Canada's Refugee System in Chaos

[taxme]

On 5/4/2018 at 8:45 AM, capricorn said:

I hear you.

Our Prime Minister threw open our country's doors to migrants in a tweet which circulated around the world. He may think it's the right thing to do. Yet he failed to think of the immediate burden placed on the resources needed to make that workable. He is prone to  blurting out grand plans without a thought for their impact and implementation.

That refugee burden has been placed on the Canadian taxpayer's by spend crazy politicians like trudeau who believes that once they steal some of your hard earned money thru taxes from your paychecks they can now blow those tax dollars on unworkable foolishness liberal/socialist programs, agendas and projects that never really do much for Canada or Canadians at all except to keep putting the country deeper in debt.  Trudeau is prone to thinking of Canadians as idiots and treats them so. One can only hope that this will be it for his one time pony show at the next election. Canadians cannot afford another five years of this wanna be drama teacher and I hope that this will be the end of the trudeau era. 

[cannuck]

On 5/13/2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Hardner said:

That's just a slag.  Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both actors.  Vaclav Havel was a writer.  Greatness comes from different places and there's no telling where.  Even Trump could have been great if he had good character.

Yes, it is a slag to the most slag deserving PM we have ever had.   Wait a minute:  I guess second to his old man.

Edited May 15, 2018 by cannuck

[turningrite]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 3:33 PM, taxme said:

That refugee burden has been placed on the Canadian taxpayer's by spend crazy politicians like trudeau who believes that once they steal some of your hard earned money thru taxes from your paychecks they can now blow those tax dollars on unworkable foolishness liberal/socialist programs, agendas and projects that never really do much for Canada or Canadians at all except to keep putting the country deeper in debt.  Trudeau is prone to thinking of Canadians as idiots and treats them so. One can only hope that this will be it for his one time pony show at the next election. Canadians cannot afford another five years of this wanna be drama teacher and I hope that this will be the end of the trudeau era. 

I too worry about the cost of all of this. Further, affordable housing is all but nonexistent in Canada's largest cities and the latest influx will further tax resources available to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The federal government seems to have no plan here. It should pay a big price for this in 2019. 

[taxme]

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

I too worry about the cost of all of this. Further, affordable housing is all but nonexistent in Canada's largest cities and the latest influx will further tax resources available to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The federal government seems to have no plan here. It should pay a big price for this in 2019. 

All politicians try to pretend that they give a chit about affordable housing. They do not. If they did they would demand that Canada stop all these criminal illegals from entering Canada illegally. Instead they say nothing. I guess that they are all afraid to be called anti-refugee. Today those illegals are being given homes to live in and fed and clothed and are taking housing away from our own people who are in need of a home to live in. Our politicians will do anything for foreigners. The government has a plan alright? The plan is to keep allowing more in. This prime mistake of ours was in New York today and was telling some news reporters that Canadians are sympathetic to refugees and they are all in favor of allowing in more. The PM says that Canadians are suckers, oops, I mean wonderful caring loving pro-refugee people who do not mind letting more in. Geez, I do not remember saying that I was all that sympathetic about and towards refugees. Shocking. 

[Argus]

20 hours ago, turningrite said:

I too worry about the cost of all of this. Further, affordable housing is all but nonexistent in Canada's largest cities and the latest influx will further tax resources available to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The federal government seems to have no plan here. It should pay a big price for this in 2019. 

Why should the federal government need a plan for affordable housing? It's not a federal area of responsibility. The cities are creations of the provinces. They, and housing, are a provincial responsibility. As far as 'affordability' goes, the major impetus to the high cost of housing seems to be provincial and municipal government policies, regulations, taxes and fees.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Why should the federal government need a plan for affordable housing? It's not a federal area of responsibility. The cities are creations of the provinces. They, and housing, are a provincial responsibility. As far as 'affordability' goes, the major impetus to the high cost of housing seems to be provincial and municipal government policies, regulations, taxes and fees.

I think you've fallen into the jurisdictional trap that often enslaves effective policy response in this country. There's little doubt that the country's ability to absorb large-scale immigration is under challenge. A fairly recent internal federal government study, which came to light via an access to information request, reached this conclusion (link below). The notion that federal policy doesn't impact areas like housing, employment and health care access, which strictly speaking often fall outside its jurisdiction, is absurd. Somehow, our political elites have become comfortable with this jurisdictional smoke and mirrors routine. But I suspect that by-and-large members of the public are far more realistic. A major component of the problem is that Canada's current political cartel at the federal level serves to undermine public debate on such contentious topics, thus rendering it difficult to challenge the status quo. This may be starting to change. Toronto's mayor recently spoke about the impact of the refugee/migrant flow on Toronto's already overly burdened shelter system and recent analyses have highlighted the dire unaffordability of rental housing in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. And in Quebec the CAQ is openly campaigning on restricting immigration. I think it dangerous to assume there will never be a reaction and rely upon the façade of jurisdiction to ignore addressing current and looming crises. 

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

Edited May 18, 2018 by turningrite

[taxme]

58 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I think you've fallen into the jurisdictional trap that often enslaves effective policy response in this country. There's little doubt that the country's ability to absorb large-scale immigration is under challenge. A fairly recent internal federal government study, which came to light via an access to information request, reached this conclusion (link below). The notion that federal policy doesn't impact areas like housing, employment and health care access, which strictly speaking often fall outside its jurisdiction, is absurd. Somehow, our political elites have become comfortable with this jurisdictional smoke and mirrors routine. But I suspect that by-and-large members of the public are far more realistic. A major component of the problem is that Canada's current political cartel at the federal level serves to undermine public debate on such contentious topics, thus rendering it difficult to challenge the status quo. This may be starting to change. Toronto's mayor recently spoke about the impact of the refugee/migrant flow on Toronto's already overly burdened shelter system and recent analyses have highlighted the dire unaffordability of rental housing in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. And in Quebec the CAQ is openly campaigning on restricting immigration. I think it dangerous to assume there will never be a reaction and rely upon the façade of jurisdiction to ignore addressing current and looming crises. 

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

With the massive amounts of legal and illegal refugees on top of the 300,000 new immigrants being allowed and into this country every year it's no wonder there is a housing crises. The more new people that are allowed in the country the more housing problems there will be. This country needs a moratorium on all immigration into this country. Canada has many of it's own citizen's living on the streets but yet the politicians do not seem to care. They are more concerned about the rest of the world. Some politicians are even calling for more immigration.

We have a problem alright in Canada. It is called a politician problem. They have gone further than dumb and dummer. There are totally whacked out. 

[Argus]

On 5/18/2018 at 2:07 PM, turningrite said:

I think you've fallen into the jurisdictional trap that often enslaves effective policy response in this country. There's little doubt that the country's ability to absorb large-scale immigration is under challenge.

I have no doubt that bringing in 340,000 new people every year presents a challenge for housing. That's one of the reasons I'm NOT in favour of bringing in 340,000 people every year. However, it presents the same challenge in numerous other situations. I don't think the answer is for the federal government to stick its fingers into every single subject but for the provinces to examine what policies they need to change or implement. Ultimately, I see no reason governments should concern themselves with housing. As long as nothing government does gets in their way, the private sector will supply the housing far more efficiently than government. The problem, at least in many places, is local and provincial government regulations and development charges add substantial costs and delays to new housing development.

Buyers in Canada's most overheated real estate markets paid an average of $229,000 extra per home between 2007 and 2016 because of regulations making it difficult for builders to construct more single-family houses, said a new study.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/05/16/regulations-add-229-000-to-cost-of-homes-in-canadas-hottest-markets-study_a_23436006/

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/04/development-fees-account-over-20-new-home-prices

[turningrite]

In the news today is a report indicating that during the first three months of 2018 there were only 135 removals of failed refugee claimants, presumably many of them from among the thousands who've entered the country "irregularly" since Trump came to power south of the border. According the one news report, a government spokesman (spokesperson?) said that most of the irregulars aren't "removal ready," whatever that means. The fiasco is seriously undermining the legitimacy of Canadian immigration policy and testing the public's patience with the Trudeau government, which has to start to demonstrate backbone on this file. So far, its approach is a total failure.

[taxme]

22 minutes ago, turningrite said:

In the news today is a report indicating that during the first three months of 2018 there were only 135 removals of failed refugee claimants, presumably many of them from among the thousands who've entered the country "irregularly" since Trump came to power south of the border. According the one news report, a government spokesman (spokesperson?) said that most of the irregulars aren't "removal ready," whatever that means. The fiasco is seriously undermining the legitimacy of Canadian immigration policy and testing the public's patience with the Trudeau government, which has to start to demonstrate backbone on this file. So far, its approach is a total failure.

That is really shocking to hear that only that many have been shipped out. Out of over ten to twelve thousand criminal illegals so far only 135 have been booted out of the country is deplorable and this just shows us all that there is really something wrong with our immigration system and something may be going on here that we are not being informed about. 

Our immigration policy is in a terrible mess thanks to the likes of Trudeau and his merry liberal ilk who thinks that Canada should not have any border gates at all. I know that Trudeau loves his illegals and I am pretty sure that he wants them all to stay. I guess that is one way of him in trying to make us all to believe that multiculturalism and diversity is great for Canada and all the world is welcome here whether you are an illegal or legal refugee. It is safe to say that our immigration policy needs a huge overhaul if we are going to show the world that Canadians will not accept all these criminal illegals from gaining entrance into Canada and by the looks of things will get to stay here as things look now. 

Really. What does "removal ready" really mean? What our Canadian politicians have been allowed to get away with for decades now is down right criminal. They sure show me that they have no interests or concerns about Canada except for maybe their own interests and concerns that may help serve them when they leave office. It is the Canadian taxpayer's who are being forced to suffer here from all of the billions that have been blown on legal and illegal criminal so called refugees. Why is discussing immigration in this country a taboo and sacred cow? 

[eyeball]

The sound of right-wing racist angst is such sweet music to my ears.

I'm just so so proud of my human race - puts a real lump in my throat.

[turningrite]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

The sound of right-wing racist angst is such sweet music to my ears.

I'm just so so proud of my human race - puts a real lump in my throat.

In my view, you've won the award for most reflexively reactionary comment of the day. And it's pretty uninformed as well. We know of course that slinging the "R" word has become a common form of ideological bullying, but my bigger concern here is your apparent lack of awareness of the progressive argument against uncontrolled migration. In particular, it undermines the legitimacy of the legal immigration system. A backlash will no doubt negatively impact prospective immigrants who've complied with the legal process and in many cases have waited in line for years. Secondly, uncontrolled "irregular" migration will cost treasuries billions of dollars that might otherwise be spent on supporting social programs like health care and child care. There's only so much tax money to go around and supporting self-selected migrants for years is a very expensive venture. The British economist and Oxford professor Sir Paul Collier has noted that the net economic benefits of large-scale immigration are marginal and that the benefits that do accrue are largely enjoyed by the wealthy, by increasing aggregate domestic demand and undermining wages, while those lower on the economic ladder, including other recent immigrants, pay the price in terms of increased competition for jobs, housing and social services. Canada now features a relatively declining second-tier derivative economy. According to Stats Can, we lose a significant percentage of the highly-trained, highly-skilled and motivated immigrants who do arrive, presumably because many of them see better economic prospects elsewhere. We need to examine and adjust our immigration policies in the context of acknowledging and adapting to some very inconvenient realities.

Edited June 8, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

In my view, you've won the award for most reflexively reactionary comment of the day. And it's pretty uninformed as well. We know of course that slinging the "R" word has become a common form of ideological bullying, 

It's just tit for tat. Flinging the R word around only became popular after about twenty years of having the L word flung around so much it practically drips from every single political discussion that's underway.  You can probably thank the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and Karl Roves of the world for bringing a certain respectability to ideological bullying.  How informed is it to compare someone you're directing comments at to Pol Pot or Stalin in practically every other discussion?

Quote

 

but my bigger concern here is your apparent lack of awareness of the progressive argument against uncontrolled migration. In particular, it undermines the legitimacy of the legal immigration system.

 

I just don't give a shit. We insist that our money should be free to roam the world in search of greener pastures and that often undermines societies.  I think it's unconscionable that we don't allow people as much freedom to move.    

Quote

 

A backlash will no doubt negatively impact prospective immigrants who've complied with the legal process and in many cases have waited in line for years.

 

I'd say the right-wing angst is the backlash except its aimed at the wrong people.  You should be taking aim at the problem which is globalism.

Quote

Secondly, uncontrolled "irregular" migration will cost treasuries billions of dollars that might otherwise be spent on supporting social programs like health care and child care. There's only so much tax money to go around and supporting self-selected migrants for years is a very expensive venture.

You haven't seen anything yet, wait until climate change really kicks human migration into high gear.
 

Quote

 

The British economist and Oxford professor Sir Paul Collier has noted that the net economic benefits of large-scale immigration are marginal and that the benefits that do accrue are largely enjoyed by the wealthy, by increasing aggregate domestic demand and undermining wages, while those lower on the economic ladder, including other recent immigrants, pay the price in terms of increased competition for jobs, housing and social services. Canada now features a relatively declining second-tier derivative economy. According to Stats Can, we lose a significant percentage of the highly-trained, highly-skilled and motivated immigrants who do arrive, presumably because many of them see better economic prospects elsewhere. We need to examine and adjust our immigration policies in the context of acknowledging and adapting to some very inconvenient realities.

 

 

 

People should have listened to people who were warning about the effects of globalization and climate change instead of reflexively flinging uninformed names at them I guess.  

Edited June 8, 2018 by eyeball

[taxme]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

The sound of right-wing racist angst is such sweet music to my ears.

I'm just so so proud of my human race - puts a real lump in my throat.

So sad to hear that you enjoy listening to right wing KKK racist angst and that it is such sweet music to your ears. And here I always thought that you were a left wing liberal or socialist. I am surprised and how wrong I was about you. 

So, you say that you were so proud of humans like Mao, Stalin, Ghengis Khan and Pol Pot? That should put a guilty swallow in your throat alright. Shocking indeed. 

 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's just tit for tat. Flinging the R word around only became popular after about twenty years of having the L word flung around so much it practically drips from every single political discussion that's underway.  You can probably thank the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and Karl Roves of the world for bringing a certain respectability to ideological bullying.  How informed is it to compare someone you're directing comments at to Pol Pot or Stalin in practically every other discussion?

I just don't give a shit. We insist that our money should be free to roam the world in search of greener pastures and that often undermines societies.  I think it's unconscionable that we don't allow people as much freedom to move.    

I'd say the right-wing angst is the backlash except its aimed at the wrong people.  You should be taking aim at the problem which is globalism.

You haven't seen anything yet, wait until climate change really kicks human migration into high gear.
 

People should have listened to people who were warning about the effects of globalization and climate change instead of reflexively flinging uninformed names at them I guess.  

What would liberal intolerant bigots have if it were not for throwing the "R" word around towards people they don't like and to be used and thrown at people to try and shut others down that liberals do not want to have to listen to or agree with or dare to even have an adult and not a childish debate and conversation with? You like to call some members here racist because they have a different opinion and point of view to yours. And yet when they try and to explain their position you still will attack them and keep calling them racists. 

So tell me then. Why do you consider that people who have a different opinion or point of view on something like immigration or say that they are proud white people that somehow those members have to be racists? Can you explain that one to me because I would really like to know? Go ahead. But I bet you won't. Here's hoping you will. Cheers. 

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

1) It's just tit for tat. Flinging the R word around only became popular after about twenty years of having the L word flung around so much it practically drips from every single political discussion that's underway.  You can probably thank the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and Karl Roves of the world for bringing a certain respectability to ideological bullying.  How informed is it to compare someone you're directing comments at to Pol Pot or Stalin in practically every other discussion?

2) I just don't give a shit. We insist that our money should be free to roam the world in search of greener pastures and that often undermines societies.  I think it's unconscionable that we don't allow people as much freedom to move.    

3) I'd say the right-wing angst is the backlash except its aimed at the wrong people.  You should be taking aim at the problem which is globalism.

4) You haven't seen anything yet, wait until climate change really kicks human migration into high gear.

5) People should have listened to people who were warning about the effects of globalization and climate change instead of reflexively flinging uninformed names at them I guess.  

1) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? I oppose ideological bullying of any sort. I believe productive debate must be based on substance and evidence.

2) Perhaps freedom of movement should be the ideal but for practical purposes it simply doesn't exist. While the EU has achieved a measure of it, the NAFTA arrangement has largely precluded it except for some educated professionals. We have to live within the world as it is.

3) I agree that globalization has been very poorly implemented. Governments initially promised that displaced workers wouldn't be abandoned but then promptly ditched that premise. Here in Canada, as well as in the U.S., there are wide swaths of displaced workers in their 40s, 50s and 60s and yet there are virtually no government programs for unemployed older workers. Instead, immigration integration gets the government's attention, at least in Canada. You have to ask if we really need to import workers when the labour market participation rate remains below levels seen a decade or more ago and we're being told that within the next generation technology could displace up to half of those who are now working?

4) I'm not convinced that climate change will generate mass migration, except perhaps to countries that neighbour places facing actual crises. Much of the migration to Western countries seems to be premised as much on benefits seeking as on flight from crisis. Most of those who are crossing from the U.S. are hardly at risk of much other than being sent back to their relatively poorer homelands. Most of the Syrian refugees Canada has accepted were safely ensconced in UN refugee camps and reportedly getting some of them to relocate to Canada was a hard sell.

5) Again, globalization has been poorly implemented. The jury's out on how climate change might impact migration patterns. And, yes, those who warned of the negative consequences of globalization should have been listened to and heeded. But that didn't happen and we're dealing with the consequences. We should also heed the warnings of the sound voices that warn of the implications of large-scale migration for Western societies. The American economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman has said that "it's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." Despite the rosy view of those like Trudeau who think we can maintain both, there will be a reckoning. The money will run out and people who paid into the system for years believing they'd have adequate public pensions and health care in retirement will be shocked - and angry. The consequences won't be pleasant when that realization takes hold. 

 

[taxme]

19 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? I oppose ideological bullying of any sort. I believe productive debate must be based on substance and evidence.

2) Perhaps freedom of movement should be the ideal but for practical purposes it simply doesn't exist. While the EU has achieved a measure of it, the NAFTA arrangement has largely precluded it except for some educated professionals. We have to live within the world as it is.

3) I agree that globalization has been very poorly implemented. Governments initially promised that displaced workers wouldn't be abandoned but then promptly ditched that premise. Here in Canada, as well as in the U.S., there are wide swaths of displaced workers in their 40s, 50s and 60s and yet there are virtually no government programs for unemployed older workers. Instead, immigration integration gets the government's attention, at least in Canada. You have to ask if we really need to import workers when the labour market participation rate remains below levels seen a decade or more ago and we're being told that within the next generation technology could displace up to half of those who are now working?

4) I'm not convinced that climate change will generate mass migration, except perhaps to countries that neighbour places facing actual crises. Much of the migration to Western countries seems to be premised as much on benefits seeking as on flight from crisis. Most of those who are crossing from the U.S. are hardly at risk of much other than being sent back to their relatively poorer homelands. Most of the Syrian refugees Canada has accepted were safely ensconced in UN refugee camps and reportedly getting some of them to relocate to Canada was a hard sell.

5) Again, globalization has been poorly implemented. The jury's out on how climate change might impact migration patterns. And, yes, those who warned of the negative consequences of globalization should have been listened to and heeded. But that didn't happen and we're dealing with the consequences. We should also heed the warnings of the sound voices that warn of the implications of large-scale migration for Western societies. The American economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman has said that "it's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." Despite the rosy view of those like Trudeau who think we can maintain both, there will be a reckoning. The money will run out and people who paid into the system for years believing they'd have adequate public pensions and health care in retirement will be shocked - and angry. The consequences won't be pleasant when that realization takes hold. 

 

Bringing in over three hundred thousand new immigrants on top of the legal and illegal ones every year will not help in anyway our unemployment situation. There are thousands of new immigrants and legal and illegals that are not working. This is taking a big toll on our tax dollars and for what? To try and bankrupt Canadians because it sure looks like that is what our dear leaders are trying to do. Our problems will always be there because of our present day immigration policy. Otherwise what else can it be that keeps the unemployed unemployed and the debt soaring up every year. Canada needs a moratorium on immigration now and not wait for another ten years from now to realize that we do have an immigration problem. . 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? I oppose ideological bullying of any sort.

Well, I guess I saw you commiserating with right-wingers that whine about brown people and given your name and all I just assumed you were full of angst too. 

Quote

I believe productive debate must be based on substance and evidence.

I'm afraid that ship sailed years and years ago.

Quote

The jury's out on how climate change might impact migration patterns.

The jury might still be out but not the science.

Edited June 8, 2018 by eyeball

[Centerpiece]

Canada is at sizable risk of creating the same situation that exists in the US. Incremental illegal immigration over the past 15 years has resulted in many millions of undocumented aliens. It matters little how many sob stories are told - the fact is that it got out of control and has bred general resentment to the refugee and immigration process. If we don't get things under control and control our borders, our incremental "irregular" crossings will spawn the same resentment - and that would indeed be a shame. But it's happening as we speak.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

It matters little how many sob stories are told - the fact is that it got out of control and has bred general resentment to the refugee and immigration process. If we don't get things under control and control our borders, our incremental "irregular" crossings will spawn the same resentment - and that would indeed be a shame. But it's happening as we speak.

Why would resentment be such a shame?

BTW its also happening just as predicted.

Edited June 9, 2018 by eyeball

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why would resentment be such a shame?

BTW its also happening just as predicted.

Because properly managed immigration is needed......and a refugee system that provides a strong support system to a manageable stream of genuine refugees is the right thing to do.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

Because properly managed immigration is needed......and a refugee system that provides a strong support system to a manageable stream of genuine refugees is the right thing to do.

Not as much as a properly governed global economy.

You didn't answer my question, why would resentment be such a shame?

[Centerpiece]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not as much as a properly governed global economy.

You didn't answer my question, why would resentment be such a shame?

I answered it directly - but I'll try to reword it for you. It would be a shame if resentment built up because resentment breeds opposition to what we need (managed immigration) and what's right (managed and supported refugee system).

As for the Global economy - you're jumping ahead to Nirvana with one measly, unexplained sentence. The EU is at risk of crumbling for a variety of reasons. It will take time and patience to sort it all out. I like the idea of developing and maturing different, smaller blocks of trading partners instead of a one size fits all approach. Then we can start to fit the blocks together. We've got enough problems getting Mexico/Canada/US functioning smoothly. And then there's China.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

I answered it directly - but I'll try to reword it for you. It would be a shame if resentment built up because resentment breeds opposition to what we need (managed immigration) and what's right (managed and supported refugee system).

You're avoiding the answer. If our resentment continues to build violence is how we'll react.

Quote

 

As for the Global economy - you're jumping ahead to Nirvana with one measly, unexplained sentence. The EU is at risk of crumbling for a variety of reasons. It will take time and patience to sort it all out. I like the idea of developing and maturing different, smaller blocks of trading partners instead of a one size fits all approach. Then we can start to fit the blocks together. We've got enough problems getting Mexico/Canada/US functioning smoothly. And then there's China.

 

What is there to explain, money was allowed to reach global Nirvana without the adequate checks and balances that only a global governing system can provide - that's what makes it so Nirvana-like, no check or balance.

I'm afraid the time to "sort it out" peacefully is past and the main thing standing in the way of our violent reaction is the left wing. I do believe smaller trading blocks are the answer but only if they tie trade to human rights, environmental standards and total public awareness of every level of governance above all else.

It'll never happen though because the right-wing won't stand for it.

Violence appears to be the only path forward.    

[Centerpiece]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're avoiding the answer. If our resentment continues to build violence is how we'll react.

What is there to explain, money was allowed to reach global Nirvana without the adequate checks and balances that only a global governing system can provide - that's what makes it so Nirvana-like, no check or balance.

I'm afraid the time to "sort it out" peacefully is past and the main thing standing in the way of our violent reaction is the left wing. I do believe smaller trading blocks are the answer but only if they tie trade to human rights, environmental standards and total public awareness of every level of governance above all else.

It'll never happen though because the right-wing won't stand for it.

Violence appears to be the only path forward.    

You're a scary guy Eyeball. With all the advances we've made on Human Rights and Environmental awareness in the past 30 years alone - all the trading relationships that have taken hold, a grudging end to Soviet Communism, China being pulled ever closer to some form of people representation.....all these advances - and you are advocating violence? For heaven's sake - the EU is only 25 years old - still an experiment. Have some patience - have some faith! 

Your "one world" view is just a larger breeding ground for elitism - a place where the one-percent can hang out. Humanity will never accept a one size fits all - it's just another way of expressing "the lowest common denominator". I've said it before - the challenge that democracy faces is the constant vigilance and legislation that's required to keep the rough edges of Capitalism in check - in other words "how much is enough?". Capitalism and Socialist ideals make strange bedfellows but in proper moderation, there is a vital symbiosis - and there should be respect for both.  Dream of what's to come - but pay the bills today.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Centerpiece