Machjo

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07...ent_8469964.htm Your thoughts.

Now it looks like the government will soon be facing a new challenge. Last month saw deflation for the first time, and that's a good thing in that it gives the government some wiggle room to spend without threatening inflation. In fact, the government can even argue that it must increase spending to ward off further deflation. The problem though is with other news. We're now officially out of recession, which means that this deflationary bliss won't last long. Who knows, we might be back in inflation mode by next month and, if so, the government will have to shift from a recession mentality to a labour-shortage and inflation mentality (i.e.incrrease government revenue, decrease spending, or both). This doesn't bode well for the military if the government faces inflationary pressures, as spending cuts become an important strategic consideration to fight the labour shortages and inflation. And with all the money spent and debt accumulated over this recession, the threat of labour shortages and inflation will be very real in the coming months and year if the government doesn't play its cards right. After all, just as recession hurts the most vulnerable members of society the most, so inflation and high interest rates generally hurt the same people the most too, and people don't take too kindly to rising prices and interest rates, and labour shortages aren't good for businesses either. So it looks like the recessionary spending bliss will soon be over.

But I'm a teetotaller. Does my Aboriginal blood make up for that?

Hmmm... I did sy 'important differences'. But granted, my examples weren't very important either. So really, we arent' that different except superficially.

Over all, I agree we've done better than other countries. But prior to the recession, we could have done even more to cut government spending and pay off more debt. There is plenty of wastage with governemtn still. I have to deal with it at times for work, and they are incredibly bureaucratic. Now, as for stimulus spending, I'm all for it in a recession, but that doesn't mean random spending just to create jobs, but rather strategic spending to upgrade the skills of the unemployed (not bailing out a dinosaur industry) so that at the end of the recession, when labour shortages strike, they wont' be as severe since workers would be more highly qualified, thus helping to keep salaries lower and thus prices down too, keeping inflation down overall. Or alternatively, to buy stocks instead of just giving the money out, so that at the end of the recession, the money can be taken out of circulation again by just seling the stocks. or other plans of that nature. Not just giving money out liek candy, but having a global long-term plan, showing how the recessionary plan fits in with the boom plan, etc.

Looks like the government will screw up twice in a row. The first time it screwed up by not drawing up a provisional counter-deflationary plan while we were still in an economic boom long ago. Now I get the impressionit will repeat the mistake by not planning for the upcoming labour shortages, inflation, high interest rates and debt while we're still experiencing. Why do they always have to govern by the seat of their pants, always reacting at the last minute? A recession is not the time to draw up an anti-recessionary plan, but the time to implement it. A boom is not the time to plan an anti-recession policy, but the time to implement it. A responsible government shoulld be planning for recession in boom periods, and planning for inflation in times of recession. Why do they always wait till the last minute to plan anything? What? They're salaries are too low to motivate them?

Last quarter we recorded deflation in the economy. Now certainly is not the time to worry about labour shortages, inflation, high interest rates, and growing government debt, but rather deflation. This, however, is precisely the time when the government should be looking ahead and drawing up a detailed global and long-term counter-inflation policy. Of course we would not expect the government to implement the strategy while we're in a state of deflation, but it is the time to plan for it, while we're not in any state of panic, thus allowing us to plan it in a calm and rational manner. We may be out of deflation by next month, or maybe next quarter, or maybe later still. But whenever it comes, we should be ready for it now. This I think is the error that the government for this recession. Since we were not in recession, the government chose to lazy about and not do its job and look tothe possibilities. It should have at lesat considered the possibility of inflation and have a rational plan of attack, not the multi-billion dollar knee-jerk reaction it exhibited owing to lack of preparation. I hope the government wont' repeat this mistake for the upcoming boom, and just as it should have planned for the recession before the recession, so it should be planning for the boom before the boom. But alas, I doubt they can see that far.

We all know what comes after a recession and unemployment: the quadruple threat of labour shortages, high inflation, high interest rates, and rising debt. What disappointed me the most about the recession was how the government had no plan for it, just riding by the seat of tis pants. Any responsible government should be planning for recession, deflation and unemployment in boom times, before they even need to implement the plan, so that when recession and unemployment hit, they can implement the plan right away. And we've seen how without a plan, the government seemed to just be running around patching holes unable to look to the long term or see the big picture. Now what worries me is that during the recession, the government has likely repeated the same mistake by not planning for the coming boom, so that when it hits, the government will again, just like in the recession, run bythe seat of its pants, patching holes piecemeal with no overarching global or long-term strategy. A responsible government should be planning for recession in times of high employment and planning for inflation in times of recession, and not be waiting to the last minute to deal with these things. Honestly, do we honestly believe that the government has any counter-inflationary strategy in place right now? Just as the recession took it by surprise, I suspect the boom will too. What are we paying these guys for?

Some I can think of: Canada, English-French. US, English-Spanish. Canada, monarch, parliament US, President, republic. Canada prefers multilateral international relations. The US tends to prefer bilateral relations. Canada, culture tends to be defined by governement (e.g. CBC-SRC, culture and arts funding, Official Languages Act, etc.) US, culture is defined mainly by the individual.

Yes, many Canadians would find it easier to define themselves by what they're not rather than by waht they are. Sad, really. Honestly, perhaps Quebec, Labrador, and Nunavut aside, most of Canada's differences with the US are limited to the monarch and the Parliamentary system. Seeing how similar our nations are, I don't see why it would not be possible to establish a common citizenship in future. ... uh oh, just wait for the pummelling to begin in response to this comment.... but it's true.

True. I dont care whether the US accepts medicare or not. All I'm saying is that either way, they shouldn't make the decision on stupid arguments like 'it's anti-Amreican', or 'un-American', or 'unpatriotic', or thatit's a commie bastard idea, etc., and instead make it, either way, on rational grounds and cut out the rhetoric. I'm sure both sides are just as bad, just with the shoe on the other foot as far as the cow-worshiping sheep go.

By the way, even the title of the thread suggests the sheep category: Canuck selling out Canada's Health Care on Fox News. Canuck: Why is that relevent? An idea is an idea regardless who expresses it. Throwing in the word Canuck is intended to suggest that it's not very Canuckish of one to hold this or that particular view. Sell out: She said she took no money for this, so what did she sell exactly? It would seem to me that if no money was involved, it must have come from a more sincerely felt 'un-Canukish' desire on her part to express what she really believed in. And just to throw a litlte more rehtoric to the flames, let's emphasize that it was on the dreated, Anti-Canadian Fox News that criticized the Canadian military not long ago. Hey, that association should shoot her down. After all, if we can't argue logically, let's just spew out venom instead. To be fair though, I'm sure many American sheep are using the same tactics to undermine socialized health care in teh US, suggesting it's 'un-American', or some other diatribe of the sort, instead of actually coming up with reasonable, coherent and relevent arguments.

I won't jump into the debate over private vs. public health care right now, but all I'll say is that I hope the arguments remain entrenched in ethical and scientific considerations, and not on blind traditionalist rhetoric, like suggesting one system is Canadian, the other unpatriotic, or anti-Canadian, or un-Canadian, etc. trying to suggest that Canadian identity is based on some kind of common national ideology that must never be questioned, always worshipped.

Good points. I think many people are blind followers of tradition. As such, they'll follow tradition uncritically. Only the more critical-minded will generally support change, especially significant or radical change. Looking at it that way, it's reasonable to suppose that, in the beginning, the pro-medicare group consisted mainly of the more critically-minded type, willing to forego tradition based on sound ethical and scientific arguments; whereas the opposition would likely have been divided between the 'anti-medicare' group, (comprising mainly of unthinking traditionalist sheep who could do nothing but spew insults and slogans at the opposition) and the pro private health care group (comprising those who wanted to keep the system of the time not on blind traditionalist grounds, but rather based on critical consideration of certain ethical and scientific issues of their own). We could say the situation, now that medicare has become the tradition, is now reversed, with the tro critical-minded groups still existing and left unchanged, but the traditionalist group now having shifted from being anti-medicare to being anti-private health care. You'll notice that while the critically-minded groups are pro something, the sheep are just anti-something, not really knowing why they're against it other than it's 'unpatriotic', 'unCanadian', 'treasonous', etc. In taht last respect, we could say that even the blind traditionalist group hasn't changed either in terms of the blind and baseless rhetoric it's likely to use. In the US, we're likely to find a situation more like in Tommy Douglas' time (i.e. with the blind sheep being on the anti-medicare side), while in Canada the sheep are now on the anti-capitalist healthcare side. In the end though, whatever decision is made, I hope the politicians ignore the sheep (even if they are the majority) and focus on the two mroe critically-minded groups that can actually come up with sound arguments without turning to 'patriotic' insults, making it into a sacred cow.

First off, I'd just like to clarify that I'm not necessarily opposed to socialized healthcare; what I'm mainly opposed to is the way many of its proponents defend it not through facts but through demaning the opposition labelling it unpatriotic and such. Just ridiculous. Government policy should be based on ethical and scientific considerations, not on the fear of being labelled unpatriotic. Now as to your questions, I don't know the answers honestly.

This is the problem with Canada: it has too many sacred cows, too many taboos not to be discussed. If you oppose socialized health care, you're accused of treason, of 'un-Canadian acts', of being a pawn of reich wing fascists, etc. If you oppose official bilingualism, you're either a Francophone anti-English bigot or an Anglophone anti-French bigot or, if bilingual yourself, then some rabid libertarian. If you oppose... I'm sure you the picture. Just too many taboos, and so every election, politicians stick to the mundane and superficial debates to avoid ridicule.

I fully agree... http://www.eatliver.com/img/2008/3471.jpg Fighting terrorism since 1492

Besides, official languages will be of no use if a unilingual Inuktitut-speaking Inuit goes to court in Ottawa. So let's just let the courts react on a case-by-case basis.

The US Federal Government has no official language, only a de facto language. Why could Canada not do the same thing, leaving each government department to react pragmatically on a case-by-case basis, instead of requiring bureaucrats in Quebec City to know English or in Victoria BC to know French. It's just a big waste of money.

Concerning fraud, I think a free-market based system would solve that. give school vouchers, and let the free market reign. No more official language at the federal level, immigrants should simply be required to find a job, and whatever job they can find work in is equally legit. no more taxpayer money going to English and French. o more legislation favouring English and French over the Aboriginal languages and cultures. Let the free market reign and problem solved. Right now, though. it seems the statists and socialists like to contro, control, control. Official Languages Act, Indian, Act, etc. etc. etc. Just ban any law favouring one language over another. in fact, put it in the constitution. Bingo, problem solved.

Now you're contradicting yourself. first you agree that we should live and let live, and now you're saying full integration. So, into which culture should we integrate in? Enlgish? French? The local Aboriginal language? Again, you're now proposing statism.

Wow! Now what you're saying there is radical. Essentially, you're saying that it's not up to the government to dictate the language in which tax dollars are to be spent, such as when the government compels schools to teach English and French. Now taht I can agree with. Examples of how this could work are described in option 2. give parents a school vouchers, lets schools teach in the language of their choice, and let the market decide. No more government subsidies for this or that language.

So are you saying that Canada should have no official language and let the market deal with the languages on an equal footing? I could agree with that.

So you're saying then that you agree that the government should remove all obstacles to the development of their language and culture, as is proposed in option 2?

So why did the reigning monarchs wign treaties if we were just to say generations down the road that any treaty with them is just mumbo jumbo? Hmmm... Perhaps this should go on Canada's international credit rating?