Confederation?

[Kitch]

Hello kids,

I am new to this forum and am approaching it from a different angle than most of you do (so it seems). I am not an economist, political scientist and I have VERY limited knowledge about the way 'business' works. Truth be told, I am a soon to be high school science teacher. So, if any of you would have the courtesy to share your opinion/knowledge about my questions, with my status as an economic layperson in mind, it would be greatly appreciated.

I have read a few threads, and while I am one of those 'anti-corporate' type people that some of you have expressed distaste for, people like Geoffrey have made a lot of sense to me with their totally free market preferences (I have a lot of questions about that stuff... but I'll save it for later). I am now wondering, why would people of this mindset, now or at the time of confederation, want to have a united Canada? Is there an economic benefit, or is it something else? In short, what point is there in confederation? (I am not expressing any opinion... I am just sincerely curious).

[fellowtraveller]

I'm curious too OP.

Why are you broadly 'anti-corporate', while living and working in a country that is more or less a market economy?

The vast majority of jobs in Canada are generated by the private sector, not by the government where you will soon enjoy a safe, secure career as a teacher. Your wages are ultimately strongly linked to those same corporations. How did you become 'anit-corporate', what influenced that choice?

[geoffrey]

I have read a few threads, and while I am one of those 'anti-corporate' type people that some of you have expressed distaste for, people like Geoffrey have made a lot of sense to me with their totally free market preferences (I have a lot of questions about that stuff... but I'll save it for later).

I'm glad I have been able to expose you to an alternate viewpoint, whether or not you agree with it. It's important to have various opinions in mind when attempting to understand a situation.

I am now wondering, why would people of this mindset, now or at the time of confederation, want to have a united Canada? Is there an economic benefit, or is it something else? In short, what point is there in confederation? (I am not expressing any opinion... I am just sincerely curious).

Personally, I don't see much value in a united Canada. However, much of this is regional. I live in a part of the country that would be far better off on it's own.

There are a few arguments for keeping Canada around. One is cost. It's cheaper to have one Federal government versus twelve smaller ones. However, I really don't see this to be true. Smaller, more local governments, are more accountable to the people they represent. It's very difficult for cities to raise taxes, but not for Federal governments too.

Next, is the trade argument. Lots say that if one province would leave, they would suffer because of reduced trade with the other provinces. I find this to be completely untrue. Many business leaders will tell you that trade barriers between provinces are often greater than barriers between Canada and foreign countries.

BC and Alberta marked a free-trade agreement that promises to the lead the way in economic progress in Canada. Unfortunately, that's the only one of it's kind.

Canada is a very regionalised country, with diverse interests. It is truly impossible to satisfy these interests at the same time. It's better to have the country divided where government's can address the unique needs of their local populations rather than people thousands of kilometers away playing with the lives of those they don't understand.

[jdobbin]

Personally, I don't see much value in a united Canada. However, much of this is regional. I live in a part of the country that would be far better off on it's own.

Do you plan to vote for a separatist in the next election if one runs in your riding?

[geoffrey]

Do you plan to vote for a separatist in the next election if one runs in your riding?

Federally? Perhaps. The PC's represent me well in Alberta provincially. I'm a believer that the Clarity Act, however ridiculously undemocratic, can apply to Alberta as well. Seperation comes from the Federal level.

So yes, if someone serious about seperatism would run in my riding, I'd likely vote for them in the current situation.

[jdobbin]

Federally? Perhaps. The PC's represent me well in Alberta provincially. I'm a believer that the Clarity Act, however ridiculously undemocratic, can apply to Alberta as well. Seperation comes from the Federal level.

So yes, if someone serious about seperatism would run in my riding, I'd likely vote for them in the current situation.

You won't run yourself? Are you helping to fund a separation candidate or party presently?

It sounds like you are pretty upset with the present parties in Ottawa. Is this just a temporary thing or are you going to find a reason to vote Conservative in the end?

[geoffrey]

You won't run yourself? Are you helping to fund a separation candidate or party presently?

Nah, I have professional concerns against running for a fringe element (at least for now).

It sounds like you are pretty upset with the present parties in Ottawa. Is this just a temporary thing or are you going to find a reason to vote Conservative in the end?

Nope, I absolutely will not be voting to give Harper anymore time in Ottawa.

[jdobbin]

Nah, I have professional concerns against running for a fringe element (at least for now).

Nope, I absolutely will not be voting to give Harper anymore time in Ottawa.

So you think separation remains a fringe element in Alberta that you don't want to be part of. It sounds like it always might be if people like yourself don't take the plunge.

Hopefully you'll have a worthwhile candidate to vote for.

[geoffrey]

So you think separation remains a fringe element in Alberta that you don't want to be part of. It sounds like it always might be if people like yourself don't take the plunge.

Possibly. It will just take one false move from Ottawa though to get the big business names behind it. That's all it needs. A pretty face to lead the charge and some cash. I'd run if it were a crediable party, but all of the existing ones are tied to Nazi's or Social Credit.

Hopefully you'll have a worthwhile candidate to vote for.

Hopefully. Doubtful though.

[Kitch]

I'm curious too OP.

Why are you broadly 'anti-corporate', while living and working in a country that is more or less a market economy?

The vast majority of jobs in Canada are generated by the private sector, not by the government where you will soon enjoy a safe, secure career as a teacher. Your wages are ultimately strongly linked to those same corporations. How did you become 'anit-corporate', what influenced that choice?

Well, just because I live here doesn't mean that I necessarily like everything about our society (mind you, there isn't a place on Earth, that I am aware of, which would satisfy all my personal preferences... I presume the same is true for everyone). If you want to discuss 'anti-corporate' influences, I'd be more than happy to do so in another thread. Here, I want to learn about economics (which sometimes seems that it is used interchangeably with what I understand to be finance... maybe my understanding is wrong). If I express my views on the generalized corporation, I run the risk of never being taken seriously when I ask questions about free-market thinkers. Something that you can explain to me is, how are my wages going to be ultimately linked to corporations? (Again, sincere question).

Thank you for your reply Geoffrey. I too see no true value in a united Canada. Being from Toronto, I suppose that's the expected stance. We are supposed to think of ourselves as the centre of the universe, after all. But since I'm no business buff (and 'anti-corporate'), I could care less about economic reasons for separating. However, I am fully on board when you say that we are a regionalised country with diverse interests. I would love to see each province (for example... I really don't know where the lines would best be drawn) become its own country. I'll take it a step further and say that I'd love to see each province become completely self sustained. Global/international trade serves little purpose beyond economic growth (which is a nice piece of data but mostly benefits those at the helm of corporations anyway) and meeting superficial, manufactured desires of ignorant consumers. I find it hard to believe that there is anything that can be made that can't be made here in Ontario. But I can't speak for other provinces because I'm not familiar with the (LIMITED) natural resources found in each. I've said too much about my views which are irrelevant here, but the point is that I think we would all be happier without confederation.

So why then if people from opposite ends of the 'political spectrum' (I HATE calling it that, since the range of views is hardly linear or even contiguous) are of the opinion that all of Canada is better off separate, then why is it such a 'fringe' idea?

[ScottSA]

So why then if people from opposite ends of the 'political spectrum' (I HATE calling it that, since the range of views is hardly linear or even contiguous) are of the opinion that all of Canada is better off separate, then why is it such a 'fringe' idea?

It's a fringe idea because emotionalism keeps it that way, although I believe Geoffrey was only saying that it is the present separatist parties that are fringe. I agree with him, because I looked into it myself after the last election, and there were only 2 at the time; one that turned out to be the usual malcontent radical anti-semite types, and another run as a kind of cult of personality by a leader with his foot apparently sewn into his mouth.

Western Separatism will grow exponentially when the Liberals get back into power...especially if it's a majority government. I dunno if there's such a thing as Torontonian separatism...you might be lonely...

[Kitch]

It's a fringe idea because emotionalism keeps it that way, although I believe Geoffrey was only saying that it is the present separatist parties that are fringe. I agree with him, because I looked into it myself after the last election, and there were only 2 at the time; one that turned out to be the usual malcontent radical anti-semite types, and another run as a kind of cult of personality by a leader with his foot apparently sewn into his mouth.

Western Separatism will grow exponentially when the Liberals get back into power...especially if it's a majority government. I dunno if there's such a thing as Torontonian separatism...you might be lonely...

Oh I don't want Toronto to be on it's own. I was referring to what the people that I have met from out east and out west have told me that they think of us. I'm not gonna lie, we're pretty arrogant, but I think the whole 'centre of the universe' thing is unfair... maybe not for the Bay St. clowns!

Since you chose the term Western separatism... I think it's only a matter of time before the U.S. breaks up. Take a look at some of the discussions here www.conservativesforum.com These people scare me! And I don't think they're a minority down there!

[ScottSA]

Oh I don't want Toronto to be on it's own. I was referring to what the people that I have met from out east and out west have told me that they think of us. I'm not gonna lie, we're pretty arrogant, but I think the whole 'centre of the universe' thing is unfair... maybe not for the Bay St. clowns!

Since you chose the term Western separatism... I think it's only a matter of time before the U.S. breaks up. Take a look at some of the discussions here www.conservativesforum.com These people scare me! And I don't think they're a minority down there!

Oh I think eventually the US WILL break up...quite likely along the lines of the 6th century Roman Empire and its waves of immigrants. But not tomorrow, and not next week. Canada, however, that's a different story.

[Keepitsimple]

Hello kids,

I am now wondering, why would people of this mindset, now or at the time of confederation, want to have a united Canada? Is there an economic benefit, or is it something else? In short, what point is there in confederation? (I am not expressing any opinion... I am just sincerely curious).

I don't have my history book so I'll reply on the fly. There's really at least two questions here - why did we unite in the first place and secondly, why are we staying together now. With regards to the first, lets remember that back then, it was Britain versus the renegade, former colonist yanks. The United Empire Loyalists had fled to the Maritimes from Massachusetts. The Yanks had stormed into York in the Fenian wars, if I remember correctly. We travelled to Washington and burned the original White House. So it was very much us versus them......and whenever you're in such a position, it's better to unite - so to a large degree, it was for defence.

Provinces started to sign on with Newfoundland being the last. The growth of Canada to include all the provinces was mostly driven by practical trade issues - there was nothing that approximates free trade back then so whether it was farm goods, minerals, lumber or finished good - each province had something to give and something to get - and it was much easier to do it amongst like-minded traders.

As for modern Canada, there are scales of economies that do make sense - one defense (army, navy, RCMP); common national infrastructure like railways and highways; and a bunch of others.

But the important question is what would Canada be like if each province was its own country. Certainly, BC and Alberta could go it alone for the forseeable future. Ontario might have a chance. Quebec might also but their language would be swallowed up in an ocean of English. The Maritimes , Newfoundland/Labrador, Sask and Manitoba would have a very rough time. The Territories and First Nations? As taxes rose and services went downhill, I think you'd see a cry from many to be absorbed by the US.

Why Confederation? Call me naive but I'd rather continue to be part of this grand social experiment called Canada. With as much as we have in common, if we can't learn to live together and thrive - then there's not much hope for the rest of the world, is there? It's like a marriage - you constantly have to work at it.

If you're going to teach our children, I hope you'll work at adopting a more optimistic view of Confederation.

[Kitch]

I don't have my history book so I'll reply on the fly. There's really at least two questions here - why did we unite in the first place and secondly, why are we staying together now. With regards to the first, lets remember that back then, it was Britain versus the renegade, former colonist yanks. The United Empire Loyalists had fled to the Maritimes from Massachusetts. The Yanks had stormed into York in the Fenian wars, if I remember correctly. We travelled to Washington and burned the original White House. So it was very much us versus them......and whenever you're in such a position, it's better to unite - so to a large degree, it was for defence.

Provinces started to sign on with Newfoundland being the last. The growth of Canada to include all the provinces was mostly driven by practical trade issues - there was nothing that approximates free trade back then so whether it was farm goods, minerals, lumber or finished good - each province had something to give and something to get - and it was much easier to do it amongst like-minded traders.

As for modern Canada, there are scales of economies that do make sense - one defense (army, navy, RCMP); common national infrastructure like railways and highways; and a bunch of others.

But the important question is what would Canada be like if each province was its own country. Certainly, BC and Alberta could go it alone for the forseeable future. Ontario might have a chance. Quebec might also but their language would be swallowed up in an ocean of English. The Maritimes , Newfoundland/Labrador, Sask and Manitoba would have a very rough time. The Territories and First Nations? As taxes rose and services went downhill, I think you'd see a cry from many to be absorbed by the US.

Why Confederation? Call me naive but I'd rather continue to be part of this grand social experiment called Canada. With as much as we have in common, if we can't learn to live together and thrive - then there's not much hope for the rest of the world, is there? It's like a marriage - you constantly have to work at it.

If you're going to teach our children, I hope you'll work at adopting a more optimistic view of Confederation.

I'm going to be a science teacher... that probably won't lead to any opportunity to discuss Canadian politics. If the opportunity were to arise, however, I must say that my feelings about confederation are not all that negative. To tell you the truth I don't care all that much. That's not to say that I don't care about the other provinces or the people that call them home... I do very much. It just means that since I place VERY little importance on economic growh of Canada as a whole, provincially, locally or whatever. Economic growh is a measurement of competition between elites of wealthy nations (wealthy in the true meaning, not in the monetary sense = one can be wealthy without a cent to their name). I care more about the local cultures and intersts of everyone as well as the amount of damage we cause to the land within our borders (and the damage within other borders that we condone by importing good) by exploiting natural resources and transporting them across our HUGE country (burning fuel).

I'd like to see us keep everything local... manufacturing (of things that we actually need rather than things companies want to sell us, that sometimes make our lives easier but simultaneous make us weaker and increasingly dependent on 'things' not essential to life). We can still maintain friendly relationships even though we're not governed by the same organisation. I mean, I like my neighbours, but we don't have to pool our money and pay for our expenses jointly. That's not to say that I don't want to share my money. I'd just much rather a society in which money isn't so important to individuals as well as society.

As for defences, tell me, why do we need to protect ourselves? Conservative types will talk a lot about how we need to protect ourselves from terrorists. I don't know about you but I don't go around punching people for no reason. I don't go kicking expensive cars because I'm jealous of the rich people that own them. As an adolescent I didn't hate kids who had more freedoms than I had. So why do these 'terrorists' attack? Obviously, the people (or at least the people they perceive to have wronged them) that they attack did something to piss them off. So, don't piss them off!! In the words of the great Albert Einstein "Peach cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding". If we define 'understanding' as ( I am pretty sure I'm wrong about who said this, but...) Freud did, "to understand is to forgive", then what does it take to keep peace? True COMMUNICATION!! Don't even bother trying to say that we've tried... or that anyone (by this I mean leaders of states and such) has tried. Nobody has. The defences you speak of are only necessary because we're so high up on our horse that we can't talk with those who might attack us. RCMP? Why? What do they do that local police (or provincial) can't do? Perhaps I'm a bit naive when it comes to these things, but the ideas that I'm expressing are real and plausible... maybe not in a world dominated by 'business' types, because their values and motives are already in conflict with sustained life on Earth (not just human life), but they are plausible.

All in all, the historical reasons for a united Canada are irrelevant. The modern reasons make sense only in the context of a competition between the world's elites. It would be easier for MANY reasons if Canada were to separate. European countries get along just fine... don't they?

[M.Dancer]

Thank God it's science you hope to teach.

As for defences, tell me, why do we need to protect ourselves? Conservative types will talk a lot about how we need to protect ourselves from terrorists. I don't know about you but I don't go around punching people for no reason. I don't go kicking expensive cars because I'm jealous of the rich people that own them. As an adolescent I didn't hate kids who had more freedoms than I had. So why do these 'terrorists' attack? Obviously, the people (or at least the people they perceive to have wronged them) that they attack did something to piss them off. So, don't piss them off!!

To say that simplistic would mean redefining simplistic. Not pissing someone off is fine if what is pissing them off is obnoxious behavior. But what if what is pissing them off is having normal relations with other nations they don't like. Are we to ask permission every time we buy oranges from another nation, to make sure we don't piss someone off?

wealthy in the true meaning, not in the monetary sense = one can be wealthy without a cent to their name

No. People who are penniless are never wealthy. Okay maybe in hollywood movie around Xmas time, but not in the real world.

Economic growh is a measurement of competition between elites of wealthy nations

No it isn't that at all.

[Kitch]

Thank God it's science you hope to teach.

To say that simplistic would mean redefining simplistic. Not pissing someone off is fine if what is pissing them off is obnoxious behavior. But what if what is pissing them off is having normal relations with other nations they don't like. Are we to ask permission every time we buy oranges from another nation, to make sure we don't piss someone off?

No. People who are penniless are never wealthy. Okay maybe in hollywood movie around Xmas time, but not in the real world.

No it isn't that at all.

Thank god there is no god. But why? Because I have views that might hurt the ability of some people to further exploit and build fortunes that they'll never be able to spend and have no need for? Would my views 'hurt' people somehow? Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone, ultimately. Why not consider other paradigms of life?

Too simplistic huh? What is normal about invading countries to install leaders that agree with our economic goals? Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... I'm not familiar with Canada's role there. I'm talking about the things that happened in Central America in the 80's and Vietnman in the 60's and 70's... more so the U.S. but you'll get the idea. What happened in Nicaragua? The Sandanistas were a democratically elected government (an election that had it's problems but was confirmed to be fair by ... I THINK amnesty international, or some other such group). The U.S. spread the word that they were a terrorist regime that had to be removed... hence the Contras. Those people elected a government that they wanted, but it didn't agree with U.S. economic strategy, so it had to be removed. Normal international relation? Canada was one of the largest arms suppliers in the Vietnam war... a war in which the goal was simply to stop the spread of an idea that they disagreed with, and to stunt the economic growth of a region that would have competed with the U.S. economically rather than becmoning the dependent shit hole it is now. Normal international relations? Whatever dude. The people we label as terrorists have reasons for being upset with the U.S. and whoever else they attack. You're obviously an example of what I was talking about when I said TRUE COMMUNICATION is necessary for peace. You don't KNOW that 'normal' international relations are the cause of violence. You don't KNOW that the things you speak of are 'normal'. You're regurtigating what you'll hear on the news and from conservative sources, who have their own motives for spreading such nonsense! If you want references for what I just said, well, read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. The Canada/Vietnam thing was a documentary on the discovery channel, so take it for whatever value you place on it. Don't bother any ad hominem attacks against Noam Chomsky... they don't work. That guy references EVERYTHING he says and has yet to be contradicted by ANYONE (that I'm aware of) with evidence. People only attack him because they don't like his ideas... not because he's wrong... because he's not!

By the way, my goal is to teach the scientific method to my students. Not just the body of knowledge that is usually associated with it. This will (hopefully) lead to citizens with a healthy sense of open minded scepticism. This would mean that they wouldn't accept anything I said at face value. They'd evaluate it for themselves. Critical thinkers don't need to be sheltered from anything. Censorship only limits the scope of thought that people are ALLOWED to have. My ideas aren't dangerous. My teachings won't be dangerous either. Preventing anyone from hearing ANYTHING is dangerous... the truth might never be known then.

I wrote this pretty fast because I'm in a hurry to get out of here. So it may sound a little bit like I'm an excentric, nut job of a teacher. Well, I'm really not... but you'll just have to trust me on that! I've just got very, I guess liberal views that I'm passionate about. Written communication seems to result in messages being received that I never intended. Whatever's clever!

[M.Dancer]

Blah blah blah Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone, ultimately. Blah blah blah blah.......

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here. I take back what said earlier. I hope they find a better teacher.

....oh to be 20 again.......

Edited August 9, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Michael Bluth]

Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone, ultimately.

That is a very telling statement.

It might be defensible given a very strong argument.

However, if you are going to throw something like that out as a given, well there are some serious questions that come from it.

Hopefully you aren't doing that in your taxpayer funded job when you are supposedly teaching our youth. Naw, you wouldn't do that. Would you?

[Kitch]

That is a very telling statement.

It might be defensible given a very strong argument.

However, if you are going to throw something like that out as a given, well there are some serious questions that come from it.

Hopefully you aren't doing that in your taxpayer funded job when you are supposedly teaching our youth. Naw, you wouldn't do that. Would you?

What's telling is the reaction some people have had to that statement. Now, I admit I didn't qualify it at all, so I understand your reaction... I don't like it, particularly Mr./Mrs. Bathurst and St. Clair's (that's a pretty 'nice' neighbourhood isn't it?) but I understand it. The responsibility IS on me to explain myself if I make such a statement, but I would hope that people would try to consider something before immediately rejecting it. Also, both of your sarcasm/ridicule is VERY conservative like. I've found, in talking to business types, that I cannot drop a thought that I consider a given without being ridiculed while everything that comes out of their mouth is supposed to be a given and anyone who doesn't understand/disagrees isn't intelligent/realistic. (Not to say that anybody here has been that way since I've been here... none of you actually have, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss things without being immediately cut off). ANYHOW...

Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone. How so. Well, as I've said before, I'm no economist so I have to speak of these things in very general terms, but that does not mean that I'm wrong or too simplistic.

The better our economic environment the more stuff being made, bought and sold. The more things being made, the more resources being taken from the Earth. The more resources taken from the Earth the less natural habitat for other living things. The better our economy, the more people who want to live here. This is great for us since more people means more tax revenue (true?). This also means more development (= more jobs + more required resources) on top of the natural habitat destroyed in order to make available the things we need to build things, the more habitat destroyed to build our buildings and grow food for the increasing population. Now, you might say, sure, we do all of those things, but that's only bad for animals, not us. Not true. We use carbon based fuels for our machines which may or may not be the cause of global warming but it definitely puts other pollutants in the air. We use a lot of electricity. The magnetic fields created by our km's of high voltage power lines may or may not cause cancer. Sure, both could be may nots. But what IS true is that we're causing an unnaturally high rate of extinction of living things. How does this affect us? It decreases the biodiversity in a region leading to unbalanced ecosystems which CAN have huge consequences for us... none good. Finally, by focusing on economic growth we neglect other aspects of life. Why is it that in Europe the average employee STARTS with 5 weeks holidays while we start with 2? Are we happier for it? Are we better off for it? Perhaps there are some benefits to economic growth, predominantly the rich but there are some for everyone. However, in the long run, the Earth and our culture suffers. Economic growth is bad for everyone. We just can't see it through the windshields of our BMW's (of which I don't own and never will... I'll ride the bus).

I don't get your last line about my tax funded job. What does that have to do with anything? The more economic growth the more taxes to pay for me? Oh, OK. I won't get a raise based on how much money the government brings in. I might get access to tools that may help me make your kids better prepared to help with solutions to the problems you (AND ME) are causing. If I'm not funded by taxes I'll be happy to get a job in a private school. It's not the education system that I prefer but it I can help educate kids then who cares. If you're speaking generally of my implied philosophical views (very left)... or that I HATE money. Well, I don't know of a better way to have SOO many people living cooperatively (other than reducing the number of people... but how realistic/fair is that?), so I suppose at this time we need money. I honestly don't know what else to say on the matter because I don't know why you'd include that last line.

[Michael Bluth]

I've found, in talking to business types, that I cannot drop a thought that I consider a given without being ridiculed while everything that comes out of their mouth is supposed to be a given and anyone who doesn't understand/disagrees isn't intelligent/realistic. (Not to say that anybody here has been that way since I've been here... none of you actually have, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss things without being immediately cut off). ANYHOW...

You are right we didn't cut you off. Why the diatribe about 'business types'?

As a teacher I would hope you encourage your students to question people who drop thoughts they consider to be 'a given', if they feel it isn't necessarily 'a given'. Not ridicule mind you, just fair and honest questions.

The better our economic environment the more stuff being made, bought and sold. The more things being made, the more resources being taken from the Earth. The more resources taken from the Earth the less natural habitat for other living things. Economic growth is bad for everyone. We just can't see it through the windshields of our BMW's (of which I don't own and never will... I'll ride the bus).

You are making a huge assumption that economic growth cannot be sustainable. Not all economic growth uses large amounts of natural resources. Look at all the wealth created by the high tech industry. Programming, microchips, etc. etc. Have all pumped tons of money into the North American economy in a pretty sustainable way.

As for the BMW. Well you chose your career, and had to know a BMW probly wasn't part of the equation.

I don't get your last line about my tax funded job. What does that have to do with anything?

It's got to do with the facts that your political viewpoints, which are far from the mainstream and hopefully outside of the curriculum you are paid to teach, should not be the basis for your teaching. Because you are being paid by tax payers and are thus a civil servant.

I honestly don't know what else to say on the matter because I don't know why you'd include that last line.

Have I made it a little clearer as to why I included that last line?

[M.Dancer]

Because you are being paid by tax payers and are thus a civil servant.

Have I made it a little clearer as to why I included that last line?

Not to mention that without economic growth we would have declining tax base in propertion to our needs so that in fact, his tax payer provided job is a direct result of economic growth.

[White Doors]

I agree with one thing he said:

may sound a little bit like I'm an excentric, nut job of a teacher

yep. it does.

[Kitch]

No. People who are penniless are never wealthy. Okay maybe in hollywood movie around Xmas time, but not in the real world.

Wow. The most ignorant thing I think I've ever heard. Ever hear of native Indians? African bush people? There are even people who live on the streets who are very happy with their lives. I wouldn't be, but they are. None of these people have a penny. Open your mind a bit bud. Your life isn't the only way to live.

[Kitch]

Not to mention that without economic growth we would have declining tax base in propertion to our needs so that in fact, his tax payer provided job is a direct result of economic growth.

There will always be a need for teachers. Especially if people like you reproduce. Who would be so stupid to think that life could exist without money!? It's been around for the entire history of the world, right?