Justin Trudeau, another Kardashian

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

2. I disagree. Extreme disparity does not lead to unrest. You are mistaking correlation and cause/effect. And I'm not even certain about the correlation between social unrest and extreme disparity. 

I thank you for responding to my point.  Furthermore, your response is interesting and indeed there are some cases when you're right.  Watching for thread drift (a bad habit of mine to miss) I will end it there.

[cannuck]

On 2/26/2018 at 11:45 AM, Argus said:

In various ways. 

I think everyone should have to register to vote, and in doing so take a small test, something that could be done in thirty minutes or so, and which demonstrates basic knowledge of what has been happening politically and economically, and what the major party platforms are. I think that merely having to go somewhere and take a brief test would result in nearly half of the electorate not bothering to get 'registered' to vote. Not because they'd find it hard to pass but because they just wouldn't bother. That would be a good thing. The fewer lazy people who don't really care a lot who vote the better.

In  a broader way (which will never happen) I think you should have to be a taxpayer in order to decide how taxes should be spent. And if not, then you should have to do something, volunteer work, say, or joining the military or... something. With rights should come responsibilities. If you have no responsibilities to this country then why should you have the right to vote?

Computers can be wonderful things.

My solution:  each person with a SIN and citizenship (easily identified) gets one vote.  Then, for certain things, you get a vote voucher for an extra vote.  Military service, for instance, an extra vote for each 5 years or so.  Paying income tax: an extra vote for each $20k or so of Fed for fed elections and similar number for provincial tax paid for provincial elections.

Edited March 5, 2018 by cannuck

[?Impact]

5 hours ago, cannuck said:

My solution:  each person with a SIN and citizenship (easily identified) gets one vote.  Then, for certain things, you get a vote voucher for an extra vote.  Military service, for instance, an extra vote for each 5 years or so.  Paying income tax: an extra vote for each $20k or so of Fed for fed elections and similar number for provincial tax paid for provincial elections.

So one person is more valuable than others. One person may dedicate their life to saving others, but they are less valuable than one who dedicates their life to taking the lives of others?

[dialamah]

5 hours ago, cannuck said:

I think you should have to be a taxpayer in order to decide how taxes should be spent. And if not, then you should have to do something, volunteer work, say, or joining the military or... something. With rights should come responsibilities. If you have no responsibilities to this country then why should you have the right to vote?

 

5 hours ago, cannuck said:

each person with a SIN and citizenship (easily identified) gets one vote.  Then, for certain things, you get a vote voucher for an extra vote.  Military service, for instance, an extra vote for each 5 years or so.  Paying income tax: an extra vote for each $20k or so of Fed for fed elections and similar number for provincial tax paid for provincial elections.

 

Gee whizzikers, just how can we ensure our democracy is only available to certain people?  That's what democracy is all about, eh -  disenfranchising those who 'lack' in some way - whether it's physically, mentally or (mostly) monetarily.   We can just modify the definition of 'democracy', eh?

Democracy:  a : a government by (some of) the people; especially : rule of the majority whoever has the most money.

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people (who have the most money) and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation (designed to eliminate a substantial portion of the people in the country from having any say) usually involving periodically held free limited elections 

Edited March 5, 2018 by dialamah

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So one person is more valuable than others. One person may dedicate their life to saving others, but they are less valuable than one who dedicates their life to taking the lives of others?

It is not a question of one person's value, but one person's actual sacrifice, be it financial or risk.  Since the business of government is not only to govern, but to spend the money collected from those who have to earn it, that IMHO should give those who do so a proportionate level of influence on who gets to represent them and spend their money.  The precedent is simple: under 18 children do not get to vote, so no great stretch to grant that others who depend on the state should have a vote, but not necessarily THE vote.

I was dashing out a quick post in between other tasks, and should have included firefighters and law enforcement officers (in the field, not in the office) along with military.  Getting your brains blown out by a criminal, enemy or collapsing building is simply a level of service to the public that NOBODY else has to make.  You see military as dedicated to taking lives, most of the rest of us can see that they are tasked with doing some very dangerous things to protect us from having our lives (or those of our allies) taken.

 

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, cannuck said:

The precedent is simple: under 18 children do not get to vote, so no great stretch to grant that others who depend on the state should have a vote, but not necessarily THE vote.

Children under 18 will be paying for the mistakes of older people who do get to vote for a much longer time, perhaps your precedent is a bad one.

1 minute ago, cannuck said:

tasked with doing some very dangerous things to protect us from having our lives (or those of our allies) taken.

So the farmer who risks his life to put food on our table is less valuable than the cop who has a far less dangerous job?

[cannuck]

Just now, dialamah said:

 

 

Gee whizzikers, just how can we ensure our democracy is only available to certain people?  That's what democracy is all about, eh -  disenfranchising those who 'lack' in some way - whether it's physically, mentally or (mostly) monetarily.   We can just modify the definition of 'democracy', eh?

government by (some of) the people; especially : rule of the majority whoever has the most money.

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people (who have the most money) and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation (designed to eliminate a substantial portion of the people affected from having any say) usually involving periodically held free limited elections 

Your view is different from mine.  As our so-called "democracy" operates right now, the balance of power rests very strongly in the hands of the extremely wealthy and extremely effective lobbyists and communicators.   The power SHOULD be with "the people", but not just in general, but in some respect reflecting what they contribute to the country, not what they take from it.  In my own view of how representation should be, I would make partisanship in any form completely illegal, same for lobbying.  Same for running up any debt.   If you spend the money, it should be repaid during your term of office so that the tax bill directly reflects what YOU did during office, not passing the bill to my/our grandchildren for you to buy votes today.

[cannuck]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So the farmer who risks his life to put food on our table is less valuable than the cop who has a far less dangerous job?

Gee, I am one of those farmers and I have yet to have anyone take a shot at me (although if you were to come into my yard to steal something...).  You think being a cop is "far less dangerous"?????   Any farmer has the choice to make his job as safe or as dangerous as he chooses, a cop, soldier or firefighter does not have that luxury when they are doing what their job can entail.

Edited March 5, 2018 by cannuck

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Gee, I am one of those farmers and I have yet to have anyone take a shot at me.  You think being a cop is "far less dangerous"?????   Any farmer has the choice to make his job as safe or as dangerous as he chooses, a cop, soldier or firefighter does not have that luxury when they are doing what their job can entail.

The reality is that jobs like veterinarian, farmer, construction worker, nurse, taxi driver, and truck driver are among the most dangerous out there. Pretending that there is a choice to be made is ridiculous. You can`t predict how an animal might react, or a patient, or other drivers on the road. Just being on a construction site entails a lot of danger that you have no control over.

[dialamah]

Just now, cannuck said:

Your view is different from mine.  As our so-called "democracy" operates right now, the balance of power rests very strongly in the hands of the extremely wealthy and extremely effective lobbyists and communicators.  [/quote]

Yes, it is in the hands of the powerful and rich; you and Argus would add to that with your 'if you pay extra tax, you get an extra say'   People with more money pay more tax; this would be true even if everyone were taxed at exactly the same rate.  We aren't, but nonetheless if you make enough money to be taxed that extra amount, you also have more discretionary income than those who are at a lower tax rate.  You guys don't seem to understand that; instead, you take the view that you shouldn't have to contribute as per your ability.   I don't know if you are married, or if your wife worked, but if you are like most of us 'older' couples, you probably made more than your wife.  So, in terms of building and maintaining your household, did you expect your wife to contribute more or most of her overall income to the household to match the 'higher' amount you were able to contribute?   Or did you reduce your contribution to the household in order to match your wife's reduced ability, and keep the rest for your own benefit and wellbeing?   Or did you arrange the contributions to the household so that you each had some of your own money, even if it meant you (or possibly your wife) actually contributed more to the running of your household?

 

Quote

The power SHOULD be with "the people", but not just in general, but in some respect reflecting what they contribute to the country, not what they take from it.  In my own view of how representation should be, I would make partisanship in any form completely illegal, same for lobbying.  Same for running up any debt.   If you spend the money, it should be repaid during your term of office so that the tax bill directly reflects what YOU did during office, not passing the bill to my/our grandchildren for you to buy votes today.

Running a country, or a business, is not like running a household.   Imagine if a company CEO could never negotiate a loan for expansion in case it wouldn't be paid back before he left that position, and it was left to the next CEO to ensure that the company repaid the loan?     It's a ridiculous notion for a company, and even more ridiculous for a country.   What if we had to go to war, and had to borrow money to do that - but couldn't, because it wouldn't be paid back within 4 years?   What if climate change decimates coastal areas and we want to save lives to the tune of a billion dollars - but the law didn't allow that, so millions die or are left homeless and in poverty?  

You can't make partisanship illegal; it is part of human nature to 'pick a team'.  What would be better would be to make being stupid illegal, but since we all have a different idea of what constitutes "stupid" - usually based on along partisanship lines, I notice - that's another non-starter.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

The reality is that jobs like veterinarian, farmer, construction worker, nurse, taxi driver, and truck driver are among the most dangerous out there. Pretending that there is a choice to be made is ridiculous. You can`t predict how an animal might react, or a patient, or other drivers on the road. Just being on a construction site entails a lot of danger that you have no control over.

I can agree to some extent.  I also spend a lot of time with large animal vets, and can tell you that none I know are going to risk treating a dangerous animal without mitigating the risks with restraint or sedation.  One of my daughters has stared down Mountain Gorillas in Uganda, and palpated wild lions on the Serengeti, so I am very aware of the risks she has taken there, but in domestic practice, she will never put herself at such a high level of danger.  We also have children who are soldier, firefighter and law enforcement officer.  In those jobs, there is also a strong shift in thinking as to how to carry out their duties with less risk, but the difference is that the veterinarian does NOT have to assume that level of risk but when the real crap hits the fan, the others do not have much choice.  Even a truck driver has seat belts, protective cab, hours of service limits, etc. that will keep him alive if he or she uses them as intended.

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yes, it is in the hands of the powerful and rich; you and Argus would add to that with your 'if you pay extra tax, you get an extra say'   People with more money pay more tax; this would be true even if everyone were taxed at exactly the same rate.  We aren't, but nonetheless if you make enough money to be taxed that extra amount, you also have more discretionary income than those who are at a lower tax rate.  You guys don't seem to understand that; instead, you take the view that you shouldn't have to contribute as per your ability.   I don't know if you are married, or if your wife worked, but if you are like most of us 'older' couples, you probably made more than your wife.  So, in terms of building and maintaining your household, did you expect your wife to contribute more or most of her overall income to the household to match the 'higher' amount you were able to contribute?   Or did you reduce your contribution to the household in order to match your wife's reduced ability, and keep the rest for your own benefit and wellbeing?   Or did you arrange the contributions to the household so that you each had some of your own money, even if it meant you (or possibly your wife) actually contributed more to the running of your household?

Running a country, or a business, is not like running a household.   Imagine if a company CEO could never negotiate a loan for expansion in case it wouldn't be paid back before he left that position, and it was left to the next CEO to ensure that the company repaid the loan?     It's a ridiculous notion for a company, and even more ridiculous for a country.   What if we had to go to war, and had to borrow money to do that - but couldn't, because it wouldn't be paid back within 4 years?   What if climate change decimates coastal areas and we want to save lives to the tune of a billion dollars - but the law didn't allow that, so millions die or are left homeless and in poverty?  

You can't make partisanship illegal; it is part of human nature to 'pick a team'.  What would be better would be to make being stupid illegal, but since we all have a different idea of what constitutes "stupid" - usually based on along partisanship lines, I notice - that's another non-starter.

for the first part:  my wife earned a professional income from the time we were married until we had kids.  She usually earned more than I did, but mostly because I seldom worked for anyone else and was learning how to run a business, or doing startups (that usually have a long payout period).  She took on the largest repsonsibility we have by staying with our kids for the next 25 years.  We always had one bank account (personal), and when in companies without other partners, we have always been equal shareholders, signing officers and usually withdraw the same amount from operating companies.  She does have a mad money account where her pension goes and extra cash.  There has seldom been any "mine" and "yours", just ours.

There is no reason running a country need be any different at all from running a business.  If we the people weren't so complacent and ignorant of what the country and its government is and how it works, we could easily run it properly.   Yes, wartime or natural disaster could well break the need to pay as you go, but running debt by government at the current trillion dollar rate has not been to cover any of that - just for political porkbarreling and completely non-existant concern for the future nor respect for those who will have to pay those bills.  Also, if you don't think businesses have similarly catastrophic disasters, you have obviously never been in business.

Partisanship might be a natural urge, but there are so many better ways to run a democracy than simply giving the party hacks who probably do NOT represent any kind of majority carte blanche to piss away the future with no direct democracy options, no recall, etc.  I believe that candidates should be elected from their own campaign, not any relationship that is with others.  Once they are elected, then and ONLY then should cabinets and leaders be elected.  ALL subject to recall at any time.  NONE allowed to run up any debt that would run past end of term unless some of the two former exceptions.  I could go on about what should be taxed (specualtive gain) and what should not (dividends, basic exemption level, etc.) but that is for another time and thread subject.

[ScarboroSr.]

1.  I have never voted Liberal in any provincial or federal election in the over 60 years that I have been eligible to cast a ballot.

I mention this now, so that no other users will assume that I am a Liberal Party supporter.  I am not.

2.  I am having a problem with the characterizations of Pierre Trudeau that I see here.  I would be interested in hearing from anyone who would care to explain to me what people gain by using this forum to lambaste him.  Are they simply frustrated at his success?  Is their hatred so strong that it must be expressed somewhere?

3. What purpose is served by attacking *any* of the party leaders in his way?   

Can people be so frustrated with the fact their own party is out of power, that they feel compelled to complain about Trudeau's *style* in such unkind terms?

Finally, I would like to know how members of other parties feel, when it is their party leader who is being savaged.

Sorry, if I have aggravated anyone.

Edited March 6, 2018 by ScarboroSr.
Typing error.

[dialamah]

57 minutes ago, cannuck said:

for the first part:  my wife earned a professional income from the time we were married until we had kids.  She usually earned more than I did, but mostly because I seldom worked for anyone else and was learning how to run a business, or doing startups (that usually have a long payout period).  She took on the largest repsonsibility we have by staying with our kids for the next 25 years.  We always had one bank account (personal), and when in companies without other partners, we have always been equal shareholders, signing officers and usually withdraw the same amount from operating companies.  She does have a mad money account where her pension goes and extra cash.  There has seldom been any "mine" and "yours", just ours.

So what you are saying is that you both contributed what you were able, and you supported each other.   Why shouldn't a tribe, village, town, city, province and country operate in the same way?   Not to mention, I think they have essentially throughout human history.  Beggars have been around forever, and been supported by the more generous among the citizenry; people unwilling to share their wealth with anyone have also been around forever.

Quote

There is no reason running a country need be any different at all from running a business.  If we the people weren't so complacent and ignorant of what the country and its government is and how it works, we could easily run it properly.   Yes, wartime or natural disaster could well break the need to pay as you go, but running debt by government at the current trillion dollar rate has not been to cover any of that - just for political porkbarreling and completely non-existant concern for the future nor respect for those who will have to pay those bills.  Also, if you don't think businesses have similarly catastrophic disasters, you have obviously never been in business.

Yes, of course businesses make huge errors and go out of business.  Countries also go out of "business" so to speak, or we'd all be Egyptians or Babylonians. 

But one of the major differences between a country and a corporation is that a country exists to look after it's citizens.  It's not to make a profit, get the best return on investment or to pay shareholders.  It is simply to take care of it's citizens.   I think that's a pretty important difference starting off.  

But specifically for budgeting - a country's budget is called an 'economy', not a budget and I think that alone should be a pretty good clue that a household budget is very different animal than a country's economic policy.   I'm not an economist, so I'm not about to explain why a government running a deficit or adding to debt can be 'good for it's citizens'.   However, in case you are interested in why that might be so, here are a few cites.  

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2016/09/20/what-if-the-national-economy-is-like-a-household-budget/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2013/mar/26/federal-budget-household-finances-fed

https://theconversation.com/why-the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-35498

 

Quote

Partisanship might be a natural urge, but there are so many better ways to run a democracy than simply giving the party hacks who probably do NOT represent any kind of majority carte blanche to piss away the future with no direct democracy options, no recall, etc.  I believe that candidates should be elected from their own campaign, not any relationship that is with others.  Once they are elected, then and ONLY then should cabinets and leaders be elected.  ALL subject to recall at any time.   

I also wish there was a better way to make politicians accountable.  Perhaps like you, I find huge government pensions on minimal served time outrageous; it's not that I'm against pensions, but that everyone else has to put in a full work life to get a full pension, and so should politicians.  I would also like to change the Senate: they show up to get paid, they have limited terms (maybe; there may be unintended consequences to that).  I wish there was a way to ensure politicians would work together - this "if I do it it's good/if you do it I'll criticize" form of politics is stupid and annoying.   I hoped the election reform promised by JT might address that, but he decided against.  

I have read that garden-variety sociopaths make successful politicians, and that seems to ring true a lot of the time.

[cannuck]

Looking after its citizens means looking after its citizens - not just the ones who you can dupe into voting for you by spending a pile of dough that you have no intention to repay, but looking after those citizens who are not borne yet.  Running Canada a TRILLION dollars into debt (work of both parties, if you can really see any difference between them) is totally irresponsible and sure as hell not looking after the citizens.

And, no, a budget is not an economy.   Nor is a government.   It's role should be to regulate and enforce, in a balance manner, and to provide social services  - not to dispense privilege, rack up debt, meddle in business (including picking winners and losers) and pander to every special interest group that happens along.  The economy is what business can do within the regulatory framework provided, and no Canadian government has yet figured out how to do a good job of that.

Edited March 6, 2018 by cannuck

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Looking after its citizens means looking after its citizens - not just the ones who you can dupe into voting for you by spending a pile of dough that you have no intention to repay, but looking after those citizens who are not borne yet.  Running Canada a TRILLION dollars into debt (work of both parties, if you can really see any difference between them) is totally irresponsible and sure as hell not looking after the citizens.

I'm ignoring the part about 'duping citizens by spending money', because that's irrelevant to the topic I'm interested in talking about.  It hardly matters where "too much" money is being spent; you might think a new prison in Ontario is exactly what is needed to house criminals and provide jobs in the region; I might think it's a complete waste of money because crime rates are dropping, and it's obvious that the Government is just duping people with a bit of fear-mongering and the potential of jobs.   Just one example; I'm sure there are many more we would actually disagree on.   

So, if I make $100,000.00 a year, how much mortgage can I afford?   If I make $1,000,000.00 a year, how much mortgage can I afford?  Should I should I not go into debt to get that mortgage?  Should my family live in a shack, to avoid going into debt?  

 

[dre]

13 hours ago, cannuck said:

Computers can be wonderful things.

My solution:  each person with a SIN and citizenship (easily identified) gets one vote.  Then, for certain things, you get a vote voucher for an extra vote.  Military service, for instance, an extra vote for each 5 years or so.  Paying income tax: an extra vote for each $20k or so of Fed for fed elections and similar number for provincial tax paid for provincial elections.

The problem is that representative democracy is not about the voters deciding how tax dollars should be spent or anything else for that matter. If that WERE the case we would have referendums on spending matters.

The purpose of modern democracy is to achieve stability by creating the illusion that voters are in control, and that they are all equally in control. If you start saying that one persons vote means more based on some kind of subjective criteria, then it wont work any more. The majority of people will feel disenfranchised. 

Take the stupid idea that was brought up by another poster... "Only people that pay income tax should vote". That would take the vote away from most seniors and most young people, and would achieve absolutely nothing, besides putting at risk the legitimacy of not only the government, but the political system itself.

The idea that everyone else would be second class citizens to soldiers and police is just as bad. Why on earth should employees of the states security apparatus be given extra voting rights? Who is to say that they are "better" or "more informed" voters than anyone else?

These are all terrible ideas, and the discussion is moot because none of them are ever going to happen.

[cannuck]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

So, if I make $100,000.00 a year, how much mortgage can I afford?   If I make $1,000,000.00 a year, how much mortgage can I afford?  Should I should I not go into debt to get that mortgage?  Should my family live in a shack, to avoid going into debt?  

 

I would love to go down that avenue, but no time and far too much thread drift.  Essentially, the reason you have this frame of reference is that we give a free ride to speculative gain within the tax system, resulting in the need for excessive debt to acquire shelter.  Would not be an issue if we had good government (that obviously is not only a Canadian problem).

But, you see, any such contemplation would be far beyond the level of any Kardashian, thus it does no belong in a thread about our fellow traveller who now leads the government.

[cannuck]

10 hours ago, dre said:

The problem is that representative democracy is not about the voters deciding how tax dollars should be spent or anything else for that matter. If that WERE the case we would have referendums on spending matters.

The purpose of modern democracy is to achieve stability by creating the illusion that voters are in control, and that they are all equally in control. If you start saying that one persons vote means more based on some kind of subjective criteria, then it wont work any more. The majority of people will feel disenfranchised. 

Take the stupid idea that was brought up by another poster... "Only people that pay income tax should vote". That would take the vote away from most seniors and most young people, and would achieve absolutely nothing, besides putting at risk the legitimacy of not only the government, but the political system itself.

The idea that everyone else would be second class citizens to soldiers and police is just as bad. Why on earth should employees of the states security apparatus be given extra voting rights? Who is to say that they are "better" or "more informed" voters than anyone else?

These are all terrible ideas, and the discussion is moot because none of them are ever going to happen.

Put yourself in the shoes of the small minority of the population that acutally creates wealth (by my estimation, one in six) vs. the balance who merely re-distribute it.  Those people deserve a greater say in how the other 5 get to spend their money.  It would never amount to having defacto control, only a tiny bit of consolation for paying the bills.

I am under no illusion that those who risk life and limb are "more informed", but what they do is certainly a valuable contribution to our lives.   It costs us nothing to give them the feeling that their contribution deserves recognition.

I also agree that it is not likely to happen - especially under the Kardashians.   Yet we are all just fine with them bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, granting them the privilege to vote and paying a stunning amount of money that our grandchildren will have to repay.  You can't see the irony in that?

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Put yourself in the shoes of the small minority of the population that acutally creates wealth (by my estimation, one in six) vs. the balance who merely re-distribute it.  Those people deserve a greater say in how the other 5 get to spend their money.  It would never amount to having defacto control, only a tiny bit of consolation for paying the bills.  

No, they don't and FU for even thinking that; we live in a DEMOCRACY, not a fiefdom.  Those people that you consider so deserving already have too much say in political processes and in directing government.  Those people that you consider so deserving do not have the best interests of either the country or other citizens at heart; their interest is in consolidating power and wealth to themselves.  And you would simply give them even power to screw over the rest of us and, ultimately, the country.

Quote

I am under no illusion that those who risk life and limb are "more informed", but what they do is certainly a valuable contribution to our lives.   It costs us nothing to give them the feeling that their contribution deserves recognition.

Yes, they should be rewarded - with more money, and better benefits.   However, the 'creators of wealth' don't like that idea, do they, because it comes out of taxes and 'creators of wealth' don't want to pay more taxes.   But the 'wealth creators' are the ones you'd trust to run our country?  

Quote

Yet we are all just fine with them bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, granting them the privilege to vote and paying a stunning amount of money that our grandchildren will have to repay.  You can't see the irony in that?

Even if the first generation of immigrants aren't the wonderful money-makers such as you expect they should be, their kids and grandkids will be taxpayers, also paying for whatever debt is left to pay after we are long gone.   If we left it to non-immigrants to continue our glorious country, full of wealth creators and wealth distributors, our economy would contract and the 'wealth creators' wouldn't have enough customers for their goods and services, and would go elsewhere.  You have a great plan - if you want to drive Canada into the ground and destroy it's democracy.

 

[cannuck]

Dialamah:   Not being fecetious, but exactly to whom do you think I am refering as to wealth creators?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Dialamah:   Not being fecetious, but exactly to whom do you think I am refering as to wealth creators?

People who start or run businesses, provide jobs.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

People who start or run businesses, provide jobs.

That is a good answer, but not the right one (although part of it).

I have a very simple but firm definition of when and how wealth is being created.   When you add value to a resource or deliver a service NEEDED to support that activity.   EVERYTHING else we do in our economy is merely redistributing wealth thusly created.

I will try not to get too detailed, but some generalization needed for brevity.  The person who starts and runs a business doing these things, yes, but this also applies to every employee.  There are some clean lines in the sand, but a lot of very gray areas.

Let's start with the typical family.  If we assume 2 kids, and looking only at that 20 year window when they are raising that family.   For this example, let's consider two parents, two dependent children and two surviving granparents who have retired.  In this case, Mom is at home.   There is only one person actually working in this example, and then, we have to consider what he or she is actually doing.  If the breadwinner is mining iron ore, pretty simple to decide wealth is being created.  If making it into steel, ditto.   If fabricating something from that steel (a car, a bringe, etc.) same.  We can probably agree that everyone who puts a hand on a piece of steel is productive.   What if that person works for a bank?  Well, if they are doing some of the things that genuinely are needed to run our economy (keeping accounts, loans, mortgages, etc.) then that is a necessary service.  If they are working in finance, let's say derivatives, then any money they "make" is simply paying off a bet that someone made (either win or lose), but no value was added.  They are no different from the welfare Mom with a half dozen dependent kids or the criminal incarcerated for his activities - they merely redisitribute wealth.  I even have to question the entire real estate business - in most cases, even building a structure if that structure is not needed for the creation of wealth, then no wealth is being created - in fact it is being redistributed from the productive part of the economy to the dependent part.

As I hope you can see, not very many people in our society create any wealth.  The size of your pay packet or the percieved importance of your position does not necessarily corealte with how productive and contributory you are to the economy, or society in general.   What we have right now is a very lopsided economy with far too many people being given the privilege (dispensed mostly by government) to take a dissporportinately large part of the resources for activities that do not contribute to either bettering the economy or society.   Just growth for the sake of growth is actually a very negative thing, since we start measuring the value of speculative gain and confusing it with increased overall wealth.  The only reason we can keep on doing this, so far, is that we have a very large natural resource base to exploit to support a very small population.   Also, because we blindly have mortgaged our children's future to pay for some of this largess (a trillion dollars of debt is not sustainable - unless we learn to manage what we do with the rest of our economy to create wealth instead of merely redistribute it and inflate the numbers speculatively).

Later.

[dre]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

That is a good answer, but not the right one (although part of it).

I have a very simple but firm definition of when and how wealth is being created.   When you add value to a resource or deliver a service NEEDED to support that activity.   EVERYTHING else we do in our economy is merely redistributing wealth thusly created.

I will try not to get too detailed, but some generalization needed for brevity.  The person who starts and runs a business doing these things, yes, but this also applies to every employee.  There are some clean lines in the sand, but a lot of very gray areas.

Let's start with the typical family.  If we assume 2 kids, and looking only at that 20 year window when they are raising that family.   For this example, let's consider two parents, two dependent children and two surviving granparents who have retired.  In this case, Mom is at home.   There is only one person actually working in this example, and then, we have to consider what he or she is actually doing.  If the breadwinner is mining iron ore, pretty simple to decide wealth is being created.  If making it into steel, ditto.   If fabricating something from that steel (a car, a bringe, etc.) same.  We can probably agree that everyone who puts a hand on a piece of steel is productive.   What if that person works for a bank?  Well, if they are doing some of the things that genuinely are needed to run our economy (keeping accounts, loans, mortgages, etc.) then that is a necessary service.  If they are working in finance, let's say derivatives, then any money they "make" is simply paying off a bet that someone made (either win or lose), but no value was added.  They are no different from the welfare Mom with a half dozen dependent kids or the criminal incarcerated for his activities - they merely redisitribute wealth.  I even have to question the entire real estate business - in most cases, even building a structure if that structure is not needed for the creation of wealth, then no wealth is being created - in fact it is being redistributed from the productive part of the economy to the dependent part.

As I hope you can see, not very many people in our society create any wealth.  The size of your pay packet or the percieved importance of your position does not necessarily corealte with how productive and contributory you are to the economy, or society in general.   What we have right now is a very lopsided economy with far too many people being given the privilege (dispensed mostly by government) to take a dissporportinately large part of the resources for activities that do not contribute to either bettering the economy or society.   Just growth for the sake of growth is actually a very negative thing, since we start measuring the value of speculative gain and confusing it with increased overall wealth.  The only reason we can keep on doing this, so far, is that we have a very large natural resource base to exploit to support a very small population.   Also, because we blindly have mortgaged our children's future to pay for some of this largess (a trillion dollars of debt is not sustainable - unless we learn to manage what we do with the rest of our economy to create wealth instead of merely redistribute it and inflate the numbers speculatively).

Later.

That would have been my definition too. Wealth is created  by adding value to natural resources and creating things that people are willing to trade their labor (their money) for.

However I disagree with the 1 VS 6. If you talked to 10 random people in my particular town there would be one unemployed person, but there would be a couple of retail workers, a couple of fishermen, a couple of miners and loggers and a couple of other service industry workers. All of these jobs are part of the wealth generation process, and part of the greater economy. So I would say the number is more like 5 out of 6 or 4 out of six.

[Rue]

On 2/13/2018 at 7:45 PM, capricorn said:

 

Can Trudeau not exercise his duties as Prime Minister without wrapping his arms around some (female) Canadians?

 

 

 

Capricorn we need to talk.