Is there a banker in the house? Three weeks ago there was talk around the water cooler about those darn ole mortgage rates. How low will they go? I then decided to look at my current mortgage to see if I could benefit from these low and historical rates.
I am sitting pretty comfortable at 4.72% with two years left before I renegotiate. But what will the rates be in two years?
The bank is willing to provide me a new 5 year fixed mortgage at 3.75%.
Or, prime plus one on a variable rate which I believe is somewhere in the high two’s
No brainier, right? Break the mortgage and run with the new rates!!!
Now, how many of you out there have gone through this exact same situation? Remember, to break your mortgage you paid a 3 month interest penalty? Well, I did the math and still I was coming out on top having to pay $4000.00 in interest. So I called up the bank and asked, when and where do I sign? The mortgage consultant quickly ran the numbers at her end and came up with an entirely different cost to break my mortgage - $10500.00!!! Oh yes. Apparently when rates are this low (as the consultant put it) “we use a completely different method to determine the cost to break your mortgage”.
That I’m sure is the only nice way to say, “We have found a better way to BLEEP you”.
I picked my jaw up off the desk, politely said my goodbyes and hung up the phone. Believe it or not I still considered paying the penalty and going variable. What do you think?
Hey listen, we all know that when deciding on a mortgage rate it is a complete gamble. Fixed, variable, open closed …. If you are truly undecided you go with what you can afford. If you’re not a risk taker you stay fixed. I’ve heard them all but I think my grandmother said it best, “when in doubt, don’t”.
I guess we’ll see what happens in two years.

The latest story about British Columbia attempting to ban a book by Mark Steyn (a Canadian author now living in the USA) sends a chill up my spine. It was attempted here in Ontario through a petition to the Human Rights Tribunal which (and rightly so) declared it had no jurisdiction to rule on it. The chair of the tribunal then chose to offer several derogatory comments about the book, so much for no bias and fair treatment from our government oversight bodies. The book’s title is “America Alone” and is the author’s view of the changing world population, why it’s happening and his thoughts on the future. It is supported by a massive amount of statistic’s and facts that are not in question. The issue is not a lack of truthfulness but rather the belief that it promotes “hate”. I read this book before the attempts to ban it and in my opinion it does not promote hate. It is extremely informative and provokes thought which in my mind is the very thing that a good book should do. Of course, if certain partisans want to target a book as “hate mongering” and they push the politically correct buttons within our society then “Voila!” we have a hate crime. Once we start banning books because they happen to offend someone then we have lost one of the most precious things a free society has “Free Speech”. This “politically correct madness” that has continued to fester and grow in the past century must be stopped. Words do not injure anyone, words do not kill anyone, words and the ability to say or write them is a right provided to every citizen of a free country. In some cases you can put limits on the when and where they can be said and written (ie pornography) but they should never be banned. The elitists who believe they know better than everyone else are generally the leaders in political correctness but to me the people that line up in a row, bow and do nothing are the worst purveyors of this nonsense. Read the book and then make up your own mind. If you believe it promotes hate then throw it away and state your opinion. That is your right. Let Mr. Steyn exercise his right.

The other day I was entering a convenience store and as I approached the door another person arrived at the same time. It was a young man in his late teens who was wearing a two or three day beard, hair literally all over his head in no orderly fashion and his clothes appeared to indicate he had just cleaned out a chimney prior to arriving at the store. I on the other hand was wearing cargo shorts with a T-shirt that sported numerous spots (evidence of past dining) a pair of old sandals along with a fashionable baseball hat that had seen many years of use. Now that I’ve set the stage for our encounter, I’ll relate the events as they happened. First I tried to reach for the door, but he was quicker and grasped the handle with an air of superiority. He proceeded to then swing the door open and waved his arm gesturing for me to enter ahead of him. I was stuck! There was nothing I could do but accede to his request and move on through the entryway. Now that he had the advantage I decided to strike back and offered the words, “Thank you “which I hoped would catch him off guard. But no, without hesitation he fired back “You’re welcome go right ahead Sir”. Can you imagine the audacity of this guy, assuming I was a “Sir”. He obviously didn’t notice that I was fairly trim having worked out in the gym that very afternoon. He also must have missed the fact that my T shirt had a Tommy Hilfiger logo on it and the sleeves were almost filled with my respectable biceps. My beard had only a sprinkling of grey specks and my hair although mostly under a hat was a dark brown with no evidence of turning color. Mind you there was less of it than 20 years ago but he couldn’t see that.
I can now understand how tough it must be for rappers, and young guys dressed up as gangsta’s with baggy pants and plenty of bling shining in the sun. They are routinely judged only on their outward appearance with no thought as to who the person underneath the garb may be. Yes appearances can be deceiving.

The two latest infringements on personal rights and freedoms are more examples of the people unwittingly ceding more control to the government.
First the latest new law that says tobacco products cannot be displayed for sale. Cigarettes and/or cigars have to be covered or in a closed area with no entry allowed by the consumer. I enjoy a good cigar but now when I go to purchase one I am not allowed to look at them and choose which one I want. Why you ask? Could it be that by looking at the products it may incite me to buy? Of course, I happened to be at the Tobacconist for the sole purpose of purchasing a cigar so that obviously can’t be the reason. The law prohibits the selling of these products to minors but I am well over the age of majority so that couldn’t be the reason. The products themselves aren’t banned so I can assume that they can’t be that bad. In fact the government enjoys a large revenue bonanza from taxes on these products so it would be hypocritical to demean tobacco while still picking your pockets, wouldn’t you say? No the reason, I’ve read is that our ruling government representatives believe that it would be better for everyone if we couldn’t see the products because it might lead to the reduced usage of tobacco particularly at younger ages. The problem with this logic is that 1) Someone is determining what is best for everyone else, and 2) In order to keep something away from one group everyone else must be penalized.
Second the law that bans smoking in cars when there are children present. Let’s all agree that this is not a good thing to do for sure but do we need a law banning it? This is part of good parenting and is common sense. What happened to the trust in parents to raise their kids properly without the state stepping in with these dubious regulations? Of course there are stupid parents but certainly they are in the minority and for goodness sakes they will still be stupid after the law is passed. Yet here we go putting a new law on the books aimed specifically at them. We’ve got enough problems with serious crimes in our society without burdening the police to be surrogate parents. How far do we go with this stuff? I saw a pregnant lady taking a smoke break outside her workplace the other day. This is not a good thing and is certainly as bad as the car smoke I would think. So do we enact a law against pregnant women smoking? Using current logic if not why not?
There is a fine line between laws that restrict individual freedoms for the good of a society and those that infringe on these rights because of the “big brother” syndrome.

In order to clearly understand what terrorism means we must set aside those things that confuse people by raising their emotions and thus obscuring the simple explanation. For instance, the Iraq war or political figures and their rhetoric which tend to push people to think one way or the other. Unfortunately they are only by products of the world of terrorism. Roget’s Thesaurus defines a terrorist as “one who needlessly harms people”. This is a very good definition as the words harm, people and needlessly really sum up the main objectives of the terrorist. The other part of the equation is obviously the end result the terrorist would like to obtain. This is where we must separate the individual person within a society who chooses to use terror as a means to accomplish his/her goals versus an organization that uses it to wage war. The uni-bomber, Timothy McVey (Oklahoma bombing) and others used terror to make a statement about their beliefs. You can debate whether they were sane or not but that is not the point. The issue at hand was the method they chose, not their mental state or the validity of their purpose. Within a free society these acts were criminal in nature at the very least, and if lives were lost they deserved the utmost penalty our justice system could prescribe. This is described as using a “police action”.
But those organizations that deliberately decide to use terrorism to wage war are in another category altogether. They declare war on their enemy but disregard long standing protocols surrounding the process of warfare. The first is the attempt to confine the battles and purposeful killing to the military combatants. Obviously, in any war innocents get killed but throughout history the objectives were to try and minimize these types of casualties. With terrorism it is the opposite and the innocents are the targets. The use of this tactic is usually because the group using it does not have the resources to conduct conventional warfare so terror acts allow them to strike blows at their enemy with a minimum of their own losses. It also creates “fear” in the civilian society of their enemies which in turn creates political pressure which can be turned in their favour over time. The mistake the USA made in the years leading up to 9/11 was to treat the earlier terrorist acts against them as crimes and tried to deal with them through the police action process. This process had two shortcomings. First it emboldened the terrorists as they were able to continue their attacks with no retaliation. They continued to train combatants, recruit fighters and plan larger and more destructive acts of terror. Second the police process is by definition an “after the fact” action. Society can really take no action until the act takes place and then try and find the perpetrators and prosecute them. The more appropriate way is to treat these terrorists as enemies of war and attack them. This has been done since 9/11 and there have been no more terrorist attacks in North America and the army of terrorists has been significantly depleted. The free world will have to adjust its tactics if it is to be successful in the long term against this type of warfare but it must never fall back to the reactive state. If we do not continue to be pre-emptive warriors history has shown that innocent civilians will again be killed in ever greater numbers. When a large organization (army) states that their sole objective is to obliterate you and your way of life and they back up these words with massive acts of violence it must be taken seriously.

With the passing of Tim Russert this past weekend the US media have taken their arrogance to a new level. Instead of eulogizing Mr Russert they are using his death to talk about the importance and relevance of the media in North America. Sadly his passing has given them a vehicle to immortalize their own self interests.
When I think of Tim Russert I think of his fabulous book " Big Russ and I" where he writes about his relationship with his father. If you read this book you will get an insight into Tim Russert that you wouldn’t get by watching him on TV. His father was one of the "amazing generation" who lived through the great depression, won World War II and then returned home to build the richest and most successful country in the world. His father worked two jobs to support his family while not once whining or complaining about his country or its government. He understood he was entitled to nothing but the opportunity to succeed. He also knew that hard work was the pathway to success and he proceeded to do what was necessary to get there. In an interview during the book promo tour Tim said he wrote the book not only to illustrate his relationship with his father but also to pass on the life lessons he received from him. These lessons would be beneficial to all and should be a must read for our younger generation. Finally when someone asked him what was the one word he would use to describe his father’s life he said “sacrifice”. This is a word not well understood in this day and age.

Well fashion police you better readjust your sights. I just saw an article on the new craze hitting the runways this summer. Men with shorts, socks and sandals are the in thing. For years people have made fun of the old guys strutting around with their knee socks and sandals showing proudly below their shorts. The cool guys of the past would never be caught dead with this attire but suddenly this has now become chic! Wow, I can't wait to see how the "in crowd" handles this major change in the fashion world. Will argyle socks come back as the sure thing in foot wear with the single black strap sandal$. Perhaps suspenders with the shorts may liven things up or possibly fringe on the socks could put you over the top.
I definitely am going to get some photos of the dudes who will now strut their stuff in this new mode because some day in the future you know it will become passe and no one will admit they ever dressed this way. I`m thinking I might just wear this get up on Father`s day but I`m afraid my sons haven`t caught on to the the trend yet. They would think the ``old man`` had crossed over to the dark side. They won`t realize that I would be the leading fashion mogul of Durham region. Oh well, maybe I`ll just wait until Jeannie Becker puts in on City TV and clears the way for us old guys.

I've been fortunate throughout my career to have been able to travel extensively. Two of these trips took me into the Soviet Union, once before the Iron Curtain came down and once, just after the Berlin wall fell. The first was an assignment in the Ukraine where I stayed for a short time in a city that had seen no foreigners in over 40 years. I certainly could fill several pages with details of the tragic things I saw but obviously this blog is not the place to do that so I will just touch on some of the key observations that will hopefully make the case for my opinion on the subject. First it was amazing to see the 2nd most powerful nation in the world with a third world standard of living for its citizens. The shortage of housing was so severe that 3 families routinely lived in one bedroom apartments. Everyone carried their own tool boxes in their vehicles because there were no garages or service stations as we know them. At the manufacturing plant I visited the parking lot had a wide variety of vehicles ranging from bicycles, scooters, and Lada's ( the old Russian jalopy). However the most numerous mode of transportation for the common man was the horse and wagon. Remember this was in 1988! Trees growing out of manholes (missing covers) in the middle of the main streets were a common sight. Of course everyone had a job (0 unemployment) but the wages were based on the value of the work as determined by the Government. If you made 100 rubles a week that was probably what you made 10 years earlier as well. The upside was that prices didn't go up much either. For example your telephone (if you had one) bill stayed at 15 rubles a month for years. But because there was no incentive or funds to improve it the system was terrible as you couldn't connect 1/2 the time and the other 1/2 the lines were overloaded and busy. Unions were not allowed and it was common for people that wanted to improve their earnings to cut their workday in 1/2. If they were paid 20 rubles a day for a 10 hour day they would only work 5 hours and hide the other 5 and voila! they doubled their hourly rate. Of course I must not forget to mention that the government or "Party Members" lived in regal homes and drove BMW's and Volvo's. The second trip was into East Germany just after it opened up and the first thing that struck me was the condition of the roadways. Driving from Frankfurt along the highways towards the Eastern section you enjoyed the well paved autobahn with the roadside amenities, billboards, precise road direction markings etc. But as I crossed over into the Eastern bloc the road turned to a dingy grey with many cracks and potholes. The only writing was graffiti on stone bridges and dilapidated fences. The homes looked weather beaten and unkempt and the infrastructure of the towns and cities needed massive repairs. Overall both trips were depressing and truly showed what happens when the State is in control of everything. When people cede their freedoms and control over their lives to the government there are very few decisions left for the individual to make. The folks here in North America who believes in "big" government with massive social spending and the redistribution of wealth (take away from those that have and give to those that don't) should visit countries with this type of system and then maybe they would see the light. The next time you hear of expanded social spending, new government regulations, Supreme Court Justices making law instead of interpreting it, stop and think about the old Soviet Union and Venezuala among others. The Russians fought a revolution to get a "Communism/Socialist" system but thankfully we are moving at a slower pace and there is still a possibility that a strong leader will emerge to stem the tide. For the sake of my Grandchildren I can only hope.

It is a favourite pastime, this hatred of the rich. You can hear them condemned every time a CEO’s buyout is announced or another corporate conspiracy plot commands the gossip of the day. Aside from the elite rich, the criminal rich or the rich politician (Did I just repeat myself???) I admire and respect those with wealth. The “elite” rich are people like Trudeau, Rae, Gore and Bush W who for the most part inherited their wealth and really had no need to be gainfully employed. My guess is, that is why they ended up in politics (just a thought). Criminals who get wealthy by stealing other people’s money also deserve no respect. About politicians I’ll sum up with this saying, “ if you show me a poor politician I’ll show you a poor politician”.
Our free market system and capitalism provides the opportunity to everyone living in this country to obtain wealth. Every day of our lives choices are made that will determine whether we accomplish this goal or not. It starts with choices made by our parents but eventually each individual gets to make the most important life shaping decisions for themselves. Maybe you will choose not to be wealthy and become a person of the cloth, maybe you will choose to skip school and forego a proper education in the quest for quicker rewards or maybe you will choose to avail yourself of the tools and talents you have and work hard to be the best that you can be. No matter what path you choose there should be no reason for you to envy or dislike anyone who takes advantage (legally) of the opportunities within this great country. They did not make your choices for you. They did not impede you from moving in any direction. All they did was to be successful for themselves. Every CEO should be able to get the best salary the market will bear. Every electrician should be able to get the best salary the market will bear. I wish I had millions in the bank but I certainly don’t hold it against anyone because I’m not in Bill Gates realm. When I look back I can see where certain choices that I made weren’t the best ones but I can also see where I corrected those decisions and made better choices with the new knowledge. Most of all, I can say that “I” am the reason that I got to the level that I did. There is no one to blame, no government, no bosses, no parents, no rotten rich people for my not becoming a multi-millionaire. But I am thankful I did have the opportunity.......Maybe next time.

Interesting affect of the Free Trade Agreement.

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexican auto unions are taking a cue from U.S. labor leaders by offering two-tier hiring schemes and salary cuts that bring already low wages down to near-Chinese levels.
As more automakers turn to Mexico , a big argument for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 -- that Mexico 's low wage rates would slowly rise to close the gap with U.S. wages -- seems to have been thrown in reverse.
"The pressure has not been to raise the Mexican wages up, it's been to push the U.S. wages down," said Ben Davis, the director of the AFL-CIO Solidarity office in Mexico City .
And now Mexican wages are being pushed down even more.
Wage concessions were apparently key to convincing Ford Motor Co. to direct many of the 4,500 new jobs involved in building Fiestas to the Ford plant in Cuautitlan, on the outskirts of Mexico City . Union leaders at the plant told The Associated Press they had agreed to cut wages for new hires to about half of the current wage of $4.50 per hour.
"We agreed to it," said Ford union leader Juan Jose Sosa Arreola. "We need to be more competitive. That's the truth. That's a reality."

Jobs still flowing south
The UAW had hoped to preserve American jobs by offering a two-tier wage system last fall, cutting starting wages for new U.S. workers by half to about $14.20 an hour. But it hasn't worked -- the jobs are flowing to Mexico, where starting wages at some plants also have been two-tiered, to as little as $1.50 per hour with a lot less of the related pension and health care costs of U.S. workers.
With labor costs like these, Mexico is staying competitive with China , where an average worker at a foreign-owned factory or joint venture can make $2 to $6 per hour. While Mexican benefit costs run higher, Mexico may have already won the low-wage race.
Mexico also now has the advantage of a massive auto production platform based on experience with export plants and proximity to major markets that can't yet be beat in China , whose factories still produce mainly for its own domestic market.
Ford spokeswoman Alejandra Acevedo said she did not know what starting wages for new hires at Cuautitlan would be, but she acknowledged that to win the jobs, the plant had to compete against other Ford facilities worldwide.
"It makes business sense that labor costs are much lower here,and also it's much cheaper here to grow the local supplier network," said Acevedo, noting Mexico's free trade deals help slash the cost of importing parts and exporting cars, Acevedo said.
Other U.S. automakers also are squeezing wages. General Motors said Tuesday it will stop using relatively high-wage workers to assemble slow-selling pickups at its plant in central city of Toluca . A labor leader there said the union had gotten the message, and would offer to work for less to keep the plant alive.
"I think we are going to have to sacrifice something in order to continue to be competitive," said Edgar Arroyo, a union leader at the Toluca General Motors plant, where he estimated some workers earn about $6 per hour, an extremely high rate by Mexican auto industry standards.
Nothing in NAFTA stops this drive to the wage floor. The treaty only requires countries to enforce their own minimum wage laws, which in Mexico means about $5 per day.
Foreign investment in Mexico 's auto industry is soaring, averaging about $2 billion per year since the 1990s. Ford's $3billion investment in the Fiesta project may accelerate that trend.
Auto exports grew by almost 68 percent between 2004 and 2007 to1.6 million units. Most went to the U.S. , but also to European and other Latin American markets.
But since NAFTA's approval in 1993, the gap in overall manufacturing wages between Mexico and the United States has widened slightly, according to government figures.

Tough climate for organized labor
At Volkswagen's plant in the central city of Puebla , union spokesman Arturo Monter blames low wages on Mexico 's antiquated system of labor laws that favor employers and discourage strikes and union organizing.
Unlike in the United States, where a single national union, the UAW, organizes most auto plants, in Mexico unions are deeply split and may only represent workers at one manufacturer, or even at a single plant.
Union leadership at Monter's plant agreed to cut starting wages to $1.50 an hour from $1.95 a few years ago. It can now take as long as seven years to work up to earning what was once the entry-level wage, Monter said.
Still, those lower labor costs helped win a contract for an as-yet unnamed Volkswagen model, known at the plant only as "ProjectZero," that the automaker had been considering building in the UnitedStates, Monter said.
A VW spokesman declined to comment on production plans, saying only that nothing had yet been confirmed.
Mexico's abundant, youthful work force is still drawn to auto plants despite the low wages, union leaders say, because the firms offer stable employment, a rarity in Mexico 's working world.
"Despite the fact that we're negotiating what you could call a cheaper contract, I guarantee you that if we advertise for 2,000workers, 10,000 people are going to show up," said Sosa Arreola,whose plant sits on the outskirts of Mexico City .