Jump to content

Some pigs are more deserving than others.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not mad.  I said have a nice day.
2 Ok - "the Indians".  There you go...

I said have a nice day because I'm done with this.  I pretty much know people are saying "let's do nothing" although they are cloaking it in things I generally agree with: "cutting a cheque isn't enough" "money doesn't solve problems".

But really... it's "let's do nothing"

 

Have a really nice day.

Another trait of conservatives is to not have big mood swings. In liberals the limbic region of the brain is overactive. It is only when a thik layer of neocortex forms, that conservative man finally emerges.

You said Indians. You do realize it's a white power word, right? So let's start by that. I mean, if we're all about symbolism we should at least get their name right?

...

There's lots that could be done for natives, or the indigenous. Lots' has already been attempted though, and the money squandered by corruption, both inside and outside the reserves.

Last I heard tell some of them injuns still ain't got no flush toilets and a sink to wash in. Maybe Mr. Trudeau can get off the gold-plated bidet and eventually get round to it. It's that simple!

I think some things can not be "fixed", only mitigated. Give it some time and space. Stop poking the wound.

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 12:01 PM, Argus said:

He doesn't say it but he might as well. This government's fixation on 'equity' at the expensive of equality and merit is likely going to cause any number of issues down the road for Canada as we become more divided along identity lines. It's short-sighted, unjustified and stupid policies like this which the Left pushes so enthusiastically and so brainlessly which damage society more than anything conservatives can imagine doing.

A lot was jarring about last spring’s record-setting federal budget, which the Senate approved last week. All the red ink aside, what caught my eye were repeated references to “equity-deserving” groups (though, its only economy, the budget didn’t use a hyphen). Thus in government procurement, there were to be “competitions open to businesses run by Canadians from equity deserving groups” in order to “help build a more inclusive economy” — by excluding businesses led by other groups. Similarly, the National Arts Centre receives $6 million over the next two years “to support collaborations with equity deserving groups to help relaunch the performing arts sector.”

 

William Watson: With fairness for some? | Financial Post

If people can say that they're trans to compete in women's sports then they can also pretend to be trans to bid on gov't contracts. 

On the bright side, it actually doubles the number of bathrooms that you can use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the end there are only two options: 1) give (free) money to someone and 2) give it to someone else. No, giving it to nobody that is also kind of equitable wouldn't work because someone will have to distribute the money and they can always give them to themselves. No, there wouldn't be enough for everybody and even if there was, it wouldn't work anyways because someone would always want to be more important, more privileged and more entitled than the rest. Yes I mean only the public money to be very clear. And good luck to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 7:59 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly.  THIS is why we should kill the disabled !  Also... billionaires who inherited their wealth.

[taps mic] this isn't live is it ?

You assume all disabled are non-productive.  IMHO, when you take a government dollar for ANY reason, you need to give up any ability to affect policy or dispensation of $$.  That means government employees, unemployed, welfare, etc.  Only those who PAY the bills should have any right to determine how that money is spent.   You of all people should have a clear image of SNC, WE, etc. in you mind when I say this and WHY it is so appropriate.

As far as hereditary bux - too late, you have to fix that problem at the source.  Money that is earned by speculative gain creates no wealth, is in no way productive, so "kill" by taxing.  If you make a speculative gain, 99% tax on day one, 95% year one, and so on.  Finance is the problem, not the solution.   We need to de-fund Wall/Bay Street, not Main Street and the cops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1. You assume all disabled are non-productive. 
2. IMHO, when you take a government dollar for ANY reason, you need to give up any ability to affect policy or dispensation of $$.  
3. As far as hereditary bux - too late, you have to fix that problem at the source.  Money that is earned by speculative gain creates no wealth, is in no way productive, so "kill" by taxing. 
4. If you make a speculative gain, 99% tax on day one, 95% year one, and so on.  Finance is the problem, not the solution.   We need to de-fund Wall/Bay Street, not Main Street and the cops!

1. Good point - my absurdist point should have stated "kill the NON PRODUCTIVE disabled".
2. This means the end of lobbying.  I agree, but how to achieve it is tricky.
3. No inheritance ?  Ok.
4. It's tricky, tricky, tricky...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Good point - my absurdist point should have stated "kill the NON PRODUCTIVE disabled".
2. This means the end of lobbying.  I agree, but how to achieve it is tricky.
3. No inheritance ?  Ok.
4. It's tricky, tricky, tricky...

1.  KILL them?  You have hanging around ANTIFA and the other Yanks too long.  

2.  Look what the Little T has done and tell me you don't think this should be top priority

3.  Inheritance - IMHO, not a problem.  Accumulating wealth by merely privileged re-distribution - NO EFFING WAY!  If money is earned and tax paid, don't care who gets it.  If you put it to work productively - light tax bite.  If you use it to speculate - I would dump most of your gains into the public purse - as I stated and have many times.

4.  Yes, it is all "trickey" but we have been "trickied" out of trillion$$$ that dumps the inflationary load back on John Q.  EVery time "the Street" doubles the money supply to cover their inflated speculative gains, it essentially devalues everything John Q, has in the bank by 50%.  Of course, finance solves that problem by fixing the interest rate near zero, so John Q carries a massive amount of debt instead of savings.   Trickie indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1.  KILL them?  You have hanging around ANTIFA and the other Yanks too long.  

2.  Look what the Little T has done and tell me you don't think this should be top priority

3.  Inheritance - IMHO, not a problem.  Accumulating wealth by merely privileged re-distribution - NO EFFING WAY!  If money is earned and tax paid, don't care who gets it.  If you put it to work productively - light tax bite.  If you use it to speculate - I would dump most of your gains into the public purse - as I stated and have many times.

4.  Yes, it is all "trickey" but we have been "trickied" out of trillion$$$ that dumps the inflationary load back on John Q.  EVery time "the Street" doubles the money supply to cover their inflated speculative gains, it essentially devalues everything John Q, has in the bank by 50%.  Of course, finance solves that problem by fixing the interest rate near zero, so John Q carries a massive amount of debt instead of savings.   Trickie indeed.

1. 😆
2. I don't know about lobbying changing much under Trudeau.  All governments have lobbyists buzzing around them like bees at a public picnic.
3. OK
4. Well the NDP would be behind this I am sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, cannuck said:

If money is earned and tax paid, don't care who gets it.  If you put it to work productively

I'm curious how you define "productive" work?  Does it include production of both tangible and intangibles?  Is a lab assistant to someone to a researcher who never produces anything useful providing "productive work", in your view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, I agree you need to agree that there's a problem.  If you don't think the representation of some groups, as they appear in certain statistics, is a problem then we don't need to discuss further.

If the unequal economic state is caused by their own actions and their own lack of education, language and job skills, then merit is responsible for the inequality and no government action is necessary. 

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. So the poor state of these groups was caused by the government.  Ok, that's a new one.   

Is my reasoning flawed? If most of them are immigrants then their poor economic success is due to the government's poor immigration selection process bringing over people who are bound to have few economic prospects. Ie, the Syrians brought over, as one example. Only about a fifth or so of immigrants to this country are assessed for their economic prospects.

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. He still tried to help them.  If he failed then it seems he was causing the problem - is that what you meant ?

Everything done by government is window dressing, or at best a bandage on a bleeding sore. Nothing is going to change the lack of economic success of natives as a group as long as so many are stuck out on far-flung reserves that have no economic reason to sustain them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, myata said:

So in the end there are only two options: 1) give (free) money to someone and 2) give it to someone else. 

False dichotomy:

-There's the option of not collecting/borrowing the money in the first place.

-There's also the option of open competition on bids (something that socialists and the Libs have always been opposed to, this is how the government funnelled $500,000.00 through We and into Trudeau's family's hands), to ensure that the most competitive & efficient companies are doing the work and the taxpayers don't get ripped off.

 

This is just another scam to get sole-source contracts out to their friends. Before they unroll this plan they'll already have their buddies set up with businesses, ready to grab massively lucrative gov't contracts.  It's like when Bill Bennet bought up land in BC and then announced where the new highways were going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

False dichotomy:

-There's the option of not collecting/borrowing the money in the first place.

-There's also the option of open competition on bids (something that socialists and the Libs have always been opposed to, this is how the government funnelled $500,000.00 through We and into Trudeau's family's hands), to ensure that the most competitive & efficient companies are doing the work and the taxpayers don't get ripped off.

Not really, neither of these options would be possible with a caste of untouchables sitting on public money and spending it however they like virtually with no responsibility or accountability. This is not pure theory: around 2000, MPs got about 100% raise because something taxable rolled into non-taxable or vice versa, and around this same time a major sponsorship scandal was developing with little interest from the members who were supposed to represent citizens and hold the government responsible not only play question period spectacle and count pension plans.

In theory someone should have held inquiry, asked questions and obtained answers but who was in reality? It wasn't the Parliament or RCMP and the matter was delayed for a decade yet again. Surely a coincidence in the world's best democracy. In the third world though coincidences happen all the time and they have another word for them.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. If the unequal economic state is caused by their own actions and their own lack of education, language and job skills, then merit is responsible for the inequality and no government action is necessary. 

2. Is my reasoning flawed?  

3. Everything done by government is window dressing, or at best a bandage on a bleeding sore. Nothing is going to change the lack of economic success of natives as a group as long as so many are stuck out on far-flung reserves that have no economic reason to sustain them.

1. I find the association of 'merit' with the success or failure of some groups on some axes to be problematic.  What metrics would you say white Europeans fail on, for example ?  War-like tendencies ?  Selfishness ?  I have no opinion but I find you get into a philosophical quagmire there.

2. I wouldn't say so, but the conclusions you make might lead to some unconventional opinions or contradictions.  Your 'reasoning' is based on values that I don't share so it's hard for me to follow through to said conclusions.

3. Ok.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Everything done by government is window dressing, or at best a bandage on a bleeding sore. Nothing is going to change the lack of economic success of natives as a group as long as so many are stuck out on far-flung reserves that have no economic reason to sustain them.

The point is not effective change though, social change by intent and within short time can be extremely difficult. The point here is to create an illusion of equitability by a caste that distributes public wealth. It's been very generous to itself and there has to be a distraction, even if made arbitrarily by hands to refer to, otherwise someone may notice that "equitability" out of the public budget hasn't worked equally for everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I find the association of 'merit' with the success or failure of some groups on some axes to be problematic. 

Yes, I'm not surprised. However (for example) if you listen to people like Coleman Hughes, Thomas Sowell, Glen Loury etc, who speak about this issue in the US, it seems to be their view that the lower economic success of African Americans is largely due to cultural issues, to whit, less respect for education, having children out of wedlock and with the father offering little or no support, an admiration for 'gangsta' culture and the resulting violence, a need to show off 'bling' rather than saving money, etc. 

Or as Hughes says, if one accepts that different groups can have different cultural views and habits expecting equality of outcomes is foolish. It's not going to happen.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What metrics would you say white Europeans fail on, for example ?

I couldn't speak to White Europeans. White Canadians fail on the metric of being far too accommodating and unassertive. We put up with stuff others wouldn't, like mediocre health care, oligarchies which give us the highest prices for various services in the world, and incompetent, dishonest governments. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I wouldn't say so, but the conclusions you make might lead to some unconventional opinions or contradictions.  Your 'reasoning' is based on values that I don't share so it's hard for me to follow through to said conclusions.

Either my reasoning is sound or it's not. That has nothing to do with values. Obviously if you bring in millions of people from the third world without high standards for language, education and job skills you're going to wind up with a lot of poor people. What have 'values' to do with such a judgement?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

I'm curious how you define "productive" work?  Does it include production of both tangible and intangibles?  Is a lab assistant to someone to a researcher who never produces anything useful providing "productive work", in your view?

By productive, I mean something that creates wealth.  There are only 2 ways you can do that: by adding value to a resource or by performing a service in support of those activities.  R&D, and even fundamental research is supportive, but government funded fundamental research IMHO is far enough removed that it is non productive in the short term but possibly VERY productive in the long term.   Difficult to draw the line in those kinds of activities but REALLY EASY for many of the thousands of things government does that it has no business doing.

Social services, which can be supportive of productive endeavor are one of those difficult things to determine.  Paying someone not to work - be you government, finance, etc. (i.e. wealth re-distributing activies) is probably outside, but supporting a productive worker very much wihtin.

I did say not an easy thing (I think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

By productive, I mean something that creates wealth.  There are only 2 ways you can do that: by adding value to a resource or by performing a service in support of those activities.  R&D, and even fundamental research is supportive, but government funded fundamental research IMHO is far enough removed that it is non productive in the short term but possibly VERY productive in the long term.   Difficult to draw the line in those kinds of activities but REALLY EASY for many of the thousands of things government does that it has no business doing.

Social services, which can be supportive of productive endeavor are one of those difficult things to determine.  Paying someone not to work - be you government, finance, etc. (i.e. wealth re-distributing activies) is probably outside, but supporting a productive worker very much wihtin.

I did say not an easy thing (I think)

Thanks, I appreciate your viewpoint here.  

1. I've read the government-supported R&D has is actually better at R&D than capitalist-supported R&D because researchers are not hindered by profit-seeking, but can freely investigate truly innovative ideas.  It's not that private R&D can't also be innovative, but that because they have to answer to shareholders, they aren't going to want to stray far from already proven development.  This hasn't always been true; at one time, private R&D was very innovative, but over time has become more cautious and less likely to try new things.  I've only read the one article (and sadly I couldn't find it to link to), so only putting it out here as another viewpoint, not as 'the truth'. 

2.  If the government's role is to support business, wouldn't providing enough income to people who are unable to work to buy products/services they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, also be considered "productive"?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

1. I've read the government-supported R&D has is actually better at R&D than capitalist-supported R&D ...

Eye or ear, yet again? Phizer and Moderna vaccines in 6 months vs "rapid Covid-19 response" forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

Thanks, I appreciate your viewpoint here.  

1. I've read the government-supported R&D has is actually better at R&D than capitalist-supported R&D because researchers are not hindered by profit-seeking, but can freely investigate truly innovative ideas.  It's not that private R&D can't also be innovative, but that because they have to answer to shareholders, they aren't going to want to stray far from already proven development.  This hasn't always been true; at one time, private R&D was very innovative, but over time has become more cautious and less likely to try new things.  I've only read the one article (and sadly I couldn't find it to link to), so only putting it out here as another viewpoint, not as 'the truth'. 

2.  If the government's role is to support business, wouldn't providing enough income to people who are unable to work to buy products/services they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, also be considered "productive"?  

 

1.  I would agree with that for fundamental research, but when it comes to development of ideas going from science to technology, government is a 100% fail.   However, in that vein: applied research needs a very disciplined patriarch to allow things to go where the science is capable - the kind of things entrepreneurs are good at.   In today's world, companies with significant R&D budgets tend to be controlled by finance, not engineering and definitely NOT entrepreneurs so your observation is relevant.

2. this would be a great thing if it was true, but a total fallacy.  Governments pick winners and losers because there is simply NO WAY anyone who has chosen or can tolerate to work for government can have any idea at all what business actually IS.  Instead, when government sticks its bungling nose into markets, it picks winners and losers based upon what's good for politics and what pays the biggest kickbacks to the bureaucracy.  In other words: total fuckups.   To support business, what government SHOULD (AND NEVER DOES) do is provide a level playing field based on law, regulation and enforcement that give NO advantage to anyone other than from merit.   NOTE: NONE of that would involve writing a check or not collecting a cheque from anyone related.   Any time money is involved, having the power to dispense privilege (i.e. the total failure of government and thus why anyone involved should have NO right to determine and NO access to spending).  I should add: I have done several investigations of government programmes and have NEVER seen anything where money was involved that did not also include influence peddling and/or other criminal corruption.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1.  I would agree with that for fundamental research, but when it comes to development of ideas going from science to technology, government is a 100% fail.  

 

Sorry, but this is a generalization that simply is not true.   Government R&D investment in universities and agencies has often resulted in applied science and technological innovation.   Yes, there is plenty of pure science only...but I know from personal experience that some technologies never would come to market were it not for the direct role of government funding and applied science institutions.  This is true for sectors like defence, agriculture, transportation, health care, energy, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry, but this is a generalization that simply is not true.   Government R&D investment in universities and agencies has often resulted in applied science and technological innovation.   Yes, there is plenty of pure science only...but I know from personal experience that some technologies never would come to market were it not for the direct role of government funding and applied science institutions.  This is true for sectors like defence, agriculture, transportation, health care, energy, etc.

The internet is a prime example, on par with Guttenburg’s printing press for educational and economic impact.  It was created for data and communication protection in case of nuclear war (APARNET funded by the US Department of Defence).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry, but this is a generalization that simply is not true.   Government R&D investment in universities and agencies has often resulted in applied science and technological innovation.   Yes, there is plenty of pure science only...but I know from personal experience that some technologies never would come to market were it not for the direct role of government funding and applied science institutions.  This is true for sectors like defence, agriculture, transportation, health care, energy, etc.

I will give you that but certainly not the case North of 49.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

I will give you that but certainly not the case North of 49.

 

Maybe less so because of limited R&D investment, but government institutions in Canada have developed several important technologies (e.g. insulin (Univ of Toronto), atomic energy (fission labs), etc.).  Canada's National Research Council (NRC) has provided things like the artificial pacemaker, canola/rapeseed, and the cesium atomic clock, which U.S. submarines used on patrol during much of the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 12:16 PM, Argus said:

1. If the unequal economic state is caused by their own actions and their own lack of education, language and job skills, then merit is responsible for the inequality and no government action is necessary. 

2. Is my reasoning flawed? If most of them are immigrants then their poor economic success is due to the government's poor immigration selection process bringing over people who are bound to have few economic prospects. Ie, the Syrians brought over, as one example. Only about a fifth or so of immigrants to this country are assessed for their economic prospects.

 

1. Assessing root cause is perilous, though.  Quebecois, for example, were not trusted to manage their own businesses in the recent past and were deemed incapable.  When the government pushed education, a friend told me that they had to do this because Quebecois were ignorant.

2. I'd be interested in seeing some details.  Syrians were refugees right?  And are you counting family program in the 1/5?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...