|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
minus the palestine thing, all those are related. it's the governments piss poor management of money after getting elected. i mean, i would personally like if all money would be granted to R&D to develop new innovative ways of curing diseases, getting green energy, better transportation and even the arts. i do not agree with spending my money on bull like tax cuts for the rich. |
Is it really fair to blame the government though? And which government would you blame? In May we had an election here, and the public voted for a conservative majority. In 2008 we had an election, same with 2006, 2004 and 2000. It's not like we're not being given options here. We chose these people to govern us, and voted for them based on their platforms. It's easy to make the government the scapegoat, but we're the ones that put them in charge.
I think one of the main problems is that the realities of living in a globalized economy, and all that entails, are finally hitting home.
R&D grants are great, but if the domestic company that receives them ends up developing a product and chooses to have it manufactured overseas in order to exploit unfair trade policy, then the plot gets lost. They need to back up R&D subsidies with conditions that stipulate any outcome must be manufactured domestically. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by LightsOut
Is it really fair to blame the government though? And which government would you blame? In May we had an election here, and the public voted for a conservative majority. In 2008 we had an election, same with 2006, 2004 and 2000. It's not like we're not being given options here. We chose these people to govern us, and voted for them based on their platforms. It's easy to make the government the scapegoat, but we're the ones that put them in charge. |
not me. i voted in every election and the people i vote for never win. ha ha. poor me.
| quote: | I think one of the problems is that the realities of globalization, and all it entails, are finally hitting home.
R&D grants are great, but if the domestic company that receives them ends up developing a product and chooses to have it manufactured overseas in order to exploit unfair trade policy, then the plot gets lost. They need to back up R&D subsidies with conditions that stipulate any outcome must be manufactured domestically. |
protectionism is not the answer. we can't just be blocking development. so by your logic, if i develop a perfect toilet system that does not ruin the environment and i set up manufacturing in uganda where it would do most good, i should have my grant taken away? that's bull. or i develop a vaccine for HIV but a factory in sweden is better equipped to produce it, i should get my grant taken away? what you are missing is that, it's a reciprocal system. if you give business to another country or provice or company or person, they give the business back to you.
i agree, manufacturing in canada has to improve but that needs money too and needs the R&D grants. but taking away grants because the infrastructure is not ready, is not the proper way to develop the global economy. |
|
|
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
protectionism is not the answer. we can't just be blocking development. so by your logic, if i develop a perfect toilet system that does not ruin the environment and i set up manufacturing in uganda where it would do most good, i should have my grant taken away? that's bull. or i develop a vaccine for HIV but a factory in sweden is better equipped to produce it, i should get my grant taken away? what you are missing is that, it's a reciprocal system. if you give business to another country or provice or company or person, they give the business back to you.
i agree, manufacturing in canada has to improve but that needs money too and needs the R&D grants. but taking away grants because the infrastructure is not ready, is not the proper way to develop the global economy. |
It isn't about protectionism though. In a globalized economy, protectionism isn't applicable. It's more so about leveling the playing field.
Right now, countries that have lower social standards have an unfair advantage when it comes to manufacturing, and they exploit this. In Canada you can't pay a worker $1/day, but in other countries you can. China takes this a step further by undervaluing its currency as well.
If our government is dishing out tax payers money for R&D, why should Chinese companies then reap the manufacturing rewards that come along with it? Isn't the point of these types of subsidies to improve the economic situation domestically, for the average citizen?
If a private company wants to invest in R&D themselves, and chooses to manufacture overseas, then thats one thing. But I'd really prefer if my tax dollars didn't line the pockets of some south east asian big shot manufacturer, who pays his workers a dollar a day because he can. |
|
|
| Iwasthere |
 |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by LightsOut
It isn't about protectionism though. In a globalized economy, protectionism isn't applicable. It's more so about leveling the playing field.
Right now, countries that have lower social standards have an unfair advantage when it comes to manufacturing, and they exploit this. In Canada you can't pay a worker $1/day, but in other countries you can. China takes this a step further by undervaluing its currency as well.
If our government is dishing out tax payers money for R&D, why should Chinese companies then reap the manufacturing rewards that come along with it? Isn't the point of these types of subsidies to improve the economic situation domestically, for the average citizen? |
well, change doesn't happen overnight. "lower social standard countries" have their own fight to fight. but frankly to me, china has played the game fairly well. they have soooooo many people there. their value is that they have a large labour force that gets done, FAST. don't you remember how they build a factory in like 12 days. imagine that happening in canada, that would be a laugh. our labour force can't even fix the roads properly. canada frankly doesn't have the work force to make stuff. china does. no matter what you do, they have the people, we don't. what do you expect? this it's an "unfair advantage", if you want to equal it out, start making babies, lots of them.
but not to worry canada has other resources. just wait until there is a water shortage in the world and who will they be running to? the great water war is coming!! mark my words. |
|
|
| Iwasthere |
 |
|
|
| DeleteFromUsers |
So, consumerism is not the problem (it's a wonderful feature of democracy). Corporations are not the problem (again, they're a wonderful feature). Corps not paying taxes is not the problem (GE didn't pay taxes because they used green tax credits - they're doing the GOOD work which will save our grand-children's earth, not the naughty stuff!)
Unfortunately in Canada we see a lot of US media.
Due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall (1933-1999) US banks are now able to take their retail deposits (i.e. citizens' savings) and buy high-risk investments for themselves, with the hope of making profit on these high-risk investments (profit for themselves, not the retail customers). This created the 2008 economic meltdown. Those toxic assets were bought with retail deposits. Asset value goes through the floor, well, no more deposits! Yikes!
In Canada this is illegal and this is why our economy is so awesome.
Also in Canada, corps can only directly contribute perhaps $1k to candidates' election campaigns directly and spend $3k to promote a candidate in one riding (up to a max of $150k through the country - really not at all useful. A lot don't bother anymore). In the US, corps can donate MILLIONS to candidates (and they do! See http://www.goodguide.com/contributions whoa!).
TL;DR In the US: private entities can buy public offices. Also, retail banks can gamble their retail customers' savings in the stock market! In Canada, both are illegal.
Take the private money out of American elections and policy-making, and regulate American banks so that investment banks can fail without annihilating citizens' savings, and the sun will once again shine on the world's markets.
And then we can work on the millions of other problems with society. Until these two issues are solved, we're sunk. |
|
|
| feelgood |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
They won't. Giving up consumerism would be far too of an inconvenience on their lives. Way easier to ask other people for the change. |
Your last series of comments are quote worthy and hit the nail on the forehead. |
|
|
| jchung52 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Agreed. You look at any of the pictures from the protests and there are iphones, blackberries, nike windbreakers, bla bla bla...if you REALLY want to stop lining the pockets of executives, STOP BUYING.
If the goal is merely awareness, then I can get behind that. I have certainly read more, listened more, and thought more about the issue than I would have otherwise. But the goal is not awareness, the goal is "give me a bigger slice of the pie." They say they will be out there for "as long as it takes." That sounds like there's an outcome they are waiting for.
The irony of the timing between this movement and Steve Jobs' death is not lost on me - Steve Jobs hoarded his wealth like few other executives. That wealth came from cheap labor, consumption of natural resources and mass hysteria over apple products, much of which came from the 99% that is now complaining about the very type of corporate greed that he embodied. Furthermore, they then mourned his death, claiming the world had lost such an important visionary! |
Yup.
How many home appliances, electronics, clothing etc contribute to what these people are fighting against? Only thing that doesn't make sense to me. Take all those conveniences and such away and lets see if they still have the same fight. |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
but not to worry canada has other resources. just wait until there is a water shortage in the world and who will they be running to? the great water war is coming!! mark my words. |
Totally agree, again. But if you do some research there's already been a number of American and international corps (Nestle is the first to come to mind) that have bought isolated fresh water land in Canada in preparation for the future demand. I haven't been following it lately but previously I know Harper was paving the ground for the commercialization of water. He ran into some trouble but with a majority now he'll likely get it pushed through.
What I'm saying here is there won't be a "war" for freshwater but foreign corporations will come in, buy land or rights to it, export it as they please and our only benefit will be workers' wages and the little amount of taxes they pay (see previous post by LightsOut). Meanwhile our country gets raped in the process and are left with more environmental destruction. Tar sands = perfect example of what has happened with oil, and what will happen with water. It's already started... |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers
Also in Canada, corps can only directly contribute perhaps $1k to candidates' election campaigns directly and spend $3k to promote a candidate in one riding (up to a max of $150k through the country - really not at all useful. A lot don't bother anymore). In the US, corps can donate MILLIONS to candidates (and they do! See http://www.goodguide.com/contributions whoa!).
|
have you been following the Colbert story how he is sort of exposing the contribution mess that they have down in the states? With the PACs and SuperPACs and now there is another loophole where contributions from companies can be totally secret. It's very fascinating how it plays out on his show with his lawyer coming in and having him fill out one page forms to set up these shams.
| quote: | | Take the private money out of American elections and policy-making, |
but but but but, how would the politicians know what policies to put in. lol. oh yeah, how about the one's that the actual people of the country want. that would be a start. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
have you been following the Colbert story how he is sort of exposing the contribution mess that they have down in the states? With the PACs and SuperPACs and now there is another loophole where contributions from companies can be totally secret. It's very fascinating how it plays out on his show with his lawyer coming in and having him fill out one page forms to set up these shams.
but but but but, how would the politicians know what policies to put in. lol. oh yeah, how about the one's that the actual people of the country want. that would be a start. |
Holy at the 1st part.
Agree a billion times w the 2nd part. I think it's what I was trying to say. |
|
|
|
|
