Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

turningrite

Suspended
  • Content Count

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by turningrite

  1. If you have to pick between the global 'hegemons', which would you choose? Realistically, does Canada even have a choice? For better or worse, we're geographically, culturally and economically intertwined with our American neighbors. Better the devil you know...
  2. Well, let our Lib ideologues acknowledge the truth here. Of course Friedman was pro-immigration and against the welfare state. Canadians who believe that the welfare state is sustainable in the context of a large-scale immigration program are dreaming in technicolor.
  3. Do you want to read a story about the kind of "iron fist" China is now exerting on its economic underlings? If you do, you might want to research Ecuador's recent experience in dealing with China. It's a fascinating story that should serve as a cautionary tale to people who think China's global ambitions and practices are more enlightened than are or have been America's.
  4. 1.) Your first Friedman quotation pretty much sums up the conundrum of open borders for Western countries and validates his general assertion that an open immigration policy can't co-exist with the modern welfare state. And he was talking about the U.S. welfare state, which is somewhat more restrictive than the broader models established in Canada or Western Europe. 2.) Again, in noting the benefits of Mexican immigration, Friedman noted that it was only good provided that it remained illegal because these migrants had/have no choice but to work as they're not eligible for taxpayer-funded
  5. The Canada of the early 20th century was mainly an agrarian and pre-modern society. None of the characteristics of modern society that we now characterize as the "welfare state" then existed. Income taxes were not even levied until WWI. As the late American Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman noted, open borders cannot co-exist with a modern welfare state. So, by all means open the borders, provided you're willing to get rid of public health care, pensions and other social welfare programs, because that's what you're really advocating. Those, including politicians, who promote open b
  6. Yes, I've wondered about this as well. I also thought about the Asia Bibi case, where a Christian woman in Pakistan was sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy and the crowds screamed in protest after she was acquitted on appeal. Has she been able to make it to the West? It seemed for a time as though some Western governments were apoplectic about the prospect of infuriating their Muslim minority populations by advocating for Bibi. The case of the Saudi teen is particularly interesting in that media reports indicate that she feared retribution from her family should she return to the KSA. I'l
  7. You're citing Canadian legislation (the Immigration and Refugee Act), and our system is in and of itself part of the problem. The context of the 1951 UN definition, of course, was the aftermath of WWII, which saw tens of thousands of displaced persons seeking resettlement. War and civil war have been the primary underlying causes of refugee crises ever since. The reasons that conflict zones are generally interpreted as synonymous with refugee migrations are pretty obvious. Once you get into the realm of considering anybody a refugee simply because they say they are, refugee determination becom
  8. Perhaps, but most such migrants, then, likely don't and won't meet the UN "Convention Refugees" definition. Leaving a country governed by a despotic or tyrannical government does not in and of itself confer refugee status. If it did, a large portion of the earth's population would be on the move. In order to tackle the migration crisis, refugee receiving countries should get together and formulate a common refugee policy that's aligned with the UN's 1951 definition and stipulates that the preferred approach is to care for refugees in countries as close as possible to their countries of origin.
  9. Canada's political system is controlled by an elitist cabal that does everything in its power to ensure that alternative (or "fringe", as Trudeau puts it) perspectives are silenced. Corporate globalism is at the root of our economic malaise, yet not a single major political movement exists in this country to challenge it. At least the U.S. has Trump, as inconsistent and imperfect a voice for change he might be. We, the minions, simply try to survive as best we can in a system over which in practical terms we have little or no control. We, ordinary taxpaying citizens of modest means, are the "y
  10. Denmark is now planning to implement an approach similar to Australia's, as indicated in the news link below. The problem with promoting an airy-fairy and positive view of uncontrolled migration is that it encourages all kinds of negative things, including but not limited to promoting risky journeys to reach the West and expanding markets for human trafficking. A humane system would seek to assist refugees fleeing real conflict as close as possible to conflict zones so that they could return to their homes and lives quickly following the cessation of hostilities. And a productive system would
  11. Speculative cup? You mean my fairly small RRSP mutual funds (which have declined in value in recent months) or my modest work pension, which no doubt is funded to some extent by investments in speculative markets? Did I have any real choice in this? Should I simply saved for retirement by putting money under my mattress or in the back of the freezer? I largely agree with the points you make about the "casino" economy, which has focused on bidding up the value of existing assets rather than create new or productive wealth. The R/E sector is a good example of this. But, as individuals, what
  12. I wonder what you mean when you say "we" because we taxpayers have been paying the bills for decades for a system that provides offers us increasingly less in return. The so-called safety net, grounded in "social contract" philosophy, is pretty much dead in this country. Now, what's left of it mainly serves the interests of an entrenched subsidy class. And then there's health care, which has been eviscerated to the point that any description of the system as being "universal" is entirely euphemistic. I think the only way to fix the system is to wind down the subsidy programs and redesign the s
  13. It would negatively impact some industries, particularly in the resource and agricultural sectors. And Western Canadians would pay the highest price, a situation that will likely ensure the current federal government, which is already widely reviled in parts of Western Canada, will refrain from rocking the boat too much. But your main point is correct. China only imports from Canada what it can't make or grow itself in sufficient quantity. There is no reciprocity where it comes to trade in manufactured goods and, infamously, China doesn't recognize or respect Western standards on intellectual
  14. I too believe that many Ontarians, and likely other non-Francophone Canadians, are fed up with the form of quasi-segregationist multicultural dogma that's emerged in this country. But I'm not sure how feasible or well-supported an Islamic party might be. I read a report indicating that the putative party has opposed the previous (Wynne) government's sex-ed policy. Well, Ford's coalition of so-con cranks seems to be working on that. What else might an Islamic party achieve, given that the mainstream brokerage parties in their quest for votes seem willing to hand minority factions almost anythin
  15. That's far too simplistic an explanation. Many developed countries that have faced the same technological and economic environment Canada has are faring much better than are we. One of our biggest mistakes was to deprioritize productivity growth, mainly by suppressing wages. And another was protecting and promoting some sectors and interests at the expense of others, often by tolerating and even encouraging the growth and entrenchment of oligopolies and near-monopolies. Canada's standard of living was once in the post-WWII era ranked as high as 2nd in the world, after the U.S., but I believe i
  16. I think this is part of a broader indigenous strategy. If indigenous activists achieve a situation whereby what essentially amounts to universal consent is required for any resource project to proceed, resource development in this country will grind to a halt. Everybody else, including federal Libs, should seriously consider the implications of this. The more radical indigenous activists seems to equate 'reconciliation' with capitulation. If this approach prevails, we face a future of escalating conflict rather than the sunny ways JT promised.
  17. As I've stated earlier under this topic, it appears that indigenous activists could be seeking a strategy to achieve an effective (i.e. 'de facto) veto by extralegal means and thereby overturn the fight that was lost at the SCC in 2017. The generally pro-Lib Toronto Star in its print edition today published a couple pieces on the B.C. situation, noting in its main editorial that it is quite problematic that an indigenous consensus on a resource project can be upended by even a single opposed community. The question that emerges is whether this system can in any way be made to be functional goi
  18. The problem here is that most of the gains were made in the first couple decades (i.e. 1950s and 1960s) following 1950. Further, per capita GDP isn't always a wholly accurate measure to assess living standards. It's well-documented that recent GDP gains have primarily benefited corporate corporate bottom lines and the wallets of the wealthiest. Average wages illustrate the degree to which incomes have stagnated in recent decades, as indicated by Stats Can data discussed in the link below. https://globalnews.ca/news/3531614/average-hourly-wage-canada-stagnant/
  19. We'll see. China's future impacts on world trade and diplomacy are matters of significant conjecture. The outcomes will be determined as much by what happens within China as outside of it. It's unlikely it can be isolated although for decades it isolated itself. Can the West isolate itself? That's a good question. I think the one thing that is clear, though, is that China's economic growth will plateau. With a stagnant and eventually declining population and labour force this is a pretty solid prediction. China needs to learn to be subtle in its relationships with other countries, something it
  20. China faces many structural problems going forward, some of which are similar to those Western economies are facing. It's population is set to age quite quickly and the size of its labour force will stagnate as will its general population size, which will see only marginal growth between now and 2050. And after 2050 its population is set to face decline as is the size of its labour force. Japan was once predicted, as recently as the 1970s, to be the world's first Asian economic superpower but due to several structural factors, including population and labour force stagnation, the predictions n
  21. Of course I understand what 'de facto' means. (I worked for several years in a capacity where I dealt with legal issues and procedures.) I just think the distinction is irrelevant in this case. I believe many indigenous activists have simply given up on the notion of obtaining recognition for any kind of veto, 'de jure' or 'de facto', under existing Canadian law and are thus now arguing the primacy of what they instead call an obligation of "consent" - listen to the BC blockade activists on the TV coverage and you'll hear the word consent rather than veto raised more often than not - a concept
  22. I disagree with you. I believe the prevailing legal position would be that no veto right (in any sense of that term) applies. A duty to consult does apply, but presumably that's been met because governments and courts have approved the LNG project. It's my understanding that the SCC's 2017 decision relating to veto rights likely in part contributed to the BC court decision concerning the blockade. Some indigenous activists have an an entirely different view of the situation and don't accept the validity of the current legal and jurisdictional regime. They don't refer to a veto right but instea
  23. Well, I think you're wrong about this. A more recent (2017) SCC decision, which specifically addressed the matter of resource and pipeline projects, explicitly determined that no indigenous veto right applies. The SCC can in fact issue decisions that alter, clarify or even overturn previous decisions and thus establish new precedents. (See link below.) I won't address the remainder of your post because you're obviously expressing your opinions, to which you are entitled. In the meantime, I believe the 2017 precedent applies. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-brie
  24. Yup, and never in most cases be re-elected. LOL. Not much of an option in our system.
  25. The blockade of the NG pipeline project in B.C. illustrates another case in which Trudeau's 'sunny ways' policy approach has resulted in stalemate and blowback. Personally, I think Trudeau's approach has generated unrealistic expectations on the part of indigenous activists. The blockade's supporters seem to be operating on the premise of supporting an inherent indigenous veto on development, a position the Supreme Court has already rejected. Are the activists now trying to obtain an effective veto by extralegal means? Another issue raised here is that while some impacted indigenous commu
×
×
  • Create New...