Off Topic

Brexit: UK votes to leave the EU

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 23rd, 2017 8:20 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6141 posts
448 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 1:10 pm
You think the EU wants Ireland without the UK?
Absolutely!
And Ireland is in a really good place with or without Brexit. It has it's special relationship with the UK and remains a full member of the EU. Plus it will be the only English speaking country in the EU if Brexit goes ahead.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6141 posts
448 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 1:08 pm
That is not making people wealthy, that is simply moving around wealth. And that is what the LEFT does. If you are against governments doing that than you should be supporting conservative notions of small government and little taxation.
Talk about splitting hairs! If you move wealth into my "bank account", that makes me wealthy.

Are you trying to suggest that the RIGHT creates wealth while the LEFT just moves wealth around? Let's see your evidence for that. But first, you might want to define your simplistic terms.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4666 posts
333 upvotes
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 1:23 am
Talk about splitting hairs! If you move wealth into my "bank account", that makes me wealthy.

Are you trying to suggest that the RIGHT creates wealth while the LEFT just moves wealth around? Let's see your evidence for that. But first, you might want to define your simplistic terms.
I am not sure the right creates wealth necessarily. However by removing unnecessary regulations and allow the free market to function at maximum efficiency, it would improve productivity, thus creating wealth. On the flip side, providing easy finance options to educate/re-educate workers also improves productivity, thus creating wealth. Therefore, both the right and left can create wealth. Unfortunately, neither is interested in doing so.
Deal Addict
Apr 15, 2011
2306 posts
276 upvotes
Scarborough
Archanfel wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 4:58 pm
I am not sure the right creates wealth necessarily. However by removing unnecessary regulations and allow the free market to function at maximum efficiency, it would improve productivity, thus creating wealth. On the flip side, providing easy finance options to educate/re-educate workers also improves productivity, thus creating wealth. Therefore, both the right and left can create wealth. Unfortunately, neither is interested in doing so.
yeah thats alot of BS. "Un necessary regulations" that don't make sense--how many of these are there? The vast majority of regulations are there for a reason, and they always drive innovation and wealth. Take for example Obamas green initiative back in 2008. He invested $32 billion into a fledgeling renewables industry because of climate change. Today its worth a wopping $200 billion in the US alone, and $1.5 trillion world wide. In Canada, its a $30 billion industry and provides more jobs than the fossil fuel industry. What about clean water, or clean air regulations? Are those un necessary also? Or what about workers rights? Minimum wage? Gutting regulation is just easy double speak that the rich use to funnel short term wealth to themselves while putting a lien on future generations. If there are un necessary bureaucratic regulations in place, then definitely those should be optimized.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
13839 posts
1407 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 1:08 pm
That is not making people wealthy, that is simply moving around wealth. And that is what the LEFT does. If you are against governments doing that than you should be supporting conservative notions of small government and little taxation.
Conservatives don't support small governments though. The biggest government expansions in recent decades have been under conservative presidents. Just look at Bush and the TSA. It's a giant make-work program for losers and the otherwise unemployable that only serves to make things more difficult to travel for business or pleasure. It's done serious harm to the US tourism industry. Look at civil forfeiture laws that allow cops to rob anyone who carries cash for business (small business owners) or pleasure (tourists and cross-border shoppers). Those were put in place and expanded under conservative governments. Look at the state benefits Wal-mart workers receive, where the US is actively paying a billionaire family to ship American production jobs overseas to China. Look at the right's obsession with getting people to pay for private healthcare, which is far more expensive per capita than public healthcare, and actively drives people into bankruptcy and suicide. Instead of paying less for the cheaper public option, they'd rather have the government completely fail its duty to force people into buying from their billionaire friends and their companies.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2576 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 5:53 pm
yeah thats alot of BS. "Un necessary regulations" that don't make sense--how many of these are there? The vast majority of regulations are there for a reason, and they always drive innovation and wealth. Take for example Obamas green initiative back in 2008. He invested $32 billion into a fledgeling renewables industry because of climate change. Today its worth a wopping $200 billion in the US alone, and $1.5 trillion world wide. In Canada, its a $30 billion industry and provides more jobs than the fossil fuel industry. What about clean water, or clean air regulations? Are those un necessary also? Or what about workers rights? Minimum wage? Gutting regulation is just easy double speak that the rich use to funnel short term wealth to themselves while putting a lien on future generations. If there are un necessary bureaucratic regulations in place, then definitely those should be optimized.
The renewables industry is only worth anything because big governments have dumped tons of money into it. Sure, Canada and Ontario have pretty good green sectors...how much of that has come from private investment and how much from government just throwing money at it?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2576 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
Piro21 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 6:12 pm
Conservatives don't support small governments though. The biggest government expansions in recent decades have been under conservative presidents. Just look at Bush and the TSA. It's a giant make-work program for losers and the otherwise unemployable that only serves to make things more difficult to travel for business or pleasure. It's done serious harm to the US tourism industry. Look at civil forfeiture laws that allow cops to rob anyone who carries cash for business (small business owners) or pleasure (tourists and cross-border shoppers). Those were put in place and expanded under conservative governments. Look at the state benefits Wal-mart workers receive, where the US is actively paying a billionaire family to ship American production jobs overseas to China. Look at the right's obsession with getting people to pay for private healthcare, which is far more expensive per capita than public healthcare, and actively drives people into bankruptcy and suicide. Instead of paying less for the cheaper public option, they'd rather have the government completely fail its duty to force people into buying from their billionaire friends and their companies.
Which conservative presidents are you speaking of?
Deal Addict
Apr 15, 2011
2306 posts
276 upvotes
Scarborough
silky28 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 9:40 pm
The renewables industry is only worth anything because big governments have dumped tons of money into it. Sure, Canada and Ontario have pretty good green sectors...how much of that has come from private investment and how much from government just throwing money at it?
who cares where the investment came from? What difference does it make? Tell me, i'm waiting to hear why you care if it was public or private investment. I prefer public investment much more than private....its one of the reasons Ontario will NEVER elect a conservative party even after all the crap the liberals have done. We wised up to the trash conservative policy of selling out crown assets to private corporations in the Mike Harris days and we're still paying the price for that, and will continue to do so for the next 80 years.

Bottom line, the renewable industry is a juggernaut in Canada and world wide.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
6417 posts
628 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 3:01 am
We wised up to the trash conservative policy of selling out crown assets to private corporations in the Mike Harris days and we're still paying the price for that, and will continue to do so for the next 80 years.

Bottom line, the renewable industry is a juggernaut in Canada and world wide.
I'm laughing so hard I'm actually crying at the moment...
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2576 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 3:01 am
who cares where the investment came from? What difference does it make? Tell me, i'm waiting to hear why you care if it was public or private investment. I prefer public investment much more than private....its one of the reasons Ontario will NEVER elect a conservative party even after all the crap the liberals have done. We wised up to the trash conservative policy of selling out crown assets to private corporations in the Mike Harris days and we're still paying the price for that, and will continue to do so for the next 80 years.

Bottom line, the renewable industry is a juggernaut in Canada and world wide.
You can't really be this dense, can you? For an industry to be worth something it has to create wealth. A government throwing money at an industry does not create new wealth it merely redistributed wealth to a new sector. Like all socialist activities it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And as for Mike Harris...uh...didn't the Liberals just sell of a pretty expensive public utility? And maybe you should do a little more reading on why Harris liquidated assets...it's because Bob Rae so thoroughly bankrupted the province with his spending that the government/schools etc. had to take mandatory days off because the government could not pay. Mike Harris was simply dealing with the legacy the socialist policies of Bob Rae left for him.

At least Harris liquidated assets to pay for other government's mistakes. Wynne liquidates assets to fix her own F*ups.
Deal Addict
Apr 15, 2011
2306 posts
276 upvotes
Scarborough
silky28 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 12:45 pm
You can't really be this dense, can you? For an industry to be worth something it has to create wealth. A government throwing money at an industry does not create new wealth it merely redistributed wealth to a new sector. Like all socialist activities it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And as for Mike Harris...uh...didn't the Liberals just sell of a pretty expensive public utility? And maybe you should do a little more reading on why Harris liquidated assets...it's because Bob Rae so thoroughly bankrupted the province with his spending that the government/schools etc. had to take mandatory days off because the government could not pay. Mike Harris was simply dealing with the legacy the socialist policies of Bob Rae left for him.

At least Harris liquidated assets to pay for other government's mistakes. Wynne liquidates assets to fix her own F*ups.
more hearsay, and BS from right wingers. Robbing peter to pay paul...thats what corporations do on a daily basis, what exactly is the difference--its all a form of redistribution. Corporations just redistribute and skew more to the shareholders and executives while screwing the workers. Government redistributes back to the masses. You sound confused, probably just rehashing sound bites without knowing what your talking about. China will soon become the largest economy in the world--on track to overtaking the US in 5 years time. Their largest corporations are all STATE OWNED. Go through the list of their mammoth companies and they're all owned by the government.

Mike Harris sold the 407 which was built with taxpayer money to a spanish company for $3 billion dollars on a 100 year lease--no I did not make a mistake...he leased it for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Either he was freaking corrupt, incompetent, or out of his mind. 407 made billions of $$ just last year. The original deal was for 30 years...disgusting but far more palatable. Was the idiot that desparate for money, to balance a debt? He could have just issued some bonds like a normal person.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6141 posts
448 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 9:40 pm
The renewables industry is only worth anything because big governments have dumped tons of money into it. Sure, Canada and Ontario have pretty good green sectors...how much of that has come from private investment and how much from government just throwing money at it?
Lots of industries are only worth anything because governments put money into it. Private investors looking for profits will often hold back until they see the new industry up and running. I'm sure you understand the Keynesian inspired concept of stimulus spending.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "green sector" so can't address that.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2576 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 7:40 pm
more hearsay, and BS from right wingers. Robbing peter to pay paul...thats what corporations do on a daily basis, what exactly is the difference--its all a form of redistribution. Corporations just redistribute and skew more to the shareholders and executives while screwing the workers. Government redistributes back to the masses. You sound confused, probably just rehashing sound bites without knowing what your talking about. China will soon become the largest economy in the world--on track to overtaking the US in 5 years time. Their largest corporations are all STATE OWNED. Go through the list of their mammoth companies and they're all owned by the government.

Mike Harris sold the 407 which was built with taxpayer money to a spanish company for $3 billion dollars on a 100 year lease--no I did not make a mistake...he leased it for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Either he was freaking corrupt, incompetent, or out of his mind. 407 made billions of $$ just last year. The original deal was for 30 years...disgusting but far more palatable. Was the idiot that desparate for money, to balance a debt? He could have just issued some bonds like a normal person.
God, more stupidity. Corporations do not redistribute wealth. They taken in money through voluntary engagement that they then share amongst the people who own the company. Corporations do not screw anyone for if you don't like their products or services you do not have to use them; if you don't like the working environment find another job. My wife often complains about her iPhone and iTunes and how you can only use Apple apps etc. etc. etc. I tell her every time that if she does not like Apple she can take her business elsewhere. She recently bought another IPhone.

As for the 407 sure, maybe it was not a great deal. But that quality of the deal is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the principle of selling off government assets. Mike Harris did not invent it, he inherited a dire financial situation that required tough decisions, and the Liberals are selling off assets to cover up the mistakes THEY made. So is your argument that no government asset should ever be sold or merely that only the Liberals should be allowed to sell of profitable asset?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2576 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 11:44 pm
Lots of industries are only worth anything because governments put money into it. Private investors looking for profits will often hold back until they see the new industry up and running. I'm sure you understand the Keynesian inspired concept of stimulus spending.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "green sector" so can't address that.
What does worth anything really mean though? what is the value of something that is totally funded by the government? If an industry produces less GDP than receives in government funding can it be said to be worth anything? You can say the green energy sector in the US is worth $200 billion but until there is $200 billion in private funding the term worth is useless.

Top