Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Demosthenes26

  1. Its a good idea because Sunnis and Shia in Iraq and Syria cant get along unless they are forced to by a brutal dictator. Theres more than 20 million Sunnis in the two countries combined that are virtually shut out of the political process, and nothing we do is going to make them happy about it.

    It makes good common sense for them to govern themselves, other wise we will have perpetual sectarian violence in these countries.

    1) There has ALWAYS been sectarian violence in this part of the world. The only time there hasn't been violence or war has been when they where under foreign occupation. Ie the turkish empire. Sunni governing sunni and Shia governing Shia does not mean the governance will a good one. You either end up with a secular dictator like with Sisi in Egypt, the hypocrisy that is Saudi Arabian and the other Arabian States, or a theocracy like Iran or recently ISIS. There are principles on which society should be governed, this governments in this part of the world have little to no regard for them.

  2. Sugar or some variant of it is used as a preservative in most products to increase shelf-life.

    Yes. That only true if you're talking about canned or preserved goods.

    Alot of sugar and salt goes simply into make food taste better especially with processed foods. People are built to like things that are sugary, salty or fatty because for most of human history that was what was missing from our diet. Now the reverse is true and companies are designing food towards these tastes. With the consequense being our current obsesity epidemic. Our government definitely has a role in stopping this. EIther through regulation or public health campaigns. But that the same time we can't talk about obese people as if they are blameless. At the end of the day we are each responsible for our own health, they are clearly choosing wrongly, and it's affecting all of us.

  3. Trains are even worse though. You're going to have to deal with the fact that oil will be transported across physical space, and in doing so the infrastructure will interact with matter. Given that, pipelines would serve your stated goals better than trains. NIMBY attitudes don't really help anyone.

    "Physical space" as opposed to nonphysical space?

    Additionally people oppose oil projects simply because they are oil projects. It doesn't matter how safe or environmentally responsible are project is. Consider the keystone pipeline debate. Largely the opposition to that was an environmental one, however it was clearly demonstrated that a pipeline was a safe and more environmentally safe method of transport additionally used less oil to transport and thus co2 / greenhouse gases. I think people have equated oil = bad in the popular consciousness, and aren't willing to fully engage the issue.

  4. You realize the whole western world is an ally of the military dictatorship in Egypt, and cheered when they took power from Morsi, and has not only endorsed military rule in Egypt for 40 years, but has propped up that regime with huge ammounts of money?

    No. US military aid stopped after the army took control of Egypt. Russia is currently backing the regime in Egypt.

  5. This whole idea seems a bit dim. They should have stuck with the name for the monument as "Monument to Victims of Totalitarian Communism" instead of the current "A Memorial to Victims of Communism" name. Communism doesn't in itself kill people so much as totalitarian governments led by with horrendous dictators kill people. How much better or worse were ie: African dictators before vs after their regimes were Communism vs not?

    While the statue is probably referring to victims of totalitarian oppression. Communism itself is not blameless in the suffering of the people under its rule. Centrally planned economies of Communism frequently suffered starvation as a result of the economic mismanagement of bureaucrats.

    The great Chinese famine killed 15 million people be Chinese government estimates. Similarly the soviet famine of 1932-1933 killed at least 5 million.

    You should also note there had yet to be a democratic communist state.totalitarianism and communism kind of go hand and hand.

  6. One thing about Harper is that he is not very charismatic. I feel that Harper has to be really guarded about his appearances, because he lacks the ability to charm his way out of things. Unlike Pierre Trudeau.

    As a comparison look at rob ford and his unguarded approach to the media.

  7. One thing about Harper is that he is not very charismatic. I feel that Harper has to be really guarded about his appearances, because he lacks the ability to charm his way out of things. Unlike Pierre Trudeau.

    As a comparison look at rob ford and his unguarded approach to the media.

  8. One thing about Harper is that he is not very charismatic. I feel that Harper has to be really guarded about his appearances, because he lacks the ability to charm his way out of things. Unlike Pierre Trudeau.

    As a comparison look at rob ford and his unguarded approach to the media.

  9. I've never been comfortable with the idea of burqa / niqab Garments. I can understand dressing conservatively as An act of religious expression. But to complete cover yourself. In particular your face is an idea completely foreign to me.

    Faces are how we distinguish One another. The niqab/burqa garments prevent such identification, as a result the removal of any individual identity. I cannot fathom why some one is willing to give up their identity in such a manner.

    I accept religious expression where people are willing participants. but where it crosses into indoctrination or people are pressured into it. There's a line that's crossed that I/society cannot accept.

    I feel that These garments cross that line. I don't think anyone would wear these without undue influence or some level of indoctrination. I find it no coincidence that the societies they come from are a amongst the most sexist and intolerant. where women have no identity, Why would they be treated as equals?

    Other religious Kirpans, turbans, crosses etc are no where near as oppressive. I can accept them because they don't deny someone the right to identify themselves. I can understand why someone would want to wear them. But I've never actually heard a reason from a Muslim woman who wears one of the garments. I like to actually hear that.

  10. Government all around the world is the same, and it is the very root of the paradigm confronting people today. The reality for government is not the reality for an actual person. Man created government, not government created man. Government is a thing given legal standing by man. This non living thing has been legislated to be treated under the law of the land in the same way a living person is. The same is true for corporations, they are given the legal status of a living citizen. They have all of the legal rights as any other living citizen. The relevance of this is that it is a fundamental precept upon which the rest of society has been based upon. It is flawed, it is a paradigm.

    Debt was not created by banks, I spoke figuratively. Yet since the creation of the modern banking system, governments have been in debt to banks. Commonly accepted public perception is that governments control their money supply through the issue of fiat currencies. If that is true then they should never have gone into debt in the first place because they could simply issue currency as they needed it. Since governments are in debt, they never were in control of the money supply, the money supply controls them. It is a paradigm.

    Taxation has numerous names all designed to create a revenue stream to fund the operations of government. While it is true that no money is actually removed from circulation in the process of taxation, the manner in which the government treats living and non living citizens is completely different. A withholding tax is applied to living citizens, not legal citizens and in a very real sense a living citizen has a personal loss of their own money supply whereas a legal citizen does not. It is a paradigm.

    The entire debate surrounding the current debt problems will lead to reforms in the central banking systems already in place. Those systems are in dire need of change five decades after leaving the gold standard. Today less than 10 percent of the entire money supply worldwide was created as hard currency, more than 90 percent was created as interest bearing debt. Currency is issued and regulated by governments and debt is issued by and regulated by private interest banks. The practical applications of the legislative efforts has created a system that leaves the governments responsible for the money supply without control of it. It is a paradigm.

    Do you know what a paradigm is?

    A paradigm is a conceptual framework. What are you trying to say repeating yourself?

    As for the rest of your arguments they're unclear as to what your trying to say. I really don't want to write another essay. but there's just so much wrong with what you wrote.

    To start corporations are only "persons" in that they are recognized as a legal entity and are taxed. They share the some of the same rights as people they have special rights (is the can issue shares) but also they are have rights denied To them like the right to vote. The corporations are people is a popular misconception which stems from a US supreme Court decision which allowed corporation to make campaign contributions the same way people do. It was in essence "corporations have the same right to free speech as living persons". But not corporations are people and this is not the case in Canada. Is this a paradigm?

    As I stated before the money supply in Canada is determined by the overnight loans rate set by the bank of Canada. The debt has no direct bearing on this. And governments have tried to print off money to pay off their debts. However this goes against what money actually is. Which is a representation of wealth. Printing off excessive amounts of money only causes inflation. Which is why central banks don't just print money to satisfy the needs of money. As well the only the government has of the BOC is the appointment of the governor of the BOC. Is this a paradigm?

    Your opinion on Taxation doesn't make any sense please elaborate.

    Changes to current system could improve things. But nothing you've said is a real issue. Please read an introductory economics text book before responding.

  11. i see this debate has evolved

    I am compelled to respond,

    Let me begin by stating that before there were banks there was no debt. The original bank, Bank of England, lent money to the Crown on request and to this day the Government of England has owed the Bank of England a great deal of money that it has yet to repay. A great deal of time and a great deal of paid interest has been allocated to this debt. Fast forward to today and the entire system of government is buried in debt world wide.

    Debt is a very real issue, it has been since its inception and society has been conditioned to tax and spend their little hearts out. Each calculated tax dollar is removed from circulation in principle. That is a big deal, a very big deal. Removing currency from circulation translates into a a shrinkage of the money supply which by definition creations inflationary pressure. That form of pressure once exerted has been historically proven to be detrimental in its impact to income tax rates. Each rise to the consumer price index combined with a corresponding rise to taxation rates creates steps of disposable income reductions that are not recoverable from anywhere but the upper class. In very real terms the vast majority of the public are detrimentally impacted through this process. The bottom line to the majority of the public is very simply disposable income. Rising debt levels create increasing taxation which reduces disposable income and detracts from consumer spending. One way of describing the problem is to clearly state that we are taxing ourselves into debt.

    You can run an army of economists, lead by a heard of accountants to use a veritable plethora of media to prove how well the system works. It does work if you are the bank, most of us are not the bank. The system does not work, unless you are just reading numbers. In the real world a family does not last long borrowing more than it earns, but in the unreal world of the international monetary and financial systems, it does. The burden of debt repayment is not important to the government because the government is not a real person. A real person suffers consequences for their actions but governments do not. The reality of national debt is that it is an impediment to rises in the national standard of living. In my mind the role of government is to lead the population in an effort to raise the standard of living not detract from it.

    Any citizen raising a family can attest to the fact that increased taxation is a very bad idea. I find it strange that anyone would actually support the concept of government removing even more money from their pockets, but I guess they are the ones that can afford it. Let me finish my response with this thought; We are taxing our way into poverty because we can. We are indeed that stupid.


    You wrote a lot and I don't think I'll be able to address all your points But here's me trying.

    Debt has existed as long as money has existed, and likely before that we can find provisions in hammurabi's code regarding the relationship between debtors and debtees. Government debt as we know it Comes from the Italian wars. But this is a different debate entirely

    I have yet to say debt is not an issue. It is required to maintained at a responsible level and governments need to ensure that It doesn't reach insolvency. However the whole debt doesn't need to be paid off. Your view is far too reflective of home economics and missing far too much macro economics. Consumers need to pay off debt because their interest accumulates faster than the inflation rate. The result is the amount you pay is worth less than the future value. For governments the opposite is true interest rates are generally lower than inflation rate so the amount paid is less than the future value.

    Also the tax basis will also be increasing as gdp increases. So taxation will not necessarily be increasing with the debt.

    Your argument about the money supply is wrong. Government debt has no direct effect on the money supply. That's determined by the overnight loans, foreign exchange rate or the amount printed. In Canada its determined by the overnight loans rate, which is set by the B.O.C.

    In addition inflation is determined by the rise/ fall in consumer spending and its consequences on demand and supply. To say that a fall in money supply would cause inflationary pressures doesn't make any sense.

    Debt and taxation are not black holes and don't drain the money supply they are part of the cycle.

    If governments where to stop using debt as a finance tool the effect most certainly would be an increase in taxation. Projects would have to be paid in advance, the government would have to create reserves for day to day financing.

  12. I have read much theory posted here. From my perspective there is only one way to pay off the national debt. That would involve actually handing over money to the people that we borrowed from. There is no magic wand, even in bankruptcy the debt gets paid. There have been some folks suggesting we not pay our debts, that is folly and fraught with disaster. Why not simply approach the lenders and negotiate a resolution to the problem by proposing a compensation package in lieu of taxation. Provide a viable return on the investment for the banker over short term and watch them leap at the opportunity. A vast majority of our public debt is held internally and this option is available. External debt must be repaid as per contract. This is a simple math exercise, its not rocket science.

    1)not all CND bond holders are Canadian. Some kind of tax settlement would not appeal to them. Also this option would reduce revenues requiring either a tax hike, services cut or a bond sale.

    2) government debt is only a problem when it approaches insolvency (interest exceeds revenue) governments are assumed to exist continuously and there for it does not need to worry about its debts as it can keep paying off the interest without actually repaying the principal sum.OR where it cease to exist its debt would be the least of its concern.

    3) THE MATH ON THIS STUFF IS HARDER THAN ROCKET SCIENCE. To put it bluntly we can put a man on the moon. We can only make an educated guess as things like the inflation rate.

  13. He 'took' money from a lot of places in the form of speaking fees. Getting paid for your occupation (he's a professional speaker now, as well as an MP - he isn't the only MP with a side business) isn't bribery.

    OK but its a bit more concerning that. Its more than simply getting paid for a side job. Given that he's an MP and that he's getting paid by unions. At the very least its a conflict of interest.

  14. I hear a lot of contentions about how it is Quebec mismanagement of government spending that is the issue, but I don't seen any facts/figures from those posters showing that this is the case.

    I am not saying that it is or isn't an issue, but if you can't make your case with some statistics, then it is just hyperbole.

    I can make the case Quebec government mismanagement without hyberbole or statistics

    The language law is itself an example of government mismanagement. The language law bounds Quebec to French as its language of business. French is of course not the language of today's economy. For any business working within Quebec this is major inconvinence and can discourage non-quebec companies from moving into Quebec. Also as the topic article demonstrates. At time just plain ridiculous.

    Like wise students/workers who receive their education In French are confined to employment in Quebec unless they can speak English and vice versa.

    Pre - 1950s montreal used to be the economic center of Canada. It has since fallen from that height. The language laws certainly did not help with its decline.

  15. It is said that the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    (Insert sarcasm)

    Oh us poor white folks being forced to intermarry those non-white folks. Yes clearly this is genocide. Us white folks living in wealth and plently, marrying exotic and foreign peoples... a crime against humanity!

    But don't you worry dissenter there are plenty of white countries as who'd agree with you why don't you try eastern Europe?

  16. I think you are wrong, it is not "important" to our economy, it is a rape of our economy.

    The government shouldn't be borrowing money. It has borrowed money year after year after year, and that means more and more tax dollars go to pay debt instead of current year sources. What this means is a heavier tax burdeon for fewer services.

    It is downright an injustice to the public to be held under debt when a quarter of a trillion dollars and then some is taken from the public for private interests.

    Even with a incredibly harsh treatment in paying down the debt it would take 10 to 15 years to pay down. Under past government it will never be paid down, and half of GDP will continue going to private interests as more and more tax dollars go to the ultrarich bond holders.

    There is absolutely no benefit in bond issues. NONE. It is a public rape.

    If the government can't pay it needs to downsize, people were taxed to pay down the war debt in WWI, the continuation of income tax to fund private pet projects and pay the ultrarich is an abuse of the general public without just cause.

    Let me ask you this why does the Canadian government need to pay off its debt? If you consider that yield rate are current floating around 1.2% for 1year government bonds. While inflation is targeted annually for 2% you quickly realize, that although nominally the government is losing money. Per inflation theory the government is actually gaining money in the real sense.

    So the "ultrarich" are actually losing real money by investing solely in gov't bonds.

    And its not a question of needing bonds to maintain its service. As I stated the government will be issuing bonds even while its in surplus. The immediate practical use of bonds are that the Guarantee a constant cash flow while tax revenues are being collected. As previously stated Gov't Bond are a necessary tool for investment.

  17. Its not my theory... I never wrote that piece, nor did I masquerade as Paula Broadwell and claim I had knowledge that the CIA Annex there was being used as a prison.

    But it seems pretty clear that the fact that terrorists were involved was NOT what the administration and the CIA were trying to cover up here. The CIA and the administration does not want people to know what it was doing there.

    No but you did reference it to support your argument. And you have still yet to provide either a link to the video or the article you referenced.

    How is it now clear that terrorists involved were not what the CIA was trying to cover up? And is it not the nature of a secret organization to not want people knowing what its doing?

  • Create New...