Machjo

The question is though, with all the advancements in science and technology, how is it that we now need two people working rather than one? Life should be easier today we would think, or has materialism forced us to work harder to accumulate more goods, to keep up with the Joneses, to avoid ridicule y ensuring we have a big house and a nice car. The couple living in a condo and cycling to work is likely to be ridiculed even if it is a debt-free and happy working couple.

Excellent. So if that's the case, simply providing universal compulsory education for the population ought to be the only subsidy we need, right? As I said, if we need quality ships, and Shanghai can't build ships to our specifications, then I guess we'll have no choice but to buy the higher-quality ships produced in Canada, right? But then again, if we still couldn't compete with Shanghai, either their ships were of higher quality than you pretend to be the case, or they could better estimate the market. For example, I'm sure Toyota sells more cars than Lamborghini. That said, Lamborghini manages to survive owing to the performance of its cars. So, let Shanghai produce the Toyotas of ships, and we'll produce the Lamborghinis of ships. The bottom line is, why should we subsidize an industry that cannot adapt? Does such an industry deserve my tax dollars? And why should we play favourites by deciding which industry to subsidize? If we're to subdidize the shipping industry, then why not all industries? Is it fair to subsidize one at the cost of another? Think about it, China's subsidies to its shipping industry ain't free. The money's coming from somewhere, either from inflation, government debt and high interest rates, or tax hikes. The bottom line is that China's subsidy of its shipping industry comes at the price of its other industries.

Again, why subsidize it at all? If the government has ships to buy for valid reason, then buy the damn ships, but don't give money out for nothing. And yes, if another country can give us a better deal than a Canadian shipyard, then I say import it. If other countries can build better ships than we can, then let us specialize in what we are good at rather than subsidizing what needs a subsidy. In short, if it needs a subsidy, then it's a waste of economic space. Retrain the workers who lose their jobs in the shipyards for work in growing industries that do not need subsidies.

Let's assume the worst-case scenario: A country manages to subsidize all of its industries. Now, seeing that the only way it could possibly do this would be to borrow and spend, since any tax increase would put an industry at a disadvantage, we must conclude that it would be an unstable policy indeed. Sure we'd thus be at a trade disadvantage against that country on all fronts except where we have a product they simply do not have. The result would be that we'd all be buying that country's currency so as to buy their products. The result of that would be to push the value of their currency up in value to ours until we can no longer afford their money. The result of that of course is that we'd thus witness a boom in those products we have that that country doesn't have. And once that country goes bankrupt and has no choice but to tax and axe, suddenly it's payback. Now a more realistic scenario. A country decides to subsidize key industries with money it gets from taxation. Well, those taxes are a burden on other industries. As a result, that industry is competitive against ours of the same category, but we have the advantage on all other fronts. As a result, we import their subsidized product and export all other products. The rule of the game i the long run is that trade equilibrium must eventually return. The more we have a trade imbalance, the greater the pressure on the trade balance to return, usually via currency pressures. So really there is no point trying to manipulate the international economy on that front since it will always return to equilibrium in one way or another. If we decided to subsidize our shipping industry, it would be on the backs of other industries, meaning that we'd be hurting one industry to benefit another, just like those countries are doing now. We can take the car bailout in the recession for example. Sure it helped the car industry, but on the backs of all the other industries. It may have saved jobs in the car industry, but the interest lost on the investment will have to be paid for by the taxpayer, meaning a burden on other industries. In the end, it's a matter of sacrificing one for the other. If we want to 'subsidize' anything, how about our human resources (i.e. make higher education free). That way, we're developing a resource rather than just subsidizing it.

The market will decide.

If other countries subsidize their shipping industry, then would it not be wise for Canada to exploit this to the fullest by simply importing ships that are being sold below their real value, paid for in part by foreign taxpayers? Any wise government would exploit this foreign folly to its advantage. In exchange, we export what we can sell at advantage. Remember after all, that the only way for foreign countries to subsidize their shipbuilding industry is to raise taxes, thus putting the burden of the shipbuilding industry on other industries, and so as a result putting other industries at a disadvantage. So we can exploit this by buying their ships at below market price and sell everything else at market price, thus giving us a bigger bang for our bucks, and creating employment in other industries. That said, I do believe that we need to raise taxes on our material resources so as to purposely make our resource industries less profitable, as a means of promoting preventing us from simply becoming a resource-based economy.

Pot, meet kettle.

Speaking of freedom or lack thereof, isn't that precisely what we're criticizing China for?

Well, if the Chinese can produce ships at a lower cost, then whose fault is it?

Sorry, I forgot. You only need to go as far as central Quebec to find entire cities that cannot speak English. Of course in Asia it's even more remote. Unless you stick among international businessmen or tourism agents or university campuses, forget it. And even then I'd come across cases where we couldn't communicate in English. I'll give two examples when I had travelled to China only a few years ago: 1. I was speaking with a Korean lady in Chinese during break at a meeting, and the others at the meeting thought it strange that we should speak Chinese. She'd explained that though she'd learnt English in school, like most Koreans she'd not learnt it well. But because she worked in China, it was natural that she'd learnt Chinese since most Chinese couldn't speak Enlgish well either. Add to that that most foreigners in China learnt Chinese too, so it was more likely to meet a foreigner who knew Chinese better than English since like Koreans and Chinese, most foreigners don't learn English well either but in China are exposed to Chinese. 2. In another meeting, all communication had broken down because the Chinese English interpreter was taught American and British English exclusively. As a result, it had taken her a few minutes to adjust ot Australian English. It had taken her about half an hour to adjust to Cameroonian English (and even then she had difficulty), and she'd not been able to understand Pakistani English throughout the whole session. Needless to say, some had a good giggle over me repeating everything (no, I wasn't interpreting but literally repeating verbatim what the others were saying) into a more standard North American pronunciation so that she could understand me. And she had a masters' degree in interpretation! Just work abroad for awhile dealing with people from around the world of all walks of life, and you'll find that English is not nearly as international as one would think outside of elite circles.

I've also lived abroad myself by the way, and I can tell you that except in the more higly educated circles or among Englih majors, English is really not that prevalent. Had it been, I would not have learnt the local language so easily.

If Canada should have too many qualified in field X in which the US is suffering a shortage, and the US has too many qualified in field Y in which Canada has a shortage, woudl it not be preferable that these people cross the border to find work rather than be forced into unemployment? Again, which is more likely to want kids between the unemployed and the employed? It's not just a one-way street. It does go both ways. Sure we might lose qualified workers to other countries but woudl gain some too, according to market demand. There is no point supporting a qualified person on welfare because there are no jobs for him in Canada if his skills are in fact needed in another country. And of course we can reciprocate to help their unemployed too. What's wrong with countries working together to solve unemployment rather than always trying to stab each other in the bac, mutually of course, resulgin in increased unemployment in all countries involved? You seem to be forgetting something here. In that imaginary world, English would not be the primary language anywhere in North America. That alone takes a very big chunk out of international English. Add to that North America's vast resources. Don't you think some indigenous peoples would have learnt other languages to frequent foreign universities so as to bring that knowledge back to North America to establish universities in their own countries? They would essentially have become modern nations just like Europe today. If you want to immigrate to Germany today, knowing Englih won't hep your case. They would obviously want you to know German. Why would this be any different. Consider the vast resources these countries would control in North America. I'm sure there would have been much tourism and immigration, except that it would have been towars their languages. Remove North America from the map and Enlgish would be an island language in the UK and Australia and New Zealand. One reason many in China and Jpan learn English is because it's the primary language in North America.

Make no mistake about it though. There were peopel in North America long before they'd dicovered the Europeans. Had we had such a language policy from the start, immigrants would have integrated to the local indigenous language communities rather than to European language communities.

Why not? if that was the rule in the past Canada would still be a barren wasteland devoid of people... Had that been the rule in the past, Canada would not exist today. Instead, we'd have various nations speaking various indigenous languages, with possibly schools around the world offering these languages as optional second-languages so as to promote trade with North America. It's too bad that never happened. But it's never too late to learn from our past mistakes.

Seeing that the Nobel Prize is non-governmental, no government should have any obligation to make any commen on it.

Labour-movement agreements would likely help in this area too. For insance, if Canada's ministries of education collaboarated with their foreign counterparts to establish common standards for trades an professions, then foreigners could easily come to Canada to work first before applying for citizenship. Though again, they should meet certain minimum language standards before even being allowed to set foot on Canadian soil.

Then people would complain that we're subsidizing other people's kids. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the idea, but merely that it's way too simplistic. Remember too that some won't get married or have kids BEFORE they are financially stable. So if you rase their taxes to subsidize those who do have kids, you risk discouraging more people from having kids. Now the good news is that this discouragement would mean that not many would benefit from it, thus reducing the need to raise taxes. But if that's the case, then it just nullifies its effect and makes it a pointless law with no effect. So instead, if the goal is to actually encourage peopel to marry and have kids, how about investing more in educaiton so as to raise people's opportunities, which in turn would make it more likely for them to become financially stable and so get married and have kids. But again, some would complain about paying for other people's education. But hey, tht's a decision to be made. Another issue has to do with immigration. If it's easy for peopel to come to Canada but difficult for them to gain citizenship once here, that encourages marriages of convenience, which in turn encourages later divorce and so psycholigical instability in the victims, thus increasing the population that fears remarrying and having kids. Looking at it that way, we need to make it more difficult for people to come to Canada but easier to get their citizenship once they set foot on Canadian soil. Thi would mean though that to just tansit through Canada a person would pretty well have to qualify to become a citizen, and that would hurt the tourism industry. I can imagine this energizing the tourism lobby like nothing else could. It really isn't as simple as you portray it. Though I'd agree with providing more educaiton opportunities for the working poor and the unemployed. But again, I doubt very much that the government would go for that since it would mean higher taxes and that would be a vote killer come election time. So it really isn't that easy a solution. Another possible help, especially in hard economic times, would be for Canada to establish labour-movement agreements with other countries. That way a Canadian whose skills are not in demand in Canada but are abroad can find work abroad, and vice versa for a foreign worker whose skills ae in demand in Canada. That would also help provide more financial stability and thus more marriages and thus children, and would benefit all countries involved. A kind of 'cratch each others' backs' kind of policy. But simply paying families that have children won't work because they want to become financially stable BEFORE having children. So those who'd be getting paid would be those who'd have been planning on having children anyway regardless of this policy, thus really just making it an added bonus for them nad having little to no effec on those currently not interested in having children.

And Canada can definitely learn from China's example here. When the US trades unfairly with us, rather than place a tariff on the import of US products, why not place an export tax on Canada's material resources. It's a kind of tai chi whereby when the opponent pushes, instead of pushing back, we pull and thus throw him off balance because he would not have expected that. If the US introduces various rules to make it harder for Canada to export to the US, then let' conclude that the US doesn't want to import our goods and so we'll do the US a favour by reducing our export of material resources to them too. I'm sure they'd change their mind quickly enough.

How so? The idea that a road is publicly owned, funded based on ability to pay, yet free for all to use regardless of their contribution to its construction, seems socialist enough a concept to me. I'm not saying I'm against the idea, but merely that it is essentially a socialist idea.

That's it? In a truly capitalist state, you'd either build and maintain your own road or buy a jeep with good shock absorbers. As for the police or the military, forget it; make sure you houw has a good alarm system and automatic rifles in the basement. The neighbour just decided to establish a chicken farm, and the other neighbour an airfield? Oh well, it's his property. Sucks to be you. And that's just for starters.

What kind of poll is this? You might as well present me with a complex and colourful painting and then ask me if it's blak or white. Even China ha capitalist elements just as Hong Kong has socialist ones, and they're about as far apart along the spectrum as we can get. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist or purely socialist state. This is a gross simplification.

Simple solution. Shift our taxes to a resource tax and lower income tax. As a result, we can afford lower salaries, yet transportation costs go up. That way, locally produced food has an advantage over foreign imports. Unlike tariffs though, since it applies both ways (i.e. it also makes our exports more expensive too), it can be argued to be fair and non-competitive and thus avoids trade wards while still promoting local production to a degree.

Why of course

Another Republican I tend to admire is Colin Powell. He'll never run, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a shining light of the Bush administration.

Tax and ax is another way to keep both inflation and interest rates down, which is essentially what would happen if taxes remained bust spending dropped for example. Otherwise you are correct. My bad. You're right. I should have clarified that he tends towards isolationism in a political sense, but supports open borders. I remember one interview of his where he opposed immigration strictly on pragmatic grounds owing to a growing anti-immigrant backlash, but otherwise supported immigration and the most open of borders in principle.