PatM
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PatM
-
-
I think my target will be a one way trip to Venezuela.
Hey Hugo! Coming to ya!
NB: Venezuela is the one country in the Americas that is actually standing up to American imperialism. The rest of the OAS is rallying around Hugo Chavez, its President.
P.S. Don't believe the US propaganda that he's a communist dictator - they just hate him because he won't sell the country to the US like a good little South American banana republic.
-
Damn, and to think we almost got to find out. Maybe BS can give us an inspirational guide book on Canadian politics. She can call it "How to Get Ahead in Canadian Politics Without Really Trying".
Oh thats easy - don't need a book!
Be Rich And Good Looking.
I fail miserably on both counts
-
The biggest problem with corporations is not really the existance of corporations
I disagree.
The only reason for corporations to exist is to remove liability from people who do bad things, and for tax evasion. Corporations have been the biggest abuse of citizens ever, more so than any war or famine has ever done.
Ok, we actually agree. I wholeheartedly disagree with the way the law has held corporate management (Directors especially) outside the law.
If the corporation commits a crime - the corporate bosses should pay.
p.s. don't forget about the "limited" status
-
LR -7.5 (left)
LA -4.46 (Libertarian)
Are you suprised? I though not. I am closest to Ghandi.
Ghandi was a good and wise man and I have always greatly respected him.
I've done that one before - ended up a tad right of and a tad below Ghandi. a Social Libertarian!
-
Where did I give that impression? Not saying I didn't - just that if I did, I should fix it as that is not the impression I intended to give.
No paper money has real value - only percieved value. It is a medium of exchange, no more, no less. In truth, gold is the same way - its value is not fixed, it is determined by demand.
Supposed the two of us had a country and a currency all to ourselves (NO, not suggesting anything here! ). We have $30 in the currency of the land. I have $10 and you have $20.
One day we decide "Hey, lets double our money!" - I have $20 and you have $40. The number of dollars has changed but the relative purchasing power of the total currency has not. Each dollar willl simply end up buying half as much. Neither of us has changed our relative wealth.
On the other hand, if we double the total wealth but you get all the new money; me $10, you $50. The purchasing power of the total currency in circulation has not changed, but our purchasing power, relative to each other, certainly has.
-
I never got to see the end of The Corporation (getting DVD some day though). Did they give any suggestions of how any of the above could be incorporated (no pun intended) into the corporate concept?
-
Here's a couple more places you can check on this "flat earth" topic.
Financial Market Center "NAIRU: Vicious Euphemism "
http://www.fmcenter.org/site/pp.asp?c=8fLGJTOyHpE&b=235972
Federal Reserve "The Magic's Gone"
http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/01-09/magic.cfm
Bank of Canada "The NAIRU in Canada: Concepts, Determinants and Estimates"
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/res/tr50-e.htm
Edit: Oops - forgot the money supply example
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ07.htm
Take a look at the total money supply from 2000 to 2004 - thats a 23% increase and it doesn't even include M4.
We have 23% more money floating around, there should be 23% higher prices overall, but there isn't. Wages should be 23% higher, but they are not. Where, pray tell, did all the money go?
-
Real data? I object to your analysis which makes about as much sense as claiming the earth is flat.
To start with, money is just paper. It is not real wealth. You are making one of the most elementary errors of a non-economist: you are confusing a real value and a nominal value.
I suggest you get a standard economics textbook and read it or even better, enrol in an introductory economics course. You seem to be interested in the subject and no doubt you'll do well. Ask questions, and listen. Good luck!
Lame - you dismiss, you do not rebutt. If my analysis is incorrect then please, share your wisdom. Explain please.
-
Now that Belinda is a Cabinet Minister of the Liberals shouldn't it be her duty to tell us Canadians what the "Hidden Agenda" of the Conservatives is. I keep hearing Liberals talking aabout it but no one ever tells what it is. Belinda has the inside dope ,being right in the thick of it. So, should she tell us all orkeep it a Libral secret?
The problem there is that the hidden agenda of the conservatives is the same as the hidden agenda of the liberals. She can't squeal on one without squealing on the other.
Liberals and Reform are just the good cop/bad cop faces of the same people. Liberals just do it slower and sneakier.
-
Another good place to read about this:
CEOs Sell Out The Nation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 10:34 AM MDT
Contributed by: 4Canada
Views: 157
CEOs sell out the nation
By murray dobbin
Publish Date: 7-Apr-2005
After almost three years of quiet lobbying and political manoeuvring, Canada’s corporate elite recently went very public with its future blueprint for Canada. The initiative goes by various names: “deep integration”, the Big Idea, and now, in its formal political incarnation, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. That’s the name of the agreement signed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. on March 23 that would begin the process of economic, social, cultural, and security assimilation into the U.S. If it sounds vaguely familiar, it may be because Paul Martin simply took a Bay Street scheme—called the Security and Prosperity Initiative—and made it into Canadian policy without so much as thinking about what Canadians might want.
Martin knows what Canadians want, and that is almost certainly why he didn’t want to consult them. Poll after poll reveals that Canadians have different values than Americans, and those differences mean we want less integration with the U.S., not more.
Bay Street’s annexation initiative is led by Tom d’Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, made up of the CEOs of Canada’s 150 most powerful corporations. It was called the Business Council on National Issues until the CEOs decided, given that they were all global operators, that there were no national issues and changed their name.
D’Aquino and his partners in a corporate task force, former deputy prime minister John Manley and former finance minister Michael Wilson, tell us that by integrating ever more into the U.S. we will somehow guarantee our prosperity, creating fortress North America to compete with China, Europe, and other competitors.
straight.com for more.
-
The press puts this is a much different context - when they talk about it at all. What it truly is, is the absorption of Canada by the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say No to Deep Integration with the United States!
Join the Red and White Ribbon Campaign for Canadian Sovereignty
version française de cette page
Background
Canadian, U.S., and Mexican elites, including CEOS and politicians, have a plan to create common North American policies and further integrate our economies.
This plan goes by various names:
Deep Integration
Harmonization
NAFTA-plus
the "Big Idea" (C.D. Howe Institute)
the "North American Security and Prosperity Initiative" (The Canadian Council of Chief Executives)
Americanization
More at Vive le Canada Website
-
Sparhawk,
We're getting closer to an understanding here. Still a few problems though.
The gold standard did not prevent "abuse" of "free money". The gold standard effectively disappeared in the 1930s when the ability to redeem bank notes for gold was eliminated.
The gold standard never dictated how much moneysubstitute could be created in the first place - all it dictated was how much gold you had to give people who redeemed the substitutes.
Government created money is not without limitation. Inflation is the check. Create too much and you feed inflation - the voters get mad and you lose the next election in favour of a more restrained party. The irony here is that voters currently think government is creating all the new money, not banks, and governments take the heat for inflation that rightly belongs on the banks.
Bank created money has no such limitation. There is no fractional reserve requirement therefore there is no theoretical limit to how much money a bank can create. There is no "vote loss" threat hanging over the heads of banks - On the contrary, inflation and a declining real wage is a major boost to bank profits. Inflation is good business for banks.
How can you argue that "Free money" for government is bad while "Free money" for banks is good?
Also, please provide data supporting the assertion that banks have stewarded the money supply better than government did. I supplied the data from 1946 to the late 70s showing what happened when government got out of the "Free money" business. How about some of yours?
-
If you review other threads I have posted in I have already refuted social contract theory. It doesn't work. Review Lysander Spooner's writings for an in-depth refutation.
Really? Well then, why is it illegal for me to simply kill someone to take their wealth? As long as I can keep other people from killing me - it is mine by right of might. Is this the way you want society to go? Actually, forgive me - without a social contract there is no such thing as society - or capitalism for that matter.
No, actually von Mises acknowledges that information assymetry is inevitable and may actually be beneficial. One of the things Austrians attack Chicagoites on is Chicagoite insistence on perfect imformation, which Austrians state is impossible and therefore to focus on it is to claim the market is imperfect by comparison with an impossible model.And this is where we completely diverge. We'll have to agree to disagree since I know you won't acknowledge anything other than the austrian theory and you know I won't accept it.
-
Are you asserting that people have a right to healthcare? Are you aware that that is a positive right and thus completely at odds with Austrian doctrine, which holds that no right can oblige a man to give to another by threat or force, and no right can require certain social or technological developments to be fulfilled?
I am asserting that, yes.
You are asserting that people performing the less "valued" services in the capitalist system do not deserve health care and should die when sick instead of being a "burden" on others.
You're taking capitalism as the only "truth" in this world. There are other truths as well, such as the social contract.
If we were to persue capitalism to absurdity, there could be no countries - differing laws on trade and business create inequal business climates. If your country is catholic and mine is buddist, that creates different business climates and therefore both must be abolished in favour of free markets.
The one thing Mises incorrectly assumes is perfect knowledge by the market participants. He assumes that consumers would shy away from businesses that do things they do not like - which is true. What he doesn't account for is that the business of information dissemination can, and does, omit passing on information that consumers require in order to make informed choices when puchasing goods.
Media companies, that are moving towards (and in some cases have achieved) monopolization do not report thier own activities, these same corporations are headed up by directors that also sit on many other boards - the activities of those companies, when not favorable, are rarely passed on to the consumer.
Capitalism, without an informed consumer, is not capitalism at all.
-
Doh - my apologies Hugo, I didn't mean to ignore your response - I missed it.
About minimum wage:
Your orignal statement was that minimum wages create unemployment. I pointed out that the existance of a minimum wage does not, in fact, create unemployment as a rule. It is the level of minimum wage that determines its effect on unemployment.
I said that not to contradict you but to clarify. You may understand the difference, but neo-liberals simply parrot "minimum wage creates unemployment" without any mention of market clearing rates.
Minimum wage is required only so long as NAIRU policy creates artificially high unemployment - creating an excess of labour in relation to jobs. Remove the artificially high unemployment and minimum wage laws will be largely redundant
TV's and profit motive:
People don't die if they cannot afford a TV - that rebuttal was nonsense.
Government control of health care - I think we are close on this one (though not in total agreement)
I said government control, not necessarily government delivery.
What I think the capitalist version of health care should be:
- Government covers all Canadians for health care - single payer system.
- Delivery of health care should be a competition. Let private business deliver the healthcare according to government rules. Whomever can meet (or exceed) the requirements gets the business.
My understanding of capitalism according to Mises makes this a perfectly viable and acceptable method of health care delivery. Capitalism does not preclude government as a single-payer for healthcare, it just precludes a monopoly provider of the services.
Where I think we differ is in that I do not trust government to come up with an acceptable set of rules nor to oversee the delivery to ensure delivery according to those rules by private enterprise - not under our current system of campaign finance. Private healthcare companies have too much money and therefore too much influence over politicians. There are already LOTS of examples just here in BC how politicians look the other way when private providers break the rules while donating BIGTIME to political campaigns.
Of course from a pure market view, single payer isn't as good as multiple payer. I'm just not willing to let people die simply because they cannot afford care.
Reform campaign finance so that big money doesn't mean big influence and I'll gladly switch from advocatiing non-profit delivery to profit-based, competative delivery.
As to lauding Austrian economics:
I admire Mises but I don't ignore reality. There is no way in hell that tomorrow morning the country will wake up and have a pure capitalist system. Right now the system we have is rediculously biased toward monopolization. Before we can hope to "free up" markets, we have to bust up the monopolies and oligopolies then remove the economic policies that favour business in general. Until then, our markets are cannot be free in the capitalist sense. They would only be free in the fascist sense.
-
The corporation is an excellent documentary, but it uses to broad of a brush.
The biggest problem with corporations is not really the existance of corporations - it is their collusion with government. Through donations and outright bribery (the fruits of which are given AFTER the politician leaves politics - ala Mulroney's position with Power Corp after gutting banking regulations in favour of Power Corp).
What we really need is a reform of campaign finance. Its been proven time and time again that "He who spends the most money, wins". Corporations have the most money so their candidates win 90% of the time.
If people want corporations to act as responsible citizens then we need to eliminate donations to political parties and go with public funding instead.
No, I don't mean the Chretien form either - its not a fair system. Each candidate in a riding should get identical funding along with mandated amounts of air time/newspaper coverage locally. Prevent anyone from drowning out the message of other candidates because they have lots more money.
Campaigns should be concentrated on local coverage of local candidates. National coverage should be mandated but only allowed about 1/4 of the coverage that local candidates get.
Get politics back to being about YOUR representatives, not about what the party brass tells your representative to do.
Each elected representative's voting record should be made available locally in their riding - published in local papers and posted on the member's website. Let the people in the riding see what their representative is really doing.
Once politicians are no longer beholding to their big donors they will have to start paying attention to their constituents instead.
Some (not all, not even most) corporations have been allowed to be monsterous only because they have the money to make politicians reliant on them.
P.S. For you conservatives - this also prevents labour from having politicians under their financial thumb as well.
-
I just love how people, faced with real data, resort to diverting topics in an attempt to discredit the source.
If ya can't beat 'em, smear 'em!
-
Looking forward to it, Technocrat.
-
The Reform party is simply the Canadian wing of Bush's Repubicans. Reform takes its economic platform from the "Washington Consensus". The reality is Reform wants to hand Canada over to the USA as its 51st state.
Unfortunately for us - Paul Martin wants to do the same thing. This is the aim of his "Deep integration" policy.
The only "good" thing about Martin is he's trying to be sneaky and slip it past everyone before we notice. Harper's Reform party is impatient and wants it done NOW.
-
Did you just try and dismiss unethical and possibly illegal fundrasing tactics of the Campbell Liberals?!
- hounding cities and municipalities for political donations
- taking donations from taxpayer owned public institutions like colleges and airports
- the illegal acceptance of donations from registered charities?
**** The Campbell Liberals made it illegal for charities to make donations to political donations...then they broke their own laws.
As for 3rd party advertisers such as unions (pro-NDP/anti-Liberal), they have rules to follow too. Just as the pro-Liberal business groups that are also registered 3rd party advertisers...nothing new or illegal here.
Think for a second...if this was the NDP government facing this scandal, you and your liberal apologist friends would be calling for the public excecutions of NDP officials. Turn about is fair play now..
Notice how be uses selective "Optics" to comepletely miss all the big business ads that ran here for MONTHS before the election? "Look how good BC is doing now!"
Of course they were bull, just as the liberal and Asper/fraser institute media claims of "Economy better than ever" claims are bull. Check Stats Canada econometric data - the liberals have been a disaster for the BC economy. Its better now than it ever has been UNDER THE LIBERALS - but up one level from pure crap is still crap.
Of course the liberals conveniently forget that homelessness in BC has quadrupled under their watch and is expected to double by next year. Its a great way to get unemployment stats down - if you're homeless you aren't in the unemployment stat.
-
Ann Coulter is a complete wingnut, period. Here's a nice selection of her quotes:
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC
"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00
Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00
On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99
"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time
"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.
"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00
"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97
"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97
"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97
"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01
"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97
"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00
"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00
"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97
"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99
"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98
"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00
On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99
"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97
"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98
-
You are correct to point out that certain economic problems (the Great Depression, 70s Inflation, et. al.) tended to occur all around the industrialised world because central bankers tended to follow the accepted wisdom of the time and only a crisis would cause them to rethink their ideology.
The current ideology requires that central bankers do not finance government debt but instead require that government finance their debt at prevailing interest rates. Their rational probably has to do with the first principal of economics: if you give sometime away for free it will get abused.
So if you have a choice of using a credit card to buy a car at 22% interest or using a bank loan at 5% - you choose the credit card? Dont forget, that is our money being paid against the 450 billion in interest alone that we owe. Choosing to keep a balance on your credit card when you can just as easily have it in a bank loan for much lower interest rates is... irrational.
As to saying it will get abused, history proves you wrong. Again, just look at the economic data from 1946 to 1970. Abuse of money creation power only occurred after government gave most of it up to banks.
Furthermore, central bankers can point to 25 years of stable inflation and normal business cycles (i.e. no great depression). In short, there is absolutely no reason for central bankers to abandon their polices today since these policies are protecting the stability of our fiat currency system.Stable inflation - are you sure you want to use that rationale? Compare the economic data from 1946-1970 to 1971-2005. The last 30 some years have been an unmitigated disaster for Canada. Stable inflation is not superior to little inflation. High unemployment in the quest for stable inflation is not sound economic policy.
You must keep in mind that BOC has only one job: maintain faith in the currency. It is not something that should be used to implement any social policy.Regards
Have you forgotten the value of the Candian dollar? Before the BOC shifted policy from public interest to corporate interest, we enjoyed a dollar that was worth more than the US dollar. The "confidence" in the Canadian dollar today is nowhere near what it was prior to 1970.
The charter of the BOC requires that it lend money to government at low interest rates. This was the deal stuck with commercial banks - we let them create money (chartered) and we borrow the statutory reserve without paying them interest. Mulroney (who now works for a banker) let the banks reneg on that deal yet still keep their charters. Martin (a banker himself), has done nothing to rectify the broken contract.
-
One thing I have become ever more aware of is the dearth of actual "news" in the media.
When the proof that Blair and Bush lied through their teeth to justify the attack on Iraq was released in Britan, NOTHING was mentioned in the majority of Canada's media. The Downing Street Memo was printed by the Times of London on March 1st - contributing significantly to Labour losing 100 seats in Parliament. This memo was headling news across most of the world for WEEKS - In Canada? Almost nothing. What was reported barely dipped into the actual contents of the minutes of that meeting.
In Canada, the Senate Transport and Communications Committee has been investigating media concentration in Canada for years. They are examing the impact of an ever-shrinking list of media sources on the public interest - and finding some scary things. Their Fourth Report was released last year.
Ever heard of this committee? If so, It was probably something like CanWest Global's coverage "Despite increasing budgets, the CBC is losing viewers". This committe, which is looking at the very basis of any democracy - the ability for citizens to stay informed, is virtually ignored by our media. All they report is tiny little bits that they can twist to their own advantage (Taxpayer money wasted on CBC, eliminate it and let US make the money instead). No mention of the purpose or general findings are reported. This fact alone is a clear indication that our media has dropped the "public interest" as part of its business plan. Self-Interest is the ONLY thing modern media conglomerates pay attention to now.
In the United States, the FCC recently tried to sneak through new laws that allow even greater concentration of media. Already the US media is mostly owned by only five conglomerates (Canada is worse!) and now they want to cut that down even more.
The FCC wasn't entirely successful. Independant journalists caught wind of this and screamed it from the battlements - spawning a grassroots campaign against the rules changes. Although the mainstream media (MSM) have completely ignored it, politicians are being inundated with protests.
Thanks to those independants, a conference on media concentration was held last week. Members of the media from all walks of life got together and discussed the problems. Canadians should pay attention to this conference and to the US Senate hearings on the topic scheduled to start soon.
Bill Moyers gave a GREAT presentation. I highly recommend people read this - then go looking for more about the conference, there are amazing things going on there!
-
I was talking to a German about thier free university system. Apparently it takes 7 years to get a 4 year degree in Germany because there are not enough spaces in the classes. It turns out that Germany has exactly the same problem we have with our health system: the gov't cannot control costs by limiting demand with higher fees to users so instead it limits supply to control costs. The net result is you end up with an unequal system where the rich go to private universities and get their degrees quickly while the rest waste valuable working years in an inefficient system.
Any why is that? Because government sees corporate tax cuts to be much more important than eduction - pure and simple. Government by the corporation, for the corporation, and of the corporation.
Political Test
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Same here - many of the questions trapped you into answering in a way that doesn't reflect my opinion at all.