Canadas reputation .
- Thread starter china
- Start date
That is not particularly unusual machjo. Consider that, for the most part, the bus/train stations were constructed early in the city's evolution, it would make sense to have them centrally located. Over time, the city growa around them.
If you really want to be shocked, check-out the areas North of Main St in Winnipeg.. Man, it is something else.
Good point.
I guess it's an issue for city planners to tackle. How do we develop a city without sliding into Nimbyism? I think it is possible. In Ottawa, I pass by a youth correctional centre on occasion, and it really isn't that bad, with lots of greenery around it, etc. Not pretty, but certainly not ugly either. Looks more or less like any other building in the area.
I know Vancouver has tried building mixed lower-to-upper-class communities, though I'd left before the projects were over. How successful they were, I don't know.
In the end, it comes down to competent urban planning, though some here might have more ideas on this than I.
You'll never rid any community of NIMBYISM - be it right or wrong, it's human nature. It will be interesting to see how the Vancouver experiment works-out, but ultimately, as long as the system is based on a free market system, I think that you'll find that those projects will not achieve the results they desire in the long run. That said, while urban planning is important, it cannot stem teh pressures and influences of teh free market (my opinion that is).
Though I don't believe we can ignore the free market, I do believe governments can influence it at least, to some degree.
Gvts are, and have been trying for years. You can't legislate this kind of thing. As long as our society includes some form of money/compensation/consideration you will observe differentials in the wealth between individuals... This is not a bad thing and it's not necessarily a good thing, but it's what we have.
The common response is to increase the pressure on the redistribution of the wealth, but the inevitable response is that the wealth-makers simply leave and take their talents to other communities that in turn benefit from the efforts and the tax dollars of these groups.
The common response is to increase the pressure on the redistribution of the wealth, but the inevitable response is that the wealth-makers simply leave and take their talents to other communities that in turn benefit from the efforts and the tax dollars of these groups.
I fully agree that we can never have absolute equality. In fact I believe that moderate differences in wealth can be a good thing. I do believe the government can at least eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty. No, it cannot solve all problems, and we will always have moderately poor and moderately wealthy communities. But I do believe that if we really wanted to, we could eliminate the extremes at least.
No China most expat's will not claim the above with a clear conscience.
I am a professional expat worker who resides and pays taxes in Canada.
I have been to China 7 or 8 times over the years and have done consulting work for Chinese National companies.
The Chinese citizenry certainly does NOT have more freedom in China than Canadians enjoy at home.
As an expat residing in China I will certainly agree with you that you, China, the individual has far more rights and freedoms in China than the locals do.
And I find that blatantly unfair to the local Chinese.
The more repressive and authoritarian a regime seems to be the more freedoms and rights "foreign guests" seem to get.
I remember in Cuba being able to pretty much drive however I felt like and ignore the normal rules of the road.
I used to get pulled over for speeding constantly, it never stuck.
The locals were not allowed to travel out of there towns and villages and were constantly being checked for the correct carnet( internal passport) and having their possessions searched.
As a "guest" of the communist government I could go anywhere(within reason), do pretty much anything I wanted and say anything to anybody.
It's really not something to be proud of.
It just highlights a comparatively repressive and unfair state system.
Trex
I think laws are a good way to figure out if a country has any interest in its people or not. If it makes laws that show concern for its people, then obviously it has concern. But if the laws reflect mostly self-interest in the gov't, then the people don't really matter. Of course, if they won't even let you see what laws they have, it's time to scoot. lol
There are some critical flaws in your logic Machjo and they have the potential to have a cascading effect overall.
To start, essentially there are minimum standards set by the feds an provinces in terms of a social safety-net. Restricting/regulating maximums will bear a variety parallel and negative outcomes. Establish an 'income ceiling' and once people hit it, they'll reduce or stop putting in the effort.. Why work more for no return? Second, where will you get the money for investment? This area is the first stepping-stone in the development of anything. Society is dependent on the creativity of people and that creativity needs to be funded in order to see the light of day. Lastly, setting a ceiling also sets an artificial limit (basically) on your economy and on the total taxes that can be collected by the various levels of gvt. Consequently, the size of gvt, the services AND the minimum income levels will be effected.
In the end, you'll do more to down-size everything rather than allow for any degree of growth.
People in cities are such nice people, aren't they?
Just as nice as in the country. Ironically though, I often find city-slickers and country dwellers to have more in common with each other than with suburbanites. Go figure:-?
I think that depends. Though I'd not be for any income ceiling, or any ceiling on essential wealth (business, essential assets such as shelter, etc.), I could agree to a high wealth ceiling for non-essential personal wealth. It would in fact have a few advantages:
No matter how hard a person works, there's no way he can become a billionaire through work alone. Certainly luck plays a role there to some degree. This would thus discourage people from going into industries that concentrate wealth excessively, such as monopolistic ones. And because he can get only so rich, once he reaches his limit, he may change his mindset from making more wealth at all costs (e.g expanding his tobacco company, his brewery, his casino, etc.) to looking at moving towards more ethical industries, figuring that even if he makes more money anyway, he won't get to keep it, so might as well move into something he feels better about besides just money.
Sure I could agree to a high wealth ceiling, such as a million dollars let's say, applicable to personal non-essential accumulated wealth only, business and essential wealth being exempt.
I suppose rainy-day funds or retirement funds could be considered essential too? I don't know how to define it exactly, but I could see a wealth ceiling of some kind.
From my experience, China is the reverse of Canada in a few ways. In Canada, we have much freedom of expression, religious, secular, or otherwise, but can be quite restricted in our actions, and the police enforce it too (I suppose the tough-cop approach in Canada might be a good thing there; would you risk bribing some guy sitting there wearing a flack jacket and haivng no neck?).
In China, ideas and freedom of expression are censored, at least to some degree, while actions often aren't. Police are bribed, as are government officials. That's well known, and common. Seat belt rules aren't enforced, and neither are helmet rules. Fireworks aren't enforced, and people lose body parts every year in the new year because it's not regulated. Not only prostitution, but literally wife-markets (i.e. women kidnapped from the countryside to be sold as permanent wives in the cities) exist. Prostitution is rampant, etc. etc. etc.
To sum it up, while Canada will tell you you can't do X (and will enforce it), but will allow you to criticise it openly in the papers for telling you you can't do X, China will tell you you can't do X (but won't enforce it at all and everyone will do it anyway), and then restrict your freedom to express your disagreement or disapproval of the law or lack of enforcement of that law (and will enforce that).
Looking at it that way, we can say that Canada tries to control actions; China tries to control ideas. Overall, I prefer the Canadian approach.
And just to add, I'm certainly in favour of Canada criticizing China through the appropriate channels (i.e. UN General Assembly) (and not just bad-mouth it publictly), and respect whatever decision the UN General Assembly says.