turningrite

Who's doing that? The principal topic here, if you bother to read all the posts, is about the activities of the Chinese state in Canada. This is not tinfoil hat stuff, nor is it a concern that emerges from a racist perspective, as you, Dougie93 and eyeball would apparently like to present it. See the NP article linked below. Once you figure out the topic, perhaps you can offer an actual opinion of value rather than assumptions you've come up with off the top of your head. https://nationalpost.com/news/how-china-uses-shadowy-united-front-as-magic-weapon-to-try-to-extend-its-influence-in-canada

Read the thread, man. He's criticizing a reference to the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, which to me is utterly bizarre. The activities of the of the Chinese state on Canadian territory are a matter entirely appropriate to public discussion and debate. Comparing such discussion to the "Yellow Peril moral panic" is an example of extreme hyperbole. Pursuing a 'reductio ad absurdum' approach is pointless, uninteresting and does nothing to foster rational debate. As your comments have degenerated into insult and absurdity, I will not respond further to your posts under this topic.

Oh, an earthling? Other readers on here can interpret that in whatever fashion they like. By the way, I'm reporting your most recent posts as I find them utterly defamatory and inappropriate to this discussion. Perhaps you might be able to contribute more if you took the time to read and think a little more? Calling people racists simply because they say things you don't like is both anti-intellectual and immature.

I scanned this topic and can't find any such references from 'TSS' so I'm not sure why you're alarmed by his reference to Sun Tzu. Yes, the broader issue of "fifth columns" is raised under this topic. I believe that some activities of the Chinese government in Canada are problematic. The role of Confucius Institutes, for instance, is controversial in both the U.S. and Canada. Personally, I'm not aware of the extent to which these activities do or don't influence Chinese immigrants or their offspring living in Canada or elsewhere. But the fact that China's government is participating in or funding such things is at least somewhat problematic, don't you think? It's my understanding that China itself is highly cautious and some would even argue paranoid about the activities of foreign citizens and governments in China. It's a dictatorship, after all, and dictatorships tend to be paranoid. I think the concerns expressed about "fifth columns" while perhaps in some contexts alarmist still more-or-less amount to fair comment. It's a free country, for now at least.

I've never had to utter an oath to her majesty. I'm not sure why it would do anybody any good anyway as the courts have determined that her role is merely symbolic rather than substantive. As for our medical system and other purported supports for the sick and disabled, if/when people come to realize how inadequate these really are, many of them too will feel, as I do, angry and disenfranchised at the extent of the betrayal. There is no "universal" health care system in this country - or at least in Ontario. So, go ahead and smoke, drink and party as you wish because otherwise you'll feel cheated tomorrow. I don't smoke and seldom drink, so if those things won't put me in a grave I hope I get to make the choice as to when and how I will go. I sure won't sleep in a back alley in -30C cold. I'll pull the plug well before that happens.

As I pointed out to 'eyeball', 'TSS' is not in Canada. I understand your points, and the broader point made in this post, but I don't think that 'TSS' is actually raising such specific arguments. Rather, it seems to me that he's referencing the idea of what is sometimes called "soft" power. Perhaps he can comment on his intent. As for the broader range of arguments you raise, there are clearly issues relating to Chinese-government influence over Chinese cultural and media outlets in this country. I know and have previously worked with Chinese immigrants and can't say I recall any ever advocating on behalf of the interests of the Chinese government. Most seemed to be here for their kids' futures more than anything else. I'm less concerned, then, about this kind of influence than I am about economic influence. As we know due to our history with American economic influence and the history of our so-called 'branch-plant' economy (which might more accurately now be described as a 'sub-market' economy), 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.

With serious medical disabilities, I have to live where it's feasible to do so. I'm no longer permitted to drive so can't live in a rural area. I have to be near medical specialists so have to live in a city with a med school and teaching hospital(s). And I have difficulty even using public transit due to both significant mobility and eyesight impairments. That pretty much confines me to living within a relatively short distance of medical facilities. I had a friend with significant disabilities who decided he simply couldn't afford to live in Toronto anymore and a few years ago moved to a much smaller city. He could never put a medical team in place again and was dead in less than two years. In the opinion of his friends, he died prematurely essentially due to lack of access to adequate care. If you ever have to live with a serious disability in this province/country without major financial resources you quickly realize how gaping the holes in our support systems really are. I now detest both Canada and Ontario. Once I'm gone, I don't care if this place slides into complete penury. It'll serve it right.

I don't think he said that at all. For one thing, he's in Finland and not in Canada. I think he's simply pointing out that China's increasing economic influence may play a far more significant role in expanding its power (in Canada and in the West in general) than would an actual military strategy. As has been pointed out during the Meng affair, Canadians in general are far warier of China's "soft" (economic) power than are our economic and political elites. Of course, Canadians have long understood the impacts on our sovereignty of American economic or soft power. The U.S., of course, is the devil we know and to some extent understand. China is another case altogether.

You're lucky. For many others, including myself, not so much. Many of us live with chronic conditions, in my case a neurodegenerative disease that's likely genetic in origin, and struggle with imaging how the future will unfold. For me, enduring life in Toronto and considering the bleak future that holds often seems oppressive.

I believe Sun Tzu is a highly regarded historical figure in China, whose writings inspired even Mao and the Chinese Communists. I'm not sure why you object to the reference by 'TSS' as he merely appears to have been making a point, and rather cleverly so in my view. Warfare can take many forms, only one of which is direct armed conflict. Otherwise, and perhaps more effectively, countries and societies can be insidiously subjugated. I doubt that Sun Tzu himself would disagree with this point.

1.) LOL 2.) That's why my solution is medically assisted suicide. I think we need to make it much more available, covering abject destitution and depression. When people can't cope with the horrific conditions forced on them by idiotic government policies, they should have a humane way out. Maybe the government can set up suicide clinics? It' would be better than getting run over or freezing to death when trying to sleep on a heating grate in downtown Toronto, right? After all, that's the current state of the government's approach to housing policy.

You're doing a lot of 'blue-skying' there. Your optimism doesn't match realities on the ground. Residents of the Toronto and Vancouver regions, who've faced the brunt of the artificial immigration "boom" and have in many cases faced hardship as a result are according to polling the unhappiest in the country. There will, eventually, be a backlash. There has to be. No previously prosperous society has been forced to undergo such massive change without experiencing a backlash. Can we maintain our standard of living? No. It's been declining in relative terms for three decades or more and will likely continue to do so. And cheaper gadgets can't compensate for the outrageous increases in housing costs. Further, we get only a tiny proportion of the benefit of cheaply produced foreign goods. Even after accounting for the currency differential, we in Canada pay 25 to 40 percent more for these same "cheap" goods than is paid by U.S. consumers. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-are-vancouver-and-toronto-so-unhappy

What does this apparently racialist statement mean, exactly? 'TSS' raised an entirely reasonable observation in reference to Chinese philosophy and history.

1.) No, you weren't. My understanding of your initial position is that you were saying that millennials think seniors are privileged and must therefore have their benefits reduced. 2.) Who do you think the government intends will benefit by the expansion of the CPP? It's certainly not existing seniors, who won't benefit from these changes at all. Of course, millennials have other concerns too, as do all demographic groups. And it's certainly not seniors who have juiced housing costs. The blame for that rests squarely on governments that have juiced demand with mass immigration as well as lax rules on capital gains and foreign investment. As for the subsidy class, you're veering toward obfuscation. Most working people in this country don't consume more in government program costs during their working years than they pay into the system. An excellent analysis of "net tax rates" (i.e. taxes paid by minus transfers paid to Canadians) is linked below. See the chart on Page 18, in particular, which demonstrates that a majority of Canadians pay more in taxes during their working years than they consumer in government program costs. The most glaring exception is those who fall into the bottom fifth of income earners, who are never in any age cohort net contributors and by age 60 and beyond consume vastly more in program costs than they contribute while the costs vs. contributions differentials associated with middle income pensioners (i.e. the middle 5th on the chart) are much, much lower. 3.) Your observations of what, precisely? More likely it seems, it's just your opinion. https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tax-incidence-crisan-mckenzie-mintz.pdf

But how will Ford save much money that way? Reportedly, the government is looking to shave perhaps a couple billion from the current 6 billion dollar drug program. If only those rich enough to have the old age pension clawed back (i.e. the reasonably rich), who account for about 6 percent of all pensioners, get hit, the government will save maybe a couple hundred million. When the Wynne government looked at reducing the costs of the program, it apparently determined that in order to save any serious money single seniors with incomes greater than about 19K and couples with incomes greater than about 32K would have to be categorized as wealthy. Of course, in Toronto, a one-bedroom apartment now costs more than 2K monthly, so what would a reasonable income cut-off be? And would it be the same in Toronto as in, say, North Bay? Singles earning 19K to 50K and couples earning 32K to 80K probably constitute the vast majority of seniors in this province. Given that its likely many have annual drug costs of 4K to 6K and some with serious illnesses face much higher costs - prices heavily juiced by government patent protection and trade deals - how much should seniors, who during their working years paid high taxes to cover the benefits of others, be paying?

I'm not sure how the residents of such places will react to becoming echo communities that will face the downside of Toronto's crisis of rising living costs and stagnant wages that increasingly make ordinary life unaffordable. If that's progress, I suspect many will want to avoid it, and for good reason. Will these communities beyond the metropole form the backbone of a Canadian 'yellow vests' movement, as has happened in the countryside outside of Paris France?

That's an astute observation. Too bad China's modern governing dynasty is so apparently tin-eared in its approach to the West because otherwise Sun Tzu's strategy would appear to have been working very well indeed. China's truculent overreaction in the Meng affair serves as a pretty clear warning to the world that there's a clear downside to becoming too entwined in China's agenda.

That's quite the blithe and counterintuitive analysis. In fact millennials, a huge proportion of whom have been relegated to working in the no-benefits gig economy, are urging governments to fill some of the gaping holes in the safety net. This is why the CPP has been enhanced and why there are growing calls for a broadly-based pharmacare program. It will be interesting to see how this demographic will react when it realizes that its aspirations are in conflict with the demands of the subsidy class (i.e. those who benefit from the system without having financially supported it). I suspect that millennials, who in general tend to be economically conventional in their approach to the world, will favor the contributory social contract model, whereby those who pay into the system must be assured of their right and ability to reasonably obtain benefits from it. As that's their only hope for a secure future and decent retirement, why would they see current seniors as the enemy? The generational warfare analysis is overdone and largely silly. I believe the real struggle will be between the contributors (i.e. taxpayers) and the ever-demanding subsidy class.

But when people can no longer afford condos where will it shift. Perhaps to the rental market, but that's a very finite resource in places like Toronto and Vancouver. As we're seeing in Toronto, the competition for resources has shifted down to the shelter system and space on outdoor heating grates. This is where things will ultimately end up given government policies that have juiced housing prices and rents. Now, governments have no idea how to solve an enormous problem they've helped to create.

Actually, Boston and parts of the New York suburbs aren't as expensive as the GTA. And wages tend to far more accurately align with housing costs in the U.S. global cities. Toronto and Vancouver, on the other hand, serve as repositories for foreign cash. I've lived here for well over three decades and particularly over the past decade have seen a clear downward trajectory in terms of qualify of life. New York, Boston, San Francisco and other cities make efforts to retain their walkable districts, unlike Toronto, which increasingly lines its downtown pedestrian areas with enormous, boring condo buildings that turn the areas below into windswept canyons. In the winter, the situation is brutal. Toronto doesn't care about its human environment. It's driven by cash. It becomes more soulless, cold, dirty and alienating as each year passes.

Not to be disrespectful here, but did you read one book and become fixated on its thesis and terminology? It seems to me that you tend to repeat a lot of the same points, concepts and buzzwords endlessly rather than engage in constructive dialogue and debate.

A "one-world" government would essentially have to function as a dictatorship. Perhaps the "basic dictatorship" Trudeau so admires would serve as the model. Corporate globalism is essentially premised on the emergence of dictatorship. Democracy is messy and inconvenient and voters, those pesky malcontents, too often vote the wrong way(!) so the solution has to be dictatorship. For most thinking people, the idea of a globalized world order is a nightmare. Too many fail to recognize the extent to which we're already experiencing its impacts.

Who knows whether the subsidy scam can be brought under control? Essentially, politicians curry favor by giving away ever more taxpayer money. But the taxpaying population isn't a bottomless pit. The emerging solution to facilitate more money being shoveled to those who haven't paid into the system has been to recommend paring down programs and benefits for those who have financially supported the system for decades. The downside of this approach is that those same newly disentitled taxpayers simply won't want to pay anything at all to support the system. That, more-or-less, is how I feel. I've already experienced the negative impacts of our inadequate health care system and feel that I was under false pretenses overtaxed for decades to pay for a system that provides anything but "universal" care. Once a critical mass of taxpayers realizes the system is a scam, it's possible that our deluded and self-serving politicians will face a backlash unlike anything they likely believed could occur in this country.

The Chinese have massively miscalculated the impact of their approach to this issue in Canada. As illustrated in a G&M opinion piece earlier this week (linked below), they've long had our political, economic and academic elites in their pocket but obviously failed to understand that the general population remains utterly unconvinced of the benefits of the Canadian-Chinese relationship. This prudent skepticism on the part of the Canadian majority is now likely far more entrenched and it could take a decade or more to repair the damage China has done. China can tell its population what to think and believe. That's not as easily done in many other places. The Chinese shouldn't have confused the servile posturing of our feckless politicians and self-serving business class with the attitudes of Canadians in general. In reality, we could get by without China. But China needs the rest of the world to achieve the objectives of the "basic dictatorship" the fawning Trudeau so admires. Maybe it's time to cool our jets where China is concerned before we're so entangled in its agenda that we no longer have any viable choice but to follow Beijing's commands. Whether or not Meng returns to China is at this point largely immaterial. The relevant lesson has been learned, well, by ordinary Canadians at least. Has China's leadership learned it? And have our elites? Hmmm.... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-must-reassess-its-approach-to-china-if-not-we-may-get/

1.) And what products other than natural resources and some food items does Canada sell to the Chinese? Canada has no "trade deal" with China. The purpose of trading with that country is wage arbitrage, which allows corporations to buy products made by low-wage workers overseas very cheaply and sell them, often at highly inflated prices, to North American consumers. And Canadians are doubly screwed by this. My sister who lives in the U.S. can often buy the same Chinese-produced gadgets for about two-thirds of what we have to pay, even after taking the currency exchange into account. 3.) Globalized trade functions as a gigantic corporate skimming scheme. Consumers in Canada only get the benefit of a tiny fraction of the wage arbitrage savings. If you don't understand this, you don't understand how corporate globalization actually works.