Renegade

I guess I'm one of those people. With 6 billion people in the world today and expected to be 12 billion by 2100, I think there are more than enough people already. What we are capable of and what we do are quite different. Yes the Third World is destroying the environment, but so is the First World. Per capita the First World consumes much more than the Third World. Even in (maybe especially in) the First World we hardly live in harmony with the environment. We may have the capability and wealth to live in balance with the environment, however we don't have the will to make the necessary tradeoffs that such a life would require. Until we can prove we lead a environmentally sustaining environment, I think it is ill advised to spur population growth. In some ways we have better lives, in other ways we don't. People complain about stressful jobs, about needing two incomes to run a household, etc. Certainly some of the better lives we enjoy have come at a cost. Pollution to the environment, holes in the ozone, etc. This isn't just about food. I would guess that if the only objective is keeping people alive we can generate enough nourshiment in some form to substantially increase the population. But the objective is not simply to keep people alive is it? We each want enjoyable and fulfilling lives. To do that we consume resources, polute the environment, occupy land, create garbage, consume energy, etc. For each of these, the more people there are, the less each individual can consume to better his life. Low birth rate is only a problem if you treat it a such. I feel it is a benefit. You absolutely can increase productivity without increasing population. Productivity by definition means each worker produces more output. That doesn't really depend upon population growth to do so. When Ford was first building cars, he didn't need population growth, because no one had one and the existing population was a huge market to try and satisify. As cars became more available, the market reached the point of saturation as we have today. (where in some places we have 2 cars for each individual). The way out of this is not population growth. There are plenty of existing populations in other countries who are not at the same level of saturation. As well, by building a better product a company can create demand even in a saturated market. You're correct that if the birth rate decline causes the population to be so small that the economy cannot sustain itself (ie it loses the economy of scale), then people's standard of living will go down. But we're a long long way from that scenario, and the more immiment danger is one of overconsumption of resources. I would not characterize as that "Canada has grown miserable enough" and that is why it has slowed growth. In fact is is a symptom of affulence that the birth rate has declined. Frankly as I have said I don't have any problem with fewer women having children. In one sense it will make society better, as only the women with a strong maternal drive will have kids and as such are likely to be better mothers. BTW, one thought, if you want to encourage a higher birth rate, you could just tax the hell out of birth control. Not that I'm advocating it, but it is a similar strategy to what the govenrment ususally does when they want to encourage or discourage something.

There probably are potential mates but the potential mates probably don't meet the criteria these men are looking for. (eg specific cultural background, or more "subservience" than would be found in a typical North American mate. Also, I would suspect that there is mutual benefit for finding an overseas bride. For the women, they get more economic benefit than by finding a local mate. For the men they find a more attractive woman than they would have, had they restricted their search locally.

Maybe so, but that seems to be unrelated to the population of the community.

yes, Sweden does not have a birth rate issue, and capitalism finds a way to feed population growth <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok so capitalism will find a way to feed an increased population, but does that really point to a better standard of living for the existing population? As long as a community has sufficient population to justify the infrastructure required to sustain it, why does it matter if it goes down?

You're right. I don't see that as a problem, at least not yet. I could be convinced if I undestand a strong argument why it is a problem RB, you are citing statistics which show that without intervention, we are losing population (at least we would without immigration). I'm not disputing that. What you are not addressing is why is that a bad thing? Why should we assume that zero growth is a good thing? Surely we have environmental problems such as running out of places to put our garbage, polluting the air and water, and competition for land which drives up prices. All of these are symptoms of the size of our existing population. Surely more population means these problems are exacerbated and less population means that these problems are reduced.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why do governments need to have a population growth policy? Perhaps what is needed is a population maintinance or reduction policy. I would like to understand your views on why growth is needed instead of taking it as a given. Ok but how has that benefitted Sweden? Are you suggesting systemic discrimmination against single and married-no-kids individuals? I'm pretty sure it would contravene the Charter. No government subsidy because I seen no beneift in population growth, so the government should not be incenting people to do it. I don't really think that the government shoudl be involved in family planning. That is an individual choice. However, that is not the reason I am opposed to government subsidy. No one should have more kids than they want or are willing to assume responsibility for. That goes for everyone, welfare mothers or not. So as I said, I haven't seen the reason why it shoudl be encouraged and subsidized. Nature has its own way of encouraging population growth. Its called sex. For the most part its been very successful at generating growth. Thanks goodness for birth control which allows to somewhat mitigate the natural effects of our sexual urges.

RB, If you mean by "population programs", programs which will INCREASE the population, I certainly agree that this is money wasted. I can see NO good reason why our government should be helping fund population growth in the Third World. I would advocate that the money can be better redirected within Canada, though not necessarily to population programs.

We should not lose sight that a company's main mandate is to realize a profit. It will only invest in apprentice programs or training if it helps toward that goal. I would agree that there is very little governmental/individual/industry cooperation in implementing an apprentice program which may be ultimately benefical to all. I woudl agree that government's immigration policy is absymal. It's not that immigration isn't needed, but it needs to be specificly targeted. This is something that the government to date has not done.

As an example the construction industry in Ontario is currently hampered by a lack of skilled trades. There is strong encouragement both by industry and government for young people to enter these fields, but demand still can't keep up with supply, notwithstanding the fact that it takes 3 years from the time you start to educate someone until he becomes avialable to the workforce. The beneficary of a properly trained employee is both the company and the employee. The company in getting a more productive employee (at least it expect to) and the employee in that differentiated skill leads to higher earning power. If a company doesn't think it will get value out of paying for an employees traing, it is fully within its rights to make that determination. Similarily if an employee feel he can enhance his market value by additional training he is free to make that choice by investing in that training himself (afterall isn't that what a university education is?) I agree that uncontrolled immigration would cause havoc and disruption to the economy and would probably be unaffordable and further would dilute the value of the existing labour pool. I am in favour of targeted immigration for specific areas which will benefit the economy such as the example I cited earlier. The goal of immigration seems to be to increase our overall population. As I have said I'm not convinced that the goal is one we shoudl be striving for. And it would seem to me by your statement that you agree with me that an increase in population (in this case by immigration) would not be a benefit because of increased competition for employment. This is simply untrue. I've known professionals who have immigrated to Canada and they have had a middle-class life in their country of origin. They moved simply because they could get a better standard of living in Canada. I've known executives who have immgrated to Canada to take high-level positions in companies. In either case, it can hardly be caonsider excaping poverty. The reasons people immigrate are varied, everything from moving to be close to relatives to not liking the heat, so to pigeon-hole everyone into a one reason is simply wrong.

On the contrary. Resources we consume is not just timber and iron ore. As you live in Ontario, you know that we are in continual electricity energy shortage. Do you think more people will reduce the demand? If you ever try to buy a house in Toronto or Vancouver, you will know that what you get now is a fraction of what you would have got 10 or 20 years ago. Where you may have been able to get a house with a yard 20 years ago, you may be lucky in those areas to get a townhouse, and in the future you may be lucky to even get a condo. Demand which outstrips supply generates price increases, and increased population means increased demand. You are quite correct that we are a large country, but have you noticed that the bulk of the population is concentrated in small pockets near the border? Incremental population, are not going to settle in the unhabitated Yukon, they will crowd into existing urban centers. It also means less people working, making money and spending that money. I'm probably missing your point so you will need to humour me and elaborate a bit. For illustration's sake let's call the existing population "Population X" (say 100 individuals) Lets call the proposed increased population "Population Y" (say 50 individuals). If Population X can build 10 wigets, and Population X + Population Y can bulid 15 wigets, how does benefit Population X? It already has a market for its 10 widgets and it is no more efficient with more people. Perhaps I'm missing something in your reasoning and if you can kindly explain further. Ah, here it is. CPP is going to collapse because the baby boomers are going to retire and demand more out of the system than it an handle, leaving the rest of us with nothing when we retire. This is all speculation and I hope the government in the future does something to address this potential disaster. CPP isn't the only scheme bulit this way. So is OAS, Healthcare, etc. Yes it is speculation that it may collapse, or it may not. The fact that we even need to worry about future population growth in order to fund the scheme is a cause for concern. I would have much perferred a RRSP-like scheme which didn't depend upon population growth to fund its objectives. Besides boosting our economy and adding skilled labour to the workforce, we don't need it? I'm assuming here you are using the same reasoning as point 2. I'd like to understand what you mean. Many other countries with less population than we do have better productivity and standards of living. Conversely many countries with larger population (and hence numerically a larger economy and number of skilled workers) have worse productivity and standard of living than we do. I can understand how increasing the size of the economy with the current population (and hence the productivity) would increase the standard of living, but I can't understand how just increasing the population would achieve the same effect. No question that raising kids is less affordable then ever before. Part of the reason is our expectations of what we expect to provide kids is higher then ever before (everything from iPods to a university education). Regardless, just because it is not affordable to everyone doesn't mean that the taxpayers should fund it. There are a lot of things which were affordable in the past which are not now. It used to be affordable to have a one-parent working family. It used to be affordable to have a house close to your place of work, etc. If it is not affordable or expectations are higher, people should scale down to the level they can afford. For example, if they can't afford 2 kids, they should have one. If they can't afford one, they shouldn't have any. I don't see having kids as a right. It is a priviledge which parents should earn, by having the emotional, mental, and financial responsibility for caring for the kids they bring into the world. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am a parent. I would happly pocket the money the government would send my way if it chose to subsidize kids. Regardless, it doesn't change my feeling that this is an unfair subsidization of parents by childless individuals and seniors.

It seems to be taken as a given that more people is better. I would like to challenge that assumption. 1. It is beyond dispute that population growth is unsustainable. As some point resources will be unable to sustain a population size beyond a certain amount. 2. Unlike certain countries which have population explosions and have had to actively minimize population, Canada has no such problem. Long term population decline mean less competition between people for scarce resource, and a potentially higher standard of living. 3. The ONLY reason I can see for having population growth is to support Ponzi-like schemes like CPP, where future payouts depend upon ever increasing population. The real solution lies in fixing these schemes to depend upon a person's current contributions for funding rather than a future population's contribution. 4. Beyond have enough of a population to sustain economies of scale, as we currently do and are in no danger of losing, there is no other reason to increase the population. There are good reasons to have immigration, afterall Canada is a desirable destination and there are skills shortages in certain areas which can't be easily filled by the existing population. I can't see any reason why we would want to subsidize parents to have children either through tax incentives, EI, subsidized daycare or baby bonuses. The choice of parents is one they make knowing full well the costs involved and I don't see why the taxpayer should take on any part of the financial burden.

Your position is completely without basis in fact and your recent posts does more to undermine your credibility than anything I could say.

I couldn't agree more. well said.

This is excellent and is something every married couple should do. But isn't a pre-nup simply putting to paper and legally codifying what you have agreed to verbally? I applaud the fact that you have been married for so long. It is a testament to the fact that some marriages can and in fact do work. I don't presume to tell you or any one else what works for marriage. That isn't the point of a pre-nup. It is not those who married the longest who are the most qualified to comment on a pre-nup. In fact those who have been married the longest are likely those who have never had to use the dissolution clause of a pre-nup and thus see no value in it. It is the people who have gone through one or more divorces who see the value of a pre-nup. Almost 40% of marriages in Canada end in divorce before their 30th anniversary. While divorce doesn't happen to all marriages, with the high statistical rate of dissolution, isn't it prudent to put an agreement in place to to account for such a contingency? The downside of having a pre-nup in place and not needing it is that there was the minor inconvenience and cost of setting it up. The downside of not having a pre-nup in place and actually needing one, can by financially devastating. If you know or have seen people going through divorce, you would understand that much of the financial wrangling and bitterness could have been avoided or mitigated if a pre-nup was in place. After all, most times people are the least amicable during a divorce and that is probably the hardest time to try and get an agreement in place. A pre-nup is very much like insurance. No one values it unless disaster strikes and they need to use it. Also just like having insurance coverage doesn't cause disasters to happen, having a pre-nup doesn't cause marriages to fail.

Don't think so. Marriage councelling is to help both parties determine if the marriage is still viable and if so help address the issues which would lead to a dissolution. It is equally valid for marriage councelling to determine that the marriage is not viable and the parties are better off separate. In either case it is not about the pre-nup. Not so. It would foolish to ignore the possiblity that the marriage might dissolve when there is overwhelming evidence that it is a very strong possibility. I'm sure that virtually everyone who entered a marriage did so, on the presumption that theirs would last forever. You also are not looking at the fact that when a couple gets married they get a marriage contract whether they like it or not. A pre-nup forces them to validate that they agree with the terms and to come to mutually acceptable terms to which they both agree instead of the imposed terms. A properly written pre-nup WOULD be still valid today as the day it was signed. Are you saying a will which was written 20 years ago is not valid today? In many cases it is. Let's for example say a man and wife each had assets of $100,000 and signed a pre-nup that the $100,000 assets were theirs alone and not common property. As well they agreed to keep the assets separate and any growth of the assets belonged only to the respective party. Now let say the husband was a miserable investor and lost all of the $100000 in the stock market. Let's say the wife was a great investor or got lucky and grew the $100,000 into $1 million over 20 years. So just because fortunes changes does that invalidate the original terms of the pre-nup? If the marriage dissolves is she force to share the $1 million with him? If the marriage is intact should he have a right to determine how the $1 million is spent?

Absolutely disagree on this one. Most people who get married have no clue on what their financial commitment is to their partner. It is very true that being "in love" makes you somewhat stupid as you tend not to give things the scrutiny they deserve. Having a pre-nup provokes a conversation which is best had before marriage, not after it. Both parties should understand clearly and in writing what they are getting into and what they will get should it fall apart. In my view a pre-nup should be MANADATORY for all marriages, that way one party does not see it as a slight if the other party suggests it. BTW, a pre-nup doesn't necessarily favour one side over the other. It just clearly defines the financial obligations both during and after dissolution of the marriage. Without one, the couple just defaults into one created by legislators which they may or may not agree. In my view if both parties cannot agree on how things are split should the marriage fail, then they ought not to get married.

Personal observation over the last few years. It's no secret any longer where some of these canadians are getting their mean spirited devilish narcissism from. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people were investigated a little further you'd find some really sick and disgusting stuff. In 1988, Ramon Hnatyshyn, a member of your bequeathed conservative party repealed any previous laws that would protect girls under the age of 16. In 1981 JEAN CHRETIEN introduced a bill (c-53) that would have PROTECTED girls under the age of 16. Maybe he's a criminal, but he's not a child molester. In 1988, the conservative party legalized pedophilia. No surprise, since without this, they would probably have some issues staying afloat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let me get this straight. From personal observation you have concluded that canadians are becoming "mean spirited devilish" narcissists, because they are viewing too much child porn? So based upon this observation, when you see behaviour you consider narcissistic, you conclude the narcissist has subjected himself to child porn? Please stop, I can't even type because I'm ROTFLMAO.

I' m no polititian but I do have an opinion. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a politition to openly express and live his faith, however when it comes to his political duties, he must put his faith behind the wishes of his consitituents. If the wishes of his constituents contravene his faith, he must legislate and advocate for, according to the wishes of his constituents. If he cannot do this, he should not take on the role of a polititian.

Wow, such remarkable insight and with analogies too. You must be clairvoyant since you know so much about my habits. Where did you get that? Oh, it must be the same place you got your theories, out of thin air.

This isn't about outrage. When you're hungry and have nothing to eat, you seek food and shelter, not family counseling. Well if it isn't about outrage, why is it that err seems to have so much of it? Yes when you are hungry you seek food and shelter. Why isn't it that family and friends are the first ones you should turn to? Why wouldn't they help? And if they can't/won't help why not turn to a charity? Churches never took upon themselves any role. The origins of churches helping the poor stems from missionary activities which continues until today in the third world. Charities are not required by law to fill an role. People out of the kindness in their hearts donate. Not because somebody with a name like Stockwell wants to live just a comfortable distance to the city with an overpriced automobile, and completely ignore the people who suffered and toiled in the city. I don't claim that churches have fill the role of charity in all societies, but they have in SOME. Where they have, they have taken on that role themselves because they saw a need and it was in line with their moral beliefs. I agree that charaties are not required by law to fill a role, and yes people donate out of the kindness of their hearts. But that is exactly the way it shoudl be, we should donate to the poor out of the kindness of our hearts, not because of a sense of entitlement by the poor. I didn't see that your answer was relevant to the question. I have no idea how many homeless shelters are located between vaughn and Newmarket. Probably none. I don't live in either area. The onus on homeless needing shelter is to get themselves to where the shelters are. It's not like they need a plane ride to get there. We discussed this before. You lost that argument. You want to go through this again? In addition to the fact that such a government in itself OWES the public a certain guaranteed standard of living, I'll also mention that Canada is a participating member of the UN. It often likes to gloat that it is one of the best places to live, yada yada yada. Lost the argument???? Hardly!!! And since you didn't even respond till now it is hardly a qualified comment to make. The governments OWES NOTHING to the public in terms of a guaranteed standard of living? Where on earth are you dreaming this up? I agree that political parties like to gloat on the world stage, but show me any mandate for the Canadian government which says it OWES the public a GUARANTEED STANDARD OF LIVING. so what's your theory on the "real reason" why the government is promoting immigration? I can't wait to hear.

Oh grow up. If you have to resort to profanity it is clear you can't make an argument. What are you saying? Someone on welfare is incapable of working? When I want you to speak for me, I'll hire you as my advocate, till then answer for yourself as your answers make no sense. Actually I agree with you that the government should not be wasting $40/day on shelters. That money is better returned to the taxpayer. So you are anti-immigration? Could it be because many immigrants will work their asses off to get ahead even if it means taking jobs that some on welfare won't touch? The answer that all the political parties have some kind of evil conspiracy going is hardly an answer to anything. Interesting since many case workers have a difficult time getting the homeless off the streets and into a shelter. There is no shortage of homeless Indians who would give almost anything to trade places with a homeless Canadian. Interesting too, that many immigrants come to Canada with no money, no home, and not much more than a will to succeed. Can't compare? why not? How is it relevant that many homeless have a death wish? No. This is not true. How many other countries have you been to? I have been to Europe, the Middle East, America... You can't compare apples to apples on this one. There are many torturous miserable places to live in Canada as well. I highly doubt you've seen as many miserable places as I have, and even more unlikely that you've actually lived there. Can you actually say that in the slums of Calcutta, or Manila, Mumbai, or Jakarta the standard of living is comparable to the welfare recipient in any part of Canada? If you think that you lack any credibility. Yes I do support supporting kin. I also said that it shoudl be voluntary. So I'm fine with the startement if by Canada helping its own citizens you mean voluntary giving to other Canadians. Taxes used to support welfare are not voluntary.

Taxes... the payment for infrastructure that allows the companies to survive... Now that you've demonstrated that you have a basic understanding of that concept, I have to question your level of comprehension... You are pushing for "less taxes". Is that balanced with a desire for "less infrastructure", or do you want to take more away from the poor so that these companies can pay "less taxes". Well I will try explain this to you yet again, its the tradeoff between all the losses that would be incurred as a result of the large business leaving CANADIAN TAX JURISDICTION (CORPORATE TAXES)+LOSS OF JOBS+LOSS OF INCOME TAXES PAID INTO SYSTEM+etc... VS..... the loss in tax revenue as a result of the tax cut. Now its clearly outlined, I will leave it up to figure it out from here on.....one thing that cracks me up about you is that anytime there is a focus on corporations or wealthy people, you instantly relate that to an attack on poor, talk about brainwashing, here we go again to explain how the corporations relate to poor people OVER HERE IS(CORPORATION)---IN BETWEEN IS(GOVT)-----OVER HERE IS(POOR) DO YOU SEE THAT GOVERNMENT IS THE BUFFER THERE BETWEEN THE TWO AND HOW TAXES WOULD FLOW THROUGH, NOW BY HAVING TAXES HIGH THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELIMINATE THE CORPORATION OUT OF THE EQUATION. Now tell me err(or), would it be better with no taxes at all, where would the money come from to support your po po people!!!! Why not just have the company pay its Canadian taxes, and sustain our health care system. It's actually cheaper for the companies that hire "talented people". It's companies like Walmart that would benefit from reductions in taxes and a corresponding reduction in health care... Well err, where do you get this stuff from, CANADIAN COMPANIES DO PAY CANADIAN TAXES, where once again the govt will earmark those TAXES for HEALTH CARE. Yes you hate Walmart we know....well not everyone at Wal Mart is talented, don't you get this, not everyone on the earth is worth 6 figure salaries. Tell you what if Wal Mart ever has to close a store down, they should hire you, with your policies that would put forward they would have that particular store out of business quicker than they ever thought possible. Never said business had it bad in Canada... So what's the point of your post... You were saying taxes should be reduced... to what end... to what level.... to compete with whom..... Well err point out to me where I said I THINK CANADA SHOULD LOWER TAXES, please do, if you find it, please show me where. I stated reasons why a government would want to lower taxes, in order to be competitive against other jurisdictions who would try lure them away...... Man I just do not get it, you come on here , you might read one sentence and then you get so excited to reply with all your babble......very sad. Actually read what we reply to you and you get the answers you ask for...... <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tunnel vision... That's great. If you don't think about all the people you're doing out of jobs, Canadian businesses being bankrupted by WalMart, then just keep thinking about yourself only, and save that few dollars. However, your taxes might go up a bit to pay for the additional loss of revenue to Canada due to your self centredness, but... look after number one... Yes I only wish one day to have that all encompassing vision that you possess, which allows everyone of my actions in my life to be completely moral and just. Let me ask you, do you have the most economical car that you can afford, if not why?? Think about the children in the future!!!! Can you say for 100% certainty that every article of clothing you are wearing, was not made in a sweat shop, if not why?? Think about the children who were taken advantage of to make that clothing you now wear. Funny thing is I think you are all talk, with not a lot to back it up. Just like you I cannot worry about how everyone my actions affects the world around me and like I said before if you are unable to live in today's reality, too bad its not a concern to me. However I would like my fellow Canadians to be successful, but they have to do it on their own and not with govt. handouts. HEY ERR NOBODY MOVES NOBODY GETS HURT... ... that's right.. you shop at Walmart... I do now and then, so whats your point..... I don't shop there. Sorry, I have a conscience... Wow, you are truly a man/woman of the people.....thats terrific!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you are right in line with the NDP in its determination to spend as much as it can of taxpayer dollars. Thankfully at a federal level, the public has NEVER CHOSEN the NDP to run the country, and likely NEVER will. At least in Ontario, the memory of their disasterous NDP choice is still fresh enough that they won't make the same mistake again for a while.

I'm afraid I have not made myself clear. I was not referring to the running of the welfare system by either provincial or federal government. I was referring to the fact that you standard of forced sharing through welfare which you advocate at the individual level, does not apply to nations. Canada as a rich nation is not forced to share with poor nations. Yet it is a behaviour you defend, quite contrary to your position at an individual level. Given you acknowledge that Canada is in good financial shape, your position is even more hypocritical in that you suggest that Canada should expend its resources at home.