i just thought about something fundamentally wrong with business in capitalistic sys

[reno cool]

ebsb,

I don't think Obama is proposing anything close to universal health care. He wants to make insurance mandatory. That is he wants to give money to insurance companies.

I really appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. But the democrats have done nothing, and I mean nothing to help the poor in the last 30 years.

Populist organizations will have to drag these bastards kicking and screaming if any meaningful change is to happen. Still, the chances of this is much greater with the Republicans out.

[EBSB52]

ebsb,

I don't think Obama is proposing anything close to universal health care. He wants to make insurance mandatory. That is he wants to give money to insurance companies.

I really appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. But the democrats have done nothing, and I mean nothing to help the poor in the last 30 years.

Populist organizations will have to drag these bastards kicking and screaming if any meaningful change is to happen. Still, the chances of this is much greater with the Republicans out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think Obama is proposing anything close to universal health care. He wants to make insurance mandatory. That is he wants to give money to insurance companies.


I know, Clinton would have been better in that respect. I think he wants to give the 50 million w/o care a shot at government healthcare.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I really appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. But the democrats have done nothing, and I mean nothing to help the poor in the last 30 years.


They were only in power a short time and only had part of congress for 2 years of the 8, so let's see what the powers can do. As for do nothing, under Clinton he increased min wage, passed education tax credits, etc. He started the ergonomics bill until Bush killed it. He's done plenty, if I were to research I could find others. He kinda entered office as the new pimp-daddy, so I think Obama will do more, faster.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Populist organizations will have to drag these bastards kicking and screaming if any meaningful change is to happen. Still, the chances of this is much greater with the Republicans out.


I think he's much more under the gun to fix this. I think the black thing is silently going to make him do right and be affirmative. IOW's, let's see if the black guy can make this happen.

[mathdotcom]

Oh, well in that case all the neo-cons whining about universal care / socialized medicine are really worried about nothing, right? Please answer. If universal care is not a big part of socialism, then where is it? Is it a product of capitalism?

So since we have a Dem in office in January I guess we won't be capitalist anymore? Of course we will, having a different party in power just changes shades of what you are, we are still capitalists due to the market controlling the means of production and Canada is still primarily socialist even with the conservative party winning the last 2 elections.


Here, I'll teach you something about your own country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_Canada

Social programs in Canada include all government programs designed to give assistance to citizens outside of what the market provides. The Canadian social safety net covers a broad spectrums of programs, and because Canada is a federation, many are run by the provinces. Canada has a wide range of government transfer payments to individuals, which totaled $134.8 billion in 2005.[1] Only social programs that direct funds to individuals are included in that cost; programs such as medicare and public education are additional costs.

Generally speaking before the Great Depression most social services were provided by religious charities and other private groups. Changing government policy between the 1930s and 1960s saw the emergence of a welfare state, similar to many Western European countries. Most programs from that era are still in use, although many were scaled back during the 1990s as government priorities shifted towards reducing debt and deficit.

All provinces in Canada provide universal, publicly funded healthcare, with their costs partially subsidized by the federal government. Services not "listed" (covered by provincial plans) can be purchased privately, however Canada is unusual in banning the purchase of private insurance or care for any services that are listed.

Mandatory primary education is provided by all provinces for a nominal cost. Private education is also available but its comparatively high costs and the relative quality of public education prevent many parents of using it as compared to the United States or Britain. Secondary education is optional and therefore more expensive, while post-secondary is yet more expensive but it still subsidized to a great extent by the federal and provincial governments. Student loans also exist to ease costs.

Canadian mortgages are insured by the federal Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and most provinces have ministries in charge of regulating the housing market.


So let's summarize:

Canada has:

- Social safety net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_safety_net

- Universal health care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[27]

- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is a Crown corporation owned by the Government of Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...ng_Corporation

- "social assistance", "income support", "income assistance" and "welfare assistance";




So in spite of all of these services, Canada is not socialized? The gov provides healthcare for all, all of the basic USA stuff, has a safety net program and even owns the mortgage lending companies via the gov and you're not under a system of socialism huh? That's like the guy with weiner sticking out of his mouth saying he's not gay, his boyfriend is. Fine, you're 100% Nazified American Capitalist

You guys are impressed by this moron? He insults me for continuously refering to the official definition of socialism, that the government controls the means of production. I can't believe there are Canadians agreeing with him. I bet none of you work for the government. You are all "means of production", yet the government does not control where you decide to work. Gee, sounds more like capitalism to me.

Just because there are socialist elements to Canada does not mean that overall it can be labeled socialist. Do you want me to list all the aspects of the economy that are private?

- coffee shops
- bars
- car retailers
- electronics retailers
- book retailers
- gas stations
- millions more

Now let me get to all the issues where your facts are simply wrong, Mr. Wikipedia copy/paster who thinks that classifies as research. So let me use Wikipedia against you.

"CMHC is responsible for the housing industry in Canada. Its main duty is currently to ensure low cost mortgage loans are available to Canadians by providing insurance to lenders in case of defaults and homebuyer assistance. The borrower can pay lower interest costs when the loan is insured but the borrower has to pay the insurance premiums so it is uncertain as to whether the CMHC is helping the borrower reduce financing costs."

CMHC is only an insurer. Anyone in Canada who has a mortgage knows you go to a privately owned and operated bank to get a mortgage.

http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/mortgages/index.jsp

http://www4.bmo.com/personal/0,4344,35649_36691,00.html

https://www.cibc.com/ca/mortgages/index.html

http://scotiabank.com/cda/content/0,1608,CID8216_LIDen,00.html

http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/mortgages/

And those are only the big ones. You can probably buy shares in all of these banks on the TSX.

You're confusing government regulation, which is very light in the banking sector, with control. McDonald's has food and safety regulations, but nobody would claim McDonald's is owned or operated by the government.

To the Canadians in this thread: you can agree with this guy's political views, but at least call him out on the incorrect 'facts'.

Now obviously Canada is a mixed economy. I've argued it is more capitalist than socialist in the sense that most transactions are carried out privately. ESB douchebag has argued that because it has some socialist elements, the whole country must be socialist in every way.

I've tried to argue that Canada is more capitalist than socialist on the basis that we generally live our lives without much interference/control from government. But since you want a number, I'd suggest that government spending as a % of total GDP be used. In Canada, government spending is approximately $200billion every year. Our GDP is 1.178 trillion. That's 17%. You lose.

[mathdotcom]

And that is my final post in this thread

[pico]

there was a keynote speaker(for got the name) at one of the MIT graduations. everyone there attending was all smiling and happy because they just graduated from MIT. Then the keynote speaker started off by yelling, "you all must be angry! You all must be angry!" The point of him saying it was because when you're angry, you have the drive to accomplish goals. and when you're happy and content, you just tend to lay around and do nothing. and that is why extreme socialism won't work. if we're all happy, no one is going to do any work. That is why capitalism works, but at a cost. I guess gov like canada is trying to make people happier by slowing down economic growth.

[dwaechte]

>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It comes down to the fact that both Canada and America, and most countries for that matter, are flat out mixed economies.


Wihout a doubt. But to say Canada and America have the same amount of socialism is ridiculous. Canada certainly has enough to be considered quasi-socialist, but you are use to it so you don't think so.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To say Canada is a socialist country is dead wrong, and that's what you were saying earlier.


I've always claimed Canada is quasi-socialist, never here or elsewhere referred to it as full-on socialist.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is Canada slightly more socialist than America? Yes. But they're both mixed economies that in the grand scheme of things, I view as very similar.


Of course you do, you don't like socialism and therefore you want to revise the thruth. Slightly? Yea, whatever. Socialized meds, social safety nets out the ass and gov sponsored mortgages and auto ins..... keep on a tokin bro ..... your awesome country is quasi-social..... noit that it's a bad thing.


.

Please stop making assumptions about me that aren't even logical ones based on the discussion we've had.

1. "OK, socialism. You say it doesn’t work, look at Canada, Western Europe and other countries that are Socialist; they work."

Someone said socialism doesn't work. This was your statement to refute that. So either you stated that Canada was socialist, or your earlier argument refuting the fact that socialism doesn't work was manipulative and unrelated to the point.

2. Secondly, I do like socialism. I'm just not so blind that I can see why not everybody else does without resorting to calling them greedy bastards.

[EBSB52]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You guys are impressed by this moron?

Why are you pandering to the board, quit the Ad hominems and focus on the points….shiny leys; look.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He insults me for continuously refering to the official definition of socialism, that the government controls the means of production.

So you say this concept of the means of production are false or otherwise contrived? Marx and Engle wrote all about that, that is a very basic aspect of socialism. Either you have no degree as you brag or your degree is in something like engineering where you don’t even touch these areas. Justice delves deeply into them. Here’s a reference: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-socialism.htm

Typically, socialism is concerned with both the social and economic system in a country. Property and wealth are shared, and their distribution are subject to the control of the people, who exert equal control of the government. The community or state owns all the things used for work production, called the means of production, and thus may also decide what is produced and how to distribute as evenly as possible the moneys paid for things produced.
In the social context, since all, and not a few people, control the means of production, disparity between rich and poor shrinks. All can expect a fairly even distribution of wealth from what is produced, so all live at approximately the same income level. Further, all have a place as workers in such a society, since everyone is equally invested in production proving beneficial to the society and the individual.

This is a full-on 100% socialistic nation, Canada is not that, but they own and manage mortgages, auto insurance and probably several other industries. As well they have a huge safety net including socialized medicine, so they also have social concern as well as social economic interests. So I think they are easily quasi-socialists / quasi-capitalist. As an American, I see you guys as very socialist, but an objective interpretation of Canada renders Canada quasi.

As for insulting you, real funny to hear from you, a guy who throws em out constantly and then whines when others do it. Get over it, I have you tough capitalist (in your own mind).

Here’s another reference. Yes it’s Wiki, which I find usually very accurate, but they refer to several other sources for a definition of socialism: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Definitions_of_socialism

What I see in there is a trend that American-based dictionaries lean toward calling socialism this horrible 3-headed monster and they transpose a mild defintion of communism over it and call it that. Other world dictionaries tend to refer to the people controlling the means of production, rather than the government controlling that. In capitalism the elite control the means of production, which explains why so many labor unions have been busted here since fascist Ronnie was president. As well why so many have gone w/o medical coverage for so long. EX: Oxford English Dictionary: "1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common."


>>>>>>>>>>>I can't believe there are Canadians agreeing with him.


See what a socialist you are, you’re trying to rally your fellow countrymen, a truly socialist thing to do. If you were a capitalist you would stand alone.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>I bet none of you work for the government. You are all "means of production", yet the government does not control where you decide to work. Gee, sounds more like capitalism to me.


Ignoramus, that’s communism, in fact, the harshest form of communism. Even Chinese Communism isn’t that harsh anymore. Nothing like extremism to suck in the lemmings, I see it’s worked on you.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just because there are socialist elements to Canada does not mean that overall it can be labeled socialist.


It’s not overall, mostly socialist and I have never said that. I call it quasi: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quasi

- having such a resemblance to another thing as to fall within its general category
- in some significant sense or degree
- in a manner sense or degree; having some resemblance to


Again, as an American, my personal perspective is that Canada is very socialist, objectively somewhat socialist. Another pint is that you have handgun restrictions, something akin to socialist nations. Yet again you are quasi.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you want me to list all the aspects of the economy that are private?

- coffee shops
- bars
- car retailers
- electronics retailers
- book retailers
- gas stations
- millions more

No, I don’t really want that, as it is not relevant unless we are referring to a communist country where private businesses are generally non-existent. But even in communist China there are small businesses, so your point once again fails: http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/docs/dana/China.HTM

Small business also developed in rural areas. In the past, every individual had been guaranteed a job and meals were assured. The introduction of new responsibilities motivated people to become more productive. By 1985, more than 16 million people in China were small business owners in the private sector and of these. more than seventy percent were in rural areas. Although the peasants were often poorly educated. this was not a barrier to entrepreneurial endeavors (Williams and Li 1993 ). Peasants have cultivated almost 100 million hectares of land. They have planted corn, flax, sorghum, SC)ya beans, and sugar beets in the fertile black soil of the Northeastern Plain. Meanwhile, the level terrain and deep topsoil of the North China Plain proved ideal for apples, grapes, pears. and persimmons. The Middle-Lower Yangtze Plain has been providing beans, rice, tangerines, and fish.
In terms of entrepreneurial efforts. three forms of production units have emerged: individuals, families, groups of families. The second proved to be the most effective. Officially recognized as "specialized households," families were granted permission to keep sideline income from fish-farming poultry, and animal husbandry. In addition to agriculture, some households became specialized in small-scale rural industries including carpentry. construction, embroidery, handicrafts, and transportation. By 1984 there were perhaps seven million specialized households in the PRC, including 1.5 million in non-agricultural fields. 'I"rade fairs became instruments for the commercialization of output.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now let me get to all the issues where your facts are simply wrong, Mr. Wikipedia copy/paster who thinks that classifies as research. So let me use Wikipedia against you.


I do far more than cut/paste, Mr. One-liner, I am very comprehensive. Also, wiki is usually very accurate and I have posted several other references that you have speedily ignored/ran from. Really pathetic to read a turd with legs like you slam me for using Wiki and then use it your self, but once I read your dishonesty it makes my day. Here’s what you left out: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is a Crown corporation owned by the Government of Canada.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CMHC is only an insurer. Anyone in Canada who has a mortgage knows you go to a privately owned and operated bank to get a mortgage.


No, they do more than that, they:

Development of the policy of every Canadian family having a home.
Development of a national building code
With the insurance of mortgages and 90%/10% downpayment standard the suburbanization of Canadian cities was possible
Building experimental houses for new and improved building techniques and technology
Often acts as a developer, but this function is diminishing.
Influences the socio-economic differentiation in cities by approving low-cost housing projects only when placed where they desire. For example, the Calgary municipal government wanted to develop the NE portion of the city as a high-cost housing market due to the view of the Rocky Mountains. However, the CMHC, in loaning money to Calgary, decided that the development should instead be focused around low-cost housing projects.


So they act as mortgage insurer to hold your hand to ensure every Canadian family has a home, to work toward socio-economic equity and rememebr, the word used was ensure, as well as insure; American mortgage insurance companies don’t give a rat’s ass about ensuring you have a home, they just insure the loan, so CMHC is soooooo much more than a mortgage insurance company as you want us to believe, they’re social equity police and I think it’s great.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're confusing government regulation, which is very light in the banking sector, with control. McDonald's has food and safety regulations, but nobody would claim McDonald's is owned or operated by the government.


Controlling McDonald’s is a safety/health function, ensuring people get bank loans by insuring their loans is a form of social welfare.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To the Canadians in this thread: you can agree with this guy's political views, but at least call him out on the incorrect 'facts'.


Once again, the eternal socialist; calling for support from his fellow countrymen. You act as though I am calling Canada a socialist nation as a smear, I envy Canadian Socialism and wish we would mirror that system, just as you would cry like a schoolgirl if you lost your socialized meds and other social programs you take for granted. The facts are that the Canadian government goes to great lengths to care for its citizens, keep streets clean as compared to the US and a lot of other great things. I can still remember driving over the Windsor Bridge thinking I left hell and entered Heaven. I just hated going back to Detroit. If you want to call Canada’s version of quasi-socialism staunch conservatism and capitalism because it makes you feel tough, be my guest, just don’t ask me to do the same.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now obviously Canada is a mixed economy. I've argued it is more capitalist than socialist in the sense that most transactions are carried out privately.


Labeling a social system isn’t a preponderance effort, it’s a generalization and Canada is quasi-soc/cap. Is it more capitalistic than it was? Probably. Does it still have large renderings of socialism? Of course. Where is the needle? I don’t know, to me, more socialist, to the world, somewhere in the middle.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ESB douchebag has argued that because it has some socialist elements, the whole country must be socialist in every way.


Actually it’s EBS, Mr. Turdwithlegs.com. Please, oh please illustrate where I have claimed that Canada is socialist in every way. This is why any readers find you ridiculous, you’re dishonest. I have never asserted that in my life that Canada is 100% socialist or even close.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've tried to argue that Canada is more capitalist than socialist on the basis that we generally live our lives without much interference/control from government. But since you want a number, I'd suggest that government spending as a % of total GDP be used. In Canada, government spending is approximately $200billion every year. Our GDP is 1.178 trillion. That's 17%. You lose.


That really is a nice try, but really inaccurate. I do appreciate your attempt at an empirical approach though. To show you how inane using GDP is I can look no further than the strongest military in the world and compare GDP. The US spends as much as the rest of the world on its military and that isn’t counting Iraq funding and it’s GDP cost percentage is: “The United States spends 4.06% of its GDP on its military…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

So that makes your 17% look huge you socialist comrade. Nice try though, now go to your socialized doctor for your free medical care you lucky guy.

[EBSB52]

And that is my final post in this thread

My GF argues like that to.

[betplom]

Actually it’s EBS, Mr. Turdwithlegs.com. Please, oh please illustrate where I have claimed that Canada is socialist in every way. This is why any readers find you ridiculous, you’re dishonest. I have never asserted that in my life that Canada is 100% socialist or even close.

You never said that Canada is socialist in every way and I think that may be the start of the misunderstanding.

I tend to agree with the arguments EBSB52 has made.

In a nutcshell he's claiming Canada is considered socialist by Americans but compared to other nations Canada is much less so, also, he never argued socialism was bad, I get the clear impression he agrees with Canadian style socialism and that it's not the terrible communist monster American big business makes it out to be.

[EBSB52]

You never said that Canada is socialist in every way and I think that may be the start of the misunderstanding.

I tend to agree with the arguments EBSB52 has made.

In a nutcshell he's claiming Canada is considered socialist by Americans but compared to other nations Canada is much less so, also, he never argued socialism was bad, I get the clear impression he agrees with Canadian style socialism and that it's not the terrible communist monster American big business makes it out to be.

Thank you, I couldn't have summarized it better myself. I think those who misinterpret are doing so purposely to avoid the real issues that Canadian Socialism works well and American Capitalism does not.

[betplom]

Thank you, I couldn't have summarized it better myself. I think those who misinterpret are doing so purposely to avoid the real issues that Canadian Socialism works well and American Capitalism does not.

Right, American politicians, media, and business use fear as their main weapon to keep the American people ignorant of the facts.

As a Canadian I've been astonished to hear Americans make comments such as :
"Why should MY tax dollars be used to fund schools? I don't have any children!"

I tried using an analogy of my neighbors house being on fire:
"Why do MY tax dollars pay for the fire department? MY house has never been on fire!"

I tried explaining that a country would probably do better as a group than a bunch of individuals, many (not all) Americans resist the notion, individualism at any cost seems to be entrenched in the American psyche. I hear the word "unAmerican" used when socialism is suggested. I often refer to myself as "unAmerican" it's not meant to offend, although I'm sure it does offend some, it's more an expression of my beliefs.

To the dude that was against his taxes going towards other peoples education, I mentioned that having an educated population was probably in his better interest than saving a few dollars on taxes. Unreal.

I also remember watching a Buffalo NY new story where citizens were voting either for a small municipal tax hike to repair the roads or against the tax hike altogether, have you seen the roads in western NY lately? They are in bad shape, the residents voted down the proposition.

I know Canadians are often viewed by other nations to be very similar to Americans, but the political differences are huge.

[dwaechte]

Thank you, I couldn't have summarized it better myself. I think those who misinterpret are doing so purposely to avoid the real issues that Canadian Socialism works well and American Capitalism does not.

No.

I'm going to assume you're referring to me here because there are only three other people in this thread right now: Betplom, math, yourself, and I. Since plommer seems to agree with what you've said, and you said "those", that only leaves me and math.

So first off, you didn't address my concern about the quote I pulled from earlier in the thread. I could pull other quotes from earlier in the thread where you also use language that does not fit.

Obviously you've backed down and are no longer using the same wording you did earlier in the thread, but we did not misinterpret, you misspoke.

And for the millionth time, I'm not trying to do anything on purpose to avoid that issue. I like socialism. I prefer Canadian policy to American policy. I wish Canada pushed it's socialist agenda further. I vote NDP(or Liberal for "strategic" reasons.) But to blanketly say that Canadian policy is "better" than American policy is absurd, and I would never agree with that sentiment. It's such a massive statement and you have no idea of 92% of the implications of that statement. Very few people do. You may believe at the core whatever you want about the philosophies of each country, but to believe you're "right" and everyone else is "wrong" with what little information and experience you have at your disposal is arrogant.

[EBSB52]

Right, American politicians, media, and business use fear as their main weapon to keep the American people ignorant of the facts.

As a Canadian I've been astonished to hear Americans make comments such as :
"Why should MY tax dollars be used to fund schools? I don't have any children!"

I tried using an analogy of my neighbors house being on fire:
"Why do MY tax dollars pay for the fire department? MY house has never been on fire!"

I tried explaining that a country would probably do better as a group than a bunch of individuals, many (not all) Americans resist the notion, individualism at any cost seems to be entrenched in the American psyche.

To the dude that was against his taxes going towards other peoples education, I mentioned that having an educated population was probably in his better interest than saving a few dollars on taxes. Unreal.

I also remember watching a Buffalo NY new story where citizens were voting either for a small municipal tax hike to repair the roads or against the tax hike altogether, have you seen the roads in western NY lately? They are in bad shape, the residents voted down the proposition.

I know Canadians are often viewed by other nations to be very similar to Americans, but the political differences are huge.

>>>>>>>>>>>Right, American politicians, media, and business use fear as their main weapon to keep the American people ignorant of the facts.


For not being an American you know the rhetoric well. The RW rhetoric uses the illusion of a pregnant minority woman pushing her twin stroller and carrying a baby in each arm, warns us that if we give her welfare that she'll raise more criminals to run the streets. Meanwhile the GOP grubs steal tons of cash to fund unneeded military programs and other fat.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As a Canadian I've been astonished to hear Americans make comments such as :
"Why should MY tax dollars be used to fund schools? I don't have any children!"

No sh!t, I don't have kids, never will and I want schools funded.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I tried using an analogy of my neighbors house being on fire:
"Why do MY tax dollars pay for the fire department? MY house has never been on fire!"


I'll remember that one, analogous to soc med. - good one.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I tried explaining that a country would probably do better as a group than a bunch of individuals, many (not all) Americans resist the notion, individualism at any cost seems to be entrenched in the American psyche.


Yea, even many libs feel that way. We see the benefit, crime, bias, debt, etc.... Yet no one here wants to substantively defend it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To the dude that was against his taxes going towards other peoples education, I mentioned that having an educated population was probably in his better interest than saving a few dollars on taxes. Unreal.


Think of the prison savings, as educated people are less likely to commit crime. Conservatives are like teenage boys intellectually.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I know Canadians are often viewed by other nations to be very similar to Americans, but the political differences are huge.


Yea, and this brings it home. I like to use the USD and CAD comparison becuase our currencies are so closely tied, yet your has been killing ours for some time. Why is this? Canada is a united nation, less clkass disparity and they don;t get stupid with their military spending. What a beautiful but frozen country!! I was in Marquette Michigan in the military, right on the Canadian border, so I doubt I would do well up there for the long-run. I want to get out of here, but we'll see what Obama and the Dems can do.

[betplom]

Yea, and this brings it home. I like to use the USD and CAD comparison becuase our currencies are so closely tied, yet your has been killing ours for some time. Why is this? Canada is a united nation, less clkass disparity and they don;t get stupid with their military spending. What a beautiful but frozen country!! I was in Marquette Michigan in the military, right on the Canadian border, so I doubt I would do well up there for the long-run. I want to get out of here, but we'll see what Obama and the Dems can do.

It's "only" frozen a few months of the year, and you get used to it, I actually like the cold weather, believe it or not -20 and colder is preferred to -2 or +2 because of the cloud cover, if it's very cold, it's sunny and clear, closer to zero (all temps in Celsius) its usually overcast and grey, plus it snows less when the temp is below -20.

There are activities available in the winter that are quite enjoyable, plus, our homes are well heated and comfy, so are the vehicles we drive and everything is indoors, so its not like you have to actually BE out in the cold if you don't want to.

In Southern Ontario we get 4 seasons, some very cold days (but not too often) in the winter and some very hot humid days in the summer, overall I truly believe Canada is a great place to live, me personally, I'm not even considering going elsewhere, I'm very happy here, I'm sure every other Canadian here would agree.

[EBSB52]

No.

I'm going to assume you're referring to me here because there are only three other people in this thread right now: Betplom, math, yourself, and I. Since plommer seems to agree with what you've said, and you said "those", that only leaves me and math.

So first off, you didn't address my concern about the quote I pulled from earlier in the thread. I could pull other quotes from earlier in the thread where you also use language that does not fit.

Obviously you've backed down and are no longer using the same wording you did earlier in the thread, but we did not misinterpret, you misspoke.

And for the millionth time, I'm not trying to do anything on purpose to avoid that issue. I like socialism. I prefer Canadian policy to American policy. I wish Canada pushed it's socialist agenda further. I vote NDP(or Liberal for "strategic" reasons.) But to blanketly say that Canadian policy is "better" than American policy is absurd, and I would never agree with that sentiment. It's such a massive statement and you have no idea of 92% of the implications of that statement. Very few people do. You may believe at the core whatever you want about the philosophies of each country, but to believe you're "right" and everyone else is "wrong" with what little information and experience you have at your disposal is arrogant.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm going to assume you're referring to me here because there are only three other people in this thread right now: Betplom, math, yourself, and I. Since plommer seems to agree with what you've said, and you said "those", that only leaves me and math.


It was a generalization to anyone who misdirects via ad hominem or whatever to avoid discussing issues like data referring to American and Canadian or other socialist/quasi-socialist nations and the comparisons.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>So first off, you didn't address my concern about the quote I pulled from earlier in the thread. I could pull other quotes from earlier in the thread where you also use language that does not fit.


OK, pull them, enumerate them and I will answer each and every one of them. Be very specific, you seem to have a habit of ambiguity. So instead of getting butt-hurt over that, go get them and post them enumerated.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obviously you've backed down and are no longer using the same wording you did earlier in the thread, but we did not misinterpret, you misspoke.


Backed down from what Mr. Ambiguity? What same wording? What did I misspeak about? You need to lay these statements down in context, list the post number and make a point.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And for the millionth time, I'm not trying to do anything on purpose to avoid that issue.


This thread has drifted all over the place, but in general, Canada is quasi-socialist and that system works much better than does American Capitalism. These are some of the main points of this thread.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But to blanketly say that Canadian policy is "better" than American policy is absurd, and I would never agree with that sentiment. It's such a massive statement and you have no idea of 92% of the implications of that statement. Very few people do.


Oh, is that so? For a capitalist nation to be in the hole 10.5T, 5 T in the last 8 years, is that success? Does that make the system workable? Not to mention that we have far more billionaires here than anywhere else in the world, a massive rate of imprisonment, a poor educational system and huge homeless numbers. But you wan to defend that huh? You planning on moving here? Didn’t think so. This nation is a failure at its own game and you want to sit up there across the border and praise it? Ok. Canada, OTOH, seems to be doing well with its quasi-socialism and general ideologies.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You may believe at the core whatever you want about the philosophies of each country, but to believe you're "right" and everyone else is "wrong" with what little information and experience you have at your disposal is arrogant.


And it’s just plain stupid to tell me I’m wrong about whatever you are trying to say, but to not support it with my quotes, external data or anything at all. Saying nanny-nanny-boo-boo does nothing, go do some work and write a little.

[dwaechte]

I did pull a quote, learn to read.

Maybe my GF and I will move too America.

[EBSB52]

It's "only" frozen a few months of the year, and you get used to it, I actually like the cold weather, believe it or not -20 and colder is preferred to -2 or +2 because of the cloud cover, if it's very cold, it's sunny and clear, closer to zero (all temps in Celsius) its usually overcast and grey, plus it snows less when the temp is below -20.

There are activities available in the winter that are quite enjoyable, plus, our homes are well heated and comfy, so are the vehicles we drive and everything is indoors, so its not like you have to actually BE out in the cold if you don't want to.

In Southern Ontario we get 4 seasons, some very cold days (but not too often) in the winter and some very hot humid days in the summer, overall I truly believe Canada is a great place to live, me personally, I'm not even considering going elsewhere, I'm very happy here, I'm sure every other Canadian here would agree.

Yea, but I have a job that takes me outside, so I would be that guy working on acft in 20 degree temps. I've really had enough. I dunno. I'm really acclimated, as I go to Vegas in January for the Superbowl and wear shorts, even at night. I am starting to hate the heat in PHX and need to leave here, but don’t want to go to the other extreme.

I'm not big on the east either, I would be more likely to live in Vancouver. Cold and rainy. I skydive so I need nice weather. I'm really thinking about going to New Zealand.

[betplom]

Now obviously Canada is a mixed economy. I've argued it is more capitalist than socialist in the sense that most transactions are carried out privately. ESB douchebag has argued that because it has some socialist elements, the whole country must be socialist in every way.

I think you misunderstood, because I never got that impression.

I tend to agree with the arguments EBSB52 has made.

In a nutshell he's claiming Canada is considered socialist by Americans but compared to other nations Canada is much less so, also, he never argued socialism was bad, I get the clear impression he agrees with Canadian style socialism and that it's not the terrible communist monster American big business makes it out to be.

[reno cool]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think Obama is proposing anything close to universal health care. He wants to make insurance mandatory. That is he wants to give money to insurance companies.


I know, Clinton would have been better in that respect. I think he wants to give the 50 million w/o care a shot at government healthcare.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I really appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. But the democrats have done nothing, and I mean nothing to help the poor in the last 30 years.


They were only in power a short time and only had part of congress for 2 years of the 8, so let's see what the powers can do. As for do nothing, under Clinton he increased min wage, passed education tax credits, etc. He started the ergonomics bill until Bush killed it. He's done plenty, if I were to research I could find others. He kinda entered office as the new pimp-daddy, so I think Obama will do more, faster.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Populist organizations will have to drag these bastards kicking and screaming if any meaningful change is to happen. Still, the chances of this is much greater with the Republicans out.


I think he's much more under the gun to fix this. I think the black thing is silently going to make him do right and be affirmative. IOW's, let's see if the black guy can make this happen.

I don't know what ergonomics is. Maybe I've forgotten, so please elaborate.
Minimum wage is laughable, but the 50 cent increase in twenty years is better than nothing.

The rest of the stuff seems pretty insignificant.

However, the welfare bill he signed did a lot of damage.
Democrats had a chance to stand against meaningless war, and didn't.
Didn't fight against a bunch of BS that the Republicans pushed through.

Health care reform is another way to transport money to the rich.

How about passing a law making refusal of service illegal? They wouldn't even consider it.


I'd like to be as optimistic as you, I just see little reason for it.

[slacker00]

Pure Capitalism is bad for society as well as pure Socialism. The only way to minimize the bad parts of both of these systems is to find a mediation somewhere in the middle.

Capitalism puts all of the power into the hands of a few. This is fine as long as those in power are responsible, capable & moral. Unfortunately, this cannot be reliably predicted purely based on earning ability or inheritance lineage.

Socialism puts the power into the masses. This is fine as long as the masses are responsible, capable & moral. This cannot be reliably predicted either. The main reason is because the average Joe cannot intelligently navigate every questionable social issue up for debate, nobody can. So we cannot put everything "up for a vote" and expect any kind of intelligent policy.

In the U.S. we've got our "representitive democracy", where we vote for a variety of "representitives" to dictate social policy on our behalf. Once again, how can an average Joe know how responsible-capable-moral his potential representives might be? We probably need a more intensive process of deciding our respective representives. But guess who makes the rules regarding placement of said representitives? There needs to be some retooling of the entire process, but there doesn't seem to be anyone who's responsible-capable-moral enough for the job.

[durito]

Pure Capitalism is bad for society as well as pure Socialism. The only way to minimize the bad parts of both of these systems is to find a mediation somewhere in the middle.

Exactly.