Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
In light of Canada's federal election today
Collapse
X
-
I'm wincing a bit at the way the sentences are constructed.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
-
So when do we know if you Canuckistanis had a momentary lapse of sanity and booted Trudeau or not?
Please note that I resisted making an obvious about/a boot joke there
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSo when do we know if you Canuckistanis had a momentary lapse of sanity and booted Trudeau or not?
Please note that I resisted making an obvious about/a boot joke there
The election may well have been won before that, as the eastern provinces get counted first, and the large population areas of Montreal and Toronto have more seats then some of the other provinces and often carry the vote before polling even ends in, say, BC.
Here's a list of the seats by province.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...oral_districts
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
-
Well, in case anybody cares, it looks like the Trudeau fiasco will continue for another 4 years.
Here are early results. The Liberals lost about 27 seats, but the Bloc Quebecois basically came back from the dead. Last election there were quite a few Conservative seats in Quebec, those have been lost to the Bloc.
Liberals also lost seats in Alberta, and so did the NDP. As of now there is only 1 NDP seat in Alberta. The rest are Conservative.
These are not final results, but I doubt the Conservatives will win much in BC.
https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx?lang=e
Talking heads are saying that since there are no Liberal seats in Alberta now, Trudeau will back down from getting the trans-mountain pipeline to tidewater built.
I fear that will be a further death knell for the oil industry here. Which suffered horribly during the last 4 years of both federal Liberal and provincial NDP regimes.
A sad day for the province and the country.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View Post1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity
I think it's pretty self-evident in such a situation that the poor would become richer if the money was taken off me and given to the poor. The world in general would be much better off.
So if the quoted statement above is meant to be some sort of logical truism that holds always and everywhere, then it is self-evidently not the case. In that sense, the statement is false, and obviously so.
If it is meant to be a contextual statement about Canada in the present day, the current distribution of money, how that money is currently being used to create prosperity, and the effects of possible laws being suggested to redistribute that... then, well, there's not really a way to know whether the statement is true or false - we would have to do quite a complex evaluation for each law individually and even then we would be only guessing at the effects. So it comes across as a bit idiotic to make such a claim as that statement does.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
Some people earn money by working hard all day and being paid wages / salary. Other people earn money by doing nothing at all and their existing money generates more money for them (capital gains, investments). For want of better terms, we could call these two groups the hard workers and the idle rich. Inherently, the money that is accruing to the idle rich they are accruing without working for, and it is inherently coming to them at the expense of the hard workers who are not receiving the full worth of their hard days labor, as instead the idle rich are skimming their "profits" off the top.
So yes, the idle rich are bums who are basically stealing of the hard-working people, and that is the dumb way our economic system currently works. Unfortunately the person writing these idiotic statements basically meant the opposite and was trying to convince people to oppose the poor and believe the poor are the ones fleecing the system. It is amusing how often the rich and powerful try to convince people that it is the poor and destitute who really have all the power and who are really the ones who are ripping of the system, even as the rich and powerful are running out the back door with all the money, and amusing how often people fall for their ridiculous claims.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else
Or, more generally speaking, it isn't true. The government is in a unique economic position outside of the system of monetary transfer everyone else engages in. The government prints the money. Look at the money in your wallet, and whats written on it. Made by the government. The beginning of that note was not the government taking it from someone else as the claim above alleges. It began with the government having it made. More generally, the government magics money out of nothing all the time and that is what the Federal Reserve does and it delegates that power to banks to issue loans. Anytime you get a mortgage on your house or take out a loan, inherently that is money that the government has created for you to have (or specifically allowed the bank to create on its behalf).
While the majority of the money the government spends it has taken from the populace in taxes, not all of it is, and that doesn't have to be the majority source of govt expenditure (several modern libertarian economists have suggested the government should make more money out of nothing and primarily fund itself that way).
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
But the more general idea its trying to express seems obviously false. A simple example would be diversified funds, where a person looking to make money essentially divides that money up among as many different investments as possible in order to ensure that even if some of those investments don't work that they still make a good return. So they are "multiplying their wealth" (investing at a profit) "by dividing it" (ie splitting it up).
In the case of whether Scrooge McDuck's vault of riches would serve the world better if it were spread amongst an impoverished world rather than sitting in his vault, the answer seems to be an obvious yes. And so that is another case where wealth would be multiplied by dividing it. A key concept in terms of understand why handing out Scrooge's dollars to an impoverished world is called "marginal utility", which refers to the usefulness each additional dollar has to a person who already has some amount. Consider Scrooge's giant money filled vault - if we put an extra dollar in his vault or removed a dollar from his vault, he wouldn't even notice, doing so would have no effect on anything. Hence the "marginal utility" of that dollar is zero - it has no effect when created or destroyed. But consider an impoverished person in Scrooge's world who has only pennies to their family's name, giving them an extra dollar would be huge for them, allowing them to massively transform their life, feed their family, buy something crucial. They might be able to put that money toward a bike to transport the to their workplace, which then might mean they could work an extra hour a day at work because their commute was faster than their previous walking, and so they create an hour a day more worth of products and earn an hour a day more of wages, and so then they create many more dollars worth of value of goods in the economy and equally more for their own pocket. So the marginal utility of that dollar given to that impoverished person is many many dollars. In the general case, the marginal utility of money is almost always more for a poor person than a rich person. So, yes, in general, taking money off a rich person and giving it to a poor person on average has the effect of improving the poor person's life more than it takes away from the rich person, and benefiting the economy in general by increasing total economic productivity.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them...
But the statement is approximately correct insofar as about half the total population of Canada does work and about half do not. So who, in fact, is actually the half of the population who isn't working? The elderly. Children. Stay-at-home-mothers whose husbands are the bread-winners for the family. Is the idiot who wrote the statement seriously worried about children not being put into factories at the age of 5? Worried about an 80 year old granny getting a 'free ride' by not being forced to work for a living? Strongly against wives who opt for childcare duties while their husbands work? Of course not. The person is ignorantly pretending that the half of people who don't work are working-age people who choose to get government handouts rather than work, when in fact such people constitution an almost negligible fraction of the population.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View Posttl;dr
Just remember folks, just how many poor people have you ever worked for?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Melody Maker View PostTrudeau is not my prime minister, never was and never will be. I'm sure he collided with the Russians to get extra votes.
I still say he ought to be impeached.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by StarlightSome people earn money by working hard all day and being paid wages / salary. Other people earn money by doing nothing at all and their existing money generates more money for them (capital gains, investments). For want of better terms, we could call these two groups the hard workers and the idle rich. Inherently, the money that is accruing to the idle rich they are accruing without working for, and it is inherently coming to them at the expense of the hard workers who are not receiving the full worth of their hard days labor, as instead the idle rich are skimming their "profits" off the top.
But that would mean that you'd have to make a real argument instead of spouting nonsense.Last edited by MaxVel; 10-22-2019, 09:21 AM....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostThe last two sentences are so Canadian. No wonder you lose, too nice, like sheep to the slaughter.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
395 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
113 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
365 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment