Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,518
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Something that's missing from this discussion, that we should add moving forward, is the increase in spiritual awareness moving forward. The 1960s saw a great wave of reassessment, from the baby boomer youth, as to our places in the universe. That quest continues, and is responsible for our greater choices today, IMO.
  2. Prosperity comes over time. The situation today shouldn't make us happy, but rather hopeful. Obesity is a very different problem. Absolutely. And things have changed much more for people outside North America, from what I can see. The middle class in China, for example, is a new phenomenon. The same rise in prosperity makes North America obese, while feeding other nations. Yes, it's true. As I said, China has a large middle class now that didn't exist before. The end of the cold war means that Africa is no longer the chessboard for the US and Soviet Union. The UN has made great strides in combating disease in Africa. Prosperity is subject to peaks and valleys, definitely, but it's hard to find a point in recent history where a 10-year investment in stocks wouldn't increase the real value of your investment. Productivity increases year-over-year and we all benefit from that.
  3. It is true that Christ didn't provide evidence for what he said, but he arrived on the scene with better credentials than you. Plus, he cured the leopards... If you could bless us with a small miracle, even just curing some acne on a homely teen, then we would be satisfied.
  4. The god complex that Mr. Canada is brandishing here explains why he doesn't feel the need to justify his opinions.
  5. I am honoured, sir. I'm also glad to hear that Morris holds your type of posting to the same level of contempt as me.
  6. Media channels aren't referenced to be a measure of prosperity, but as a rationale to explain why things seems so much worse today than in the 1950s. There are more channels, therefore apparently more dissent, and more unhappiness. But, in my view, that's an illusion. How about the amount of malnutrition in the world today, versus 1970 ? Down more than 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition Did you know that ? I didn't. Why do you think that is ? I have no idea, which is why I submit my theory of "more channels make for more apparent misery". You have to be careful to be clear about relative poverty versus absolute poverty. And, choice include other things than economic choices. For example, people can now choose to be single, or not more easily, to have careers, or to change careers more easily, to be openly homosexual, or not... the list goes on. House prices seem to me to be higher, and some have submitted reasons for that. I think that the higher price of real estate works against my idea that life is generally better for people. From what I have seen it's harder to buy a house today, at least in bigger cities.
  7. Fair has nothing to do with it. It's about costs, and benefits, as well as community notions of privacy. If people weren't interested in having their finances private, we could achieve a lot more by throwing the accounts open for all to see.
  8. In real life, when people ask me why I have opinions I'm able to explain them. As such, your posts are not real life. I don't like you or dislike you, but you seem to be ok with just spouting opinions that are incorrect, and have no basis in fact. Despite my pointing this out to you, you still post opinions as fact, without any evidence. I'm actually sitting in an office chair. I don't care if somebody is a shut-in or not, but whether they have well thought out opinions, which you don't. This is call appeal-to-authority. People use this tactic when they have nothing to back up their claims. If I told you I had a PhD in physics, would that then allow me to tell you that I can fly through the air, that the sky is green and so forth ? Of course not. Do you include footnotes in your books, by the way ? Because this is what I'm asking for here: cites and evidence. If you care about Canada, then spend your energy looking into things, DISCUSSING issues and reading. You're just angry and uninterested in doing anything other than making yourself feel better. Why not go outside and kick a dog ? That would be as effective as what you're doing.
  9. Sarcasm is tough to get across in writing. Watch this: I really loved your cake. I just loved your cake. Which one is sarcastic ? I suggest you wrap sarcastic comments in tags as such: <sarcasm>I really loved your cake.</sarcasm>
  10. Aha. Apparently there are two definitions. link You use the latter definition, and I use the former - hence our disagreement.
  11. Your admiration for Mr. Canada's bad posts is the reason. I don't think you would like Maple Leaf Web, since we tend to do better than Mr. Canada.
  12. To clarify: Atheism believes that there is nothing beyond what we see. That conclusion itself is unprovable, and therefore it's a belief to think so. Agnostics believe that these things are unknowable, and there is something called agnostic theism which includes agnosticism and the personal belief in a deity.
  13. That's not accurate. Not believing is agnosticism. Atheism is "believing in nothing".
  14. I don't think you're less intelligent. If I did, I wouldn't expect posters like Mr. Canada to be able to do better. It's his behavior here that I find annoying, especially when there are posters with similar politics who do so much better at justifying their positions.
  15. Generally, for everyone everywhere. We have more channels of media than we did a generation ago, and when you factor in the fact that more bad news is reported than good, you have a compounding effect that leads to negativity. There are far more choices for people now than there were even fifty years ago. This is true in North America, in Europe, in China and even in Africa. Don't confuse the relative poverty of some parts of the world with the general improvement of living conditions. The relative poverty gap continues to be large.
  16. Sure, Kimmy, it's not a given. A lot could happen - a meteor could hit the earth, nuclear annihilation could happen, a global plague for example. But historically, over thousands of years, prosperity has gone upwards due to improvements in technology, knowledge and social organization. So, I'd say it's a safe bet in general. Now, will your money go up day-by-day, month-by-month, year-by-year, decade-by-decade ? No, probably not, probably, and very likely.
  17. We don't need illustrations, we need dialectic.
  18. I found that interesting as well. I am encouraged by the fact that this blogger points to discussions such as the MIT discussion here http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
  19. I concur that the CRA changes would have initiated more activity in this area, however it's another thing to blame the losses and lack of oversight on the CRA. As for the politicians, they had to pay (literally) when the whole thing collapsed, and they learned as much from this episode as they ever learn.
  20. You assertion would make more sense if the financial institutions covered by the CRA and those not covered by the CRA didn't jump in with both feet once they saw that there was money to be made.
  21. I would be thrilled if you and Mr. Canada went off to start your own board.
  22. This is such a lazy and low-quality post that it makes the board look bad. How can you post such easy and lazy-minded opinions and think that you're engaging in the type of high-quality discussion that regularly happens on MapleLeafWeb ? I really wish you wouldn't put these terribly thought-out posts on this board.
  23. Really ? I'm interested in this topic and I haven't seen any evidence that this is false. Those are side issues to the questions of efficiency though. Certainly bad strategy landed the big auto makers in hot water, but it seems to me that they were very efficient as they headed full speed towards the cliff. Can you please indicate how this is so ? If government was increasing in efficiency, and MBAs were behind it I would expect them to be crowing about it to the high heavens, to their political bosses at least. And what politician wouldn't want to spread the good news about how efficient "their" department is ?
×
×
  • Create New...