dre
-
Posts
12,881 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dre
-
-
On 5/17/2018 at 7:43 AM, Argus said:
No, to the US. Why do you think two thirds of software engineering grads moved south last year?
Uuuuuhhhhhh because that's where the majority of tech companies are?
-
21 hours ago, Argus said:
He is the father of Canada's debt, a debt we continue to labour under and which his son is unnecessarily adding to.
Actually Richard Nixon is the father of Canada's debt.
Nixon's shakeup of the global financial system, is what allowed governments to take on all this debt. Guys like Trudeau and Reagan just took advantage of the new system. Its worth mentioning that every single western country started to accumulate huge debts after Bretton Woods ended, so blaming it on Trudeau is a little silly.
-
2 hours ago, cannuck said:
That is a good answer, but not the right one (although part of it).
I have a very simple but firm definition of when and how wealth is being created. When you add value to a resource or deliver a service NEEDED to support that activity. EVERYTHING else we do in our economy is merely redistributing wealth thusly created.
I will try not to get too detailed, but some generalization needed for brevity. The person who starts and runs a business doing these things, yes, but this also applies to every employee. There are some clean lines in the sand, but a lot of very gray areas.
Let's start with the typical family. If we assume 2 kids, and looking only at that 20 year window when they are raising that family. For this example, let's consider two parents, two dependent children and two surviving granparents who have retired. In this case, Mom is at home. There is only one person actually working in this example, and then, we have to consider what he or she is actually doing. If the breadwinner is mining iron ore, pretty simple to decide wealth is being created. If making it into steel, ditto. If fabricating something from that steel (a car, a bringe, etc.) same. We can probably agree that everyone who puts a hand on a piece of steel is productive. What if that person works for a bank? Well, if they are doing some of the things that genuinely are needed to run our economy (keeping accounts, loans, mortgages, etc.) then that is a necessary service. If they are working in finance, let's say derivatives, then any money they "make" is simply paying off a bet that someone made (either win or lose), but no value was added. They are no different from the welfare Mom with a half dozen dependent kids or the criminal incarcerated for his activities - they merely redisitribute wealth. I even have to question the entire real estate business - in most cases, even building a structure if that structure is not needed for the creation of wealth, then no wealth is being created - in fact it is being redistributed from the productive part of the economy to the dependent part.
As I hope you can see, not very many people in our society create any wealth. The size of your pay packet or the percieved importance of your position does not necessarily corealte with how productive and contributory you are to the economy, or society in general. What we have right now is a very lopsided economy with far too many people being given the privilege (dispensed mostly by government) to take a dissporportinately large part of the resources for activities that do not contribute to either bettering the economy or society. Just growth for the sake of growth is actually a very negative thing, since we start measuring the value of speculative gain and confusing it with increased overall wealth. The only reason we can keep on doing this, so far, is that we have a very large natural resource base to exploit to support a very small population. Also, because we blindly have mortgaged our children's future to pay for some of this largess (a trillion dollars of debt is not sustainable - unless we learn to manage what we do with the rest of our economy to create wealth instead of merely redistribute it and inflate the numbers speculatively).
Later.
That would have been my definition too. Wealth is created by adding value to natural resources and creating things that people are willing to trade their labor (their money) for.
However I disagree with the 1 VS 6. If you talked to 10 random people in my particular town there would be one unemployed person, but there would be a couple of retail workers, a couple of fishermen, a couple of miners and loggers and a couple of other service industry workers. All of these jobs are part of the wealth generation process, and part of the greater economy. So I would say the number is more like 5 out of 6 or 4 out of six.
-
13 hours ago, cannuck said:
Computers can be wonderful things.
My solution: each person with a SIN and citizenship (easily identified) gets one vote. Then, for certain things, you get a vote voucher for an extra vote. Military service, for instance, an extra vote for each 5 years or so. Paying income tax: an extra vote for each $20k or so of Fed for fed elections and similar number for provincial tax paid for provincial elections.
The problem is that representative democracy is not about the voters deciding how tax dollars should be spent or anything else for that matter. If that WERE the case we would have referendums on spending matters.
The purpose of modern democracy is to achieve stability by creating the illusion that voters are in control, and that they are all equally in control. If you start saying that one persons vote means more based on some kind of subjective criteria, then it wont work any more. The majority of people will feel disenfranchised.
Take the stupid idea that was brought up by another poster... "Only people that pay income tax should vote". That would take the vote away from most seniors and most young people, and would achieve absolutely nothing, besides putting at risk the legitimacy of not only the government, but the political system itself.
The idea that everyone else would be second class citizens to soldiers and police is just as bad. Why on earth should employees of the states security apparatus be given extra voting rights? Who is to say that they are "better" or "more informed" voters than anyone else?
These are all terrible ideas, and the discussion is moot because none of them are ever going to happen.
-
On 1/21/2018 at 1:56 PM, taxme said:
You sure make it appear as though you hate white people and Christianity alright. Am I on the right track here?
That's very interesting. There was absolutely nothing "anti white" in my post at all. As for Christianity, I admit, I am not a fan. I think most Christians are decent people, but the church as an institution basically appears to be some sort of child rape cult. And Its not just Christianity either. I don't care for Islam, or Judaism either. The three religions associated with that despicable maggot Abraham.
-
6 hours ago, Goddess said:
I agree that the people who are making these decisions on behalf of Canadians need to bear the responsibility of them. Otherwise, politicians will just keep doing whatever they want - why should they care? The millions of dollars in compensation doesn't come out of their pockets. They have no incentive to make the right decisions when they are allowed to just walk away from the mess they've created, bill the tax payer and still go home with their fat cat jobs and astronomical pensions.
I agree there should be penalties (fines, dismissal, jail time) for the actual decision makers. But those people aren't going to be able to settle lawsuits against the government so you need both.
Also if people that are considering going into politics were personally liable for bad or illegal decisions and actions by the government, then nobodies lawyer would even all them to go into politics.
-
11 hours ago, Goddess said:
And the root cause of his rights getting pissed on? That would be because the entire Khadr family pisses on Canada. Unfortunately, they are legally allowed to piss on Canada. Which is what needs to change. The entire family is warped. They need to GTFO.
That may all be true. But there HAS to be penalties when the government breaks the law or violates peoples legal rights. That how/why the system works.
10 hours ago, Goddess said:You're one of those people who think the charter rights are the most important thing and should be upheld no matter if the person is an active terrorist and hates Canada.
You don't need to violate charter rights to catch criminals or terrorists.
-
On 1/18/2018 at 3:36 PM, taxme said:
We are talking about Western Canada separation, not Vancouver only separation.
If we are going to juggle borders around, I would much rather trade Alberta to the US for Seattle and Oregon. That way would get rid of our bible belt.
Or take it one step further and implement this...
The coastal regions of the US are really more "Canadian" than "American" anyways as far as political attitudes go anyways, and the bible thumping pig farmers in Alberta would integrate nicely with Idaho, Montana, Utah, Texas, etc.
Folks in the United States of Canada could have a technology, science, and evidence driven society, and people in Jesus land could blab on about god, vote conservative, fuck their sisters and cousins, farm hogs and wheat, and build big border walls.
The two societies could augment each other quite nicely.
-
4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:
Wanna $15 cup of coffee? I'm buying.
Trust me... you guys will be in a gay porn video together long before the first punch is thrown.
-
2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:
Britain was the first to use Agent Orange...they helped develop it.
Actually the folks that really developed AO are the same people that made your glass cookware, and insulated your home.
-
Just now, Michael Hardner said:
I will go on record to state that it's ridiculous to state he's a secret Muslim.
Well, your right. of course it is... but that's not the same as denying he went to a mosque and prayed with Muslims.
-
Nobody denied that, of course.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
Keep defending your master. You're bound to convince me your not with Her...errrr....him.
Ah yes... my master!
-
3 minutes ago, 9-18-1 said:
you do realize that he supports genital mutilation and honor killings, right?
-
3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
You're free to admire Justine Trudeau for lying. He's your guy.
And you're free to keep randomly flinging your own feces at the walls in the desperate hope some might stick one day
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
He's on camera doing this...so not a conspiracy. He's lying to one group or another. I wonder which one?
WOT???? A politician lying? Stop the presses!
-
3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
Agreed.
So he's either lying to me and you or to the Muslim community. I wonder which it is?
Its probably a third option... that he did that to pander, and doesn't believe any of it at all. But I understand... that's the boring option that doesn't leave room for silly conspiracy theories and identity politics.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
Either he converted...or pretended to convert to Islam. Both involve lying to one group or another.
He's your guy.
Not my guy... didn't vote for him. Hes just a garden variety weasely politician. People will continue to laugh at your hyperbole and all these doom and gloom predictions about how JT will destroy the very fabric of the universe will end up on the scrap heap with the rest of your conspiracy theories.
-
Ah yes... Trudeau the dangerous secret muslim....
-
On 1/2/2018 at 1:33 PM, 9-18-1 said:
Do you notice how Michael Hardner is the sole source of sowing discord in every single thread trying to deal with the fascist nature of political Islam? Who is paying you, George Soros? Such sickness of the mind.
You dont have to get paid to recognize the kind of moronic hyperbole and logical fallacy in all those threads. If you want to have that discussion you need to frame it in a way that warrants dialog, and ditch all the stupid bullshit.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Robert Greene said:
I don't think were going to starve off. Will start eating wheat, rice, bugs if we have too. I think food shortage won't lead to an significant depopulation. It might come from war or disease. Even if there's a collapse, without a culture of population planning, humans overbreed again, until the next collapse taxes place. The planet isn't going to end for Billions of years, and humans could be around for millions of years. The remaining humans will adapt, to whatever compromised planet is left. Overpopulation should be about maintaining environmental and economic integrity, not preventing humans from going to extinct.
We are guaranteed to starve off. The earth's ability to support agriculture is degrading quickly. We wont even be able to farm food on a large scale within about 60 years.
We are on the verge of an near-extinction event... By 2100 there will be about a billion humans left or less.
-
On 12/29/2017 at 5:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:
It's really about using up global resources, that's the only limit I can see.
And that problem will take care of itself. Humans are arch predators. We fuel our existence by killing almost everything we encounter, and consuming every kind of natural resource. Eventually though the dominant predators run out of prey, and their numbers are reduced naturally.
Most of our population will literally starve out within the next century. Its a certainty... a forgone conclusion. The earth however will be vibrant eco-system for millions of years to come... with or without us.
The "problem" in this case is also the "solution".
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Robert Greene said:
You make really good points. I disagree with Canada needing to depopulate faster than other countries and you call me eugenicist. A eugenicist selectively targets individuals. It says certain individuals need to be sterilized based on mental fitness, and so forth. What i'm talking about is lowering an entire countries birth rate. Even if we imposed a 2 child policy, it would be imposed on everyone equally. It wouldn't be eugenics, because it wouldn't be selecting certain individuals over others.
You think Canada needs to depopulate faster than India. Well the problem is far worse in India, so don't call me simple thinker, if I want them to reduce their population, so their future generations have a chance to become wealthy, without ruining the planet. United States is overpopulated, so they need to depopulated as well. Ethical depopulation will lead to a better environment and economy.
Now if you have serious concerns about population control, don't call me a "simple thinker". Talk about the mistakes of China's one child policy. Talk about overpopulation programs that went wrong, so we have a chance to learn from their mistakes. You can talk about sterilization in native reserves. Bring up the bad stuff, so we can be aware of the mistakes.
We want all countries to have the same or better wealth than us. There are currently 7.6 billion people in the world. If everyone lived like a Canadian, we would need 5.5 planets to be sustainable. So the World's population would have to be reduced to 1.4 Billion. But why put it just under the absolute limit? Imagine being 190 lbs, and hanging from a rope than can only support 200 lbs. To feel safe, you would want the rope to hold at least 3 times your weight. So lets reduce the population by another 3. You get 450 000 million. We should reduce the Worlds population to at least 500 000 million over the next 1000 years.
If you want to solve this problem, then instead of dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on the developing world, drop porn, alcohol and western TV. Westernize them... make them too lazy to have big families. Pump them so full of SSRI's they cant get a hard-on any more. Make is so they would rather jerk off on the internet than screw their wives.
Their birth rates will plummet just like ours have.
-
20 hours ago, taxme said:
So far, so good. But those elite special interest groups would love to be able to do so. You know, the morons who want to ban patriotic nationalist conservatives from expressing their opinions and points of view on the internet. They work every day in trying to keep the internet only available to liberals and communists only. But you would not know anything about that, right? Just asking.
Is this a comedy act or something? I get the feeling that you are a hard core left winger thats using a proxy account to make conservatives look stupid... Is that what this is about?
Horwath, NDP: "Donate a little bit more taxes....."
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Yup chicken little is always amazed when the sky does not fall like he predicted.