Derek Burney: Another bipolar world order is upon us, and the West only has itself to blame

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Barring something to change momentum, things tend to remain the same. And certainly the OECD says it will. I might add this government rarely ever even discusses economic expansion. Its priorities always seem to be income redistribution and culture war stuff.

But economics and global economics is especially tricky.

If they are into redistribution they're failing.

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Haha... I'm talking about the 1960s and 70s.... 

I know, but it's the same thing.  Nobody wants to go back to then either.   

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is this why we have all these homeless then?  Who gains from increased productivity?  

Presumably everyone.  Practically?  The system isn't set up fairly.  That's not really a productivity question though.  

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Trudeau says "No!" to that. Everything his government has done since taking office has been aimed at restricting and delaying any growth in the natural resources sector.

I think we can do better than this sort of criticism.  There's something there, for sure, but we're not going to have much of a conversation based on that sort of loaded commentary.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's not a problem with the economy though is it? Hoardes of the poor people... That's just trickl down right?

There's also a problem with our specie's population/economic growth and our planet's production of natural capital, we're drawing it down faster than it can keep up.

 

Quote

That's just trickl down right?

Mostly sideways.

Quote

 

In Western society the gap between the wealthiest few and the rest has been ever expanding. In fact since 1980 the wealthiest 0.1% of the global population have increased their wealth by as much as the poorest 50%

https://altorwealth.com/2018/10/01/trickle-sideways-economics/

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Fail.  I am.  Your opinions aren't anything.

Fail - you are not, and observable fact is observable fact - not opinion.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You're changing the argument to say we're less productive relative to other nations today.  I won't argue that point.  It makes sense.

No - there were two issues raised initially. One was that we are 'more productive today",  and the other was 'we will lag behind for 40 years.  You raised one, i'd commented on the other, i felt it would be fair to address both at the same time.

So the first quotes show we've been lagging in productivity for a while now - and the second links show a report that indicates we're going to lag even worse for at least the next 40 years. 

My apologies if it looked like i was changing the channel - it was just an attempt to address it all at one go.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is this why we have all these homeless then?  Who gains from increased productivity?  

  

Homelessness is something of a seperate issue - but our ability to deal with it is hampered by poor productivity.

Everybody tends to enjoy a benfit from increased productivity. workers get more work done and therefore are worth more money. Employers can earn more for less output even paying higher rates.  And gov'ts rake in more tax revenue.

If we lose ground to other countries, what happens is that our people put in the same effort but produce less value.  And that means they're worth less, even tho they worked as hard. So they either have to work harder to catch up or earn less and have less gov't services.

And it gets very hard to attract business investment when you're less efficient.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1.  you are not, and observable fact is observable fact - not opinion.

2. One was that we are 'more productive today",  and the other was 'we will lag behind for 40 years.  You raised one, i'd commented on the other, i felt it would be fair to address both at the same time.

3. Everybody tends to enjoy a benfit from increased productivity. workers get more work done and therefore are worth more money. Employers can earn more for less output even paying higher rates.  And gov'ts rake in more tax revenue.

4. If we lose ground to other countries, what happens is that our people put in the same effort but produce less value.  And that means they're worth less, even tho they worked as hard. So they either have to work harder to catch up or earn less and have less gov't services.

And it gets very hard to attract business investment when you're less efficient.

1. You have stated that you can read my mind by observing.  Back it up.  You can't.  Not at all.  Fail.

2. Fine but they're different things.

3. So how do we explain the poverty.

4. Relatively less.  We are still wealthy and still will be, compared to most of the world.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You have stated that you can read my mind by observing.  Back it up.  You can't.  Not at all.  Fail.

You have lied by claiming i have stated I can read your mind. Ultra-fail. If you have to lie to make a point you don't have a very good point.

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Fine but they're different things.

Agreed. Two seperate issues.

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. So how do we explain the poverty.

Poverty has many sources including drug addiction, mental health issues, social and situational issues such as being a single parent at a young age  which limits training and career advancement, and the fact that due in part to the fact we haven't BEEN keeping up productivity wise there's less wealth and inflation hits the lower income earner hardest. And a host of other reasons.

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Relatively less.  We are still wealthy and still will be, compared to most of the world.

Well of course it depends on how you define wealth. We will be wealthier than some, less wealthy that others, but at the end of the day far less wealthy than we should have been. There will be more poverty, less social programs and safety net, less food security, less of a lot of things.  Which is disappointing.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. You have lied by claiming i have stated I can read your mind. Ultra-fail. If you have to lie to make a point you don't have a very good point.

2.  Poverty has many sources including drug addiction, mental health issues, social and situational issues such as being a single parent at a young age  which limits training and career advancement, and the fact that due in part to the fact we haven't BEEN keeping up productivity wise there's less wealth and inflation hits the lower income earner hardest. And a host of other reasons.

3. Well of course it depends on how you define wealth. We will be wealthier than some, less wealthy that others, but at the end of the day far less wealthy than we should have been. There will be more poverty, less social programs and safety net, less food security, less of a lot of things.  Which is disappointing.

1. You claim to know I'm a conservative without evidence.  The only option is that you are a Psychic Fox.  Double Fail.
2. Some of what you are saying is right but there is MORE wealth.  You keep mistaking our relatively slow productivity gains and things like slower GDP growth with REDUCTIONS in these things.  How could our GDP per capita be so much higher if there is less wealth ?
3. The answer is that the wealth we have is distributed to the top.  It's not a right/left thing it's just math...

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You claim to know I'm a conservative without evidence.  The only option is that you are a Psychic Fox.  Double Fail

I noted observational evidence - observation is perfectly acceptable as evidence and does not require Psychic anything. MEGA-fail.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Some of what you are saying is right but there is MORE wealth.  You keep mistaking our relatively slow productivity gains and things like slower GDP growth with REDUCTIONS in these things.  How could our GDP per capita be so much higher if there is less wealth ?

Inflation. That should be obvious even to you. If we produce 100 dollars more but things cost 110 dollars more our gdp has gone up but our wealth has not.

Plus additional gov't spending. Remember that a gov't workers wage is included in gdp.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

3. The answer is that the wealth we have is distributed to the top.  It's not a right/left thing it's just math...

That's seriously not how math works.

Wealth is not an absolute. it is not like a mineral or anything, there isn't a finite amount of 'welthonium' out there or something   Wealth is simply the effect of economic activity. More activity more wealth.  So you can't "distribute wealth" to the top like that. Regardless of what's going on at the top people should be able to create wealth based on their value. IF their value goes down then they earn less - and their value can go down as a result of everything else going up.

Further - GDP is not an indicator of wealth. Using it as a primary indicator of things is not going to give a complete picture.

 

So - you've asked a lot of questions - here's some for you.

If wealth is being moved to the top, how is that process happening precisely given our labour laws, collective bargaining etc. Show where this money has been taken from the workers and redistributed to the top.

If that is the case and you can demonstrate it - what's your solution?

Will you be apologizing for stating my claim was laughable when i was able to prove it true or are you just a bit of a penis?

Take your time.

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If we lose ground to other countries, what happens is that our people put in the same effort but produce less value.

We didn't lose that ground so much as it was given away to other countries with less, little or no regard to any sense of human, environmental, labour etc rights and standards.  Probably given away at the behest of a good portion of the 0.1% of the wealthiest people in the west.

Doing so of course also had the increasingly worse consequence of empowering and giving respectability to the dictators and dodgy governments responsible for maintaining the lousy aforementioned rights and standards we're having to increasingly compete against.

Edited May 17, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We didn't lose that ground so much as it was given away to other countries with less, little or no regard to any sense of human, environmental, labour etc rights and standards.  Probably given away at the behest of a good portion of the 0.1% of the wealthiest people in the west.

Doing so of course also had the increasingly worse consequence of empowering and giving respectability to the dictators and dodgy governments responsible for maintaining the lousy aforementioned rights and standards we're having to increasingly compete against.

I think you may be conflating productivity with production, your comments make more sense with the latter. Cdn worker productivity wouldn't be affected by moving jobs offshore

Edited May 17, 2023 by CdnFox

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

1. Inflation. That should be obvious even to you.  

2.   Wealth is simply the effect of economic activity. More activity more wealth. 

3. So you can't "distribute wealth" to the top like that. 

4. ...people should be able to create wealth based on their value. IF their value goes down then they earn less -

5.  their value can go down as a result of everything else going up.

6.GDP is not an indicator of wealth. Using it as a primary indicator of things is not going to give a complete picture.

7. If wealth is being moved to the top, how is that process happening precisely given our labour laws, collective bargaining etc. Show where this money has been taken from the workers and redistributed to the top.

8. If that is the case and you can demonstrate it - what's your solution?

9. Will you be apologizing for stating my claim was laughable when i was able to prove it true or are you just a bit of a penis?

 

1. No, these things are adjusted for inflation.

2. GDP... but below you say GDP isn't wealth.  I think we both know... I'll say how I think of it below.

3. Not directly, but you can create policies that move money from one group to another, such as bringing in TFWs to work in fast food.

4. Yes and governments can set the value of almost any labour.

5. Relatively though not absolutely.  If I make 10% more and you make 20% more on real terms, I am still doing better.

6. True, it's the value of what a country does, so it's like its salary.

7. Lots of ways.  Corporate combines and investors succeed because they are well connected and have influence.

8. I'm not smart enough to have one.  If people paid attention though, there would be more public pressure for the gains from technology, trade and so on to be passed on.

Amazon killed how many small businesses... Monopolies are far more prevalent today.  Suppliers are strong armed by companies that control whole markets.

Their ability to influence government overpowers any ability for the public to understand.

And it might sound like this is all bad, but... it's more of a ... force that the public needs to understand and deal with.

9. I don't remember what I said.  I don't mean to offend.  I am somewhat of a penis at times.

 

 

. 

[I am Groot]

In 2012, only 37 per cent of Canadians surveyed by Nanos thought that their children would have lower living standards than themselves. By 2022 a similar poll by Pew Research pegged the number at 75 per cent. An increasing number of Canadians seem resigned to believing that the next generation will be worse off than us.

Gee. I uh... I wonder what could have happened in Canada between 2012 and now to crash Canadians' optimism and destroy their hopes....

This rapid decline in our prosperity is not something that has happened “to” us, it is a result of a series of policy actions by successive governments over the past 50 years. We have chosen to consistently reduce our investment in research and development (as a percentage of GDP). Spending on our immigration, education and entrepreneurial supports have not kept up with the increase in our population and we have not fully leveraged the potential of new technologies.

Instead of investing in the future, our governments have spent on initiatives which do not increase our longer-term prosperity and provide our next generation with the platform to be better off than us. One example of this is the recent government decision to spend an additional $151-billion per year by increasing government employment by over 30 per cent.

But rather than accepting a continuing slide in our standard of living, we can be world leaders in GDP growth per capita, be the No. 1 choice for the world’s most talented individuals to live and invest in, have the No. 1 ranking for infrastructure and stability, and be rated as the easiest country to do business in.

To get there we need to focus investment in the four fundamental pillars of economic development that have existed since the beginning of time:

Best People. We need to become the country of choice for the most talented individuals from around the world and develop the world’s most talented people. We need to encourage R&D, enhance our teaching of critical thinking and digital literacy in our schools, and simplify the assessment and recognition of professional credentials for new immigrants.

Best Tools. We can move ideas and goods across the country and around the world with a much more comprehensive and lower-cost digital infrastructure, coupled with an improved physical infrastructure.

Access to Materials and Resources. We can, in an environmentally sustainable way, increase access to the materials and resources we need to compete in the modern economy. This would include the abundance of natural resources and critical minerals we have, such as lithium for batteries.

Access to Markets and Capital. Instead of depending on foreign investors – such as the now-defunct Silicon Valley Bank – to fund our new ventures, we can do so with the right framework and incentives from one of the most stable and admired banking systems in the world. But we should continue to be open to free trade and foreign direct investment.

These four pillars must be supported by policies that reduce government bureaucracy, making it easier to create and commercialize businesses.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-next-generation-lower-living-standards/

Edited May 17, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

The Canadian government has made it clear that it wants corporations to become benevolent organizations that put workers before shareholders. It favours taxing corporations and the rich and adding regulatory impediments to corporate activity. It is a big supporter of income redistribution at the expense of making the pie larger for everyone by investing in the expansion of productive capacity. It wants to regulate the economy and nudge corporations to submit to its social views and economic philosophy. Its policies discourage entrepreneurship and wealth creation and replace them with handouts to every significant lobby and activist group. The government increasingly seems not to understand how people get jobs and how they get by – and how heavily favouring environmental issues stirred up by activists over economic concerns kills jobs.

Meanwhile, Canada has a productivity problem that has gotten worse over the past 10 years. Its GDP per capita has increased at a much slower pace than those of countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States since 1980 and particularly since 2015. GDP per capita grew about 4.8 per cent per annum between 1980 and 2022 in those four countries but only 4.1 per cent in Canada. Since 2015, it has grown about 4.1 per cent in those four and only 3.2 per cent in Canada.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-economy-disaster/

[Michael Hardner]

Yet we have big Tech and monopolies steamrolling entrepreneurs, destroying small business, and robbing the consumer.

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yet we have big Tech and monopolies steamrolling entrepreneurs, destroying small business, and robbing the consumer.

 

 

We have more opportunity for small businesses to start and thrive than we ever have. A local craftsperson can sell their creations world wide and it'll cost them pennies to set that up.  A skilled person can sell their skills online to people around the globe from everything from writing to programming to taxes.  Any person with a microphone and camera can be an 'influencer' and many do quite well.  I know many who make use of modern tech to promote or sell their stuff to a much wider market than they could have.

I think you'd have to provide some species of evidence if you were going to claim that big tech was hurting the entrepreneur more than helping.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We have more opportunity for small businesses to start and thrive than we ever have. A local craftsperson can sell their creations world wide and it'll cost them pennies to set that up.  A skilled person can sell their skills online to people around the globe from everything from writing to programming to taxes.  Any person with a microphone and camera can be an 'influencer' and many do quite well.  I know many who make use of modern tech to promote or sell their stuff to a much wider market than they could have.

I think you'd have to provide some species of evidence if you were going to claim that big tech was hurting the entrepreneur more than helping.

You're not wrong.  But also generational businesses have been wiped out by tech.

The people without skills are the problem.  I think those in the tents likely come under that umbrella.

Big Tech helps people who use their platforms, to a degree, and by Big Tech I'm talking about those large companies.  But are you denying that Amazon has cut out ?  

5 second search: https://www.go-wine.com/wine-article-537-17-Stores-That-Are-Getting-Completely-Destroyed-by-Amazon.html

Borders, Circuit City, Tower Records...

But I worked in Advertising for a time.  They basically shut down and had to subsist on people who specialized in using social media... the large cut of money going to Facebook et al.

Now this isn't "bad" any more than automation is "bad".  But the Industrial Revolution created such massive disparity that it gave birth to Marxism.  We should learn from our mistakes.

Once again - none of this is "bad".  Overall it's very good but we don't take care of the losers, such as people who used to live from working in manufacturing etc.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're not wrong.  But also generational businesses have been wiped out by tech.

Probably true, unfortunately change always has SOME negatives no matter how positive overall.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The people without skills are the problem.  I think those in the tents likely come under that umbrella.

Well i've always been a huge proponent of making sure a wide range of skills development options are available for people and yes, i think its one of the best ways to fight poverty.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Big Tech helps people who use their platforms, to a degree, and by Big Tech I'm talking about those large companies.  But are you denying that Amazon has cut out ?  

5 second search: https://www.go-wine.com/wine-article-537-17-Stores-That-Are-Getting-Completely-Destroyed-by-Amazon.html

Borders, Circuit City, Tower Records...

Meh. First off - costco is pretty damned packed every time i go there So they're not wiped out yet

But sure - there's no doubt that online sales in general have hurt brick and mortar solutions that didn't or couldn't adapt.

That's been true for ages though.  Woodwards put a lot of stores out of business and so did walmart.  Back in the day simpsons sears made life hard for a lot of businesses with its mail catalogues, which was a stunning revolution.  There was a time when ONLY local bakeries and cookie makers existed till suddenly tech changed and they all started getting bought up and we saw the birth of the national biscuit company - or Nabisco as it's now known.

this is an old and oft repeated tale.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But I worked in Advertising for a time.  They basically shut down and had to subsist on people who specialized in using social media... the large cut of money going to Facebook et al.

Now this isn't "bad" any more than automation is "bad".  But the Industrial Revolution created such massive disparity that it gave birth to Marxism.  We should learn from our mistakes.

Once again - none of this is "bad".  Overall it's very good but we don't take care of the losers, such as people who used to live from working in manufacturing etc.

You're not wrong. Transitions always leave some behind and i'ts necessary for a healthy society to pick those people up and help them with the transition rather than just telling them to learn to code.

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yet we have big Tech and monopolies steamrolling entrepreneurs, destroying small business, and robbing the consumer.

You see the government doing anything about that?

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The people without skills are the problem.  I think those in the tents likely come under that umbrella.
 

Well, 10%-15% of the population is too cognitively impaired to do any sort of sophisticated work (or even ANY work) beyond sweeping. There used to be a place for such people on farms and doing jobs like washing dishes and sweeping floors. Now those jobs make use of machines too complicated for them to operate.

I don't really know what's to be done with these people.

Edited May 17, 2023 by I am Groot

[SpankyMcFarland]

Does VDH apologize for backing Trump? Whatever about the big picture, he made an appalling personal misjudgement there that was well chronicled in the pages of the extremely conservative publication, National Review. A man who wrote beautiful books on Ancient Greece turned out be highly unreliable on other subjects, including America’s present. We shouldn’t be surprised - experts are often like that outside their chosen field. 

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You see the government doing anything about that?

It's coming at some point.

I just listened to a podcast but a major American think tank looking at all the problems that are happening with tech, and it seems like regulation is on everyone's mind. Especially with AI, people are alarmed as to what could happen.. I heard a call for an international regulatory body.

 

And that will be necessary for bioengineering too.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

You see the government doing anything about that?

The gov't IS a big tech monopoly.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

I don't really know what's to be done with these people.

Try to put yourself into their shoes and imagine what you'd like done.

When we're all as dispensable I wonder what the robots will be thinking should be done?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Hanson is from California. Does he really believe there’s a war on merit in Silicon Valley? The PR people may say all sorts of nice touchy-feely things about inclusion but it’s fairly ruthless out there at the job end of things.

Let’s face it, the Asian peninsula of Europe and its North American extension comprise a small segment of the world’s population. We’ve had a bit of luck of late since 1500 but we’re hardly going to dominate the global economy forever. And on India, well, it was always ambivalent, let’s say, about the West and for good reason. Under Modi it seems to be moving further away, both from us and our notions of democracy. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[I am Groot]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Try to put yourself into their shoes and imagine what you'd like done.

I can't. Nor can you. I remember one video where a guy who shall remain nameless since it's not pertinent but is/was a clinical psychologist explained how he spent thirty hours trying to teach a guy how to fold a piece of paper so it could go into an envelope so he could keep his volunteer job. I saw another video where a guy was talking about being detailed to help low mentality guys brought into the desperate army during the vietnam era. It took a lot of effort just teaching them how to tie their shoes. Trying to teach them how to shoot at people was even harder. They could do it if they had a LOT of time but it took them a LONG time to carefully lay the barrel down and point it. And if the target moved at all it took another LOONG time to shift over and retarget. Likewise teaching how to throw a hand grenade was almost impossible as they just didn't get the idea of throwing it up in an arc to let gravity carry it along as it lost momentum. No matter how many times it was demonstrated they kept throwing it directly at something. We can't put our heads into that kind of low mentality thinking.

 

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

When we're all as dispensable I wonder what the robots will be thinking should be done?

I don't know but these people are largely dispensible now and I don't think we know what to do with them.