Ignatieff calls bilingualism the essence of Canada

[Argus]

And this is all a valid reason to abandon the learning of any North American history before Europeans came?

What learning? The stories of wars and battles? We get more than enough of those from European history, and none are of much importance now. The collective philosophical brilliance of ancient aborigines? They were illiterate so even if there were such philosophers it's unlikely much was passed down.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Putting in place a universal equalization formula will require discovering a transition from competition to cooperation or, in other words, from negotiation to deliberation or from tactical maneuverings to rational deliberations. This can only be achieved, I think, after a period of agonizing exchanges like the one we have seen, inside the United Nations just before the start of the US invasion of Iraq, between France (Dominique de Villepin) and the USA ambassadors.

http://www.un.int/france/documents_francai...france_irak.htm

You have to be kidding, a world wide equalization program!

I have a great big problem with the one we already have and you think that folks from around the world would agree to do this?

[Machjo]

Putting in place a universal equalization formula will require discovering a transition from competition to cooperation or, in other words, from negotiation to deliberation or from tactical maneuverings to rational deliberations. This can only be achieved, I think, after a period of agonizing exchanges like the one we have seen, inside the United Nations just before the start of the US invasion of Iraq, between France (Dominique de Villepin) and the USA ambassadors.

http://www.un.int/france/documents_francai...france_irak.htm

I think too though that even more importantly, it cannot be limited to the diplomatic level, but must extend itself to the grassroots too; and education reform would likely be the key to that.

[benny]

You have to be kidding, a world wide equalization program!

I have a great big problem with the one we already have and you think that folks from around the world would agree to do this?

Folks around the World would benefit; they live with less than a dollar/day.

[Argus]

Folks around the World would benefit; they live with less than a dollar/day.

I'm sure folks around the world would benefit.

Just not us.

[benny]

I'm sure folks around the world would benefit.

Just not us.

To the benefit of all, folks around the world would become productive.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

To the benefit of all, folks around the world would become productive.

Equalization is wrong enough here, let alone everywhere else.

Lets think about this for a second. We are already losing massive amounts of employment to third world nations due to the vast differences in living standards. Now should we actually implement such a foolish plan I will suggest that to level the playing field we would be required to lower our standards because there is no way possible to raise everyone else's to our level without virtually destroying our economies to do it.

[noahbody]

Putting in place a universal equalization formula will require discovering a transition from competition to cooperation or, in other words, from negotiation to deliberation or from tactical maneuverings to rational deliberations.

That's a very Liberal idea. It reminds me of kyoto, the gun registry and the green shift. A grand idea, that makes little or no sense.

[benny]

Equalization is wrong enough here, let alone everywhere else.

Lets think about this for a second. We are already losing massive amounts of employment to third world nations due to the vast differences in living standards. Now should we actually implement such a foolish plan I will suggest that to level the playing field we would be required to lower our standards because there is no way possible to raise everyone else's to our level without virtually destroying our economies to do it.

My French perspective allows me to correct you. Very small monetary transfers to developing nation populations would allows them to reject substandard jobs.

[Machjo]

Better than equalization would be freer trade to give them a chance to develop their economies on a more equal footing with us.

Equalization could be achieved through either tax cuts or making more taxes charity deductible so that we can give more to international NGO's of our choice. It's only common sense that we could give more if our taxes were either reduced or at least made charity deductible.

[Argus]

To the benefit of all, folks around the world would become productive.

Yes, giving people money for nothing generally makes them more productive.

And heavily taxing workers in order to give their money away to foreigners - that always leads to higher productivity too.

[benny]

Better than equalization would be freer trade to give them a chance to develop their economies on a more equal footing with us.

Equalization could be achieved through either tax cuts or making more taxes charity deductible so that we can give more to international NGO's of our choice. It's only common sense that we could give more if our taxes were either reduced or at least made charity deductible.

Equalization brings freer trade when achieved by transferring the means to subsidize exports away from direct producers and towards the populations without access to the resources.

Edited June 5, 2009 by benny

[benny]

Yes, giving people money for nothing generally makes them more productive.

And heavily taxing workers in order to give their money away to foreigners - that always leads to higher productivity too.

Yes because they are now exhausted.

[tango]

I agree that there is such a thing as excesive freedom. However, I elieve that at the moment we have too many rights and not enough freedom and responsibilities.

So what rights do you want to give up?

[benny]

Like the US and France, the ROC and Quebec don't speak the same language when it comes to the right to subsidize agricultural productions.

[Machjo]

Equalization brings freer trade when achieved by transferring the means to subsidize exports away from direct producers and towards the populations without access to the resources.

We coudl argue the other way around too. If I give you money but refuse to give ayou a chance to work, I'm then enslaving you. Giving you an opportunity to work must go hand in hand with help. This is where free trade comes in. If we have high tariffs against a country, how can we honestly expect it to develop no matter how much 'equalization' we give it.?

[Machjo]

Yes, giving people money for nothing generally makes them more productive.

And heavily taxing workers in order to give their money away to foreigners - that always leads to higher productivity too.

I agree with what you say. I would clarify though that we all have a duty to help as many as possible to go to school to learn to read and write and learn a trade or profession at a minimum, and to support free trade with them. This does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with taxation. I give of my after-tax income to charities, and would give even more of it if my taxes could be reduced. I'm sure many others feel equally frustrated by taxes that prevent them from giving evn more than they do already to charitable causes while their money's spent on petty political pet projects.

[Machjo]

I'm sure folks around the world would benefit.

Just not us.

When I give money to an organization to help the less fortunate, I benefit too. Mabe not materially, but spiritually in my knowledge that I am helping another. Though I do agree this should come from charity, not imposed taxes beyond what is absolutely required.

[Machjo]

Equalization is wrong enough here, let alone everywhere else.

Lets think about this for a second. We are already losing massive amounts of employment to third world nations due to the vast differences in living standards. Now should we actually implement such a foolish plan I will suggest that to level the playing field we would be required to lower our standards because there is no way possible to raise everyone else's to our level without virtually destroying our economies to do it.

Actually, helping developing countries could help with employment. As long as our country is wealthier than others, our products will continue to be too expensive, thus pushing us towards long-term economic stagnation. Helping other countries develop would help put them on a par with us, thus putting prices and salaries at par too, and putting an end to the stagnant economies developed countries have been experiencing in the last decades. Japan is suffering from China, so is Korea. The US is suffering from Mexico, and Western Europe is suffering from Eastern Europe. The sooner we can reach par, the sooner we can grow together.

This does not mean we need to give them money necessarily, though that too would help to devalue our currency relative to theirs, helping to speed up equilibrium. But even without that, free trade alone would naturally advantage the poorer country owing to its willingness to work at lower profit.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You people have to wake up! There are enough problems here in this nation to deal with before we can even dream of helping others to the degree we are speaking of. When we can clean up our act, then I will suggest that we can reward ourselves by helping others just not before.

Handing money over in the form of foreign aid is not real bright. In a lot of nations that money will just disappear into corrupt hands. If you really want to do some good then why not send excess domestic food production overseas. Even that requires a little thought. I mean look at the "big picture" for a minute, where are the flour mills in Canada? Lets just say that there are none in Saskatchewan or Alberta, where the damned wheat is grown. So before we start wanting to help others lets figure out how to help ourselves get there in the most equitable manner first.

[Machjo]

You people have to wake up! There are enough problems here in this nation to deal with before we can even dream of helping others to the degree we are speaking of. When we can clean up our act, then I will suggest that we can reward ourselves by helping others just not before.

Handing money over in the form of foreign aid is not real bright. In a lot of nations that money will just disappear into corrupt hands. If you really want to do some good then why not send excess domestic food production overseas. Even that requires a little thought. I mean look at the "big picture" for a minute, where are the flour mills in Canada? Lets just say that there are none in Saskatchewan or Alberta, where the damned wheat is grown. So before we start wanting to help others lets figure out how to help ourselves get there in the most equitable manner first.

I think free trade is a good way to help them.

As for duping food on them, could that not hurt their agricultural industry by killing demand for their products? After all, why pay for domestically grown food when you can get free foreign food? I remember reading of one case where local farmers had taken to the streets in protest against the foreing food being dumped on their country by foreign countries. I'm not saying don't help, but rather that we need to be sure that our help really is help and not just a well-intentioned nuisance that destroys their local agricultural industry by dumping our own food on them.

Again, I'm not saying don't do it, but jsut that we must think things through before acting.

[Machjo]

Free trade can be a way of developing third world economies sustainabley by developing their insdustry, something aid alone cannot do so efficiently.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Free trade is a delusion. Look at our own agreement with the USA. Trade is only "free" for business, not individuals. So as long as your idea is to wholeheartedly support business and corporate profits, then sure NAFTA is for you. On the other hand, remember soft wood! That is only the tip of the iceberg, and you must already know this. We have marketing boards in this nation that are all about protectionism and restraint of free trade, again not against the corporate efforts but against individual efforts. Out here in the west we literally prosecuted farmers for selling their grain to the USA instead of through the CWB. "Free" is a very relative term.

Look, I did not advocate "dumping" free food on the third world, what I did advocate was providing real aid for the needy by delivering food that did not require any processing, to avoid any middlemen, to a population that needed food. I also stated that we should provide this through utilizing"excess" production.

To return to free trade, the entire concept is geared toward removing any ability of a nation to protect the interests of their own free enterprise in favour of that of another nation. The public line is that it provides cheaper goods to citizens by utilizing the lower production costs of another nation to deliver products. The reality is that in so doing you disposing of manufacturing jobs in your own nation. This entire concept began with the rise of multinational corporations shifting production to nations where labour costs are lower and regulations relevant to that particular industry allow for higher profits. So the products are in fact cheaper when imported, but you are losing good paying jobs and dissolving secondary industry in the effort. This hits across the board with lowered government revenues streams from the reduced tax base and increased government expenditures based on the demand for public programs and services that citizens can no longer afford due their own reduced incomes. Lets not forget the investors in companies that are getting the hell kicked out of them by the loss of profits in our own industry, GM ring a bell?

[Machjo]

Free trade is a delusion. Look at our own agreement with the USA. Trade is only "free" for business, not individuals. So as long as your idea is to wholeheartedly support business and corporate profits, then sure NAFTA is for you. On the other hand, remember soft wood! That is only the tip of the iceberg, and you must already know this. We have marketing boards in this nation that are all about protectionism and restraint of free trade, again not against the corporate efforts but against individual efforts. Out here in the west we literally prosecuted farmers for selling their grain to the USA instead of through the CWB. "Free" is a very relative term.

Look, I did not advocate "dumping" free food on the third world, what I did advocate was providing real aid for the needy by delivering food that did not require any processing, to avoid any middlemen, to a population that needed food. I also stated that we should provide this through utilizing"excess" production.

To return to free trade, the entire concept is geared toward removing any ability of a nation to protect the interests of their own free enterprise in favour of that of another nation. The public line is that it provides cheaper goods to citizens by utilizing the lower production costs of another nation to deliver products. The reality is that in so doing you disposing of manufacturing jobs in your own nation. This entire concept began with the rise of multinational corporations shifting production to nations where labour costs are lower and regulations relevant to that particular industry allow for higher profits. So the products are in fact cheaper when imported, but you are losing good paying jobs and dissolving secondary industry in the effort. This hits across the board with lowered government revenues streams from the reduced tax base and increased government expenditures based on the demand for public programs and services that citizens can no longer afford due their own reduced incomes. Lets not forget the investors in companies that are getting the hell kicked out of them by the loss of profits in our own industry, GM ring a bell?

1. I agree that free trade as it is often currently defined is about helping the rich, not the poor. I was not referring to the details of any particular agreement, but rather the principle.

2. Yes, free trade might hurt the wealtheir nation in favour of the poorer one. That's the beauty of it. We can solve the problem of unemployment by devaluing the currencies of wealthier nations, and that woulc benefit the poorer nations too. I'm all for helping our own, but on an equal playing field.

If our government used its money more wisely, there'd be plenty of money for the poor. It's time to cut government spending, as high government spending is a burden not only on the rich, but indirectly on the poor too.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

1. I agree that free trade as it is often currently defined is about helping the rich, not the poor. I was not referring to the details of any particular agreement, but rather the principle.

2. Yes, free trade might hurt the wealtheir nation in favour of the poorer one. That's the beauty of it. We can solve the problem of unemployment by devaluing the currencies of wealthier nations, and that woulc benefit the poorer nations too. I'm all for helping our own, but on an equal playing field.

If our government used its money more wisely, there'd be plenty of money for the poor. It's time to cut government spending, as high government spending is a burden not only on the rich, but indirectly on the poor too.

The poor? Who are you talking about? There is no reason for poverty in Canada. There is work for those that are willing. There are opportunities for those who would rather work for themselves. There is EI and welfare for those in need of temporary or permanent assistance. The only poor I know are those who choose to live off of the system instead of working for a living.