Canada's richest 1% getting richer

[Michael Hardner]

Fortunately we don't have to tolerate the consistent failure of the human race to provide a successful, peacful and prosperous world for much longer thanks to a greater power who cares far more for us than we do for each other right now. Eventually, we will all thank God. Literally.

Well THAT was upbeat.

In fact, we're doing what McLuhan called "looking in the rear view mirror". Socialism vs capitalism is a choice for the 19th or 20th centuries. We have modified these, and with the massive technological overhaul we've gone through, we can expect something new (and better attuned to our way of life) to emerge.

100% computer money, instantaneous feedback and monitoring - all of these can be used to manage the economy and address shortfalls more than the Soviets ever could have imagined.

[roy baty]

Well THAT was upbeat.

In fact, we're doing what McLuhan called "looking in the rear view mirror". Socialism vs capitalism is a choice for the 19th or 20th centuries. We have modified these, and with the massive technological overhaul we've gone through, we can expect something new (and better attuned to our way of life) to emerge.

100% computer money, instantaneous feedback and monitoring - all of these can be used to manage the economy and address shortfalls more than the Soviets ever could have imagined.

What's not upbeat about a new world government that will bring peace, proseperity and fairness for everyone? I believe the ultimate destiny of mankind is very bright. We just have some hard lessons to learn before we get there.

I agree with you that we as a species CAN do the things you outline above for the world but WILL we? That is the real question. With mankind alone in the mix, sorry but I am not very optimistic. Basic human nature hasn't changed that much in the past 200 years.

Edited February 7, 2013 by roy baty

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with you that we as a species CAN do the things you outline above for the world but WILL we? That is the real question. With mankind alone in the mix, sorry but I am not very optimistic. Basic human nature hasn't changed that much in the past 200 years.

Or 200,000 years. But - if you look at how humanity has adapted and the basics of how we operate, I think you should be optimistic.

We don't always agree, but we adapt.

[Argus]

If the fund does not earn the returns expected by actuaries then the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference. This is the part that is unacceptable. If you want a pension then let your union invest your money - it is selfish for you to expect taxpayers (most of whom do NOT have a defined benefit plan) to guarantee your retirement income - especially when many of the taxpayers doing the paying earn less money that you stand to make on your pension.

But if the fund earns higher returns than expected it's okay for the taxpayers to take $28 billion out and put them into general revenues, right?

The fact most taxpayers don't have defined benefit plans is unfortunate, and something the government should be working to remedy by encouraging, if not mandating pension plans for all employees.

[Bonam]

But if the fund earns higher returns than expected it's okay for the taxpayers to take $28 billion out and put them into general revenues, right?

The fact most taxpayers don't have defined benefit plans is unfortunate, and something the government should be working to remedy by encouraging, if not mandating pension plans for all employees.

No thanks. Defined benefits are defined bullsh*t. I wouldn't trust any company that makes promises it doesn't know it can keep.

[TimG]

But if the fund earns higher returns than expected it's okay for the taxpayers to take $28 billion out and put them into general revenues, right?

Nope. Whoever is responsible for deficits gets to benefit from surpluses. If you are so confident is the stability of these plans you should welcome the opportunity to keep any surpluses!

The fact most taxpayers don't have defined benefit plans is unfortunate, and something the government should be working to remedy by encouraging, if not mandating pension plans for all employees.

The economics of defined benefits simply do not work any more. They are basically ponzi schemes which will leave the younger generation crumbs after the people retiring in near future consume all of the assets. Edited February 8, 2013 by TimG