Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[larry Strong]

Let's turn right then

 

[Blue Max]

Here the author shows his real strips, "It falls to Paul Martin, a decent and honest, though not particularly progressive, political leader to staunch the wounds and save the great party of the Canadian centre."

Jim Laxer exposed himself for a Liberal supporter that is desperate to find a way for his party to survive while running away so that the stench of the Gomery enquiry doesn't soil his delicate palit. So he and other Liberals are left with that tried and true Liberal tactic of FEAR MONGERING.

What a bunch of BS. The Liberals have done next to nothing for this country in the last 10 years considering they have had unrivaled power. Dare I say it, Mulroney had in my estimation accomplished more (right or wrong, still debatable) during his short tenure then Chretien. :dontpanic:

 

[larry Strong]

And expect to see a lot more fear mongering from the Liberals next time round.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

Jim Laxer exposed himself for a Liberal supporter that is desperate to find a way for his party to survive while running away so that the stench of the Gomery enquiry doesn't soil his delicate palit. So he and other Liberals are left with that tried and true Liberal tactic of FEAR MONGERING.

Jim Laxer is anything but a Liberal, even the farthest left wing of the Liberal party is way too conservative for Laxer.

Jim Laxer was a leader of the Waffle - a movement designed to drive the (then fairly new) NDP farther to the left - so far left that David Lewis and Ed Broadbent had to drive Laxer (and Mel Watkins) and the other hard left types out of the party's central agencies.

Laxer, like almost all the loony left is at panic stations because a Harper majority is within reach and Harper is a radical decentralist, a fact he does work very hard to disguise.  Harper's programme terrifies Laxer and the left, as it should. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Too left for Ed Broadbent?????....WOW!

 

[muskrat89]

So, with all this talk of Quebec separating, Alberta unhappy, the Maritimes being better served as a regional player... do any of you see a broken/different Canada in the future. If so, will it be better off?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

John - Oh nice come back there.   ;D Your reference to many sources is fine. Doesn't mean I would agree with all of them, of course. :

You don't have to: one of the features of libertarianism/neo-liberalism (or whatever you want to call it) is that it's rationale is bulletproof ... you should probably read some of their stuff before you disagree with it, though.  There's even a few newsfeeds you can add to your reader (Cafe Hayek, The Angry Economist and Samizdata.net come to mind).

I find alot of todays run away economics and consumerist ideals rather stupid. Whatever happened to building something right the first time out of a material that lasts? Instead they make it out of plastic so that it only lasts 3-5 years and then you need to buy a new one. Give me metal!! And why can't the kids today wear hand me downs? I did! Sheesh!!

There's no "stupid" when is comes to consumers: people buy what they want.  It seems that people would rather have something cheap and disposable than expensive and long-lasting ... makes a lot of sense when you think about how quickly fads and trends come and go.  If you want "quality" stuff that lasts, you can generally find it, but it costs a lot more.

Yes Rifkin is rather contriversal down there. heck, anyone left of Frum and Coultor are controversal down there. But I'll stick by him in this book as presenting some good ideas and not weighing in on one side or the other to much. Or are you to stuck in your thinking to even look at something that is NOT the American dream?

Rifkin's controversial pretty much everywhere except Europe, where as with any American who expresses sufficient hatred of America, he is deified by the socialists (see: Moore, Michael).  It is a worthy (and necessary) exercise to challenge the scietific method and all of it's findings, but in Rifkin's case he chucks it wholesale, and replaces it with his own presumption and superstition.  This is the numbnuts who in the past has pontiificated on everything from genome therapy to farming to overpopulation to economics without any background whatsoever and with the blind faith (in himself) that only the most ignorant of the environmental movement can match.  He is a modern-day Malthus or Chicken Little, who doesn't even understand the basics of what he is going on about.

As for my arguments being defeated. I don't think so. I just realize that I am not going to change anyones mind here, so why try and argue something to death and let it get nasty. But something has to be said at times to somehow balance your (To me) extreme right wing neo-conservative ideals.

But your arguments have been countered by simple, logical, rationale and supported by examples.  You've been tossing-out made-up facts (probably from Rifkin's books; he kinda has tendency to say "the statistics" support him, without actually knowing (or caring) what they are) and had them soundly refuted.  And yet you persist ...

Considering the fact that I have stated many times where I stand on the political landscape, it makes you guys look like your so far out in right field as to be putting a crick in my neck. And I'm standing in right field, if only a little right of center.

Maybe I'm a bit of an anomoly because I don't really share the "social conservatism" implied by neo-conservatism: I'm more of a libertarian in that sense ... labels aside, I think it's really very important to look at the political and ecnomic underpinnings of society: when viewed as objectively as possible, with a basic understanding of how wealth creation and distritbution works, I do not see how anyone could not agree with the values of free markets: it is better for the individual and better for society as a whole.  People complain about the "myth" of the American dream (tell that to Schwartzenegger) but the essence of capitalism is that you are rewarded for what you do; Socialism plays on people's ignorance and fears and is built on much bigger myths!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Jim Laxer is anything but a Liberal, even the farthest left wing of the Liberal party is way too conservative for Laxer.

Jim Laxer was a leader of the Waffle - a movement designed to drive the (then fairly new) NDP farther to the left - so far left that David Lewis and Ed Broadbent had to drive Laxer (and Mel Watkins) and the other hard left types out of the party's central agencies.

Laxer, like almost all the loony left is at panic stations because a Harper majority is within reach and Harper is a radical decentralist, a fact he does work very hard to disguise.  Harper's programme terrifies Laxer and the left, as it should.

I dunno, I don't think that most Quebecois are all that excited for separation, but rather are unhappy with Confederation as it is currently constituted.  The Liberals have done an incredible marketing/smear job in keeping the CPC/PC/Alliance off the map in Quebec, but it might get interesting in the post-Adscam world.  'Radical decentralization' could be a very strong sell in Quebec, as it already is in Alberta ... I also happen to think that it would make for much stronger and more properous country.

Adrew Coyne recently made some comments on how New Zealand reformed their system: I think this would make a lot of sense in the Canadian context as well:

National Post
May 15, 2004

Kiwis have the cure for Canada's Adscam

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Commons Public Accounts committee did achieve something in the course of its hearings into the Adscam affair, notwithstanding the obstructionism of its Liberal members, the barefaced dishonesty of several of the witnesses who appeared before it, and the indecent haste of the Martin government to put a stop to the committee's inquiries, a third of the way through its witness list, in time for an indecently hasty election.

For instance, it has been established beyond doubt that there was indeed detailed and direct political involvement in the sponsorship program, not only from the minister of Public Works, but all the way up to the Prime Minister's Office. Most of this came out, oddly enough, in testimony of such exquisite ambiguity -- notably from Jean Chretien's former chief of staff, Jean Pelletier -- that it was widely reported as having denied there was any political interference.

On the other hand, it is probably a good thing that the committee never got around to drafting a report on its findings. To be fair, members seem to have recognized the affair cannot be written off to a few bad apples, but stems from structural failings, namely the obvious latitude for politically-minded ministers to meddle in the departments they head. But the sorts of remedies we have heard suggested to date -- tighter accounting controls, making deputy ministers accountable to Parliament, or Alfonso Gagliano's memorable advice that what was really needed was more political interference -- do not begin to address the problem.

You can slap on all the controls and accountability mechanisms you want, that is, but so long as ministers have the means, motive and opportunity to interfere, interfere they will. Adscam, after all, is hardly an isolated incident, but follows on a string of similar scandals, from Lawrence MacAulay's interventions on behalf of his brother to the widespread politicization of departmental spending exposed in the HRDC fiasco to Mr. Chretien's famous phone calls to the president of the Business Development Bank. But while removing the Liberals from power is probably part of the solution, the longer-term remedy is to remove from ministers the authority to intervene in the day-to-day operations of departments.

As it happens, there is a model for what I am suggesting. Naturally, it is to be found in New Zealand. Many people will be familiar with the radical program of deregulation of the private sector carried out by the former Labour government in the 1980s. Less well known, but perhaps of more profound importance, were its pioneering reforms in the public sector. In brief, the government did three things. First, it "unbundled" each department, sorting out which of its responsibilities were essentially commercial activities that could be hived off into Crown corporations and later privatized, and which were core functions of government. Second, it devolved the delivery of most government services to autonomous government agencies, known as Crown entities. Third, it transformed its relationship with its own departments, and between ministers and deputy ministers, from a pseudo-hierarchical one in which it was often difficult to tell who was the master and who was the servant (think Yes, Minister) into a contractual one.

The deputy minister -- or permanent secretary, as they were called, following the Westminster usage -- was transformed from a tenured position, the last rung on the bureaucratic ladder the occupant would have been climbing all his professional life, into a chief executive officer, hired for a fixed, five-year term. It sounds like a formality. In fact, it was a revolution. Formerly constrained by any number of controls over how he allocated resources within his budget, the CEO now has almost complete managerial freedom: to hire and fire, to buy and sell assets, and so on. In return, he is required to negotiate a contract each year with the responsible minister, specifying what goods and services the department will provide to the government, and at what price.

This arrangement achieves several important objectives. First, it focuses attention on outputs, rather than inputs. So long as he lives up to his side of the contract, it is up to the CEO how he does it. Second, by specifying what the department is expected to achieve each year, it provides a benchmark against which to measure performance. Third, it clarifies responsibilities. The terms of the contract are public, and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and debate. While the CEO is responsible for delivering the required goods and services, the minister remains responsible for the broader social goals these are supposed to serve.

Last, and most important for the present discussion, it requires the minister to remain at arm's length from the department -- a formal, institutionalized separation of powers between the minister, as the purchaser of government services, and the department, as the provider. It is simply not possible for a minister in New Zealand to indulge in the kind of political micro-meddling with which we are all too familiar in this country. While the minister of transportation, for example, is responsible for framing the broad objectives of transportation policy, he can have no part in deciding which riding a particular road would go through. Ministers might not find this limit on their discretion totally unwelcome: it would soon become clear to special pleaders they were wasting their time, freeing the minister to focus on making policy. Which is supposed to be his job.

Sound far-fetched? We already have a version of this: the Bank of Canada. The Governor and the minister of finance agree on an inflation target. Then the governor gets on with the job, without having to answer to the minister every time he raises interest rates. It works there. It should be applied more generally.

 

[Infanteer]

You can slap on all the controls and accountability mechanisms you want, that is, but so long as ministers have the means, motive and opportunity to interfere, interfere they will.

This goes in line with what Brad said earlier:

There will always be manipulative and deceitful and greedy people.   They will tend to seek out power structures which facilitate their goals.   For those reasons I prefer to minimize government power as a precaution against the inevitable.   The system of government we establish to safeguard our rights, can in turn abuse those rights if not controlled.

It all sounds about right to me.

As for the NZ relationship between the bureaucracy and government, sounds interesting and worth considering - a check and a balance that exist within the Westminster system of governance.

 

[Zipper]

Maybe I'm a bit of an anomaly because I don't really share the "social conservatism" implied by neo-conservatism: I'm more of a libertarian in that sense ... labels aside, I think it's really very important to look at the political and economic underpinnings of society: when viewed as objectively as possible, with a basic understanding of how wealth creation and distribution works, I do not see how anyone could not agree with the values of free markets: it is better for the individual and better for society as a whole.   People complain about the "myth" of the American dream (tell that to Schwartzenegger) but the essence of capitalism is that you are rewarded for what you do; Socialism plays on people's ignorance and fears and is built on much bigger myths!

A true capitalist system (total free market) is as bad as a total "any" system. Its takes advantage of many to the gains of few. Yes wealth gets created and distributed, but not very far below those at the top. You have to have some social mechanisms in place in order for "all" your citizens to be survive. The more social systems, the closer the gap between rich and poor until you reach a certain point where it all falls apart and you ddescendinto communism (a total system). The key is to find that happy balance that the electorate wishes to sustain. Some want more social (usually those without), while others less (usually those with). I would like to find a happy middle ground. I think it can be sustained economically if we chose to do so and in some circumstances change the rules of economics to apply.


As to the other argument going on. One thing people seem to forget is. Regardless if you have Liberal's, Conservatives or NDP (Hell, green for that matter) in power, you will always have the temptation to use that power to your own ends. Patronage and other forms of croneism's have been going on for as long as governments have been formed. Even the NDP in Ontario during their little tenure fell into the trap.

Like I said before. The Liberals just happened to have their hands in the cookie jar when they got caught. 200 million is not even a drop in the bucket with how much they handle each year, and there have been far larger losses of money in past governments (Liberal and otherwise) that we have chosen to ignore. All this is, is an opportunity to play politics (by the opposition) and to fill a rather slow news week/month (by the media) desperate for ratings.

 

[larry Strong]

But if I am not mistaken, previous losses have been because of poor programs or piss poor management of said programs. The Liberals were caught using the money for their own purely partisan Party purposes that had nothing to do with the rest of the country, and to the best of our knowledge the other party that has been in power has not miss-used public funds like that. well IO am out of herefor two weeks of work, I imagine this and the other thread will still be here ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am not a natural fan of Parson Manning, but this, from today's Globe and Mail at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050427.wxcopreston27a/BNStory/specialComment/ rings true.  (My emphasis added.)

We have become a nation in waiting

By PRESTON MANNING
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Updated at 7:27 AM EST
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Some people say that Canada's national identity is embodied in our health-care system --universal, caring, and government-dominated. But Canada was already 117 years old in 1984 when the Canada Health Act was passed, and already possessed a strong sense of identity forged in the furnaces of Confederation and two world wars. As historian Michael Bliss points out: ''The equation of health care with the Canadian identity is unhistorical and untrue. We can't begin to have a serious, adult debate about the future of health care until we abandon the mantra that our national identity is somehow tied up in a state monopoly of health insurance.''

There is, however, one distinguishing feature of Canadian health care that is rapidly becoming a metaphor for Canada -- the waiting line.

Canadians wait for health care: up to 12 weeks to get an MRI in most provinces, as much as 36 weeks for a hip replacement in Ontario (70 weeks in B.C.), more than four months for some specialists, and more than a year in some cities just to find a family doctor. Health-care reform has been promised in the past two federal elections but, of course, Canadians are still, you guessed it, waiting.

Canada has become a nation in waiting -- with the waiting line defining our national identity --waiting for things for which the people of an advanced, industrialized democracy ought not to have to wait.

Canadians waited 14 years for the federal budget to be balanced, from 1984 when a majority of Canadians told pollsters they wanted the deficit reduced, until 1998 when it was finally eliminated. Fourteen years to achieve something as basic and necessary as balancing a budget? Fourteen years! And still waiting for the real tax relief that balancing the budget was supposed to make possible.

Infertile couples and scientists working on assisted human reproduction, one of the most rapidly advancing areas of medical science, waited more than a decade for the Chrétien government to pass regulatory legislation in this area. That's 10 years after a four-year-long royal commission recommended that high priority be given to such legislation. One year after its passage, Canadians are still waiting for the regulatory agency authorized by the legislation to be established.

Many Canadians wait for justice. In the mid-1980s, the Canadian blood supply became infected. Government negligence was partially responsible. But notwithstanding the recommendations of the Krever commission and various government promises, many of the victims of this tragedy have yet to be compensated. Only this month, 20 years later, did the government reluctantly agree to compensate those infected with hepatitis C prior to 1986.

On June 23, 1985, Air India Flight 182 was blown from the skies by a terrorist's bomb, killing 331 people. Twenty years later, the victims' families are still waiting for Canada's investigative and judicial system to find the perpetrators and mete out justice.

Canadians continue to wait for government action on other fronts. We are still waiting, after years of systematic neglect, for our armed forces to be restored to the size and capability required for Canada's actions to match its rhetoric in the international peacemaking/peacekeeping arena.
We are still waiting for the democratic reforms promised by Paul Martin in his Liberal leadership bid and in the last federal election campaign.

Now, we are asked to wait still longer for integrity and honesty to be restored to our national government -- more than a decade after the Liberal administration proclaimed a new era of "ethical government," while behind the scenes initiating the fraud-infected, kickback-tainted sponsorship program in Quebec.

Why are we so resigned to waiting: for health-care reform, for tax relief, for justice, for democratic reform, for restoration of our international reputation, and for integrity in government? What is to be gained by waiting? What precisely are we waiting for?

Instead of allowing the waiting line to define Canada, why not elect people to the next Parliament who are committed to action on all these fronts, and throw out the ditherers and procrastinators who stand in the way? Why wait, Canada? Why wait?

Preston Manning is a former Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.

His repeat of Michael Bliss' comment that ''The equation of health care with the Canadian identity is unhistorical and untrue. We can't begin to have a serious, adult debate about the future of health care until we abandon the mantra that our national identity is somehow tied up in a state monopoly of health insurance.'' is very important.  Of course Bliss is correct.  More important, the reverse is also true: we cannot begin to have a serious, adult debate about the future of Canada until we abandon the mantra that our national identity is somehow tied up in a state monopoly of health insurance.  If all we have to define ourselves as a nation is 'free' health care then we do not deserve to exist as a nation and we are a disgrace to the real men and women who built this fat, peaceful, self-absorbed country and to those who fought and died to defend it.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

A true capitalist system (total free market) is as bad as a total "any" system.

The simple fact that a system is not half-assed does not make it inherently bad or faulty ... where does this wonderful Canadian 'value' that compromise is necessarily best come from?

Its takes advantage of many to the gains of few.

No it doesn't: in a true capitalist system no-one can be taken advantage-of and everyone who is willing to work gains.  What you've written is an anti-capitalist myth: you are confusing Corporatism (which is actually a form of Socilaism) with Capitalism (Socialists have purposefully done this for years).

Yes wealth gets created and distributed, but not very far below those at the top.

Completely false: one of the greatest features of laissez-faire Capitalism is that wealth gets distributed according to ability and effort, regardless of pre-existing socio-economic status.

You have to have some social mechanisms in place in order for "all" your citizens to be survive.

No you don't.

The more social systems, the closer the gap between rich and poor until you reach a certain point where it all falls apart and you ddescendinto communism (a total system).

Not true: the more social systems based upon the 'good intentions' and nepotism of some particular social elite (who always seem to manage to skim off the top for themselves) you create, the more you distort the system of rewards and the more social stratification you create: you almost invariably most hurt the ones you are trying to help.  While some degree of stratification is desireable, as it creates a system of hope of rewards even for those born without political connections (see "American Dream"), anything created for non-economic reasons (i.e., where it becomes more rewarding to work for or bribe the government/party) is counter-productive.  You destroy wealth, leaving everyone worse off (except the aforementioned elite): it's not about who has the biggest piece of pie, it's about how big you can make the pie.  Check out the gini index some time.

The key is to find that happy balance that the electorate wishes to sustain.

There is NO happy balance: in Socialism those that contribute most to society are always punished the most for doing so: that "the electorate" wishes to sustain this is purely a function of the nation's level of economic illiteracy.  An NDP MLA hopeful was on TV the other day informing us  that "debt doesn't matter" (so we should spen as much as we can get away with).

Some want more social (usually those without), while others less (usually those with).

Exactly; but it's because those without have been led to believe that they will be better off by punishing those with.

I would like to find a happy middle ground.

There is none: you can't possibly believe that should person A be forced to give money person B solely because person A works his a$$ off while person B can't be bothered to get off HIS a$$ and expect person A to be happy about it (unless of course you bombard him with socialist propaganda from cradle to grave, also paid-for by him).

I think it can be sustained economically if we chose to do so and in some circumstances change the rules of economics to apply.

No, it can't: the whole point (which is ignored in socialist economic theory) is that the underlying laws of economics are immutable: socialism will always lead to ruin (or in Hayek's words, Socialism is inevitably "The Road to Serfdom").  Raising minimum wage is not going to create jobs regardless of how many time Jack Layton says it will.  Period.

As to the other argument going on. One thing people seem to forget is. Regardless if you have Liberal's, Conservatives or NDP (heck, green for that matter) in power, you will always have the temptation to use that power to your own ends. Patronage and other forms of croneism's have been going on for as long as governments have been formed. Even the NDP in Ontario during their little tenure fell into the trap.

Like I said before. The Liberals just happened to have their hands in the cookie jar when they got caught. 200 million is not even a drop in the bucket with how much they handle each year, and there have been far larger losses of money in past governments (Liberal and otherwise) that we have chosen to ignore. All this is, is an opportunity to play politics (by the opposition) and to fill a rather slow news week/month (by the media) desperate for ratings.

Funny you suggest that the NDP would somehow "fall into the trap": if anything, with their affinity for centralization and authoritarianism they would be more likely than either of the other major parties to create a bigger and more dangerous trap.  Saying that the Liberals "just happened" to get caught is slanderous: you presuming guilt of people who haven't even been in a position to commit the crimes you are suggesting!  If you were to say that because the Liberals have been in power for so long corruption was inevitable and that as long they remained in power it was only a matter of time before they got caught, I might be a little more inclined to agree with you ...

 

[48Highlander]

A true capitalist system (total free market) is as bad as a total "any" system. Its takes advantage of many to the gains of few. Yes wealth gets created and distributed, but not very far below those at the top. You have to have some social mechanisms in place in order for "all" your citizens to be survive.

    Every living system in nature is based on competition and cooperation.  From the smallest cells in our bodies, to the animal kingdom, and into human society, ALL living organisms compete against eachother, and form aliances to work together.  Our bodies are made up of billions of cells which, over millions of years learned to cooperate in order to form a greater whole.  Yet, at the same time, as anyone who's studied the human body at the celular level can tell you, they're also competing against eachother.  The cells of our brains for instance compete in order to feed on chemicals produced by different glands.  Cells which receive the right combination of chemicals become neurons.  Those which fail to get the required chemicals become support cells, or they die.  All the cells of the body compete with eachother in order to receive the right chemicals/nutrients, but not all of them can be succesfull, otherwise you end up with too many cells of one type, and too few of another.  So this system of competition also helps sustain the cooperation neccesary for the human body to function.

  The same system of competition and cooperation exists also in human society.  As individuals we compete against eachother in order to secure what we need to survive and become more succesfull.  Some of us become more succesfull and propser, while others achieve less, or die.  But at the same time, just like our cells cooperate to form a greater whole, we cooperate in order to form groups and governments.  At the most basic level, all of our competition, and the basis for the cooperation which forms our societies, is powered by the imperative to ensure that we survive, and that our children have a better chance to survive.  That's why communism and socialism fail; not just because they don't take human nature into account, but the nature of ALL life.  All life is driven to succeed; to obtain what it needs to survive, and to procreate and ensure the survival of it's offspring.  When you take away the imperatives which drive us, you end up with a dysfunctional system which encourages stagnation.  Can you imagine what would happen if you had the ability to ensure that every cell in your body received the same ammount and same type of chemicals and nutrients?  You could ensure the survival of every cell, but by removing the need for cooperation and competition, and by making all the cells "equal", you as an individual would cease to function.  You'd disintegrate into your component cells, which would then stagnate and die.  The same analogy works for human society.  Once you remove the need for us to compete in order to ensure our survival and success, you destroy the basis of what constitutes life, and by removing the need for competition, you also remove the need for cooperation. 

    Now I know you're not advocating the communist ideal, but rather a compromise socialist system where everyone has the same basic level of wealth, while people are still free to compete in order to achieve more.  That's certainly better than communism, but it's still going against the principles of life.  You're advocating cooperation which benefits only the weakest members of society.  Cooperation in nature never works that way.  We don't cooperate with eachother out of some utopean ideal of helping those weaker than us; we cooperate because we understand that as a group we can be stronger than as individuals.  But we don't cooperate universaly - we cooperate with those who we see as being able to assist the greater whole.  For instance, sports teams accept members who play the given sport well, and who can fill a role on the team.  Companies hire workers who have a skill which the company needs.  Any group which wishes to be successful always discriminates when accepting and rewarding members; otherwise they'd fall apart.  Imagine a company which hired workers regaurdless of qualifications.  Imagine a baseball team which allowed anyone to join.  Sure, those people who never had a chance to play baseball would now have that opportunity, but at the same time, the team would have no chance of competing against others.  And being a member of that team would no longer have any meaning, which would lead to the best members leaving and striking out on their own.  The same logic applies to all human society, from the smallest interactions between social groups to the level of governments, and beyond.  We only cooperate in order to improve our own chances at survival and success;  remove that barrier, force cooperation without discrimination, and you're going against millions of years of evolution, and the nature of life itself.  Wether you like it or not, life REQUIRES death and failiure just as much as it requires success.  We can change the ways in which we compete and cooperate, but we cannot remove the need to do so, and we cannot remove the imperatives which drive us without inviting disaster.

    What's all that mean?  It means that within our societies we NEED people who are unsuccesfull just as much as we need those who are very succesfull.  One extreme serves to show us what happens when we cease to compete, the other shows us what we may be able to achieve through effort.  If we allow the weaker members of society to impose their will on the stronger, and in some misguided attempt to help out "the greater whole" we ensure that everyone, regaurdless of effort, can attain some level of success, while placing a cap on just how successfull they can be, we remove a lot of the driving force of life from that society.  We ensure that the weak can become stronger, but we also ensure that as a whole we become weaker.  And on a global stage we still have to compete against other systems which have no qualms about culling the weak from their ranks.  A society which ensures the survival of it's weakest members at the expense of it's own strength is one which cannot hope to compete against societies which do not.  Once again, it's the nature of life.  The cells of any animal cooperate to form it's body, but at the same time they compete in order to make that body as strong as possible - after all, weak bodies have less chance of surviving than strong ones.  The level of cooperation and competition doesn't stop there because those bodies come together to form social groups wether they be packs, tribes, gangs, or governments.  And once again, all the bodies within that social group cooperate in order to form it, yet they also compete in order to make it as strong as possible - after all, a strong tribe is more likely to survive than a weak one.  And at the global level, governments cooperate in order to form alliances which banefit them.  But they also compete in order to make those alliances as strong as possible - otherwise what's the point of an alliance?

    I think I'm starting to repeat myself a now, but I've tried to provide a lot of examples of why socialism is unnatural and counterproductive.  To me it's all quite clear - I see examples of it in life all around me, and I know that wishing that we could all be nice to eachother and live as one big happy human family isn't realistic.  It's great to want to help the poor and disadvantaged - I try to give money to the homeless occasionaly, or donate to whatever cause appeals to me - but I also know that we cannot FORCE ourselves to support individuals when it weakens the whole.  It's a mistery to me why others can't see it just as clearly.

 

[Zipper]

Ok, this is going to jump around a little.

First. The basic tenant that you seem to be forgeting (whether it is cell compitition, or the strongest survive) is that modern society recognizes that ALL people are equal under the law. The society that you seem to buy into is that you everyone MUST work hard, get all they want, and to hell with everyone else. The problem with this is that those who have, have an easier time of having. While those who do not have, must work much harder to have. While this, in and of itself makes sense, and is the way it works for the most part. The problem I have is with those people who cannot have.

There are whole sections of society (handicapped, mentally ill, accidents, etc.) that need the opportunities to participate in order to be self sufficent within society. Your model would cast them aside and let them rot. Or even worse, make their futures dependant upon those who have, feeling that they would like to contribute something to help them.

I am not advocating that only the weakest recieve help, or that we get rid of compation, nor that we have to all be upon some kind of false "level" playing field when it comes to income.

I am also not going to buy into the staunch individualism of libertarianism. This reliance upon the "goodwill" of those who have does not work as we all know that people are basically selfish bastards, and when left to their own devices will look after themselves only. And this also leads to surfdom in that those who have, eventually have all. And those who do not, have to beg those who do for jobs, etc. This is why we're seeing such a widening gap of the rich and poor (and destruction of the middle class) in the States (and here as well in many cases). Total corporatism works off of this ideal.

What I am trying to get at is the basic ideals of libertarianism where you look after yourself and your family (through hard work), but expand that to include your neighborhood. My points are that community "health" (job oppurtunity, health, enviroment, etc) is more important to the whole then a single individual who has more then all those around them. Yes there will be those within the community with more then others, but so what. As long as each person is doing something for the health of the community (whatever that may be), it works. It is a shift in thinking. Nothing more. Is it utopian? Yes, but I would not want to see it go that far down that path, as its starts entering into dangerous ground. If we all thought this way, we would not necassarily need all the social programs because they would already be taken care of within (an by) the community. The only question is, how large a community (family unit on up) could this model support?

Does this require social programs run by government? I don't know.

My problem with the economic model that todays world (since Adam's introduction of such) seems to buy into is that it assumes that all resources are unending, and that absolutely everything is a resource. From human workers, to air, water, oil, gas, metals, to time, etc... And thus everything is for sale, and money can be made from it. Its wrong. All things have an end.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Healthcare is not free. You pay taxes to make it availible to everyone.

Healthcare in the States is still under backlogs. Especially for those who do not have the money to go to elite private care. Ie. You pay more money, the less time you wait.

I think you are making up facts again: prove it (organ donor transplants waits don't count).

So don't get the idea that backlogs are just a Canadian thing. Its everywhere in every system.

Backlogs are quite common in socialized medicine (the UK is another that has horrible problems).

Yes it is not running to well and is broken in many ways.

But anyone with an elementary understanding of  economics knows that this was inevitable.

It needs fixing.

It needs ending.

More money will not do it all,

Romanow seemed to think it would.

nor will dismantling it in favour of private health care.

How do you know?

Maybe running a combination in some way may serve? Two tiered. Will it work? Well we seem to be going there regardless, so lets wait and see.

We are going there out of necessity: people are demanding better accessability and when the chipa are down, don't care who provides it.  The bureaucracy of the existing system is collapsing under it's own weight, as one would expect: this is exactly why the Soviet Union collapsed.

Daycare. If set up properly it will work great.

No, it won't.

Is it for everyone? No. It works great for those households where both parents are working, which is rapidly becoming the majority.

And I suppose that both parents having to work has nothing to do with oppressive levels of taxation.  Do you see the logic?  Tax the crap out of people, so both parents have to work, necessitating daycare; raise taxes more so they can't afford (with their after-tax income) private childcare, and then poof!  socialism to the rescue, with bureacratic, overly-expensive childcare focussed on the needs of the providers, not the children.  Great system.

Is it as good as one parent staying home to raise the child? In most cases no. But it is there to help out all those parents who do not make enough regardless of two incomes to have properly trained daycare centers help take care of their kids.

See above: they need two incomes because each is taxed so highly: really, it's quite simple.

Ok, this is going to jump around a little.

First. The basic tenant that you seem to be forgeting (whether it is cell compitition, or the strongest survive) is that modern society recognizes that ALL people are equal under the law. The society that you seem to buy into is that you everyone MUST work hard, get all they want, and to heck with everyone else. The problem with this is that those who have, have an easier time of having. While those who do not have, must work much harder to have. While this, in and of itself makes sense, and is the way it works for the most part. The problem I have is with those people who cannot have.

What?

There are whole sections of society (handicapped, mentally ill, accidents, etc.) that need the opportunities to participate in order to be self sufficent within society. Your model would cast them aside and let them rot. Or even worse, make their futures dependant upon those who have, feeling that they would like to contribute something to help them.

No, the point is that everyone is self-reliant and has an opportunity to participate: socialism makes people dependent on others (actually the state) ... the real problem is that EVERYONE ends-up reliant on the bureacratic and inefficient (at best) state (as we currently do for healthcare).

I am not advocating that only the weakest recieve help, or that we get rid of compation, nor that we have to all be upon some kind of false "level" playing field when it comes to income.

Huh?  I think that's the problem we are all forced into receiving 'help' from the nanny-state: the end result is that society is worse-off.

I am also not going to buy into the staunch individualism of libertarianism. This reliance upon the "goodwill" of those who have does not work as we all know that people are basically selfish bastards, and when left to their own devices will look after themselves only.

This is the whole point: people ARE basically selfish bastards, and if you try to pretend that they are not, you WILL be taken advantage-of.  Important to remember that "selfishness" does not necessarily mean personal financial reward (as the socialist propaganda claims): if you feel best about yourself by paying a portion of your income to be bombarded with pro-government, pro-socialist propaganda, then go fill your boots!  BUT why the heck should I be forced to pay for the CBC, when I'd rather my hard-earned money go to researching a cure for cancer?

And this also leads to surfdom in that those who have, eventually have all.

100% wrong: the United States has an extremely high degree of income mobility, which is why the poor and and middle classes oppose tax increases as much as the rich: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1418.cfm ; http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm556.cfm

And those who do not, have to beg those who do for jobs, etc. This is why we're seeing such a widening gap of the rich and poor (and destruction of the middle class) in the States (and here as well in many cases). Total corporatism works off of this ideal.

Corporatism and Capitalism aren't them same thing: they are opposites.  Corporatism is an authoritarian: Laissez-faire Capitalism, by definition, is not.  The free market ensures a market-clearing wage, which guarantees that there is always as many jobs as workers.

What I am trying to get at is the basic ideals of libertarianism where you look after yourself and your family (through hard work), but expand that to include your neighborhood. My points are that community "health" (job oppurtunity, health, enviroment, etc) is more important to the whole then a single individual who has more then all those around them. Yes there will be those within the community with more then others, but so what. As long as each person is doing something for the health of the community (whatever that may be), it works. It is a shift in thinking. Nothing more. Is it utopian? Yes, but I would not want to see it go that far down that path, as its starts entering into dangerous ground. If we all thought this way, we would not necassarily need all the social programs because they would already be taken care of within (an by) the community. The only question is, how large a community (family unit on up) could this model support?

Yeah, sure: Cubans and North Koreans are still waiting for the "withering away of the state" ...

Does this require social programs run by government? I don't know.

Actually, it would require violent repression of entrepreneurs and individualists.

My problem with the economic model that todays world (since Adam's introduction of such) seems to buy into is that it assumes that all resources are unending, and that absolutely everything is a resource. From human workers, to air, water, oil, gas, metals, to time, etc... And thus everything is for sale, and money can be made from it. Its wrong.

No it isn't.

All things have an end.

Resource economics 101: as resources become more scarce they become more expensive.  Thus, the last "unit" of anything would cost $inifinity.  In real life, several things happen: increased (relative) cost increases the viability of technological development, which both decreases extraction costs and increases extractable reserves; moreover, alternative energy sources become more viable, decreasing the required usage (and thereby the reserve calculation).  More here: "We WIll Never Run Out of Oil" http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm and here: http://www.abetterearth.org/subcategory.php/300.html

Have you heard of "The Wager"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_between_Julian_Simon_and_Paul_Ehrlich (the neo-Malthusians always lose, but never shut the heck up ... Rifkin is part of this crowd)

 

[Zipper]

I think you had better take a better look at the States and their health care. They have back logs as does everyone else. They are NOT a perfect system.

There is a reason most democratic countries are Social democracies. They happen to think that looking after their citizens instead of making a profit off of them is more important.

Case in point is the fact that their are many two income families down in the States as well. Its not something that only Canada or any social democracy is going through.

Is not any formal gathering of people self reliant on each other? Why did we form villages, towns, cities, in the first place? Everyone is reliant on each other for the well being of society. If not, then it is anarchy. Either that or we go back to the hunter gathering's of our ancestors. And you once again assumed that everyone is equal and able to be self reliant. They are not. There are those who cannot do what everyone else does and thus need assistance from the community. Whether that is social programs or those within the community helping them.

As for those who support our system and those who do not. You have to treat everyone equal. You tax everyone, or you tax no one. You either have a government (federal, provincial, local), or you have none.

100% wrong: the United States has an extremely high degree of income mobility, which is why the poor and and middle classes oppose tax increases as much as the rich:

Holy crap. Your quoting the Heritage foundation? A ultra right wing think tank thats worse then you say Rifkin is. Good grief. People accually swallow them saying that the "poor" only stay poor for about 4 months except for 2%? C'mon. Tell that to the droves of poor in every major city in the States. Tell that to all the single mothers who have to work two jobs just to get by. Oh sorry. They fall outside statistics. If you believed them, then the States would have solved their poverty problem years ago. Yeah right.

Now for the economics class.

We will never run out of oil? Oh good grief. What world do you live in? If a specics for one reason or another can become extinct? Why cannot a resource? It may not run our in your lifetime. But to say we will never run out of "usuable/affordable" oil is naive. Your just saying that prices (money) can be made at all times. Who cares. Its the resource I'm talking about, and not the money that can be made from it. Yes as oil becomes harder to extract and reserves become lower, then prices go up. Who cares. It is the fact that we use up absolutely everything for a price and that everything is charged that I have a problem with.

How long before we cannot breath our own air and have to have it piped into our homes for a price? We already see it with water. We either drink it full of chemicals from our taps or we can buy it bottled and cleaned from the store. Whats with that? Economics shouldn't charge us for everything we do. Just like taxes shouldn't charge us for everything we do.

This is why I don't spout off numbers. Depending on who collects them, they'll be called "left" or "right" agendas. Unless their is a majority (vast majority) that accepts them, they mean nothing.

 

[Justin Gladue]

My name is Justin Gladue, and I am a civilian. I found this site by accident. I am posting in response to a_majoor's Monday, 4 April 2005 post. This will be my first and only post.

On Friday, April 21st, Jennifer Bowron and her husband, Mike Bonnard, buried their second child. I know this because they are friends of mine, for my part. As is Curtis Gifford, the young man pulled out of the basement. He will survive, but his prognosis is that he will spend the rest of his life with the mentality of a five year old.

I am posting this because I want a_majoor to make sure his facts are straight. 

http://sask.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mother-fire050315

First, I would like to say you are right. There are precious few out there who are willing to live up to their personal responsibility of making this world a better place. Far too many are willing to say, "I've been wronged", and stop fighting the good fight.  And there is a disgusting amount of people out there just itching to point out the problems to "the professionals" for them to fix. After reading your post a_majoor, and taking your military career into consideration, I wonder where it is that you stand.

I need for you to understand clearly that there was no kids wandering around in an inferno. The house was asleep and remained that way. Jack Grover saw to that. (http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Housing_Saskatoon.shtml ; http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/slumlandlords.htm). Am I going to release Mike of the responsibility of seeing if the things in his own home worked? No, but I guarantee that he will never make the same mistake again. And I will not blame him for trusting others to do their F***ING JOB! Jack Grover is as guilty of murder as if he set that fire himself. Where was his pride in his work? His Respect for his fellow man? Should I berate Mike and Jen for not putting their personal safety at risk for their children? Sir, I have no children, and have not had to make that choice. God willing, I'll never never have to.

At this point, I have to point out what I consider the best part of your post. You say quite explicitly that that Mike walked away "unblemished". I assure you, there is not a single second of every day since then that he's not thinking, "What if i had woken up sooner?" or better yet,  "What if I hadn't woken up?"  Unblemished doesn't seem right. I'm not sure; I don't know what it's like to lose a child.

Do you?

Look, the real story is that this wasn't a rich family. There was a reason there lived in the slums. But they tried. They gave a damn. Mike turned his back on a meth addiction to take care of his family, and was showing promise of becoming the man I knew he would become.The one he still might, if this kid can recover from burying his kids. Lives were destroyed here. Are you getting my point yet?

Mike, Jen, Curtis, and William, are not victims. They are not martyrs for my cause. They are just friends of mine. They had a bad accident; a tragic but avoidable one. They are real PEOPLE, like you, like me.  You go ahead and applaud a man that makes a difference three seconds before death, if it helps you sleep at night. I'll help my friends shift through the ashes.

Then again, you must know all this already. I gather this because you know them well enough to know that they didn't take a fire safety course. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here; I'd hate to believe you're some internet terrorist bent on fire bombing people you don't know to make a point.

 

[Infanteer]

Justin Gladue - don't target A Majoor with condemnation; reread the post that mentions your friends, it is an article post by Mr Majoor that was written by Mark Steyn.  

If you have an issue with the story, write Mr Steyn.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I think you had better take a better look at the States and their health care. They have back logs as does everyone else. They are NOT a perfect system.

They do not have backlogs anything like "everyone else"!

There is a reason most democratic countries are Social democracies.

Yes, economic illiteracy and socialist propaganda.

They happen to think that looking after their citizens instead of making a profit off of them is more important.

Ever heard of Adscam?  Cuba?  I suppose Chirac has never taken a kickback?  My God, let's try to keep this somewhere near them realm of reality!

Case in point is the fact that their are many two income families down in the States as well. Its not something that only Canada or any social democracy is going through.

I suppose you are going to tell me that "the statistics" support this contention?

Is not any formal gathering of people self reliant on each other? Why did we form villages, towns, cities, in the first place? Everyone is reliant on each other for the well being of society.

Because division of labour (specialization) is the most efficient means of creating wealth.  It is called comparative advantage (and explains why free trade is so beneficial).

If not, then it is anarchy.

Interdependence still exists under anarchy: the two are not related.

Either that or we go back to the hunter gathering's of our ancestors. And you once again assumed that everyone is equal and able to be self reliant. They are not. There are those who cannot do what everyone else does and thus need assistance from the community. Whether that is social programs or those within the community helping them.

Wrong again!  Everyone is not equal: that is the point.  Different people are better at different things: specialization produces the best possible outcome.  Cities and villages did not form because some politician said that this was the only way to improve lifestyles: social organization and interdependence come-about because trade allows wealth creation: leaving the milk production to the dairy farmers, rather than everyone having to get up to milk their own cow, allows the doctors to heal the sick.  This happened (and happens) naturally in the absence of government: all government does is create a less-efficient distribution of production, as well as overhead (when they aren't stealing outright).

As for those who support our system and those who do not. You have to treat everyone equal. You tax everyone, or you tax no one.

Why would you force someone to support a system that works against their interest?  And even if you accept the (rather spurious) notion that you should, why wouldn't you tax everyone equally, rather than have those that benefit the least bear the greatest proportion of the burden?

You either have a government (federal, provincial, local), or you have none.

There are vastly different forms of government: most people accept that government should be responsible for national defense, but why should there be public broadcasting?

Holy crap. Your quoting the Heritage foundation?

Actually, I am quoting the same statistics they summarized in those articles.

A ultra right wing think tank thats worse then you say Rifkin is. Good grief. People accually swallow them saying that the "poor" only stay poor for about 4 months except for 2%? C'mon. Tell that to the droves of poor in every major city in the States. Tell that to all the single mothers who have to work two jobs just to get by. Oh sorry. They fall outside statistics. If you believed them, then the States would have solved their poverty problem years ago. Yeah right.

Oh I get it: you are right and the statistics support your contentions.  But when checked, the statistics actually demonstrate that the opposite of what you claim is true: therefore the statistics are wrong.  No wonder were not getting anywhere.

Now for the economics class.

We will never run out of oil?

Yes, it is a fallacy that doesn't immediately make intuitive sense, but is demonstrably true.  You think of reserves as a volume, but they are actually measured in time: the lower the rate at which we deplete reserves, the greater the reserves, even when the total volume is decreasing: the concept of scarcity ensures that usage rates will decline with volume, leaving total reserves unchanged (i.e., X years of oil).  And that doesn't even count more efficient extraction and refining or discovery of new reserves.

Oh good grief. What world do you live in?

The one with the blue sky: and yours?

If a specics for one reason or another can become extinct? Why cannot a resource?

Um, because commodities and 'species' are not the same thing: Buffalo may become extinct (little value) but pigs never will (unless we stop eating them).

It may not run our in your lifetime. But to say we will never run out of "usuable/affordable" oil is naive.

No, it's been proven (The Wager).

Your just saying that prices (money) can be made at all times. Who cares.

Well, you should because it explains your basic misunderstanding of Political Economy: economics deals with the creation of wealth and identification of value (in this case, scarcity increases relative value: think water in the desert or cigarrettes in prison), politics is only a means of redistributing wealth.

Its the resource I'm talking about, and not the money that can be made from it.

But the money that can be made from it is the measure of it's value.

Yes as oil becomes harder to extract and reserves become lower, then prices go up. Who cares.

You should, because it might become so costly that other means of energy production are more cost-effective.

It is the fact that we use up absolutely everything for a price and that everything is charged that I have a problem with.

Again, I have to call bullshit: according to 'experts' like yourself, we're supposed to have run out of coal, oil, water, farmland and thousand other commodities several times-over.  You guys have been wrong every time: perhaps you should look at your assumptions.

How long before we cannot breath our own air and have to have it piped into our homes for a price? We already see it with water. We either drink it full of chemicals from our taps or we can buy it bottled and cleaned from the store. Whats with that?

What's your point?  Politicians put fluoride in water: consumers demanded purer water, so the free market has responded where government could not (kinda like MRI machines).  People who buy spring water are getting screwed because they have to pay for everyone else's water, whether they want to or not.

Economics shouldn't charge us for everything we do.

What?  Economics is a means to understanding the value of everything: it doesn't charge for anything.

Just like taxes shouldn't charge us for everything we do.

Actually a consumption tax is probably the fairest and most efficient.

This is why I don't spout off numbers. Depending on who collects them, they'll be called "left" or "right" agendas. Unless their is a majority (vast majority) that accepts them, they mean nothing.

Right, and the fact that the empirical evidence demonstrates that you are dead wrong is just a coincidence.