If spending must increase, onwhat should it increase, and on what not?


Machjo
#1
What are your ideas on this? If spending must increase, where would you want the money to go?

In my mind, here are some areas where I think the govt should NOT spend:

The auto industry (enough cars and congestion on the road already!)
The banking system (any increase in spending, be it direct or indirect, will benefit the banks either way, so why dirct spending on banks that will benefit the banks only?)
The military (why not promote more alliances and military cooperation rather than promote wasteful redundancies in the system by having each nation spend individually. Too redundant. Why not share forces as much as possible.)

Official bilingualism (considering that Statscan statistics from 2006 show that the vast majority fo Canadians on both sides of the language divide failed to learn their second official language in spite of billions in provincial and federal government funding and compulsory second-language classes throughout the land, it's time to face the facts and accept that English and French are just too difficult for most Canadians as second languages).

Infrastructure for personal gas-powered vehicles (e.g. roads and highways) (too many roads already)

Where I would support spending:

Education (it's the backbone of democracy after all. Do we really want ignorant voters at the polls?)

Research into second-language acquisition policies (as the world shrinks, international communication will become increasingly expensive, yet with statistics showing that few in Canada succeed in learning their second language well, we need to research more efficient ways to increase the rate of bilingualism but at reasonable cost)

Resource-friendly infrastructure if necessary (e.g. bicycle paths connecting residential areas to business centres, etc.)

Your thoughts? What should we be increasing spending on, and what not?
 
missile
Conservative
#2
Water treatment facilities...most of our cities need these but can't afford them. Roads,too,because most of all our goods travel from one city to the others by trucks..also,bridges, tunnels, etc. need repairing and upgrading.
 
scratch
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by missile View Post

Water treatment facilities...most of our cities need these but can't afford them. Roads,too,because most of all our goods travel from one city to the others by trucks..also,bridges, tunnels, etc. need repairing and upgrading.

Are you willing to accept property tax increases to repair the aforesaid?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

What are your ideas on this? If spending must increase, where would you want the money to go?

In my mind, here are some areas where I think the govt should NOT spend:

The auto industry (enough cars and congestion on the road already!)
The banking system (any increase in spending, be it direct or indirect, will benefit the banks either way, so why dirct spending on banks that will benefit the banks only?)
The military (why not promote more alliances and military cooperation rather than promote wasteful redundancies in the system by having each nation spend individually. Too redundant. Why not share forces as much as possible.)


Official bilingualism (considering that Statscan statistics from 2006 show that the vast majority fo Canadians on both sides of the language divide failed to learn their second official language in spite of billions in provincial and federal government funding and compulsory second-language classes throughout the land, it's time to face the facts and accept that English and French are just too difficult for most Canadians as second languages).

Infrastructure for personal gas-powered vehicles (e.g. roads and highways) (too many roads already)

Where I would support spending:

Education (it's the backbone of democracy after all. Do we really want ignorant voters at the polls?)

Research into second-language acquisition policies (as the world shrinks, international communication will become increasingly expensive, yet with statistics showing that few in Canada succeed in learning their second language well, we need to research more efficient ways to increase the rate of bilingualism but at reasonable cost)

Resource-friendly infrastructure if necessary (e.g. bicycle paths connecting residential areas to business centres, etc.)

Your thoughts? What should we be increasing spending on, and what not?

Number one would have to be paying down the debt, the absolute last thing would be bailing out failed businesses (better to give a tax break to people or a cash rebate to people who stimulate the economy by spending on such things as new "green" vehicles or "green" home construction/renovations).
 
missile
Conservative
#5
They're going up ,especially the water rates as our systems are hopelessly out of date. in fact, much of our crap flows directly into our harbour.
 
Machjo
#6
As for taxes, I tend to believe in a mixture of user pay, proportional and progressive taxes, but I tend to lean more in favour of user pay.

Why not have the government sell petrol on crown land at higher cost to companies. This would drive the cost of petrol up, and that would promote wiser use fo a limited resource. Same with any natural non-renewable resource on crown land. The govt has a responsibility not to sell it off at bargain prices.
 
scratch
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

As for taxes, I tend to believe in a mixture of user pay, proportional and progressive taxes, but I tend to lean more in favour of user pay.

Why not have the government sell petrol on crown land at higher cost to companies. This would drive the cost of petrol up, and that would promote wiser use fo a limited resource. Same with any natural non-renewable resource on crown land. The govt has a responsibility not to sell it off at bargain prices.

Do you have a buffer full of fluff as well?
 
Machjo
#8
I believe the following ought to take priority before any consideration of increased spending:

0 interest rates for the bank of Canada
0 inflation
0 debt

Increased spending ought to be a last resort. And if it must go up, then it must be done wisely.
 
scratch
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I believe the following ought to take priority before any consideration of increased spending:

0 interest rates for the bank of Canada
0 inflation
0 debt

Increased spending ought to be a last resort. And if it must go up, then it must be done wisely.

No....?
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Do you have a buffer full of fluff as well?

What?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I believe the following ought to take priority before any consideration of increased spending:

0 interest rates for the bank of Canada
0 inflation
0 debt

Increased spending ought to be a last resort. And if it must go up, then it must be done wisely.

I agree with 2 out of 3- not bad- but with zero inflation the Unions would be screaming.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I agree with 2 out of 3- not bad- but with zero inflation the Unions would be screaming.

Let 'em scream. It's in their best interest anyway. What's the point of giving them a raise that will be worth nothing a year later?

Would it not be the same as no raise but the same value for money down the road? Then educate the Unions. That's why we need to increase spending on educaiton. If unions can't even see their own best interest in this, that's sad. What does that say of education in Canada?
 
scratch
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I agree with 2 out of 3- not bad- but with zero inflation the Unions would be screaming.

Legislate unions out of existence.
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Legislate unions out of existence.

I could agree with that (after all, cooperation between labour and management is much more efficient than conflict). On the other hand, to ensure that management can't abuse this advantage, we'd have to introduce some kind of system giving labour some kind of voting and running rights in a company to compensate.
 
scratch
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I could agree with that (after all, cooperation between labour and management is much more efficient than conflict). On the other hand, to ensure that management can't abuse this advantage, we'd have to introduce some kind of system giving labour some kind of voting and running rights in a company to compensate.

So` what is the answer to that `
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Let 'em scream. It's in their best interest anyway. What's the point of giving them a raise that will be worth nothing a year later?

Would it not be the same as no raise but the same value for money down the road? Then educate the Unions. That's why we need to increase spending on educaiton. If unions can't even see their own best interest in this, that's sad. What does that say of education in Canada?

My sentiments exactly.
 
Machjo
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

So` what is the answer to that `

I don't know exactly, but I'll give it a try. I suppose we have no right to criticize unless we present an alternative, however crude it might be, so here goes:

This is just a brainstorm for now, and maybe someone else has a better idea, but what about this:

Labour and owners (or shareholders) get to vote for a committee of let's say at least nine members. They all get a blank ballot on which they're to write nine names of any owner (or shareholder) of worker in the company. The nine names that appear most frequently form the committee for one year, and this committe would make the decisions by either a simple majority or at least five votes, whichever is the greater number. Of course the owners would hold the puse strings however and would be free to invest in or take investments out of the company at will. Clearly when workers are irrisponsible, they might find investment dwindling quickly. And when they do well, investors would invest more. So this would still provide checks and balances.

This could also work with the government. When public service employees are irresponsible, the govt could just take the money out of those offices and put it elsewhere. So yes, the workers would be given power over non-financial decisions, but when they go too far, money can still be withdrawn.

This I think would be a nice balance.
 
rd1331
No Party Affiliation
#18
You cannot have 0 Inflation, the economy would collapse. Although sounds good but would be horrible for Canada. The reason is this. If Canada had 0 inflation and the rest of the world had say the average of 3% then every year the Canadian dollar would be worth less and less money. Which would ruin the economy and in the end cause an inflation rate higher than 3% so that prices and the value of our currency would catchup to the rest of the world. Sounds great but wouldn't work. Debt, for sure lets get it to 0, probability, a long long time, but you have to have a goal.

Also 0 Interest rates for the Bank of Canada wouldn't work economically aswell. Although again the idea is great it wouldn't work in a Capatalist sociaty and I don't want to go down the non-democratic route that it would work under.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Legislate unions out of existence.

Okay....

while you are at it, why don't you legislate religious meetings, political parties, professional associations, and special interest groups out of existence....

Ever hear of the right to assemble, the right of association?

Your solution is very popular in your average fascist state.....

My God, you people don't even have a clue how much of your wealth and freedom you owe to unions......and with the centralization of capital, the growing power of corporations, the stagnation of real-wealth growth of all but the most rich, the increasing gap in wealth.....unions are even more significant and necessary.

You'd cut your own throat.

I've been a union man all my life, I have no understanding of anti-union hatred.

Yes, sometimes they get carried away.......I'd be the first to admit that.

But we are a much better society with unions than without unions.
 
scratch
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by rd1331 View Post

You cannot have 0 Inflation, the economy would collapse. Although sounds good but would be horrible for Canada. The reason is this. If Canada had 0 inflation and the rest of the world had say the average of 3% then every year the Canadian dollar would be worth less and less money. Which would ruin the economy and in the end cause an inflation rate higher than 3% so that prices and the value of our currency would catchup to the rest of the world. Sounds great but wouldn't work. Debt, for sure lets get it to 0, probability, a long long time, but you have to have a goal.

Also 0 Interest rates for the Bank of Canada wouldn't work economically aswell. Although again the idea is great it wouldn't work in a Capatalist sociaty and I don't want to go down the non-democratic route that it would work under.

...and you just said what?
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by rd1331 View Post

You cannot have 0 Inflation, the economy would collapse. Although sounds good but would be horrible for Canada. The reason is this. If Canada had 0 inflation and the rest of the world had say the average of 3% then every year the Canadian dollar would be worth less and less money. Which would ruin the economy and in the end cause an inflation rate higher than 3% so that prices and the value of our currency would catchup to the rest of the world. Sounds great but wouldn't work. Debt, for sure lets get it to 0, probability, a long long time, but you have to have a goal.

Also 0 Interest rates for the Bank of Canada wouldn't work economically aswell. Although again the idea is great it wouldn't work in a Capatalist sociaty and I don't want to go down the non-democratic route that it would work under.

Of course the Canadian economy is adicted to inflation, and so tough love would be needed, granted. As for the Canadian dollar re other currencies, it would INCREASE in value, not decrease. Common sense.

This could work even in a leftist government that was prepared to practice tough love. It could still increase funding for education, etc., but would have to get it from higher taxes rather than unstable inflation. This is possibly why inflationis so popular. It's a way to increase spending without having to be honest as to its real cost. If a government was prepared to be honest, and the people were willing to pay higher taxes for services rather than just have the govt print money, it could work. It's just the govenrment would have to work harder to convince the people to accept such tax increases. Clearly inflation is easier politically in spite of its harm.

Believe it or not, I'm left-learning myself, but I'm wht we might call an economically conservative leftist (i.e. help the poor, but honestly by making the cost obvious to the taxpayer who must be prepared to accept this) . this is democracy after all, and the electorate has the right to know.
 
rd1331
No Party Affiliation
#22
You cannot have a sustained inflation rate of 0%. Sorry should have explained it better.
Think of it this way. Canada has a sustained inflation rate of 0%. All the other countries average 3%, lets say there is a global currancy called the UN dollar, or whatever. Lets talk one product. Lets say Coke and it sells for $1 Canadian today and $1 US today. Also lets say Coke is based out of the US and its price is attached to the global market. On the global market the price stays the same. So next year a coke, still worth $1 UN, now costs us 1.03 canadian. Then next year 1.06 canadian and such. You can see where it goes. So every year Canada would have an inflation rate brought on by the global economy. Unfortunately/Fortunately, we have to think global now, and you can not make a dramatic change like 0 inflation without huge consequences.

The 0 Interest rate is a lot more complicated so let me think of a better way to explain it.
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Okay....

while you are at it, why don't you legislate religious meetings, political parties, professional associations, and special interest groups out of existence....

Ever hear of the right to assemble, the right of association?

Your solution is very popular in your average fascist state.....

My God, you people don't even have a clue how much of your wealth and freedom you owe to unions......and with the centralization of capital, the growing power of corporations, the stagnation of real-wealth growth of all but the most rich, the increasing gap in wealth.....unions are even more significant and necessary.

You'd cut your own throat.

I've been a union man all my life, I have no understanding of anti-union hatred.

Yes, sometimes they get carried away.......I'd be the first to admit that.

But we are a much better society with unions than without unions.

If the argument is freedom, then how about this: let unions exist de facto, but not officially or de jure. In other words, they can exist and they can strike, but strikers can get fired for contract violation. That way we have freedom on all sides. But with this, individual workers should be free to join or not join the union too. And in combinaiton with the option I proposed above, or some similar option, the purpose of the union would become obsolete and so it would disappear anyway. But I suppose you're right. we shouldn't legislate them out of existence; we should just render them redundant instead, with the same result.
 
rd1331
No Party Affiliation
#24
Inflation is a global issue. OPEC will continue a very unstable (bloody crooks) rise in crude prices, same will happen with all other global products. This will cause them to be worth more and more against the Canadian dollar. In the end creating an inflation rate through global products which will cause Canadian only products to rise in price.
 
rd1331
No Party Affiliation
#25
I'm not arguing your other facts about inflation, as I said the idea is good, unfortunately/fortunately we are very linked to the global market, and because of this it would not work
 
Machjo
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by rd1331 View Post

You cannot have a sustained inflation rate of 0%. Sorry should have explained it better.
Think of it this way. Canada has a sustained inflation rate of 0%. All the other countries average 3%, lets say there is a global currancy called the UN dollar, or whatever. Lets talk one product. Lets say Coke and it sells for $1 Canadian today and $1 US today. Also lets say Coke is based out of the US and its price is attached to the global market. On the global market the price stays the same. So next year a coke, still worth $1 UN, now costs us 1.03 canadian. Then next year 1.06 canadian and such. You can see where it goes. So every year Canada would have an inflation rate brought on by the global economy. Unfortunately/Fortunately, we have to think global now, and you can not make a dramatic change like 0 inflation without huge consequences.

The 0 Interest rate is a lot more complicated so let me think of a better way to explain it.

I'm sorry, but you're not helping your case here. I'd be for a global currency too (it would certainly eliminate the highly paid middlemen making money in the currency markets but making no productive contribution to the economy otherwise (i.e parasite)). But I can guarantee that no country would want to merge their currency with ours if inflation is ripe. Even the EU expected its members to keep inflation within certain limits prior to integration to the Euro. To integrate currencies is a tricky process, so if a number of countries are experiencing 0 inflaiton, it wil be much easier for them to integrate to a new global currency, or at least shared regional currency, than if all their currencies are flying unpredictably all over the place. How else are we to assess equivalences in such a tricky transition?

It seems that the more you argue for inflation, the more you're strengthening the cause of 0 inflaiton.
 
Machjo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by rd1331 View Post

Inflation is a global issue. OPEC will continue a very unstable (bloody crooks) rise in crude prices, same will happen with all other global products. This will cause them to be worth more and more against the Canadian dollar. In the end creating an inflation rate through global products which will cause Canadian only products to rise in price.

Don't forget, OPEC is basd on oil, and Canada has oil too. So if their fuel prices go up, so do ours. Ever thought of that?

And as for being crooks, if you're suggesting that we should have a say in OPEC's oil prices, through whom? The UN? OK, fine, fair is fair. If we have a say in OPEC's oil prices, then OPEC will have a say in Alberta's oil prices. Do I read a self-interested double standard here? No bias on your part?
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by rd1331 View Post

I'm not arguing your other facts about inflation, as I said the idea is good, unfortunately/fortunately we are very linked to the global market, and because of this it would not work

It could work with tough love. It could also be the basis for a future world currency, which wuld help to hedge against economic instability in global markets. To inflate now simply pushes forward the inevitable. It's simply counterproductive. So why can't voters see this? Education! We need to invest more in educaiton. If we want to be a democracy, then we need to ensure that the entire populaiton is educated. If not, there is no democracy except in name and outward form.
 
rd1331
No Party Affiliation
#29
This is halarious. Do you know anything about economics. You say I'm strengthening the case but obviously you have no idea when it comes to economics.

Keeping Inflation at 0 means that prices do NOT go up. That is the basis of inflation. $1 today will buy the exact same amount as $1 ten years from now. If oil continues its steady climb on a global mark, global products that are based on oil (basically everything) will continue to increase in price year after year. Without inflation in Canada every year these products will become more and more expensive. So yes Canada having oil has absoluately nothing to do with 0 inflation, the price of oil is set globably, and globably they have inflation.

You say I'm not helping my case. But you just said. So if their fuel prices go up, so do ours. So if $1 dollar today buys 1 Gallon and oil continues its climb, weather or not we have oil, to say $1 buys 1/2 Gallon. That means that $1 dollar today is not worth the same as tomorrow, it doesn't have the same buying power. Which means there is inflation.

In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.[1] The term "inflation" once referred to increases in the money supply ( monetary inflation ); however, economic debates about the relationship between money supply and price levels have led to its primary use today in describing price inflation.[2] Inflation can also be described as a decline in the real value of money—a loss of purchasing power .[3] When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. A chief measure of price inflation is the inflation rate , which is the percentage change in a price index over time.[4]
 
Tonington
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Okay....

while you are at it, why don't you legislate religious meetings, political parties, professional associations, and special interest groups out of existence....

Ever hear of the right to assemble, the right of association?

Your solution is very popular in your average fascist state.....

My God, you people don't even have a clue how much of your wealth and freedom you owe to unions......and with the centralization of capital, the growing power of corporations, the stagnation of real-wealth growth of all but the most rich, the increasing gap in wealth.....unions are even more significant and necessary.

You'd cut your own throat.

I've been a union man all my life, I have no understanding of anti-union hatred.

Yes, sometimes they get carried away.......I'd be the first to admit that.

But we are a much better society with unions than without unions.

+1

Quoted for truth.

Infrastructure that I would like to see spending increases for:
Like missile, water treatment. National transportation/mass transit infrastucture. Energy efficiency, in all public buildings, and incentives for private buildings. Education. Military, before any of you poo-poo think twice about who does the heavy lifting in any national emergency (hurricanes, ice storms, etc.)

Any sort of infrastructure spending is a good stimulus. It's not like paying people to dig ditches and fill them in and dig them again. Build things that serve useful purpose, and there is no shortage of projects like that. Maybe Saint John can have a clean harbour too. If Halifax can do it...
 

Similar Threads

0
Increase Foreign Aid by Ten
by shamus11 | Mar 19th, 2005