Scotty Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I agree. A well-thought out rebuttal, Michael. Certainly will lead to interesting debate... not! Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 A well-thought out rebuttal, Michael. Certainly will lead to interesting debate... not! Just a joke, Scotty... Keep it light. I don't like most of your proposals, obviously... All products originating in China would be subjected to full inspections at the borders, and the cost passed on to China through a special tariff. Like the other post I commented on earlier, this seems to whack a hornet's nest when nobody is calling for that. Would you like to start a trade war with China ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Like the other post I commented on earlier, this seems to whack a hornet's nest when nobody is calling for that. Would you like to start a trade war with China ? That wouldn't entirely a bad thing, Michael. There would be more jobs here, certainly. We likely would have no more poison in our pet food, or our baby food for that matter. No more lead paint on children's toys from Mattel. No more who knows what chemicals in food imported from China. No more steel made with zero in the way of anti-pollution measures. No more barges full of dead car batteries shipped to China and dumped in open-pit holes, or even just sunk in the ocean. Profits for CDs, DVDs and software would go through the roof without the piracy! Many of our companies would no longer have their trade secrets or patents stolen by Chinese competitors. And on and on and on! Once again, things are not entirely black and white. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I actually agree with you on a couple of your points. Which ones btw? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Scotty Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Just a joke, Scotty... Keep it light. Maybe I just don't think a dismissive one liner is all that funny... Like the other post I commented on earlier, this seems to whack a hornet's nest when nobody is calling for that. Would you like to start a trade war with China ? We've been in a trade war with China for many years now. You haven't noticed? Neither has the government. Nevertheless, they consistently violate almost every rule of international trade. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
PIK Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) ... Edited January 14, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 That wouldn't entirely a bad thing, Michael. There would be more jobs here, certainly. We likely would have no more poison in our pet food, or our baby food for that matter. Free Trade is good for the economy overall, but if you want to increase costs overall to create well paying jobs, ok. Having more unions and stronger unions is another way to achieve this. Profits for CDs, DVDs and software would go through the roof without the piracy! Many of our companies would no longer have their trade secrets or patents stolen by Chinese competitors. CDs DVDs and software, I suspect, are mostly imported into Canada so you would be helping one foreign country while hurting another. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Maybe I just don't think a dismissive one liner is all that funny... I'll make my dismissive one liner funnier next time. We've been in a trade war with China for many years now. You haven't noticed? Neither has the government. Nevertheless, they consistently violate almost every rule of international trade. We've been in competition with them, but trade laws are being liberalized all the time and Harper is pursuing freer trade with Asia as well. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) What would really tie their hands is opening up all lobbying to public scrutiny. I'm betting that alone would prevent most wars.If the Canadian government gets involved in military action it is because it thinks it preventing a greater bloodbath. So your argument is really an argument that Canada is better off sitting on the sidelines watching people get slaughtered instead of getting involved because they think they can make a difference. Although I agree that some military engagements have been failures that does not mean I support mealy mouthed cowardice as rigid policy. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
eyeball Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 We've been in a trade war with China for many years now. You haven't noticed? Neither has the government. Nevertheless, they consistently violate almost every rule of international trade. Our government is a 5th column ally of China's when it comes to undermining our economy. Our government looks the other way whenever they violate the rules. Ottawa even sent experts over there to help them build their Great Firewall. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 If the Canadian government gets involved in military action it is because it thinks it preventing a greater bloodbath. So your argument is really an argument that Canada is better off sitting on the sidelines watching people get slaughtered instead of getting involved because they think they can make a difference. Although I agree that some military engagements have been failures that does not mean I support mealy mouthed cowardice as ridgid policy. No, I'm saying Canada would be better off going into war with the unequivocal solid support of a super-majority. Especially given the state of high distrust that exists between those who are governed and those who govern them. Is it safe to assume you think opening up all lobbying to public scrutiny would be cowardly? Wouldn't Canadians be in a better more trustworthy position to make a decision to go to war if they had access to all the same facts and reasons the politicians were being subjected to by lobbyists, and especially the diplomats of our allies? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 No, I'm saying Canada would be better off going into war with the unequivocal solid support of a super-majority.An unachievable target in our fragmented society. It is no different than calling for an outright ban. Is it safe to assume you think opening up all lobbying to public scrutiny would be cowardly?I see it as irrelevant to the point you made about referenda on wars.Wouldn't Canadians be in a better more trustworthy position to make a decision to go to war if they had access to all the same facts and reasonsIt issue is not whether people have access to the same facts. The issue are the different values that people have which affect how they interpret those facts and assess costs vs. benefits. The idea that it is possible to make decisions based on 'facts' and 'facts alone' is a fantasy. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 No, I'm saying Canada would be better off going into war with the unequivocal solid support of a super-majority. Especially given the state of high distrust that exists between those who are governed and those who govern them. I agree, to an extent……I’d think for Canada to “go to war” (outside of treaty obligations), there should be a requirement for the governing party to have the support of the next largest party in Parliament and requirement to form a “War Cabinet” along the lines of the one formed by Churchill’s Tories and Atlee’s Labour Party………I’d feel this would take out all the disgusting politicking associated with recent western democracies going to war. Quote
eyeball Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 An unachievable target in our fragmented society. It is no different than calling for an outright ban. Okay, as PM I'll do that instead. In any case precedents for super-majority votes exist so I'm not convinced by your argument. I see it as irrelevant to the point you made about referenda on wars. So irrelevant that you quoted my reference to it? This is another reason I'm not convinced by your arguments. I think you're afraid of something you're possibly not even admitting to your self. I've seen this trepidation before when it comes to opening up all the back rooms and invading their secrecy. I do not not why but real fundamental transparency seems to scare the hell out of people. It issue is not whether people have access to the same facts. The issue are the different values that people have which affect how they interpret those facts and assess costs vs. benefits. How can they even assess what they don't have access too? The idea that it is possible to make decisions based on 'facts' and 'facts alone' is a fantasy. Which is why our values should be added to the mix and more often than 4 or 5 years on a wider range of issues. Of course it would be a lot easier to do that if we had all the facts. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) In any case precedents for super-majority votes exist so I'm not convinced by your argument.75%? I don't think so. 66% is the most and in many cases 60% is the bar. In anycase, as PM you would have no power to impose such a requirement on future PMs.I've seen this trepidation before when it comes to opening up all the back rooms and invading their secrecy.I see your musings on this topic as nothing but the rantings of a conspiracy theorist obessing about shadowy figures controlling governments behind the scenes. You have not brought up Bilderburger meetings yet but it is the same style of argument.Which is why our values should be added to the mix and more often than 4 or 5 years on a wider range of issues. Of course it would be a lot easier to do that if we had all the facts.Where is your evidence that we dont have all of the facts? You seem to be more interested in digging up out of context statements that can be spun in a way to support a position which is determined in advance and is not going to be affected by any 'facts'. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
g_bambino Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) An unachievable target in our fragmented society. It is no different than calling for an outright ban. It's also completely impractical. By the time we'd debated the question, educated tens of millions of voters on the issues (though, no doubt, eyeball would still call the process flawed, since our Machiavellian government would feed us false information), organised a vote, and tallied the result, our enemies would've strolled right in and set up a whole new colonial administration for us. What time does the average Canadian have for studying diplomatic cables, Canada's own and multiple other countries' foreign policies, history, international law, treaties, and such all in preparation to cast a ballot on whether or not Canadian Forces should enter a conflict? The answer is: not enough. Which is why we live in a representative, and not direct, democracy. [ed.: sp.] Edited January 14, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Which is why we live in a representative, and not direct, democracy.We can also look at private companies. Some managers insist on approving every move by their employees. Others give directions and judge employees by results. If they fail badly they are let go. Guess which managment style attracts the compentent and independent minded employees? Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Paid for by the people making more that 20K. GAI programs never see the light of day because they are prohibitively expensive and the taxes required to support them are too high. And that does not even take into account unintended consequences. In this case, an employer that pays 25K gets no subsidy but an employer that pays 10K gets half of their wage bill paid for. This will create an economic incentive to build low wage/low skill businesses which is exactly the opposite of what we need. Possibly. That's more of a random idea I thought of to make scrapping minimum wages more palatable to the masses. Or maybe it can just be applied to the manufacturing industry where low wage jobs is exactly what we need. Edited January 14, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
Scotty Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 We've been in competition with them, but trade laws are being liberalized all the time and Harper is pursuing freer trade with Asia as well. China has basically destroyed our manufacturing sector. And they haven't even started on cars yet! They'll be producing them and shipping them over here within the next ten years, and they'll be a lot cheaper than what we can build since their workers get very little in the way of wages or benefits. What are we competing in? China breaks every trade law, from exporting good produced by prisoners to mislabeling products as if they come from third party nations, to predatory pricing, stealing blueprints of other products and copying them, stealing trade secrets through government espionage and giving them to government controlled corporations, you name it, they do it. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 China has basically destroyed our manufacturing sector. And they haven't even started on cars yet! They'll be producing them and shipping them over here within the next ten years, and they'll be a lot cheaper than what we can build since their workers get very little in the way of wages or benefits. What are we competing in? Energy and minerals come to mind. China breaks every trade law, from exporting good produced by prisoners to mislabeling products as if they come from third party nations, to predatory pricing, stealing blueprints of other products and copying them, stealing trade secrets through government espionage and giving them to government controlled corporations, you name it, they do it. There's a mechanism to deal with complaints. Overall, globalized trade is better for the economy. Why do you think every Canadian and American government has taken steps to liberalize trade over the past 25 years ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 It's also completely impractical. By the time we'd debated the question, educated tens of millions of voters on the issues (though, no doubt, eyeball would still call the process flawed, since our Machiavellian government would feed us false information), organised a vote, and tallied the result, our enemies would've strolled right in and set up a whole new colonial administration for us. There is an old joke that supposedly came from UN diplomatic circles about Canada and the process you describe. Apparently it was making the rounds during the late 80's and early 90's, as a response to the typical Canadian approach to problems. It goes like this: A German physicist discovers a new property of physics. A month after he publishes his paper an American engineer thinks of a commercial application and patents a working model. Within a few months he's got a company going and is producing products. By the end of the year a Japanese firm (remember, this was the 80's!) has found a way to produce it cheaper and is making global production under license and royalties. In 10 years Canada holds a debate to decide if it is a federal or a provincial matter! The sad thing is that the diplomatic impression of us has the sting of truth! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Wow, I'm glad most of you will never be in a position of power within our government. This forum, I think has become far skewed from the mainstream. I'm not sure what I would do as PM. There are some things that I think would be a good idea (true rep by pop, getting Ottawa out of certain areas, etc), but I'd need to study each issue more. I would also be one who would increase military spending, and possibly make some changes to immigration (though I like where government is going). Quote
Battletoads Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Heads, pikes, walls... It seems that many of the posters think that the PM is a absolute monarch and not contrained by the law You've shattered my dreams. :angry: Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Battletoads Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) - Some form of proportional representation - Expand public health service (ie dental services, ect) - Large list of tax policy chages - Look into shifting income taxes so as to tax disposable income - Ending all subsidies/tax breaks/giveaways for profitable resource based companies - Look into eliminating taxes on food stuffs, and other essential goods - Increased penalties for those responsible for financial crimes - More stringent environmental policies - End/block/limit the special rights of so called Natives by any legal means. - End tax exempt status of religious groups - Ensure religious law, such as sharia law, is superseded by Canadian law. Edited January 15, 2012 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Scotty Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Energy and minerals come to mind. Ah yes, you mean we chop down the trees and send them to Asia to be processed, and we develop the raw oil, then send it to Asia to be processed? Moooost impressive! Raw logs and bitumen! Those crafty Chinese will never compete with that! New policies I didn't put in original post: No raw logs may be shipped from Canada for any reason. And all oil must be processed within our borders. There's a mechanism to deal with complaints. Yes, you spend several years going through the various delaying actions the Chinese put up, you win, and they stop... for a month or two, then they start again, in a very slightly altered way, and you spend another several years trying to get them to stop again... and so on. Rinse/repeat. Constant discussion of the West’s simultaneous distrust of and interdependence with China has not changed China’s economic behavior. There is a slew of unaddressed grievances, including China’s indigenous innovation policies, copyright infringements, violations of its World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, and exchange rate manipulation that go against every standard for international trade. Now a new concern has sprung up, which might top all other grievances. The latest apprehension focuses on the spillover effect caused by China’s violations of WTO agreements, its refusal to play by international rules, and its bullying of trade partners while downplaying its mercantilist behavior. Many countries, be they industrial or developing nations, might conclude that if China gets away with mercantilism and other activities, why can’t we? China trade violation spillover Overall, globalized trade is better for the economy. True. Except not with China. Why do you think every Canadian and American government has taken steps to liberalize trade over the past 25 years ? The American government doesn't give a damn what is or is not in the best interests of America. The congressmen, senators and yes, the occupant of the White House only really care about the truck loads of money being poured over them by American corporations which are terrified the Chinese will simply seize their investments in China. As for the Canadian government, Harper used to have the right idea, but he's Mr. Pragmatist, and is going to do what Canadian corporations and the opposition want, which is bend his knee to China and look the other way at their trade violatins lest he offend them. Edited January 15, 2012 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.