Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
turningrite

Macron and Trudeau gang up on Trump

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Wildlife and wilderness begs to differ.

I agree.  That's why we need serious policy to fight climate change.  We are in the Sixth Extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

I agree.  That's why we need serious policy to fight climate change.  We are in the Sixth Extinction.

What kind of policy do you think will do the trick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree.  That's why we need serious policy to fight climate change.  We are in the Sixth Extinction.

 

Fighting won't do the trick.

10 billion conservative estimates...sooner rather than later. We're an infestation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What kind of policy do you think will do the trick?

Below are some regulations and incentives that I think would reduce climate change and improve quality of life as a whole: 

1.  Require all new large housing developments to be self-sustaining:  Make solar part of building code.  There are now solar shingles.  Include deep water cooling systems, geothermal heating, and wind wherever they are viable and make ascertaining their viability a requirement of environmental assessments.  All electrical loads in communities should be reduced through material tech, such as LED lighting, self-shading windows, and draft reduction double glazing.  Water supply can be more self-sustaining through rain barrel or similar water retention systems and making sidewalks and roads more porous. Older developments can be retrofitted with much of this tech, incentivized through tax breaks.

2.  Build "complete communities" where structures are live/work adaptable and both work and commercial/retail spaces are within walking/biking distance of residences.  Integrate micro-farming into new developments, so that families can "grow their own" and increase local food supply.  Every city/community should have quick access to locally grown food.  This is also about food security.

3.  Massively increase the size and quantity of carbon sinks: Launch tree planting and green roofing programs.  Incentivize them through tax breaks.  Divert some public spending at all levels of government to forestation, especially where settlements and industry put the greatest pressure on the environment.

4.  Build far more mass transit:  In all urban centres, build electrified mass transit networks that are practically accessible.  Subways, light rail, and RER heavy rail in cities.  High speed rail in corridors such as Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton.  

5  Set a price on carbon and return to cap and trade.  The model was already set up between Quebec, Ontario and California.  If we must have carbon taxes, they should be revenue neutral, such that revenues are returned to consumers.  That's the Trudeau plan.  We'll see how it bears out.

6.  Direct immigration to under-serviced, far-flung communities to make them viable: Transportation, service costs, and waste are reduced by consolidating and in some cases combining struggling communities and supplementing their populations.

7.  Increase brownfield development (developing formerly industrial/commercial and abandoned lands).  Reduce greenfield development, especially in our most fertile and environmentally sensitive areas.

8.  Increase hydro-electric energy production and eliminate coal energy production (unless clean coal energy becomes viable, which hasn't happened).  Natural gas is a better energy fuel than coal by far, but renewables are best.  We need to increase nuclear energy production if costs are sensible.

9.  Follow France's example of moving towards eliminating the combustion engine.  By 2050 there will be no combustion engines in France.  France leads in nuclear energy production too, which is better for the environment than many of the non-renewable options out there.

10.  Make Canada a world leader in green tech.  I realize there's skepticism about the various subsidies and tax breaks given to green industries over the years, but once a critical mass of such industries is reached and centres of excellence are created, Canada can become a go-to exporter and employer in green tech.

11.  Incentivize industry to boost productivity through upgrading efficiencies and equipment, for example by allowing total expensing within the year of purchase for tax purposes.  Boosting productivity has the huge side benefit of increasing wages and product quality.

These measures will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  They will reduce commute times, increase convenience and access to amenities, create high paying, high tech jobs, improve air and water quality, reduce health care costs (especially in the north), and improve quality of life overall.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wilber said:

Like I said, everything is libs and cons to you. Everything you don't agree with is some kind of a conspiracy instead of just a different way of seeing the world. People on the right love labels as much as anyone, labels kill discussion by trivializing any view but your own. You use of the label, "Libs" just shows that.

I don't think you read my post. The new right in fact is far more non-ideological than many realize. Too many confuse its traits by trying to place it on the traditional left-right spectrum, which leads to a lot of confusion. Alternatively, because they don't understand it, they smear it as a form of far-right or alt-right extremism, which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I believe that only by deconstructing traditional ideologies can a useful form of democratic decision making re-emerge. I belong to no political party. Do you? I associate with no ideology. Do you? At this point, my plan at present for next year's election is to vote for Bernier's party. It's the only one that's apparently willing to break away from the cartel mentality that reigns in Ottawa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You need to read Steven Pinker.  He basically proves through multiple statistics that on every metric of progress, people are better off these days in both developed and developing countries than ever before.  Our poor are fed, clothed, have housing, TV’s, computers, and literacy.  The world is a better place than it was 50 or even 20 years ago.  It will get better if we follow the science and data and make a concerted effort at progress. 

I believe Pinker is a psychologist rather than an economist. Much of his work focuses on the evolutionary improvement in human relations, although I suspect many would challenge his assertion that the world is now a much more peaceable place than was previously the case. Large wars have likely declined because technology has rendered them so utterly destructive rather than because human beings are more enlightened.

You make broad generalizations about improvements in living conditions. Sure, these have improved in many developing countries over the past few decades but the opposite is true in many Western countries. Increasingly in this country many aren't properly fed, housed or clothed and a huge percentage of Canadian urban dwellers are paying inordinate percentages of their incomes on housing alone. Polls now suggest that the middle class has declined precipitously in a very short period of time as fewer than half of Canadian now classify themselves as belong to the middle class in comparison with 70% who did so less than two decades ago. (See link below.) Homelessness is now an acknowledged crisis in some of our largest cities. Toronto, our largest city, is the epicentre of child poverty in Canada and the 2016 census illustrates the growing prevalence of low income neighbourhoods where the middle class once prevailed.

Discussing the number of people who own TV sets or have cellphones or computers amounts to a trivialization of the vast and growing economic problems that have emerged and are worsening in this country.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/middle-class-poll-1.4542903

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you need to read this guy.  From The New Yorker:

With “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker hopes to return us to reality. In the course of five hundred pages, he presents statistics and charts showing that, despite our dark imaginings, life has been getting better in pretty much every way. Around the globe, improved health care has dramatically reduced infant and maternal mortality, and children are now better fed, better educated, and less abused. Workers make more money, are injured less frequently, and retire earlier. In the United States, fewer people are poor, while elsewhere in the world, and especially in Asia, billions fewer live in extreme poverty, defined as an income of less than a dollar and ninety cents per day. Statistics show that the world is growing less polluted and has more parks and protected wilderness. “Carbon intensity”—the amount of carbon released per dollar of G.D.P.—has also been falling almost everywhere, a sign that we may be capable of addressing our two biggest challenges, poverty and climate change, simultaneously.

Pinker cites statistics showing that, globally, there are now fewer victims of murder, war, rape, and genocide. (In his previous book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” he attributed this development to a range of causes, such as democratization, pacifism, and better policing.) Life expectancy has been rising, and—thanks to regulations and design improvements—accidental deaths (car crashes, lightning strikes) are also in steep decline. Despite what we’re often told, students today report being less lonely than in the past, and, although Americans feel overscheduled, studies show that men and women alike have substantially more leisure time than their parents did (ten and six hours more per week, respectively).

“Enlightenment Now” seems designed to reassure both Republicans, who worry about increasing drug use and terrorism, and Democrats, who see racism and sexism as the crises of our time. Despite fears of resurgent racism, the number of hate crimes in America has been falling for decades, while analyses of Internet searches, which reveal searchers’ hidden interests, indicate that racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes are also in retreat. What Pinker calls “emancipative values”—tolerance, feminism, and so on—are becoming more common even in old-fashioned societies. (Young people in the Middle East now hold social views comparable to the ones held by young Western Europeans in the nineteen-sixties.) Although there’s been a recent surge in drug overdoses in the U.S., most of those who die belong to “the druggy Baby Boomer cohort . . . born between 1953 and 1963.” Drug and alcohol use among teen-agers—with the exception of cannabis and vaping—is at its lowest level since 1976.

Pinker’s message is simple: progress is real, meaningful, and widespread. The mystery is why we have so much trouble acknowledging it. Pinker mentions various sources of pessimism—the “progressophobia” of liberal-arts professors, for instance—but directs most of his opprobrium toward the news media, which focus almost entirely on of-the-moment crises and systematically underreport positive, long-term trends. (Citing the German economist Max Roser, Pinker argues that a truly evenhanded newspaper “could have run the headline NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN EXTREME POVERTY FELL BY 137,000 SINCE YESTERDAY every day for the last twenty-five years.”) He consults the work of Kalev Leetaru, a data scientist who uses “sentiment mining,” a word-analysis technique, to track the mood of the news; Leetaru finds that, globally, journalism has grown substantially more negative.

The power of bad news is magnified, Pinker writes, by a mental habit that psychologists call the “availability heuristic”: because people tend to estimate the probability of an event by means of “the ease with which instances come to mind,” they get the impression that mass shootings are more common than medical breakthroughs. We’re also guilty of “the sin of ingratitude.” We like to complain, and we don’t know much about the heroic problem-solvers of the past. “How much thought have you given lately to Karl Landsteiner?” Pinker asks. “Karl who? He only saved a billion lives by his discovery of blood groups.”

Even as “Enlightenment Now” celebrates our ingenuity, it suggests that there’s something bratty about humankind: we just don’t want to admit how good we have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I really think you need to read this guy.  From The New Yorker:

With “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker hopes to return us to reality. In the course of five hundred pages, he presents statistics and charts showing that, despite our dark imaginings, life has been getting better in pretty much every way....

Even as “Enlightenment Now” celebrates our ingenuity, it suggests that there’s something bratty about humankind: we just don’t want to admit how good we have it.

A generalized piece that addresses the perspectives of an evolutionary psychologist adds little or nothing to this debate. I don't see any analysis of Canada's circumstances or of the broader impacts of corporate globalism. Instead, the article seems to extol the virtues of psychological positivity (sunny ways?) as though it will solve all our problems. Well, yes, we all know that budgets balance themselves, right? And pigs fly as well, I guess. Corporate globalism has helped people in the developing world as incremental increases in incomes and wealth there have produced growing middle classes in some places. And, of course, corporate bottom lines have been mightily enriched in the process, as corporate globalism largely amounts to a wage arbitrage scheme. You (and Pinker) forget to mention the deleterious impacts of corporate globalism, whereby at the same time living standards are marginally improving in the developing world the middle classes in the developed world, and particularly in some of the capitalist Anglo-Western countries, are shrinking. The link is causal rather than coincidental. Or, in today's lingo, it's a feature of globalism and not, as Trudeau would have it, a bug. The ability to buy gadgets and trinkets isn't particularly indicative of progress when increasingly people living in many of our largest cities can't afford decent housing.

Our politicians have lost sight of the needs and struggles of ordinary citizens and, in Canada at least, masked the precipitous decline in the middle class with subsidy programs that most hurt those just above subsidy income cut-off levels. Voters do not, here or elsewhere, intentionally elect governments for the purposes of transferring their income, wealth and security abroad. Naive politicians like Trudeau and, apparently, Macron seem to believe there's some substance to the notion of cheery, let's all be happy, 'win-win' globalism, which has been anything but for a lot of people. They condescendingly thumb their noses at politicians like Trump who at least seem honest enough to tell us that for most ordinary citizens living in Western countries the globalism game is fixed and was always intended to be.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to see more pessimism from Pinker on environmental issues like overpopulation, species and habitat loss, pollution, and climate change. We are not seriously addressing these frightening problems. 

On housing, it is surprising how Canada was a pioneer on housing insulation in the Seventies and is now far behind the Passivhaus standard developed in Germany and Scandinavia. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 10:59 AM, turningrite said:

To me, both of them seem to be happy shills for corporate globalism while Trump at least acknowledges that it is the legitimate and primary role of elected governments and leaders to promote and protect the interests of their own people.

You have 0 credibility when you turn a blind eye to the shill that Trump is to the corporate world and multinationals. 

When it comes to politics, you are part of the problem for not being honest. Trump is the perfect definition of a shill. There are numerous examples of how he is a shill; from protecting his Saudi billionaires to cranking up the war machine, to appointing donors, like Betsy Devos, who has a huge stake in private/charter schools as the education secretary. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, marcus said:

You have 0 credibility when you turn a blind eye to the shill that Trump is to the corporate world and multinationals. 

When it comes to politics, you are part of the problem for not being honest. Trump is the perfect definition of a shill. There are numerous examples of how he is a shill; from protecting his Saudi billionaires to cranking up the war machine, to appointing donors, like Betsy Devos, who has a huge stake in private/charter schools as the education secretary. 

 

You know what, people understand where Trump came from and what he represents. He doesn't hide it, whereas progressives hide behind bromides while either blindly or dishonestly serving the cause of corporate globalism. Trump understands that the game of corporate globalism is rigged against American workers, and, logically, against workers in other Western countries, particularly where trade is concerned, and he's not afraid to loudly state his criticisms despite the fact that many in the corporate elite wish he wouldn't do so. Perhaps his biggest weakness is his failure to distance his presidency from his own private commercial interests but that doesn't negate the reality that his critique of corporate globalism is largely correct.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You know what, people understand where Trump came from and what he represents. He doesn't hide it, whereas progressives hide behind bromides while either blindly or dishonestly serving the cause of corporate globalism. Trump understands that the game of corporate globalism is rigged against American workers, and, logically, against workers in other Western countries, particularly where trade is concerned, and he's not afraid to loudly state his criticisms despite the fact that many in the corporate elite wish he wouldn't do so. Perhaps his biggest weakness is his failure to distance his presidency from his own private commercial interests but that doesn't negate the reality that his critique of corporate globalism is largely correct.

Trump is great for increasing public debt, boosting the fortunes of the one percenters, and deregulating investment banking, so that working people can pay higher debt servicing charges and bail out the “banksters” when the speculation bubble bursts. 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trump is great for increasing public debt, boosting the fortunes of the one percenters, and deregulating investment banking, so that working people can pay higher debt servicing charges and bail out the “banksters” when the speculation bubble bursts. 

I believe the public debt issue is widely misunderstood. As an article published earlier this year in Forbes (a pro-business magazine) noted, debt is not as big a problem for major advanced economies as is often portrayed, although it can be more problematic for smaller ones. Also, although not discussed in the article, in comparison to Canada more of America's public debt is federalized, a situation that permits the American federal government to obtain much better credit terms than is the case in Canada, where provincial governments hold a significant proportion of the public debt. As for the speculation bubble, by which presumably you mean the bubble in equities and real property, if this bursts interest rates will most likely plummet as capital will seek safe haven. There is a surplus of capital in Western/advanced economies, a situation that serves to undermine the earning capacity of that capital if other options are taken off the table. This is what's happened in Japan over the past couple decades.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#1a0103b3314f

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Perhaps his biggest weakness is his failure to distance his presidency from his own private commercial interests but that doesn't negate the reality that his critique of corporate globalism is largely correct.

So was his critique of the wars around the world that the U.S. was engaged in. Then, what did he do? He doubled down and followed what the other presidents have done. 

He says one thing and his actions are usually something else. I'm surprised that so many people fall for his rhetoric. 

Edited by marcus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I believe the public debt issue is widely misunderstood. As an article published earlier this year in Forbes (a pro-business magazine) noted, debt is not as big a problem for major advanced economies as is often portrayed, although it can be more problematic for smaller ones. Also, although not discussed in the article, in comparison to Canada more of America's public debt is federalized, a situation that permits the American federal government to obtain much better credit terms than is the case in Canada, where provincial governments hold a significant proportion of the public debt. As for the speculation bubble, by which presumably you mean the bubble in equities and real property, if this bursts interest rates will most likely plummet as capital will seek safe haven. There is a surplus of capital in Western/advanced economies, a situation that serves to undermine the earning capacity of that capital if other options are taken off the table. This is what's happened in Japan over the past couple decades.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#1a0103b3314f

The central issue with Republican tax policy, brought to new heights by Trump, is that private risk is backstopped by public debt.  Poorly regulated investment banks and firms take unreasonable risks with working people's savings and taxes, then either go bankrupt (leaving working people empty-handed) or get bailed out with public money that must be repaid by taxpayers.  The only reason the shit hasn't completely hit the fan is because no one is calling in the debts -- yet.  It wouldn't take much more mismanagement to cause a run on the currency, which would require a painful rise in interest rates to prop up the dollar.  Governments, especially the US, have used public spending to bail out the bad actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turningrite said:

I believe the public debt issue is widely misunderstood. As an article published earlier this year in Forbes (a pro-business magazine) noted, debt is not as big a problem for major advanced economies as is often portrayed, although it can be more problematic for smaller ones. Also, although not discussed in the article, in comparison to Canada more of America's public debt is federalized, a situation that permits the American federal government to obtain much better credit terms than is the case in Canada, where provincial governments hold a significant proportion of the public debt. As for the speculation bubble, by which presumably you mean the bubble in equities and real property, if this bursts interest rates will most likely plummet as capital will seek safe haven. There is a surplus of capital in Western/advanced economies, a situation that serves to undermine the earning capacity of that capital if other options are taken off the table. This is what's happened in Japan over the past couple decades.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#1a0103b3314f

The US credit rating is no better than Canada's. "Federalized debt" means print more money. That will only work as long as the US is seen as the worlds reserve currency. 

Funny how terrible deficits were under Obama but even bigger ones are now OK under Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that if you entered google or wikipedia the word puppet you would get the Macron as an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 6:41 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Below are some regulations and incentives that I think would reduce climate change and improve quality of life as a whole: 

1.  Require all new large housing developments to be self-sustaining:  Make solar part of building code.  There are now solar shingles.  Include deep water cooling systems, geothermal heating, and wind wherever they are viable and make ascertaining their viability a requirement of environmental assessments.  All electrical loads in communities should be reduced through material tech, such as LED lighting, self-shading windows, and draft reduction double glazing.  Water supply can be more self-sustaining through rain barrel or similar water retention systems and making sidewalks and roads more porous. Older developments can be retrofitted with much of this tech, incentivized through tax breaks.

2.  Build "complete communities" where structures are live/work adaptable and both work and commercial/retail spaces are within walking/biking distance of residences.  Integrate micro-farming into new developments, so that families can "grow their own" and increase local food supply.  Every city/community should have quick access to locally grown food.  This is also about food security.

3.  Massively increase the size and quantity of carbon sinks: Launch tree planting and green roofing programs.  Incentivize them through tax breaks.  Divert some public spending at all levels of government to forestation, especially where settlements and industry put the greatest pressure on the environment.

4.  Build far more mass transit:  In all urban centres, build electrified mass transit networks that are practically accessible.  Subways, light rail, and RER heavy rail in cities.  High speed rail in corridors such as Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton.  

5  Set a price on carbon and return to cap and trade.  The model was already set up between Quebec, Ontario and California.  If we must have carbon taxes, they should be revenue neutral, such that revenues are returned to consumers.  That's the Trudeau plan.  We'll see how it bears out.

6.  Direct immigration to under-serviced, far-flung communities to make them viable: Transportation, service costs, and waste are reduced by consolidating and in some cases combining struggling communities and supplementing their populations.

7.  Increase brownfield development (developing formerly industrial/commercial and abandoned lands).  Reduce greenfield development, especially in our most fertile and environmentally sensitive areas.

8.  Increase hydro-electric energy production and eliminate coal energy production (unless clean coal energy becomes viable, which hasn't happened).  Natural gas is a better energy fuel than coal by far, but renewables are best.  We need to increase nuclear energy production if costs are sensible.

9.  Follow France's example of moving towards eliminating the combustion engine.  By 2050 there will be no combustion engines in France.  France leads in nuclear energy production too, which is better for the environment than many of the non-renewable options out there.

10.  Make Canada a world leader in green tech.  I realize there's skepticism about the various subsidies and tax breaks given to green industries over the years, but once a critical mass of such industries is reached and centres of excellence are created, Canada can become a go-to exporter and employer in green tech.

11.  Incentivize industry to boost productivity through upgrading efficiencies and equipment, for example by allowing total expensing within the year of purchase for tax purposes.  Boosting productivity has the huge side benefit of increasing wages and product quality.

These measures will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  They will reduce commute times, increase convenience and access to amenities, create high paying, high tech jobs, improve air and water quality, reduce health care costs (especially in the north), and improve quality of life overall.

I apologise for not getting back to you after such a lot of work was put in to your post.  I further apologize for answering with a only a few lines.  When I asked " What kind of policy do you think will do the trick? " I meant just that.  Most of your suggestions range from the "not likely to happen in Canada" to the "never going to happen in Canada".  Some can be classified as too late.

And that's just Canada.  As for getting the rest of the world to cooperate, forget it.

Meaning no disrespect, it's not difficult to envisage ways to combat AGW if they remain fantasy.  We can't even get provinces to agree on such very minor things as a carbon tax.  BC has one of the greenest governments in Canada but still has the largest coal exporting terminal in North America and has just given the go ahead to a new LNG terminal in Kitimat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 6:20 PM, Wilber said:

The US credit rating is no better than Canada's. "Federalized debt" means print more money. That will only work as long as the US is seen as the worlds reserve currency. 

Funny how terrible deficits were under Obama but even bigger ones are now OK under Trump.

You’re exactly right. The US has been able to prop up the failed investment industry by printing more money and selling (increasing) US debt  The only reason this hasn’t led to massive inflation and a collapse of the currency is because China and other owners of US debt haven’t dumped it.  The fact that commodities are priced in US dollars is a buffer for Americans if the US dollar sinks.  However,  a collapse in the currency would be inflationary.  The cost of goods would rise, and a hike in interest rates would be needed to prop up the dollar and curb inflation, potentially killing economic growth.  The US has continued to use public spending (now in the form of tax cuts rather than social programs) and quantitative easing (direct purchases of bad debt by printed Federal Reserve money) to maintain the economy.  It’s a pyramid scheme that works as long as no one calls in (dumps) the debt.  If the dumping starts, the interest paid on government bonds will have to rise substantially.  This is why Trump has to be careful. This is the time to improve foreign relations and build capacity domestically by improving public education, inner city living conditions, and economic opportunity for the lower classes, so that the US has a lot of productive people in the private sector to carry the country through a period when the government may not have the money to spend.

When the economy is booming, government should be capturing some of that wealth and investing in infrastructure, people, and paying down government debt.  If government can’t do it when the economy is strong, then when?  

I do wonder if this economic boom would exist without the massive public spending on tax cuts, which is unsustainable.  Is the boom essentially fake?  I hope it isn’t.  The economy was doing well before the tax cuts, but government should spend more responsibly in the right areas and begin reigning in the debt.  Otherwise it is vulnerable. 

I also agree that Canada should “federalize” more of its debt and lean more on the Bank of Canada.  However, we shouldn’t increase government debt without a damn good reason, and only temporarily.  Printing money to prop up the economy rather than using tax revenue only works as long as the dollar is strong and inflation is in check.  When the dollar is really strong, that’s the time for the Bank  of Canada to print money to buy foreign currency and pay directly for public infrastructure.  It’s a confidence game, like the whole Breton Woods economic system. 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I apologise for not getting back to you after such a lot of work was put in to your post.  I further apologize for answering with a only a few lines.  When I asked " What kind of policy do you think will do the trick? " I meant just that.  Most of your suggestions range from the "not likely to happen in Canada" to the "never going to happen in Canada".  Some can be classified as too late.

And that's just Canada.  As for getting the rest of the world to cooperate, forget it.

Meaning no disrespect, it's not difficult to envisage ways to combat AGW if they remain fantasy.  We can't even get provinces to agree on such very minor things as a carbon tax.  BC has one of the greenest governments in Canada but still has the largest coal exporting terminal in North America and has just given the go ahead to a new LNG terminal in Kitimat.

LNG is fine but coal has to go.  The biggest problem is that the measures I propose really need to happen globally or at least continent-wide, otherwise our business costs and personal spending costs rise, while they remain low in other countries. I agree that some of my proposals are unrealistic in today’s political climate, but some of them are affordable and sensible for improving business conditions and quality of life, such as boosting mass transit, updating building code, and building complete communities.  I think most of my recommendations will be implemented eventually, but will it take 20 years nor two centuries?  If we don’t move on climate change, humans may not have two centuries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

LNG is fine but coal has to go.  The biggest problem is that the measures I propose really need to happen globally or at least continent-wide, otherwise our business costs and personal spending costs rise, while they remain low in other countries. I agree that some of my proposals are unrealistic in today’s political climate, but some of them are affordable and sensible for improving business conditions and quality of life, such as boosting mass transit, updating building code, and building complete communities.  I think most of my recommendations will be implemented eventually, but will it take 20 years nor two centuries?  If we don’t move on climate change, humans may not have two centuries.  

No argument there.  I think the world will be unrecognizable by the end of this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 10:59 AM, turningrite said:

It was creepy to listen to Macron and Trudeau gang up on Trump, even if only tangentially, during the weekend's WWI remembrance events in Paris. To me, both of them seem to be happy shills for corporate globalism while Trump at least acknowledges that it is the legitimate and primary role of elected governments and leaders to promote and protect the interests of their own people.

Trump admits that he is a "nationalist," albeit the meaning of that term has been altered by supposedly high-minded progressives to falsely imply an association with neo-Nazi sympathizers and the alt-right. But when soldiers were sent to fight in the very war(s) world leaders were commemorating in Paris were they not inspired by love of country? Wasn't the notion of 'king and country' a rationale for Canada's war efforts and didn't the French fight for 'la gloire de la France' - a notion American and British Commonwealth forces ultimately helped to sustain? In fact, how many times have we heard that Canada's identity was forged by its war efforts and sacrifices? Now, though, feckless politicians like Trudeau and, presumably, Macron appear to believe that there are enterprises other than national interest more crucial to global progress. The basic problem with their position, I believe, is that it negates the nature of democracy itself, which at this point in history is definitionally nation-state based. There is no such thing as global democracy and there is unlikely to be any such thing in the foreseeable future. If we give up on the notion of nation-state based democracy, are we not effectively giving up on democracy itself.

And I don't understand the concerns Macron and Trudeau raise about populism. If populism is defined as the assertion of popular will, why is it necessarily a negative thing? Isn't it a good thing that every so often governments do as they believe their country's citizens want them to do? Trudeau is an unrepentant elitist, and probably not a very bright one at that. But I thought Macron had more common sense. Oh, he says patriotism is fine, but nationalism apparently is not. Huh? The online definition of patriotism is "vigorous support for one's own country" while the online definition of nationalism is "patriotic feelings, principles or efforts." It looks to me like Macron is simply trying to be clever in opportunistically attacking Trump. Principles have little or nothing to do with it. Trudeau, though, is a mouthpiece for his usual hobbyhorses although I suspect he understands quite little about the agenda he's really promoting.

No wonder Trump was so disconnected from the weekend's events in Paris, which seemed to intended as a public relations exercise by politicians who are promoting a pernicious and deceptive agenda.

The lying American and Canadian media tried to make it appear as though Trump tried to avoid going to any veterans ceremony because, as they lied again, that Trump did not want to attend the ceremony because it was raining and Trump did not want to get wet at the ceremony. I know that would never happen with Trump where he would not want to attend a veterans ceremony because of rain. That would be committing political suicide for him to do such a thing.  

But the true facts were that the ceremony that Trump was supposed to attend were cancelled because the helicopter that was supposed to take him to the ceremony could not fly because of heavy fog. But Trump did attend another veterans ceremony at another location. Dam that bloody leftist liberal lying media. They will say anything to try and make Trump look bad all the time. And many members here will eat up their lies that the fake media will feed them. When will these people ever learn that Trump is not their enemy but is on their side? 

Trump says that he is a nationalist and so am I and the both of us are definitely not globalists. We both believe in our country's and want to see both succeed and do well for our own people and not the rest of the worlds people. I do not like to see my tax dollars being given away to countries who do not deserve it or should be entitled to my tax dollars. If taxpayer's want to give to other countries than use your own dollars and not mine. The handout days should be over as far as I am concerned. I do not want to be my brothers worlds keeper anymore. Enough already. We are billions in debt because of blowing away all of our tax dollars on the rest of the hell hole world and have got nothing back in return for it but grief and more dollars to be stolen from we the people. It's wakey-wakey time. Hello. :rolleyes:  

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...