Social Justice

Michael Hardner · May 29, 2012

Or necessarily false - we can go round and round on that one.

No need to - we just agreed.

Not the issue - it's not lack of energy, but having something to export. We won't need much energy if we're don't have much economic activity in Canada, like manufacturing.

You're worrying about something that's a century away. I admire the foresight, but don't lose sleep.

No we don't. But if we don't create a society that shares, that would cause untold misery. And even if the sharing is just welfare, people don't actually have anything useful to do, that's a disaster too. In both cases we would still need to be generating wealth to share with the over surplus of workers. Don't know if our current immigration policy makes much sense under that scenario either.

"create a society that shares" - could mean anything.

That was the thought in the 50's and 60's. Greater leisure time and wealth for all. I was told in high school that they had to teach me recreation because when I graduated I could expect to only work 20 hours a week. Never happened.

People don't choose to work 20 hours per week, but many could do so. Of course, you'd have to do with a lot less. Greater leisure time and wealth is a choice, but many are choosing to work instead.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote an amusing book about it (Player Piano?) where only the elite get to work. The plebs are well supported financially, but they have nothing to do. When the protagonists car breas down (obviously he's an elite), they swarm all over it wanting to help fix it, to show they are still useful.

That sounds like where we're headed, really. We'll have to come to grips with the idea that not as much work is needed anymore.

Canuckistani · May 29, 2012

"create a society that shares" - could mean anything.

If we don't share the wealth created by the people that work, then we will have a huge social problem if we have many people who can't work. Even if we just share in the form of welfare, that will still be a big problem. People need to feel useful.

That sounds like where we're headed, really. We'll have to come to grips with the idea that not as much work is needed anymore.

Possibly. As I say, I've been hearing it for 50 years now. But if true, we'd better not be producing so many people, and we'd better find something for all the people who aren't needed to do. The vision was that the extra leisure time would be used for education and culture. Most people aren't all that interested in either. Bread an circuses I guess, but those were provided by the emperors to keep the proles from revolting.

Michael Hardner · May 29, 2012

Not its not quite that elementary because you could work really hard and still have a negative balance of trade.

How could you work really hard and not produce anything ? Please let's not move too far from your original statement, which I'm trying to understand.

Sure... it still applies, the trade deficit would just be smaller.

Trade between GM American and GM China contributes to a 'deficit' eh ? Don't you find that a little strange ?

Michael Hardner · May 29, 2012

If we don't share the wealth created by the people that work, then we will have a huge social problem if we have many people who can't work. Even if we just share in the form of welfare, that will still be a big problem. People need to feel useful.

You need to define what you mean by "share" if you want to help my confusion. Do you mean pay them ? Yes, I'm against slavery and in favour of wages....

Possibly. As I say, I've been hearing it for 50 years now. But if true, we'd better not be producing so many people, and we'd better find something for all the people who aren't needed to do. The vision was that the extra leisure time would be used for education and culture. Most people aren't all that interested in either. Bread an circuses I guess, but those were provided by the emperors to keep the proles from revolting.

After awhile, do you get the sense that we're eventually going to have to compete for jobs digging holes and filling them back in ? The garden of Eden is upon us, but we can't have it because we don't have a human concept for how it would work.

dre · May 29, 2012

How could you work really hard and not produce anything ? Please let's not move too far from your original statement, which I'm trying to understand.

Trade between GM American and GM China contributes to a 'deficit' eh ? Don't you find that a little strange ?

How could you work really hard and not produce anything ? Please let's not move too far from your original statement, which I'm trying to understand.

I never said you could work really hard and net produce anything. I said you could work really hard, and still produce less than you consume.

Trade between GM American and GM China contributes to a 'deficit' eh ? Don't you find that a little strange

No not really.

Michael Hardner · May 29, 2012

I never said you could work really hard and net produce anything. I said you could work really hard, and still produce less than you consume.

I asked nicely, and yet still I had to scrollllllllll way up to get your original quote:

If we stop endeavoring to produce things then sooner or later imported products will be too expensive for us to buy.

I will now respectfully request that we start over again and you try to explain what that means.

No not really.

If I move money inside the same company then that creates a 'deficit'... that doesn't strike you as strange ? GM is an American company producing a good created by its own employees and is holding on to the profits from offshoring that work. I find it strange to think that an American multinational producing a good in that way is adding to a trade deficit, while increasing its profits.

dre · May 29, 2012

If we stop endeavoring to produce things then sooner or later imported products will be too expensive for us to buy.

I will now respectfully request that we start over again and you try to explain what that means.

It means that if we import more than we export our currency will lose purchasing power against the currencies of countries that export more than they import, and the cost of those imports will increase until we cant buy them.

If I move money inside the same company then that creates a 'deficit'... that doesn't strike you as strange ? GM is an American company producing a good created by its own employees and is holding on to the profits from offshoring that work. I find it strange to think that an American multinational producing a good in that way is adding to a trade deficit, while increasing its profits.

I think I get your point now and its a good one. If we own the foreign businesses that we buy stuff from there will still be a trade defecit but it will be partially mitigated by dividents and interest payments on that foreign investment.

And that is exactly why we track the "Current Account"... which not only takes into account trade, but also net factor income from foreign investments.

Notice earlier I said...

Manufacturing is extremely important yes. In order to import stuff you need to export stuff or you will have a trade deficit that eventually becomes a current account deficit.

Heres how the current account is calculated.

Current Account
Current Account is the sum of the balance of trade (exports minus imports of goods and services), net factor income (such as interest and dividends) and net transfer payments (such as foreign aid). The balance of trade is typically the most important part of the current account. This means that changes in the patterns of trade are key drivers in the current accounts of most of the world's economies. However, for the few countries with substantial overseas assets or liabilities, net factor payments may be significant. Positive net sales to abroad generally contributes to a current account surplus; negative net sales to abroad generally contributes to a current account deficit. Because exports generate positive net sales, and because the trade balance is typically the largest component of the current account, a current account surplus is usually associated with positive net exports. The net factor income or income account, a sub-account of the current account, is usually presented under the headings income payments as outflows, and income receipts as inflows. Income refers not only to the money received from investments made abroad (note: investments are recorded in the capital account but income from investments is recorded in the current account) but also to the money sent by individuals working abroad, known as remittances, to their families back home. If the income account is negative, the country is paying more than it is taking in interest, dividends, etc. For example, the United States' net income has been declining exponentially since it has allowed the dollar's price relative to other currencies to be determined by the market to a point where income payments and receipts are roughly equal of trade forms part of the current account, which also includes other transactions such as income from the international investment position as well as international aid. If the current account is in surplus, the country's net international asset position increases correspondingly. Equally, a deficit decreases the net international asset position.

Edited May 29, 2012 by dre

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2012

If I move money inside the same company then that creates a 'deficit'... that doesn't strike you as strange ? GM is an American company producing a good created by its own employees and is holding on to the profits from offshoring that work. I find it strange to think that an American multinational producing a good in that way is adding to a trade deficit, while increasing its profits.

But wait...it gets even better: Microsoft Corporation has better profit margins than GM because of each Chinese PC that ships with an OEM version of Windows OS. Ditto for Microsoft Office.

wyly · May 30, 2012

Social justice means equality for all. all people have equal access to goods and services. all people do their part to save the environment. there are no rich and no poor. everyone is in the middle and happy. there is no crime no poverty. no one thumbs their nose at the poor/

all very nice and idealistic and a great goal to aim for but not realistic

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2012

all very nice and idealistic and a great goal to aim for but not realistic

Nope...it's a lousy goal to aim for. Fortunately, it is also "not realistic". Human nature is not to strive for equal mediocrity.

Michael Hardner · May 30, 2012

What does equality really mean ? I mean, total Marxist equality - what does it mean ? Everybody has exactly the same assets ? Is that possible ?

dre · May 30, 2012

What does equality really mean ? I mean, total Marxist equality - what does it mean ? Everybody has exactly the same assets ? Is that possible ?

No its not about having the same assets. "Marxist equality" is about avoiding in-egalitarian social structures or widely disparate "classes". Not about everyone having identical stuff.

g_bambino · May 30, 2012

Are you asking me to explain them to you because you don't like the idea, or because you're actually curious ?

I'd need to know what's being proposed before I can comment on it.

g_bambino · May 30, 2012

Except bambi's going to be demanding to see your medical files instead. Why is anyone's guess.

Oh, look: another non-sequitur personal attack by eyeball; alawys eyeball code for "I was wrong/didn't think things through".

eyeball · May 30, 2012

Oh, look: another non-sequitur personal attack by eyeball; alawys eyeball code for "I was wrong/didn't think things through".

Top of the morning to you too.

Michael Hardner · May 30, 2012

I'd need to know what's being proposed before I can comment on it.

The idea is that the people own the data on what the government does, except in some obvious cases where privacy is involved. It's incumbent on the government to publish this data proactively in all cases.

eyeball · May 30, 2012

The idea is that the people own the data on what the government does, except in some obvious cases where privacy is involved. It's incumbent on the government to publish this data proactively in all cases.

I can see too where a need for secrecy might delay this, but only for a limited time.

Edited May 30, 2012 by eyeball

g_bambino · May 30, 2012

The idea is that the people own the data on what the government does, except in some obvious cases where privacy is involved. It's incumbent on the government to publish this data proactively in all cases.

Okay, so you do feel there should be a limit on how much information the government makes public. But the government already publishes reams and reams of data, more than any one person could ever digest; you seemingly just want to shift the line drawn between secret and public information. What I then wonder is, where precisely do you want to move it to? There must be some specific kind or kinds of information you think have been and are still being kept secret that the government must be "more open" with in order to, in your opinion, progress towards "real accountability".

eyeball · May 30, 2012

you seemingly just want to shift the line drawn between secret and public information. What I then wonder is, where precisely do you want to move it to? There must be some specific kind or kinds of information you think have been and are still being kept secret that the government must be "more open" with in order to, in your opinion, progress towards "real accountability".

My own starting point is that cameras and microphones should be placed in the PMO and a Secrecy Commission should be tasked with the job of deciding what is to be kept from the public, not the PMO.

We already have a Privacy Commissioner to keep you away from people's medical files so...I trust there's no need to go to that ridiculous point anymore.

Edited May 30, 2012 by eyeball

g_bambino · May 30, 2012

My own starting point is that cameras and microphones should be placed in the PMO....

The staff and occupant of the office will just discuss elsewhere matters they don't want made public.

[A] Secrecy Commission should be tasked with the job of deciding what is to be kept from the public, not the PMO

You must elaborate on who selects the members of this commission and to whom or what they are accountable.

We already have a Privacy Commissioner to keep you away from people's medical files so...I trust there's no need to go to that ridiculous point anymore.

Yet, there's the second time you've passive aggressively pushed it into the conversation without having yet dealt with the fact it was you who said you wanted "near total" transparency from the government and it was pretty evident I used health records as a randomly selected example of information the government holds that most would prefer remain private; I could also have brought up your employment records, income records, criminal record (should you have one), and more. (The Privacy Commissioner is a federal officer, too, by the way; health records are a provincial government matter. Different jurisdictions.)

Michael Hardner · May 30, 2012

Okay, so you do feel there should be a limit on how much information the government makes public.

Limited to obvious cases of privacy only.

But the government already publishes reams and reams of data, more than any one person could ever digest; you seemingly just want to shift the line drawn between secret and public information.

Data needs to be published so that it is:

- usable (either as displayed, or as consumed by other data fed applications)

- relevant

- timely

And it needs to be done proactively. Finding the data today is a full-time job, and in fact there are full time public agencies charged with doing that.

What I then wonder is, where precisely do you want to move it to? There must be some specific kind or kinds of information you think have been and are still being kept secret that the government must be "more open" with in order to, in your opinion, progress towards "real accountability".

How about project plans, including costs ? How about expenses ? How about healthcare performance stats ?

dre · May 30, 2012

You must elaborate on who selects the members of this commission and to whom or what they are accountable.

I would use the courts for this. Limited secrecy permits could be issued to the government by a judge the same way that search warrants are issued, provided the government was able to make a compelling case as to why secrecy is warranted.

eyeball · May 31, 2012

The staff and occupant of the office will just discuss elsewhere matters they don't want made public.

If I refuse to install cameras and black box on my boat when I go fishing I'm forced to take a human observer. We could do the same for politicians who similarly refuse to get with the program.

You must elaborate on who selects the members of this commission and to whom or what they are accountable.

I'd go with a randomly picked citizen's assembly myself but dre's suggestion could also work.

Yet, there's the second time you've passive aggressively pushed it into the conversation without having yet dealt with the fact it was you who said you wanted "near total" transparency from the government and it was pretty evident I used health records as a randomly selected example of information the government holds that most would prefer remain private; I could also have brought up your employment records, income records, criminal record (should you have one), and more. (The Privacy Commissioner is a federal officer, too, by the way; health records are a provincial government matter. Different jurisdictions.)

Are you such a pedant that you really need to have the difference between individual privacy and state secrecy spelled out every time you come across a discussion involving greater government transparency and accountability? :lol: