i actually think this is fairly accurate, but i just want to add that social conservatism in canada is not aligned well with xenophobia, in large part because a lot of social conservative support comes from recent immigrants. it's still going to work out to a minority of voters, and it doesn't negate the absolute necessity of the conservatives holding red tory support to form a government - so it remains very delicate. but, they have more of a chance in expanding their base within urban centres - to recent immigrants, to union workers, to low wage workers - by focusing on social issues, even if it absolutely erupts the opposition to it.
people still like tax cuts. let's not forget that trudeau campaigned on one. but, almost nobody cares about the deficit, and truly shouldn't, so long as we're not dealing with rates that are set to fight stagflation.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/02/the-conservatives-dont-have-a-religion-problem-canadians-have-a-debt-problem/15:15
frank
You may wish to read this.
http://www.maxresistance.com/total-news-blackout-in-canada-people-vs-central-bank/
deathtokoalas
i'm actually very aware of this case, and the reality is that the facts cited by ellen brown and the rest of you right-wing populists are drastically inaccurate.
you begin with the premise that canada used to fund all spending through interest-free borrowing from the bank of canada. this is completely false. there was an infrastructure bank that provided some interest-free borrowing, but it was only on restricted types of projects and only ever took up a small minority of total spending. the vast majority of deficit spending between 1945 and 1975 was financed through the private bond market, which was absolutely interest-generating. the difference is that a lot of the bonds were bought by private citizens, rather than private banks. in fact, it was the basis of retirement for much of the "greatest generation". it's startling how easy it is to fool people on this, given that so many of us have grandparents that retired on the proceeds of public debt.
the interest free lending from the bank of canada was phased out in the 70s as a result of an international consensus (which canada signed) to combat what was called stagflation, which was a combination of economic stagnation and monetary inflation caused by high oil prices as a consequence of the opec embargo due to american support of israel. but, most of canada's debt was private to begin with, so it was a very minor shift.
in fact, trudeau rejected this consensus almost immediately. it's an example of a pattern that is older than trudeau and continues today: we signed on under american pressure, without really buying into it. instead, trudeau fell back to the standard keynesian idea of raising interest rates to fight inflation. this led to interest rates around 20% at their peak, but over 10% for most of the 70s and a good part of the 80s.
these high interest rates are the cause of the ballooning debt in the 70s, which is due to the consequence of interest and not due to over-spending.
at the time, it didn't seem like a big issue: the debt-to-gdp ratio was reasonable, and nobody expected it to go on for years and years. further, high growth rates (nearing 10%) were an expectation of economic recovery, at the time. it wasn't until the dust cleared on mechanization and the adoption of free trade that we had to come to terms with drastically lower growth potential, and the need to adjust to get the imf off our backs.
the lesson is that the key thing to concern ourselves with is neither debt, nor who owns it, but where interest rates are set.
frank
Thanks for the information.
My only confusion would be why you would incorrectly label me as right wing? That's the furthest thing from the truth.
deathtokoalas
this is the canadian version of the "end the fed" right-wing populism of ron paul.
Monday, November 2, 2015
i'm going to use this video as a place to vent for a moment, if you don't mind.
i want to be clear: i agree that this is a stupid debate. it's pretty clear what the slogan means. but, i think the proper response to this is to address and react to two concerns:
1) why are you getting this response? that is, why is it unclear what the slogan means? "white people are stupid" may be true (no! all people are stupid!), but it's not good enough.
2) can you modify the slogan so that it doesn't create confusion? i mean, (1) implies this is necessary, if you're being empirical about it. "all lives matter" doesn't cut it. but, clearly, "black lives matter" isn't getting across what you're intending.
i think that what is missing is just one word - "too".
black lives matter, too.
this gets the point across clearly, without accidentally suggesting something you're not intending. it's actually more direct - it's precisely what you mean to say.
but, why do you need to do this?
see, i think the other part of this is realizing that the push back you're getting is out of a legitimate sense of economic desperation. if you look at poverty rates and unemployment levels, there's a lot of white people in some bad shape right now. this is another issue unto itself. activists will tend to cite statistics that say that white people are disproportionately ultra-wealthy (that is, the "1%" is disproportionately white), and black people are disproportionately poor - and this is certainly true in most of the united states. but, they won't cite the stats that also say that whites make up the single largest ethnic group in poverty in the united states, and that this is a phenomenon that is increasing. there is a real phenomenon in the united states (and also in canada) where the middle class is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse, and whites are increasingly occupying the bottom of the income scale (while the elite remains disproportionately white). if you look at stats in canada, whites are actually fourth in terms of average wealth - east asians are the most wealthy people in canada, followed by south asians and west asians (which means muslims) and then whites.
that's not a klan fantasy. that's the statistical reality of the situation.
but, there's this constant stream of information bombarded at whites that tell them they have "privilege", that they exist at the top of a hierarchy, etc - when any data you can gather suggests that, on average, whites are in fact a moderately to severely disadvantaged group in the united states - despite being disproportionately represented in the media, in the super rich, etc. it's easy to see how they could misinterpret a slogan like this badly - that is as suggesting that they don't matter, in an economic climate where this is increasingly reflective of how they're feeling.
and, once you get this, it's easy to see how the request to modify the slogan is actually a request for inclusiveness - that is, a request to build a broader based and more class-focused struggle. and, maybe that's a worthwhile request to consider, even if it requires a little decoding.
i'm not suggesting that a lot of the reaction isn't racist, because it is. but, even when it is, it shouldn't be completely ignored. it should be analyzed and understood.
but, i think it's also important to take responsibility for poor messaging. i don't know who came up with this. i doubt it was focus grouped, or sent through a marketing evaluation; it was probably literally some kid that just typed it out without thinking about it much. throwing it out in the wild, though, is doing that. and the results suggest that some kind of adjustment to make the messaging clearer should be embraced, rather than rejected - it's clearly entirely necessary.
i want to be clear: i agree that this is a stupid debate. it's pretty clear what the slogan means. but, i think the proper response to this is to address and react to two concerns:
1) why are you getting this response? that is, why is it unclear what the slogan means? "white people are stupid" may be true (no! all people are stupid!), but it's not good enough.
2) can you modify the slogan so that it doesn't create confusion? i mean, (1) implies this is necessary, if you're being empirical about it. "all lives matter" doesn't cut it. but, clearly, "black lives matter" isn't getting across what you're intending.
i think that what is missing is just one word - "too".
black lives matter, too.
this gets the point across clearly, without accidentally suggesting something you're not intending. it's actually more direct - it's precisely what you mean to say.
but, why do you need to do this?
see, i think the other part of this is realizing that the push back you're getting is out of a legitimate sense of economic desperation. if you look at poverty rates and unemployment levels, there's a lot of white people in some bad shape right now. this is another issue unto itself. activists will tend to cite statistics that say that white people are disproportionately ultra-wealthy (that is, the "1%" is disproportionately white), and black people are disproportionately poor - and this is certainly true in most of the united states. but, they won't cite the stats that also say that whites make up the single largest ethnic group in poverty in the united states, and that this is a phenomenon that is increasing. there is a real phenomenon in the united states (and also in canada) where the middle class is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse, and whites are increasingly occupying the bottom of the income scale (while the elite remains disproportionately white). if you look at stats in canada, whites are actually fourth in terms of average wealth - east asians are the most wealthy people in canada, followed by south asians and west asians (which means muslims) and then whites.
that's not a klan fantasy. that's the statistical reality of the situation.
but, there's this constant stream of information bombarded at whites that tell them they have "privilege", that they exist at the top of a hierarchy, etc - when any data you can gather suggests that, on average, whites are in fact a moderately to severely disadvantaged group in the united states - despite being disproportionately represented in the media, in the super rich, etc. it's easy to see how they could misinterpret a slogan like this badly - that is as suggesting that they don't matter, in an economic climate where this is increasingly reflective of how they're feeling.
and, once you get this, it's easy to see how the request to modify the slogan is actually a request for inclusiveness - that is, a request to build a broader based and more class-focused struggle. and, maybe that's a worthwhile request to consider, even if it requires a little decoding.
i'm not suggesting that a lot of the reaction isn't racist, because it is. but, even when it is, it shouldn't be completely ignored. it should be analyzed and understood.
but, i think it's also important to take responsibility for poor messaging. i don't know who came up with this. i doubt it was focus grouped, or sent through a marketing evaluation; it was probably literally some kid that just typed it out without thinking about it much. throwing it out in the wild, though, is doing that. and the results suggest that some kind of adjustment to make the messaging clearer should be embraced, rather than rejected - it's clearly entirely necessary.
at
04:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
so, it seems that it's important to increase patent registration in china so the west has access to them. interesting logic.
at
04:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)