top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 112 points 2 years ago (6 children)

It's a game of monopoly and we're all losing.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 72 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Oh no, it's not a monopoly. It's an oligopoly. It's like exactly the same except it's completely legal.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 70 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Fuckin Loblaws selling " Presidents Choice" food in a country with no President. Except the President of Loblaws ... Basically the coup already happened.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Historically, the name came from Dave Nichol, who was president of the company for decades. He actually had a very strong hand in the selection of products that were included in the product line.

    Apparently all kinds of people would pitch product ideas at him, and would taste test them and pick only ones he liked. The idea of "President's Choice" wasn't to be cheapo no name products, but unique and distinctive stuff personally picked by the company's president.

    And Dave wasn't just some guy in the corner office. In his prime he was a Canadian personality, and you saw him in TV commercials. Once he left Loblaws in the '90s the President's Choice stuff lost its panache and meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I heard a theory years ago, that the cellphone companies divided Canada up. Each company gets to be market leader in their region.

    Sounds very anti-competitive to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    That’s exactly how cable works in the States, you only have one real choice depending on where you live. If you try and cancel over their atrocious service there’s a very real chance they’ll ask what other choices you think you have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    All the smart cable companies make most of their revenue from cable internet now; what remains of cable TV is propped up by a minority of older people who refuse to get with the times or relatively well-off folks who just don't care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    Susan Crawford wrote on and talked about this (mis)handling of telecoms in the US context years ago, the government letting the companies divide regions up and ensure a lack of competition.

    My reading of the situation in Canada for internet and wireless is that it was a historical mix of:

    • lacking political will/interest to govern from day one
    • a policy of letting the free market run until it’s a major problem
    • follow the US lead for anything new
    • and support the (then) recently de-regulated incumbent (Bell) to dominate
    • give competitive advantages to Canadian companies vs allowing foreign competition even if it means worse outcomes for Canadian consumers (better to protect the Canadian economy from foreign interests than to ensure consumer best interests).
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 46 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I always heard "Canada is three mining companies standing on eachother's shoulders in a trechcoat."

    Although that one applies equally to Australia.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It is more like an oil company, a mining company, and a logging company all on each others shoulders in a trenchcoat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago

    Bit of a stretch to say they're rivals.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Then you got neat little fiefdoms too, like Irvingland - whoops, I mean New Brunswick.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [+] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Lol. It's a crown corporation and WILDLY popular. No one will squawk? Any party would not withstanding that shit immediately because it's popular, and then just wrap it in their party-specific words.

    The LAST thing Bell wants is to draw national attention to how well a provincial offering is. The LAST thing they want is for people to see that there are alternative structures that are working for other Canadians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I’m sure the conservatives will continue trying to figure out a way to push it to withering and crumbling… they definitely tried to sell off/privatize chunks of them in the past but the level of outrage they were met with has put those ideas to bed for the time being

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    It's a tough fight for them because of how familiar the population is with those corps.

    Lab services in Sask have bounced between private and public several times... Nobody really notices (which is sad IMO)

    But SGI and SaskTel... Everyone is a client, and everyone can look over any provincial border and go "whoa, don't wanna end up like them".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    "This part of the Crown corporation is profitable on its own, we should sell it off!"

    "Why are we spending so much money to subsidize this Crown corporation!? We should sell it off!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    when you try the American experiment in a country with the population of California

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hey, we have checks and balances in place.

    The Senate is occupied by two railroads.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hey now... let's not forget AirCanada.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago*

    We also have a senate, consisting of appointed large dairy farmers.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    In Australia it’s 2 supermarkets and 4 banks.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And a coffee shop which is widely loved but functionally is just a powerless figurehead.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Not Canadian… yet. How close I am to citizenship?

    1. Rogers

    2. ????

    3. Lobslaw

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Really crazy how Irving's don't get a mention.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Wait but Joe Rogan told me it's governed by a communist, I don't know what that is but it can't be good

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    They're not rivals.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›