Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada the next venezuela.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nor Justin Trudeau and the Sunny Ways fascism of the Liberal Party of Canada and associated CBC propaganda arm.

We need to get rid of these fools once and for all. This is not funny anymore, this kid is a real danger.

Idealpolitik they are the world's First Post Soviet Marxist State. Realpolitik, it's just Liberal Elites from Toronto and Montreal stealing the NDP's Post Soviet Marxist platform, to box the NDP

Just now, bcsapper said:

Ah.  You should have found a proper job.

Well, my proper job was  infantry soldier, but that's a young man's game, and  I didn't do that for the money. 

In terms of my modest fortune amassed,  not a lick of work was involved therein, certainly not by infantry standards. Buying and selling property it turns out, is exponentially profitable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Well, my proper job was  infantry soldier, but that's a young man's game, and  I didn't do that for the money. 

In terms of my modest fortune amassed,  not a lick of work was involved therein, certainly not by infantry standards. Buying and selling property it turns out, is exponentially profitable.

One of mine was too.  Well, Royal Engineers.  Enormous fun.  And no, not for the money.

As for the ones that did make money, I guess I just got lucky, because they were enormous fun too.  Most of the time.

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

One of mine was too.  Well, Royal Engineers.  Enormous fun.  And no, not for the money.

As for the ones that did make money, I guess I just got lucky, because they were enormous fun too.  Most of the time.

British Army, eh?  I served a bit on attachment to the British Army, with the Highlanders (Seaforth,  Gordons and Camerons)

Love the British Army, it's too bad about the Canadian Army, but it was beyond my means to save it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

British Army, eh?  I served a bit on attachment to the British Army, with the Highlanders (Seaforth,  Gordons and Camerons)

Love the British Army, it's too bad about the Canadian Army, but it was beyond my means to save it.

I never got to serve with any Canadian Forces.  I did do a couple of tours at CFB Suffield (hence my current location) but it was never a joint effort. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I never got to serve with any Canadian Forces.  I did do a couple of tours at CFB Suffield (hence my current location) but it was never a joint effort. 

Yeah, BATUS exists in its own little world, 1 Brigade trains with them once in a blue moon, but I served in the Canadian Army for half my life, never set foot on the range at Suffield nor anywhere near it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

So no heirs and successors for you?  HRH Prince of Wales will not be your King?

He will, as I am not one who reviles the monarchy.  They can hang around and do what they've been doing, and it won't bother me.  The Queen is the only one I've felt genuine affection and respect for, though.  As far as the rest go, to paraphrase English Bob in Unforgiven, well, why not keep them around?

Your views?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

He will, as I am not one who reviles the monarchy.  They can hang around and do what they've been doing, and it won't bother me.  The Queen is the only one I've felt genuine affection and respect for, though.  As far as the rest go, to paraphrase English Bob in Unforgiven, well, why not keep them around?

Your views?

Love Elizabeth Windsor with all my heart, but will not shed a tear upon HM ascension to the hereafter, returns to the foot of her Lord whence she came, bravo zulu.

None the less I am bound by oath to heirs and successors of VRI, but I quite like most of them, HRH Prince of Wales is good to go, and the line of succession is all decent folk from where I'm sitting, Wills & Kate, Harry & Meaghan, George & Charlotte, none of them offends me in the slightest. 

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

1.) Canadian provinces have some of the highest minimum wages on the continent.  

2.) Resources continue to generate wealth.

3.) The "gig economy," like the "share economy," is an international phenomenon related to global communication and the "just in time" high speed supply chain that has forced all companies to upscale or downsize at the drop of a hat to remain competitive.   

4.) I think the best safeguard for manufacturing jobs is legislation that ties a company's sales within a jurisdiction to that company's production within the same jurisdiction.  

5.) I have a big family and some of my cousins are living and working overseas as I did for a while, but the places that these educated young people have moved are not where you might think.  Only two of them worked for a while in the US.  One is still there, but it's not a permanent gig.  Almost all of them are in South Korea and China.  Years ago I worked with an American organization in Russia.  So what does all this say about where work is flowing?

1.) But, also, I believe that according to the OECD Canadians working in temporary or contract positions have the least protection among member countries. This affords business a lot of flexibility and yet despite this our productivity performance has been dismal, suggesting that the main purpose of this trend in Canada has been to reduce wages, which actually disincentivizes investment in productivity-focused innovation. Minimum wage levels impact a relatively small percentage of the work force. Wynne's reforms in Ontario were half-hearted, made late in her mandate and largely intended as a political ploy. The issue of whether they would have had a beneficial impact if left intact is now a moot point.

2.) They do, but this seems to be about the only sector in which we can make any claim to competitive advantage but it's hardly an earned advantage. As I said earlier, "free trade" was supposed to reduce or eliminate our productivity gap with the U.S., offsetting the disadvantages of our small domestic market and resource sector reliance, but this hasn't happened. Bad economic management and poor policy choices attributable to successive governments starting with Mulroney's seem far more likely to account for the poor performance. Other countries that have faced similar challenges resulting from globalization have fared much better.

3.) As I pointed out in my first response in this post, Canada has the weakest protections for temporary and contract workers among OECD (i.e. developed) countries. Obviously, other countries have achieved better economic outcomes without abusing their own workers to the extent that's permitted here.

4.) I'm not sure what you mean by this?

5.) Educated Canadians have by the tens of thousands annually decamped to the U.S. seeking better opportunities throughout the recent period characterized by Canada's relative economic decline, a significant net loss of talent that's been ongoing except perhaps during the height of the 2008/09 recession. And not only does the U.S. remain the primary destination for educated Canadians, it overwhelmingly remains the first choice internationally among those who say they'd like to move elsewhere. Among the main reasons people go elsewhere is that American immigration laws and limits are quite restrictive. Its legal immigration limit on a per capita basis is about one-third of the Trudeau government's current annual immigration target. You just to do the math to figure things out. Educated Canadians have had a particular advantage in this due to the labour mobility provisions afforded them under the FTA/NAFTA/USMCA regime(s).

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

1.) But, also, I believe that according to the OECD Canadians working in temporary or contract positions have the least protection among member countries. This affords business a lot of flexibility and yet despite this our productivity performance has been dismal, suggesting that the main purpose of this trend in Canada has been to reduce wages, which actually disincentivizes investment in productivity-focused innovation. Minimum wage levels impact a relatively small percentage of the work force. Wynne's reforms in Ontario were half-hearted, made late in her mandate and largely intended as a political ploy. The issue of whether they would have had a beneficial impact if left intact is now a moot point.

2.) They do, but this seems to be about the only sector in which we can make any claim to competitive advantage but it's hardly an earned advantage. As I said earlier, "free trade" was supposed to reduce or eliminate our productivity gap with the U.S., offsetting the disadvantages of our small domestic market and resource sector reliance, but this hasn't happened. Bad economic management and poor policy choices attributable to successive governments starting with Mulroney's seem far more likely to account for the poor performance. Other countries that have faced similar challenges resulting from globalization have fared much better.

3.) As I pointed out in my first response in this post, Canada has the weakest protections for temporary and contract workers among OECD (i.e. developed) countries. Obviously, other countries have achieved better economic outcomes without abusing their own workers to the extent that's permitted here.

4.) I'm not sure what you mean by this?

5.) Educated Canadians have by the tens of thousands annually decamped to the U.S. seeking better opportunities throughout the recent period characterized by Canada's relative economic decline, a significant net loss of talent that's been ongoing except perhaps during the height of the 2008/09 recession. And not only does the U.S. remain the primary destination for educated Canadians, it overwhelmingly remains the first choice internationally among those who say they'd like to move elsewhere. Among the main reasons people go elsewhere is that American immigration laws and limits are quite restrictive. Its legal immigration limit on a per capita basis is about one-third of the Trudeau government's current annual immigration target. You just to do the math to figure things out. Educated Canadians have had a particular advantage in this due to the labour mobility provisions afforded them under the FTA/NAFTA/USMCA regime(s).

1 and 3) You can't be referencing the US in this comparison, as many states don't have a minimum wage and they certainly don't have up to two years maternity leave, unemployment insurance that can be drawn on to care for a dying relative, and the same level of anti-harassment or workplace violence protections that you see in Canadian provinces, let alone human rights' tribunals.  Simply, you can't mistreat employees in Canada under current federal and provincial laws, on the most part.  Wynne's legislation was quite radical, and while some of it has been scaled back, we still have a $14.00 minimum wage plus tax credits for lower income individuals.  You'd have to look to Europe for more protections, but as has been referenced time and again, much of Europe is economically stagnant.  People don't have the disposable incomes that they do here, though there are in some cases more benefits.  Middle class Europeans generally don't even consider buying cottages or investment properties. Temporary workers have indeed been treated more poorly in terms of income and labour protections.  Wynne tried to address that in Ontario and Ford has reversed that for the sake of cheap labour in our fruit and wine belts.  Other provinces vary in their approaches.  Then again, if temporary foreign workers are willing to work for less and that helps Canadian businesses, that benefits both the workers and the businesses.  In such cases it's probably best for Canadians to focus on getting better jobs, but yes, point taken.

2) Resources require labour and technology to remove them.  While some in the mining industry are more cutting edge with extraction than others, all mining companies require a labour force, which is harder to find the more remote the operation is.  We need people willing to freeze their asses off up north to make big bucks.

4) I mean that manufacturing businesses (for example, auto makers) should not be able to reduce auto production (reducing workforces) in a country where sales are either stable or growing.  There should be a consequence for such job killing, offshoring tactics: a reduced sales volume.  For example, if GM sells 20,000 cars and this number is either consistent with or an increase in sales over the previous year, GM should not be able to slash its workforce by say, 20 percent without having its sales reduced for the following year by 20%.  Basically, you want to sell here, you have to produce here.  These are the only kinds of tactics that will prevent offshoring of manufacturing.  If you want to replace jobs with automation, then a portion of the profits from the sales should be returned to the country where the sales take place.  I realize such legislation requires thought and collaboration, especially within the context of USMCA.

5) From my perspective this is fiction.  There's no significant outflow of highly skilled and highly educated Canadian workers to the US or anywhere else, and certainly the inflow of workers from other countries more than counters any negative outflows.  I have many highly educated friends and family who like it here and never seriously consider leaving.  The recession of the early 90's put some pressure on the workforce here and caused some brain drain.  The recession of 2008 in the US and Trump's partial Muslim ban has flowed some talent up here.  We have most of what can be found in employment opportunities worldwide.  Our cities are diverse, dynamic, clean and safe...just cold in winter. 

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

1 and 3) You can't be referencing the US in this comparison, as many states don't have a minimum wage and they certainly don't have up to two years maternity leave, unemployment insurance that can be drawn on to care for a dying relative, and the same level of anti-harassment or workplace violence protections that you see in Canadian provinces, let alone human rights' tribunals. 

2) Resources require labour and technology to remove them.  While some in the mining industry are more cutting edge with extraction than others, all mining companies require a labour force, which is harder to find the more remote the operation is.  We need people willing to freeze their asses off up north to make big bucks.

4) I mean that manufacturing businesses (for example, auto makers) should not be able to reduce auto production (reducing workforces) in a country where sales are either stable or growing.  There should be a consequence for such job killing, offshoring tactics: a reduced sales volume.   If you want to replace jobs with automation, then a portion of the profits from the sales should be returned to the country where the sales take place.

5) From my perspective this is fiction.  There's no significant outflow of highly skilled and highly educated Canadian workers to the US or anywhere else, and certainly the inflow of workers from other countries more than counters any negative outflows.  I have many highly educated friends and family who like it here and never seriously consider leaving.  The recession of the early 90's put some pressure on the workforce here and caused some brain drain.  The recession of 2008 in the US and Trump's partial Muslim ban has flowed some talent up here.  We have most of what can be found in employment opportunities worldwide.  Our cities are diverse, dynamic, clean and safe...just cold in winter. 

1. and 3.) You seem fixated on minimum wages. Those earning minimum wages actually represent a very small portion of the work force. The real problem in Canada has been the stagnation (and therefore in real spending power decline) in middle class wages. The 2014 PBO report that I referenced previously, which indicated that there is no generalized labour shortage in Canada, also indicated that during the period studied virtually all wage gains had gone to a small group at the top of the economic ladder. As for your reference to the sorry state of worker protection in some U.S. states, the growth of temporary and contract work in Canada, which is scarcely regulated - the least regulated in fact among OECD countries - has created the same conditions for about 20 percent of Canada's workforce, a figure that's constantly increasing. The middle class in Canada knows it's shrinking as the percentage of Canadians who define themselves as earning enough to consider themselves middle class has dramatically shrunk from about 70 percent a couple decades ago to less than half now. And all with the blessing of sitting governments.

2.) Resources can be a curse as much as a blessing, particularly if a country relies on them for economic stability. Resource prices are highly cyclical, leading to boom and bust cycles, and allocating investment dollars to resource industries rather than to more innovative endeavors can entrench poor productivity outcomes. Harper's government went "all-in" on resource development, which was fortunate for it as oil prices were high for several years prior to 2014. But the strategy masked a serious underlying problem in the economy as analysis now apparently shows that higher income jobs in the oil patch actually propped up wages throughout the boom, suggesting that the actual decline in real wages among middle class income earners in the broader economy was far steeper than was believed to be the case.

4.) Maybe there should be a consequence for killing good middle income jobs. But there won't be. So governments have to use other available levers, including labour market input controls (i.e. immigration) in order to ensure that workers aren't the only ones losing out. In a tight labour market, real incomes rise, something that hasn't happened in Canada for three decades, which happens to parallel the most recent period of large-scale immigration. Coincidence? I think not.

5.) I don't know where you get your figures? According to stats disclosed during the free trade debate, in 2016 1.1 million (yes, 1.1 million out of a population of 36 million!) Canadians had obtained visas of one sort or another, including under the NAFTA exemption, to work in the U.S. (see link below) and there's little indication this trend will subside with the USMCA in place, assuming it's approved by Congress. Visa applications from Canadians to work in the U.S. in fact amounted to a staggering one-third of all such applications processed by American authorities in 2016. As for immigration, experience now demonstrates that Canada is accepting far more immigrants than its economy can productively absorb. Studies suggest that the economic outcomes for immigrants who've arrived over the past generation have been considerably poorer than was the case for prior cohorts. So, we're exporting highly skilled labour, educated at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and we can't absorb the immigrants who are supposedly replacing them. This creates a recipe for a subsidy system that will simply be unsustainable as time goes on.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/twice-the-headache-why-it-s-getting-harder-for-canadians-to-enter-u-s-1.3761804

 

Edited by turningrite
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. and 3.) You seem fixated on minimum wages. Those earning minimum wages actually represent a very small portion of the work force. The real problem in Canada has been the stagnation (and therefore in real spending power decline) in middle class wages. The 2014 PBO report that I referenced previously, which indicated that there is no generalized labour shortage in Canada, also indicated that during the period studied virtually all wage gains had gone to a small group at the top of the economic ladder. As for your reference to the sorry state of worker protection in some U.S. states, the growth of temporary and contract work in Canada, which is scarcely regulated - the least regulated in fact among OECD countries - has created the same conditions for about 20 percent of Canada's workforce, a figure that's constantly increasing. The middle class in Canada knows it's shrinking as the percentage of Canadians who define themselves as earning enough to consider themselves middle class has dramatically shrunk from about 70 percent a couple decades ago to less than half now. And all with the blessing of sitting governments.

2.) Resources can be a curse as much as a blessing, particularly if a country relies on them for economic stability. Resource prices are highly cyclical, leading to boom and bust cycles, and allocating investment dollars to resource industries rather than to more innovative endeavors can entrench poor productivity outcomes. Harper's government went "all-in" on resource development, which was fortunate for it as oil prices were high for several years prior to 2014. But the strategy masked a serious underlying problem in the economy as analysis now apparently shows that higher income jobs in the oil patch actually propped up wages throughout the boom, suggesting that the actual decline in real wages among middle class income earners in the broader economy was far steeper than was believed to be the case.

4.) Maybe there should be a consequence for killing good middle income jobs. But there won't be. So governments have to use other available levers, including labour market input controls (i.e. immigration) in order to ensure that workers aren't the only ones losing out. In a tight labour market, real incomes rise, something that hasn't happened in Canada for three decades, which happens to parallel the most recent period of large-scale immigration. Coincidence? I think not.

5.) I don't know where you get your figures? According to stats disclosed during the free trade debate, in 2016 1.1 million (yes, 1.1 million out of a population of 36 million!) Canadians had obtained visas of one sort or another, including under the NAFTA exemption, to work in the U.S. (see link below) and there's little indication this trend will subside with the USMCA in place, assuming it's approved by Congress. Visa applications from Canadians to work in the U.S. in fact amounted to a staggering one-third of all such applications processed by American authorities in 2016. As for immigration, experience now demonstrates that Canada is accepting far more immigrants than its economy can productively absorb. Studies suggest that the economic outcomes for immigrants who've arrived over the past generation have been considerably poorer than was the case for prior cohorts. So, we're exporting highly skilled labour, educated at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and we can't absorb the immigrants who are supposedly replacing them. This creates a recipe for a subsidy system that will simply be unsustainable as time goes on.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/twice-the-headache-why-it-s-getting-harder-for-canadians-to-enter-u-s-1.3761804

 

Well on your last point, immigrants earn less than Canadian born workers, which will lower average incomes.  While I appreciate the argument that reducing immigration will tighten the labour market and raise wages, I call your attention to Hungary, which has done just this and is now in the unfortunate position of forcing workers to work overtime and accept late payment of wages in order for industry to meet market demand.  Many have called this slave labour.  

With regard to Canadians leaving to work elsewhere, that doesn’t seem like an unseemly number in today’s global marketplace. I’m surprised only a third of them go to the US, which is so large and close.  As I mentioned, I know a lot of young people working in Asia, which says something about where the growth is. 

I agree that retaining and building up the middle class, especially bringing the lower classes into it, should be top priority.  The richest have made the biggest gains for sure, but that’s all the more reason to have progressive tax policy.  Earnings over a million dollars and especially over ten million dollars a year should be taxed at much higher rates.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

....With regard to Canadians leaving to work elsewhere, that doesn’t seem like an unseemly number in today’s global marketplace. I’m surprised only a third of them go to the US, which is so large and close.  As I mentioned, I know a lot of young people working in Asia, which says something about where the growth is.

 

There are far more young people from Asia working in the United States, with hopes of getting permanent residency (green card).   Children born in the U.S. become "anchor babies".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.) With regard to Canadians leaving to work elsewhere, that doesn’t seem like an unseemly number in today’s global marketplace.

2.) I’m surprised only a third of them go to the US, which is so large and close.  As I mentioned, I know a lot of young people working in Asia, which says something about where the growth is. 

3.) I agree that retaining and building up the middle class, especially bringing the lower classes into it, should be top priority.  The richest have made the biggest gains for sure, but that’s all the more reason to have progressive tax policy.  Earnings over a million dollars and especially over ten million dollars a year should be taxed at much higher rates.  

1.) Educated Canadians are leaving because there aren't adequate opportunities in Canada, which over the past three decades has been transformed into a second-rate derivative economy. And the reason so many immigrants struggle isn't racism, it's that the country simply doesn't afford them the kind of opportunities they assume it should, just as our own skilled graduates aren't afforded these opportunities. And, if the government is truly worried about general labour shortages (although the PBO has noted they don't exist) and must then bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually, why is it making it necessary for our workers to emigrate? Healthy economies don't export their skilled and educated workers.

2.) I think you misread my post and the linked article. One-third of all visas issued to foreign workers by American authorities are issued to Canadians. It is astonishing that a country with one-half of one percent of the world's population (Canada) meets one-third of America's (legal) skilled foreign worker demand. Although I'd have to research the issue further, my guess is that probably 80 percent or more of Canadian raised and educated workers who leave the country for work go to the U.S. and far fewer to other countries. I believe that many of the Canadians who go to Asia to work are actually Asians who acquire Canadian citizenship and then return to Asia. It's possible that many of their offspring do so as well.

3.) The problem is that we're moving in the opposite direction. The middle class is declining and the government expects it to keep on doing so. According to Thomas Walkom's column in yesterday's generally pro-Lib Toronto Star, our foreign minister, Freeland, admits that the government is going to have to massively expand subsidies just to keep its increasingly marginalized labour force from rebelling against the corporate "liberal world order" (not my words, so don't accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat) the Lib government is promoting. Please don't imagine that the taxes to pay for this fantasy will come from corporations or the rich. Instead they'll come from the ever-shrinking group of ordinary taxpayers just above the subsidy class. Eventually, there will be no money to pay for this deception but by then the rich and corporations will have their U.S. dollars safely stashed elsewhere and what remains of Canada will be left to cope as a poor, frozen economic wasteland. Freeland's dream is Canada's future nightmare.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do all those Haitians end up in Canada? I can understand that Mexicans and Central-Americans enter the USA by secretly crossing the border, climbing over some wall or fence. 

However, outside of the USA you can only enter Canada illegally  by rowing or swimming there. 

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

How do all those Haitians end up in Canada? I can understand that Mexicans and Central-Americans enter the USA by secretly crossing the border, climbing over some wall or fence. 

However, outside of the USA you can only enter Canada illegally  by rowing or swimming there. 

Haitians already in the U.S. as well as those able to make it there were accorded temporary protected status following the catastrophic 2010 earthquake. When Trump announced that the temporary protection would end, many decided to head to the Canadian border rather than return to Haiti. 

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

1.) Educated Canadians are leaving because there aren't adequate opportunities in Canada, which over the past three decades has been transformed into a second-rate derivative economy. And the reason so many immigrants struggle isn't racism, it's that the country simply doesn't afford them the kind of opportunities they assume it should, just as our own skilled graduates aren't afforded these opportunities. And, if the government is truly worried about general labour shortages (although the PBO has noted they don't exist) and must then bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually, why is it making it necessary for our workers to emigrate? Healthy economies don't export their skilled and educated workers.

2.) I think you misread my post and the linked article. One-third of all visas issued to foreign workers by American authorities are issued to Canadians. It is astonishing that a country with one-half of one percent of the world's population (Canada) meets one-third of America's (legal) skilled foreign worker demand. Although I'd have to research the issue further, my guess is that probably 80 percent or more of Canadian raised and educated workers who leave the country for work go to the U.S. and far fewer to other countries. I believe that many of the Canadians who go to Asia to work are actually Asians who acquire Canadian citizenship and then return to Asia. It's possible that many of their offspring do so as well.

3.) The problem is that we're moving in the opposite direction. The middle class is declining and the government expects it to keep on doing so. According to Thomas Walkom's column in yesterday's generally pro-Lib Toronto Star, our foreign minister, Freeland, admits that the government is going to have to massively expand subsidies just to keep its increasingly marginalized labour force from rebelling against the corporate "liberal world order" (not my words, so don't accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat) the Lib government is promoting. Please don't imagine that the taxes to pay for this fantasy will come from corporations or the rich. Instead they'll come from the ever-shrinking group of ordinary taxpayers just above the subsidy class. Eventually, there will be no money to pay for this deception but by then the rich and corporations will have their U.S. dollars safely stashed elsewhere and what remains of Canada will be left to cope as a poor, frozen economic wasteland. Freeland's dream is Canada's future nightmare.

Canada’s challenge isn’t employing people in highly skilled jobs or creating successful businesses, it’s retaining the successful businesses once they reach a certain size.  Waterloo and Ottawa are full of companies that eventually get snapped up by or merged with other firms.  Yet some will say we need this capital investment.  Apparently much of Huawei’s original telecom tech came from Nortel, which was acquired by American outfits.  Think about Corel or Blackberry.  Same kinds of stories.  Interac is of course a huge player in digital payment.  There’s social media like Kik and all of the entertainment and film work.  We’ve got some of the best sound stages.  In some ways government policy, however thoughtful or effective, is just tinkering around the edges.  People want to be here and our cities are growing fast.  If we can find ways to push settlement north, the country can really benefit from the wealth in the ground.  As for your concerns about nanny social programs, taxation and government spending in general, Canadians actively elect for these policies.  They speak to the quality of life that alll Canadians enjoy.  Ask Scandinavians if they like their programs and generally the answer will be yes.  These are some of the most successful countries in the world, like Canada. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada’s challenge isn’t employing people in highly skilled jobs or creating successful businesses, it’s retaining the successful businesses once they reach a certain size.  Waterloo and Ottawa are full of companies that eventually get snapped up by or merged with other firms.  Yet some will say we need this capital investment.  Apparently much of Huawei’s original telecom tech came from Nortel, which was acquired by American outfits.  Think about Corel or Blackberry.  Same kinds of stories.  Interac is of course a huge player in digital payment.  There’s social media like Kik and all of the entertainment and film work.  We’ve got some of the best sound stages.  In some ways government policy, however thoughtful or effective, is just tinkering around the edges.  People want to be here and our cities are growing fast.  If we can find ways to push settlement north, the country can really benefit from the wealth in the ground.  As for your concerns about nanny social programs, taxation and government spending in general, Canadians actively elect for these policies.  They speak to the quality of life that alll Canadians enjoy.  Ask Scandinavians if they like their programs and generally the answer will be yes.  These are some of the most successful countries in the world, like Canada. 

Scandinavia is successful because of free market capitalism, not their nanny social programs. What do you think pays for those social programs? I'll give you a hint, it ain't socialism.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Scandinavia is successful because of free market capitalism, not their nanny social programs. What do you think pays for those social programs? I'll give you a hint, it ain't socialism.

Capitalism thrives in those countries for the same reasons it thrives here: highly educated and highly skilled workforce with all basic health needs addressed.  The majority of the population is well positioned to produce products and services that the world wants.  The overall health and well-being of the society is the pay-off for economic success, not concentrated wealth in the hands of a handful of extremely wealthy individuals who have to gate themselves off from the wider impoverished society and hire armed guards.  That’s been the old fascist South American model.  Take your pick, rogue survival of the fittest capitalism or a rules based system that both creates and distributes wealth.  The kleptocracy in Russia moved radically from false communism to false capitalism, resembling the South American model more than the Scandinavian one. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -TSS- said:

How do all those Haitians end up in Canada? I can understand that Mexicans and Central-Americans enter the USA by secretly crossing the border, climbing over some wall or fence. 

However, outside of the USA you can only enter Canada illegally  by rowing or swimming there. 

The Americans took Haitians in on a temporary basis in the wake of a catastrophic earthquake.  When Trump took over he revoked the temporary asylum and as soon as he did they started heading for the next best option in Canada at Quebec.

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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...