Cartman

Hugo, you are fond of the fishing analogy and I entirely agree. But, it has been state intervention that has, by and large, been responsible for educating people. Without the Cdn state subsidizing people, how many could realistically afford to pay the entire costs of their education? (BTW...a portion of my charitable donations do go towards education). I used the example of Nike, because I suspect that without state protection and worker activism, they would behave in a similar manner in North America. We have all benefitted from these interventions. While capitalism has clearly benefitted society, capitalism within a welfare state has been even more beneficial.

Does ANYONE disagree with this? So funny.

Ha! Oops...you are right of course. I meant to say students from foreign countries where english is not nec. the language of instruction. I am often surprised that I have to pull out "old red" for Cdn students almost as frequently as I do these students. A Cdn student is always the top performer, but Cdns should be FAR better than these students. Generally, I have about 700-800 students per year and rising and I want a commission. Think so? I kinda thought it was the other way around. They are more tech savvy for sure, but I wonder if they know the basics as well?

OK...now I got it Hugo. #1. Before capitalism, there was only death and starvation in the world. Capitalism is the only way humans can exist (encoded in our genes?). #2. Raising wages can only hurt people. (Thank goodness we live in communist Canada where fellow revolutionaries earn the exact same wage). #3. The reason why North American corporations pay low wages is to ensure peace in third world countries. It has little to do with greed. Thanx for the tips. All these years I thought that my sponsorship of two kids in third world charities were helping them to obtain medical services and food, when in reality I am only inducing jealousy and added suffering.

Now I HAVE heard everything. But, maybe you are right. I mean, this is exactly what those Nike sweatshop workers keep saying. That is, greed is a noble virtue. Leave corporations to their own devices, and just assume everything will go to plan. After all, these labourers are not forced to work there now are they? I mean, starvation is an option. Alternatively, here in Canada where gov'ts do regulate corporations, everything is messed up and the economy is on the verge of collapse. August, there have been texts written since classical theorists saved the day. You can check them out at your local library (oops...government intervention :angry: ). You can buy them on-line at Chapters. Just make sure you effectively barter with the seller.

So, I assume that you are supporting the NHL players union because they simply want the right to individually bargain with owners whereas the owners want them to collectively accept wage limits. As you said, employees can make requests or leave and corporations are free to reject their requests. But...for some strange reason, I suspect that you will be in favour of those poor owners.

The television programs interrupt the commericials, not the other way around.

Do you know which one?

Freak...loser...whiner...sexist. Voted against NFLD joining Canada. Need I say more?

I am sick of hearing this so I will ask a VERY simple question. WHAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES CAUSALITY? How do you know that your logic does not contain a spurious variable? You cannot know this unless you are God. How can you clearly demonstrate temporal sequence? You cannot know this unless you are God. All you can demonstrate is covariance which basically is correlation. I can accept this criticism so far, but I do believe that there are other forms of knowledge. I think Hugo? once stated that experience counts for something and I would tend to agree to an extent.

Stupid question for you MS and you might not be able to answer it for me, but is our taxpayer $$ going into this security in any significant way? I would like to know how much we are losing to this effort. BTW...if this IS the case, I wonder how much that person/advertiser cost us in added security down the road? :angry: :angry:

Actually, I was aware of this when I posted the argument. All sciences contain such reasoning and some people argue that the elusive search for causality is pointless. Nevertheless, I do not think that this is mere coincidence and just because union participation has fallen does not mean that growth was never caused by union participation in the first place. I believe that the main reason why Canada and others developed such strong economies (as opposed to say India and others) is because workers demanded their fair share of the pie and demanding does not necessarily mean unionized. This translated into the welfare state which not only benefits citizens, but corporations as well. A downtrodden, compliant workforce is not sufficient for a corporation to be profitable. Though compelling, I do not accept everything that Adam Smith wrote. There is almost a sense of divine intervention in the notion of an "invisible hand" at work. Markets require ethical intervention and even Smith accepted that there needed to be some intervention. For those who truly believe in a completely free market devoid of state moral intrusions, I have a business proposition for you (of course, I will be rhetorical here). Let's start up a child pornography business! It will be very profitable as long as the state stays off of our backs. Think of the money we will make!!! Who is with me? Why might you protest? Morality of course. We all believe, in this instance, that moral concerns are more important than is the profit objective and there is nothing wrong with that.

In another thread, I said that unions are not all alike. This was the union I had in mind. There is a well known phrase for this kind of "union", but I will not use it here.

GM cars suck!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: My wife's car has had over $11,000 worth of work ($9,000 warranty). Sorry...I just couldn't help myself.

You may be correct but it is a trivial matter anyways because the key problem I keep mentioning is that grades are inflated today. 75% does not have the same meaning that it did likely when you went to school (I am making an assumption here of course). I am glad that universities are all addressing grade inflation and entrance requirements b/c it has been a problem for some time for all universities. Funding cuts have forced universities to accept as many people as possible and to try and obtain corporate funds (though I don't think this is working out). People really, you would ALL be shocked at how many poor essays I read every semester (even second year students). Often ESL students are writing better than english students. It is really frustrating when you know these students are going to get burned later (when they try to apply for a grad. degree).

Unions are not appropriate everywhere, so you will never have a society in which everyone is unionized. THE employee in a mom and pop store is probably not going to unionize. I believe that many people, however, are not unionized because they are often afraid to start one. They are often afraid because of corporate threats (i.e. WalMart repeating over and over again (coded) that they never said they would close their store in Quebec). Gee, how did that come up? They are afraid of corporate threats because because labour legislation is too weak in Canada. How comfortable would you be in openly asking everyone at work about joining a union? Go ahead...give it a whirl...doubt you will do it. If you had the option of accepting a union wage with benefits vs a non-union wage, what would you accept? On the other hand, I have also seen people very effectively take corporations to court claiming improper treatment, discrimination etc. While unions sometimes slow the process down because of the number of arbitrations they have to deal with, lawyers often speed things up. Do you want to bargain with a union rep. in the spirit of cooperation (because the union needs the corporation) or a lawyer (who doesn't give a damn about any of them)? The option already exists in third world countries. Can you imagine if just one province adopted slavery? No thanx. Without our socialist state, how would Canadians have the education and health care benefits to be competitive in the first place? Difficult to educate your kids on WalMart wages. Again, go ahead and give it a try. If low wages alone created economic booms, then why is the third world so poor? It is not like they are all militantly unionized. Why are we not poor with our socialist state and demanding workforce? Answer...because the welfare state and unions have worked well economically (for corporations and individuals).

No, people had the chance to try and institute such sick policies and they told Harper to "stick it". Deal with it! The majority is not always right. If that were the case, then why bother having governments at all? You could just hold a series of issue polls every week. It would be very accurate and economical. At one point in time, I suspect that a majority of Germans supported Hitler, that a majority of Americans supported slavery, that a majority of Europeans supported anti-Semitism and that a majority of men supported women being barefoot and pregnant (see where I am going with this?). Just because the majority supports prejudice and/ or discrimination doesn't make it right. Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? So, no...not a "VERY GOOD POINT!!!"

MS...you forgot to mention how we ALL got screwed by Nortel as the feds decided to make significant investments into this great corp (CPP). If I am not mistaken, this stock was once around $129/share and went as low as a penny stock. Maybe the feds should just let the Ontario teachers' union invest for us.

Wait 'til my buddy Ralph reads this. :angry:

I don't think there is a serious shortage of work, but surviving on the rewards for that work is an entirely different matter. That is why people often work 2-3 jobs and often do not have time to spend with their kids if they have them. One can only stretch time and money so far. You should read/watch "Nickel and Dimed". Creating your own work often requires capital that is hard to obtain. Growing your own food is a great idea, but it also assumes access to resources that may be in short supply (i.e. money, land, time and knowledge). Not impossible, but not as easy as you suggest. One still requires money for rent and other bills though. I like this idea.

Whatta story MS. Unreal.

I thought that this was an interesting story. It is interesting that some believe large coporations should be allowed to invest as they see fit, but a union garnering and wielding this kind of economic clout? Well... http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/...lan_040325.html

So Hugo, are you suggesting that: A) There is no class bias in our laws. There is no class bias in our policing (i.e. street criminals vs corporate criminals). C) There is no class bias in the court system (i.e. OJ would have been acquitted of criminal charges if he was poor). D. There is no class bias in punishment. Can everyone inflict the same levels of harm?

I am currently applying to make posting on Mapleleafweb an Olympic sport. Any support for this? And if any of you are interested in joining my fingerpuppet squad, let me know. What are the requisites for an Olympic "sport" (i.e. as opposed to a "game")? I am a sports oriented person, but I think that the true Olympic spirit of healthy competition was lost a long time ago. Rather, I should say that I think it is now secondary to economic gain. I say that if they want to have the Olympics great, but I do not want tax money to go into it. Let the corporations pay. I am also an NHL fan, but I do not want tax money going to this either. The premise of improvement has been lost to winning at any cost. This is evident by the sad fact that many athletes are pumping so much crap into their bodies in order to win. If I am wrong, I am interested in hearing anything to the contrary. Any takers?

Could you provide me with a link or reference to this b/c this is what I got from the UBC web site. I realize standards change each year and from program to program. http://students.ubc.ca/welcome/admission.cfm?page=bc Regardless, several times I have referred to the problem of grade inflation. It exists in HS also. The reality is that many students entering university can hardly even write a simple essay. I am sorry, but this is the truth and, I have been at UBC. University, first and foremost, is supposed to be a place for higher learning. Right now, it is not. Let me tell you how it works. For funding reasons, they let in too many students (with $$) who lack the intellectual potential to perform well and complete a graduate degree. These students will pay large amounts of $$ because tuition is too high and then many will drop out after 1st or 2nd year. All they have to show is debt and a poor academic record which will be there forever. Those that lack the ability to perform well but actually get through the degree (partly due to grade inflation, taking Mickey Mouse classes etc) will have a degree not much better than a HS diploma, a large debt and will never get into a graduate program because surprise surprise, all of a sudden, talent is ESSENTIAL. My last TA required a minimum 3.9 to enter into her psych grad program. As August has articulated already, "our universities have become bureaucratic behemoths where the student is a pesky intrusion". Unfortunately, I agree that this is increasingly becoming the case. I used to be able to recall student's names, but with hundreds and hundreds of faces in a crowd, this is becoming quite difficult. How is one supposed to learn in this environment? Let me be clear. University admission should be based on academic talent alone. Currently, many (not all) students with the family funding do not have the necessary talent. They are degrading the prestige of the degrees for others with the talent. I would like to know how many talented students do not attend university b/c of financial barriers. BTW...how the hell can some of you BC folks whine about admission averages and then turn around and embrace nutbars like Campbell who believe in giving less to universities?