Peter F

or through sheer boredom, more like.l

That is correct. Ford's wealth was entirely derived from what people would give him for his automobiles. But he had to sell his cars - otherwise there would be no wealth coming to him - despite the invention of the assembly line. Ford's assembly line allowed Ford to produce vehicles affordable by the masses. And those masses transferred lots of wealth to him in exchange for his cars. Again - no wealth created, only transferred. Otherwise Ford wouldn't have bothered selling anything but have watched his wealth accumulate from his magical wealth generating machine. I think thats called 'Alchemy'

Yes someone is paying me for my labour (such as it is). Thier wealth is being transferred out of thier bank account and into mine. I am not calling that thievery. I am calling that Capitalism. The guy givning me his money considers that a fair exchange for my labour and my labour is part of my wealth. He gets some of my wealth and I get some of his. He hopes to be able to get more wealth from the product of my labour from a third party who will hopefully transfer more wealth to him than he transferred out to have the product produced. Again...no wealth has been created - only transferred. So give up the fallacy that you're a boon to society because you 'create' wealth. No doubt you are a boon to society, but you don't create wealth.

Ok. So I create more wealth (in my own subjective opinion) than anyone else on the block. In more than Walmart itself. So discussions about who creates wealth and who doesn't are useless since wealth is indefinable except as judged by ones own personal experience. The term 'creating wealth' is nebulous and economically meaningless . I can live with that interpretation.

What was useless? The farmers labour? The crop he planted? He got out of it what he put into it. and I would certainly try to convince them of it. The value of my information is worth 50 bucks - please pay here. A simple transfer of wealth. Perhaps they can use the alleged newfound knowledge to get somebody to transfer some wealth to them. Maybe-maybe not. But nothing has been created. If wealth exists it has always existed - The game has been accumulating that wealth.

The concept I am disputing is 'creating wealth'. Yes, we exchange things. I go on the lecture circuit about my brilliant economic ideas and people pay me 50 bucks each to hear me and I become filthy rich. What wealth have I created? I'm wealthy because a bunch of people gave me money. They transferred some of thier wealth to me If thier wealth remained the same and mine increased - then, yes, wealth would have been created. But my wealth increase is in direct proportion to my audiences decrease in wealth. JBG posted an example of wealth being 'created' earlier - Walmart exploits production facilities far away and organizes the shipment of the cheap goods to the North American market. Somehow that logistical feat created wealth. If that is true, would that created wealth still exist if nobody walked into Walmart and exchanged thier own wealth for that stuff? Well no. It would have been a financial disaster for the walmart company. Of course that never happened. Instead Walmart sells thier goods at an attractive price and consumers willingly part with some of thier own wealth for walmarts stuff. The supposed 'created wealth' is actually a transfer of wealth from the consumer to Walmart. If Walmart didn't seek any profits whatsoever from its operation but only recovered from the consumer enough to cover their costs, what wealth be created? I suspect every economist in this world would answer that no wealth has been generated. But, because Walmart marks up the prices of thier goods above and beyond thier own costs to get the stuff to market. What do economists say about that? Do the consumers not pay for Walmarts mark-up? Of course. So Walmarts wealth gained equals the wealth given up by the consumer. Unless Walmarts wealth somehow exceeds the wealth the consumers give them. Wealth is not created but transferred...a very socialist concept but also a capitalist one too encompassed in the salesman's saying "Other people's money".

Ah. So if the production of goods and performance of services occurred for no exchange of money or barter at all then what wealth would be generated? How is it that only businessfolks generate this wealth? Why then is wealth measured in $$$?

Thats good, socialists don't understand how wealth is generated in society. A wealthy person has generated thier wealth. I will agree with that. A drug dealer (a wealthy one) has certainly put in a lot of time and effort generating his wealth. But that wealth was not created - it was simply transferred from others. A bit of reality many don't quite understand. The great pioneering entrepreneur Mr Ford himself simply sold vehicles to other folks and generated a vast amount of wealth. His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it - wich they had taken from somebody else. Wealth is not generated - it is transferred.

It survives in rural southern Ontario.

I know. But the guy just wouldn't give in!

America attacked the wrong country...Saudi Arabia - but Saudi Arabia hadn't insulted the USofA - Saddam Hussien did.

Sure. A bank robber 'earns' his money - no question. So doe's a priest and a drug dealer and banks and Nigerian functionaries and even Taliban footsloggers. Everyone earns thier income. I understand that concept - Borg doesn't, talk to him. edited to add: y'see Borg thinks he earns his money but 'Socialists' don't earn thiers. Socialists, according to Borg et al, steal other peoples money. But Borg doesn't steal anyones money. So, since Borg can call me a thief and a jackal I think its just fine that I call him a Liar and a fraud.

Will I? Past actions of NDP governments wherein they stole every dime anyone ever had? Were the members of ABBA not wealthy? Were the French enslaved? Shall we speak of realities here or shall we continue to call all NDP supporters thieves and jackals? Does anyone actualy wanna debate anything?

The 'wealth' you create is called 'Mark-up' or 'profit' and is entirely dependant upon how much money your market possesses.

Lets see .... we elect governments .... such governments determine how much tax is to be paid. The present Conservative government doesn't DEMAND you pay taxes? But an NDP government will? It is to laugh

Take ur f'ing money and shove it up ur arse. Niether you nor I have 'made' a dime. Every penny you or I have we took from someone else. Walmart doesn't make money - it takes money just like every other business in the world. As a socialist I have no interest in your house, your car, your HDTV or your cable or anything else you've collected over the years - and that includes you swiss bank accounts. So stop being so damned paranoid.

ah but the insults of Al Queda not only killed/injured many, they also wounded American pride. Action needed to be taken to redress that. Osama's organization was dealth with in Afghanistan and the WoT...but there was still the matter of Pride to be settled.

is Man perfectible? Can we make humans better and make the world a better place to live? Or, is there nothing new under the Sun and so we should leave well enough alone. Progressive, utopian adventures to improve Man invariably become Killing Fields. There's no improving man despite himself. People as individuals may change if they percieve advantage, But no state can make the population change by fiat and force of arms.

I say we hold a referendum. Question: Should all Canadians become White Anglo-Saxon Christians with the following exceptions 1) Non-white's excepted from becoming white. 2) Non-Anglo-Saxons excepted from becoming Anglo-saxon 3) Non-christians excepted from becoming Christian YES ______ NO ______

That would be Capt. James Yee All charges dropped

Membership in Nato had zilch to do with 9/11, the london bombings nor the Madrid bombings. All our collective security amounted to dick in each of those cases. Confronting the Warsaw Pact - now there was some collective security.

True, If we want to benefit from collective security it is necessary to bring something to the party. To that end Canada did: 2500 troops. No tanks, no helicopters, no air force, no MP's for detainees but lots of money. Nor, apparently, did we need all that ancillary stuff to do the job in Kandahar. In 3 or 4 more years, when the Afghan army will be deemed ready, we will declare victory and leave - wether the Taliban are defeated or not. Unfortunatly, it won't save any of us from another terrorist attack.

The CDS has a responsibility to advise the government on military matters. The Manley report made it pretty clear that what Canada intended to do and what we can do are not the same things. Chretien, if I remember correctly, committed some ships and the JTF to Afghanistan - but that was all he committed. It was Paul Martin wich committed our troops to the task of securing Kandahar province with the assurance from the CDS that not only was such a task within the means of the CAF but we'd be able to commit adequate resources to Darfur to boot Of course, its all hindsight...but nevertheless somebody fuckedup somewhere...

Half the ground forces and almost all the airforces committed to Afghanistan are American, not to mention the huge amount of 'other' support for those nations lacking such things. Considering the American committments elsewhere, it appears that the USA is doing its utmost with troops and treasure to defeat the counterinsurgency. If not, then the Sgt's view that Afghanistan is the decisive battle for the safety of the west is not shared by the US. Was a crisp 'no' to Iraq smarter? If not then Afghanistan isnt the decisive battle the Sgt suggests it is - Iraq is. In which case Canada isn't fighting the decisive battle. If 'yes' to Iraq was smarter than 'no' would we then have had the troops, tanks, heavy lift and popular support? No. Those things would not have changed and we would still be in the decisive campaign with inadequate resources, thus increasing the risk of the Sgt's worst possible outcome: Failure to defeat the insurgency no matter where we committed our troops. Of course, the Sgt beleives we do have adequate resources to do the job, contrary to the Manly report and the present governments acceptance of that report...and this present government are not a bunch of peacniks searching for a way out There appears to be a contradiction between what the Sgt thinks is going on and what the government thinks is going on. As for selling it all on Ebay...I'm agreable to that. I don't think Canada should be attempting to be a major power-player in the world so's we can have seats at other peoples tables. We are a minor power at best, and we aint fooling anyone by talking big.

Sadly, I disagree. I am sure, however, that the good Sgt finds it all rock solid and justifies his commitment to the cause. Nevertheless, as one of those who scares the hell out of him more than the Taliban do, I feel compelled to answer this essay in an attempt to show that he need not fear my wishes and wants. His fear should be directed towards those that committed him to a 'must win' cause (as he see's it) and yet won't, or more probably, can't provide the means to win it. he Sgt says: then, conversly, says: and The Sgt has ignored the dilema. Niether Canada nor the West in general can commit to defeat all insurgencies - in fact we need to pragmatically pick and choose which insurgencies need defeating; Yet no insurgency can be allowed to succeed because... So, there the good Sgt and his comrades are doing thier damdest and expending thier blood to win the 'must-win' war....and at the same the Sgt says: I, the great terror, would like to point out the following 'realpolitik' Canada needs 1000 more soldiers to successfully carry out its mission. Canada will not/cannot commit 1000 more soldiers to successfully carry out its mission. Canada committed the Canadian Forces to a combat role in Afghanistan and the responsibility for the security of Kandahar. Canada did so without the troops, the tanks, the heavy lift, the tactical helicopters and without the firm support of the Canadian citizenry behind them. I suggest he need fear the people who made the operational appreciation prior to advising the PM that this job was not only do-able but do-able indefinately. That would necessarily include the people responsible for such things, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Hillier and the Defence Minister's of P.Martin's Liberal government, and the present MoD in Harpers government. The Sgt may very well think that the outcome of the Battle for Afghanistan as a turning point in world history. If he is right (and I do not believe he is) then it is criminal for Canada and Nato (the USofA excepted) to be farting around as we are, have been doing and will be doing. If the Sgt is correct his and his comrades terror of me and my ilk is sadly misdirected. He should perhaps consider the intelligence and strategic failures of the present and past governments. Terrible me and my ilk have said we should not have gone in thier and taken on the responsiblility in the first place. (well...to be honest more 'my ilk' than 'me' since I have dithered about on the matter). So, in light of the Sgt's contention that Afghanistan must be won, what would be the preferred course of action? Under committing to a decisive cause or no committment at all and picking our battles more carefully? The true issue here, as the Sgt has pointed out, is not the morality of who is right and who is wrong, but showing insurgencies our resolve. On the other hand...We are stuck with it now. In my opinion, the committment to Afghanistan was the most idiotic thing the Canadian government could have done, and the man largely responsible for this idiocy General Hillier, is a prime example of the 'Peter Principle' at work.