Agent likes to throw stuff like this at walls ... some sticks, most doesn't
Are we losing what makes B.C. special?
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
- Status
Agent likes to throw stuff like this at walls ... some sticks, most doesn't
Most doesn't. The lie of socialism is slowly but surely coming to light.
Wild Bill
Well-Known Member
Just before the milenium I was a chief shop steward for my brothers. When I came into the position I had a discussion with the outgoing president whom I had much respect for and he explained the trickle down principle to me and how it was relevant to my new position. I didn't believe him however at the time as I thought a union was a grass roots organization with members wants brought to representatives. Union is political as any political position a person could win, I resigned when all the computers were supposed to crash and all the power was going to go off. Lol! Even if we don't know its happening much of what affects our lives is trickle down....
The KEY thing to take away from this endless discussion is.
1) Government doesn't produce anything. They are necessary but they leech off citizens productivity and need limits of power.
2) Anyone who says trickle down doesn't work hasn't done their homework. It may not be perfect in all circumstances, but it's the fairest system humans can come up with. Knowing that elected humans are corruptable.
You cannot make society equal. That's a fools errand. People who tell you that usually want all the power to themselves to dictate to you.
1) Government doesn't produce anything. They are necessary but they leech off citizens productivity and need limits of power.
2) Anyone who says trickle down doesn't work hasn't done their homework. It may not be perfect in all circumstances, but it's the fairest system humans can come up with. Knowing that elected humans are corruptable.
You cannot make society equal. That's a fools errand. People who tell you that usually want all the power to themselves to dictate to you.
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
I'll also point out that people who think that Scandinavian countries are examples of an alternative are overlooking the fact that they use the exact same strategy to attract businesses that other capitalist countries do: they lower their corporate tax rates. Norway, Sweden and Denmark all have lower corporate tax rates than Canada.
We could be more like the Scandinavian states but that would mean lowering corporate taxes and increasing personal taxes. Well, they'd increase for most of us, depending on which model you wanted to adopt, although for the very rich in some cases they'd actually decrease; Norway for instance uses a flat tax model on most income.
The idea that Scandinavian countries are a left-wing alternative to the system we're using is not very accurate. Their health care systems, for example, are heavily privatized.
They're doing things differently and it's working relatively well, although it's hard to gauge whether it's working as well as what we do. It's also impossible to tell whether it could be exported; all the Scandinavian states are very culturally homogenous and very small. Will they be able to sustain their system of co-operative capitalism as they cope with waves of immigrants hoping to cash in on a highly developed welfare state? Hard to say.
Would we be able to get our 35 million people, many of whom are very recent arrivals and more tightly bound to a foreign culture than our own, not to mention the regional cultures which have evolved in Canada and the six million francophone Quebeckers, rowing in unison the way the 400,000 people on a remote volcanic island in the north Atlantic, where virtually every resident is a descendant of settlers who were forced to cope with extremely limited resources and whose entire language developed right there on that island, were able to row together for a common goal?
I'd call that question rhetorical but the answer is just no. No, we absolutely could not expect to adopt the model that worked for an extremely isolated country the size of Surrey, and apply it here.
Capitalism is not without flaws but it's big issue is not that it doesn't lift people out of poverty; in fact it's the single greatest system for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever seen. No, its big issue is that it works too well. Countries like China, who shot themselves in the foot valiantly for years, thus removing themselves as a competitor, have been adopting more and more of capitalist theory and that's a big part of why we're not living in the good old days of a blue collar job meaning a nice house and a new car and a boat anymore. It's not that capitalism doesn't work, it's that the world the baby boomers grew up in had essentially no industrialized countries outside the western first world nations. They had no competition, and every manufactured part had to come from the USA or Canada or Germany or another industrial nation already rich from decades of skilled applications of international capitalistic trading.
Now that a guy with a grade five education and no shoes can run the machine that stamps out your fishing rod blank...China can be in the same position the US was a hundred years ago, when factory workers were half-starved farm labourers with a grade five education and no shoes, just born in Kansas not Zhejiang.
Does something need to be done if we want to stay on this planet? Absolutely, but anyone who tells you they know what the solution is, is either lying because they want to gain power for themselves, or insufficiently educated to understand the scale of the problem. We don't know how to fix this because we've never tried to do this before. You can't sustain 7 billion middle-class lifestyles; resources are insufficient. You can't seem to convince people in the first world that claim to care, like David Suzuki, to give up their multiple homes and travel and live in a very basic hut and own one set of clothes, so presumably we can't ask every Bangladeshi peasant to stop wanting to increase their standard of living.
Other than rooting for antibiotic-resistant strains of virulent diseases I can't think of any solution that's even remotely realistic. I'd say adoption of left-wing economics might help simply by reducing the standards of living so severely that we might be able to keep going, but typically countries which pursue left-wing ideology to the point of economic collapse do such severe damage to the environment that it probably wouldn't help.
We could be more like the Scandinavian states but that would mean lowering corporate taxes and increasing personal taxes. Well, they'd increase for most of us, depending on which model you wanted to adopt, although for the very rich in some cases they'd actually decrease; Norway for instance uses a flat tax model on most income.
The idea that Scandinavian countries are a left-wing alternative to the system we're using is not very accurate. Their health care systems, for example, are heavily privatized.
They're doing things differently and it's working relatively well, although it's hard to gauge whether it's working as well as what we do. It's also impossible to tell whether it could be exported; all the Scandinavian states are very culturally homogenous and very small. Will they be able to sustain their system of co-operative capitalism as they cope with waves of immigrants hoping to cash in on a highly developed welfare state? Hard to say.
Would we be able to get our 35 million people, many of whom are very recent arrivals and more tightly bound to a foreign culture than our own, not to mention the regional cultures which have evolved in Canada and the six million francophone Quebeckers, rowing in unison the way the 400,000 people on a remote volcanic island in the north Atlantic, where virtually every resident is a descendant of settlers who were forced to cope with extremely limited resources and whose entire language developed right there on that island, were able to row together for a common goal?
I'd call that question rhetorical but the answer is just no. No, we absolutely could not expect to adopt the model that worked for an extremely isolated country the size of Surrey, and apply it here.
Capitalism is not without flaws but it's big issue is not that it doesn't lift people out of poverty; in fact it's the single greatest system for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever seen. No, its big issue is that it works too well. Countries like China, who shot themselves in the foot valiantly for years, thus removing themselves as a competitor, have been adopting more and more of capitalist theory and that's a big part of why we're not living in the good old days of a blue collar job meaning a nice house and a new car and a boat anymore. It's not that capitalism doesn't work, it's that the world the baby boomers grew up in had essentially no industrialized countries outside the western first world nations. They had no competition, and every manufactured part had to come from the USA or Canada or Germany or another industrial nation already rich from decades of skilled applications of international capitalistic trading.
Now that a guy with a grade five education and no shoes can run the machine that stamps out your fishing rod blank...China can be in the same position the US was a hundred years ago, when factory workers were half-starved farm labourers with a grade five education and no shoes, just born in Kansas not Zhejiang.
Does something need to be done if we want to stay on this planet? Absolutely, but anyone who tells you they know what the solution is, is either lying because they want to gain power for themselves, or insufficiently educated to understand the scale of the problem. We don't know how to fix this because we've never tried to do this before. You can't sustain 7 billion middle-class lifestyles; resources are insufficient. You can't seem to convince people in the first world that claim to care, like David Suzuki, to give up their multiple homes and travel and live in a very basic hut and own one set of clothes, so presumably we can't ask every Bangladeshi peasant to stop wanting to increase their standard of living.
Other than rooting for antibiotic-resistant strains of virulent diseases I can't think of any solution that's even remotely realistic. I'd say adoption of left-wing economics might help simply by reducing the standards of living so severely that we might be able to keep going, but typically countries which pursue left-wing ideology to the point of economic collapse do such severe damage to the environment that it probably wouldn't help.
Nicely done. Couldn't have said it better.
GLG
Well-Known Member
It really doesn't matter what you believe or your what your gut feeling is on trickle down economics, it just doesn't work. This subject has been hashed out by many economist and that's what my understanding is. If you want to argue with the staff of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) then fill your boots. I'll take their word on the matter rather than random guy's on the internet.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
June 15, 2015
This paper analyzes the extent of income inequality from a global perspective, its drivers, and what to do about it. The drivers of inequality vary widely amongst countries, with some common drivers being the skill premium associated with technical change and globalization, weakening protection for labor, and lack of financial inclusion in developing countries. We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class. To tackle inequality, financial inclusion is imperative in emerging and developing countries while in advanced economies, policies should focus on raising human capital and skills and making tax systems more progressive.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
June 15, 2015
This paper analyzes the extent of income inequality from a global perspective, its drivers, and what to do about it. The drivers of inequality vary widely amongst countries, with some common drivers being the skill premium associated with technical change and globalization, weakening protection for labor, and lack of financial inclusion in developing countries. We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class. To tackle inequality, financial inclusion is imperative in emerging and developing countries while in advanced economies, policies should focus on raising human capital and skills and making tax systems more progressive.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0
Last edited:
By the way, the wealth of these people you are talking about is in assets not necessarily income. Not saying they don't bring in a decent wage but the measuring stick isn't quite what you seem to be thinking.
The 1 percenters people rave about are individuals with net assets over 800K. So that means anyone owning a house in Vancouver is the so called cause of the world's problems.
This wealth envy and class warfare being thrust on us is done by politicians in what seems a global effort for raising more tax revenue. I ha e my suspicions a lot of the "anti terrorism" and anti money laundering (terrorism funding) legislation is actually for getting more taxes.
The promises and spending they are doing is very expensive and they turn to tricks like this to fund it. That or they know the end of the spending spree is coming to and end and they will delay it as much as possible. "Not while I'm in office!". Dont fall for their games.
The next step in squeezing us dry while making us fight over who gets paid too much is a cashless society. They can watch every penny then. They are broke.
The 1 percenters people rave about are individuals with net assets over 800K. So that means anyone owning a house in Vancouver is the so called cause of the world's problems.
This wealth envy and class warfare being thrust on us is done by politicians in what seems a global effort for raising more tax revenue. I ha e my suspicions a lot of the "anti terrorism" and anti money laundering (terrorism funding) legislation is actually for getting more taxes.
The promises and spending they are doing is very expensive and they turn to tricks like this to fund it. That or they know the end of the spending spree is coming to and end and they will delay it as much as possible. "Not while I'm in office!". Dont fall for their games.
The next step in squeezing us dry while making us fight over who gets paid too much is a cashless society. They can watch every penny then. They are broke.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
Interesting read for the 1% haters.
It might drive home the fact of how much of your lifestyle you would have to cut to bring about "equality".
Careful what you wish for.
Interesting read for the 1% haters.
It might drive home the fact of how much of your lifestyle you would have to cut to bring about "equality".
Careful what you wish for.
hyperbole - using an exaggeration to emphasize a point. I was pointing-out the ridiculousness of the assertion/inference that simply because we "consume" something - it replaces governance (your post #78).
I noticed that you avoided my posts #75 & 78 - where I ask you what constitutes your definition of successful governance.
So here's a list: http://www.goodgovernance.org.au/about-good-governance/what-is-good-governance/
Notice that accountability is #1 - which is what it is for me. You get there by more checks and balances - not less.
Wild Bill
Well-Known Member
My assets might be around the $800k area however I need to sell my place to build on my BC place, I just want small, cheap, nice enough.. After that's all done I just want enough to live and would be happy traveling around the world with a backpack with my wife during the winters., spring summer and fall Sooke area.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Ah yes the go to tactic when the argument doesn't go your way...... attack the messenger not the message...... typical.
- Status
Similar threads
