A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

Peter F · March 27, 2008

Poverty and scarcity seem to be a signal to propagate in order to attempt to preserve the species through sheer numbers.

or through sheer boredom, more like.l

August1991 · March 27, 2008

There is no such thing as an "open" market. Our markets are propped up by socialist New Deal policies cooked up during the social democracy movement of the 1930s. Just in the last few weeks we have seen the degree that so-called "capitalism" would fall apart if not for government intervention and control.

The US Fed intervened, not the US federal government.

The Fed is a curious institution. Like the Supreme Court, it is fortunately now independent of the rest of government yet it's still part of the State. When the the role of a US central bank was in private hands (prior to 1913), the experience was arguably better. The Fed's gross incompetence in response to the Stock Market crash of 1929 led to large government interference in people's private affairs in the 1930s - what you call a "social democracy movement".

IOW, government incompetence led to more government activism. That's a common refrain in history until eventually the State stifles everything.

Edited March 27, 2008 by August1991

White Doors · March 27, 2008

Yes someone is paying me for my labour (such as it is). Thier wealth is being transferred out of thier bank account and into mine.
I am not calling that thievery. I am calling that Capitalism. The guy givning me his money considers that a fair exchange for my labour and my labour is part of my wealth.

He gets some of my wealth and I get some of his. He hopes to be able to get more wealth from the product of my labour from a third party who will hopefully transfer more wealth to him than he transferred out to have the product produced.

Again...no wealth has been created - only transferred. So give up the fallacy that you're a boon to society because you 'create' wealth. No doubt you are a boon to society, but you don't create wealth.

So you disagree with the whole concept of GDP and how most countries have increasing GDP's?

Your argument is silly. A grade 3 person could see the holes in your argument.

White Doors · March 27, 2008

That is correct. Ford's wealth was entirely derived from what people would give him for his automobiles.
But he had to sell his cars - otherwise there would be no wealth coming to him - despite the invention of the assembly line.

Ford's assembly line allowed Ford to produce vehicles affordable by the masses. And those masses transferred lots of wealth to him in exchange for his cars. Again - no wealth created, only transferred.

Otherwise Ford wouldn't have bothered selling anything but have watched his wealth accumulate from his magical wealth generating machine. I think thats called 'Alchemy'

WOW. So where did all this wealth come from then?

How did the middle class ever come to exist??

I mean, 300 years ago 99% of the populace of England were dirt poor. How did they emancipate themselves?

Does ideaology trump logic in your world too?

BubberMiley · March 27, 2008

IOW, government incompetence led to more government activism. That's a common refrain in history until eventually the State stifles everything.

I would say the failure of an unregulated market system led to 1929, which led to government activism. That intervention has prevented similar crashes from happening again, including last week.

August1991 · March 27, 2008

I would say the failure of an unregulated market system led to 1929, which led to government activism. That intervention has prevented similar crashes from happening again, including last week.

What government intervention are you referring to? It is one thing for a central bank to intervene in a financial market and quite another for a government to tax the bejeebers out of honest people and then hand over the cash to a long line of moochers.

The financial markets are prone to speculative bubbles. There's nothing new there. The question is whether such bubbles matter that much and whether a central bank can or should correct them. One thing that is certain is that the central bank can make things a whole lot worse as it did in 1930.

Like fire, government is a useful servant but a terrifying master.

Renegade · March 27, 2008

What was useless? The farmers labour? The crop he planted?

The earth, rain, sun and seed were useless as nourishment unitl the farmer, together with his labour made them valuable? Wouldn't you agree that something of value equates to wealth?

He got out of it what he put into it.

Exactly! In other words he translated his labour into wealth. Don't you consider that creation of wealth?

and I would certainly try to convince them of it. The value of my information is worth 50 bucks - please pay here. A simple transfer of wealth. Perhaps they can use the alleged newfound knowledge to get somebody to transfer some wealth to them. Maybe-maybe not. But nothing has been created.

Not true at all. 10 people having a peice of useful knowledge is more valuable than 1 person with that same knowledge.

If wealth exists it has always existed - The game has been accumulating that wealth.

You seem to be confusing wealth with matter. Matter has always existed. Wealth does not exist until that matter is of value to someone. If no-one exist to value something then no wealth exist, as well if something exist but is not of value, it is not wealth.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2008

One of the major reason the 29 collapse happened was the buying of equities on margin...or if you will, speculative buying where the money to purchase is loaned to you. Back then there weren't too many safeguards on how much you could buy on margin, and when the stocks dip below what you paid for them, there is a margin call when you have to pay the difference.

Not sure if it was the gov't who changed the rules or the financial houses who in the end took the biggest hit in the loss..

Sean Hayward · March 27, 2008

Everyone thinks they represent the workers. As a Conservative, I think I represent the workers because economically conservative policies allow those who work to keep more of the product of their labour. Socialists pursue the same goal, but through more government intervention, not less. The businessman is a worker just as much as the miner or fisherman.

Pliny · March 27, 2008

Ok. So I create more wealth (in my own subjective opinion) than anyone else on the block. In more than Walmart itself.
So discussions about who creates wealth and who doesn't are useless since wealth is indefinable except as judged by ones own personal experience.

The term 'creating wealth' is nebulous and economically meaningless .

I can live with that interpretation.

Let's say, the farmer minding his own business, "transfers" some wealth out of the ground and builds himself a barn and a house from the trees on his land. He has only transferred wealth out of the land - Right? Since it is impossible to create wealth - a nebulous and economically meaningless term. This explains why $25 worth of paint and canvas can turn into a multi-million dollar Mona Lisa - rather meaningless economically unless one considers the subjective valuation. But hey - if I take $25 worth of materials arrange it in a certain manner and someone will transfer their multi-million dollars to me but I refuse to part with it and instead keep my Mona Lisa nothing has transferred but now instead of $25 of materials I have a multi-million dollar painting. I would think I have created some wealth there. Unless I can transfer it though, it may as well be $25 or 2 cents.

Let's say the farmer's neighbour, with roughly the same resources digs a hole in the ground, but doesn't transfer any wealth out of the land because all he wants is a hole in the ground to sleep in. Do you, as a third person, see him as poor and the first farmer as rich?

Should someone come along now and, seeing what he sees, transfer some wealth from the first farmer to the second farmer? After all it is only the third parties view of the living conditions of both in comparison to each other and his own valuation that he can determine who is wealthy and who is not.

Is the Mona Lisa only 2 cents or a million dollars? If it is a million dollars and someone transfers that to me do I now have to have someone take 50% of that to transfer around. What if I transferred it for 2 cents. There is certainly no wealth to transfer around there. I would have lost $24.98 in wealth.

Wealth then, like energy, can neither be created nor destroyed - except in the minds of men.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2008

Everyone thinks they represent the workers. As a Conservative, I think I represent the workers because economically conservative policies allow those who work to keep more of the product of their labour. Socialists pursue the same goal, but through more government intervention, not less. The businessman is a worker just as much as the miner or fisherman.

The NDP can certainly claim to represent workers...or as Layton likes to say, working families....but given so few actually vote for him indictae that most workers, or working families don't want the NDP to represent them.

And given so few NDPers have actually had private sector working experiance, who could balme them for looking elsewhere?

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

Any government that supports a "war on drugs" is hopelessly authoritarian. To hear conservatives supporting a war on plants is evidence that they do not even understand the concept of a free market.

We do not need the government to be our "parents". Laws against drug use are totally useless, and do not lower consumption, if anything they increase problem drug use. If our kids are willing to disobey us and use substances that may be dangerous to them what makes any of you conservatives beieve that they will obey some politician from far far away? If they think they can get away with using substance "X" and not get caught by their parents, do you really think they will fear being caught by some other authoritarian figurehead? All that a war on drugs does is create harm where there was none, or increase the harm that is already there. Spending time in a prison with real criminals and having a stigmatizing criminal record will cause much more harm to a young person than experimentation with drugs, especially if that drug happens to be cannabis.

There is nothing ridiculous at all about considering Harper and his Conservatives an authoritarian government. Canada has never had a more paternalistic authoritarian government in its history. Its time to get rid of the authoritarians or at least stop kidding ourselves and thinking of Canada as a FREE country. It is not freedom when you aren't even allowed to decide for yourself what you will consume, what you do with your own body.

I refuse to be owned, I will not be Harper's slave, I will be free and choose for myself what I ingest. Harper and his stormtroopers can go to hell.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2008

Yet 2005 saw the lowest number of weed arrests in 6 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/st...n=8342888823816

Drea · March 27, 2008

Yet 2005 saw the lowest number of weed arrests in 6 years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/st...n=8342888823816

Yet Harper wasn't leader then.

Only in since Feb 2006...so your point is that under the Liberals 2005 saw the least number of weed arrests. Thank you.

White Doors · March 27, 2008

Any government that supports a "war on drugs" is hopelessly authoritarian. To hear conservatives supporting a war on plants is evidence that they do not even understand the concept of a free market.
We do not need the government to be our "parents". Laws against drug use are totally useless, and do not lower consumption, if anything they increase problem drug use. If our kids are willing to disobey us and use substances that may be dangerous to them what makes any of you conservatives beieve that they will obey some politician from far far away? If they think they can get away with using substance "X" and not get caught by their parents, do you really think they will fear being caught by some other authoritarian figurehead? All that a war on drugs does is create harm where there was none, or increase the harm that is already there. Spending time in a prison with real criminals and having a stigmatizing criminal record will cause much more harm to a young person than experimentation with drugs, especially if that drug happens to be cannabis.

There is nothing ridiculous at all about considering Harper and his Conservatives an authoritarian government. Canada has never had a more paternalistic authoritarian government in its history. Its time to get rid of the authoritarians or at least stop kidding ourselves and thinking of Canada as a FREE country. It is not freedom when you aren't even allowed to decide for yourself what you will consume, what you do with your own body.

I refuse to be owned, I will not be Harper's slave, I will be free and choose for myself what I ingest. Harper and his stormtroopers can go to hell.

You must lead a charmed existence if Cannibis use is this important to you.

You can thank your lucky stars you don't have something more real and tragic occupying your time.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2008

Yet Harper wasn't leader then.
Only in since Feb 2006...so your point is that under the Liberals 2005 saw the least number of weed arrests. Thank you.

we also saw under Liberals the highest...in 2005...

Anyone have reliable numbers for 2006-2008

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

Any government that supports a "war on drugs" is hopelessly authoritarian. To hear conservatives supporting a war on plants is evidence that they do not even understand the concept of a free market.
We do not need the government to be our "parents". Laws against drug use are totally useless, and do not lower consumption, if anything they increase problem drug use. If our kids are willing to disobey us and use substances that may be dangerous to them what makes any of you conservatives beieve that they will obey some politician from far far away? If they think they can get away with using substance "X" and not get caught by their parents, do you really think they will fear being caught by some other authoritarian figurehead? All that a war on drugs does is create harm where there was none, or increase the harm that is already there. Spending time in a prison with real criminals and having a stigmatizing criminal record will cause much more harm to a young person than experimentation with drugs, especially if that drug happens to be cannabis.

There is nothing ridiculous at all about considering Harper and his Conservatives an authoritarian government. Canada has never had a more paternalistic authoritarian government in its history. Its time to get rid of the authoritarians or at least stop kidding ourselves and thinking of Canada as a FREE country. It is not freedom when you aren't even allowed to decide for yourself what you will consume, what you do with your own body.

I refuse to be owned, I will not be Harper's slave, I will be free and choose for myself what I ingest. Harper and his stormtroopers can go to hell.

Fine if you see it that way ingest what ever you want, but if we go that way, then the tax payer should not have to foot the bill for your health care, you shaould be required to find your own health insurance and pay the extra amounts for the added risk to the system.

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

Fine if you see it that way ingest what ever you want, but if we go that way, then the tax payer should not have to foot the bill for your health care, you shaould be required to find your own health insurance and pay the extra amounts for the added risk to the system.

based on scientifically proven risks, maybe but I guess all risks must be scaled and treated accordingly, and do we also diallow other risky activities to health the same way? Should obese people have to pay for their own heart surgeries? Their diabetes treatments? Do we refuse treatment for bones broken while playing contact sports? You broke your wrist playing hockey? That'll be 10,000 dollars. You chose to engage in risky behavior, so you must pay the price. We can easily afford everyone's healthcare needs in this country when we stop wasting billions on the drug war industry.

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

based on scientifically proven risks, maybe but I guess all risks must be scaled and treated accordingly, and do we also diallow other risky activities to health the same way? Should obese people have to pay for their own heart surgeries? Their diabetes treatments? Do we refuse treatment for bones broken while playing contact sports? You broke your wrist playing hockey? That'll be 10,000 dollars. You chose to engage in risky behavior, so you must pay the price. We can easily afford everyone's healthcare needs in this country when we stop wasting billions on the drug war industry.

How about it be based on true risk assement and insurance premiums have a base component that is underwritten on lifestyle choices. Keep in mind that insurance companies can be forced by legisaltion to insure all comers. I doubt that the paltry sum that is spend on the war on drugs would make a lick of difference for healthcare needs. When we look at just Albertas health care needs the health budget is expected to eclipse the entire Alberta budget in ten years. The couple of hundreds of millions set aside for combating drugs across Canada would never make a dent.

Peter F · March 27, 2008

The earth, rain, sun and seed were useless as nourishment unitl the farmer, together with his labour made them valuable? Wouldn't you agree that something of value equates to wealth?
Exactly! In other words he translated his labour into wealth. Don't you consider that creation of wealth?

Not true at all. 10 people having a peice of useful knowledge is more valuable than 1 person with that same knowledge.

You seem to be confusing wealth with matter. Matter has always existed. Wealth does not exist until that matter is of value to someone. If no-one exist to value something then no wealth exist, as well if something exist but is not of value, it is not wealth.

Ok, I see the point. If I collect a bunch of stuff together - stuff of no value to anyone else - and I labour to create from that stuff something of value to others then I have created wealth...unless, of course, i refuse to sell it to anyone or no one is interested in buying.

I could labour long and hard creating crap that no one wants to buy or I could labour long and hard creating crap peaple are willing to pay for. If no one wants to give me thier wealth for the product then I have created wealth nontheless?

How much wealth I create is entirely dependant upon how much wealth people are willing to transfer to me. If wealth is created - it is only created in the mind of the buyer; No buying - no wealth. Thus advertising.

Everything is still determined by the willingness of folks to transfer thier wealth to someone else.

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

Ok, I see the point. If I collect a bunch of stuff together - stuff of no value to anyone else - and I labour to create from that stuff something of value to others then I have created wealth...unless, of course, i refuse to sell it to anyone or no one is interested in buying.
I could labour long and hard creating crap that no one wants to buy or I could labour long and hard creating crap peaple are willing to pay for. If no one wants to give me thier wealth for the product then I have created wealth nontheless?

How much wealth I create is entirely dependant upon how much wealth people are willing to transfer to me. If wealth is created - it is only created in the mind of the buyer; No buying - no wealth. Thus advertising.

Everything is still determined by the willingness of folks to transfer thier wealth to someone else.

Its not transfer it is trade. Transfer implies giving something for nothing in return.

White Doors · March 27, 2008

Its not transfer it is trade. Transfer implies giving something for nothing in return.

He's so far down the rathole now he can't even remember what his point was.

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

How about it be based on true risk assement and insurance premiums have a base component that is underwritten on lifestyle choices. Keep in mind that insurance companies can be forced by legisaltion to insure all comers. I doubt that the paltry sum that is spend on the war on drugs would make a lick of difference for healthcare needs. When we look at just Albertas health care needs the health budget is expected to eclipse the entire Alberta budget in ten years. The couple of hundreds of millions set aside for combating drugs across Canada would never make a dent.

couple of hundreds of millions? If you think it is that little you have your head buried in the tarsands. I bet that doesn't even cover the street level enforcement cost in terms of just wages for cops. Never mind the helicopters with flir, and the wages of the people flying them. Add to that the wages we are paying to lawyers, judges and prison guards and you begin to get the picture. Not to mention the lost billions in taxes collected on the sales. dare instructors, court appointed "councillors", all lining up at the great drugwar tit. If they based the regulations on actual risk they might be able to claim some moral high ground but the laws as they are are nothing more than a protection game for the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and chemical companies. Companies whose products pose greater risk to the population than any of the natural plant based medicines that the laws prohibit.

White Doors · March 27, 2008

natural plant based medicines

Like heroin?

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

couple of hundreds of millions? If you think it is that little you have your head buried in the tarsands. I bet that doesn't even cover the street level enforcement cost in terms of just wages for cops. Never mind the helicopters with flir, and the wages of the people flying them. Add to that the wages we are paying to lawyers, judges and prison guards and you begin to get the picture. Not to mention the lost billions in taxes collected on the sales. dare instructors, court appointed "councillors", all lining up at the great drugwar tit. If they based the regulations on actual risk they might be able to claim some moral high ground but the laws as they are are nothing more than a protection game for the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and chemical companies. Companies whose products pose greater risk to the population than any of the natural plant based medicines that the laws prohibit.

All of those costs are policing costs not war on drugs costs, as those items would still be required by policy forces. Lawyers, judges and prison guards, what percentage of there time is spend on drug offences? MOst of the time users get to serve there time in the comfort of their own homes. I would be will to bet that the government spends less the 1 billion a year directly on drug prevention. Plant based medicines can be just as dangerous as those produce by pharm comanies. Just because it is plant based doesn't mean it isn't dangerous, ie morphine, made from poppy seed, a very dangerous drug.

A just so you know THC is a mild form of LSD and prolonged use can have a detrimental impact on your memory.