When you consider that all the other auto industries are being subsidized then yes that is exactly what "opposing" is.
Last edited:
Irony: Conservatives new guarantor of green economics?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
When you consider that all the other auto industries are being subsidized then yes that is exactly what "opposing" is.
Well then, you have no one to blame but yourself when someone comes and takes your money from you then. Wealth can be redistributed nicely or violently, the choice resides with the people who have the money; the only option not available is hoarding it, which contrary to your claims, is obviously what your really opting for.
The picture your painting doesn't exist though and I'm sure you know that. Any new industry jobs being created are low paying or else they move to Mexico or China.
So what could be the intent of your apology?
It really does sound to me like your only interested in yourself. You are happy with your situation and have no need of an auto industry job so you don't give a s**t; which was my original assesement.
You obviously don't know me. i give to charity already, and have no qualms about an increase in my taxes per se. As I've mentioned already, I'd be in favour of a gas tax. So what gave you the idea that I don't want to share my luck in life? What I'm saying is that if the government is going to spend, it ought to spend wisely.
Cut the ideological BS! What I'm saying is that some industries might have proven more resilient to the recession than others. Let's help them before we help those industries that are obviously proving unable to cope. If ALL industries are faltering, then create new jobs in education. Guess what, I'd be for free education for all, including post-compulsory education, and I'm sure that could create planey of jobs in teh economy and develop the skills necessary to prepare for the boom when it comes. Don't let people waste their time in unemployment. If they're unemployed and no jobs are available anywhere in the economy, then send them back to school to prepare them for when the recession is over. And yes I'd rather the government raise my taxes to pay for it rather than go into debt.
Again, cut through the ideological BS! I'm just not for the government throwing money away like it was candy. Why do you pity auto workers more than any other worker? Yes, I feel for them too, but they're not the only ones suffering. In fact, considering that many others have even lower paying jobs, some are suffering even more than they are. So yes, increae my taxes if need be and make education free for all. I'm all for it. Just don't subsidize the jets those effin' CEO's are flying.
I gather you missed the point. Jobs will be created to replace the jobs that will be lost and the equation will come out about equal.
The jobs lost will be in oil and gas and other primary industries and the jobs gained will be in secondary (hi-tech manufacturing) and tertiary industries (telecommunications, etc..).
What will be lost is the excessive profits going into EXXON, Shell, BP, etc... pockets
But to create these new jobs, we need new skills. So yes, I invite the government to increase my taxes if needs be, and fairly too of course, and increase funding in education. Beyond that though, companies still have to stand up on their own, no corporate welfare or favouristism for one company over others.
Industry should be investing in "green" technology. If government needs to do it then it is an artificial economy and therefore a waste of money no matter how carefully the money is pissed away. The auto industry, however, is viable and the expenditures are only to keep up with those of other countries. It isn't as though people won't be buying Fords but only they will be buying Fords made in Mexico instead of Canada.
What industry anywhere can cope against subsidized products? If we don't subsidize the auto industry will fail and it isn't because the industry was unable to cope but because hippies are bad at economics.
I agree with you. Australia is now subsidizing its education and I think we would be wise to follow - of coarse that means we won't because we are a nation of morons.
Because their jobs are high paying and the benefits are far reaching and affect more people than just the workers.
I don't believe in economics financed by government (a.k.a socialism). That is the problem in Canada. Industry should be able to stand on its own but if it is subsidized by other countries then we need to subsidize also or we will lose the industry.
And good for Mexico. Seeing that Mexico is a poorer country than Canada, why not give them some breathing space. Human compassion shouldn't stop at the border. And as far as Canadian workers are concerned, upgrade their skills to produce goods and services Mexicans might not be able to produce. Yes, it might make Canada a little poorer, but make humans more equal across borders. We could compensate by expanding bicycle trails and stop expanding roads and highways. The restructuring of our transport system along with upgrading education could create alot of jobs and save money, but not just random jobs. It would be creating jobs that would contribute directly towards preparing laid off workers for the coming boom to become more efficient workers, and help Mxico in the process.
Besides, why should I care to buy a subsidized car while kids are on the streets in Mexico? Let's think differently, shall we? Let's expand our horizons beyond our own little corner of the world.
You forgot something though. Not all who don't own a car are poor. I could buy a car tomorrow if I wanted to, but I chose to live close to work for the environment. So are you going to force me to buy cars now through my taxes? Had I known it was going to be that way, I might as well just have bought an effin car instead of giving to UNICEF, no?
Exactly. Make education free for all and raise my taxes. I'm all for that. But don't start micro-managing the economy and forcing me to buy a car I don't want. I'll pay for your educaiton, but I don't want your effin car. How about this. I'll pay for your educaiton so you can get a better job or start your own company or whatever, and then you can buy your own car if you want to, or not. And whether or not the car idustry survives would then be in your hands, not mine.
High paying. You said it. So why should we give them the money and not the struggling single parent living off the minimum wage instead? Here's what I'm proposing. Instead of giving money to highly paid auto workers, pay for their educaiton instead, and that of the single mother too, so that they all benefit equally. Are you suggesting that the auto worker is more equal than the single parent working on minimum wage?
But we can subsidize more wisely. By making educaiton free, we'd be making workers more attractive to internaitonal investors. Hey, if the US wants the auto sector, let 'em have it. Someone else will come in and take their spot. Maybe the more qualified workers in Canada would end up making all the high tech parts of the car, the Americans the medim tech, and the Mexicans the low tech. everybody wins.
Why do we have to make the whole car.
Now here's the irony. You say you oppose socialism. I could classify myself as social democrat (some people would classify that as just moderate socialism), shockingly enough, yet it would seem based on your desire to subsidize the auto sector that you're more socialist than I am!
Now this evening, Dion and Layton talked about Kyoto and the environment. I'm all for meeting Kyoto standards just to meet international standards, but no more for now. Step by step, steady Eddy is how we ought to go i think.
But I hope that we try our best to do it fairly by improving education. Training schools could teach more on how to build, fix etc. green technologies, and once the workers are out there, they could make recomendations to their bosses. Empower the worker, why not? If it's from the top down, it means we're giving money to select employers over others unfailry. If we just teach green technologies in schools, then workers could choose their employer on the market. Of course employers benefit too indirectly by having 'green-conscious' employees, but not so directly as to have money thrown at them, so the free market continues to function relatively efficiently.
But I hope that we try our best to do it fairly by improving education. Training schools could teach more on how to build, fix etc. green technologies, and once the workers are out there, they could make recomendations to their bosses. Empower the worker, why not? If it's from the top down, it means we're giving money to select employers over others unfailry. If we just teach green technologies in schools, then workers could choose their employer on the market. Of course employers benefit too indirectly by having 'green-conscious' employees, but not so directly as to have money thrown at them, so the free market continues to function relatively efficiently.