[kEiThZ]

Yeah just like the Auto makers weren't planning for failure as well. If they weren't so innately blatantly greedy they would have mass produced electric vehicles starting back in the 1970's. You've forgotten human greed, it over powers everything.

Yes, because electric vehicles were absolutely commercially feasible in the 70s.... And because every company (including the Japanese automakers) act out of the goodness of their hearts. I agree that the big 3 blundered. But I see more complexity in the situation than your grade school analysis here. Japan's automakers received massive grants to help develop hybrids. Where was the money for the big 3 in the 90s? Japan also protects its auto makers at home from the big 3. Should we do that here to protect Detroit?

Spoken like a true a status-quo promoting optimist who is in denial about climate change.

You obviously have reading comprehension challenges. Did I discuss or deny climate change at all? I have challenged your analysis of the price of oil. Your analysis was based on the assumption that the US would experience severe challenges as oil shot to 200 bucks a barrel in 25 years. I have suggested that if current trends hold the US will be less dependent on oil in 25 years. The US economy is already far less energy intensive than 25 years ago. And recent oil prices are prompting a new round of energy conservation and diversification plans.

Next time, I suggest you read before commenting. It'll actually allows us to have an intelligent debate.

 

[Moonmoth]

And that's exactly what makes economies successful. Sure, capitalism's greed, like socialism's extreme, can go overboard if not reigned in through effective regulation, but greed makes the world go round.

I wouldn't exactly call the current economic model successful, yes there's wealth but we haven't eradicated poverty in the first world, we have created and accelerated climate change, so the environment is problematic for a whole lot of people and animals and ecosystems despite corporations and a few individuals having made tons and tons of money.

Huge companies are going under, the car companies are an example of that, more to come, and if they were turning a profit for so long why should one little recession decimate them? Because they were run irresponsibly. No private company deserves a government bailout if it really was capitalism. The conservatives are the biggest hypocrites for this.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wouldn't exactly call the current economic model successful, yes there's wealth but we haven't eradicated poverty in the first world, .

It's not the first world's role to end poverty. I've never seen that directive anywhere.

Huge companies are going under

As they always have, only to be replaced or absorbed by other huge companies. I also agree we should not be bailing out the auto companies. Let them fail, and as long as people want to buy cars built in Canada, from their failure will rise sharper competition. Life goes on.

 

[Moonmoth]

It's not the first world's role to end poverty. I've never seen that directive anywhere.

Okay seismic rift in our philosophies here. As a first world country why should we have poverty, homelessness, disadvantaged populations? Just because?
Cause it's better for capitalism or for the economy??!!? I think you can have capitalism with successful money-making companies and people, within reason, AND while maintaining the happiness and prosperity of the population in the first-world while encouraging sustainable economies in the 2nd & 3rd world raising their quality of life.

This idea of exponentially never-ending growth has to remain within the confines of our ecological capabilities, it's not that we can't afford to be environmentally and socially responsible, in fact, despite avaricious capitalist ventures, massive companies are still failing and people are experiencing hardship. Something's clearly wrong with the way we've been doing things. The idea of economic growth has only been around since WWII. Now it dominates everything and fixes nothing.

 

[kEiThZ]

Okay seismic rift in our philosophies here. As a first world country why should we have poverty, homelessness, disadvantaged populations? Just because?
Cause it's better for capitalism or for the economy??!!?

You are either communist or have a poor understanding of capitalism and the variations of its practice. I am struggling to understand which it is. For all intense purposes Canada has little to no absolute poverty. We have some relative poverty, of course, but that has more to do with the uneven distribution of income in our society. But if you want evidence that capitalism works, why not ask all the former communist countries that are rushing to become hyper-capitalists why they find capitalism so attractive.

I think you can have capitalism with successful money-making companies and people, within reason, AND while maintaining the happiness and prosperity of the population in the first-world while encouraging sustainable economies in the 2nd & 3rd world raising their quality of life.

Yes, fuzzy teddy bears are really nice. And so are happy thoughts about world peace and the end of poverty. From the depth of your comments, its obvious you lack significant experiences outside this country, or you would know that poverty in the developing world has very diverse causes. Not all of it has to do with the policies of the first world.

You should visit Saudi Arabia and witness the high unemployment among youth, while the country continues to import dark-skinned labour from elsewhere in Asia. Why would this be? Because racist, arrogant attitudes and a sense of entitlement in the Arab world prevent Saudis from working menial jobs (even if they have to stay poor). And the government prefers to pump out religious studies graduates over the more useful kind (engineers, scientists, business grads, etc.). Or you should see the corruption in South Asia that prevents any real action at any level of government. Heck, did you know that only 16 million Indians pay income tax on a regular basis. And then there's the perpetual charity poster of Africa. Rampant corruption. Backward attitudes. Poor work ethic. Unstable governments. An investor's nightmare. That's why there's poverty there. Mugabe is a prime example. After all that he's done to Zimbabwe, African leaders still support him and are against any western efforts to oust him. Don't blame the first world for the developing world's conditions. Imperialism ended well over 60 years ago. What's the excuse for not undertaking any development in that time period? How is it that there are not more countries like the Asian tigers?

This idea of exponentially never-ending growth has to remain within the confines of our ecological capabilities, it's not that we can't afford to be environmentally and socially responsible, in fact, despite avaricious capitalist ventures, massive companies are still failing and people are experiencing hardship. Something's clearly wrong with the way we've been doing things. The idea of economic growth has only been around since WWII. Now it dominates everything and fixes nothing.

The idea of economic growth has been around well before WWII. It's just that most folks didn't know otherwise, because they were not the beneficiaries of such growth owing to our very uneven distribution of wealth during those time periods. Today, you'd be hard pressed to convince the billions of middle class folks (particularly the new middle class in the developing world) to give up economic growth and be condemned to poverty just for some eco-evangelist's fantasy.

While I agree that we need to make our economy sustainable, it is a fallacy to believe that we can't have growth. There are a myriad of technologies and practices that we can undertake to green our economy and to lessen the ecological impact of further growth. It is also a fallacy to believe that big companies can't be sustainable. If anything it's often only big companies that have the resources and abilities to commit to sustainable practices.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Okay seismic rift in our philosophies here. As a first world country why should we have poverty, homelessness, disadvantaged populations? Just because?

Why shouldn't we? Neither communism or capitalism has ever eliminated poverty, homelessness or disadvantaged populations. Even the capitalist-socialist in the Scandinavian countries still have poverty and disadvantaged populations.

Think for a moment, the only way you can't have disadvantaged populations is if no one has an advantage. That means that anyone who was born into a wealthy family, or with better brainpower or with more involved parents would need to have their advantage eliminated in order to balance out with the poor kid born into a poor, slow witted family of absent parents. How do you propose to eliminate the advantages of some over others? Darwin does it naturally, but what's your suggestion?

 

[MisterF]

About liberal democracies, Canada for its rather pathetic political situation, its remarkable the opposition launch a coup of some sort, and the PM ask an appointed person to suspend Parliament and she does and there is no real chaos. It either shows how bored we are in Canada, or how accepting we are of the way things are set by law.

Canada's democracy is functioning exactly as it was designed to. If you think that democratically elected representatives who form the majority of seats in the legislature forming a coalition to take power is a coup, then you don't know what a coup is.

 

[Moonmoth]

You are either communist or have a poor understanding of capitalism and the variations of its practice. I am struggling to understand which it is. For all intense purposes Canada has little to no absolute poverty. We have some relative poverty, of course, but that has more to do with the uneven distribution of income in our society. But if you want evidence that capitalism works, why not ask all the former communist countries that are rushing to become hyper-capitalists why they find capitalism so attractive.

It's actually "intents and purposes".
Hmmmm maybe I am Communist. Probably more of a socialist though, but I do love Marx.

you lack significant experiences outside this country, or you would know that poverty in the developing world has very diverse causes. Not all of it has to do with the policies of the first world.

I didn't grow up in Canada, but in Africa and have lived in South America and Europe as well. So I have some developed international perspective, more than you I bet.

And then there's the perpetual charity poster of Africa. Rampant corruption. Backward attitudes. Poor work ethic. Unstable governments. An investor's nightmare. That's why there's poverty there. Mugabe is a prime example. After all that he's done to Zimbabwe, African leaders still support him and are against any western efforts to oust him. Don't blame the first world for the developing world's conditions. Imperialism ended well over 60 years ago. What's the excuse for not undertaking any development in that time period? How is it that there are not more countries like the Asian tigers?

You neo-conservative attitude just f*cks me off. How dare you have the arrogance to make such sweeping statements that blatantly advertise your narrow perception of 'Africa'. How utterly narrow-minded and colonial of you. What an innately racist display of your insular attitudes.

The idea of economic growth has been around well before WWII. It's just that most folks didn't know otherwise, because they were not the beneficiaries of such growth owing to our very uneven distribution of wealth during those time periods. Today, you'd be hard pressed to convince the billions of middle class folks (particularly the new middle class in the developing world) to give up economic growth and be condemned to poverty just for some eco-evangelist's fantasy.

The idea of rampant neverending economic growth didn't exist prior to industrialization and the idea of it was introduced after WWII. Now we've elevated economic growth to an unsustainable level. You're not condemning yourself to poverty by abandoning an archaic idea of economy. The economy needs to: 1) evolve, 2) exist within the limits of the biosphere and 3) we need to develop a new vocabulary surrounding it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You neo-conservative attitude just f*cks me off. How dare you have the arrogance to make such sweeping statements that blatantly advertise your narrow perception of 'Africa'. How utterly narrow-minded and colonial of you. What an innately racist display of your insular attitudes.

Sorry Dude, but the first world (and much of Asia/China/India, etc. for that matter) just doesn't care about Africa, never has, never will, of course except for what they can get out of it (slaves, souls for conversion, gold, oil, etc...).

For a demonstration, just compare the 1st world's response to genocide in the Balkans and its response to genocide in Rwanda. In the Balkans the UN (mostly the West) deployed 23,500 troops, of which more than 1650 were Canadian. Canada sent Leopard tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, CH-146 Griffon helicopters and even CF-18 fighter aircraft to enforce the no fly zone. Meanwhile, in Rwanda where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) sent 270 soldiers, yep that's it. It's commander, Lieutenant-General Dallaire requested the immediate insertion of approximately 5,000 troops, but his request was denied. Unlike in Bosnia, there was no first world savior for the innocents.

Look today at Darfur. The first world does nothing to help, while it fights in Afghanistan and Iraq. Somalia will get some attention soon, but only enough to ensure that those pirates stop attacking shipping. What about Zimbawbe, the west just lets that madman kill his people. Look at AIDS, the west does nothing to help Africa while ensuring medication for its own people.

The first world doesn't care about Africa. I'm not being narrow minded, racist or colonial, just writing what I see. As a Brit-born Canuck and history buff, I am fully aware of how Europe and the west has treated Africa. However, the last British flag came down in Africa before most of today's African's were born. Yet still they have this culture of victimhood. You don't see India, Malaysia, Laos, Pakistan, etc. bemoaning their poor treatment, but even today in Africa we've got Mugabe complaining about British treatment of his country, as if a nearly bankrupt, tiny island in the North Sea can touch him. The Empire is long dead.

The world doesn't care about Africa...if it did, Canada's military would be in Darfur, the WHO would be fighting AIDS on a massive scale, and they'd be no famines or dispair. But the world doesn't care. Sorry.

 

[Whoaccio]

You neo-conservative attitude just f*cks me off. How dare you have the arrogance to make such sweeping statements that blatantly advertise your narrow perception of 'Africa'. How utterly narrow-minded and colonial of you. What an innately racist display of your insular attitudes.

Ohh for the love of god, everybody knows there was nothing racist about what ketihz said. That is just a cheap way for alter-mondialists to ignore things that disproportionately effect the poor like corruption (which everybody knows is hellishly prevalent in Africa), lack of economic opportunity and political freedom and focus on solutions they enjoy, like dinner parties to raise awareness about genetically modified food and 'fair trade' coffee beans.

 

[kEiThZ]

I didn't grow up in Canada, but in Africa and have lived in South America and Europe as well. So I have some developed international perspective, more than you I bet.

Let me guess....child of a diplomat, aid worker, etc. lived in a lovely home with servants. Ever have family who lived in the slums? Ever experience corruption first hand in the developing world (as in having to pay the bribe yourself)? Come to talk to me when you've had those experiences.

You neo-conservative attitude just f*cks me off. How dare you have the arrogance to make such sweeping statements that blatantly advertise your narrow perception of 'Africa'. How utterly narrow-minded and colonial of you. What an innately racist display of your insular attitudes.

I speak the truth having being born, grown up and lived in India and the Middle East. My day job also let's me interact with people who work on development and defence/security on many of the regions we are discussing here. How arrogant and presumptuous of you to consider my 'perspective' narrow. I have cited specific examples. I can show you data to back my examples. Now you tell me where I have made comments that are 'racist' and 'colonial'. Otherwise, your name calling, and foul language speak more to your character, ignorance and inability to put forward strong, well reasoned arguments than anything else.

The idea of rampant neverending economic growth didn't exist prior to industrialization and the idea of it was introduced after WWII.

You keep saying this. Well show me the turning point. I see no evidence that a light went on and rampant growth became the fashion. High growth occurred in post-war era for a multitude of reasons, not just because it became fashionable. Prime among them was the idea that billions should not be confined to poverty forever.

Now we've elevated economic growth to an unsustainable level. You're not condemning yourself to poverty by abandoning an archaic idea of economy. The economy needs to: 1) evolve, 2) exist within the limits of the biosphere and 3) we need to develop a new vocabulary surrounding it.

Again it is not economic growth that is unsustainable, it is our industrial practices that are. You would confine billions to poverty for the sake of restricting economic growth. I, on the other hand, would prefer to see sustainable growth that address externalities adequately and continues the path of human progress that we have seen through the 20th century.

 

[Moonmoth]

Sorry Dude, but the first world (and much of Asia/China/India, etc. for that matter) just doesn't care about Africa, never has, never will, of course except for what they can get out of it (slaves, souls for conversion, gold, oil, etc...).

Your world clearly doesn't care and uses other countries resources until there's nothing left with rapacious glee, but not mine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Your world clearly doesn't care and uses other countries resources until there's nothing left with rapacious glee, but not mine.

Not my world, but the entire world doesn't give a fig for Africa. I'd say this is due to Africa not caring much about itself. Starting with political leaders, it seems that but with very few exceptions, there is no sense of democracy nor of leading for the people, not for one's self and power. Show us in the first world that you can run a proper continent and maybe we'll care when you start taking the machettes to each other.

 

[lordmandeep]

truth one is more willing to help those who can somewhat help themselves.

Then it does not see, to be a time waste.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why should the world do any more for Africa? How many billions have been poured down that drain? And to what effect? Has it made any difference at all? Meanwhile, the Asian tigers all had serious damage to their economies from WWII yet were not only able to recover but to attain near first world living standards in 50 years, without significant aid. And do pray tell what resources those countries had? I am fairly sure Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan were rocky outcrops with no resources except for their people. All those who cry about Africa, should answer why the Africans deserve any more special treatment when there are other countries that have been dealt just as bad a hand and come out on top with little to no assistance, while Africa should be leagues ahead given the richness of its land.