Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Technology Partnership Canada investigation nabs David Dingwall | Main | And maybe UFOs caused Rita »

Saturday, September 24, 2005

A Tale of Two Parties

An interesting comparisson has commanded my attention.  With an election looming in the near future, the Liberals and Conservatives are beginning to sharpen their focus on the issues.  I am deliberately excluding the NDP because they really make very little difference and to be honest, listening to anything Jack Layton says tends to give me a rash.

The Liberals want to jump-start the economy by throwing the doors wide open, and increasing immigration...

Prime Minister Paul Martin described immigration in a speech this week as key to Canada's economic success in an era defined by low birth rates, an aging population and an ever-deepening shortage of skilled workers [...]

Volpe declined to provide specifics but said something needs to be done to ramp up the country's immigration levels.

"We've got to have more,"

There is nothing wrong with immigration, and there's nothing wrong with increasing the availability of skilled employment, to immigrants that meet those needs.  But for all their talk about skilled workers and incentives for skilled immigrants willing to reside outside of major centers, it's kind of like sticking your fingers in the wholes of a sinking ship.  They are so concerned with immigration, but seem to be completely unconcerned with the many economic barriers faced by those of us who are already here.  It's obvious why, though.  I'm not afraid to be indelicate and say, I'm sure it has a lot to do with the fact that immigrants often vote, overwhelmingly, for the Liberals.  And what better way to increase your voter base, than to import more?

This is also telling...

"We will keep -- indeed we must keep -- our doors open to immigrants of all classes and refugees from around the world. But as the numbers increase we also must be more active in recruiting immigrants who meet Canada's evolving needs."

I thought we were trying to focus on the skilled workers?  Those who had something to offer Canada, to help enrich the country?  I'll admit it -- I don't want refugees and immigrants who will come to this country with little or nothing to offer, and have no choice but to sponge off the welfare system.  If they are skilled workers, with a prospect for finding a job, post-haste, let 'em in!  If they are immigrants with a means to support themselves and their families in the transition, let 'em in!  But if they arrive on the doorstep with nothing to offer but the promise of diversifying the welfare lines, they will never have anything to contribute.  And the 'ramping up' of immigration will have the common Liberal distinction of costing us greatly and benefiting us not at all.

Which brings me to an example of what the Conservatives have in mind, to help alleviate the financial burdons on existing Canadians.  It's important to note that the Conservatives are not against immigration.  They do however, recognize that opening the floodgates to increase population volume, does absolutely nothing to improve economic stability.  Especially when you don't screen out applicants who will only be a drain on it.

Rick Fuschi, Conservative for Windsor-Tecumseh mentions in his blog, where the real solutions to economic stagnation lie...

[..] if we vowed emergency market measures - sharp tax cuts at personal and retail level - to counteract the gasoline price shocks, the whole country would understand us far more clearly than they understand Goodale’s bafflegab about gas taxes.

I bet if we heeded the CD Howe Institute’s dire warnings about our poor corporate competitiveness, and stated clearly: We will do shock therapy on our declining manufacturing sector, ( are you listening Buzz) by slashing total corporate levies, and personal overtaxation, opening Canada up for business, and realigning the cash from Liberal boondoggles, to create a new infrastructure and training fund for greenfield industrial ventures. I bet investors throughout the world would hear us, and the 165,000 workers in the Ontario auto industry, would see new promise in the Conservative party.

All this will stimulate more economic growth, by ensuring more of your money is in your hands to spend and business will have more of their money to spend on their employees and innovation.

He also takes on one very large money-sucker...

When I hammer at Liberal incompetence on the gun registry, and our soft justice system, and tie that to the enfeebled enforcement on the streets of Toronto, is it that hard to see what alternatives I am proposing?

Lock them up! Make them do the time for their gun crime! Stop chasing innocent duck hunters and aim that money wherever enforcement is required! Is that plain enough for a Liberal to understand? I bet the people of Toronto would get it. (emphasis added)

So, looking back over these 2 initiatives, we have one party who wants to open the doors of opportunity to immigrants, and one party who would prefer to open those doors of opportunity to Canadians.  It's as simple as that! 

When looked at this way, is there any doubt who has the best interests of this country in mind?  And is there any doubt who has lost sight of their priorities?

I know who I'll vote for.

[ Crossposted from A North American Patriot ]

Posted by Wonder Woman on September 24, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8348e06a669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Tale of Two Parties:

Comments

Let’s think even more aggressively. Let’s open up new doors for both Canadians that are already here and mmigrants that qualify to work in the new economy. It’s not an either/or situation. The new economy can be stimulated as outlined by Rick Fuschi - more money in the hands to those who generate it and less in the hands of the Librano$. This would encourage the creation of more new companies like RIM that invented the ubiquitous Blackberry.

But with aging baby boomers that have not replaced themselves; Canada, with the second largest landmass in the world, should attract a larger population if we are going to hold this country together and compete with the new economic giants China and India. At some point we have to stop relying almost totally on the US market, we aren’t developing global sales expertise and we aren’t developing the formation of capital necessary to keep our standard of living up and we aren’t developing enough seasoned, corporate-talent that thinks globally and can raise capital and make global business plans work. Specifically we don’t have enough talented resources to cover the growing costs in Health Care plus investment in higher education. Therefore, Rick Fuschi’s approach should be aggressively endorsed.

We should remind Canadians that Jack Layton stole this agenda that even Paul Martin had previously endorsed, i.e., corporate tax cuts that Martin promised would stimulate the economy just as Fuschi has outlined. Instead we now have Layton as our de facto Finance Minister. The path is ready for another Common Sense Revolution to turn the tides.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-24 8:24:23 AM


I don't think that it's an 'either-or' situation with regard to immigrants. The issue of increased immigration has absolutely nothing to do with the Canadian economy, despite Liberal rhetoric that 'it's all about the economy'.

I think it's a completely valid point that immigration means, to the Liberals, more votes. Remember, the Liberals have one and only one agenda; to stay in power. They are not interested in the development of Canada, in the Canadian economy, in Canada's international role, in Canadian people. None of that.

The Liberals are remarkably consistent in their agenda; it remains as one and only one agenda: to stay in power. That agenda underpins ALL their actions. It also means that they do not consider the long term implications of their actions, but operate as if they were constantly in an election campaign. Every single action is geared to 'win the electorate'. That's its only function.

So, the image of 'increasing immigration' will indeed win the votes of the current ethnic population. The Canadian economy is quite another issue and the Liberals are not interested in that unless and until it affects their votes.

Taxes must remain high because the Liberals use this money to purchase votes. An important strategy of their all-the-time-in-election mode, is flinging huge amounts of money at various sectors of the population via Grants or setting up centralized Economic Actions run by the federal government. Vote poor regions get only a minimal amount. Therefore, little attention is paid to the collapse of industries in northern towns across all of Canada. Vote rich regions get the most. This ensures votes; the results to that population in terms of economic robustness, in terms of infrastructural strength - are not relevant to the Liberals.

The economy is not the issue with regard to immigration; indeed, in the long term, without attention to the economic infrastructure, immigration will, as pointed out, merely increase dependency -- on the federal government.

The major problem in the Canadian economy is the deliberate restriction by the federal government of the capacity of Canadians to invest in and develop major industries in Canada. This capacity is prevented by high personal and corporate taxation, by the lack of infrastructural development in new regions (taxes, roads, cost of communication, services, and by the restriction of competition.

A robust industrial economy must enable at least 20% of its population to control 80% of the investment capacity of that population. Yes, this means enabling 20%, not 100%, of the population to become quite rich - controlling 80% of the country's wealth. How unsocialist. This required imbalance is its investment capacity, its future-oriented capacity. You do not function in an industrial economy by spreading the wealth out evenly, such that each person has, more or less, the same amount of money. The result of that is an economy with no capacity for long-term investment and capable only of living day to day. You have to enable the population to 'take energy (money)' out of current consumption and store it for the future. If you don't - you are a hand-to-mouth, no-growth peasant economy.

These 20% must invest at least 70% of their wealth into the long term. That means into building laboratories where nothing innovative might be produced for ten years; that means into building industries where most of your money is put into the hard capital infrastructure..and it takes years and many contracts..to recoup that major investment.

In Canada, the Liberals have aligned with a Cartel, the Desmarais, PowerCorp, Magna cartel which has resulted in a situation where only about 2% of the population control 80% of the wealth. The rest of the population is reduced to small to medium sized local businesses; short term agendas.

So- Canada can copy the drugs invented in other countries, such as the derided USA, and market them cheaply, praising itself for its 'kind nature'. Canada doesn't, itself, invest in the huge investments required to innovate, test, and develop those drugs. It just copies them.

Same with other products and services; Canada doesn't invest in the infrastructures to develop products..for that is risky, long term, and requires a future-orientation that Canada rejects. Instead, it will produce cheaper copies of technological innovations here, and market them for less cost. Rather like China does, except that China is putting more and more emphasis on its own research and investment.

Instead, Canada accepts franchises of companies originating elsewhere. How about Wal-Mart in Quebec, where Quebecers are suing Wal-Mart, insisting that it HAS to open a store there, and it HAS to employ Quebecers, and it HAS to do so at exorbitant union wages. How about Quebec setting up its own Wal-Mart type store? Never. Instead, it insists on an external business funding the overhead, the infrastructure...

This strangling of the Canadian economy, by limiting the capacity of Canadians to engage in major industrial investment - is the real problem.

Immigration is, indeed, just about votes.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-24 8:46:40 AM


ET, we almost agree.

We totally agree that the business model needs to be changed so that Canadian corporations aren’t just the low cost back-office/warehouse for the USA. What is even more “scary” then Stephen Harper (sarcasm) is that this Canadian back-office/warehouse model will gradually be switched to India. Just listen to the accent of your next call-centre service desk from Delhi.

The cartels you talk about don’t embrace our corporate stimulation thinking because new RIMs would compete for capital and dilute the “Power” of the cartel. Ergo, Belinda Stronach switches from conservative to the Librano$ central planners where Magna has assurance of the status quo. Also Power/Great West Life does not want the conservative free-market thinkers to allow the efficiency of selling insurance at a Bank branch – God forbid we should help the consumer get competitive insurance.

I agree your Quebec Wal-Mart example is simply more Librano$ pandering to the power of unions versus free enterprise supported by a mobile workforce. As you say, it’s piggybacking off more US capital and imported business models. We’re becoming totally dependent upon the USA economically and militarily while stabbing them in the back and being a bunch of self-righteous pacifists.

Re-engineering our economy to prepare for the future means dropping business taxes significantly. At the same time we have a retiring baby boomer middle class demographic problem. This demographic problem is not as “scary” as in the EU, but serious drops in personal taxes at Revenue Canada can be expected. Therefore I think we need to backfill this aging, high-tax-paying middle class through selective immigration. Not the way the EU is doing it by drawing on tent dwellers, from the backend of Turkey, who aren’t assimilating, but by drawing on skilled workers, engineers from India etc. I think this new middle class will pay the GST that will be necessary to carry the pension and health care and higher education load that is coming down the pipe. Plus, a larger, affluent, middle-class will offset the necessary drop in corporate taxes.

I agree the Librano$ are selfishly only looking at immigration votes. But I think the Conservatives have to adopt a more embracing attitude of immigration for demographic and economic reasons. Also, if we don’t send a much stronger signal of embracing new Canadians we won’t get elected and we’ll never get the chance to execute our conservative ideas on the economic front. Unfortunately, these views are instinctive; I admittedly don’t have the data to prove my demographic points.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-24 10:14:37 AM


Actually, nomdenet, we do agree. I wasn't thinking about the fiscal reality of our aging population and the resultant loss of tax income to the government and our inability therefore, to support this population and maintain infrastructures. We can see the implosion of our health care system already. Therefore, immigration - skilled immigration - is indeed a necessity. Skilled immigration and an immigration that functions within an assimilationist policy.

That means rejecting multiculturalism which isolates immigrants into cultural ghettoes and insists that they think and behave within a mindset of 100 years ago and within a different environment.

Immigration also can't function merely to replace the population to maintain the status quo. What is the economic status quo of Canada? A piggy-back economy. Canada has set itself up as a 'piggyback' economy, where it requires and indeed expects another country to absorb the high costs of long term research and infrastructural development, and Canada simply manufactures secondary copies of all this work.

A piggyback economy actually sets up a situation where the population in this economy becomes homogeneous; they all function more or less on the same economic level. Large scale investment by such an population, who are all more of less on the same economic level, becomes impossible.

There are two reasons for this. First, is the socialist ideology of Canada, which has emerged within Canada's unwitting long term dependence on American innovation and investment. This has set Canada up as a country of 'equals' and 'equalization' standards. We reject wealth (because we didn't require it for investment), we reject innovation, we reject differences (unless we can lock those differences into cultural songs and dances). Our focus, repeated on and on, is all about 'equality'.

The fact that economic equality is only found within no-growth peasant economies, is ignored. The fact that an industrial economy requires a portion of the population to have a lot of money, to use in long term infrastructural development - is ignored. Instead, the long term infrastructures are EXTERNAL to Canada..and we simply live off its results. The problem is - that the control of the infrastructure is EXTERNAL.

High taxes enable the central government to 'spread the wealth' from this piggyback economy, such that the majority of the population lives, more or less, at the same scale. Sounds good, sounds great, everyone is equal in this socialist heaven. But, the problem is: the control of this infrastructure is EXTERNAL.

Within this socialist piggyback ideology, we did indeed develop a few wealthy sectors, but, this group rapidly aligned itself with the political infrastructure to prevent any other Canadians from competing with them. The Cartel.

The Cartel has to be removed from its strangehold over the economy; as nomdenet points out, the Cartel doesn't want its fiscal power diluted by competition within Canada from other Canadian corporations!

The danger, as nomdenet also points out, is that our current economic infrastructure is set up so that the majority of Canadian manufacturing is derivative or 'second-class' and piggybacks off of US capital, research and investment. The problem with this, is that another investor can move into and replace the US as Mother/Father Investor and Source of Innovation. Guess who? China is busy moving in - big time. And India will be there also.

Canadians will become dependent on, not the US, whom it can count as a friend, but on China and India - and they are interested just in the money, and do not see themselves as friends.

The Liberals are not going to change this infrastructure; they are aligned with the Cartel, and they want to remain in power. Therefore, they are busy at the moment, selling Canada, not to Canadians, but to other external countries - which will be 'friends of the Cartel', and they want immigrants not as investors, but as voters.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-24 11:31:08 AM


“The fact that an industrial economy requires a portion of the population to have a lot of money, to use in long term infrastructure development - is ignored…”

A very important observation ET.
Canada needs more super rich investors not less.

Ergo, the Desmarais/Stronach/Bombardier/Bell/CTV/Globe&Mail cartel ain’t enough rich guys with passion and ideas backed up with venture capital to help Canada compete with the many rich families in China/India let alone the USA.

I find it appalling how few “captains of industry” there are in Canada that have a clue about global competitive forces. We have far to many of them with business cards being handed out at the golf/country club that say:
John Doe, President and CEO of XYZ of Canada Inc (a subsidiary of XYZ Cleveland Ohio).

In other words these guys are caretakers and mangers. NOT entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. They simply piggyback. So we aren’t developing talent to compete at the corporate end because the central planners are taxing away the profits from our best entrepreneurs so that Ottawa can subsidize Bombardier that has to compete with the socialists in Brazil. Its nuts!

This is where conservatism needs the Manning Centre to help fight the counter- intuitive idea that “equality” is the problem not the solution to battling with globalization in a shrinking competitive world.

In a way, I’m starting to understand the anti-globalization fears of kids marching. They are right to be frightened when we lack the political leadership to paint the vision that Canada can be competitive 25 years from now. They correctly fear that we have allowed the Canadian corporate “cartel” to reduce competition and choice. Ironically, that may lead our piggyback economy, based on “equality”, into the historically filled dustbin of Marxists.

Problem: Who can articulate this in 8 sound bytes on the CTV news controlled by the cartel?

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-24 1:04:02 PM


It can be done, nomdenet. You use the 'cartoon' infrastructure, which is exactly the same as a classical logical syllogism. It's in THREE sections. You can do it via cartoons in the papers, or TV ads. But, there are approximately three sections. (1)Basic axioms; (2) Problem; (3) Answer.

Let's suggest a series called:
Canadian Economics 101.

1. Images of large population, happy, waving.
VoiceOver or Print: "In Canada, Everyone is more or less Equal!!

2) Images of hundreds of business cards fluttering down..with a close-up of several of them:
Joe Canada. Manager ABC Canada; Subsidiary of ABC USA
Jill Canada. Manager of DEF Canada; subsidiary of DEF India
Jerry Canada. VP of GHI Canada; subsidiary of GHI China.
[Use linear alphabet; suggests the infinite number of companies]
Voice-Over: "We're all managers, vp's, of companies!!! Hmm; the home base of the companies is all outside of Canada. Hmmm.

3)Image of Joe,Jill and Jerry piggy-backing off on backs of larger people with names of their countries on their backs...

Voice Over: "It's called a Piggy-Back Economy".

Next TV bit/newspaper bit.
Canadian Economics 101-2

1) Respectful Student: "Sir- why are we a Piggyback Economy?"

2)Typical Professor: "Well, son, an industrial economy needs about 20% of its citizens with Big Bucks..not to use now (image of yacht, ice cream cones) but to invest in the future (image of factories, research lab equipment)..

Professor: "Canada's taxes are so high, we can't get 20% Future Investment from our citizens. All they can afford is stuff you need right now..(image of brocolli, school bags)..

3)"So... the big investment is from foreign countries ..Image of factory in Canada with Chinese flag on top; Image of US researchers coming up with invention...

I think that's how to do it. Use the same three-step format as in cartoons (and logic)..present the ideas simply and vividly. You don't have to talk a lot; you don't have to explain. People will figure it out; all you are supplying are the basics.

You can have a whole series..which outlines the problems, and considers solutions.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-24 1:47:02 PM


The cartoon idea is excellent ET. I hope it will be used. When people have peas and dishwashers they don't have the attention span for the excellent points you and nondement have made here.

Posted by: jema54 | 2005-09-24 2:15:29 PM


“cartoon structure”?
This ain’t funny!

OK Seriously, ET I’d certainly “get it” with those images. It seems like a brilliant communication strategy to me, then again we’re already converts. Glad Jema54 liked it.

Maybe sequel 2 could be fallen statues on Easter Island. Stripped of its natural resource of forests that were used to roll the statues across the Island as monuments to the failed central planners of the day blah, blah, blah;
the caption could be “this is how a society collapses”.
Then a lone squealing pig goes racing to a Librano$ trough … fill in the rest about a piggyback economy.
Still not funny eh?

Maybe we could get Professor Jared Diamond to underwrite the ad for his new book “Collapse” which is ubiquitous at all the airports? It’s about how societies choose to fail or succeed.

As Mulroney said to Turner and then proceeded to win the election – “you sir had a choice!”


Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-24 2:33:28 PM


Well, the three-step cartoon idea is something I noticed a long time ago - that cartoons in newspapers seem to operate as a 'set' of three images. Yet, they work; they get the meaning across beautifully.
Then, I happen to work within informational cognition - and the basic format of cognition is triadic: input, mediation, output. And I'm also fond of logic, which is triadic...

The thing is, we don't really 'think' in words. We 'think' in images. The error in communication is to send words, words, words to the audience, and expect them to extrapolate the images from all those words. They won't. Most audiences will fall asleep at conferences if the presenter is just reading their paper. You have to use images and brief examples.

So, my suggestion is for the CPC to have a cartoon style TV series on Canadian Economics 101 - and present the problems in that manner. Use cartoon images, not people.

You can do the same with ALL problems. You can do Canadian Politics 101 and show how Canada is not a democracy.

1)Puzzled student, reading election brochure with large words: 'Canada is a democracy!!"
"Sir- what is a democracy?"

2)Professor: "Son, it means that the electorate is in charge of all authoritative positions in the government; these positions are either directly elected or vetted by committees answerable to the people."

3) Puzzled student: "But sir, most of the authoritative positions in Canada are appointed directly out of the PM's office, without elections, vetting, debate, accountability...you know..like..(voice drifting off)..all the Senate, the deputy ministers, the heads of Bell, CBC, .....[Voice Over comes in, listing all the positions, giving numbers...informing that only 300 seats are elected..and 3,000 positions are all appointments from the PM's office..

You can do it for everything. You present the basic situation; then the case example; then the final - which might show the problem in Canada.

These images would get the problems across in Canada faster and even more accurately than any long Position Paper..which no-one will read.

Remember the Liberal's TV ad showing the Canadian flag dissolving is the Conservatives came into power? That's the same tactic.
1) Situation- Canada
2) CPC coming to power
3) Canada dissolving.

So - it will work. Why? Not because it's a clever tactic, but because this triadic 'set' is how we humans think. We think within a triadic format. Input, mediation, output. That's a basic neurological fact.

I hope someone at the CPC will pick up on it!


Posted by: ET | 2005-09-24 3:11:56 PM


Then maybe “triadic” explains how something as simple as Jean Charest waving the Canadian passport during the referendum was an image that saved the day. Until Quebecois visualized a disappearing Canadian passport maybe it hadn’t occurred to them what they were really voting on???

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-24 3:38:12 PM


Nomdenet - exactly. We think, we actually conceptualize, in images. We don't think in words. AND, these images are not walking across our minds in a neat linear fashion. Some are in focus, others are in the background, then, another few will swarm up into focus..and others fade.

You are right. No talking, talking, would have told the Quebecers what they would be losing faster and more succinctly than the image of the Canadian passport.

1)Situation: You all now have a Canadian passport
2) Case: separate from Canada
3) Result: No passport.

That's all you need; a triadic set of simple clear images - and as few words as necessary.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-24 3:53:54 PM


* Sensative issue of marriage,the CPC perhaps should go for the exclusive heterosexual new title of-"Traditional Marriage".

Posted by: Larry | 2005-09-24 3:56:50 PM


That was fun ET. thanks.

my triad at the moment is to lightly wave an Alberta T-bone over the BBQ and hope the result is that nobody separates until after dinner
... ;> )

cheers

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-24 4:01:45 PM


Best discussion I've ever read on a Canadian blog--I tend to favour ET.

Some further symptoms of our economy's problems:

-Canadian industry makes no consumer products that are widely recognized internationally.

-Canada has no reputation internationally as a country that is technologically or industrially advanced (compare with say, Sweden or Switzerland)--in fact most people abroad could not name one such large Canadian company.

By the way, if Bombardier goes ahead with its new, larger regional jet, it will be the first aircraft the company (not Canadair, or de Havilland, or Lear, or Shorts) has designed entirely on its own. Which gives one serious doubts.

Mark
Ottawa


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-09-24 5:14:06 PM


Is he nuts or Izzy nuts? Alcock is nuts, too. Librano$$$$$$$ to give $100,000,000 for Izzy's Folly. Alcock is nuts/bats/loony left moonbat.
Golden Boy is hiding, ashamed at the pork-barreling>>>> Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Asper-inspired museum unveils winning design

By MYRON LOVE
Prairies Correspondent

WINNIPEG — U.S. architect Antoine Predock has won an international competition to design the new human rights museum planned for central Winnipeg, the project’s organizers said last week.

The April 15 announcement that Predock had won the design contest for the Israel Asper-inspired Canadian Museum for Human Rights coincided with the 24th anniversary of the signing of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It also coincided with Treasury Board president Reg Alcock’s pledge of $100 million toward the $200-million museum, which is scheduled to open in 2008 at the Forks, the meeting point of the Red and Assiniboine rivers>>>>Canadian Jewish News>>>

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-09-24 7:54:57 PM


Golden Boy missing? Not. Images do the job; this should convince:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490791/posts

What Do Ceausescu, Hitler And Bush Have In Common? OK, Sorry. But What Else Do They Have In Common
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 9-25-2005 | Michael Leidig

Posted on 09/24/2005 7:25:30 PM PDT by blam

What do Ceausescu, Hitler and Bush have in common? OK, sorry. But what else do they have in common?

By Michael Leidig in Bucharest
(Filed: 25/09/2005)

It seemed like a good idea at the time: a light-hearted advertising campaign to persuade Romanians to adopt a stray dog, using pictures of three well-known 'historical figures’ with their pets.

Posters across the capital showed Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceausescu — Romania’s former dictator — and George W Bush, over the slogan: 'A dog loves you just the way you are.’

But the American Embassy did not find the association of Mr Bush with two hated dictators so amusing and, hours after The Sunday Telegraph sought advertising agency McCann Ericsson’s reaction to the campaign, company workers had ripped the posters down. >>> more

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-09-24 8:34:29 PM


It isn't the economy that the Liberals think needs millions of more immigrants to flourish - it's the welfare state.

In the absence of the welfare state, people are perfectly capable of tailoring their own work habits, consumption, savings and investment to particular individual circumstances in which they find themselves, whether they have zero children or two dozen.

Now introduce free education, free welfare, seasonal EI, free health care, government pensions, etc. etc. There is no particular incentive at all to have children, or if you do have children to work particularly hard to educate them, or to keep yourself healthy, or to save any money, or to start a business, or to save for your retirement. You get all that free stuff whether you make any effort or not - so why make any effort at all? Fewer and fewer people have any care at all about the future and simply expect that someone else will come along and pay for their welfare - which is proven by the negative savings rate.

Piling in millions more immigrants without making huge cuts to government spending and huge tax cuts is just throwing more wood into what is already a roaring economic self-immolation.

Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-09-24 8:53:46 PM


CANADA’S ‘SENSITIVE’, ‘EDUCATED’, SELF-IMAGE

‘Sensitive’ people don’t maintain the terrible social damages caused by an apartheid race-based governance regime at the cost of $8 billion annually. They would divide this $8 billion directly amongst the people historically mistreated by past apartheid colonialist attitudes in government in order to bridge a transition to an honourable and equal non-race-based future. They would not spend this $8 billion to maintain and further this colonial era apartheid regime doing so much harm to ordinary people of only the one race trapped under apartheid in Canada today.

‘Educated’ people have a historical understanding of the meaning of democracy and would not stand for a skewed system unrepresentative of the demographies of the regions, a 19th C electoral system that lets 25% of the electorate determine ‘majority’ governments time and time again. Educated people would not stand for a prime minister with the autocratic power to appoint the judiciary, the governor general, heads of commissions, in short, everything that could ever act as a potential check on his power. Educated people understand that socialist property relations do not work and would not impose socialist property relations on only one race in Canada by locking them into the ‘benefits’ of apartheid special reserves.

There is a difference between people who feign ‘sensitivity’ and think themselves ‘educated’, and those who take responsibility for their values and beliefs by making objective assessments of the reality that stands behind the policies they support. A sensitive and educated person would not support the continuation of the lethal harms caused by apartheid, or the utterly undemocratic system that means that the election is over once the Ontario vote has been counted.

The ‘Liberal consensus’ is not a consensus of sensitive, educated, or even humane people. It is a consensus of the indifferent, the callous, the ignorant, the cynical, the self-serving, and the non-performing who need to dress themselves up constantly in a hypocritical vocabulary of being sensitive, caring, and yes, they pretend to be educated and even sport degrees.

The power of the glib and hypocritical use of language has been documented by literature giants for centuries, and so it should come as no surprise that Canada has been ruled undemocratically through the sly use of language manipulation skewed pretending democratic institutions by mostly one governing party for almost a century. A hundred years of habit becomes a political culture and the pundits become part of this culture and like fish who do not understand what it means to be wet, political debate becomes lost in a ‘Canadian consensus’ where insensitive and ignorant people tell each other they are sensitive and educated, and this hypocritical mantra becomes a condition of participation in the political consensus.

The reality is, Canada is a PM autocracy, one party state, with regionally skewed elections where 25% ‘elect’ ‘majority’ governments, with a PM appointed judiciary and Governor, and upper house. Sensitive and educated people do not stand for this.


Posted by: edwardmills | 2005-09-24 10:13:48 PM


edwardmills

Now that you’ve established Canadians are hypocritical about being sensitive and educated, I pretty much agree with your analysis, but what do we do?

You are absolutely correct that even educated people are not cognizant that we’re only electing about 20% of the power, 80% is thrust upon us by the PMO.

I’m still optimistic we can go into an election and do better then last time. The facts are: outside of Quebec each of the Liberals and CPC got about 4 million votes – the Liberals only got an extra 100,000 – it reminds me of the Ohio vote for Bush. We came that close without any communication of our product because we hadn’t had time for a convention after the merger.

So this time we should be able to provide some “triadic” education and sensitize the public with images as to what is happening in Canada.

Justzumgai, as to the ideas that we must slash and burn the welfare state. There’s logic to that. But no party on the planet has a mandate to do that. Just look at Germany where unemployment recently hit 13% and they still don’t get it. Ditto France. The Brits keep electing a Labour party. And Bush is not a fiscal conservative. So how on earth is Harper supposed to sell tearing down the welfare state? Who’s doing it? Nobody!

But I do think Harper could sell the idea to slash and burn the largess aimed at the corporate cartel of welfare bums who have aligned themselves with Librano$. I think even the NDP can help with that argument. Most people mistakenly believe the CPC is in the pocket of big business but in fact a lot of big businesses (not all) are in thick with the Librano$. We should support competitive, free-markets. We need to drop corporate taxes and cut off the corporate welfare.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-25 7:53:56 AM


How many Canadian billionaires are Liberal? How many are Conservative? I'm not sure but it certainly seems to me as if the wealthy in this country are far more likely to be Liberal than Conservative. I don't know how rich John Loewen is but I think his switch to the Liberals has more to do with money than ethics. With regards to McClueless on personal tax cuts, they were negated by increased CPP contributions.

Posted by: rebarbarian | 2005-09-25 8:59:22 AM


I don't think it's Either a Welfare State OR a cut-throat Hobbesian capitalism, which is the scenario set up by the Liberals-NDP. A state has to provide common benefits at a 'reasonable' level for the majority. That results in a stable society.

The problem arises when the society moves into a mode of existence where the state is expected to provide ALL benefits at a middle-class level for all. First - No state can financially afford to maintain homogeneity, and second, this homogeneity of the population actually destroys the economy. You need an economic imbalance in wealth, because you need 20% of the population having a LOT of money - and this LOT of money is invested in the future; it isn't for current use.

The question then becomes - who should have this LOT of money, individuals who will collectively form private corporations to build this future (research labs, factories etc) or- the government? The US has chosen the former. It encourages private wealth, private corporations and private foundations. I think you can see the results - the explosion of innovation and technological capacities.

Canada has chosen the latter; it prevents its citizens from wealth and insists that its central government will run the research labs, the major industries. This enforced homogeneity of wealth, where the only wealthy system is the government, not private corporations, is also a reduction in innovative and technological capacity. This is the communist system.Only the gov't can fund expensive technological infrastructures. No-one else has the money, or the legitimate right. Canada views wealth and accomplishments with disdain.

Then, in Canada, you have a corruption as well of this communist system, where a small private Cartel has emerged, in collusion with the central gov't, to run the major industries of Canada - the Desmarais, PowerCorp, Magna Cartel.-Competition against this Cartel is completely rejected and since the Cartel has aligned itself with the Liberal party, it can effectively prevent wealth-accumulation and individual entreprise in Canada.

Only the Cartel can accumulate private wealth. What about the rest of the population, whose wealth is extracted via taxes into the public domain? Can this method be used to develop a society's capacity to innovate and develop its future?
The problem is, it has been shown repeatedly, that central public ownership of the future doesn't result in a country's ability to strengthen that future. The investments by the central gov't into public subsidized research and industries, all publicly owned and/or subsidized, quickly move into operations that are NOT interested in the future but are interested only in gaining as much personal money, now, as possible.

So- the bureaucracy of these public institutions increases exponentially; more and more people get their middle income jobs from them. No investment for the future just more and more current jobs. These investments are quickly changed into job-heavy systems...and fall apart as incapable of long term future-oriented projects.

Then, corruption also sets in, as the money is moved from future-orientations to 'current needs'. You are required to spend your budget for the year entirely or it is taken from you. So, the very notion of future-investment disappears. You focus on spending, now, or you'll lose your money. In a private enterprise, this loss of money wouldn't happen; You, yourself, your own company, would continue to OWN that money even if you haven't spent it all in the current year, and you would invest it in more structural strengths.

In a public enterprise, you, the managers don't own the money; you have to spend your annual budget or you'll lose it. So, the focus moves completely from future orientation..to 'spend it all now'. The workers no longer work for the future development; they spend it all, now, on unnecessary computers, trips, hiring contract people..whatever.

So, a public mode of future infrastructural investment will always fail, because the system quickly transforms into one that actually ignores and rejects the requirements of future robustness - that focus on the future, on saving enough money to invest in structural requirements, not current needs. The system will reduce to a focus only on current needs; it will expand those current needs - spending on more and more staff, on more and more extraneous needs - all to use up its budget.. and the notion of future-oriented investment will collapse.

Canada has a serious problem.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-25 9:52:38 AM


“ a system will reduce to a focus only on current needs”

Exactly. This is true in Health Care and in Education. A “system” kills enterprise.

Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist, author of The Right Nation, and a recent speaker at the Manning Centre recently did a survey on Universities called The Brains Business that can be found here:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960

The USA claims 17 of the top 20 universities in the World the other 3 are Oxford, Cambridge and Tokyo U. America’s system of higher education is the best in the world because there is no “system”.

The money quote:

(In the USA) universities derive their income from a wide variety of sources, from fee-paying students to nostalgic alumni, from hard-headed businessmen to generous philanthropists. And they come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, from Princeton and Yale to Kalamazoo community college.
This survey will offer two pieces of advice for countries that are trying to create successful higher-education systems, be they newcomers such as India and China or failed old hands such as Germany and Italy. First: diversify your sources of income. The bargain with the state has turned out to be a pact with the devil. Second: let a thousand academic flowers bloom. Universities, including for-profit ones, should have to compete for customers. A sophisticated economy needs a wide variety of universities pursuing a wide variety of missions. These two principles reinforce each other: the more that the state's role contracts, the more educational variety will flourish.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-25 10:31:07 AM


Exactly right with the universities. Canadian research is operating in the 1980's; the mindset is at least 20 or more years out of date. That mindset has been developed by the funding system of the Canadian gov't (SSHRC and NSERC) which has focused only on descriptive data collection and ignored deep foundational and hypothetical research. There is no comparison between research in Canada and the USA - and Europe. Even European research is far more innovative than Canadian research.

What happens to a society, when it SPLITS its process of planning and funding the future - from -its current life experiences, is that it becomes incapable of controlling the future. In Canada, we focus on 'now' and prevent people from controlling their future. Indeed, more and more, we take that ability from individuals. More and more, individuals must reply on the gov't to look after them in the future. We do the same with the economy.

What we have done in Canada is to hand over control over the future of our country - to the gov't. It is supposed to plan, guide, invest, and structure the future. We are not allowed to do this - neither in our individual lives, nor in the universities nor in our businesses.

Economically, we are only allowed to run piggy-back businesses linked to major firms in the US and elsewhere, or, small to medium sized businesses. The Big Money, which sets up large scale future-oriented corporations and their industries, is denied. That Big Money has gone to the central gov't. That's the socialist-communist ideology. AND, in our case, it has also become corrupted for there IS a section of Canadians, but only around 2% or less, who have control of Big Money - but that's the exclusive Cartel. Their alignment with the Liberal party means that they remain exclusive and don't permit other Canadians to become large scale financiers.

But, a centralized gov't cannot, structurally, set up a population that will have the capacity to plan for and invest in the future. That's because that gov't has split the right to think, and the capacity to plan...from the people. It alone has the money to make Big Plans. So, the population becomes reduced to living only for today.

If you are working in a gov't industry, you MUST use up all your money for the year or, the gov't takes it from you. So, you expand your current needs and spend, spend, spend. But, you don't produce anything. And, you can't invest that money in long term research or infrastructures, because you MUST spend that money according to the guidelines. The guidelines do NOT, repeat, DO NOT permit you, on your own, to invest in future research or build labs or industries. You cannot use the money for that. You can only use it for current requirements.

So, you the private individual, are reduced to being a worker without the ability to plan ahead, to invest that money in your industry, to invest in future research. Only the gov't does that, and it will only invest in small scale projects (last for 3 years).

Intellectually, Canada is strangled by this split of the mind from the 'brawn', by this rejection of the population's capacity to invest in the future.

And economically, since Canada rejects the right of its population to be a wealthy entrepreneur and set up their own international competitive businesses - then, its economy becomes reduced to a piggyback economy.

How long can a society last that has effectively disabled its population from both intellectually and economically planning for the future?

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-25 11:28:08 AM


Time, future time: Planning for the future? Canada is living on borrowed time???????

"But we don't. Our little existences are not similarly guaranteed. My job is to ensure that I survive, along with my family, for the next 30 years." >>>

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12136206&postID=112761055816334003


wretchard said...

cedarford,

I think you have valid concerns about the relationship of the US economy to the world and to intergenerational funds transfers. A lot of societies are living on borrowed time -- China, with its suicidal one-child demographics, Europe which is already there, the Islamic world with its Death Wish Cults, the Russian Republic of Vodka, and Africa, nobody forget Africa -- and all of these merry tunes are going to stop playing.

The US President doesn't have the power to alter history on this scale. Nor does the Left, for all its vanity, have any power to remake history on the scale it aspires to. The story of the world has a lot of stability. China, India, Egypt -- even Israel, and maybe America -- they all go on. But we don't. Our little existences are not similarly guaranteed. My job is to ensure that I survive, along with my family, for the next 30 years.

You might disgree, but I think the Jihadis are beaten already simply because the last four years has brought warning of them to every corner of the world. The ancient nations, the eternal bedrock of humanity, are wise to them now. Perhaps the greatest threat to the world wasn't Islam at all, but the soporific postmodern correctness that sapped the immune system of the world so badly that second rate bugs like Osama actually had a chance of becoming players. Osama was proof of how senile the West had become and the West nearly spread that senility around on the strength of its immense prestige.

And if America goes through a crisis, as you warn, it would be because it couldn't keep going in its old state. Watching the images of the antiwar march on Washingon, I'm almost sure it can't go on as it always did. >>> more
belmontclub

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-09-25 11:59:06 AM


“How long can a society last that has effectively disabled its population …
from planning for the future? ”

To use a metaphor, a society can probably last until the hurricane busts threw the levees. Fortunately the corrupted, dysfunctional society in N’Awlins had Bush as a “sugar daddy” (thank you Mark Steyn) to literally bail them out.
All we have is the cartel, that’s not enough sugar daddies.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-25 11:59:46 AM


Maz2 - I know your post is pithy and meaningful but, my mind's a bit slow today (I'm reviewing a complex paper in biology..)...Is your point that a society can get trapped in its ideology..as did the West with its postmodern political correctness..which is also the 'modus operandus' of Canada?

nomdenet - I doubt if the Cartel will bail out Canada. It will ensure that the Liberal Party tax and tax..and get money from whereever, be it Alberta or China..to continue this statist welfare society.

The big danger, as I keep ranting, is what kind of society do you have where you reject the right of citizens to function within the state both economically and intellectually? By 'function', I don't mean within the 'idle chatter' of coffee shop or letters to the editor, or within small scale business.

I mean deep intellectual and political committment and massive economic commitment. I claim that the Canadian people are effectively barred from such rich and deep committment by the Liberal gov't.

Bilingualism means that 80% of the population are effectively barred from anything but the most peripheral federal positions. Think of it - 80% are 'governed but unable to govern'.

Patronage governance means that the political authorities self-select almost the entire authoritative infrastructure of governance of the country. It becomes a closed clique.

The rejection of the rights and abilities of private citizens to develop large scale economic industries - in favour of the gov't alone doing this, or its ally, the Cartel - means that Canadians are economically consumers rather than producers.

The rejection of private enterprise in health care, education and research means that 'the minds' of Canadians become reduced to operating only within short-term specific local agendas - which ignore the basics of hypothetical research. And these research themes are determined, believe it or not, by the federal gov't!

So- Canadians are in trouble. The basic reason is structural; a large population cannot operate if it separates Mind from Body.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-25 1:29:19 PM


ET
Your “rant” is totally valid.
As mentioned above, Canada has a serious shortage of “captains of industry”. You call it a need to multiply a 2% rich cartel to become 20% rich people creating investment in Canada.

We need to do take stuff away from the Feds and get it into the private sector because we have a hard enough time finding competent CEO’s to run their businesses. Imagine how hard it must be as PM to try and run the incredibly complex infrastructure in our cradle-to-grave paternalistic society. The fact is that Paul Martin often looks like a “deer in the headlights”. He’s stunned. And no wonder! He’s responsible for way to many things: Health Care, Education, Boarder Security and Defense, the UN, Trade relations, The Supreme Court, the Central Bank, the Mint, Revenue Canada, Transportation, Canada Pensions, UI, etc etc.

In short, we’re in trouble because nobody on the face of the earth is smart enough to manage all this.
Plus a PM has to constantly campaign – a very time consuming activity.
But Librano$ never get rid of anything. They keep adding: the gun registry fiasco, Kyoto monitoring and now Day Care – does anyone honestly believe PMPM has got time for our kids? Shouldn’t we take care of them?

No CEO in this country could handle all that. Nor would their shareholders and Board of Directors let them. Stuff would be spun off, sold; only the priority production divisions would be left.

Let entrepreneurs keep more capital and let them build more Health Care and Education facilities with their natural tendency to be philanthropic. They can also do some for-profit facilities to keep the mix competitive. Once we have a stronger economy Canadians will start insisting the welfare state be busted up because they’ll feel confident they can look after themselves without the sugar daddies in Ottawa.

Meanwhile, the Librano$ are spreading themselves too thin, so thin they don’t have time to hide the corruption anymore. Just like the USSR. Even Red China realizes it has to turn stuff over to entrepreneurs.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-09-25 3:32:39 PM


The commenter,albeit on a different topic, has captured the crux of the matter as it exists now in Canada. One defers to his words.
The Liberal Cartel has made itself "invulnerable to democracy's full process". ET is correct. Canadians are/seem (which is it?) unable/unwilling ? to throw the Liberals out of office. The only thing not done yet by the Liberal Cartel is the "enabling act": The next, & perhaps,the last election in Canada, may be the "enabling act". Will the Canadian sheep follow Martin, the shepherd of the Cartel, into the gulag of their own making? Pity. How did this come about?
ET has pointed the steps out in other comments.


What is to be done? >>>>>

Buddy Larsen said...

Mika, that nazi thing is a misleading canard, in a way. the party that was elected was a far different animal than it turned out tio be, later, after the evil one had maneuvered the gov't into that enabling act that made the party then invulnerable to democracy's full process--the part where it throws a party out of office.>>>
fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-09-25 5:42:51 PM


Canada's national anthem should be titled
"Don't worry--be happy".
What a bunch of sheep.
Rob Peter to pay Paul and play the end against the middle.
I can only hope that the next generation of Canadians will have more balls than the present one.
Complacency is our mantra.

Posted by: John MacLaren | 2005-10-18 5:04:47 PM


Canada's national anthem should be titled
"Don't worry--be happy".
What a bunch of sheep!
Rob Peter to pay Paul and play the end against the middle.
I can only hope that the next generation of Canadians will have more balls than the present one.
Complacency is our mantra.
Johnny Mac.

Posted by: John MacLaren | 2005-10-18 6:38:18 PM


Canada's national anthem should be titled
"Don't worry--be happy".
What a bunch of sheep!
Rob Peter to pay Paul and play the end against the middle.
I can only hope that the next generation of Canadians will have more balls than the present one.
Complacency is our mantra.
Johnny Mac.

Posted by: John MacLaren | 2005-10-18 6:41:08 PM


Canada's national anthem should be titled
"Don't worry--be happy".
What a bunch of sheep!
Rob Peter to pay Paul and play the end against the middle.
I can only hope that the next generation of Canadians will have more balls than the present one.
Complacency is our mantra.
Johnny Mac.

Posted by: John MacLaren | 2005-10-18 6:42:00 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.