Political Ideology

Post Reply New Topic

"There will always be a segment of the population that cannot work - and, if we are civilized, we will, as a society, take care of them. It would be cruel not to, and it would not benefit society as a whole to have starving ill people wandering around."

Ann, I agree completely. What you are describing is the social Darwinism inherent in right-liberalism, particularly in its libertarian strain. Capitalism tends to be of most benefit for the most capable; for the most capable, the sky is the limit. But in this kind of system, the less capable one is, the less well they are going to do in such a system. This is why socialism follows capitalism like flies around hogs. Right-liberalism allows no quarter for the old, pre-modern concept of noblesse oblige.

"Everything is so globally interdependent now; it seems most successful companies use overseas manufacturing. I'm not sure how we could step back from that. Locally produced products are too expensive."

Everything is very interdependent now, but this is by design. G.K. Chesterton observed about the old left that it is right about what is wrong, and wrong about what is right. What Chesterton was referring to was the old left's central postulate that in the absence of noblesse oblige of some kind that the elite class will completely structure society around their own needs and interests, and leave everybody else out in the cold, which is just what has happened.

Globalism is a case in point. Rather than viewing globalism as being some kind of inevitability, I view it as something done in the best interests of the elite class, and very much to the detriment of everybody else. Globalism tends to enrich those at the top while impoverishing everybody else. BTW, this is the very essence of Marx's thought. Again, Marx was right about what is wrong, but wrong about what is right.

Your Canadian economy is largely based upon Canada's natural resource advantage (e.g., timber, agricultural products, minerals), most of which is exported. And by the same token, it would be incredibly inefficient for a country like Canada to, say, try to grow its own tropical fruits, where Canada is at a distinct disadvantage. This is what the economists call comparative advantage, and is a good thing. Canadians can produce large quantities of timber better than Brits, so the Brits would be better off importing their timber from Canada and selling what they are good at to the Canadians.

The problem comes from absolute advantage. The distinction between comparative and absolute advantage is something that is in the best interests of the elite class to obfuscate, and they do. Absolute advantage is where products that could be produced at home are imported because of cheaper labor or other advantages, such as no environmental regulations. This kind of trade benefits nobody in the long run, not even the elite class. When the elite class succeeds in impoverishing enough people with unemployment and low wage jobs, these people can no longer afford to buy what the elites produce, and the whole system crashes.

Bottom line: Creating wealth is taking things from the ground and turning them into stuff people want to buy. Those who produce wealth become wealthier. We in the West are becoming more poor because we no longer produce much wealth.

Ann, legalization of cannabis could be a job creator for Canadians, like any other business, but certain people have other ideas. The article below is yet another example of how the elite class structures things to their own advantage. This fellow wants to use Mexican cannabis and Mexican labor because both are cheaper, not to mention the almost complete lack of meaningful environmental regulations. If this fellow gets his way, about the only jobs Canadians and Americans would see out of cannabis legalization would be as low-wage sales clerks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... ZE20130530

Again, the problem is the rules our societies play by. They need to be changed to be more equitable for everybody, and not just for the elite class.

Why would anyone want to market ditch weed?Swag $ucks,it can have lead shavings in it to get more weight,and it's often "washed",soaked in formaldehyde to give it that extra punch,gross.And it's low quality to begin with.

I would never smoke ditch weed,it's also soaked in the blood of all the victims of the cartels.
They would be in charge of production in Mexico,now the murderers would have a free pass to operate a legit business.They would be rewarded for their crimes.

I've tried kava, it didn't do much for me. Everyone is different.

Actually, the first time I tried it some years back, it didn't do anything for me, and I never thought about it until I was visiting a fancy health-type grocery store in Houston about a year ago. I saw it, tried it again, and am glad I did.

The only thing I don't like about kava is that it can upset my stomach.

Kava is also expensive, but so is good quality cannabis--or at least it is around here.

When I was in the Navy, the first overseas port I ever went to was Halifax. My first night there we went to a nightclub. It blew my mind to see people casually sitting in the lobby and elsewhere smoking pot, with police all around. It's sure not that way around here, although lots of people do use the stuff. Just ask Willie Nelson

Ann2011, sorry I meant that as a figure of speech,referring to the victims of the cartels,not literally.