1057
submitted 3 months ago by Alpha71@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Seigest@lemmy.ca 112 points 3 months ago

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

[-] eatCasserole@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

✨capitalism✨

[-] lol_idk@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)
[-] Seigest@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago

We should have our wealthy play hungry hungry hippos. As in we toss them into a marsh with 4 hungry hippos.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

If you’re playing monopoly, isn’t everyone a loser? 😝

[-] satanmat@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Sigh. I hate myself.

— Actually yes! That was the point of the original game.

the landlords game

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] franklin@lemmy.world 72 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 70 points 3 months ago

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

[-] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

If he could get away with it, he'd rename is Peasant's Choice.

Oh wait. He probably can get away with it.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 48 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

Me, constantly telling my dad he doesn’t need to spend $300 a month to be brainwashed by mainstream media lmao

Just brainwash yourself on YouTube 🤷🏼‍♂️

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] ToffeeIsForClosers@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months 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).
[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Didn't a Telus exec confirm this publicly? It's a little more than a theory.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] anachronist@midwest.social 46 points 3 months ago

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

Although that one applies equally to Australia.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

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

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

and two cell phone companies hanging off the torso pretending they are arms .... and a big giant dong of a grocery store hanging off the groin.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

Bit of a stretch to say they're rivals.

[-] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] metaphortune@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Probably wanna delete this before the Irvings put a hit out on you

[-] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 months ago
[-] pubquiz@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

Until Bell decides to snuff it out. They'll use their "legal" division (aka the CRTC) to outlaw it and no-one will squawk about it because: if you control the media, you control 'the people's' voice. We live in the shittiest timeline.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] Slowy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months 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".

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months 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!"

[-] moistclump@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

And then bell asks us why we’re depressed.

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago

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

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 18 points 3 months ago

sorry about that by the way

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 18 points 3 months ago

Hey, we have checks and balances in place.

The Senate is occupied by two railroads.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago

In Australia it’s 2 supermarkets and 4 banks.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

4 separate companies in one sector

Cannot relate.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

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

  1. Rogers

  2. ????

  3. Lobslaw

[-] Routhinator@startrek.website 9 points 3 months ago

Lobslaw 🤣🤔🤣🤔🤣

I'm keeping that one.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

I suppose that’s one point against citizenship lol

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months 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

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

They're not rivals.

[-] Martinphipps@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
1057 points (99.4% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
314 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS