Leaders debate Aug 6

jacee · August 9, 2015

im looking at earth when I say that.

Corporate destruction of the earth for the almighty dollar you mean?

.

Freddy · August 9, 2015

Corporate destruction of the earth for the almighty dollar you mean?

.

I just call that humans being humans.

On Guard for Thee · August 9, 2015

I just call that humans being humans.

Well you certainly seem to promote it, so that must mean the answer to Jacee's query is a definite yes.

kimmy · August 9, 2015

You want to save this economy? Subsidies raw material production, so that it hits the market at such a cheap cost, people can buy it to produce their own everything.

Why is it I can't find maple at my local hardware store for less then 50$ a board?

If people can't go to their local store, buy raw materials and produce something they can relatively sell easily for a profit. This economy is dead in the water.

If anyone could buy raw materials and produce clothes cheaper then the cost of buying from China, youths would make there clothing, and learn a skill in the process.

The problem with our economy is that raw materials are more expensive then what the cost of one already made in China. This serves as a double whammy, because the skills learned from producing clothing would be a valuable life lesson to continue on your journey to success.

Regulate, and control raw material costs locally to assure anyone can buy lumber, or cloths and make their own for relatively cheaper then China, and watch as our economy triple's in the next 5 years.

Oh, wait, you were serious about this?

AHHHH HAHAHAHHAAAAA

I know someone who makes her own clothes for her toddler and her infant. She's very good at it and saves a lot of money doing so. She decided to open up a web-store on Etsy to try to earn some extra money.

So, to illustrate the economics of this: she can make a nice baby onesie or a beautiful dress for a little girl in about 4 hours. Meanwhile in China, a crew of 10 machine operators can make about 4000 dresses in the same amount of time. If she wants to compete on price with that crew of machine operators, her hourly wage has to be 1/100 of their hourly wage, because with their specialized equipment, the 10 of them can produce 1000 times the output she can. With the typical manufacturing worker in China earning something like $4/hour, the labor cost of each of those Chinese dresses works out to (10 workers)*($4/worker)/(4000 dresses) = $0.01 per dress. So even if she can get material for the same cost as the Chinese factory, my friend can only equal the Chinese price if she pays herself 2 CENTS PER DAY of labor. I'm sure you'd agree, Canadians working at home hand-crafting stuff for a wage of $7.30 PER YEAR is not going to jump-start the Canadian economy.

So she can't compete on price, and doesn't even attempt to. She makes things when she receives an order, and she sells her stuff with a mark-up that gives her reasonable compensation for the time she puts into it. Price-wise this puts her into a high-end boutique products category, and as you can imagine there aren't a lot of customers. Most people with young children are just as cash-strapped as she is. Her customers have been mostly people buying heirloom-quality gifts for young families in their lives. She sells only a couple of items per month, and she does make some extra money at it, but this is far from a viable source of income. It's primarily a hobby that happens to add a few bucks to the family budget from time to time.

-k

Freddy · August 9, 2015

I sure do, participate in it. Can't change them join them.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Freddy

Freddy · August 9, 2015

Oh, wait, you were serious about this?

AHHHH HAHAHAHHAAAAA

I know someone who makes her own clothes for her toddler and her infant. She's very good at it and saves a lot of money doing so. She decided to open up a web-store on Etsy to try to earn some extra money.

So, to illustrate the economics of this: she can make a nice baby onesie or a beautiful dress for a little girl in about 4 hours. Meanwhile in China, a crew of 10 machine operators can make about 4000 dresses in the same amount of time. If she wants to compete on price with that crew of machine operators, her hourly wage has to be 1/100 of their hourly wage, because with their specialized equipment, the 10 of them can produce 1000 times the output she can. With the typical manufacturing worker in China earning something like $4/hour, the labor cost of each of those Chinese dresses works out to (10 workers)*($4/worker)/(4000 dresses) = $0.01 per dress. So even if she can get material for the same cost as the Chinese factory, my friend can only equal the Chinese price if she pays herself 2 CENTS PER DAY of labor. I'm sure you'd agree, Canadians working at home hand-crafting stuff for a wage of $7.30 PER YEAR is not going to jump-start the Canadian economy.

So she can't compete on price, and doesn't even attempt to. She makes things when she receives an order, and she sells her stuff with a mark-up that gives her reasonable compensation for the time she puts into it. Price-wise this puts her into a high-end boutique products category, and as you can imagine there aren't a lot of customers. Most people with young children are just as cash-strapped as she is. Her customers have been mostly people buying heirloom-quality gifts for young families in their lives. She sells only a couple of items per month, and she does make some extra money at it, but this is far from a viable source of income. It's primarily a hobby that happens to add a few bucks to the family budget from time to time.

-k

And that is a perfect example of why our economy is stuck in neutral.

The point I was making is , like you mentioned, You can still save yourself money, when you don't factor your own labor costs. As long as materials are affordable. I'm not really surprised you didn't understand that.

A other point you completely missed is also that:

The skill she developed sewing those things are worth much more then the convenience of buying it already made.

So, that being said, It's hard to take you Seriously. But at least you made me chuckle.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Freddy

Argus · August 9, 2015

WEALTH, not income.

All of the above may be true and good, but as we progress and wealth gets concentrated tighter and tighter, who will be controlling the politicians that used to make those nice progressive tax rules that you cite, above?

Well according to most Harper is the best friend the wealthy have ever had, yet under him the uber rich have seen their share of income decreasing.

Ultimately, given the lack of major political funding allowable in Canada, as opposed to the US, the only people who really influence politicians are the voting public. What the parties offer up are what they believe will most please a substantial number of the voting public.

PrimeNumber · August 9, 2015

What a arrogant bunch of stuffed pigs humans are. Let me add, humans disgust me.

Oh you're one of those misanthropist types that's pissed off at everything...

We can be arrogant because we have the thought process that allows us to do that.

Icebound · August 9, 2015

Well according to most Harper is the best friend the wealthy have ever had, yet under him the uber rich have seen their share of income decreasing.

Ultimately, given the lack of major political funding allowable in Canada, as opposed to the US, the only people who really influence politicians are the voting public. What the parties offer up are what they believe will most please a substantial number of the voting public.

Do we monitor bank accounts of candidates or potential candidates?: Just to be sure someone doesn't sneak in a little extra under the table, you know.

But that aside.... even if you are right and money does NOT affect WHO is elected.... it DOES affect the politician once in power. Because the most money gets the most access... the most money does the most lobbying... the most money controls the ability of public-private partnerships.... etc., etc. etc.

Its not bad (not great, but not that bad).... when 20% control 70% of wealth. But it is trending toward 10% controlling 70, maybe even 2% controlling 70 eventually.

We can complain about the influence of unions, but the facts show that their influence is squat... labour has received an increasingly smaller... NOT larger ... piece of the wealth that it creates....

... and correspondingly labour has had an increasingly smaller influence on political decisions. Even the so-called labour-centered parties such as the NDP have been backing away from their labour roots.

...

Edited August 9, 2015 by Icebound

Freddy · August 9, 2015

Oh you're one of those misanthropist types that's pissed off at everything...

We can be arrogant because we have the thought process that allows us to do that.

I'm not certain that makes us better in the grand scheme of things.

It certainly gives us a lot of potential to be far more destructive & worse then the rest of the animals.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Freddy

PrimeNumber · August 9, 2015

I'm not certain that makes us better in the grand scheme of things.

It certainly gives us a lot of potential to be far more destructive & worse then the rest of the animals.

We also have the potential to stop being so destructive. Though many would rather have money right now and leave that problem up to future generations.

Freddy · August 9, 2015

We also have the potential to stop being so destructive. Though many would rather have money right now and leave that problem up to future generations.

Animals aren't destructive every day.

And throughout history we have used this brilliant brain of ours mosty for what? In the grand scheme of earth, has this planet been a better place or worse, with the existence of humans, never mind your imaginary potential of our so called brilliant brain. Let's base it on facts, of what we actually have done with this so called brilliance.

Have we Done more harm or less harm, then the rest of the animals combined?

If animals had a voice:

I think you overestimate your brilliance. Arrogant human.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Freddy

jacee · August 9, 2015

im looking at earth when I say that.

I see.

PrimeNumber · August 10, 2015

Animals aren't destructive every day.

And throughout history we have used this brilliant brain of ours mosty for what? In the grand scheme of earth, has this planet been a better place or worse, with the existence of humans, never mind your imaginary potential of our so called brilliant brain. Let's base it on facts, of what we actually have done with this so called brilliance.

Have we Done more harm or less harm, then the rest of the animals combined?

If animals had a voice:

I think you overestimate your brilliance. Arrogant human.

Whose fault is that? There are plenty of people on this planet trying to make changes. Then there are those who drag their heels on this type of progress. We have caused more damage to this planet in the last 150 years than probably any other time of our existence. A massive portion of this damage stems from our use of fossil fuels, namely oil. And the methods we use to get it, including war. I see that you are angry about this but I ask why then vote for a party whose position on these matters is to run with the status quot of destruction of this planet for profit?

I'm not saying all other parties are vastly different but some of them at least show an interest in change.

Freddy · August 10, 2015

Whose fault is that? There are plenty of people on this planet trying to make changes. Then there are those who drag their heels on this type of progress. We have caused more damage to this planet in the last 150 years than probably any other time of our existence. A massive portion of this damage stems from our use of fossil fuels, namely oil. And the methods we use to get it, including war. I see that you are angry about this but I ask why then vote for a party whose position on these matters is to run with the status quot of destruction of this planet for profit?

I'm not saying all other parties are vastly different but some of them at least show an interest in change.

Because I've come to accept humans as what we are, and nothing will change that. I feel like we are not very different then a wildfire that must run its course. So be it. I accept it. Consume everything until we self extinguish. Edited August 10, 2015 by Freddy

eyeball · August 10, 2015

Yeah, except Canadians LIKE $11 toasters! They like that a LOT! They like cheap computers and TVs and cell phones and air conditioners. Hell, when I was younger only those with really good jobs could afford AC. Now you can buy one for a hundred bucks! You want to put up big tariffs that will drastically increase the cost of all this stuff, and almost certainly be against WTO rules. Which means those countries, like China, will then retaliate by cutting off our imports.

I don't like $11 toasters that I throw out in a year or buying 3 times as many clothes because they wear out so fast and going through pairs of glasses like shit goes through a goose. When you consider the costs of having to go to the store 3 times as often and filling up our landfills 3 times as fast and the environmental costs of everyone exporting just about every local resource raw and unprocessed halfway around the planet and then shipping just about every single thing they use from just as far away...all so we can concentrate as much wealth as possible into as few hands as possible...we're a species gone completely raving insane.

Edited to add; $%#& the WTO.

Edited August 10, 2015 by eyeball

PrimeNumber · August 10, 2015

Because I've come to accept humans as what we are, and nothing will change that. I feel like we are not very different then a wildfire that must run its course. So be it. I accept it. Consume everything until we self extinguish.

The age old if you think you can't beat em join em.

Fortunately not all of humanity has given up on the thought of changing our ways. Each successive generation, seeing the magnitudes of destruction left behind by the generations that come before them, have starting to cling to that notion of a better world.

It's just to bad we have so many people still in power who think this isn't possible. Though I'm sure many of them wish it didn't have to be like this too but I'm guessing the financial security destruction brings keeps them from ever doing anything about it.

Freddy · August 10, 2015

The age old if you think you can't beat em join em.

Fortunately not all of humanity has given up on the thought of changing our ways. Each successive generation, seeing the magnitudes of destruction left behind by the generations that come before them, have starting to cling to that notion of a better world.

It's just to bad we have so many people still in power who think this isn't possible. Though I'm sure many of them wish it didn't have to be like this too but I'm guessing the financial security destruction brings keeps them from ever doing anything about it.

All other animals have achieved living in balance with nature and yet we are the brilliant ones?

I see a bunch of hypocrites who talk about changing, but their solutions only will slow down the inevitable.

I see them work feverishly in their own backyard's as all pollution is sent off shores. They still continue to consume.

They talk of renewable energy, without understanding the reality. You're going to have to cover the whole surface of the planet with solar panels and still we wouldn't get enough electricity to cover our demands. They don't even realize, covering the majority of the earth with solar panels would likely have a unforeseen destructive result.

You can waist your time trying to Slow our destruction.

I'm looking forward too our unavoidable destruction.

Earth and nature will continue long after we will have passed. Arrogant human.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Freddy

PrimeNumber · August 10, 2015

All other animals have achieved living in balance with nature and yet we are the brilliant ones?

I see a bunch of hypocrites who talk about changing, but their solutions only will slow down the inevitable.

I see them work feverishly in their own backyard's as all pollution is sent off shores. They still continue to consume.

They talk of renewable energy, without understanding the reality. You're going to have to cover the whole surface of the planet with solar panels and still we wouldn't get enough electricity to cover our demands. They don't even realize, covering the majority of the earth with solar panels would likely have a unforeseen destructive result.

You can waist your time trying to Slow our destruction.

I'm looking forward too our unavoidable destruction.

Earth and nature will continue long after we will have passed. Arrogant human.

Actually it's far from too late. And it's people like you that are the problem. We can stop it and I'm optimistic that we will. You waste the remainder of your life destroying this world for future generations all the while complaining about it not being stopped. I think the only Arrogant human on this board is you.

Freddy · August 10, 2015

Actually it's far from too late. And it's people like you that are the problem. We can stop it and I'm optimistic that we will. You waste the remainder of your life destroying this world for future generations all the while complaining about it not being stopped. I think the only Arrogant human on this board is you.

I'll vote Conservative, Let's get a great big pipeline built right smack from one end to the other, and get that tar sand moving.

PrimeNumber · August 10, 2015

I'll vote Conservative, Let's get a great big pipeline built right smack from one end to the other, and get that tar sand moving.

Good luck with that one.

jacee · August 11, 2015

All other animals have achieved living in balance with nature and yet we are the brilliant ones?

Frame that!

Freddy · August 11, 2015

Frame that!

We can't go back to being animals. Our brilliance can't help us with archiving balence with nature. I've analyzed every possible paths. We are doomed. It's a mathematical certainty. All we can do is slow our inevitable destruction.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Freddy

Argus · August 11, 2015

Frame that!

If you want to shit out in fields and live ten years before something eats you, then go ahead. I'll keep things the way they are, thanks.

jbg · August 11, 2015

The Canada of the 1960's, 70's, 80's was a Canada of optimism and vision.... Bill of rights, aboriginal vote, new flag, CPP, patriation of constitution, universal health care, etc.

I think Trudeau was trying to re-kindle some of that optimism, and it may well have been more effective than you cynics can imagine, especially among the young.

Ah, the nostalgia. Not one of those things you listed had anything to do with production. All had to do with distribution or pot-stirring. CPP and universal health care was about being generous. -- with other people's money. The other items had to do with, essentially, stirring the pot. Official bilingualism was something you left out, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It was divisive. Ditto the new flag. The aboriginal vote should definitely exist--for FN's off the reserve.

And what did the patriaton of the Constitution accomplish, really? How many amendments have passed under the amending formula.

Those were not Canada's good days. They did a lot to destroy Canada as a first-class nation. The plunge towards mediocrity was only stilled in January 2006.