News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Without immigration the population will decrease rapidly, businesses will face a massive labour shortage and the price of consumer goods will skyrocket.

Immigration drives our economy. The problem isn't at the bottom-end. It's at the top.
 
I just happen to believe that experience shows us that government is pretty bad at providing housing of reasonable quality and cost.
Click to expand...

I think that one of the biggest disasters in America was the creation of these monstrosities/suburbs. Now, some were okay, but some of the sprawling outer-suburbs are outright horrible things.
The private sector fucked up so badly that we pay the costs out of our noses today. I do not want to see that again. The private sector is interested in profits for itself, and nothing else.


Without immigration the population will decrease rapidly, businesses will face a massive labour shortage and the price of consumer goods will skyrocket.
Click to expand...

Capitalism always fails because of that "greed". Kids are discouraged. The reason why is because they are simply expensive and take lots of time and resources to raise. Raising a kid without guiding them the right way is like throwing money into the toilet... oh shit, yeah, nvm, no wonder our youth is half lost nowadays.


Without immigration the population will decrease rapidly, businesses will face a massive labour shortage and the price of consumer goods will skyrocket.
Click to expand...

We do not need immigration. End of story. Population will not decrease rapidly. It might not increase as fast. Even if it does decrease a little bit, it is no reason to be worried. We simply adjust.

But, you may let in half of Africa move up here. They would if they could ya know.
That does bring into question what does it mean to be canadian. But yeah, the socialist "we are all the same" rhetoric is a dangerous one. So, you can follow it an open the door to half of Africa, but the consequences of millions of such migrants might not be so good.
I say bar immigration. People do not migrate because they love Canada. They migrate because of themselves.
 
Your political ideology is all over the map. You hate corporations, think we should bar immigration and live in soviet-era government housing?

Canadian women are averaging 1.5 children over the course of their lifetime. This is not enough to sustain our population. Declining populations lead to a host of economic and social problems.
 
I did not say that I hate corporations. I simply point to the fact that if let lose to do what ever they want, unimpeded by anything, that they will fuck a lot of things up because they have only one purpose in their existence - to make profits for themselves.


It is relatively easy to raise the birth rate. Russia raised theirs in just a few years of trying, and all of a sudden the dire predictions are not so bad anymore.




At any rate, you do not look at the causes of the low birth rates. You are not doing anything until you address that problem.
edit: So migration that you want will be from Africa and such places. Poor people who would go anywhere, just for the purpose to better themselves. No aim or desire to assimilate. I tell you, problems happen when shitloads of foreigners just come here. What is worse is that as time goes on, the foreigners will no longer be europeans. Not saying that we have to have europeans - but Canada is indeed a society that is in most ways dominated by europeans - so if we get lots of africans they will be kept on the lower social order because the europeans won't let them be one of them. Proof of that is the US. Segregation, and ghettoization. Same would be in Canada if there were that many of them. So, you need to look at the underlying problems of the low birth rate, and not go about fixing a symptom but to go about fixing the underlying problem.
 
Last edited:
LAz, I don't think suburbs are that great either. I think better land use planning is a better answer, rather than a Cuba-style command economy.

Yes corporations are interested in profit. That doesn't make them evil, merely amoral. Profit motive is like a force of nature to be harnessed, not railed against. You're tilting at windmills.
 
LAz said:
I say bar immigration. People do not migrate because they love Canada. They migrate because of themselves.
Click to expand...

IMHO, Toronto would not be the great city it is today if we had barred immigration..... I really had no interest in moving to the bland city of Toronto when I graduated from school, would have preferred to move to Montreal.

And guess what - a majority of people that immigrate to Canada are looking for a better life - and yes - that has ALWAYS been the case -- right back to the early days when they moved here from England and Scotland. Those that were reasonably well off - stayed. Those that were poor.... moved here for a better life. There has to be an incentive to move to Canada.

IMHO, Canada should target a minimum population of around 50 - 60 million people - so a high rate of "managed" immigration is a positive thing. (Skilled workers - criteria = workers that are offered a job at the prevailing market wages; and a diversity lottery for those that do not meet that criteria to balance out immigration; and tighten up the abuse of the Refugee class to be fair to all that would want to move here for economic reasons - not reasons of persecution).
 
LAz said:
It is relatively easy to raise the birth rate. Russia raised theirs in just a few years of trying, and all of a sudden the dire predictions are not so bad anymore.
Click to expand...

If it was so easy Japan's population would not be falling..... they are xenophobic like you towards immigration.

Of course if you took away all the money from the women (100% tax rate), then maybe we could coerce them to have more babies - no baby, no money. You know slaves - take away peoples rights and everything would be better - or at least that is what I am hearing from a few people here :p
 
IMHO, Canada should target a minimum population of around 50 - 60 million people - so a high rate of "managed" immigration is a positive thing.
Click to expand...

You won't get that from Europeans. You can only get it from non-Europeans. Maybe I am wrong, but Canada would indeed look like a very different place if whites were to become a minority. This seems to be what you are advocating, isn't it? There is no way that people can assimilate nowadays like they did in the 1800s - back then they had to assimilate... now there is a choice.
The other question is where to put these supposed millions. Why not just call ourselves Little Asia, or for that matter Little China, as I am sure that 40 million chineese would gladly swim over and become citizens. Most of the world would come here, it is in our interest to prevent this. Especially in times of a shaky economy, we must look to let in as few people as possible. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard of people just making papers for someone else via marriage. That should be limited.



If it was so easy Japan's population would not be falling..... they are xenophobic like you towards immigration.

Of course if you took away all the money from the women (100% tax rate), then maybe we could coerce them to have more babies - no baby, no money. You know slaves - take away peoples rights and everything would be better - or at least that is what I am hearing from a few people here
Click to expand...

And good for Japan. At least they will do not have minority issues, unlike elsewhere where minorities indeed become second class citizens more often than not. Recent migrants are often living in miserable conditions.



IMHO, Toronto would not be the great city it is today if we had barred immigration
Click to expand...

Sure, in times of booming economies it may be useful to bring abroad a few more serfs.
But one can not always count on good times, can they? What do we do then? Why must we always look to keep on expanding GDP as if there is nothing else to live for? Where is the sustainability?





Why are we looking at the symptoms of the problems rather than the causes of the problems?
Here families are in hard positions, often so that both family members have to work to make it through. That is not a good thing, by any means. It puts pressure on these people to not have kids. That is where the crux of the problem is, the capitalistic greed to squeeze as much out of the populace.









Some time ago at some conference people were discussing the population problems in Denmark or somewhere. And then one African guy said well just bring in a million people from Kenya. Or something like that. The dummy did not see what the problem with this sort of thinking was. These people are black, and putting a million blacks into a country produces a radical change in the structure of society, a change that will produce backlashes.
Of course, it means more to be Danish than to be Canadian... Canadian culture has much less meaning/identity, it's just a mushed up thing... but nonetheless, we need to try to preserve that, shouldn't we?





But go ahead, ignore the question of why not focus on the symptoms, and instead go off on the immigrant tangent, by focusing on the symptom rather than the cause.
 
'cause I mean yo, let me give you some bad examples of migrants.
You know how we are so soft with our kids here? It has turned into our culture to be like that.
Immigrant families... oh hell yeah, they beat their kids.
When kids are at school on recess and talking about what happened last night... I got my ass whooped, I got it whooped too, me three... and then this other kid would just say uh duh I got uh sent to my room...
...would you really want that white kid to feel left out? Would you?








There is also the problem where will these millions of new migrants go to? Where? You can't just dump them into communities, people may riot.









It is for their sake that we should not accept them. If we do we will simply ghettoize most of them. Sure we add a holiday or two for them, like martin luther kind day, but in the end they are second class serfs, often without even knowing it.
Here, 13:10, it explains what's going on, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVC16Jegkg
 
afransen said:
LAz, I don't think suburbs are that great either. I think better land use planning is a better answer, rather than a Cuba-style command economy.

Yes corporations are interested in profit. That doesn't make them evil, merely amoral. Profit motive is like a force of nature to be harnessed, not railed against. You're tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...

If the subject interests you, I highly suggest that you read Ralph Gomory's postings at the Huffington Post.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-gomory/country-and-company-part_b_174875.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-gomory/country-and-company-part_b_196131.html

plus all his other posts.
 
A 100% tax on income over a certain amount is the dumbest thing ever. No one would have any incentive of making any more than the maximum. Wouldn't it be better to tax this extra income at say approx 50% (or whatever the highest marginal rate is) than the govt receive no tax. The extra tax dollars can be redistributed to those in need and to fund many programs. Where do people think the govt gets money from? It can get it from tax dollars, import duties (drives the cost of goods up), borrowing or printing money (drives inflation (ie costs of goods) up). It would also lead to a mass exodus of our capital generating people.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top