129,000 jobs lost in January

[eyeball]

The critics of trickle-down top down approaches to economic development have asked why not give the money directly to the people who have had their homes threatened with foreclosure and low to medium income earners who need the money desperately and will not buy new works of art to show off to their friends or pad their Cayman Island bank accounts.

The answer is that supporters of trickle-down top down approaches to economic development insist this is tantamount to immorality. Its born of a self-rightousness that really makes people feel like building guillotine's when its shoved in their faces.

There is a certain truth to the idea that people are ultimately responsible for the economic position they find themselves in and so there's good justification for them insisting big changes start occuring at the top so that the shit and corruption that continually rains down from above can be kept from ever again becoming the flood we've been left to clean up after today.

I kind of look at Katrina and New Orleans as a good analogy of the disaster that's overwhelming our economy. It remains to be seen if the analogy will extend to the aftermath. I think people know damn well who's back any recovery and New Deal especially in the context of more accountability should be built on top of. And of course don't forget the environment, without it there's no point in even talking about a recovery or renewal without it in the picture.

Edited February 9, 2009 by eyeball

[Alta4ever]

I kind of look at Katrina and New Orleans as a good analogy of the disaster that's overwhelming our economy. It remains to be seen if the analogy will extend to the aftermath. I think people know damn well who's back any recovery and New Deal should be built on top of. And of course don't forget the environment, without it there's no point in even talking about a recovery or renewal without it in the picture.

Your damn right people know who's fault it is, government officals like Barney frank who did not allow regulations to come into effect that would have plugged up some of the holes in the American banking system.

[eyeball]

People like...

I have no doubt the sooner we begin naming names and referring to them as being people like, the sooner we'll be using concentration camps to hold the guilty.

The only recourse is to just wire the entire top of the government because it deosn't matter who these people are like.

Its our fault for letting anyone at the top work in close proximity to power and wealth without really deep oversight to protect them from being corrupted, its like forcing people to work around nuclear reactors without proper shielding. Its inhumane and it needs to stop.

Of course we could still chop the head off the top if we like.

Edited February 9, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

....Of course we could still chop the head off the top if we like.

Yes...that would be a very environmentally friendly way to do it.

Not sure how that would help employment in Canada, but what the hell!

[Oleg Bach]

People like...

I have no doubt the sooner we begin naming names and referring to them as being people like, the sooner we'll be using concentration camps to hold the guilty.

The only recourse is to just wire the entire top of the government because it deosn't matter who these people are like.

Its our fault for letting anyone at the top work in close proximity to power and wealth without really deep oversight to protect them from being corrupted, its like forcing people to work around nuclear reactors without proper shielding. Its inhumane and it needs to stop.

Of course we could still chop the head off the top if we like.

No one is smart enough to go for the soft underbelly of the proverbial dragon..the best they can do is chop off the tail..which always grows back - to chop of the head (top) is impossible because the dragons head is invisable...those in control do not enter public life..the best security is to not exist. You can appeal to the head and just maybe change it's thinking..but you will never remove it. The secret is to love them to death - It's an ancient doctrine - Love your enemy ....then a choice occurs - either that enemy will love back or continue to hate - if they choose to hate - that toxic force destroys the hater...and some powerful people hate - and changing that is a very very hard task. First - the most powerful are corrupt and legally so - for them to admit they are wrong gives them a sense of their world and worth crumbling...it's almost anigmatic, But it can be done - the almighty invented and created good and evil - "Young men you are strong for you have mastered evil" - which means you must be mature and recognize that evil does exist and you are to understand it and not fear it - then you will have success in the rebuilding of our nation.

[WIP]

I am failing to see how I am proving your point, it is the medling in the economy that creates the problem, even after FDR took over things seemd to be getting better until he had to scale back his stimulus program which had the only effect was artificially creating work as soon as the government tried to scale back in 38 so the private enterprise would take over ( as they realized that th level of government spending was not sustainable) the whole thing started to crash. It was the war that brought them out. Since then they have let every recession run its course which has had the effect of re-setting the markets renewing the economy and pushing us further.

If there was no reason ever to meddle in the economy, this "government meddling" never would have started in the first place. In the U.S. (I am more familiar with U.S. history on this issue than our own unfortunately), government started meddling in business at the turn of the 20th Century because some successful industrialists were able to create monopolies in oil, railroads and steel through innovation and corrupting the political system to allow them total control of certain industries. Not all of the success of the "robber-barons" came through ill gotten gains. Andrew Carnegie, for one, made his U.S. Steel Company the dominant player largely through superior furnace design that competitors were not able to match cost wise. But Carnegie's patented innovations in steel production gave him the opportunity to take control and set the prices for steel.

When laissez-faire capitalism returned to the U.S. under three successive Republican administrations that ended with Herbert Hoover, they followed that mantra of letting the "invisible hand" of the market operate freely without government restriction.......and the rest is history.

Most of the analysis I've read about Roosevelt's presidency blames the lapse into recession on his pull back from the New Deal. But in the end, when you say that the War brought the country, and the developed world, out of the Depression, you are acknowledging that the largest stimulus package every created was what finally ended the Depression.

[bush_cheney2004]

If there was no reason ever to meddle in the economy, this "government meddling" never would have started in the first place. In the U.S. (I am more familiar with U.S. history on this issue than our own unfortunately).....

No surprise here.....by definition, government's existence is meddling in the economy. Stay tuned for the next chapter in "U.s. history".

Most of the analysis I've read about Roosevelt's presidency blames the lapse into recession on his pull back from the New Deal. But in the end, when you say that the War brought the country, and the developed world, out of the Depression, you are acknowledging that the largest stimulus package every created was what finally ended the Depression.

New Deal alphabet soup programs only replaced about 20% of the nearly 25% loss in US GDP during the Great Depression.

[msj]

Since it has been brought up here is some info for those interested:

The Great Depression - Just the Facts, Ma'am

[bush_cheney2004]

Since it has been brought up here is some info for those interested:

The Great Depression - Just the Facts, Ma'am

Very interesting....but no mention of Canada.

[punked]

Since it has been brought up here is some info for those interested:

The Great Depression - Just the Facts, Ma'am

I wonder what happened in 1937 to caused that second slump? Ohhhh yah republicans go their way spending decreased and stimulus stopped.

[Brunopolis]

Canada doesn't need special ''Buy Canadian'' regulations. Canada simply needs fair ones. Any nation that unfairly subsidizes their industry against ours or treats their workers significantly worse than ours needs to be slapped with heavy tariffs.

I have no problem with buying a foreign product over a Canadian one that comes from a company that treats their workers well. I do have a problem with buying such a product from company that abuses their workers. I wish in Canada we had some sort of coherent policy rather than everything on a ''Who complains the hardest'' basis.

[WIP]

And of course don't forget the environment, without it there's no point in even talking about a recovery or renewal without it in the picture.

Judging from the news cycle of late, I think the environment has been almost totally forgotten and sidelined as an issue even though, in the long term, climate change and increasing rates of animal and plant species extinctions are going to seriously degrade the quality of life and add to our economic problems. The increase of extreme weather events certainly has an economic impact on areas affected:

Climate Change and Severe Weather

Weather-related disasters in CanadaSource: Canadian Meteorological Service

Australia's fires, the world's firesScientists say climate change is bringing more intense fires. The watchword? Preparedness.

Water-another global "crisis?"

Speaking of the long term -- do very many people feel any concern regarding whether the human race will survive the next 100 or 200 years? Present trends show us charging full speed into a catastrophe, with unchecked population growth, and the accompanying environmental degradation. Right now, half the world's population eeks out an existence on less than $1.00 a day! But, if the advocates for free trade and globalization are correct that prosperity will reach the Third World this way, we would need four Earths to sustain a U.S. standard of living for everybody on planet Earth.. Much of the increase in environmental problems of late are due to large parts of India and China trying to achieve Western levels of prosperity......so the issue of population growth, that has been effectively suppressed for the last 30 years, remains the giant underwater iceberg that has to be dealt with, before there can be an effective solution to global environmental and economic problems. If cars are made twice as fuel-efficient, the benefits for the environment are neutralized if the number of cars on the roads is doubled.

[WIP]

No surprise here.....by definition, government's existence is meddling in the economy.

And the majority of people prefer it to the neverending boom and bust cycles that occur when there is no government oversight.

[WIP]

Your damn right people know who's fault it is, government officals like Barney frank who did not allow regulations to come into effect that would have plugged up some of the holes in the American banking system.

You're listening to too much rightwing propaganda from Foxnews and talkradio! The unfolding economic disaster shows roots that run much deeper than FannieMae and FreddieMac. Right now we are being told that there are trillions of dollars in credit derivatives floating around in a totally unregulated market. It was the fear of an impending collapse of derivatives such as credit default swaps, that lit the fire under the U.S. Treasury Dept. to try to save FannieMae, A.I.G. Insurance and Goldman Sachs. Barney Frank is a rube who doesn't sound like he had any understanding that the U.S. housing market was already an overinflated bubble that was about to burst, and never should have been in charge of a congressional oversight panel.

But who set up this system of allowing derivatives to be free of regulation? You need look no further than Alan Greenspan, if you're looking for the chief architect of this disaster.

[Alta4ever]

I wonder what happened in 1937 to caused that second slump? Ohhhh yah republicans go their way spending decreased and stimulus stopped.

You don't seem to get that a government can't spend itself into prosperity eventually you run out of borrowing room.

[punked]

You don't seem to get that a government can't spend itself into prosperity eventually you run out of borrowing room.

Funny it worked in the 30's did they "run out of borrowing room"?

[M.Dancer]

Funny it worked in the 30's did they "run out of borrowing room"?

No it didn't and yes they did run out of room....if it wasn't for the Lebensraum we wouldn't have been able to pull ourselves up by our combat bootstraps.

[Alta4ever]

Funny it worked in the 30's did they "run out of borrowing room"?

Why do you think they scaled back in 37? You can't forever leverage against future taxbase. Britian over extending itself shows the same thing.

If you don't beleive me look at the state of things during the rein of the USSR, but then again you probably like the idea of bread lines and political party patronage, you are a liberal.

[punked]

Why do you think they scaled back in 37? You can't forever leverage against future taxbase. Britian over extending itself shows the same thing.

If you don't beleive me look at the state of things during the rein of the USSR, but then again you probably like the idea of bread lines and political party patronage, you are a liberal.

Seems to me after the slump of 1937 they ramped up spending even more when they went back into recession. I don't like the idea of bread lines or 25% unemployment you however seem too.

[Alta4ever]

Seems to me after the slump of 1937 they ramped up spending even more when they went back into recession. I don't like the idea of bread lines or 25% unemployment you however seem too.

Do you need something more recent to see how rampant government spending saves nothing, have a look at Zimbabee, or as it was call rhodesia. Printing money to pay bills because of the excess government spending and nationalisation of industry, or as you call it stimulus.

[eyeball]

Speaking of the long term -- do very many people feel any concern regarding whether the human race will survive the next 100 or 200 years?

I really have my doubts about the population growing beyond another billion at most. Notwithstanding the possibility that Earth, according to modern agriculturists, could comfortably feed everyone many humans are still far to reliant on wild food sources and natural water sources. I can see a fairly massive dieback occuring when Earth's biosphere goes through an ecological bottleneck. I still think humans will be around for a while yet however. We're the ultimate weedy species and we can survive in virtually every ecosystem in the world. Given the conditions likely to follow the bottleneck I imagine it'll be a fairly bleak and meager existance compared to what we're used to but I suppose it'll still be better than the alternative.

I'm more worried about the effect on human societies the bottleneck will have as civil society gives way to dog eat dog. As water-holes get smaller the animals that depend on them get meaner. In North America I'm afraid of a deepening polarization of the right and left and a war over which caused the problems of the world and who should lead it to...the promised land of prosperity . Religion will definitely exacerbate this and make things even worse.

[bush_cheney2004]

Speaking of the long term -- do very many people feel any concern regarding whether the human race will survive the next 100 or 200 years? .....

Nope...but such Chicken Little sentiments gave us a great one hit wonder back in 1969:

In the year 2525....

Either way...it has been a good run....whoa...whoa.

Edited February 11, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

Do you need something more recent to see how rampant government spending saves nothing, have a look at Zimbabee, or as it was call rhodesia. Printing money to pay bills because of the excess government spending and nationalisation of industry, or as you call it stimulus.

Using Zimbabwe as an example is useless since so many factors there resulted in the downfall of the once glorious breadbasket of Africa.

[Moonbox]

Yeah Zimbabwe is about as useless a reference you could make. That's like comparing Canada's economy to Iceland's.

[WIP]

I really have my doubts about the population growing beyond another billion at most. Notwithstanding the possibility that Earth, according to modern agriculturists, could comfortably feed everyone many humans are still far to reliant on wild food sources and natural water sources. I can see a fairly massive dieback occuring when Earth's biosphere goes through an ecological bottleneck.

We are almost certainly in that ecological bottleneck right now, judging from the alarming increase in plant and animal extinctions. The worst environmental news has hardly been noticed by the general public so far: honey bees are one of the species that have crashed in recent years. Without bees, we have no agriculture! Most of the plants we depend on for food are pollinated by bees. Just loosing this one link in the chain is a disaster.

I still think humans will be around for a while yet however. We're the ultimate weedy species and we can survive in virtually every ecosystem in the world. Given the conditions likely to follow the bottleneck I imagine it'll be a fairly bleak and meager existance compared to what we're used to but I suppose it'll still be better than the alternative.

Where would you get the idea we are a durable species? The only reason we have survived this long has been our ability to engineer our living environments to suit our needs and desires. But, in doing this we started destroying natural habitats as soon as agriculture was invented and human populations topped 250 million. Since the Age of Industrialization, we have been living on borrowed time, as population growth, pollution and destruction of ecosystems make their effects known to us by ruining our quality of life.

The problem most people have in coming to the realization that we are in the midst of a mass extinction right now is that these events move very slowly, and our timeframes are only able to look back a few decades at most, when we determine what we consider to be a normal environment.

This research paper about species extinctions points out that most extinction periods take thousands of years before their effects are fully realized. For example, a geologist or paleontologist digging through rocks that are about 250 million years old, notices a sharp boundary in the layers of rock, where virtually all plant and animal species seem to be abruptly replaced.

This extinction that occurred at the end of the Permian Era is commonly known as the Great Die Off, and is considered the greatest and most devastating extinction event in planetary history. Yet, the Great Die Off, which poisoned the entire world's oceans and turned them into a dead, toxic swamp, likely took almost one million years before it came to an end, and normal life resumed with the beginning of the first Age of Reptiles -- The Triassic.

If humans are alive when CO2 levels double or quadruple what they are today, the ocean current conveyor system starts to shut down and we have a return of anoxic, poisoned oceans, any humans still alive will look at the smelly green ocean water and consider it as normal as the greenish coloured sky he or she sees when looking up. Personally, I am skeptical about whether the human race will survive such a catastrophe if it cannot be stopped.

I'm more worried about the effect on human societies the bottleneck will have as civil society gives way to dog eat dog. As water-holes get smaller the animals that depend on them get meaner. In North America I'm afraid of a deepening polarization of the right and left and a war over which caused the problems of the world and who should lead it to...the promised land of prosperity . Religion will definitely exacerbate this and make things even worse.

This is the great unknown factor right now when dealing with climate change issues. If mass famine breaks out in Africa or Asia, do we expect that they will remain in their areas and slowly starve to death? Past history reveals that many major mass migrations and barbarian invasions have been started by a sudden change in climate in the home country. Both the westward invasions of the Huns, and later the Mongols, can be correlated with locusts swarms and loss of agriculture in Central Asia.