Canuckistani

How is that working, and is Britain, which got stuck with that debt still perusing action against Iceland. What happens when wealth is seized (ie forgiving debt) is the banking system freezes up because they don't want to lend money anymore. Seems to me the answer for that is to nationalize the banks, at least in the short term, and have the govt lend money for economic activity, not for speculation. I'm sure somebody will tell me why it won't work, but these days it seems that any suggestion that that fat cats take a hit seems to garner that response - we're helpless in the face of ever greater inequality and the rich sucking the system dry, it seems.

Exactly what I've been trying to say, except said better. The Euro was a mistake, but it's here and getting rid of it may be worse than the disease. (OTOH, it may wind up happening by default anyway). So if the Euro is kept, there needs to be a mechanism in place that places the burden for squarely on those who benefited most and can most afford to lose.

Exactly. Just bowing down at the altar of growth, for growth's sake is stupid. The benefits of growth have to be balanced against the downsides. The growth from mindless immigration doesn't, in my view, balance the downsides. It's actualy a calculation that is made all the time. Why isn't it applied to immigration? You're not seriously arguing we are currently changing immigration numbers according to perceived need, are you? Better go back and do some reading if you are. We should bring in immigrants when our best efforts to fill the jobs we have with Canadians aren't enough to fill those jobs. We've never given that our best effort. Obviously in a booming economy, there are more jobs created and we may need to open our doors. During downtimes, such as now, we should be closing those doors to allow in fewer people. Why bring in trade barriers, did I mention those? Pie in the sky views about creating high salary jobs isn't going to cut it either - I don't see it happening. And we'll always have need for low skill workers - they should get a decent buck too. If we don't flood that market with immigrants, they would.

I don't see it as some equation as you do. He'll get a life sentence - he'll be accountable to the parole system for life. He will have a much harder time getting parole when he becomes eligible because he committed multiple murders. I think our sentencing system in this particular case is just fine. What needs improvement is the parole system that does a better job in handing out paroles only to deserving people in the first place, and a much, much better job in keeping track of people on parole in the second. To me, prison is not about revenge. It's about keeping society safe. Recidivism for murderers is very low, we're already doing OK there. I want prisoners to be given much more rehabilitation opportunities while in prison, and then given a chance on the outside. But I want a much more effective parole system that hauls those who blow it back inside.

I'll go with Dre on this - sounds like he knows way more about this than I do. Of course the pain will hit everybody, but as he says, it needs to hit the wealthy the most because that is where the money is.

Can it be worse that what we're seeing now? It's time to get far tougher on the people who caused and mainly benefited from this mess. To keep bailing out the wealthy on the backs of the middle an the poor is a sure recipe for disaster.

No he doesn't. Those murders are taken into consideration when he's eligible for parole.

How many times do I have to say it, and how many examples do I have to give? GDP isn't some holy grail. You have to look at what that increase in GDP is all about. As I said, a good Hurricane increases GDP, but nobody thinks that's a good thing. An increase in GDP but a decrease in GDP per capita is not a good thing. A very small increase in GDP per capita, but with many problems resulting from that increased economic activity is not a good thing. Despoiling a National Park may increase GDP but won't be seen as a good thing by most. etc. That's why economists say GNP is a better measure. By some of your posts I gathered the impression you're an intelligent person who makes insightful comments. This post isn't one of them. I'm not forcing you, you're choosing to. As we've seen one person's economic orthodoxy is then next person's heresy. And we've seen the failures of following any particular orthodoxy.We need a much more sophisticated immigration system. One that truly puts the benefits of all Canadians at the fore, not just the politicians and bosses. One that is responsive to changing conditions. How can it make sense to import the same number of people in good times and bad? How does it make sense to import so many people who come her expecting to use their skills and then are denied that opportunity? How does it make sense to drive down wages in Canada. (I guess economic orthodoxy says it does, and we should be moving to a Chinese style economy)

And that makes the average Greek culpable and deserving of punishment? Ultimately, something has to happen. Even if they are bailed out, there is and will be a lot of suffering in Greece. That's how it has to be. My complaint about this, and the US, and Canada, is that it's always the people at the bottom who are made to suffer, while the people who actually caused the problem go on their merry way. The pain should be dished out in inverse proportion to wealth - the more you have the more you should feel the pain.

I would need more info. Why does the facility need a mess in the first place - is it so officers on duty can have a meal? In that case, AFAIK, officers on duty aren't allowed to drink, and if they are they should not be. If it's for officers off duty, why do we need to supply them with a facility? They are off duty, let them go to one of the many fine private establishments in Surrey. These are not people confined to a base as is the military. Makes no sense to me.

50% of Canadians think immigration is too high. What's the point of economic growth when that growth just gets diluted among more people and isn't actually a benefit to anybody? Growth has associated problems - if the benefits of growth aren't much, but the costs are, what's the point. If you live in a single family residential neighborhood, and it gets turned into high rises, with little economic benefit for you, would you support that deterioration in your style of life? We've seen nothing but business friendly policies that harm working people. Wage depression and less union membership for instance. From one pov that's just wonderful, but not from mine. Ha ha ha.

a bit off the rails here. It's 1% growth in GDP that's attributable to immigration, not 1% growth over all. But you have to offset that growth with all the costs associated with immigration, including huge stress on infrastructure, wage depression, immigrants taking more in govt services than they pay in taxes, etc. Remember that Hurricane Katrina or any other natural disaster will cause a bump in GDP - GDP just measures economic activity. Nobody suggests that natural disasters are a good thing. Same with immigration - at the levels we've been taking in, it's way over stressing our ability to handle it, with no big benefit for Canadians themselves, especially working Canadians vs business owners who get cheap labor. There just doesn't seem to be one good reason for taking in so many people, but many good reasons for not doing it. But, as I paper I read said, confronting this myth directly is a wasted effort, it's so ingrained in our Canadian psyche. They recommended working around the edges to slowly, it is hoped, have the coin drop. I think Harper may be doing some of that himself, I hope. Or, if the shoe drops, and we do have a crash, and think the Kumbaya attitude towards immigration will disappear rather quickly, including among recent immigrants themselves. (Many of whom, in conversation, tell me they think Canada is nuts to let in so many people.)

http://hgrubel.blogspot.ca/2010/04/reducing-canadas-deficits-by-reducing.html

So masss immigration didn't lead to much growth up to now, but should be increased to ensure contiued growth? Not all economists. http://immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/Fiscal%20costs/what-is-the-role-of-immigration-in-canadas-future-alan-g-green-mcgill-queens-university-press.pdf

Not by the people themselves, they had the wool pulled over their eyes. The culpability is with the bankers and the politicians. I think we're at the point where we need wealth confiscation for these ill gotten gains, instead of always the lower income people having to pay for the depredations of the rich. Yes, the average Greek needs to feel some pain - no more retirement at 50, strict enforcement of the tax system. But it's the people at the top who should really have to take the hit.

They didn't benefit from borrowed money paying for their social system for years, decades ?If those interest rates had been higher, then they would have paid even more for their benefits. They didn't ultimately benefit, did they? Is the current pain or that from the collapse of the US housing bubble worth the previous illusion of prosperity? If you pig out and then run out of food and starve, you suffer a lot more than if you eat moderately and have enough food to last you. If the true cost of their social system had been apparent they would have moderated it and not be suffering so much now. If you retire at 50, because that is what the system allows you to do, and then at 60 you find there's no more pension money, you're a lot worse off than if you had worked to 60 in the first place.

I don't really feel like getting into the whole multikulti thing - too subjective. As I said in a previous thread, I'm glad we've got people from all over the world settling here, enriching our culture, but I think we let in too many at once, which can cause some problems aside from economic ones The studies that looked at economic benefits to Canada found very little benefit, but came out in favor of mass immigration because it's such a benefit for the immigrants themselves. That ignores the cost to the immigrant's home country, as well as the studies didn't look at the social spending or infrastructure costs from immigration. Both of those raise GDP without benefiting Canadians, in fact they are a detriment, as is wage depression. I think allowing mass immigration at this time (ie when we don't have a booming economy) only makes sense if the immigrants were to settle in undeveloped areas. But that does't make economic sense either, since there's nothing for them to do for work up there.Paul Martin, Steven Harper et al have made a political calculation that toughening up on immigrants will just cost them immigrant votes with no political benefit, because so many Canadians have drunk the Kool-Ade of how wonderful immigration is.

Some of it the govt is already doing - taking more immigrants in under provincial or corporate sponsorship. Unfortunately many of the provincially sponsored immigrants can't speak English/French adequately - don't know what the provinces are thinking sponsoring people like that. Do a much better job of matching immigrants to jobs before they ever get here. Make sure that their credentials are recognized by all relevant bodies in Canada. Greatly reduce the family reunification class so we're not importing people who use our social systems (especially medicare) towards which they have never contributed taxes. Match the number of skilled immigrants to what's actually needed in Canada, don't just keep bringing in the same number no matter what. The best way to do this would be to have prospective immigrants come in under temporary work visas, only if no Canadian can be found for the job. (At market wage rates) Then, if their temporary employment works out for say 4 years, accept them as permanent residents on a fast track. Greatly improve Canada's job training systems so that were'e not always taking away skilled people from 3rd world countries that trained them, but instead are giving Canadians already here the best shot at good jobs Stricter controls on refugees that just show up at our doors, send the fake ones home faster. That includes refugees that once they have been accepted here seem to have no problem going back to their homeland for visits. Get over the idea that Canada owes the world an open immigration system, rather than that Canada should be looking out for it's own interests. (And that's the majority, not the business people only). Get over the idea that immigration is a form of foreign aid. If we really want to help other countries we would leave their best and brightest to stay there and build a better country, and we could provide support to help them accomplish that.

http://immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/Social%20cohesion/Multicullturalism.pdf

Votes. And because any stand on tightening immigration is deemed racist. It's more than hearsay. Studies have shown that GDP per capita gain is about neutral (+/- 1%) from immigration. Meanwhile we have huge stresses on our infrastructure, unaffordablity of housing, increased social spending on people who have never paid into the system, immigrants themselves who once in are dissatisfied with the system because they realize it's a con job, wage depression, etc etc. I'm glad we've taken in immigrants from outside of Europe, it's enriched our culture. But we've done it way too fast, and at too great a cost for little benefit.

I don't really disagree. Maybe it would even help recover stolen bikes. A lot of the behavior you describe, at least in Vancouver, is done by street people or others who really don't care. And by thieves who use bikes in their thieving. What you are describing is not a bicycle operator's license, but a bike license plate. I don't see why there needs to be an age restriction on that. But also, the only feasible place to mount that license is in the triangle formed by the main tubes, ie parallel with the bike, so it would not be as visible as a rear plate on a car - and it would not be lighted up either.

Canuckistani, forum member:

I'm a biker. I commute to work and ride recreationally on the weekends. In theory I agree with you, but in practice is another matter. For instance, Vancouver is just getting a bike share program under way. One problem is that BC has a helmet law - hard to provide clean helmets in the right size for a do it yourself bike rental system. Making people have a special bike license would just add to the barriers. Also, kids are allowed to ride bikes - are we going to insist on licencing them too? In Vancouver the cops do periodic cycling enforcement sweeps and give out lots of tickets. At that time you have to identify yourself anyway - so the problem is not identification but enforcement. But tell me, how often do you see cops enforce the laws for cars, except to set up seed traps? Car drivers break the law just as much, and are mostly not ticketed either. If we removed the bikes from the road for you to fume about, then you'd be fuming about your fellow drivers, because we know how bad many of them are as well. And here's the diff. If a cyclist does something stupid, who gets hurt? Vs. if a driver does something stupid to a cyclist? There's a Darwinian effect at play here for cyclists. Unfortunately not so much for drivers.

And you can't understand how the people being pushed into that river might try to push back?

What are those borders? Why chip away at Palestine bit by bit instead of just taking the land they feel they need for defense, in that case? What does a defensible border look like in modern warfare?