Charles Anthony

I am bumping this because I have finally found the original article that first gave me this idea: Is There a Federal Deficit?

I already have. That is not a "per caudica" statistic. Now you are using my land mass ratio logic.

Using a "per capita" statistic does not prove that point.Why not just simply measure the amount of pollution and divide it by our land mass????? Would that prove your point??

What you are overlooking is that our money, in fact, is nothing. That is what people commonly want. When somebody goes to the bank and gets a loan, the bank asks them to pay back the loan gradually over time. People do not get wacked with a full-principle repayment --- so long as they are making their periodic payments. Banks are brokers for people's money: depositers -> who do not want all of their money back at the same time and borrowers -> who can not pay all of their money back at the same time If you do not like it, do not use those banks.

Excellent retort!

Per capita?!?!? What is that supposed to mean??? Such a figure is completely ridiculous. Canada barely has a population! If all of the people in Canada disappeared except you and I, per capita, you and I would be the greatest poluters in the entire universe. Per caudica!

Hey! If Albertons or Ontarians do not like it, they can move out!

That is a mistake. If the minimum wage earner works 24hours a day and seven days a week, his income will be high. Whereas, if the minimum wage earner only works part-time, his income will be low. By forcing an employer to pay more for every employee, the employer can not give them as many hours or can not hire as many employees. I would like to stress: anybody who has ever worked a minimum wage job knows this. They live and breathe the fragility of work hours. They lose hours when minimum wage goes up. If you support a minimum wage, you are NOT letting people pay their own way. You are FORCING employers to pay something without choice. Wrong. People who are put out of work pay for it too. Tax-payers paying for welfare spreads out the cost over the greatest number of people. In the case of a minimum wage, a small number of people end up subsidizing what is "conceivably" everybody's collective "social contract" obligation. That is not fair. Regardless of arguments of fairness would it not make economic sense for someone to be producing something at a minimum wage vs. sitting on welfare producing nothing?That is not saying people should be sitting on welfare. You do not understand what I said. First answer this: who is responsible for helping other people? 1) everybody is responsible equally to help each other or 2) only some people are responsible but not all Which one is it??? If you think everybody is responsible to help each other, than a minimum wage is not fair. The minimum wage employer and the unemployed-potential-employees are paying ALL of the your collective responsibility. That is not fair. If you think only some people are responsible but not all, why should it be the poorest of employers and employees???? No. It is a short-sighted and irresponsible way of "helping" other people. It actually does harm. Reasonable?? According to what criteria? The first job I ever was minimum wage and it was less than half of that. According to me, $8/hr sounds too good to be true! Excess unemployment?? How much is acceptable unemployment caused by government? Wrong. It is basic market economics. Here is a referrence: Minimum Wages, by Linda Gorman: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics Here is a better referrence that cuts to the chase: Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity by Larry Elder -- Capitalism Magazine To be precise, it is prudent to note that it ONLY creates shortages for employers and employees at the low end of the economic spectrum -- nobody else is affected.

-- but despite their delusions, they can make contributions that revolutionize the world of social science.I know, I know, the two are separate issues. I just could not resist. Nash's contributions are simply outstanding.

No. My sarcasm may not be obvious. I do not support our concept of welfare because I do not believe anybody has an obligation to help anybody else. I just believe that welfare is a more honest and cheaper and fair method of helping people who lack income -- compared to minimum wage. Our concept of welfare is theft. For the sake of argument, I am adopting the thieving mentality of a statist. The only objection I have with our concept of welfare is that everybody is forced to pay for it without choice. However, that does not seem to stop us from accepting most other policies. If our welfare was funded by the generous free-will donations of the public, I would not have a problem with it at all. Do you believe people are obligated to help out their neighbor? Do you believe people have the right to impose such an obligation on their other neighbors?

You are talking about a specific policy proposal. Welfare can also be a type of "minimum income" too. Wrong. People who are put out of work pay for it too. Tax-payers paying for welfare spreads out the cost over the greatest number of people. In the case of a minimum wage, a small number of people end up subsidizing what is "conceivably" everybody's collective "social contract" obligation. That is not fair. I am referring to a general handout of any kind including welfare or baby bonus or whatever other free-lunches we get these days. Mind you, I am not saying I endorse such handouts but rather, I am saying that they address the problem more efficiently. If you accept enforcing our "social contract" obligation to help our neighbors, I would rather we left the labor markets alone (no wage restrictions and no price controls) and just forced eachother to pay for welfare. It would cost each of us much less if we all pitched in to the welfare pot and nobody would be denied the opportunity to employ someone. It would also "conceivably" be more fair -- albeit in a kleptomaniacal way.

Taking a look at the Age of Consent website: ... this is frighteningly disturbing because it suggests that they believe that it is possible to interpret sex between an adult and a youth as NOT being exploitative. Age of ConsentWhat are they talking about ? Hello?!? If their teaching methods are in jeopardy ---- What the hell are they teaching?? and how are they teaching?? Aaaaahh!

What you are talking about is welfare providing a minimum income -- which affects markets in vastly different ways than a minimum wage. People do not need a minimum wage. People need a minimum income. By "attempting" to provide the need for income by fixing prices and wages, you are fouling things up entirely. There is no justification for minimum wage -- other than the justification to steal. If people need income, give them income but do not distort the labor market.

I see extortion as a commonly universal method of creating every nation. I could not resist.

Why should there be a guage? If an employee wants a higher wage, that employee should ask for a raise -- or refuse the job initially and look elsewhere. If an employer (and all other employers next door) can not afford (or is unwilling) to pay the higher wage, so be it. When I walk up to the vending machine, what is the point of insisting that the soda is worth only 0.06$ (0.05$ aluminum deposit and 0.01$ fluid) since I am willing to pay an extra $0.94 for the soda. Should I demand a guage to scale down my overpayment? I am completely ignorant of the cost structure involved with providing 24hour always cold and fresh cans of soda at every street corner. Try to use the minimum-wage logic elsewhere throughout our commercial transactions. Wait a minute. What you just described sounds like a free market without a minimum wage. No. It is still all agents: employers, employees and consumers -- we should not forget the supply companies who deal with the employers too! -- that will lose. Effectively, a price or wage control reduces the volume of trade in the market and thus, there will be losers all around. The only winner will be the employee who keeps his now-higher-paying job. A gain which is at somebody else's expense. Uh.... what would it be?

That may be the wrong way of looking at Quebec. I believe that the province of Quebec might have a strong appeal to people who prefer a non-American lifestyle -- that includes immigrants of all sorts. No other place in North America (except those two weird islands off the coast of Newfoundland) can look and feel like Europe the way Quebec can. I saw the fleur de lys proudly displayed in shop windows across the river in Ottawa (outside of Quebec!) during the St. Jean de Baptiste day celebrations last year. I can not label exactly what the ethnicity of those store-owners happens to be but they write in Arabic.

What does it matter what Gomery said? Everybody (and I do not mean every member of the Liberal party who will be selecting the party leader) who votes in the next election will not be guided by Gomery. Unfortunately, that is politics. Public opinion can not be controlled and people are judged by the company they keep. Just because O.J.Simpson was cleared of criminal charges does not mean everybody in the whole world is obligated to think he is innocent. If O.J.Simpson or one of his supporters ran for public office, maybe the general public might not trust him, no??

I agree. I will boldly say "just as banning government would not work" would be the best analogy. Organized religion is just a form of government. Many people: - want leaders - do not want to be fully responsible for themselves - do not have the capacity to be fully responsible for themselves - do not have the capacity to fully understand the world around themselves - want to be told what to do - take advantage of all of the above and thus they prefer government or organized religion. That would be interesting. Where to start? For those who want to get side-tracked about discussing homosexuality being a choice, I highly recommend the entertaining but kooky thread: The "gay Gene" -- Myth and misunderstanding started and thankfully ended many moons ago.

Forget about the Second World War. Do you know why we had the First World War? the war that the war-mongers had the despicable gall to call the War To End All Wars? Until you can honestly answer why we had the First World War, you are missing the point. If I came across a First World War vet who suffered a mustard gas attack and lived, I would proudly tell him that I am sorry.

I agree. It seems like a lot of reflexive-patriots are blind to this view. Can you apply the same logic to the The First World War, The Great War To End All Wars from which both the poppy and Remembrance Day originate? Easy: by being honest about what happened before November 11th. On Remembrance Day, I do not feel pride. I feel sorrow for the young men who were forced to defend the greed of merchants by killing other young men they did not know. I also feel profound shame that we would hide the most heinous form of slavery behind patriotism. We often hear: "If you do not study history, it is bound to repeat itself yadda yadda yadda" I say: "Why bother study history? It repeats itself."

I honestly think she would have been called a Smart Sister for beating them at their own game. My respect for her would go up.

I am glad that you correctly used the word "gift" as opposed to any other word which may connote responsibility. Despite my general agreement, I can not resist playing the devil's advocate. For every gigantic gift, how many gullible fools waste away their hours to produce nothing in the end? I wonder if Newton's wife would agree with you -- I do not know if he was married or not, but the principle is clear -- if she found out that Leibniz practically made many of the same discoveries before him? I can also say that if one person did not make a discovery, surely somebody else would eventually -- can I not? I truly agree. I understand that there are many different ways to "return a better person to the world" because we are more than just animals. However, the responsibility of raising a child -- not transferring genes -- is unique. I believe it is more profound than any other responsibility one could possibly have towards an other person. Parents are not making "gifts" to their children by raising them. Why do you think we do not hold children responsible for their actions in the same way as we do for adults? Why would we hold a parent responsible for the actions of a child? I think the reasons are characteristic of a "civilized society" moreso than any person's right to share in advances made by scientists. Where would a "civilized society" be if everybody thought their responsibility was outside of their family? Stepping back a bit yet still moving forward. Economic growth? How in the world should we calculate that? Macro is just a politician's tool with which the bitter realities of micro can be concealed or fudged from the tax-payer. Government debt is exclusively the best Ponzi scheme in existance. That Ricardo deal is a feable explanation and one of your original questions (If we are in debt to the future and the world completely disappeared tonight, does that mean we could rip off the universe?) can be reformulated to expose the hoax. I could ask: If we are in debt to the future and the world completely disappeared tonight, from where did the EXTRA real economic value (borrowing makes us all better off) of our current debt-spending arise? That is the proper question. Ricardo's reasoning explains how decisions might be made on the part of lenders. i.e., Why do they lend? It does not explain the real effect on the economy of that injection today and how assets are re-arranged when using a fiat currency. [The accountant just tells you what is due tomorrow.] Try to go back more than fifteen years and tell that to the people who lent money to the Russian Czar before the Bolsheviks took over or to the Mexican government.

I would like to link these two: I heard an inspirational speaker say that -- within normal limits -- couples who do not have children are the ultimate selfish people. Humans are obligated to perpetuate their race and in so doing return a better person to the world to take their place. A couple who does not have children ends up just taking out of the world.

Not everybody is so convinced. Chris Hedges

from the Mapleleafweb.com: Help/Support - Frequently Asked Questions page: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/info/help/general.html