Sorry but profit IS the point. Gov't's main concern is not the public. It is the public's ability to fund the gov't. If the gov't sees that its public will be out of work, it will do things to see that they keep working and handing in tax money. Same with companies and corporations. People are only important because of their vote and their money. .
I see. If you mean profit for the government as distinct from the public, as opposed to the government as the servant of the public, then yes I must agree. But you see how education affects us? I chose to define profit as direct net benefit and not as benefit to one person at another person's expense, which I would define as 'transfer' rather than 'profit'. In school however, we did not look very deeply into where 'our' 'profit' comes from, and thus profit gained at the expense of another would still be counted as 'profit' according the the narrow definition in school, based on narrow accounting practices (and make no mistake about it, even accounting practices are ideologically laden, in spite of the appearance of objectivity and in spite of the fact that even many accountants aren't even aware of it. Even the creators of these practices probably weren't even aware of their own ideological bias when they create it, which just shows the lack of critical analysis taught in school).
I choose to make a social distinction however between 'profit' (which I define as net gain at no one else's expense) and 'transfer' (which I define as wealth going from one to the other with no just reciprocity). In this sence, universities need to quesiton the definition of their vocaulary a little more, and be more critical about it.
The vast majority of families in Canada own a vehicle and think they cannot get by without them. Try taking home a load of groceries for a family of four on a bicycle or bus some day. :roll:
If they're poor, they'll have no choice. And even among the middle class in urban centres such as downtown montreal sometimes prefer public transport to the car. I'd met at least one adult in downtown Montreal, middle class, and he didn't even care to get his driving license. Not that he was poor, he just saw no use for it. In Canada not everyone comes out of a cookie cutter. Some don't selebrate Christmas. Some don't eat meat. Some ride bicycles in winter. Some learn Klingon. And some don't want a car. Just because the majority acts like it got cut out of a cookie cutter doesn't mean that the minority should subsidise its cars.
Gov'ts in Canada have not been very friendly toward developing new industries and technology. Otherwise we would not let little countries such as Portugal and Germany outdistance us in alternative energy research and development.
How can we have these industries when our population lacks the necessary skills to work in these industries. Let's invest in education and the industries will come. To waste money on dinausaurs is not the way to do it. Let the companies go bankrupt and re-educate the unemployed. Upgrade their skills and the companies will follow.
The BANKS lower interest rates not the gov't. Banks do not tend to listen to gov'ts for financial advice.
If the Bankd of Canada lowers interest rates, sooner or later banks will follow. I do not agree with lowering interest rates at the cost of inflation of course, but certainly wise spending ought to bring inflaiton down ans so allow for a drop in interest rates. Flushing money into the mouths of dinosaurs doesn't help.
Gov'ts have to strike a balance between keeping the people relatively happy, satisfying company and corporate needs, and making sure that they stay in gov't.
I agree in spite of the injustice. And yet we tolerate it.
