The destruction of the Middle Class will be closely followed by the end of Capitalism, Representative Democracy and maybe even the Western industrial world itsself.
China hammers U.S. goods with tariffs as ‘sparks’ of trade war fly
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You just said that you're too concerned about large corporations getting too rich. Is that not a question of the haves and the have nots? So, are yo too concerned about excessive concentration of wealth or not? If so, then introduce a personal accumulated-wealth tax of around 20% and lower incomes taxes. Problem solved.
If you're not so concerned about that, then where's the problem? Either way, you haven't convinced me of the harms of free trade.
Believe it or not, some good could come out of that. Canadian society has become way too liberal for its own good. If you look at successful states like Singapore, they may be democratic, but conservatively so and not excessively liberal.
No I said they were making money either way on shore or off shore I'd rather have them on shore spreading the wealth here instead of overseas
So why not just promote more open borders and freer movement of people. That way, Canadians who want to work abroad can do so more easily if the overseas opportunities are so stellar?
As far as I'm concerned, we should eliminate all corporate taxes except maybe a corporate tax of 1/3 of net profits on any business that sells non-prescribed addictive products and services (alcohol, nicotine, gambling including lotteries, massage parlours, etc.), extracts natural resources, or husbands animals. essentially, any corporate tax should serve as a sin tax and nothing more.
That does not benefit Canada one bit and there is nothing stopping you from going overseas to make your buck a day just need a work visa
What is 'Canada?' The land or the people? If by Canada we mean the landmass called Canada, then yes, tariffs make sense to benefit only those living on that land mass. If by Canada we mean the people born, raised, or residing on that land mass, then protectionism only stifles their freedom. And no, working abroad is not so easy. That's because governments like to play a game of tit for tat.
So what is 'Canada' to you, its people or its landmass?
China suffers a major problem with corruption no doubt, but Canada suffers from the 'White left.' No country is perfect.
I just watched some bumble brain use every word he could think of to dance around saying "anti dumping".
Without Canadian's what is Canada? Canada would be the 50+ states of America in that scenario the people of what should be Canada would be Americans protecting and exploiting our resources to MAGA. So yeah we have to protect our resources and manufacturing to keep the citizens of this land mass Canadians
And if there is a demand for workers overseas it is easy to get a work visa to fill the position of need
I don't understand. Should Ontario raise trade barriers against other provinces to protect Ontarians? And what is Ontario, the landmass called Ontario or its citizens? Oh wait, there is no such thing as a citizen of Ontario, only Canadian and other citizens residing in Ontario. To me, government is just the administration of the people. to me, Canada is the land called Canada. the Government of Canada should look out for the best interests of the people who reside in Canada, and that includes in allowing them more opportunities abroad too.
There is only one way to "Save" the Working Class.
We need a line up of 250 thousand "Peaceful Radicals", like those who marched in opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960's and 70's. Just as determined as those Palestinians we are seeing in TV-Land today for the "Right Of Return".
They need to slow down all freight rail traffic across North America by walking slowly along the tracks.
80 percent of all goods and services are transported by rail and frieight railways travel through the center of every city in North America. There is no need for travels to Washington/Ottawa or State/Provincial Capitals.
They might choose to Jay-Walk at anytime of their choosing within the community and slow down roadway transportation routes.
When I was laid off in 1982, I organized my own protest and my own media appearances in TV-Land, and told anybody who cared to listen that I was going to travel to Ottawa and ask Pierre Trudeau to tell my 2 kids (one born a month after my job loss) why I could not feed them. After my protest, I had 5 offers for a job.
People just gotta get real! People need to become active! People need to take their anger to the streets.
And ..... forget all this propaganda about Non-Violence.
Give me any instance in the history of mankind where the Ruling Class ever gave the Lower Class anything without the threat of violence?
There are no instances.
All the changes and social advances "EARNED" were because of "Violent Protests".
All the social programs introduced during the 70's was because the Ruling Class were under threat.
Before 1970, there were no community colleges, and only the rich were educated at universities as an example.
Our own government practices violence every day and in several countries around the globe in order to get what they want.
Oh! The government is lucky to have the media behind them to colour the violence so it appears to be helping some poor ol' lady in distress, but it is still violence.
And yet we cry foul when an ordinary citizen chooses violence.
Propaganda always lists the names of MLK, Gandi and South Africa, but nobody reads the historical content.
Demanding "Change" is far more complicated than we often admit.
There must be a "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" routine amongst the protest groups.
When Martin Luther King was preaching peace, there were riots and violence happening all over the country.
Violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle.
Gandhi famously called poverty "the worst form of violence".
"In 1947, Gandhi said, "If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.""
http://www.gandhism.net/gandhi-propaganda.php
"More relevant are the facts of Indian history: non-violence worked only alongside widespread violence, including riots, across the subcontinent; and independence only came after mutinies within the Royal Indian Navy and the armed resistance of the Indian National Army (not to mention several world wars that overtaxed the British treasury and destroyed the fiscal basis for direct empire)."
"There were two main trends or tendency within the African-American Freedom Movement of the Sixties (and other Freedom Movements inspired by it).
One was the non-violent resistance exemplified by King and Rosa Parks.
The other was the militant, in-your-racist-face resistance of Robert Williams, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (who, of course, originated in Oakland).
It's interesting but not surprising that the former gets all kinds of validation in the schools and holidays today while the other is scarcely mentioned or honored if at all.
I believe Malcolm said it straight-out in his visit to Selma speaking to the southern racists: "If you don't want to deal with King, you're going to have to deal with people like me."
And his words were already starting to be backed-up by urban rebellions."
"In any case, King and Malcolm, despite their different ideologies and approaches, appreciated the value of each other. They were like a "good-cop"/"bad-cop" routine against the ruling elite, without which the achievements in the ways of Civil Rights during that era would not have come about."
We need a line up of 250 thousand "Peaceful Radicals", like those who marched in opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960's and 70's. Just as determined as those Palestinians we are seeing in TV-Land today for the "Right Of Return".
They need to slow down all freight rail traffic across North America by walking slowly along the tracks.
80 percent of all goods and services are transported by rail and frieight railways travel through the center of every city in North America. There is no need for travels to Washington/Ottawa or State/Provincial Capitals.
They might choose to Jay-Walk at anytime of their choosing within the community and slow down roadway transportation routes.
When I was laid off in 1982, I organized my own protest and my own media appearances in TV-Land, and told anybody who cared to listen that I was going to travel to Ottawa and ask Pierre Trudeau to tell my 2 kids (one born a month after my job loss) why I could not feed them. After my protest, I had 5 offers for a job.
People just gotta get real! People need to become active! People need to take their anger to the streets.
And ..... forget all this propaganda about Non-Violence.
Give me any instance in the history of mankind where the Ruling Class ever gave the Lower Class anything without the threat of violence?
There are no instances.
All the changes and social advances "EARNED" were because of "Violent Protests".
All the social programs introduced during the 70's was because the Ruling Class were under threat.
Before 1970, there were no community colleges, and only the rich were educated at universities as an example.
Our own government practices violence every day and in several countries around the globe in order to get what they want.
Oh! The government is lucky to have the media behind them to colour the violence so it appears to be helping some poor ol' lady in distress, but it is still violence.
And yet we cry foul when an ordinary citizen chooses violence.
Propaganda always lists the names of MLK, Gandi and South Africa, but nobody reads the historical content.
Demanding "Change" is far more complicated than we often admit.
There must be a "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" routine amongst the protest groups.
When Martin Luther King was preaching peace, there were riots and violence happening all over the country.
Violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle.
Gandhi famously called poverty "the worst form of violence".
"In 1947, Gandhi said, "If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.""
http://www.gandhism.net/gandhi-propaganda.php
"More relevant are the facts of Indian history: non-violence worked only alongside widespread violence, including riots, across the subcontinent; and independence only came after mutinies within the Royal Indian Navy and the armed resistance of the Indian National Army (not to mention several world wars that overtaxed the British treasury and destroyed the fiscal basis for direct empire)."
"There were two main trends or tendency within the African-American Freedom Movement of the Sixties (and other Freedom Movements inspired by it).
One was the non-violent resistance exemplified by King and Rosa Parks.
The other was the militant, in-your-racist-face resistance of Robert Williams, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (who, of course, originated in Oakland).
It's interesting but not surprising that the former gets all kinds of validation in the schools and holidays today while the other is scarcely mentioned or honored if at all.
I believe Malcolm said it straight-out in his visit to Selma speaking to the southern racists: "If you don't want to deal with King, you're going to have to deal with people like me."
And his words were already starting to be backed-up by urban rebellions."
"In any case, King and Malcolm, despite their different ideologies and approaches, appreciated the value of each other. They were like a "good-cop"/"bad-cop" routine against the ruling elite, without which the achievements in the ways of Civil Rights during that era would not have come about."
Last edited:
And the provinces tried that it's why we have an interprovincial trade agreement, and what makes the land Canada unique are it's people (Canadians) and the rest is pretty much what I was saying.
Having said that I'm popping the weasel in this Mulberry bush and saying have a wonderful day
If you're in favour of an interprovincial agreement, then why not an international agreement?
WTF? There already is both including the UN agreement and they are signing more all the time for more inclusive agreements.
While Canada could suffer from a trade war between the US and China, there is some silver lining in that it might increase trade between Canada and China somewhat. Not enough to compensate for the damage done, but perhaps enough to at least reduce the pain.
The self-professed smartest guy with the biggest brain is going to dropkick the US into yet another one of its self-induced economic recessions.
****ing hilarious.
Where's George Carlin when we need him, dammit ?!
Canada will not suffer from a trade war between the US and China.
If anything, we'll be sitting pretty with both countries trying to cut deals with Canada.... China chasing after our farming industry exports (pork in particular) and the US begging us to buy more of their agri goods (pork and fruit in particular).
This could turn out to be a huge win-win for Canada, it may even give us some much needed leverage over NAFTA negotiations with the US.
Thanks Trump !
****ing hilarious.
Where's George Carlin when we need him, dammit ?!
Canada will not suffer from a trade war between the US and China.
If anything, we'll be sitting pretty with both countries trying to cut deals with Canada.... China chasing after our farming industry exports (pork in particular) and the US begging us to buy more of their agri goods (pork and fruit in particular).
This could turn out to be a huge win-win for Canada, it may even give us some much needed leverage over NAFTA negotiations with the US.
Thanks Trump !
If Canada's smart, we'll open agriculture to trade too. Once Canadian farmers realize they must compete with desperate US farmers, they'll lower their prices. Canada could then specialize in less seasonal industries like manufacturing.