May I recommend a war against the recession.

[Machjo]

I'd rather the government just lower interest rates and retrain laid off workers for whatever jobs are created from the drop in interest rates.

If the government absolutely must create jobs, however, then instead of wandering aimlessly, bailing out whatever squeeky wheel asks for greece, which likely will mostly benefit the middle class (i.e. those who buy the most cars), why not create jobs the same way we created them last depression... declare war!

No, no, no, no, no, I'm not referring to a real war with people killing each other and all, but a more metaphorical one. In the last world war, right after the depression, not only had we reached full employment, but even ended up with labour shortages. That was all caused by a war against Nazism.

Now let's suppose we declared another war this time, with equal ferocity. The war on poverty!

Immagine if the Canadian government suddenly gave just as much money to UNICEF as it would to its military if Canada were in an all-out war. How many jobs would that create? Lots.

But wait a minute, UNICEF works abroad, so how would that create jobs for Canadians, you might ask. Simple; the money is Canadian dollars. So as soon as UNICEF spends that money, it will create jobs for Canadians, either directly or indirectly. Even if UNICEF bought not one Canadian product, it would then have to buy the currency of the country it intends to buy from using the billions of Canadian dollars the government would have given it. This would lead to a rapid devaluation of the Canadian dollar which would help our exports, a guaranteed kick start to the economy. And if it buys Canadian, well then it goes without saying that it would create jobs. So either way jobs would be created.

But these jobs would of course be new jobs, so people might still lose their old jobs, but in a hot economy, they'd be sucked up quickly in the new ones. The govenrment could then help by retraining the frictionally unemployed skill-deficient unemployed to fill the new positions in such a booming economy.

Essentially, it would simply involve taking the money we're planning to give to big business and giving it to UNICEF instead. Sorry, bad news is taxes would likely increase and car prices would likely not fall either. But at least we'd be fully employed and paying high taxes for a good cause rather than just to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs with still no guarantee of return and possibly benefitting none other than the producers, seller and buyers in the car industry.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Machjo; The only jobs that government can create are government jobs. Since the government is the largest single employer in the country you would think that this would be a cinch, and really, it is. The problem is that in order for an economy to be dynamic it needs to create wealth. Governments are not in a position to do that, the Soviets tried but failed, Cubans and Chinese are creating wealth in their countries in spite of government, not because of it, (they would have been economic powerhouses long ago if it weren't for government).

Governments have a poor record of prediction, training programs often train workers for jobs that are obsolete or non existant. If they do train people for jobs that are in demand they train far too many for too few jobs, which, because of free market economics, drives the wages down.

War is a great way to drag an economy out of recession, it worked marvelously during WWII. But that was a war, and the massive debt incurred, for which we are still paying, and had been paying, (see history of income taxes) was deemed necessary in exchange for freedom.

I believe there are very few who would wish to go deeper into debt to fight a war on poverty, which is really, in our county, a relative thing. Even abject poverty in the third world isn't motivation enough for those here in danger of losing their home to go further into debt. That's not a fault, just human nature, you protect you own first, others second.

Giving money to big business is wrong, I'm sure Stephen Harper knows it's wrong, but that's politics, it's optics, any other party in a minority government would have done it, but we all know it is just casting pearls to swine.

We won't win against poverty, (as Jesus said, "the poor will always be with us", and I was one of them) we won't win against the terrorists, and we won't win against human nature. Your motivation is honourable, but what you need is patience, help those you can, help those who can help themselves, the numbers may stay the same, but the names attached to the numbers will change.

I've lived through at least 5 economic downturns, they do turn upwards eventually, but invariably the more government intervention the slower the upturn, other than in the declaration of war, real war, we've got enough of that, and we'll be paying for it for some time to come. Be patient.

 

[Toro]

Giving money to UNICEF is about the least effective way to fight the recession. The money spent is being spent outside of Canada. The Canadian dollars which are converted to a foreign currency would most likely just sit in a foreign bank account, most likely as an investment in Canadian government bonds. This doesn't help Canadians at all.

Instead, the best way to fight the recession is to increase aggregate demand in Canada. And that means cutting taxes and increasing government spending on needed infrastructure projects.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

the best way to fight the recession is to increase aggregate demand in Canada. And that means cutting taxes and increasing government spending on needed infrastructure projects.

Although this is desirable, even neccesary for the health of our country, it will not guarantee a recovery of the economy but it would make us stronger. What we are suffering though is merely a correction; unsustainable growth, inflated wages and prices that are not balanced regionally, nationally, or internationally, and some really bad fiscal management, that will hopefully settle down in the next 12 - 18 months.

 

[FUBAR]

Gosh I thought you meant a real war--with all the bangs and booms. Then I thought ,why not. A real war is good for the economy what with all the orders for weapons and tanks etc. And if you conscript the unemployed as they get laid off instead of people who would just be sitting around doing nothing they have a mission and unemployment remains low. And for a good war why not attack the USA.
It's perfect. The troops wouldn't have far to travel, they could go by road thereby avoiding the hazardous ocean invasion risks, everyone speaks the same language(nearly) and most of the American army is in Iraq.
The USA would NEVER expect Canada to invade so it would take them a while to respond and even if victory escapes--well Americans are a forgiving and generous people and Germany and Japan did pretty good out of their war with the USA so it would be a win/win situation. Sort of a victory in winning or losing ....

 

[Machjo]

Machjo; The only jobs that government can create are government jobs. Since the government is the largest single employer in the country you would think that this would be a cinch, and really, it is. The problem is that in order for an economy to be dynamic it needs to create wealth. Governments are not in a position to do that, the Soviets tried but failed, Cubans and Chinese are creating wealth in their countries in spite of government, not because of it, (they would have been economic powerhouses long ago if it weren't for government).

Governments have a poor record of prediction, training programs often train workers for jobs that are obsolete or non existant. If they do train people for jobs that are in demand they train far too many for too few jobs, which, because of free market economics, drives the wages down.

War is a great way to drag an economy out of recession, it worked marvelously during WWII. But that was a war, and the massive debt incurred, for which we are still paying, and had been paying, (see history of income taxes) was deemed necessary in exchange for freedom.

I believe there are very few who would wish to go deeper into debt to fight a war on poverty, which is really, in our county, a relative thing. Even abject poverty in the third world isn't motivation enough for those here in danger of losing their home to go further into debt. That's not a fault, just human nature, you protect you own first, others second.

Giving money to big business is wrong, I'm sure Stephen Harper knows it's wrong, but that's politics, it's optics, any other party in a minority government would have done it, but we all know it is just casting pearls to swine.

We won't win against poverty, (as Jesus said, "the poor will always be with us", and I was one of them) we won't win against the terrorists, and we won't win against human nature. Your motivation is honourable, but what you need is patience, help those you can, help those who can help themselves, the numbers may stay the same, but the names attached to the numbers will change.

I've lived through at least 5 economic downturns, they do turn upwards eventually, but invariably the more government intervention the slower the upturn, other than in the declaration of war, real war, we've got enough of that, and we'll be paying for it for some time to come. Be patient.

I agree there will always be poverty, and no I don't want to go into debt. But if we're going to go into deficit spending anyway with the auto bailout, and it seems more bailouts yet to come, then at least give the money to those who need it, not unionized workers earning well above minimum wage and CEOs!

Giving the money to UNICEF would create just as many jobs but help those who need it most. But hey, that's politics. And imagine, even the NDP (yes, that bastion of hope for the poor, the voice of the pooer, yada yada yada) would rather bail out rich people over the poor. And then the NDP wonders why people like myself sometimes consider voting Conservative (if welfare's going to go to the rich anyway, then give me my money back so I can give it to the poor myself), and why alternatives like the Green Party and the Libertarian party pop up (though they have yet to proove themselves, granted).

Remember Animal Farm where all the pigs and people end up looing the same?

 

[Zzarchov]

You do know you can't "end" poverty right?

Poverty is defined as a ratio, the bottom X percent (I could find out with a quick search).

If you make everyone twice as rich, the same amount is poor. Lets be realisitic here, someone on welfare in Canada in reality lives alot better then a medieval king in terms of wealth.

 

[Kreskin]

If everyone got more money across the board, inflation would create a new poverty benchmark.

 

[JLM]

If everyone got more money across the board, inflation would create a new poverty benchmark.

Absolutely, plus it would just deflate the value of the dollar.

 

[Said1]

In response to UNICEF:

The government would be better of donating the money in the form of aid to a developing nations with the stipulation that they spend the money in Canada - like they do now.

 

[Machjo]

Giving money to UNICEF is about the least effective way to fight the recession. The money spent is being spent outside of Canada. The Canadian dollars which are converted to a foreign currency would most likely just sit in a foreign bank account, most likely as an investment in Canadian government bonds. This doesn't help Canadians at all.

No, UNICEF is not the most effective way to create jobs, but by no means the least either. The fact that the money is spent outside of Canada is irrelevant since that simply pushes the value of the Canadian dollar down. And no UNICEF would not just through the money in a bank. UNICEF is not an investment company, it's a development organization, so other than some money saved up for a rainy day, which is reasonable, it would spend most of its money on schools, medical care, providing food and shelter, etc.

[/quote]Instead, the best way to fight the recession is to increase aggregate demand in Canada. And that means cutting taxes and increasing government spending on needed infrastructure projects.[/quote]

Well, if we're going to be bailing out CEO's with personal jets and highly paid workers, then I'd rather the tax cut, but if we're going to increase spending, then I'd rather increase my taxes along with it.

As for infrastructure, it depends on what kind of infrastructure you're referring to. If it means building highway after highway LA style, then no. Then I'd rather just give to UNICEF.

If on the other hand, we adopt certain criteria, then yes. These are some of the criteria I'd be looking for in an infrastructure project. It would have to meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. It benefits children.
2. It benefits the less fortunate.
3. It benefits the environment.

Some examples of infrastructure that could meet these criteria could include the following:

Building solar-powered pedestrian tunnels and bicycle tunnels. They could provide ventilation in summer and heat in winter. They could also connect all elementary schools and secondary schools to main roads. This would allow not only children to walk and cycle to school more quickly and safely (some of these tunnels could even go underground or be elevated above main roads), but could do so year-round, rain, shine, storm, hot or freezing. Teachers could use these paths too, and of course anyone else who wants to use them to get to their destination. After all, though the tunnels could connect schools, they would likely pass by various other residences, shops, restaurants, parks etc. and so would be beneficial for any pedestrian or cyclist, especially in less-than-ideal weather conditions.

They would also encourage more walking and cycling year-round, thus helping the environment and improving general health. They would also help the poor who can't afford cars.

Developping our telecommunications infrastructure. This could encourage more people to communicate via the internet, possibly encouraging more telecommuting and conferencing, which woudl help to take more cars off the roads and save people and companies money.

Spin off industries from these projects:

Direct spinoffs: cement, solar panels, fiber-optics.

Indirect spinoffs: shoes, bicycles

Savings: medical costs owing to improved health and reduced pollution levels in larger urban areas.

 

[Machjo]

You do know you can't "end" poverty right?

Poverty is defined as a ratio, the bottom X percent (I could find out with a quick search).

If you make everyone twice as rich, the same amount is poor. Lets be realisitic here, someone on welfare in Canada in reality lives alot better then a medieval king in terms of wealth.

Of course I'm aware of this. So that would be an argument in favour of giving to UNICEF, wouldn't it? We can't end poverty, but we could end the extremes of wealth and poverty. It would be possible to create a world comprising the moderately rich and moderately poor, which is different from now with the extremely rich and the extremely poor.

 

[JLM]

"Machjo; The only jobs that government can create are government jobs. Since the government is the largest single employer in the country you would think that this would be a cinch, and really, it is. The problem is that in order for an economy to be dynamic it needs to create wealth." There are only two basic ways of creating wealth, by mining something or killing something.

 

[Machjo]

If everyone got more money across the board, inflation would create a new poverty benchmark.

Of course, but if we give the money to the auto industry, same result, the difference being that the money given goes to auto execs and highly paid union workers. Like I said in the original post. I'd rather the government not bail out, but clearly that's what the idiots of the country want, so if it must be that way, then at least give the money to the poor so that they'll be able to withstand the inflation.

 

[Machjo]

In response to UNICEF:

The government would be better of donating the money in the form of aid to a developing nations with the stipulation that they spend the money in Canada - like they do now.

Yes, and that has resulted in considerable waste. Among some of the 'brilliant' 'investments' of CIDA (a government make-work and international PR scheme marketting itself as a federal aid agency) include:

A tractor donation. This was under Trudeau years ago, but gives an idea of how it works. The tractor industry was in recession at the time, so they decided to buy a bunch of tractors to give to people in what country I forget, but they couldn't buy the friggin parts if the tractor broke down, couldn't afford gas for the tractor, etc. So guess what, ten years later all the tractors were rusting in the fields.

A water pump. Now this was in some African country. Some Canadian 'experts' went out to build a water pump for a community in Africa in need of water, but neglescted to consult the local 'savages'. As it turned out these locals beleived that the spirits of their ancestors lived in the ground, so would refuse to drink water that would come out of the ground. So after figuring out the problem, these 'experts' had to spend money again to build condensation sieves.

Food donation. On another occasion, CIDA wanted to get rid of excess Canadian food, so dumped it on Haiti I think it was. The local farmers were pissed off and nearly lost their businesses, which could have made the country even more dependent.

English textbooks fro China. These books don't benefit the poor Chinese at all. It's the middle class Chinese that benefit from this project.

So if we're going to give money in aid that way, then please, just cut our taxes and let us give it out of our own pockets, no strings attached. And if you refuse to do that, then let's not give any money at all and just develop Canada instead, because such politically laden 'aid' is a pure waste of money.

 

[Machjo]

"Machjo; The only jobs that government can create are government jobs. Since the government is the largest single employer in the country you would think that this would be a cinch, and really, it is. The problem is that in order for an economy to be dynamic it needs to create wealth." There are only two basic ways of creating wealth, by mining something or killing something.

JLM, that quote isn't from me. Check again. Plese be careful when you quote.

 

[JLM]

JLM, that quote isn't from me. Check again. Plese be careful when you quote.

I never thought I did, I was quoting bobnoorduyn

 

[darkbeaver]

Guaranteed Anual Income (GAI) would eliminate the worst of poverty and exact a better distribution of wealth, of course nothing will work leaving the present capitalist model in place. We need most of all radical change in economics and governance.
This economic downturn (freefall) is already in the early stages of depression and the following war is already set in motion. Canadians have been working away at it for decades, Hati and Afghanistan are our two most hienous crimes against humanity and our national part in the crime of global domination both economically and militarily.

 

[Machjo]

Guaranteed Anual Income (GAI) would eliminate the worst of poverty and exact a better distribution of wealth, of course nothing will work leaving the present capitalist model in place. We need most of all radical change in economics and governance..

GAI. I know the Green party was proposing that, but I have mixed feelings about it.

On the plus side, it could eliminate alot of government buraucracy. For instance, a person who really needs assistance but for whatever reason lacks a certain document or other, or for whatever other reason, can't qualify for assistance, which just waste's people's time. Also, a person who needs help might in fact just need financial help and nothing more. Give him enough money to get back on his, feet, and he'll go out to take the exact courses he needs with this money to get himself back into the workforce. I know in Ottawa for instance, a poor person who suddenly decides to move across the bridge into Gatineau would suddenly get his assistance cut off because he'd be in another province, just more headaches and buraucracy, and more risk of falling between the cracks.

But on the down side, what if money makes his situation worse? Let's say he's a drug addict, or has an arcade addict, gambling addict, sex addict seeing prostitutes, etc. Then giving him money would not help him at all. He needs not financial help, but more personal assistance. In this case, rather than give him money, we'd need to figure out what got him into the problem in the first place.

So I'll acknowledge some arguments in favour of it, but I'm hesitant to support it.

Now that's one reason I'd support free education for all. It helps people get back on their feet but not by giving them money directly. Providing food and board directly could also prevent public funds from going into feeding addictions.

So yes, I'd lean more in favour of the govenrment giving the poor not one cent, but rather provide them with the room and board and clothing, etc. that they need while providing them with free education or whatever other service they need directly.

This is not because I don't want to pay taxes for them. On the contrary, I have no qualms about paying taxes to help my fellow man. But I want to ensure that money goes towards helping them, not harming them.

[/quote]This economic downturn (freefall) is already in the early stages of depression[/quote]

Possibility, not not a certainty yet.

.[/quote]and the following war is already set in motion. Canadians have been working away at it for decades, Hati and Afghanistan are our two most hienous crimes against humanity.[/quote]

What about Canada's participation in the Boer Wars in South Africa? What about our residential schools?

[/quote] and our national part in the crime of global domination both economically and militarily.[/quote]

Economically, I have to agree. CIDA, which is supposed to help people, is actually investing in 'aid' programmes in China that will benefit Canada more than it will China in the end, ironically enough. In fact, it will likely impoverish China even more. The plus side is that since China is so cheap, it will still grow in spite of Canadian 'aid', but not because of it. Rather the Canadian 'aid' is merely hindering China.

I could agree with liquidating CIDA. That would be a good move. Let UNICEF or some other organization deal with that.

Militarily, I don't know for sure. Military intervention to help another country could be a good thing. Is Canada's military benefitting or harming Afghanisatan and Haiti? I don't know enough to determine that.

I have to say that while I don't necessarily oppose socialism (depending on how that money is spent), I tend to lean more towards capitalism, though not dogmatically so. Lately though, it appears that govenrments, including the NDP make no mistake about it, would rather give to corporate welfare than help the most needy. If that's the case, then certainly I'd rather you just cut my taxes and I'll give it myself thank you very much.

 

[Toro]

No, UNICEF is not the most effective way to create jobs, but by no means the least either. The fact that the money is spent outside of Canada is irrelevant since that simply pushes the value of the Canadian dollar down. And no UNICEF would not just through the money in a bank. UNICEF is not an investment company, it's a development organization, so other than some money saved up for a rainy day, which is reasonable, it would spend most of its money on schools, medical care, providing food and shelter, etc.

I am sorry, but this is simply incorrect. It would be great for the countries where the money is spent but it would do nothing for Canada. In fact, it would be counter-productive and damage the economy since resources are leaving the country. Dollars spent outside the country not only have no effect within the country, it drains capital out. Taking money outside the country drains investment and jobs from the country.

The money that would be spent on UNICEF would, indeed, be spent. But there is no multiplier effect in Canada. If you are counting on Canadian dollars being recycled back into the country, then what will happen is that banks will sit on the Canadian dollars until the credit markets unfreeze.