dlkenny

I'm not talking doomsday. I like good news and I really hope that people can be smart enough to avoid the type of collapse I've talked about. I hate to break this to you though but the world does not have infinite resources. I think I read that the world could support 14 Billion people if we all lived as squatters. In theory too, under an ideological communism (I do not mean marxism, I must make this clear) where everyone contributed but only created what was needed it would do away with the need for constant growth. Under capitalism everything must grow and because of the nature of compound interest it grows exponentially, gradually increasing the rate of growth until the growth becomes unsustainable and collapes. We see it every 20 years in the real estate markets and every 10 years in the stock markets that capitalism works this way. Ideological communism would be a system of elected governance where no person owned anything, where the world itself was the society that owned everything. In this system, every person would be required to contribute in a way that they are capable in return for having their needs met. Some people argue that in general people would lead much better lives because the productivity would be shared amongst the people instead of being tied up in social stratification and large corporations. Nobody would go hungry, everyone could have an education, and there would be less environmental impact because there would be no concern for efficiency or productivity and production could be done in a more sensitive manner. I must note that I'm not a devout socialist and I do not have any conceptions about changing the world. I simply try to look at the viablility of other systems. As things stand we are in a capitalist society and the markets and world conditions do correct themselves through natural ebbs and flows. For this reason I think that government meddling only postpones and makes the corrections worse than they need to be. If it weren't for Franklin Roosevelt reducing the money supply after the market crash in 1929 it's unlikely that the Great Depression would have been as bad as it was. Likewise, today with the governments printing so much money it's creating a disaster waiting to happen.

I don't get my information from YouTube by the way, I'm a professional money manager. I read money magazines and books on financial education and the fractional reserve system is used every time the bank issues a loan, a credit card or a mortgage. Only difference is that in Canada the currency for debt instruments comes from the Bank of Canada in the form of a loan to the bank. This is why we have prime lending rates, it's the rate at which your bank borrows money from the central bank to loan to you and why they rely so heavily on credit ratings. By adjusting the prime rate it encourages the bank to lend (or not lend) money because it changes their risk based on what that money is costing the bank. In Canada at least the Bank of Canada doesn't attach interest to every dollar that exists in the country as happens in the US. In the US the Federal Reserve Prints money and loans it to the country through the government with interest attached to every dollar. In Canada it only attaches interest when it lends money to private institutions like banks and that money is created through fractional reserve. In the US economy they also have compounding fractional reserves where the reserve itself can be made up of printed money instead of a real asset. I'm not 100% sure of the percentages required but I seem to recall that 1 dollar in reserve is enough to print 94 dollars of US currency. To me the US system seems like a house of cards teetering on collapse. You might be right about the 1:20 rule but the principle is the same whether they're lending at a 1:20 or 1:5 ratio. In the US up until 2007 (the meltdown) the US banks were lending at a 1:20 ratio, they lobbied congress for the capability to do so. The situation in Canada was never as bad as in the US and that could be attributed to some of the regulations that exist in Canada. The bottom line though is that the dollar was devalued in 1974 and like any currency it's buying power is gradually being eroded, it's value deteriorates over time and so things with real value (gold, silver, clothing, food, gasoline, lumber) appear to get more expensive. So as this happens, things require more and more currency to purchase them (hence, inflation) and salaries typically do not keep pace. In fact when the Bank of Canada releases inflation rates they do not include energy and food prices in that calculation which is an atrocity in itself since some salaries, and in particular, wages under union contracts, are adjusted according to the rate of inflation. Eventually there becomes not enough money. This happened in Germany before WWII. There's an old joke about the 1920's in Germany where a woman took a wheelbarrow full of money to the bakery to buy bread. She left her wheelbarrow outside while she went in to talk to the clerk and when she went back outside to get her money, somebody had dumped the money out on the sidewalk and stolen her wheelbarrow. It could be said that this is what caused WWII, in that Hitler was elected on the promise to fix the problem of their money not being worth anything. This illustrates well my previous point about military conflict arising from the destitution of societies. Nobody wants to be the one to be left to suffer while somebody else gets to live a good life. It's human nature, it's already happening and will continue to happen as the human population grows.

This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. We don't have to kill people for the population to be reduced, it's the same phenomenon that happens to yeast when you make beer: When the population gets too great they are killed off by a shortage of sustenance and by too much of their own waste (the alcohol). Everything is cyclical in the same way; money markets accelerate before they collapse, yeast grow exponentially and then die en masse, and people will do the same thing eventually. Unfortunately we have the ability to kill each other too and when things become critical nobody should doubt that great wars will ensue simply because of the desire to survive. The planet can only support so many people and nature has a way of eliminating the poorest, sickest and weakest of every species and humans are no different. When we reach the saturation point the poorest, sickest and weakest will succumb to disease and famine, and the powerful will wage war to ensure their survival. Unfortunately it's already happening, you don't need to look far to see that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Also, if you look at the world's poorer nations the powerful are killing their own for possession of perceived valuable goods such as diamonds, gold, silver and land. In these same countries you can see extreme poverty and sidelined people struggling to survive against diseases. As the world population grows this problem will only grow. Hopefully people are smart enough and come up with more sustainable solutions than unchecked capitalism.

It's not credit as such but the invention of compound interest, it's like trying to stop a runaway freight train. I read today (an old article on Bloomsberg) that Japan's ratio of debt to GDP is over 200% which means that Japan is far beyond bankruptcy, they simply do not have the financial resources in that country to ever pay the debt. This hasn't happened yet in either the US or Canada but it will. After the dollar was devalued from gold in 1974 it began declining in value and hence inflation (the price of things didn't go up, the value of the dollar has gone down). Every dollar in the US is debt, it's a loan to the federal government with interest, meaning that every dollar that is in the US has to be paid back with interest. That's impossible because that means that every dollar has to eventually be paid back with interest, but those same dollars that will be used to pay it back will be subject to that very same interest, it's a run away freight train. Consider what banks do as well: For every dollar deposited they can lend out twenty more dollars. So if you put $5 into a bank account, that bank can turn around and issue you a piece of plastic (a credit card) for $100. There is no money anywhere to back that card, they simply issue you a piece of plastic. Once you use that card they then charge you interest on that fictitious money. The money that gets transacted to the company where you used your credit card is nothing more than a number from a computer, there is no asset. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking and the whole system is a system of IOU's that cannot possibly be paid back because it's all got debt (and interest) attached. To me this is legalized counterfeiting and if anyone else did this we'd be jailed for usury. Eventually something has to give and I think if more people understood this ponzi scheme that there would be very serious consequences.

Haha, me too. lol.

What I think this country needs isn't a necessarily a change in government but a change in leadership. We need a tough leader to make tough decisions that may not make everyone happy in the short term, a majority government would be a good start.

I don't think there's anything people can do about having a deficit at this point in time. The people of this country cried loudly for the government to step in and do something to prevent the entire collapse of our financial system. That's exactly what happened and unfortunately it's either they borrow the money or raise taxes and since Ignatieff says he wouldn't raise taxes he'd have to borrow the money. Changing governments on the basis that the Conservatives ran a deficit makes no sense given the current economic times. In tough times people demand that the government help out and unfortunately that money has to come from somewhere, and ultimately the taxpayer foots the bill regardless of who is in power. It is my personal opinion though that smaller government is more efficient and that instead of creating social safety nets for workers the governments should offer a hand up to small businesses and in particular offer more startup programs for entrepreneurs. I believe that small business is the engine of the economy and where there is business there are jobs and where there are jobs there are tax dollars being created. With the way that the economy is going I think more and more people are looking at self employment as a viable alternative to traditional employment, which is a very good thing in many ways because it allows people to not only contribute to the economy themselves but most businesses need employees who in turn contribute. If the government is serious about stimulating the economy they should look at lowering taxes on small businesses and on investors. In the long run it'll actually create more tax dollars; it's one of the paradoxes in life that sometimes less is more and a small percentage of a large number is often greater than a large percentage of a smaller number.

Personally, I think the whole swine flu "pandemic" is overblown. I heard someone say that it's about 1% epidemic and 99% pandemonium. Sounds about right to me. I have a friend who had swine flu and he said it was about the same as any flu and it passed in about 8 days.

Haha, that's not possible. It's the same thing, tax and spend or borrow and spend...eventually somebody has to pay the bill and that is always the taxpayer. The problem with borrowing and spending is that it does cause inflation and when the day comes to pay back the massive debt there won't be enough money available because it'll be worth nothing. This scheme does nothing to stimulate the economy, it just postpones and worsens the problem.

Yeah, it might be bumpy but if it works it's better than going to an election. Does anyone think things will change significantly if another election is held? I predict another minority government, though perhaps it might swing into the Liberal's court. An election would be a waste of money in my opinion.

I was actually reading about this same thing a couple of weeks ago and the whole baby boomer issue isn't as big as the media would have us believe. I was reading about demographics and the echo generation who are now in college, there are 60 million of them in the US today. Essentially they are a second wave baby boom, though slightly smaller but nonetheless they have the ability to fill the talent gaps created by baby boomers exiting the workforce. I definitely agree though that the programs the boomers created to support themselves in their old age and retirement will likely bankrupt the world. In fact I found an article that suggests that in the United States alone that old age security and medicare will cost $75 Trillion to support the boomers. If this number is correct, that's more money than is available in all the stock markets worldwide. Essentially it would mean a full scale collapse of the world financial system. The situation isn't any better in Canada. The CPP program has been grossly underfunded and raided by greedy politicians to fund other programs, the EI program has been badly managed as the premium money has gone into general revenue for many years, and our own medicare program is shaky at best. I do not know what is going to happen but rapid inflation I think is the order of the day. If one just looks at the value of gold these days it's apparent that inflation is rampant. The governments of the world have printed trillions of dollars with no additonal assets to back them (essentially government issued IOUs) and so it's not the value of gold going up but the erosion of the purchasing power of our money. At some point somebody has to pay back all that debt. (by the way, it's my opinion that a smart person should be buying gold stocks in abundance, for its the only asset whose real value would survive a full scale economic collapse.) It appears to me that with the current economic crisis has been temporarily staved off by governments printing money, that there are a few more years of prosperity. I believe however that it's only temporary and that they've simply postponed the meltdown. The sad situation is that life is becoming more and more expensive for the current generation as inflation continues to accelerate but salaries as a rule aren't increasing anywhere near the rate of inflation. To make the situation worse, increased taxes are the only means the government has to pay for whats owing. At some point the economy will implode when taxes and inflation eat up too much of workers' salaries and there's not enough money. It's a grim prospect but it's what I personally see for the future. I think we're in for another great depression, probably in the not so distant future.

A true conservative wouldn't have spending increases and Harper himself has said that it pains him to be increasing spending. With a minority government though he's walking a fine line and has to appeal to both sides. He cannot simply cut spending to match the tax cuts because that would upset the opposition and have him thrown out. The whole thing is not functional and someone needst to take the wheel. On the subject of Paul Martin, he's an aristocratic liberal who was in power solely to put money in the pockets of his own family and friends. He and Cretien had their hands in the cookie jar, which to me is theft which means they should be in prison.

I just finished reading an article (http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming4.htm) that shows temperatures deciphered from the past 3000 years. It shows that the trend over the last 3000 years has been in cooling from an interglacial maximum. Of course, this is the mean temperature and the actual temperatures vary, however if you consider interglacial periods to be approximately 10,000 years and extrapolate the graph one could deduce that a peak occured some 4000 years ago after a gradual warming from the last ice age. Moreover, temperatures have been gradually cooling since then and have included two "little ice ages." One could deduce then that these "little ice ages" will become gradually more frequent until the earth enters the next big ice age. When looking at the chart closer from 1100 to now some scientists (specifically Dr. Stephen Schneider, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, & Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski) have suggested that the current warming is just a spike in the general cooling trend and a few have suggested another "little ice age" is likely to show up in the next 50 years. Particularily notable is Dr. Landscheidt's work in accurately predicting global weather patterns by watching solar activity. From his work he has been able to draw close correlations between past and present weather patterns, deduced and real temperature records, and solar activity. I would suggest that his work may have significant validity in predicting the future of the earth's climate. Dr Landscheidt's work is particularily notable because in 1981 he published a paper where he was able to predict the temperature anomaly of 1998, which as we saw was the hottest year on record. Moreover, he predicted a gradual cooling after 1998, over the following 10 years with the exception of El Nino years and further predicted a return to colder temperatures in the second half of this decade. Consider that he passed away in 2003, he couldn't have possibly known that worldwide temperatures would begin to gradually decrease from 2005 to today, which is indeed what's happened. In 2007 the IPCC even admitted that their system had inaccuracies and that their "best estimate" was deemed to be little more than a "possible scenario." Dr. Landscheidt was able to correlate temperature records, ice core records and solar activity for the past 100,000 years and explained that because the sun's path and that of the centre of mass of the solar system are calculable that he could accurately predict climate on earth, perhaps centuries or millenia in advance. Dr. Landscheidt's paper is available at http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm and his full library of papers is available at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-b...dor-landscheidt

This is the most rediculous thing I've heard yet. Yes it's true that the US has a better president, but he cannot fix everything and certainly not overnight. What's more is that he can only be in power for the next 8 years and then who knows who will take power. It could be anyone whose family or friends has their fingers in the cookie jar and corruption of state would happen again. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are an example, and are simply a measure by George W Bush to put money in his own family's pocket through his father's position in the Carlyle group. The whole thing is a scam that Canada shouldn't be involved in and by amalgamating with the US we'd be putting ourselves in a position of not having a choice in the matter.

I just finished reading an article (http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming4.htm) that shows temperatures deciphered from the past 3000 years. It shows that the trend over the last 3000 years has been in cooling from an interglacial maximum. Of course, this is the mean temperature and the actual temperatures vary, however if you consider interglacial periods to be approximately 10,000 years and extrapolate the graph one could deduce that a peak occured some 4000 years ago after a gradual warming from the last ice age. Moreover, temperatures have been gradually cooling since then and have included two "little ice ages." One could deduce then that these "little ice ages" will become gradually more frequent until the earth enters the next big ice age. When looking at the chart closer from 1100 to now some scientists (specifically Dr. Stephen Schneider, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, & Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski) have suggested that the current warming is just a spike in the general cooling trend and a few have suggested another "little ice age" is likely to show up in the next 50 years. Particularily notable is Dr. Landscheidt's work in accurately predicting global weather patterns by watching solar activity. From his work he has been able to draw close correlations between past and present weather patterns, deduced and real temperature records, and solar activity. I would suggest that his work may have significant validity in predicting the future of the earth's climate.

I don't disagree with spending on infrastructure, but it's the same principle. The money spent by the government goes into the hands of the business owners which in turn use it to pay salaries and produce a product. The creation of capital is the bottom line, and corporations both big and small require it to operate. The challenge with the infrastructure approach is that its very targeted and mostly flows into the companies directly associated with the projects. I disagree though with the idea of only buying and selling Canadian produced goods and services. This idea isn't new and was the foundation for the National Energy Program, which theoretically was going to make sure Canadians all had access to abundant, cheap, domestic oil products, and the Canadian Wheat Board which supposedly was to ensure consumers had access to abundant, cheap, domestic agriculture products. What happened in both cases is that it regulated the profits of farmers and oil producers through paying set prices for domestic stocks. Both programs wound up being extremely hard on the economy, and while the NEP was scrapped, the Canadian Wheat Board continued to drive Farmers into near bankruptcy for many years. To this day, farmers are still paid 1960's prices for grain while trying to pay 2008 level overhead. Moreover, anyone who works in agriculture will tell you that agriculture wages are not very lucrative. This leads me to conclude that this type of government intervention hurts industry more than it helps it.

Perhaps both sides do it but I've yet to see a right-winger call a lefty "un-canadian." Anyway, you're right in not subscribing argument to it that's why I made a new post.

Why do liberal supporters on this forum find it necessary to slam CPC supporters? It seems a common theme of Liberal supporters to call CPC supporters "anti-canadian" or "pro-american" or neo-conservative religious right-wing fanatics. I've also read posts with liberal supporters calling CPC supporters "uneducated" and "stupid." Westerners are considered the "minority" and somehow don't hold "Canadian" ideas. I object to the idea that simply because I'm from BC and I voted Conservative that I am "un-canadian." We are not uneducated, we are not all religious fanatics, we are not all neo-conservative or old fashioned. We simply didn't agree with the Liberal-left ideology and voted conservative. We are here to debate ideas within the right to freedom of speech and we are all Canadians. I suggest we stop the childish name calling and finger pointing, it's a waste of energy and gets in the way of constructive debate on this forum.

Well, senate reform or abolishment certainly does require the consent of the senate. It also requires the consent of the house of commons and ratification by each province. Technically the Crown (The Queen, as represented by the Governor General) still holds veto power on this issue too and the Crown is the only entity which actually holds the power to change the way the parliamentary system functions. It's useful to point out too that in 1991 when Brian Mulroney was looking to pass the GST, he used a loophole in the system which allows the Crown to appoint 8 additional "temporary" senators to ensure the bill passed. At this point, Stephen Harper would be playing political suicide to do such a thing but he is completely within his power to appoint Senators. If he had a majority he could use this loophole to create a conservative majority in the senate to get senate reform measures passed. Today though, because an elected senate remains as nothing more than an idea, it would be unwise for him to not appoint senators as not doing so guarantees a Liberal majority in the upper house. The fact remains that in the current system without consensus in both houses it is incredibly difficult to pass any legislation as it just gets held up in the senate. Any bellyaching by the opposition about Harper appointing senators is simply politicking. Until such a time comes when he can make senate reform a reality he has no choice but to work within the current system and appoint senators.

Absolutely true. Politics is boring for most people (I like politics though...) and for many it doesn't even register on their cerebral cortexes because they simply have other things to do. I would suggest that for those of us on this forum it's difficult to fathom the idea of not voting or not understanding the legislative system, we talk about these things constantly and intimately know (and debate) what the parties and representatives stand for. For others even a basic knowledge of how it works or why it's important escapes them. Apathy is only a very small part of the problem.

I never said I would habitually vote conservative. Quite the opposite if I thought Harper would screw up the country.

Jerry, I think you're right in a lot of ways. It's my opinion that trying to grow commerce in a recessing economy is like trying to swim upstream. I will agree that Canada didn't cause the problem but as you point out we are affected with it like a disease. Unfortunately at this point laying blame doesn't help. The truth is that after the meltdown of the 1930s that safeguards and regulations were made to prevent such a collapse recurring. What's troubling is the way that people, businesses, banks and governments around the world have all largely ignored the rules in the face of hyper-growth, exponentially increasing profits, and overflowing public coffers (tax revenues). Now we are in imminent danger of a largescale collapse again and because desperate times call for desperate measures, Harper said he'd rather go into deficit than risk the economy collapsing. In 1929 the government allowed the money supply to shrink and the markets collapse, today the government is willing to expand the money supply to help prevent such an event. I think this isn't even a partisan issue as much as it's an emergency measure and although the Liberals would have a larger surplus to work from that we'd still have to deal with the possibility of deficit, simply because of the times. I will also say that taxes and jobs are directly related. Our jobs are not "created" they are a function of supply and demand. As demand for products and services increase, so does the need for people to fulfill that demand. What people forget is that businesses require investment and re-investment to build, grow and operate and by reducing taxes in the right sectors it mobilizes money and creates jobs. By reducing personal taxes it helps to spur spending because people have more money, by cutting corporate taxes it improves bottom lines and promotes growth within corporations, and by cutting taxes on investment dividends (and capital gains) it encourages people to put up capital for companies to operate and grow upon. The whole thing is cyclical and more jobs means more money, which means more demand and again more jobs. Tax reductions are in fact a reasonable measure to help spur the economy.

I've spent plenty of time doing research, I'm aware of the North American Union and the impact of the European Union. I also don't see people tripping over each other for x-boxes because if the economy gets that bad that people have to rely on food stamps for sustenance the last thing they'll be thinking about are luxuries. I think common people are smart enough to know how to take care of themselves and understand the difference between luxury and necessity. It is for this reason that I don't think a depression today would be much different than in the 1930's, the luxuries of the time don't matter when hunger and shelter are the pressures of the day. What has troubled me is that the so called "safety net" that people speak of is in no way ready for massive strain. The EI program in Canada is in good shape as it has been overflowing for years, however the government has allowed that excess revenue to be used as General Revenue instead of saving it and investing it for the lean years. Also, people speak of the red tape and bureaucracy that should prevent this type of collapse but the harsh reality is many of the guidelines that were set forth, particularily in regards to banking practices, have been largely ignored in the face of hyper-growth, potential for profit, and huge public purses due to increased tax revenues (despite falling tax rates). People, businesses, governments and banks have all been guilty of greed and overspending and were not thinking about the reality of the future. It is because of this that the guidelines and safeguards were ignored and our economy continues to edge towards collapse. To me it reeks like the same type of problems they incurred in 1929 and it scares me. Whether we like it or not the reality is that civilizations and empires collapse and are generally replaced with larger civilizations. It has happened repeatedly over thousands of years, usually through war and the redrawing of boundaries. I am not ignorant (as some here imply) and seriously think that we're in for tough economic times followed by large scale restructuring. If you disagree or have a different opinion that's fine but I wanted to speak my thoughts.

That would explain the low voter turnout, it's not apathy but ignorance. People simply do not know, or do not fully understand. I'm 27 and before the last election I asked quite a number of people my age if they were going to vote and I got the same answer many times "I never vote, I don't know anything about it." Either that or they claim that the government doesn't affect them, which tells me that they don't understand it. Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed.

I'd vote for the conservatives, not because I'm a staunch supporter but because I think they haven't been given a fair chance to lead the country. Only two months ago the conservatives took a majority in every province except Quebec which essentially robbed them of the majority government. In addition, the Liberals suffered their second worst loss since Confederation and they are trying to make backroom deals to regain power - it's a lust for power, they feel they are entitled to it despite being told a very convincing "no." Perhaps the conservatives weren't given a clear mandate but the Liberals were told very clearly that we didn't want them governing right now and it's my opinion that they should accept it and try to work within the minority parliament. If it can't be made to work then I would vote for the Conservatives again simply because I don't feel that they've been given a clear opportunity to lead the country and pass meaningful legislation. Moreover, I would hope more Canadians would see it this way and at least give them the chance they were elected to have. I just have to say that I'm willing to vote as often as is necessary, it's not a huge event for me to walk to the polling station and mark an X. For some reason people get tired of voting and complain as if it were a full time job but I think it's important and I think it's rediculous to complain about having to spend 10 minutes once every two or four years marking a ballot.