Off Topic

Rail Line repair - $60,000 per person

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 13th, 2017 11:49 pm
Deal Addict
Dec 19, 2009
2500 posts
881 upvotes
The First Nations group are the only REAL Canadians ... everyone else is a mixed breed like Canadian/European or Canadian/African etc etc.To be a little more PC you could say that they should be European/North American, African/ North American but I doubt the Yanks would go along with that.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3438 posts
195 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 3:53 pm
Subsidize?. We should be paying more to help aboriginals live a better life. People have already stole so much stuff from them. We live in Canada, wether we like it or not we have to share that responsibility.

We should be giving them a massive chunk of royalties from industries like maple syrup and tar sands. This alone would pay for alot of their needs.

Aboriginals figured out how to make maple syrup. The maple syrup industry doesnt even allow other people to sell their own anymore without being threatened with a lawsuit.
How much more should be be paying them then they are already getting?

Moreover, consider this: what would be the standard of living of aboriginals today if North America had not been colonized by Europeans? Would it be anything close to what they enjoy today?
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7189 posts
239 upvotes
CheapScotch wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 5:57 pm
How much more should be be paying them then they are already getting?

Moreover, consider this: what would be the standard of living of aboriginals today if North America had not been colonized by Europeans? Would it be anything close to what they enjoy today?
That is a wrong question.

Its about sharing the profits generated from their land. The amount of profit generated in the last 50 years alone from the two industries I mentioned would pay to help their community.

The cost of this rail line repair is nothing to the amount of wealth that other people took from the aboriginals.
what would be the standard of living of aboriginals today if North America had not been colonized by Europeans?


Umm they would probably be very happy?. That is why they fought so hard to keep it. Their way of life have been working for them for thousands of years. But I dont want to go off topic.

The point is, people shouldnt be crying about subsidizing their communities. If anything our focus should be taxing the heck out of corporations so they can pay for all these cost.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Addict
Sep 9, 2010
2939 posts
2106 upvotes
Burnaby
Churchill has been in the past a navy and an air force base. It still has remnants of that infrastructure in a viable state. It also has a railroad (neglected but repairable) to those and to access the Canadian Arctic [cue: Northern Passage] by land, with cheaper freight costs (unlike sea and aerial freight), letting Churchill act as a hub (in a hub and spokes logistic center for existing Arctic settlements and future armed forces bases). There's an strategic benefit on having a land connection to a port in the Arctic.

People tend to forget that a big chunk of Canadian wealth and city-dwellers comfort comes from those isolated sparsely populated territories. For example, from the Alberta Tar Sands, Hydro Quebec northern power plants, mining projects all over Canada, big tracts of agricultural land, etc.

Qualifying that railroad investment on a per capita basis of just one of the settlements served is not quite an appropriate metric as to whether that investment is sound or not. Saying that city dwellers provide the bulk of the Canadian budget is something that needs a more serious examination, as well.

People in the contiguous US states had similar opinions when the US bought Alaska: what a waste of money for a bunch of useless land sparsely populated mostly by aboriginals!. I bet some in Denmark hold the same opinion regarding the amounts of money that Denmark spends on Greenland. Alaska already proved to be a sound investment (economically and strategically). Considering how large Greenland is, it's probably going to be profitable as well. Same goes for the railroads constructed to reach and serve "empty" "unprofitable" lands in the American pacific and central areas one or two centuries ago.
yare yare daze...

[space reserved for peddling, shilling, self-promotion and advertising]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3438 posts
195 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 6:10 pm
That is a wrong question.

Its about sharing the profits generated from their land. The amount of profit generated in the last 50 years alone from the two industries I mentioned would pay to help their community.

The cost of this rail line repair is nothing to the amount of wealth that other people took from the aboriginals.
OK, let me ask you a couple of other questions: Do you own real estate here in Canada? If so, would you be prepared to return it to aboriginals because it was unjustly taken from them a few centuries ago?
kevindurant1 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 6:10 pm
Umm they would probably be very happy?. That is why they fought so hard to keep it. Their way of life have been working for them for thousands of years. But I dont want to go off topic.

The point is, people shouldn't be crying about subsidizing their communities. If anything our focus should be taxing the heck out of corporations so they can pay for all these cost.
It would not be difficult for aboriginals, or anyone else in Canada for that matter, to live like the First Nations people in pre-Columbian North America. We have plenty of land out there, a fair distance from modern civilization, from modern luxuries, health care, education, etc. And yet, very few people chose to live like this ....... how curious.
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2394 posts
974 upvotes
So kind of like how the rest of Ontario shouldn't have to subsidize transit and social programs or highways in the GTA?
Deal Addict
Sep 9, 2010
2939 posts
2106 upvotes
Burnaby
Manitoba's surface area is approx. 650,000km2. Rehabilitating that railroad would give land access to around 1/4th of Manitoba (MB East and coastal NE) and part of NW Ontario among other regions [even a larger Arctic area if a sea leg is included]. That's a huge area benefiting from that railroad.

BTW, why are people discussing First Nations? Only around half the population in Churchill is of FN origin. That should be the last issue to discuss about [i.e., the least relevant].

I guess people forget that without proper land access the Athabasca Tar Sands would have never been developed in Alberta [IINM, this area was once considered a remote sparsely populated FN land -- guess who got subsidized transportation infrastructure: the big corps or the indigenous people living there?]. Just an analog situation to think about.
yare yare daze...

[space reserved for peddling, shilling, self-promotion and advertising]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4787 posts
349 upvotes
daivey wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 10:00 am
it was accessible, when the government subsidized the corporation that went and built the mines to pilfer resources at very low cost....

they then lobbied the government for funds to help build a community to get workers.

the workers, went up there and settled in... they brought their families and devoted their time and energy to start a life.

then the corporation decided it wasn't profitable enough any more.. So they pulled out..

now the rail line is neglected and the govenrment doesn't care...

so the families are trapped.

SO NOW You say, WHY SHOULD WE SUBSIDIZE THEM???[..]
You answered your own question. "It's not profitable enough anymore". The families are not trapped, they can move. According to you, they chose to move in the first place. Nobody forced them. If the government was stupid enough to subsidize a corporation without expecting returns (I doubt it), then it was their own fault.

The government should subsidize neither corporation nor individuals. They should invest. So far, I have yet to see a single person make a good business case to prove that paying that $60M would bring benefits to Canada. If you can prove to me that in 10 years, that $60M would result in $120M return to the tax payers, then I would gladly change my position.
konfusion666 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 1:10 pm
In that case, maybe Canada as a whole shouldn't exist? From a "technical" point of view, this country is set up very inefficiently, with very low population density - unlike places like Singapore, Europe, Hong Kong, etc.

Is that not what you believe?
There's nothing "technical" about it. It is very simple. Everybody has the freedom to live wherever they want as long as they are not subsidize by others. Is Canada being subsidized by Singapore, Europe or HK?

Canada should exist because we are productive enough to be viable without subsidy. If this place can do it too, then great, they have every right to be there and they can repair that rail themselves. If not, then too bad.

The minute we are no longer "profitable", Canada would start to die as it should. If the entire human race got out competed by some other species, then there's no reason for human race to survive. It's called natural selection. It has been happening for billions of years.
Pete_Coach wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 3:28 pm
Aboriginals too?
What aboriginals? There was no indigenous humans in North America. In fact, if you believe the scientists, there was no indigenous human being anywhere other than a small piece of land in Africa. We are all immigrants who moved to a certain place by our own free will. As we evolved, the stronger cultures survived, the weaker ones perished. This was true among the so called "indigenous people" as well and they didn't spend $60M so that the tribes they destroyed would continue to live comfortably. That how natural selection work with humans. That's how natural selection work with communities as well. The "profitable" communities strive, the "non profitable" communities die so that resources can be allocated to more profitable communities. It's not some god or strong man who decide who survives and who doesn't. It's nature and competition.
kevindurant1 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 3:53 pm
Subsidize?. We should be paying more to help aboriginals live a better life. People have already stole so much stuff from them. We live in Canada, wether we like it or not we have to share that responsibility.

We should be giving them a massive chunk of royalties from industries like maple syrup and tar sands. This alone would pay for alot of their needs.

Aboriginals figured out how to make maple syrup. The maple syrup industry doesnt even allow other people to sell their own anymore without being threatened with a lawsuit.
We didn't steal, we out competed them. We had better weapons, technologies and we had a more advanced culture that enabled a thing called science. Our science defeated their gods.

And do you honest believe that this wasn't true before we came? The "aboriginal" tribes have been killing others for centuries if not millenniums. When was the last time they showed any mercy towards the tribes they conquered?
Last edited by MrDisco on Jul 30th, 2017 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: quote has been edited
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4787 posts
349 upvotes
konfusion666 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 1:13 pm
+1

we should also disband the police, firemen, and ambulance services.

if people want to defend themselves, buy a gun or rocket launcher. if you don't want your house to catch fire, stop building it out of wood. and stop eating unhealthy foods and you won't have a heart attack and need ambulance services.

the savings on my taxes will be immense!

/s
You are confusing subsidy and investments. Police services lower crime, which increase productivity, which would result in higher tax revenues, thus they are good investments. I have yet to see anybody making a good business case for this $60M, so it's not an investment, but a subsidy. Would we ever get that $60M back?

That does not mean I support police services unconditionally. They need to continuously prove that they can bring benefits to Canada, if not now then in the future, otherwise they are not worth investing.
Sr. Member
Apr 12, 2012
756 posts
167 upvotes
Toronto
The Indian Act is a total disaster. They should stop giving free money to people with the Indian Card and integrate them to be full Canadians instead. This two-tier system is non-sense.
The simplest acts of kindness are by far more powerful than a thousand heads bowing in prayer.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Deal Addict
Sep 9, 2010
2939 posts
2106 upvotes
Burnaby
Talking about (undeserved) subsidies that are not investments but handouts, this little example from Ontario: Hydro rate-cut will ultimately cost $21B, watchdog warns
In a 15-page report released Wednesday, Financial Accountability Officer Stephen LeClair said the scheme will cost the province $45 billion over the next 29 years while saving ratepayers $24 billion for a $21-billion net expense.

But LeClair warned his estimates are only applicable if “the province is able to achieve and maintain a balanced budget over 29 years.” The cost of the subsidy could balloon to between $69 billion and $93 billion if the government has to borrow to pay for it.
-------
Interesting article from Maclean's: How Ottawa abandoned our only Arctic port
China is increasingly active in the Arctic; for them, the northern maritime route to Europe is about 6,000 km shorter. Beijing has yet to recognize Ottawa’s sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, which many believe will become increasingly important due to global warming and melting ice. Perhaps this is understandable. The Canadian North is the same size as the European Union but with a population of only 118,000 people—less than the city of Guelph, Ont.

Earlier this year Beijing published a shipping guidebook to Canada’s North, with detailed information on sea ice and weather, and announced it intends to transport cargo through the archipelago soon. China has refused to say whether it will ask Canada’s permission or not.
yare yare daze...

[space reserved for peddling, shilling, self-promotion and advertising]
Sr. Member
User avatar
May 22, 2016
817 posts
134 upvotes
Ontario
kevindurant1 wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 3:53 pm
Subsidize?. We should be paying more to help aboriginals live a better life. People have already stole so much stuff from them. We live in Canada, wether we like it or not we have to share that responsibility.

We should be giving them a massive chunk of royalties from industries like maple syrup and tar sands. This alone would pay for alot of their needs.

Aboriginals figured out how to make maple syrup. The maple syrup industry doesnt even allow other people to sell their own anymore without being threatened with a lawsuit.
I reall think this is one of the most insulting things I have ever heard about natives. Their best contribution was maple syrup?
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28238 posts
4204 upvotes
Ottawa
Archanfel wrote:
Jul 30th, 2017 10:29 pm
You ........


What aboriginals? There was no indigenous humans in North America. In fact, if you believe the scientists, there was no indigenous human being anywhere other than a small piece of land in Africa. We are all immigrants who moved to a certain place by our own free will. As we evolved, the stronger cultures survived, the weaker ones perished. This was true among the so called "indigenous people" as well and they didn't spend $60M so that the tribes they destroyed would continue to live comfortably. That how natural selection work with humans. That's how natural selection work with communities as well. The "profitable" communities strive, the "non profitable" communities die so that resources can be allocated to more profitable communities. It's not some god or strong man who decide who survives and who doesn't. It's nature and competition.


.........
Whew, I only asked "Aboriginals too?" to the question "What's the point of living in a place that is not accessible? If they made the choice, why should others subsidize them? "
Sure didn't expect or require an anthropology lecture :)
Is it solipsistic here? Or is it just me?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 24, 2007
1384 posts
189 upvotes
This is what is wrong with with the North America these days, hemorrhaging money on obsolete infrastructure that serves a small fraction of the populace negating the mass transit economies of scale trickle down economics of the industrial centers. $60 mill on a crappy repair line for 900 people?! Let let them walk for christ sakes or buy them second hand cars.

I lived in the PRC last year and saw with my own eyes the massive spending multiplier effects of HSR in the movement of the mass populace for work, business, tourism and industry. 22, 000 kms already built connecting all the major cities with another 22K in the next 15 years to connect all cities in China. All the trains were packed and ran on time as a Swiss watch, quite and efficient, I slept better on them than any other modes of transport used before, no turbulence no sudden jutters.

The new Fuxing bullet trains are up to 400 km/h with 350 km/h sustained speed.

Image

Image

Image

Image

They even have plans now for a transcontinental HSR to Europe:

Image

America and Canada need to wake the F' up because the East has already left us in the dust by 10K miles, when you realize: HSR is in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and soon to be in freakin poor Thailand, in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia with China accounting for 60% of all HSR on the planet. Where has all our tax money gone to? Yeah, $60 mill for junk to no where.
Penalty Box
Aug 26, 2001
15801 posts
469 upvotes
Oak Ridges, ON
You think Canada needs high-speed rail? The two main English-speaking cities are Vancouver and Toronto - do you have any idea how much a bullet train from Vancouver to Toronto would cost?
Even your precious Chinese would struggle to get a bullet train through the Rockies :D

Top