conservative any more:
The Conservative government has announced it is loaning aerospace giant Pratt & Whitney Canada $300 million for a $1 billion research project to develop the next generation of aircraft engines.
Industry Minister Tony Clement made the announcement on Monday saying it will create 700 high-skilled jobs in the GTA and more than 2,000 over the 15-year lifespan of the project. He also claimed the firm is in the process of hiring 200 engineers.
[. . .]
‘Create and maintain Canadian jobs’ has been the Conservative mantra during their recent shift to Keynesian economics and massive long-term deficits for the next half decade. The same political party that once decried government largesse and inexplicable corporate subsidies (also known affectionately as corporate welfare) is now a major player in the ‘too big to fail’ macroeconomics game.
This is nothing new: under former minister Maxime Bernier, the current darling of the small-government wing of the Conservative party, Pratt & Whitney got $350 million in corporate welfare just four years ago. That debt hasn’t been repaid.
I’ve been saying this for years now: China’s official GDP and associated economic numbers are just not reliable:
A senior Chinese official said in 2007 that much of the country’s local economic data are unreliable, according to a leaked diplomatic cable published by the WikiLeaks website.
The official, Li Keqiang, was at the time Communist Party secretary of the northeastern province of Liaoning, and has since been promoted to vice premier. Since landing that position, he has overseen many of the central government’s efforts to improve the quality of its economic statistics, which continue to face many questions over their accuracy and consistency.
[. . .]
China’s Foreign Ministry has said it will not comment on the content of the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks. The leaked cable reports comments Mr. Li made in a dinner in Beijing with then-U.S. Ambassador Clark Randt on March 12, 2007. His remarks focused on the challenges of administering the province of Liaoning, which because of its legacy of failed state-owned enterprises was burdened with a large number of unemployed workers.
“When evaluating Liaoning’s economy, he focuses on three figures: 1) electricity consumption, which was up 10% in Liaoning last year; 2) volume of rail cargo, which is fairly accurate because fees are charged for each unit of weight; and 3) amount of loans disbursed, which also tends to be accurate given the interest fees charged,” the cable says.
“By looking at these three figures, Li said he can measure with relative accuracy the speed of economic growth. All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are ‘for reference only,’ he said smiling,” the cable reads. “GDP figures are ‘man-made’ and therefore unreliable,” the cable paraphrases Mr. Li as saying.
As I said back in February, the reason for the made up numbers is inherent in the Chinese system:
In this way, the PLA stopped being just the customer/end user. They cut out the middleman and absorbed the entire supply chain. The PLA became a significant economic player in the Chinese industrial economy . . . and this is still true today. The generals aren’t formally in charge, but they own the companies that do military production.
So what? So let’s look at how a civilian corporation’s incentives differ from one owned directly by the army. In a civilian corporation, the CEO runs the business with an eye to generating the largest profit possible while staying (for the most part) within the law. A CEO who deviates from this to ride a favourite hobby horse will eventually face the wrath of the stockholders who want that maximized profit. There are natural limits on how much freedom to invest in uneconomic activity any CEO will be given. Sensible stockholders don’t try to micromanage the firm, but do raise questions if too much of the company’s efforts are devoted to things clearly not related to the company’s long term benefit. Company accounts can be rigged, for a time, to show misleading results, but eventually (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) the truth will out.
A Chinese firm that’s owned by the army? Profit may be nice, but the “CEO” reports to a different master: the guys with the guns. The company accounts will show exactly what the guys with the guns want them to show . . . and the oversight and auditing committee members carry submachine guns. You’re told that your target is 10% growth? Don’t you think that the reported result will be at least 10%? Because your life may depend on the reported results being acceptable.
As my former virtual landlord says, this is one of my hobbyhorses:
Russell D. Longcore looks at the economics underlying Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol:
Next we are introduced to Scrooge’s philosophy on celebrating Christmas. His nephew greets him warmly with a “Merry Christmas!” Scrooge responds:
What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books and having every item in them through a round dozen of months presented dead against you? If I could work my will, every idiot who goes about with “Merry Christmas” on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart.
Is he wrong, or is he a prophet? Today, a large percentage of Americans pay for Christmas with their credit cards, borrowing money from the future to pay for today’s luxuries. They work for wages, but American savings rates are near zero, so they are no richer than last year. They trade their irreplaceable time for wages as the years tick off. Where is Scrooge wrong in his assessment of Christmas celebrants?
Next we see an exchange between Scrooge and two do-gooders who come to the office looking for charitable donations.
[. . .]
Let’s pause to learn from this attempt at a shakedown.
The very existence of Christmas… both in the Dickensian era and today… promotes a desire for the giving and receiving of gifts. And that has nothing to do with Jesus. Merchandising is King of Kings in December. With that desire comes the feeling of “Want” described by Gentleman #2., particularly among those who have not. Everyone knows and feels the ubiquitous pressure on everyone to give gifts, even if you cannot afford to do so. Those who do not wish to participate in the expression of so-called “Christian cheer” may not be moved to part with their Abundance to provide the Poor with food, drink and warmth in this particular method of coercion.
As Scrooge reveals, he already supports the institutions that care for the needy. He either gives his own money voluntarily to the debtor’s prisons, the Union workhouses, the Treadmill… or money is exacted from him by taxation for the operations of these institutions. But Gentleman #2 argues that “many can’t go there… some would rather die (than go there). That is a choice made by an individual based upon haughty pride, not true need. Scrooge states that he does not accept the premise offered by #2 that anyone would rather die than go to the poor house, and that he is busy enough minding his own business. And thus ends this part of the story.
Norman Spector goes where US federal government employees are forbidden to go:
In February of last year, U.S. diplomatic posts were given one month by Washington to compile and forward an inventory of critical infrastructure and key resources in their respective reporting areas “whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States.” The U.S. embassy in Ottawa — and the string of American consulates across Canada — were included in this “action request.”
[. . .]
Not surprisingly given that we share a continent, the U.S. compilation of critical infrastructure and key resources in foreign countries includes many sites and undertakings in Canada, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. Dams; undersea cables; oil and gas pipelines; border crossings, including bridges; nuclear power plants; defence production factories; mines; and, last but not least, pharmaceutical and vaccine production plants.
While, there has been considerable sympathy to date for WikiLeaks and for Mr. Assange, I suspect that some of this might erode once Canadians get a look at this latest cable, which is now widely available, and which sets out the juiciest targets in Canada for those looking to do harm to the United States. Moreover, once Canadians have had a chance to examine the list of sites it includes, I doubt that many of our compatriots will conclude that its compilation by U.S. diplomats serving in this country amounts to anything remotely connected to what we understand to constitute espionage:
Canada: Hibernia Atlantic undersea cable landing Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
James Bay Power Project, Quebec: monumental hydroelectric power development
Mica Dam, British Columbia: Failure would impact the Columbia River Basin.
Hydro Quebec, Quebec: Critical irreplaceable source of power to portions of Northeast
U. S. Robert Moses/Robert H. Saunders Power, Ontario: Part of the St. Lawrence Power Project, between Barnhart Island, New York, and Cornwall, Ontario
Seven Mile Dam, British Columbia: Concrete gravity dam between two other hydropower dams along the Pend d’Oreille River
Pickering Nuclear Power Plant, Ontario, Canada
Chalk River Nuclear Facility, Ontario: Largest supplier of medical radioisotopes in the world
Hydrofluoric Acid Production Facility, Allied Signal, Amherstburg, Ontario
Enbridge Pipeline Alliance Pipeline: Natural gas transmission from Canada
Maritime and Northeast Pipeline: Natural gas transmission from Canada
Transcanada Gas: Natural gas transmission from Canada
Alexandria Bay POE, Ontario: Northern border crossing
Ambassador Bridge POE, Ontario: Northern border crossing
Blaine POE, British Columbia: Northern border crossing
Blaine Washington Rail Crossing, British Columbia
Blue Water Bridge POE, Ontario: Northern border crossing
Champlain POE, Quebec: Northern border crossing
CPR Tunnel Rail Crossing, Ontario (Michigan Central Rail Crossing)
International Bridge Rail Crossing, Ontario International Railway Bridge Rail Crossing
Lewiston-Queenstown POE, Ontario: Northern border crossing
Peace Bridge POE, Ontario: Northern border crossing
Pembina POE, Manitoba: Northern border crossing
North Portal Rail Crossing, Saskatchewan
St. Claire Tunnel Rail Crossing, Ontario
Waneta Dam, British Columbia: Earthfill/concrete hydropower dam
Darlington Nuclear Power Plant, Ontario, Canada.
E-ONE Moli Energy, Maple Ridge, Canada: Critical to production of various military application electronics
General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada, London Ontario, Canada: Critical to the production of the Stryker/USMC LAV Vehicle Integration
Raytheon Systems Canada Ltd. ELCAN Optical Technologies Division, Midland, Ontario, Canada: Critical to the production of the AGM-130 Missile
Thales Optronique Canada, Inc., Montreal, Quebec: Critical optical systems for ground combat vehicles
Germanium Mine Graphite Mine Iron Ore Mine Nickel Mine Niobec Mine, Quebec, Canada
Niobium Cangene, Winnipeg, Manitoba: Plasma
Sanofi Pasteur Ltd., Toronto, Canada: Polio virus vaccine
GlaxoSmithKile Biologicals, North America, Quebec, Canada: Pre-pandemic influenza vaccines.
As Colby Cosh notes on Twitter, “That scary list of Cdn targets in the Wikileaks cable on security installations? You could have written it after a morning in the library.”
Powered by WordPress