Machjo

More pretexts for make-work programmes.

Before the recession, you wre likely among the ones saying: "What recession? Did I miss something here? I still see people working everywhere, rising house markets, healthy stock markets and positives everywhere. Where are the negatives?" Ever heard of planning ahead?

Sorry, I should have worded myself more clearly. You're right. However, there are similarities. Let's suppose my lazy and sloppy wording had been taken literally, that the government had literally 'printed' more money to put into the economy. Not a bad thing per se when we're suffering from deflation, but it would mean of couse that we'd then have to take that money back out of the economy afterwards. Now if instead of producing money, the government just borrowed its way out of recession, then that still leaves us with the question of how to pay for it with rising inflation, interest rates, etc. While counterdeflationary printing of money might be beneficial in times of recession, it's certainly not beneficial in a boom. So when the boom hits, printing our way out of debt will not be a wise option. So though you were technically right and I was wrong in my sloppy post, the end result will still be the same more or less: the government will need to raise revenue (either through taxes, fines, service fees, selling off government assets, etc.) and/or reduce spending. So the solution sill be similar with the difference that the money then saved will have to go towards paying the debt.

Governments should focus funding on necessities. We shouldn't be wasting money on events while people are struggling to make ends meet.

Quick reply: You mentioned we could counter inflation by raising interest rates. Yes we could, but that's but a temporary and partial fix to the problem. I'm not against interest rake hikes as a temporary solution, but they ought to also send the government a message. As soon as we need interest rates to counter inflation, that's a message to the government that there is too much money in the economy. My preferred solution would be for the government to increase revenue and/or reduce spending to actually pull the excess money right out of the economy. Deflation hurts people, especially the most vulnerable members of society. But what many forget is that inflation is equally harmful, and especially to the same people. Ideally governments should view booms with the same concern as they view recessions. In fact, I'd go one step further and say that the very reason for recessions is because we glory in booms. If we saw booms with the same trepidation as we did recessions, we'd soon, if not eliminate both, at least ensure that future booms and recessions would be extremely moderate. But unformtuately, when a boom hits, we all become greedy and fail to look to its futrue consequences.

Thinking groups, yes. Unthinking ones, no.

You're forgetting something though. We've already put lots of stimulous funding into the economy. Just cutting back on stimulous won't cut it. Once inflation kicks in again, our priority ought to try to pull all that stimulous money we put into the economy back out again, and the only way to do that is to increase government revenue, decrease spending, or both. Or alternatively, have interest rates go through the roof, but that's only a short term solution for which we have to pay later. Who cares about the Liberals. I'm concerned about inflation, and hope it doesn't take us by surprise like the recession did.

Wrong. We should have been considering our response to deflation before the recession evenhit. Now is not the time to CONSIDER our response to deflation. Now is the time to RESPOND to deflation, and consider our response to inflation just as prior to the recession was the time to consider our response to deflation. We don't consider our response to the storm when the storm finally hits. We should always have a plan ahead of any event. OUr demographics actually increase the risk of inflation too as more of them retire and start spending, increasing demand and reducing production. Another reason to think ahead. Agreed. But what will it be? An uncontrolled boom, an uncontrolled slump, or worse yet, stagflation? We'd better hope not. But everyone seems to be trapped in the here and now.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to personal household finances, but rather government. Is there any politician right now raising the issue of the threat of a boom right now? I'm not aware of a single one right now. These are supposed to be paid professional politicians. It's their job to look 70 years ahead, not to mention 1 month ahead.

Sure a group can be governed to keep it out of mischief. But how do we encourage the group to look further ahead than the next meal, to actually plan ahead of events so that they don't take it by surprise all the time like the recession did, and now liek inflaitn probably will. Seriously, few are even talking about it.

Regardless of who is smart and who is stupid, it's only comon sence that we put lots of stimulous money into the economy over the recession, and so that runs the risk of an uncontrolled boom once out of the recession. And inflation and high interest rates generally hurt the most vulnerable the most. So, why is no one talking about it now before the boom strikes and would rather wait till it hits and then panick about it and implement ad hoc quick fixes because we have no plan? Haven't we learnt from the mistakes of the recession? Our politicians should be planning for the boom now. Of course they shouldn't implement the plan until inflation strikes, but the plan should be there ready and waiting to be implemented as soon as inflation strikes so that we can nip it in the bud quickly before it runs out of control. The media has already said we're now out of recession officially. This means it's just a matter of time before a boom strikes. Yet no one is talking about it.

And that's why we're eternally cought by surprise.

We barely heard a peep about recession until the recession hit, even though we all know that a bubble economy can never sustain itself. Only a few voices in the dark were really taling about it. Now it seems we're about to repeat the same process. All indications suggest the risk of high inflation, interest rates, labour shortages, and debt if we're not careful how we come out of this recession. I suspect (but hope I'm wrong) that when we first come out of recession and see the first sings of moderate inflation, we'll shrug a shoulder and just be happy we're out of recession. And then, just like when the recession hit, we'll start panicking at the last minute when the inflation runs out of control. I hope we dont repeat this process and, instead, start planning for the boom now, and start implementing the plan as soon as we go into moderate inflation as a pro-active anti-inflation policy before it gets out of control. But, judging from what I'm reading in newspapers on line, and in forums, we're about to repeat the same mistake again, and then panick at the last minute like when the recession hit. What are you're thoughts? Are we going to wait till the last minute again?

I'd handed in a blank ballot last election. I was so sick of the partisanship that I was trying to find a more independent-minded candidate. There was no independent candidate in my riding, so I had to go with a party member. I'd spoken to each of the party members but two already, and had e-mailed all but one (I couldn't find her e-mail address or phone number). On the day I had to vote though, I was still undecided between one particular candidate and none of the above. It was a tough choice, and I still wasn't fully decided yet until the last minute, and finally handed a blank ballot. Who knows, maybe I was wrong and should have checked that one candidate. But if you can't choose, you cant' choose. Now, here was the quality of the candidates in my riding: 1. When I'd gone to his campaign office to ask some questions, he'd taken out the party platform book and read the answer out to me! As if I could not have found that online. I had gone to the office to find out about him, not his party. So obviously, he was nothing but a mindless party hack, and to think he was a teacher! 2. He wasn't at his campaing office, but I'd written the questions on paper for someone else to respond. The next day, some professor calls on his behalf! Sorry, but the professor wasn't going to be on the ballot, and I can't imagine that that professor woudl be holding the candidate's hand all day in the Ontario Parliament. 3. I couldn't reach her. So I won't vote for whom I don't know. 4. He seemed reasonable enough, and had some ideas of his own. Sometimes he didn't know the answer to my questions, but was willing to admit to it and state that he'd look further into it. In the end, though, I think I was too harsh on him and should have voted for him anyway. But this gives an idea of the kinds of candidates we are coming up across.

So, would we include a blank space on that ballot so that I could write the name I want on it if I don't like any of the other names on that ballot?

I don';t see why a two-tiered system couldn't work. Most European systems, if not all of them, do that. Ironically enough, Canada's and the US systems are at opposite ends of the spectrum, whereas the Europeans seem to have found a happy medium.

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Catch a tiger by the toe. If he hollers let him go, Eeny, meeny, miny, moe Hmmm... Nationalist Party of Canada. Wonder what that is? Hmmm... sounds good. I think I'll go with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Party_of_Canada

Sure, if we can raise quality voter turn out by raising education standards. Otherwise, I don't want a person checking a box because his grandpapa always told him to vote that party. Also, if I had to choose between loyal party members and that riffraff, then I'd probably prefer loyal party members. And no, I'm not a member of any party myself. Then again, if we stopped giving money to parties and forced all MPs to stand as independents, we'd likely weaken that group too. But with no party names on the ballot, we'd be forcing people to.... THINK.

in fact, I'd likely go in the opposite direction of forcing people to vote. I'd want to make it harder for them to vote. For example, take party names off of ballots. Suddenly, those who used to check party because grandpapa told them to decades ago will either: Find out the name of the candidate for grandpapa's party before voting and, we hope, he might have learnt one or two other things in the process. or Give up on voting because it's just too confusing. Either way would improve our voting system even if overall voter turnout drops. These are not the people we want showing up at the poll booth!

Hmmm... you havent' spoken with people on the streets much about politics, have you. I've tried on occasion, but the conversation generally didn't go too far. You'd be surprised how many vote for a party on traditional grounds, and others who'll vote for any politician who promisses to drop the price fo gas at the pump. Remember, in a forum we're still dealing with people who at least know how to type, are somewhat literate, can use a computer to at lest a basic level, and have enoughcare and brains to type a few sentenses online. This already makes even the stupidest forumite a notch above many in our society.

Really? Refer to post 10 above. Scary thing is, many vote like that already. imagine once we have to vote. At that stage, we might as well just cast a lottery.

That is definitely a valid point. Everybody does vote. The question is, do they vote actively or passively, or do they conscientiously abstain or hand in a blank ballot to indicate none of the above. A low voter turn out sends just as loud a message as a high one... It means, none of the above, thus weakening the government's mandate and sending a clear message to others that maybe they should consider running in an election if they have unique ideas since they might be waht the non-voters are looking for. Compulsory voting would mask that message and give a false impression of voter satisfaction.

Hmmm... which candidate should I vote for... Victor Johnson... oh, sounds like a hunk... Birtha Flatchuk... hmmm... oh, but wait Green Party... oh, my faaaavourite colour.. Hmmm... Alessandra Boccelli... sounds sexy. My son would like her. Oh, Conservative... I've always heard bad things bout them frm my grandfather decades ago. John Smith... That's boring... Oh, but he's a Liberal. My dad and granddad always told us to vote Libral... There ya go... check. Oh, who was the candidate again. Hmmm.... I don't think so.

All this has led me to a new question: Seeing that his school is not unique in this respect, why was he singled out from all Canadian principals for this threatening treatment?