[Manic!]

New head of the NDP and he did it in the first round.

https://media.gq.com/photos/589ca3dd96e688570cf2eb29/master/pass/jagmeet-singh-canada-gq-tout.jpg




Jagmeet Singh wins leadership of federal NDP on first ballot - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-democratic-party-leadership-results-1.4315704)



Jagmeet Singh is the next leader of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada, taking more than the 50 per cent of the votes in the party's federal leadership contest.

In total 65,782 votes were cast, with Singh taking 35,266 on the first ballot.

The Ontario provincial politician beat northern Ontario MP Charlie Angus who won 12,705 votes, Manitoba MP Niki Ashton who won 11,374 votes and Quebec MP Guy Caron who won 6,164 votes to claim the federal NDP's top job.

Speaking after his election win, Singh said the party owed a debt to the former leader Tom Mulcair who Singh credited with helping the party through a difficult time after the passing of Jack Layton.

Singh also thanked all of the campaign teams that helped him and the other candidates in the race.

"None of this would have been possible without my colleagues in the leadership race," Singh said.

Meet Jagmeet Singh: Sikh lawyer, martial artist and new NDP leader

3 lessons from races past as NDP prepares to name its new leader

The Ontario provincial politician beat northern Ontario MP Charlie Angus, Manitoba MP Niki Ashton and Quebec MP Guy Caron to claim the federal NDP's top job.

A new leader will allow the party to wipe the slate clean and begin re-energizing its base of support, motivate demoralized staff members and get back on the political map, NDP strategist Kathleen Monk told the Canadian Press before the vote.

"They will get to hire their own people," she said. "It is a clear break from some of the inertia that has been happening."

While Angus, 54, is a household name among party loyalists and a fixture in the House of Commons. Singh, 38, represents a younger, more suburban wing of the party.

Repaying party debt

Peggy Nash, a 2012 leadership candidate and former MP, said the naming of a new leader is the perfect time to turn to the myriad other significant challenges the party is facing — many of them financial.

According to Elections Canada, the NDP is carrying $5.5 million worth of debt, and its fundraising mojo has been virtually non-existent.

"Knit together the teams that may have supported different candidates," Nash said. "Get out there and build the party and restore our voice as the legitimate voice of progressive Canadians."

More than 124,000 card-carrying members were eligible to vote for the new leader, either online or by mail. The ballot was preferential, meaning voters ranked all four candidates in their preferred order.

[Badhobz]

Nice !! A young Sikh to bring some much needed diversity to Canadian politics. Well done NDP. Too bad you won't have a chance in hell to ever win the federal majority.

All the political function this guy attends will require a veg option then.

[SoulCrusher]

Its unfortunate that a lot of people will judge him for his turban and beard and not for his words

[vitaminG]

I'd say our current pm won the top job with style over substance, so I'd hardly consider it an impediment. They're going to have trouble finding success in Quebec again with him though.

[RRxtar]

The only success the NDP has tasted was due to Layton's charisma perfectly timed with the Liberals being in-between before Trudeau became leader.

[Qmx323]

Its unfortunate that a lot of people will judge him for his turban and beard and not for his words

About 3 weeks ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38wU7X6tZco

She thinks he's Islamic LOL

[SkinnyPupp]

This guy is awesome! From what I know anyway. I hope he becomes Canada's next leader

(unless I learn otherwise)

[GS8]

NDP died with Layton. Make NDP relevant again.

Need to see more than a two-party rivalry by the next election.

[Mr.HappySilp]

NDP died with Layton. Make NDP relevant again.

Need to see more than a two-party rivalry by the next election.

To be honest who ever is in power next election is going to have to clean up after Trudeau's mess. Unless of course Trudeau won again then well more spending!

[Traum]

Quite surprised to learn that he is only 38. I would have thought he is much older.

The only success the NDP has tasted was due to Layton's charisma perfectly timed with the Liberals being in-between before Trudeau became leader.
Arguably, the upcoming election in 2 years could set to become a fantastic chance for the NDP to step up their game. From what I can tell, people are increasingly discovering how inept JT is shaping up to be, and noticing how he is all flair and no substance. Scheer also seem rather unpopular among a large portion of the general public. So if people are looking for an alternative, Singh and the NDP could potentially fill that role.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Quite surprised to learn that he is only 38. I would have thought he is much older.


Arguably, the upcoming election in 2 years could set to become a fantastic chance for the NDP to step up their game. From what I can tell, people are increasingly discovering how inept JT is shaping up to be, and noticing how he is all flare and no substance. Scheer also seem rather unpopular among a large portion of the general public. So if people are looking for an alternative, Singh and the NDP could potentially fill that role.

Well a lot of people voted for JT on the fact that he will make marijuana legal in canada and also for his good looks. Now you have a lot of small/medium business complaining about his tax reforms which will hurt them and cause people to lose their jobs. BUT HEY comes next year marijuana legal in canada and you can smoke it all you want, but wait you don't have a job so you can actually afford it.

[stewie]

Well a lot of people voted for JT on the fact that he will make marijuana legal in canada and also for his good looks. Now you have a lot of small/medium business complaining about his tax reforms which will hurt them and cause people to lose their jobs. BUT HEY comes next year marijuana legal in canada and you can smoke it all you want, but wait you don't have a job so you can actually afford it.

It's such a piss off when people had voted for his looks. I know people in their 20's and 30's who don't give a rats ass about politics and only voted JT because they saw his image and thought "oh cool, young guy!" while women in the same boat went "I'd rather look at him than an old guy".
They should make dumb people vote with no names on a ballot, just a couple of their main selling points.

[Vansterdam]

thats sikh :troll:

[Bouncing Bettys]

Its unfortunate that a lot of people will judge him for his turban and beard and not for his words
An open display of religion in a secular country by one of its potential leaders. Anyone who values the separation of church and state would understandably object to that, or at the very least want assurances that his beliefs won't trump reality or Canadians. The same objections from this group would be made of any candidate of any other faith who made his/her beliefs known. The far left will be quick to label them as bigots. The far right will be quick to embrace them as nationalists.

[Liquid_o2]

It's such a piss off when people had voted for his looks. I know people in their 20's and 30's who don't give a rats ass about politics and only voted JT because they saw his image and thought "oh cool, young guy!" while women in the same boat went "I'd rather look at him than an old guy".
They should make dumb people vote with no names on a ballot, just a couple of their main selling points.

Or people were fed up with the Conservatives bullshit and also didn't want to vote for Mulcair.

[Traum]

Or people were fed up with the Conservatives bullshit and also didn't want to vote for Mulcair.
I don't think this voting mentality is wrong at all. Harper had been in power for too long, and had been acting more like a dictator than a democratically elected leader in a lot of different ways. So at the time, the best way to get rid of him (and the Conservatives) was to vote JT/Liberals. Voting for Mulcair carries too high a risk of not being able to get Harper out of the office.

Then again, with JT's highly left-leaning tendencies, I wonder how different our national policies would be if NDP / Mulcair had won the election...

[Acura604]

Thoughts on how he danced around this question? Same old 2-bit politician trying to appease certain members of his base by not committing to any actions.

https://youtu.be/-pECUO77djg

[Blueboy222]

:troll:

[Bouncing Bettys]

Anyone who values the separation of church and state would understandably object to that, or at the very least want assurances that his beliefs won't trump reality or Canadians.
Won't condemn a religiously motivated terrorist who killed Canadians and who also just happens to share the religion of the openly religious NDP leader? Not very assuring so far.

[Rallydrv]

Thoughts on how he danced around this question? Same old 2-bit politician trying to appease certain members of his base by not committing to any actions.


right , guys is hoping for sikh votes as most are sympathetic to the cause.
that said he just lost mine.

[originalhypa]

Won't condemn a religiously motivated terrorist who killed Canadians and who also just happens to share the religion of the openly religious NDP leader? Not very assuring so far.

There were 329 victims pulled from the sea that day, over 6 times the deaths that happened in Vegas. We talk about gun control in the aftermath of that tragedy, yet even the gov't at the time was afraid of being labelled racist and lacked the courage to face the issue of militants inside our own borders.

it's all kinds of baffling..... but hey, congrats to the new leader, right?



*I'm pretty sure he's not a militant. I'm just making a point. That said, if he can prove to be the best candidate, he would have my vote.

[welfare]

Looks like the exact same identity politics/divisions that have erupted in the states the past decade.
Racial Justice Agenda - Jagmeet Singh For Leader (http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/racial_justice_agenda)

I love how the left seems to think, with no evidence whatsoever, that all races and genders must be represented in all aspects of life by their precise population. Otherwise prejudice.
Couldn't possibly be other factors involved.

I have no doubt he'll win a federal election either. Riding on manifested discrimination and guilt. Conflated with the fact that unlike JT, he has 'firsthand' experience.
The Canadian Obama

[twitchyzero]

All the People Who Are Not Jagmeet Singh

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/43abem/all-the-people-who-are-not-jagmeet-singh

[twitchyzero]

Air India incident occurred in the mid 80s...the NDP leader at the time was a toddler

[Manic!]

Won't condemn a religiously motivated terrorist who killed Canadians and who also just happens to share the religion of the openly religious NDP leader? Not very assuring so far.

Roman catholic church molested 10's of thousands of children around the world including Canada yet I don't see christian politicians condemning the pope.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/canadian-prime-minister-stephen-harper-and-laureen-harper-meet-with-picture-id88983667

Even forced his wife to wear a hijab.

[welfare]

Christianity and Catholicism are not one and the same

[Traum]

Dumb question to start my post off:

How exactly is "Sikh" supposed to be pronounced? Is it "Sick"? or "Seek"? or something else? And is the word pronounced the same in English and in Hindi / Punjabi?

Secondly, I am not at all surprised by the poll results here:

Three in 10 Canadians wouldn't vote for a visibly Sikh national leader: poll (http://www.news1130.com/2017/10/06/poll-national-leader-sikh/)

I am also not surprised to see that Quebec is the most reluctant province to vote for a visibly Sikh national leader. And I'd bet that if we exclude Montreal from the rest of Quebec, the percentage for the rest of Quebec would drop lower still.

[welfare]

I've always heard/said "seek".

IMO, those polls are the beginning of a sure win strategy.
I think we'll be seeing a lot more of these types of data moving towards the campaign.
Couple that with the fact that people will be singing a different tune come election time and the deficit by JT is even more massive

[welfare]

Though I know this is not a poll that could be taken with any accuracy, nor do I think we live in a society capable of asking it, but I'd be interested to know the honest number of Canadians who would vote for him solely because of his race or religion.

[Manic!]

Though I know this is not a poll that could be taken with any accuracy, nor do I think we live in a society capable of asking it, but I'd be interested to know the honest number of Canadians who would vote for him solely because of his race or religion.

If he was a conservative he would not get the broad support he gets from the South Asian community like he does. The Sikh religion is the most progressive religion and the NDP is a progressive party with many Sikh believes lining up with NDP policies. Just like many Christian believes line up with conservative policies.

[welfare]

Valid points.
TBH, I just worry a lot about racial divides in this country. There is potential here for severe tensions.
Hell, we're nowhere near resolving a true freehold of this land even

[Manic!]

I've always heard/said "seek".



It's pronounced sick. The word means learn.

[westopher]

To be honest who ever is in power next election is going to have to clean up after Trudeau's mess. Unless of course Trudeau won again then well more spending!
The Paris-based economic think tank now expects the Canadian economy to grow by 3.2 per cent this year, outperforming every other country in the G7 group of advanced economies (i.e. France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S.).
Is this the problem you have with trudeau?
I can completely understand a dislike for Trudeau, but at least know why you dislike him, and if its actually real or not.
Here's an info graph of Canada's deficits before Trudeau. Looks like its just par for the course at worst.
Canada's deficits and surpluses, 1963 to 2015 - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571)

On the topic of Mr. Singh, its exciting to see some more young blood in politics. I think we will see more true connection with the middle class.

[ZN6]

That is a swank suit. Interested to see what he can do.

His name is awesome if he drives a Jag though. Yo hey Jag meet at Jagmeet's!

[welfare]

Is this the problem you have with trudeau?
I can completely understand a dislike for Trudeau, but at least know why you dislike him, and if its actually real or not.
Here's an info graph of Canada's deficits before Trudeau. Looks like its just par for the course at worst.
Canada's deficits and surpluses, 1963 to 2015 - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571)



Huh. I seem to recall a promise of a 9.5b$ deficit. Guess promises don't matter as long as it follows the trend

[Manic!]

That is a swank suit. Interested to see what he can do.

His name is awesome if he drives a Jag though. Yo hey Jag meet at Jagmeet's!

He is a hipster and rides a bike. Has multiple bike's.

[westopher]

Huh. I seem to recall a promise of a 9.5b$ deficit. Guess promises don't matter as long as it follows the trend
Yeah politicians have a long line of doing exactly as they say they will.
Regardless if the spending is actually helping grow the economy the deficit is money well spent, wether it matches original projections or not.
We could just pull a bunch of money out of schools and healthcare and celebrate a surplus like the provincial libs did.
I'd love an alternative to Trudeau, however in the election it was Harper, who's government was part of the fastest fall of the loonie in my life time, or mulcair, who was one of the most uncharismatic leaders I have seen. Trudeau is doing just fine, however, lets hope for an actual change a couple years from now led by Singh. I welcome it.

[!LittleDragon]

All governments will spend. If the cons won, the would've also spent to get out of recession.

The difference is how they make up for the spending. The left will raise your taxes and the right will cut spending in other areas. The pendulum swings left and right all the time. When the right cuts all it can and starts cutting into things people care about, it's time for a left leaning government. When the left raises taxes enough and people get tired of it, they'll vote right.

You can see it now. The libs spent 3x what they promised and they're trying to make up or it by increasing taxes for small business owners. If this gets through, it wouldn't surprise me if they start taxing all home sales next.

[ZN6]

He is a hipster and rides a bike. Has multiple bike's.

My kinda guy :hay:

[Traum]

He is a hipster and rides a bike. Has multiple bike's.
My kinda guy :hay:
For a moment, I thought you were talking about Moonbeam. And then I was like... :badpokerface:

[Manic!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJO40JOhfI

[!LittleDragon]

Policy | Jagmeet Singh For Leader (http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/policy)

$15/hour minimum wage
Universal basic income
Increase in capital gains tax

Sorry, not my cup of tea. I may have voted for him when I was young and lazy but not now.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Is this the problem you have with trudeau?
I can completely understand a dislike for Trudeau, but at least know why you dislike him, and if its actually real or not.
Here's an info graph of Canada's deficits before Trudeau. Looks like its just par for the course at worst.
Canada's deficits and surpluses, 1963 to 2015 - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571)

On the topic of Mr. Singh, its exciting to see some more young blood in politics. I think we will see more true connection with the middle class.

All governments will spend. If the cons won, the would've also spent to get out of recession.

The difference is how they make up for the spending. The left will raise your taxes and the right will cut spending in other areas. The pendulum swings left and right all the time. When the right cuts all it can and starts cutting into things people care about, it's time for a left leaning government. When the left raises taxes enough and people get tired of it, they'll vote right.

You can see it now. The libs spent 3x what they promised and they're trying to make up or it by increasing taxes for small business owners. If this gets through, it wouldn't surprise me if they start taxing all home sales next.

That's the issue I have. First you know you are going to way way way more than what you promise. Which is already a lie to get people to vote for you (all gov do it but to be this out of balance......) Second instead of trying to control your out of hand spending and giving money away for free you try to tax the very people you said you want to help. Basically you backstab the very people who voted you.

Money have to come from somewhere. You can either increase tax, reduce service or attract investors. Is funny when I ask people who voted to JT for for increasing social service where the money is coming from and most of them doesn't have an answer. Is like they think money grow on trees.

[westopher]

I'll answer. Its taxes.
I'll vote for whoever increases my taxes (within reason) if it means a healthier, happier, more well educated population.
Money isn't what fucks up my day. Its an unhappy, under employed population who is desperate to survive.
Look at america. The class separation is a huge cause of violence and civil unrest, and its a fucking shit place to live because of it. You've got lower taxes but at the cost of the anxiety that comes with random violent crime.
Taxation isn't backstabbing. Its a responsibility of being a part of a civilized society. There is a proven connection between countries with higher quality of life and higher taxation.
We are on a car forum. We literally have tens (some hundreds) of thousands of dollars of TOYS. We are doing fine, its time to calm down about acting as if increasing out taxes $100 a month is going to be the difference between having a lambo next year or being unable to eat our next meal.

[will068]

Policy | Jagmeet Singh For Leader (http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/policy)

$15/hour minimum wage
Universal basic income
Increase in capital gains tax

Sorry, not my cup of tea. I may have voted for him when I was young and lazy but not now.

I hate that capital gains tax. That's a tax on entrepreneurship.

I'm not sure why governments are not focussed on doing the following:

- Lowering taxes for small businesses (where revenue < $X )
- eliminating payroll tax for the middle class.

This pretty much injects money to the middle class. Again, a strong middle class = strong country.

We also have a lot of rich foreigners investing in residential real estate here - which makes the middle class struggle to afford housing. We have to make money out of the residential real estate investors from overseas. The problem is, if we do such thing (tax the fuck out of residential real estate owned by foreign entities, the real estate industry in the major cities take a hit). Is that worth the sacrifice ?

[!LittleDragon]

Don't foreign investors already pay more taxes than the average person?

If rich guy buys a $5,000,000 house that he doesn't live in, isn't he paying more property tax than someone in a $1,000,000 house? They also don't use any services that property taxes pay for.

If they decide to come live here for a few months and they decide to buy an Aventador for the summer. Taxes on a $600k car are more than what the average person earns. From one purchase...

Personally, I like the idea of scrapping everything but consumption taxes like sales tax. No more income tax, it's such a headache every year. If you can afford to spend more then you'll pay more taxes but that's probably too radical for most people.

[westopher]

Good plan.
Then we can get rid of roads, healthcare, school and running water while we are at it. Unless you are planning on a 50-60% sales tax.

[Jmac]

Tax evasion would be insane.

Consumption taxes are also generally “regressive” in that they disproportionately affect the poorest moreso than the wealthiest. Hello poverty through the roof.

[!LittleDragon]

Appeal to the extreme... but 50% isn't that bad. We pay about that much already if you add up all the taxes we pay now. Except we would have a choice. Don't want to pay so much tax, don't spend so much. You can try to hoard all your money but you can't really avoid spending.

[will068]

Don't foreign investors already pay more taxes than the average person?

If rich guy buys a $5,000,000 house that he doesn't live in, isn't he paying more property tax than someone in a $1,000,000 house? They also don't use any services that property taxes pay for.



It's not about fairness, it's about extracting as much money for people willing to pay. In this case, since there is demand for residential real estate, the government should extract as much money as possible.

[RRxtar]

I'll answer. Its taxes.
I'll vote for whoever increases my taxes (within reason) if it means a healthier, happier, more well educated population.
Money isn't what fucks up my day. Its an unhappy, under employed population who is desperate to survive.

except this is real life not a theoretical utopia. do you honestly think increasing taxes has any effect on creating a happier, abundantly employed and wealth population?

yes, there is definitely an affordability issue with the lowest income portion of the population. i dont think increasing taxes on the rest of the workforce has an overall net positive on society.

there is definitely a feel good to "if i pay more in taxes, and that helps people, then ill pay more in taxes" but the reality is that doesnt happen. it just pumps more money into government spending that doesn't have a noticeable difference in any segment.

canadas federal budget in 2015 had an expenditure of $288b. in 2017, that rose to $330b including $30b of deficit. that is a 15% increase in budget spending worth over $40billion. has that $40 billion made anyones lives better? all i, and everyone i know, notice, is that we're paying more in taxes, and shits getting more expensive.

[westopher]

Denmark isn’t a theoretical utopia.
Look man, I don’t know the answer, I really don’t. It’s just time to try something. The only thing that I can see that is a consistent between all the countries we should aspire to be is high taxes, which equal access to higher education for EVERYONE, not just the wealthy.
Access to healthcare for everyone, which I’m proud to live in a country that has that, although it’s not perfect.
And in modern times, a living wage is helping close income disparity, creating a happier population, and in turn creating safer countries.
The most important part with the higher taxes will be an independent audit of government spending.
All I know is America is complete shit to live in, so let’s make sure we don’t head that way because we feel like we need to separate ourselves from our government instead of trying to hold them accountable and give them the resources to do what we need them to.

[twitchyzero]

Policy | Jagmeet Singh For Leader (http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/policy)

$15/hour minimum wage
Universal basic income
Increase in capital gains tax

Sorry, not my cup of tea. I may have voted for him when I was young and lazy but not now.

seems in-line with BC NDP?

[Manic!]

seems in-line with BC NDP?

It is.

[Mr.HappySilp]

I'll answer. Its taxes.
I'll vote for whoever increases my taxes (within reason) if it means a healthier, happier, more well educated population.
Money isn't what fucks up my day. Its an unhappy, under employed population who is desperate to survive.
Look at america. The class separation is a huge cause of violence and civil unrest, and its a fucking shit place to live because of it. You've got lower taxes but at the cost of the anxiety that comes with random violent crime.
Taxation isn't backstabbing. Its a responsibility of being a part of a civilized society. There is a proven connection between countries with higher quality of life and higher taxation.
We are on a car forum. We literally have tens (some hundreds) of thousands of dollars of TOYS. We are doing fine, its time to calm down about acting as if increasing out taxes $100 a month is going to be the difference between having a lambo next year or being unable to eat our next meal.

There will always be poor/low income/homeless people. And there will always be more poor people than rich people. Is been like this since we humans lived.

Let's be real here no likes to pay more tax. More tax means I have less spending. Less spending means less buying power. Less buying power means less money for business and thus they either fold up, fire some people off, increase their pricing to make up for the lose revenue.

We already have enough tax as it is. Income tax, GST, PST, carbon tax, property tax, property sales transfer tax and the list goes on. How about people start working harder and stop feeling so entitle? You know when you hear people complain "I was born and raise in Vancouver therefore I deserve to own a house in Vancouver." Sorry but you deserve nothing.

[MG1]

^One question............

Why are you here?

[welfare]

Denmark isn’t a theoretical utopia.
Look man, I don’t know the answer, I really don’t. It’s just time to try something. The only thing that I can see that is a consistent between all the countries we should aspire to be is high taxes, which equal access to higher education for EVERYONE, not just the wealthy.
Access to healthcare for everyone, which I’m proud to live in a country that has that, although it’s not perfect.
And in modern times, a living wage is helping close income disparity, creating a happier population, and in turn creating safer countries.
The most important part with the higher taxes will be an independent audit of government spending.
All I know is America is complete shit to live in, so let’s make sure we don’t head that way because we feel like we need to separate ourselves from our government instead of trying to hold them accountable and give them the resources to do what we need them to.

Yes. Throw my money at the problem, please. I don't pay enough taxes already.
I find it amazing how the left thinks the cure to the sickness is more sickness.
I'm actually glad Trudeau hasn't done anything (except hike taxes) since being elected. Imagine the deficit if he had?
This country is already so far left it's damn near socialist. We don't need to go further left thank you.

You want a glimpse of what our future with the NDP looks like, just have a look at Alberta. Notley's NDP single handedly strangled their thriving economy. And Horgan will do the same to this resource rich province as well.
Come 2019, when our deficit is through the roof, and the economy is stagnant at best, the last thing we'll need is more head in the clouds tax and spend.
That's my opinion anyways. And I can only pray that others have had enough by then as well.

[SkinnyPupp]

We don't need to go further left thank you.


That's a matter of opinion; some would say we do.

If the whole world is ever going to "come together" peacefully, it is only going to be on "the left". The Muslims tried it on "the right" 600 years ago, followed by conquistadors, more empires, Nazis, etc.

And eventually, the world will need to come together.

[westopher]

Welfare, blaming the Alberta economy on the NDP says a lot about your knowledge of how economics work.
You forget about Alberta’s largest economic factor dropping by half in a year?

[welfare]

Welfare, blaming the Alberta economy on the NDP says a lot about your knowledge of how economics work.
You forget about Alberta’s largest economic factor dropping by half in a year?

So it's just a coincidence that shell dropped it's contract the day after the NDP released it's first budget?

[westopher]

Shell did it because the operation wasn’t profitable enough for them. Carbon tax may have been the straw that broke the camels back, but doesn’t nearly contribute to the decision like a drop to 30 dollars a barrel did.
If the 30 some odd years of conservatives put enough taxes in the bank instead of handing out “Ralph bucks” the carbon tax wouldn’t have been necessary.

[Jmac]

So it's just a coincidence that shell dropped it's contract the day after the NDP released it's first budget?
Let's just ignore the fact that it was part of their $30B divestment plan that they announced 2 years prior to that ...

[Great68]

Welfare, blaming the Alberta economy on the NDP says a lot about your knowledge of how economics work.
You forget about Alberta’s largest economic factor dropping by half in a year?

I was going to say, oil prices crashed in 2014 and Notley was elected in 2015.

Blaming that on her is complete stupidity. If you want someone to blame, blame OPEC.

[Jmac]

I was going to say, oil prices crashed in 2014 and Notley was elected in 2015.

Blaming that on her is complete stupidity. If you want someone to blame, blame OPEC.
You can also put the blame on the government of Alberta. When oil was booming, they should've been diversifying their economy by incentivizing other industries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Z6qWRugCY

[welfare]

That's a matter of opinion; some would say we do.

If the whole world is ever going to "come together" peacefully, it is only going to be on "the left". The Muslims tried it on "the right" 600 years ago, followed by conquistadors, more empires, Nazis, etc.

And eventually, the world will need to come together.

Shall I rail off communist regimes which have resulted in mass death and starvation?

We're arguing extremes.
Fact of the matter is, capitalism is the freest, fairest, form of enterprise.
And capitalism is what builds economies

[SkinnyPupp]

Shall I rail off communist regimes which have resulted in mass death and starvation?

We're arguing extremes.
Fact of the matter is, capitalism is the freest, fairest, form of enterprise.
And capitalism is what builds economies
Times are changing though. Technology is quickly approaching the point where

- Money will be easier to make than ever for capitalists
- There will be far less jobs available

Capitalism and consumerism seems to have a limit to where it can take us, and I am pretty sure we're just reaching the end of the honeymoon period.

Eventually we will HAVE to look at more 'uncomfortably left' policies such as universal income, or things will get even worse than ever.

Just don't be taken by the leftist nutballs you see on youtube and hear about in the news. It's just an opinion of what people think is the best way to give as many humans as much freedom as possible, allowing mankind to progress further and faster.

[welfare]

Shell did it because the operation wasn’t profitable enough for them. Carbon tax may have been the straw that broke the camels back, but doesn’t nearly contribute to the decision like a drop to 30 dollars a barrel did.
If the 30 some odd years of conservatives put enough taxes in the bank instead of handing out “Ralph bucks” the carbon tax wouldn’t have been necessary.

Whether it was a straw or not, it broke the camel's back.
I suppose you believe petronas cancellation of the BC LNG project was due to "market changes" as well LMAO. These NDP work quick. 13b$ project down the drain

[welfare]

Times are changing though. Technology is quickly approaching the point where

- Money will be easier to make than ever for capitalists
- There will be far less jobs available

Capitalism and consumerism seems to have a limit to where it can take us, and I am pretty sure we're just reaching the end of the honeymoon period.

Eventually we will HAVE to look at more 'uncomfortably left' policies such as universal income, or things will get even worse than ever.

Just don't be taken by the leftist nutballs you see on youtube and hear about in the news. It's just an opinion of what people think is the best way to give as many humans as much freedom as possible, allowing mankind to progress further and faster.

Yes, it sounds shiny and beautiful and all. But it's missing one important ingredient. Incentive

[SkinnyPupp]

Yes, it sounds shiny and beautiful and all. But it's missing one important ingredient. Incentive
Incentive to do what?

[westopher]

Incentive to do what?I think he believes people will be so happy with their basic income of 1k a month that no one will work anymore.
The truest killer of incentive is the cycle of living paycheque to paycheque without the belief that higher education or skill acquisition will destine them to a life of debt they can not climb out of (if they would even be able to be approved for those debts.)
Its not like everyone just gets 50k a year that the people who make 100k a year have to pay for in these instances. Their is no better motivation than removing the feeling of someone being trapped at a lower socioeconomic class.

[SkinnyPupp]

Ah, the old "lazy welfare bum" argument.

[welfare]

I think he believes people will be so happy with their basic income of 1k a month that no one will work anymore.
The truest killer of incentive is the cycle of living paycheque to paycheque without the belief that higher education or skill acquisition will destine them to a life of debt they can not climb out of (if they would even be able to be approved for those debts.)
Its not like everyone just gets 50k a year that the people who make 100k a year have to pay for in these instances. Their is no better motivation than removing the feeling of someone being trapped at a lower socioeconomic class.


You realize Canada ranks amongst the highest of developed countries in social mobility?
This idea that people in lower income levels stay in lower income levels does not jive with statistics.
Economic classes are in constant flux. They don't remain stationary.

Ah, the old "lazy welfare bum" argument.

The incentive comment was under the impression we were having a discussion on socialism vs capitalism

[welfare]

Yes. Universal income. Ie, socialism.
Where is the incentive to perform? To excel?

[westopher]

You realize Canada ranks amongst the highest of developed countries in social mobility?

Does that take into account that the middle class wages are remaining stagnant while cost of living climbs?

[$_$]

Yes. Universal income. Ie, socialism.
Where is the incentive to perform? To excel?

Maybe .. just maybe ... a passion for what you do?

Socialism/UBI is about allowing people the freedom to pursue what they want to naturally gravitate towards, regardless of potential income. In theory that would result in higher quality productivity.

Most artists and writers don't become artists or writers because they want to get rich; because as the old joke goes, you'll be a broke ass barista with a arts degree. Yet we covet those who pull through.

Imagine if people had the freedom to purse similar passions without having to worry about roof over their head or food on the table? It could be for crafts like woodworking or basically anything that isn't tied to some fundamental idea where we are trying to sell each other things all the time.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Yes. Universal income. Ie, socialism.
Where is the incentive to perform? To excel?
It's similar to when teenagers live at home and receive an allowance. Aren't ok wearing the clothes your mom bought you? Don't want to drive the old family hauler as your first car? Want the latest console your parents won't/can't afford to buy you? Go get a job, save while still benefiting from your parents, and buy what you want.

[welfare]

Does that take into account that the middle class wages are remaining stagnant while cost of living climbs?

I'm talking about social mobility. That's not the same thing as wage.
Do you think someone at the age of 20 in the workforce makes as much as he will when he's 40? No. Because people are constantly moving in and out of economic classes.

And you don't like the cost of living? Well you're gonna love the cost of living when the bc NDP carbon tax kicks in and everything costs even more. No tax cuts to offset it either. It's going straight to green initiatives. But hey, they've got the answer; more corporate taxes! That should draw business in.
Oh, and that's on top of Trudeau's carbon (everything) tax.
Treating the sickness with sickness.

Maybe .. just maybe ... a passion for what you do?

Socialism/UBI is about allowing people the freedom to pursue what they want to naturally gravitate towards, regardless of potential income. In theory that would result in higher quality productivity.

Most artists and writers don't become artists or writers because they want to get rich; because as the old joke goes, you'll be a broke ass barista with a arts degree. Yet we covet those who pull through.

Imagine if people had the freedom to purse similar passions without having to worry about roof over their head or food on the table? It could be for crafts like woodworking or basically anything that isn't tied to some fundamental idea where we are trying to sell each other things all the time.

Riiiight. And what happens when someone loses that passion for what they do? Or when too many people wanna do one thing and not the other? Or when someone decides, hey, I just plain ol' don't feel like contributing. Where does the incentive come from then?
I'll tell you where it comes from; the end of a bayonet. Tried that before many times, remember? Millions slaughtered, yada yada..

I realize capitalism has it's flaws. But it is the fairest, freest system available.

[welfare]

It's similar to when teenagers live at home and receive an allowance. Aren't ok wearing the clothes your mom bought you? Don't want to drive the old family hauler as your first car? Want the latest console your parents won't/can't afford to buy you? Go get a job, save while still benefiting from your parents, and buy what you want.

Allowance!? Hah! No wonder these damn "kids" are still in the basement at 30! Perfect example thank you.

[welfare]

It really shouldn't come as a surprise tho. The NDP is a socialist Democrat party. They discourage the private sector in favor of a public sector. The only industry they want running is public. Paid for by you and me and controlled by them.

[Jmac]

I'm talking about social mobility. That's not the same thing as wage.
Do you think someone at the age of 20 in the workforce makes as much as he will when he's 40? No. Because people are constantly moving in and out of economic classes.

And you don't like the cost of living? Well you're gonna love the cost of living when the bc NDP carbon tax kicks in and everything costs even more. No tax cuts to offset it either. It's going straight to green initiatives. But hey, they've got the answer; more corporate taxes! That should draw business in.
Oh, and that's on top of Trudeau's carbon (everything) tax.
Treating the sickness with sickness.


Riiiight. And what happens when someone loses that passion for what they do? Or when too many people wanna do one thing and not the other? Or when someone decides, hey, I just plain ol' don't feel like contributing. Where does the incentive come from then?
I'll tell you where it comes from; the end of a bayonet. Tried that before many times, remember? Millions slaughtered, yada yada..

I realize capitalism has it's flaws. But it is the fairest, freest system available.
BC has had a carbon tax since 2008 and it's higher than the federally-mandated (Trudeau) carbon tax.

[welfare]

Sorry. Carbon Tax increase

[welfare]

And yes, all that universal income stuff looks great in theory, but the only place it leads to is pure socialism. When you tax the hell out of the private sector to pay for it and the private sector caves in on itself, the only move is all the way left.

You don't create a healthy society by increasing dependency. Human beings are incredibly adaptive when you allow them to be, IMO.

[SkinnyPupp]

So (all of this will happen and is happening) private sector utilizes more automation, makes even more money even more easily, inevitably people lose all kinds of jobs (not just 'entry level' either)...

And this leads to prosperity for all... how?

[CivicBlues]

Welfare is just worried that when automation takes his job, and his passion for shitposting right-wing tropes on RS peters out he's gonna be sitting on his ass wondering what he's going to do.

[originalhypa]

Welfare is just worried that when automation takes his job, and his passion for shitposting right-wing tropes on RS peters out he's gonna be sitting on his ass wondering what he's going to do.

welfare is an interesting fellow, for sure.
But he does have a point here.

You don't create a healthy society by increasing dependency. Human beings are incredibly adaptive when you allow them to be

In the past, if you're physically or mentally deficient, lazy, or obese, you would die. There were no social parachutes to keep your unproductive ass protected. You either survived, or you didn't and your DNA string was wiped off the map.

https://media.giphy.com/media/czMq0X7aqCEVy/giphy.gif

But there are so many protections in place to keep folks in a cycle of poverty. You have the guy who has been on disability for the last ten years, and takes a dozen anti-depressants a day. You have the woman on welfare with 4 kids from 4 different daddies. You have the trust fund kid who chooses to stay on EI, even though he's fully capable of working. These are real problems that take away from those who truly need the help.

[CivicBlues]

Yeah but what happens when a critical mass of able-bodied and sound mind can't work anymore because there's no jobs for them? Or at least jobs that pay a living wage? You're already seeing this with all the Trumpeteer factory workers and coal miners. What happens when all the white collar jobs disappear? We can't all be basket weavers and wood whittlers. I don't claim to have an answer, but the current system of "dog eat dog" "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" won't work.

[SkinnyPupp]

welfare is an interesting fellow, for sure.
But he does have a point here.



In the past, if you're physically or mentally deficient, lazy, or obese, you would die. There were no social parachutes to keep your unproductive ass protected. You either survived, or you didn't and your DNA string was wiped off the map.

https://media.giphy.com/media/czMq0X7aqCEVy/giphy.gif

But there are so many protections in place to keep folks in a cycle of poverty. You have the guy who has been on disability for the last ten years, and takes a dozen anti-depressants a day. You have the woman on welfare with 4 kids from 4 different daddies. You have the trust fund kid who chooses to stay on EI, even though he's fully capable of working. These are real problems that take away from those who truly need the help.
The thing is, it's not just the incapable (for whatever reason) that will be affected. Practically EVERYTHING will be able to be automated eventually. First with supervision, then with AI. Everyone from ditch diggers to truck drivers to investment bankers will have nothing to do.

Also there's not much point in referencing the past of how "things should be". The world was built based on people with means taking advantage of those without. It's time to move on from that.

[Bouncing Bettys]

But there are so many protections in place to keep folks in a cycle of poverty. You have the guy who has been on disability for the last ten years, and takes a dozen anti-depressants a day. You have the woman on welfare with 4 kids from 4 different daddies. You have the trust fund kid who chooses to stay on EI, even though he's fully capable of working. These are real problems that take away from those who truly need the help.
The ability to fly under the radar, to survive without contributing, would seem to be ingrained in our DNA. Yet this behaviour isn't prevalent among the majority of the population. Automation will eventually effect the majority of the population. There are examples of segments of society who are provided a safety net and who are not content with it and that is why I brought up teenagers. Unlike those young boys in your 300 example, thrust out into the world, they have the safety net of parental guardianship (basic food, shelter, clothing), and they still insist on earning their own money to buy the things they want or follow they path they choose for themselves. Incentive is not lost for the majority of them and neither will it be for the majority of us.

[!LittleDragon]

It's similar to when teenagers live at home and receive an allowance. Aren't ok wearing the clothes your mom bought you? Don't want to drive the old family hauler as your first car? Want the latest console your parents won't/can't afford to buy you? Go get a job, save while still benefiting from your parents, and buy what you want.

I always had to work for my allowance. If I didn't feel like working, I didn't get paid.

[westopher]

Let’s say your parents gave you 20 bucks a week, but if you did your chores you’d get 80. Would you do nothing and take the 20?

[!LittleDragon]

I probably would have taken the 20 and blown it all on pop rocks. Then wait for the next 20 so I can buy more pop rocks... lol

[welfare]

So (all of this will happen and is happening) private sector utilizes more automation, makes even more money even more easily, inevitably people lose all kinds of jobs (not just 'entry level' either)...

And this leads to prosperity for all... how?

prosperity for all. that's the difference. i don't believe prosperity for all is a natural occurence of life.
if we all had equal prosperity, we would have no reason to excel. we wouldn't even know what exceling is without anything to compare it to. theory of relativity.
i'm sorry but life is not about equal outcomes. cold as it sounds. you can look at all species on the planet. that's not how evolution works.

how profitable do you think it would become if everything became automated, and there were no more jobs for people to make money to buy these products? does that sound like it would be an intelligent thing to do, as a producer of goods?

[welfare]

Welfare is just worried that when automation takes his job, and his passion for shitposting right-wing tropes on RS peters out he's gonna be sitting on his ass wondering what he's going to do.

yea but would we be engaging in "interesting" conversation without my shitposting?

you're welcome, dear

[$_$]

And yes, all that universal income stuff looks great in theory, but the only place it leads to is pure socialism. When you tax the hell out of the private sector to pay for it and the private sector caves in on itself, the only move is all the way left.

You don't create a healthy society by increasing dependency. Human beings are incredibly adaptive when you allow them to be, IMO.

It's not dependency; it's the fact that society is not giving people an even and level playing field to begin with. If everyone that was born had the same opportunities/natural ability as everyone else, then this system would work. But it doesn't. Someone that comes from generational wealth will be better off than those that aren't from generational wealth. And thus the suffering of the poor continues.

I probably would have taken the 20 and blown it all on pop rocks. Then wait for the next 20 so I can buy more pop rocks... lol

And my question is, what is fundamentally wrong with that? Isn't that what retirement basically is? What the majority of the population "looks forward to" when they hit their 60's or 70's if they are lucky?

Some of us are consumers. Some of us are producers. Let the consumers consume, and let the producers produce. Why is it dictated that we need to "work" to find meaning in our lives? If you wanna blow the 20 on pop rocks, then blow the 20 on pop rocks. What you decide to do with the remainder of your time is up to you. The point is to allow you to find your own meaning in your life; as long as it doesn't hurt or affect others.

prosperity for all. that's the difference. i don't believe prosperity for all is a natural occurence of life.
if we all had equal prosperity, we would have no reason to excel. we wouldn't even know what exceling is without anything to compare it to. theory of relativity.
i'm sorry but life is not about equal outcomes. cold as it sounds. you can look at all species on the planet. that's not how evolution works.

how profitable do you think it would become if everything became automated, and there were no more jobs for people to make money to buy these products? does that sound like it would be an intelligent thing to do, as a producer of goods?

I think you are misunderstanding UBI. It's not about prosperity for all. It's about creating a baseline for everybody so that at the very least, people do not have to worry about basic needs. Right now we have certain safety nets in Canada to help alleviate these problems; but applying for them, getting them takes a lot of time effort and energy. Time and energy that could be spent on more productive things. You have to "meet certain criteria" in order to apply for these safety nets.

Like many people have already pointed out, this is an issue that's staring us in the face right now and it's barreling down towards us. Almost all jobs will soon be able to be automated at some level. That means job loss across basically all sectors of industry. There simply won't be enough jobs for the population, at least not at the rate that automation will take over. I'm sure over the longer term, we will come up with new jobs; just like we have after the industrial revolution took over. We switched over from labor based workforce to a retail and service based work force (look at most western society). That transition was extremely painful for people, but we got through it. AI is going to be a completely different beast though. And if you don't start planning now, you are going to have a big portion of the population that can't afford to get through this transition smoothly, and will suffer greatly. You will have pissed off, poor people that can't afford to eat or pay rent anymore. It doesn't matter if they are incentivised. Companies simply wouldn't need them because robots and computers will do their job better and 24/7 without needing to rest or take vacation days.

[welfare]

It's not dependency; it's the fact that society is not giving people an even and level playing field to begin with. If everyone that was born had the same opportunities/natural ability as everyone else, then this system would work. But it doesn't. Someone that comes from generational wealth will be better off than those that aren't from generational wealth. And thus the suffering of the poor continues.

Yes, but even people from the gutter can rise up and utilize their intelligence and environment to gain wealth. If they so choose. All of the tools are readily available for the willing. That's the beauty of the free market. No one is systematically oppressing anyone here.
This may come off as harsh, but the truth is the vast majority of those in poverty were not forced into their position. They made choices. Just like every other human does everyday. Some make sound choices, some irresponsible. But at the end of the day, it was a choice.
And Taking away that accountability does a great disservice to the individual, IMO.





Some of us are consumers. Some of us are producers. Let the consumers consume, and let the producers produce. Why is it dictated that we need to "work" to find meaning in our lives? If you wanna blow the 20 on pop rocks, then blow the 20 on pop rocks. What you decide to do with the remainder of your time is up to you. The point is to allow you to find your own meaning in your life; as long as it doesn't hurt or affect others.

Actually, everyone is a consumer. That's kind of the point. We consume, and so we must produce. If one person is doing one but not the other, does that sound fair?


I think you are misunderstanding UBI. It's not about prosperity for all. It's about creating a baseline for everybody so that at the very least, people do not have to worry about basic needs. Right now we have certain safety nets in Canada to help alleviate these problems; but applying for them, getting them takes a lot of time effort and energy. Time and energy that could be spent on more productive things. You have to "meet certain criteria" in order to apply for these safety nets.

Like many people have already pointed out, this is an issue that's staring us in the face right now and it's barreling down towards us. Almost all jobs will soon be able to be automated at some level. That means job loss across basically all sectors of industry. There simply won't be enough jobs for the population, at least not at the rate that automation will take over. I'm sure over the longer term, we will come up with new jobs; just like we have after the industrial revolution took over. We switched over from labor based workforce to a retail and service based work force (look at most western society). That transition was extremely painful for people, but we got through it. AI is going to be a completely different beast though. And if you don't start planning now, you are going to have a big portion of the population that can't afford to get through this transition smoothly, and will suffer greatly. You will have pissed off, poor people that can't afford to eat or pay rent anymore. It doesn't matter if they are incentivised. Companies simply wouldn't need them because robots and computers will do their job better and 24/7 without needing to rest or take vacation days.


The industrial revolution. People adapted. The market grew stronger for it. It's what we do.
AI is helping with jobs. Not taking over entire sectors. This speculation honestly sounds like propaganda. And propaganda is a very dangerous tool.

And who do you suppose is going to pay for this? The estimated cost for Canada would be 30b$ annually I believe. That's not pocket change.

UBI may work in Finland. Possibly. Depending on what your definition of success is for the program. With a population of 5.5m. but they could have easily just adjusted their social income program to incentivise employment rather than penalize it instead.

[$_$]

Yes, but even people from the gutter can rise up and utilize their intelligence and environment to gain wealth. If they so choose. All of the tools are readily available for the willing. That's the beauty of the free market. No one is systematically oppressing anyone here.
This may come off as harsh, but the truth is the vast majority of those in poverty were not forced into their position. They made choices. Just like every other human does everyday. Some make sound choices, some irresponsible. But at the end of the day, it was a choice.
And Taking away that accountability does a great disservice to the individual, IMO.

That simply isn't true. Get born in a shitty neighborhood. Infested in gang violence. Shitty education system. Shitty social programs. None-existent parenting. Work two jobs but still poor as fuck. Student loans, debt. Have you really not heard of this story over and over again? I don't know about you but I've seen this shit first hand and it's not for lack of trying that people aren't able to able to move vertically to the next social class. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying the cards are stacked against them, and it's only been getting harder and harder. Luck plays a way bigger role than you're trying to make it out to be.




Actually, everyone is a consumer. That's kind of the point. We consume, and so we must produce. If one person is doing one but not the other, does that sound fair?


Consolidation of corp/megacorps is the way moving forward. Competing with these companies in free market conditions is becoming harder and harder. Try competing in an industry with companies like Google/Amazon/Facebook etc. The dream is to get bought out, not to actually compete. Is that really capitalism then?

Not everyone is a consumer. There are producers for the sake of producing, and to produce purely for the advancement of passion. That's the should be the way moving forward, not advancement for the purpose of maximizing profit. Because when you advance for the purpose of maximizing profit, you'll see the people on the bottom fucked as much as possible for the profit of the top.





The industrial revolution. People adapted. The market grew stronger for it. It's what we do.
AI is helping with jobs. Not taking over entire sectors. This speculation honestly sounds like propaganda. And propaganda is a very dangerous tool.

And who do you suppose is going to pay for this? The estimated cost for Canada would be 30b$ annually I believe. That's not pocket change.

UBI may work in Finland. Possibly. Depending on what your definition of success is for the program. With a population of 5.5m. but they could have easily just adjusted their social income program to incentivise employment rather than penalize it instead.



The market grew stronger for it, sure. But who really benefited from that? Income redistribution is key.

[welfare]

That simply isn't true. Get born in a shitty neighborhood. Infested in gang violence. Shitty education system. Shitty social programs. None-existent parenting. Work two jobs but still poor as fuck. Student loans, debt. Have you really not heard of this story over and over again? I don't know about you but I've seen this shit first hand and it's not for lack of trying that people aren't able to able to move vertically to the next social class. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying the cards are stacked against them, and it's only been getting harder and harder. Luck plays a way bigger role than you're trying to make it out to be.

I've seen it myself as well, and I can tell you that there are many many choices the disadvantaged that I grew up with had made and continue to make to keep themselves there.
Of course it's an uphill battle. But that battle is important for strength and human capital. Which is the ability to self sustain.

It's not about being wealthy. That can be lost within a generation easily. It's about sustaining it.
If tomorrow income classes were reversed, and the bottom twenty percent of earners were switched with the top twenty percent, I have no doubt that by the next generation, the bottom would have moved toward the centre or top, and the top would have moved toward the bottom.
The reason is choices. Management and mismanagement. It is the way it is because of choices
You don't teach sustainability by giving it away. It teaches the opposite. It's hard to appreciate something you didn't earn. This is a generation of instant gratification. And I find it very unhealthy.




Consolidation of corp/megacorps is the way moving forward. Competing with these companies in free market conditions is becoming harder and harder. Try competing in an industry with companies like Google/Amazon/Facebook etc. The dream is to get bought out, not to actually compete. Is that really capitalism then?

Not everyone is a consumer. There are producers for the sake of producing, and to produce purely for the advancement of passion. That's the should be the way moving forward, not advancement for the purpose of maximizing profit. Because when you advance for the purpose of maximizing profit, you'll see the people on the bottom fucked as much as possible for the profit of the top.


The market grew stronger for it, sure. But who really benefited from that? Income redistribution is key.

You haven't answered my question of who is going to pay

[SkinnyPupp]

how profitable do you think it would become if everything became automated, and there were no more jobs for people to make money to buy these products? does that sound like it would be an intelligent thing to do, as a producer of goods?

So you think if a bank comes up with an AI that can trade stocks that make 10% more profit on top of the salaries they would save by cutting redundant staff, they wouldn't do so because it would means these people wouldn't be able to be their customers?

No wonder you like capitalism so much, you have no idea how it works.

These corporations will do ANYTHING to make more money than they did last year. The amount of people who make this money will get smaller and smaller, leaving everyone else behind.

The 1% will become the 0.5% and then the 0.1% and so on

[CivicBlues]

I've seen it myself as well, and I can tell you that there are many many choices the disadvantaged that I grew up with had made and continue to make to keep themselves there.
Of course it's an uphill battle. But that battle is important for strength and human capital. Which is the ability to self sustain.

It's not about being wealthy. That can be lost within a generation easily. It's about sustaining it.
If tomorrow income classes were reversed, and the bottom twenty percent of earners were switched with the top twenty percent, I have no doubt that by the next generation, the bottom would have moved toward the centre or top, and the top would have moved toward the bottom.
The reason is choices. Management and mismanagement. It is the way it is because of choices
You don't teach sustainability by giving it away. It teaches the opposite. It's hard to appreciate something you didn't earn. This is a generation of instant gratification. And I find it very unhealthy.

What you are stating here is a form of selection bias. I'm sure we all know of the rags-to-riches story about a guy who rose out of the ghetto to become CEO of his own clothing line. But that's the outlier. For every 1 of those stories there's probably a 10000 that you never hear of where generational poverty is the reality for them.

You haven't answered my question of who is going to pay
We already do pay, through EI, CPP, etc. Except it's paid out extremely inefficiently through the various welfare programs in place now. The cost savings from implementing an across the board UBI would make up some of the difference. I'm not an expert on this but I assume we will also need to top it up somehow probably in the form of more taxes. However, in the long run society will be better off for this as it will free up human capital to do more productive actions rather than just fight for survival. I mean the gov't already does this by providing basic infrastructure, sanitation, water, etc. How would your life be if you had to blaze your own foot path every time you went out and draw water from a well every morning? Is that not dependency? Unless you live in the woods as a survivalist, you're talking out of your ass

[welfare]

So you think if a bank comes up with an AI that can trade stocks that make 10% more profit on top of the salaries they would save by cutting redundant staff, they wouldn't do so because it would means these people wouldn't be able to be their customers?

No wonder you like capitalism so much, you have no idea how it works.

These corporations will do ANYTHING to make more money than they did last year. The amount of people who make this money will get smaller and smaller, leaving everyone else behind.

The 1% will become the 0.5% and then the 0.1% and so on

i'm not an economics guru. but it doesn't take one to understand the simple concept of the free market.
technology makes jobs obsolete. this is nothing new. jobs are made obsolete and others are created. the market doesn't just evaporate. it's a cycle. the market adjusts.

i couldn't find AI technlogy capable of successfully trading stocks. can you share?

[Manic!]

i couldn't find AI technlogy capable of successfully trading stocks. can you share?

Automated trading exists. Any that's good will not be available to the public because it's a license to print money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4nCTdQlH8w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WstJM_aNSj8

[welfare]

What you are stating here is a form of selection bias. I'm sure we all know of the rags-to-riches story about a guy who rose out of the ghetto to become CEO of his own clothing line. But that's the outlier. For every 1 of those stories there's probably a 10000 that you never hear of where generational poverty is the reality for them.


you can call it what you like, but the cold fact is people aren't forced into poverty here (fortunately). in fact, quite the contrary. and the opportunities of the "rags to riches" story are the same throughout the population, regardless of whether or not it is an anomoly.


We already do pay, through EI, CPP, etc. Except it's paid out extremely inefficiently through the various welfare programs in place now. The cost savings from implementing an across the board UBI would make up some of the difference. I'm not an expert on this but I assume we will also need to top it up somehow probably in the form of more taxes. However, in the long run society will be better off for this as it will free up human capital to do more productive actions rather than just fight for survival. I mean the gov't already does this by providing basic infrastructure, sanitation, water, etc. How would your life be if you had to blaze your own foot path every time you went out and draw water from a well every morning? Is that not dependency? Unless you live in the woods as a survivalist, you're talking out of your ass

so we increase taxes to pay (likely in the corporate sector) further burdoning business, which is already struggling thanks to the taxes already imposed.
you don't think that will have a negative effect on the economy? and this is a solution to unemployment and poverty?
do you see where i'm coming from?

and yes, i believe in some social services, of course. infrastructure being one of them

[mikemhg]

i'm not an economics guru. but it doesn't take one to understand the simple concept of the free market.
technology makes jobs obsolete. this is nothing new. jobs are made obsolete and others are created. the market doesn't just evaporate. it's a cycle. the market adjusts.

i couldn't find AI technlogy capable of successfully trading stocks. can you share?

Are you FUCKING serious? You have never heard of algorithm based trading? You do know that roughly 75% of trading is done by algorithms? However it is not easy to estimate.

See it's people like you who are the problem, you lack the education and knowledge on a given subject, yet you prefer to argue as if you carry the facts.

If you don't know something, don't pretend like you do. Why not sit down and learn something from people?

[!LittleDragon]

Most people don't realize that white collar jobs are slowly going away unless they've been affected.

People just see blue collar jobs disappearing. Manufacturing and farming are mostly done by machines and a small crew now. Truck and cab drivers will be gone when autonomous cars are mainstream.

People forget that bank tellers are almost gone. Replaced by the ATM. Portfolio managers are being replaced by robo advisors. Help desk jobs are being replaced by chat bots. Even lawyers are being replaced by software now. Most people don't even notice that a lot of online articles were not written by a human.

[GS8]

Most people don't even notice that a lot of online articles were not written by a human.

Is that why there's a lot of fake news?

:troll:

[welfare]

Are you FUCKING serious? You have never heard of algorithm based trading? You do know that roughly 75% of trading is done by algorithms? However it is not easy to estimate.

See it's people like you who are the problem, you lack the education and knowledge on a given subject, yet you prefer to argue as if you carry the facts.

If you don't know something, don't pretend like you do. Why not sit down and learn something from people?

Easy there sparky. I never claimed to have knowledge of automated trading. In fact I asked if he could share.

I am receptive to the concern here.

So this practice is regulated then?
I'd imagine there is still a level of risk involved? How does that risk compare to manual trading?

[Manic!]

Easy there sparky. I never claimed to have knowledge of automated trading. In fact I asked if he could share.

I am receptive to the concern here.

So this practice is regulated then?
I'd imagine there is still a level of risk involved? How does that risk compare to manual trading?

Not regulated. Google flash crash.

[welfare]

So with all this talk about massive unemployment due to rapid advances in technology, how do people here feel about the speculation that Canada could see a 0% unemployment rate by 2020?
And that there could be a major labor shortage due to retiring baby boomers and a low Canadian birthrate?
Just curious

[westopher]

If that happens Trudeau is literally the king of Canada and things are good. How are you going to complain about him and demand a conservative turn in economic values then?
I’m happy to leave my further left economic values behind in that case for certain aspects at least.

Should I apologize in advance for all the dam immigants that need to come in 2 fill r jabs that we don’t have the population to fill?

[welfare]

Right. Because it has everything to do with Trudeau's policies.

[welfare]

Knowing him tho, he'll still F that up anyways

[westopher]

Well every problem in the world is because of him, but zero successes are. That’s why listening to people like you talk about things like this is such a joke.
You have no rationality.

[welfare]

Explain to me how baby boomers retiring and a low birth rate has anything to do with his leadership

[westopher]

It doesn’t, but also dropping oil prices has nothing to do with NDP. You pick and choose who’s fault everything is with absolutely no understanding of reality other than what you can use to further your flawed arguments.
You have no concept of reality.
0% unemployment isn’t even in the realm of possibility. You just create contradicting scenarios to further your argument and end up spinning in circles.

[Traum]

So with all this talk about massive unemployment due to rapid advances in technology, how do people here feel about the speculation that Canada could see a 0% unemployment rate by 2020?
And that there could be a major labor shortage due to retiring baby boomers and a low Canadian birthrate?
Just curious
With Trudeau's policy proposal to start rescinding tax breaks for small businesses and professionals, I'd be more concerned about rising unemployment rates instead of something that approaches full employment.

Also, if you've been paying attention, boomers are not exactly retiring en masse. Whether it is because financially they cannot afford to retire, or that they are choosing to continue working to keep themselves busy, they continue to occupy more senior positions, and that is causing a direct negative impact on the gen X-ers climbing the corporate ladder. So when the Boomers finally retire for one reason or another, I'd say it is quite a relief for the younger generations.

Low birth rate is a whole other can of worms, and I am too tired / sleepy to write anything now.

[welfare]

It doesn’t, but also dropping oil prices has nothing to do with NDP. You pick and choose who’s fault everything is with absolutely no understanding of reality other than what you can use to further your flawed arguments.
You have no concept of reality.
0% unemployment isn’t even in the realm of possibility. You just create contradicting scenarios to further your argument and end up spinning in circles.

So you don't think if a government like the conservatives were still leading that it would allow a more favorable climate to oil producers, like shell, to weather the storm? Even at 30$/barrel?


Oh and here's that contradicting scenario I'm creating :fullofwin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_by_unemployment_rate

Future labour shortages

The current unemployment rates for each province/territory, in addition to the national unemployment rate, do not take into account the labour shortages that will occur due to Canada's low birth rate and aging population.

The summer of 2020 will see the unemployment rate in Canada drop to nearly zero percent as young workers entering the workforce fail to keep up with the elderly workers retiring by the thousands. Ontario, for example, will see 190,000 job positions go unfilled.[8] Canada will have as many as 1.8 million jobs without the right quality of people to apply for them by 2030.

This will put Canada in a "severe labour shortage" situations; and desperate measures like hiring foreign workers for one year at a time and re-educating unskilled workers into skilled workers will be the agenda for most companies during this era.[9]

[welfare]

With Trudeau's policy proposal to start rescinding tax breaks for small businesses and professionals, I'd be more concerned about rising unemployment rates instead of something that approaches full employment.


Precisely why it's so important next election that we consider the upcoming job market. The real job market. Not this drummed up hysteria.


Also, if you've been paying attention, boomers are not exactly retiring en masse. Whether it is because financially they cannot afford to retire, or that they are choosing to continue working to keep themselves busy, they continue to occupy more senior positions, and that is causing a direct negative impact on the gen X-ers climbing the corporate ladder. So when the Boomers finally retire for one reason or another, I'd say it is quite a relief for the younger generations.

Low birth rate is a whole other can of worms, and I am too tired / sleepy to write anything now.

Indeed. But they will be retiring, regardless.

You know what I find funny? There is a huge demand for trades in this province. And the government literally pays for anyone to get their red seal (1000$ for first year completion, another 1000$ for second, and 2000$ upon completion in a four year program). Yet I'm still hearing all this whining about poverty and unemployment.
It just really makes me wonder about this generations priorities.

[Traum]

You know what I find funny? There is a huge demand for trades in this province. And the government literally pays for anyone to get their red seal (1000$ for first year completion, another 1000$ for second, and 2000$ upon completion in a four year program). Yet I'm still hearing all this whining about poverty and unemployment.
It just really makes me wonder about this generations priorities.
IMO, it isn't just for trades. In a good chunk of Metro Vancouver, it is extremely difficult to hire for a job that requires some sort of specialty -- I was just reading the other day that apparently, line cooks are having a huge difficulty with hiring. Opticians are in the same boat. Apprentice mechanics same deal.

From what I can gather, the difficulty is primarily a result of Vancouver's highly expensive cost of living. Shxtty traffic also does not help. Businesses -- esp small / independently owned businesses -- are caught between a rock and a hard place because they can't find anyone available to work, and yet they can't offer a higher salary to attract talent because their customers are not willing to pay for higher prices.

[westopher]

Can attest to difficulty of hiring cooks.
Margins are too thin and they don’t get paid enough. Imagine they could have a universal basic income and afford to live here? The talent pool would be incredible.
If people aren’t head chefs by 30 or so they leave the industry because the earnings ceiling is so low. It’s sad when people are reaching amazing talents and they have to say fuck it because this place is too expensive.
It’s like that in many industries to do with the arts and creativity in some capacity. You have to make it or be willing to sacrifice the prospects of a family to continue to persue it.

[Jmac]

So you don't think if a government like the conservatives were still leading that it would allow a more favorable climate to oil producers, like shell, to weather the storm? Even at 30$/barrel?


Oh and here's that contradicting scenario I'm creating :fullofwin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_by_unemployment_rate
:facepalm::failed:

[$_$]

you can call it what you like, but the cold fact is people aren't forced into poverty here (fortunately). in fact, quite the contrary. and the opportunities of the "rags to riches" story are the same throughout the population, regardless of whether or not it is an anomoly.



so we increase taxes to pay (likely in the corporate sector) further burdoning business, which is already struggling thanks to the taxes already imposed.
you don't think that will have a negative effect on the economy? and this is a solution to unemployment and poverty?
do you see where i'm coming from?

and yes, i believe in some social services, of course. infrastructure being one of them

Yeah, you're right, people aren't forced into poverty here. But as it's continuously pointed out, the "rags to riches" stories are outliers rather than the norm. That means 99% of the population suffers when you have 1 person succeeding. Is that really taking care of your fellow peers?

Further burdening businesses? Why aren't we more worried more about the bottom 25% of the people over the mega corps?

Look, UBI is probably a long ways away. The solution to poor decisions as you are alluding to is due to lack of education and good social structure. We are extremely fortunate in Canada already, with the system we have set up. And we got here by being more progressive than other countries and learning from their mistakes. That's the advantage of being a relatively young country with people from all different backgrounds. Greed isn't the answer to what should be incentivizing growth. That's my bottom line. If it is, then you devolve into all kinds of fucked up shit that people are willing to do in order to get what they think is theirs.

[welfare]

IMO, it isn't just for trades. In a good chunk of Metro Vancouver, it is extremely difficult to hire for a job that requires some sort of specialty -- I was just reading the other day that apparently, line cooks are having a huge difficulty with hiring. Opticians are in the same boat. Apprentice mechanics same deal.

From what I can gather, the difficulty is primarily a result of Vancouver's highly expensive cost of living. Shxtty traffic also does not help. Businesses -- esp small / independently owned businesses -- are caught between a rock and a hard place because they can't find anyone available to work, and yet they can't offer a higher salary to attract talent because their customers are not willing to pay for higher prices.

I absolutely agree. Cost of living plays a huge role. And it is a struggle in the beginning. But if you tough it out, get your red seal, depending on the trade, you can make a very comfortable living. That can be accomplished within a few years. And as mentioned, the government just about pays the tuition and materials.
So I do believe that there is a lack of motivation or direction as well.

Small businesses are struggling as it is, as you've mentioned. JT's tax plan will indefinitely cause further hardship. And this talk about increasing minimum wage would certainly have a dire effect as well. This is a time that burdens on business should be lifted, not exacerbated, IMO.

Yes greater Vancouver is extremely expensive right now.
I see people struggling to pay 2000$ rent for a single bedroom and i have to ask myself, why?
A good majority of people doing this could lower their cost of living by moving further out.
Many don't feel that they should have to sacrifice that. But it is their choice.
I realized that Vancouver was getting out of hand long ago. So even though I was born and raised there, love that city, I moved further out. And when it came time to buy, I moved further still. It wasn't what I wanted, but that's life sometimes. We adapt.

Yeah, you're right, people aren't forced into poverty here. But as it's continuously pointed out, the "rags to riches" stories are outliers rather than the norm. That means 99% of the population suffers when you have 1 person succeeding. Is that really taking care of your fellow peers?

Further burdening businesses? Why aren't we more worried more about the bottom 25% of the people over the mega corps?

Look, UBI is probably a long ways away. The solution to poor decisions as you are alluding to is due to lack of education and good social structure. We are extremely fortunate in Canada already, with the system we have set up. And we got here by being more progressive than other countries and learning from their mistakes. That's the advantage of being a relatively young country with people from all different backgrounds. Greed isn't the answer to what should be incentivizing growth. That's my bottom line. If it is, then you devolve into all kinds of fucked up shit that people are willing to do in order to get what they think is theirs.


Being successful does not equal greed. And making sound decisions in our lives does not have to hurt anyone.

the rags to riches (we don't really have to say riches. We can just use the word successful, or even happy) outcome may be a small fraction. But just because the outcome was a small fraction doesn't mean that the opportunity was.

As you've mentioned, we are extremely fortunate to live in this country. I agree. And as I'd mentioned previously, we rank amongst the top in developed countries for social mobility.

I'm sure we are in agreement of the same outcome. The good of the common man. We just aren't in agreement of the approach.

I don't want to see people struggle any more than you do. I just don't believe that simply taking money from one area and putting it into the hands of the struggling is the way forward.

[welfare]

Further burdening businesses? Why aren't we more worried more about the bottom 25% of the people over the mega corps?



the obvious answer would be businesses employ people.

it's my opinion that the government is not here to help people (aside from those physically incapable).
they're here to provide an environment favorable for people to help themselves.
i think the ability to self sustain and adapt is one of the most important elements in a society.

that is one of the fundamental differences between ideologies.

i'm not saying the government shouldn't help anyone. hell, there are people in this country living in third world conditions.
those peoples help is not going to come in the form of a monthly check

[$_$]

I'm sure we are in agreement of the same outcome. The good of the common man. We just aren't in agreement of the approach.

I don't want to see people struggle any more than you do. I just don't believe that simply taking money from one area and putting it into the hands of the struggling is the way forward.

I'm glad we agree on something.

I think what I'm getting at though, is that the current idea of "work" for sustainability doesn't resonate very well for me. A recent TED talk I watched said that 60% of people didn't enjoy their jobs; and of those, IIRC 30% hated their jobs. That's a very large portion of the population that spend the majority of their lives doing something that they do not like. We can talk about "choices" and opportunities all day, but that's just the reality of the situation right now (even with opportunities given). The reason I'm both excited and terrified of AI is that I'm hoping it'll free up human capital to allow us to become unshackled to this type of lifestyle, but only if we apply it properly.


the obvious answer would be businesses employ people.

it's my opinion that the government is not here to help people (aside from those physically incapable).
they're here to provide an environment favorable for people to help themselves.
i think the ability to self sustain and adapt is one of the most important elements in a society.

that is one of the fundamental differences between ideologies.

i'm not saying the government shouldn't help anyone. hell, there are people in this country living in third world conditions.
those peoples help is not going to come in the form of a monthly check

Health care didn't use to be universal. But look at us now. I think income could just be another one of those baselines that we look back on and think of it as a no brainer.

There are more important things to "sustain and adapt" to as a society. Fixing global warming. Fixing GLOBAL hunger and inequality. Working towards multinational peace and prosperity. Becoming an interplanetary species. All of those things are more important that sustaining and adapting to make sure that any one person have to worry about shelter and food. There's tons of data to look into for this; we create more than enough food for us to feed the entire world, yet we waste a huge amount of that and people starve to death every day. On the same side of that, we create enough more than enough wealth to sustain the world, yet income inequality gap is larger and larger every day. UBI and other programs like that is about redistributing that wealth, so that more people can enjoy it, and not just people at the top of the pyramid.

None of this is very possible without the advancement of AI and automation. I'm watching it happen with my very own eyes at my very own company right now. My company is going to profit and save money from it. But the workers I lay off will not.

[welfare]

My friend, I hate to be the one to break this to you. but regardless of the social structure chosen, the conclusion is the same; the vast majority of the population working for a very small number of people at the top.
That is the thumbnail sketch of mankind

[welfare]

And believe me, I get it. The resolution to every single problem on this planet is actually very simple.
All it would take is for every single human being to say 'i am your brother/sister. I love you. How can I help'.
Unfortunately, human nature is not so collective.

[MG1]

All it would take is for every single human being to say 'god bless'.


fixt...............

god bless

[$_$]

My friend, I hate to be the one to break this to you. but regardless of the social structure chosen, the conclusion is the same; the vast majority of the population working for a very small number of people at the top.
That is the thumbnail sketch of mankind

Yeah, so maybe instead of doing the same old thing every time and expecting different results, we should try something new.

[welfare]

I haven't heard anything "new" suggested. By anyone

[Bouncing Bettys]

Jagmeet Singh uses his race card early in the game:

Jagmeet Singh Suggests CBC's Insistent Questioning About Alleged Terrorist Was Racist
"The fact that this is something that I have to say is troublesome."

OTTAWA — NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh thinks a controversial CBC interview in which he was asked repeatedly to denounce the veneration of alleged Air India mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar was racist.

"Should I just say 'yes' directly? I think there was definitely some sort of clear problematic line of thought behind that question, so I'm definitely concerned with it," he told reporters Sunday when asked if he felt the questions were racist.

Earlier this month, CBC journalist Terry Milewski, who spent much of his career following the Air India investigation, asked Singh to denounce those in the Sikh community who hang pictures of Parmar — a man believed responsible for the worst terrorism act affecting Canadians — and who celebrate him as a martyr.

Parmar, a naturalized Canadian citizen from British Columbia, was identified by an inquiry into the botched RCMP and CSIS investigation as the leader of the 1985 Air India bombing that killed 329 people, most of them Indo-Canadians. Flight 182 exploded on June 23, after Sikh extremists fighting for an independent state from India planted two bombs on the plane. Parmar was killed by Indian police in 1992.

During the CBC interview on the "Power & Politics" show, Singh did not address Milewski's question directly. He denounced the violence but did not denounce the posters of Parmar. Milewski asked him five times.

"I don't know who is responsible," Singh told Milewski. "But I think we need to find out who is truly responsible, we need to make sure that the investigation results in a conviction of someone who is actually responsible. And we need to, as a society, collectively, unequivocally denounce any time innocent lives are lost. That is something unacceptable.

"All Canadians stand together united against any forms of violence, terror against Canadians, and, in fact, against anyone around the world."

Singh said Sunday that he wasn't sure what Milewski was asking about when the CBC interview veered towards Parmar.

"At the time, I didn't know who he was referring to," the NDP leader said in response to a HuffPost question about why he had not denounced the posters. "But I made it absolutely clear, unequivocally, that I condemn any violence against anyone in the world.... It was offensive to me that that was even a question. It is so obvious, that any Canadian would unequivocally denounce anyone who is held responsible...

"The question, to me, was very troubling. He put that question forward with such an obvious response [expected]. I responded very clearly. I denounce anyone, anyone held responsible for any act of violence perpetrated against any innocent lives. It is just unacceptable. It is, fundamentally, something that we all denounce."

Parmar hasn't been held responsible officially for the Air India bombing — he died before he could be tried. Some Sikhs believe he is innocent and wasn't given a chance to clear his name.

In the Air India inquiry's final report, Canadians learned that CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of External Affairs, local police forces and Transport Canada collectively possessed information before the bombing that:

Sikh extremists in B.C. were planning to bomb one or possibly two Air India planes;
Parmar's group, Babbar Khalsa, was working on a "highly secret project" in the spring of 1985;
Parmar was assessed as the greatest threat in Canada to Indian diplomatic missions and personnel;
In early June, Parmar and his associates conducted experiments in the woods that involved a loud explosion.

Singh said Parmar's pictures were not an issue with which he was familiar. "There is not an issue around this in Ontario, so it is not something I've ever faced...

"I didn't know about the specifics of what [Milewski] was asking about," Singh said, further explaining his response. "Air India happened when I was about five years old, but I'm very clear on, and have been clear on — I've attended memorials with respect to the victims and their families, survivors of this horrible and heinous act.

"I've talked about how everyone denounces it.... At the time, I didn't know what [Milewski's] goal was, what he was trying to achieve, I made it very clear, I denounce anyone held responsible. We've had inquiries, we've had courts, anyone held responsible needs to be denounced and, in fact, there are still a lot of questions that are unanswered, and people have questions about this. People need to have justice."

In 2007, pictures of Parmar at a Vaisakhi parade in Surrey, B.C. created an uproar and a controversy for then B.C. premier Gordon Campbell, his provincial Liberals and some Conservative MPs when they attended the event to court the community's votes.

Milewski told HuffPost that Parmar's photo was also displayed for years in the dining hall of a large gurdwara, a Sikh temple, in Mississauga, Ont.

Asked Sunday if posters are appropriate, Singh responded: "I'm not here to tell what a community should or shouldn't do.

"I can tell you as a leader of a party that I'm fundamentally opposed to violence, fundamentally opposed to any innocent lives being taken, fundamentally opposed to any violence being perpetrated against people.

"The fact that this is something that I have to say is troublesome. The fact that that is not an obvious question to you, or anyone asking the question, why would you assume otherwise? It's obvious to anyone that's a leader in this country that they would denounce acts of violence.

"It's obvious that anyone would denounce something as heinous and as tragic as that incident. The fact that that question is even being raised makes me wonder why it is being raised."

He added that he felt the "premise" around the question was racist.

In an emailed response, Milewski said the questioning that Singh finds offensive never happened.

"Nobody asked him to condemn the Air India bombing. Instead, he was asked whether it was '"appropriate' to celebrate Canada's worst mass-murderer with 'martyr' posters. He declined to answer then and declines to say now whether the posters should come down because, 'I'm not here to tell what a community should or shouldn't do.'"

FTR, what he calls "offensive" never happened. He was not asked to condemn the bombing. Only the veneration of the bomber. On that, silence.
— Terry Milewski (@CBCTerry) October 16, 2017

During his press conference, Singh declined to say whether he personally supports an independent state for Sikhs.

"It's a choice of the people in the community, so it is not [up to] me to determine."

Describing himself as a "human rights champion," Singh said he supports the right of self-determination and "the peaceful exercise of that right."

"So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it's a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that."

Blogs from HuffPost Canada:

Singh spoke with reporters after addressing a crowd of approximately 450 New Democrats gathered in an Ottawa convention hall to celebrate their new leader and project momentum as he heads off on a six-week cross-country tour, from St. John's to Victoria.

He is scheduled to speak at NDP conventions in Regina later this month and then B.C. in November.

Describing his tour, Singh said he is a "high-risk, high-reward" candidate who will be pursuing voters in suburban areas of the country with a message of progressive politics.

The NDP leader said he is on a two-year campaign to win the next election in 2019.

"They are fundamentally important to building a coalition of folks to form government," he said of the vote-rich areas. The NDP leader said he is on a two-year campaign to win the next election in 2019.

During his 20-minute speech, he spoke of the Liberal government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a party and person who cannot be trusted, who are out to privatize public infrastructure assets and to look out for the very rich while claiming to work for the middle class.

While the 38-year-old new leader is charismatic, some have expressed doubt that he can carry his party into government in such a short time.

"If this was 2016, I think we could have. I think we're pushing it to say 2019," said Barbara Zarboni, president of the Ottawa–Orleans riding association.

But others suggested that if anyone call pull off the feat, it is Singh.

"I never voted until I met Jagmeet, because I never thought it was worth it. You know? He is transformational, really," said Mandeep Singh, who has been volunteering for Singh since his last provincial run in 2014.

The NDP leader's skill in connecting with people could propel him to government in 2019, he added, comparing him to former U.S. president Barack Obama. "I think Jagmeet is going to do it. I really truly believe that."

Singh has yet to quit his current job as an Ontario MPP for Bramalea–Gore–Malton. He said he expects to do so in the coming weeks.
Jagmeet Singh Suggests CBC's Insistent Questioning About Alleged Terrorist Was Racist (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/15/jagmeet-singh-parmar-question-racist_a_23244167/)

[welfare]

LMAO.
I'm not even gonna bother

[welfare]

I'm glad we agree on something.

I think what I'm getting at though, is that the current idea of "work" for sustainability doesn't resonate very well for me. A recent TED talk I watched said that 60% of people didn't enjoy their jobs; and of those, IIRC 30% hated their jobs. That's a very large portion of the population that spend the majority of their lives doing something that they do not like. We can talk about "choices" and opportunities all day, but that's just the reality of the situation right now (even with opportunities given). The reason I'm both excited and terrified of AI is that I'm hoping it'll free up human capital to allow us to become unshackled to this type of lifestyle, but only if we apply it properly.

Have you ever asked yourself 'what is wealth? What is poverty?'

Wealth and poverty are not actually measured by income. Though many like to think of it as being that two dimensional.
These are actually states of mind.
If you look at someone living on the poverty line in Canada, they would actually be considered living in conditions of great wealth by Nigerian standards.
Or if you look at conditions of poverty in the 1930's, they were drastically worse than what we consider poverty today.
Of course, the same can be said of wealth. A person living in great wealth in a country with a very low GDP would be thought of as living in poverty in a more wealthy country.
It is all relative to our direct environment and what we've become accustomed to. It is all in our minds.

When you see immigrants come to Canada from war torn, poor countries. Countries where some could only wish to have a job. Any job. How do you think they feel about their job here? Do you think they are dissatisfied? Do they hate their job?

I'm reminded of a brilliant quote that really captures the essence of what I mean.
"The richest ones are not those who have the most, but those who need the least"

From what I gather, you believe the issue is simple; if people don't like their job, rid them of that job. If people need/want money, give them money.
And I believe the issue is as complex as human beings themselves.

[$_$]

Have you ever asked yourself 'what is wealth? What is poverty?'

Wealth and poverty are not actually measured by income. Though many like to think of it as being that two dimensional.
These are actually states of mind.
If you look at someone living on the poverty line in Canada, they would actually be considered living in conditions of great wealth by Nigerian standards.
Or if you look at conditions of poverty in the 1930's, they were drastically worse than what we consider poverty today.
Of course, the same can be said of wealth. A person living in great wealth in a country with a very low GDP would be thought of as living in poverty in a more wealthy country.
It is all relative to our direct environment and what we've become accustomed to. It is all in our minds.

When you see immigrants come to Canada from war torn, poor countries. Countries where some could only wish to have a job. Any job. How do you think they feel about their job here? Do you think they are dissatisfied? Do they hate their job?

I'm reminded of a brilliant quote that really captures the essence of what I mean.
"The richest ones are not those who have the most, but those who need the least"

From what I gather, you believe the issue is simple; if people don't like their job, rid them of that job. If people need/want money, give them money.
And I believe the issue is as complex as human beings themselves.

Everything is indeed relative. Sure, we can compare ourselves to Nigeria and pat ourselves on the back and say hey good job. But the question is, should we? We should always strive to be better, and not compare ourselves to worse. If that was the case, we will stop working to innovate and improve and just say "we're already better off than a decade ago, this is good enough!"

But it's never good enough, and it shouldn't. In my opinion, the whole point of life is to maximize the human experience. Our current framework of "jobs" don't provide the same sense of satisfaction that it used to. And it very well might use to provide satisfaction to previous generations; but it doesn't now. That's why we need to try to find ways to fix it. And again, circling back, a lot of jobs simply won't exist.

[Jmac]

Jagmeet Singh uses his race card early in the game:

Jagmeet Singh Suggests CBC's Insistent Questioning About Alleged Terrorist Was Racist
"The fact that this is something that I have to say is troublesome."


Jagmeet Singh Suggests CBC's Insistent Questioning About Alleged Terrorist Was Racist (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/15/jagmeet-singh-parmar-question-racist_a_23244167/)
How isn't it racist, exactly?

This guy kept asking him to condemn the actions of some members of his race/religion regarding an event that happened when he was 5 years old. Some see the alleged bomber as innocent and have posters of him. His response was that he condemns any and all violence, which wasn't good enough for the reporter.

He's only being questioned on this because of his race and religion.

[welfare]

Our current framework of "jobs" don't provide the same sense of satisfaction that it used to. And it very well might use to provide satisfaction to previous generations; but it doesn't now. That's why we need to try to find ways to fix it

Ok but why is there a lack of satisfaction? The jobs didn't get worse. So why have the people changed?
Isn't understanding the answer to that question more important than pacifying the people?

[welfare]

How isn't it racist, exactly?

This guy kept asking him to condemn the actions of some members of his race/religion regarding an event that happened when he was 5 years old. Some see the alleged bomber as innocent and have posters of him. His response was that he condemns any and all violence, which wasn't good enough for the reporter.

He's only being questioned on this because of his race and religion.

Well firstly, it's not racist because sykh isn't a race.

Secondly, people parading with posters of the alleged weren't doing so because they thought he was innocent.

[Jmac]

Well firstly, it's not racist because sykh isn't a race.

Secondly, people parading with posters of the alleged weren't doing so because they thought he was innocent.
Ah, I didn't realize that Singh had no race. My bad.

And, obviously, these raceless people who have posters, I mean, every politician out there has had the same repeated questions asked to them in every interview, right? And no answer they gave was good enough for the reporter, right?

[welfare]

Right. So sykh is a race, not a religion. My bad.

[Jmac]

Right. So sykh is a race, not a religion. My bad.
welfare deflects as usual. This isn't about whether or not sikh is a race or a religion and you know it, you troll.

[welfare]

If you're not intelligent enough to see what Mr. Singh is doing here, I'm not going to bother explaining

[minoru_tanaka]

If you're not intelligent enough to see what Mr. Singh is doing here, I'm not going to bother explaining

Those people he's being asked to condemn, I'm going to racistly assume, are probably votes that he is counting on. The reporting is trying to force him to commit political suicide.

But. if he wasn't an Indian guy, nobody would be asking him this question

[CivicBlues]

Well firstly, it's not racist because sykh isn't a race.

Secondly, people parading with posters of the alleged weren't doing so because they thought he was innocent.

Oh ffs, I'm sick of seeing this dog whistle from closet racists such as yourself.

"Chinese are all scammers"
"I'm not racist cause China isn't a race!"

"Muslims are all terrorists"
"Muslims aren't a race!"

and wtf is "sykh"?

[welfare]

Oh ffs, I'm sick of seeing this dog whistle from closet racists such as yourself.

"Chinese are all scammers"
"I'm not racist cause China isn't a race!"

"Muslims are all terrorists"
"Muslims aren't a race!"

and wtf is "sykh"?

i don't recall making any stereotypical blanket statements about race.
but thanks for passing judgment

[welfare]

Those people he's being asked to condemn, I'm going to racistly assume, are probably votes that he is counting on. The reporting is trying to force him to commit political suicide.

But. if he wasn't an Indian guy, nobody would be asking him this question

the reporter asked a question regarding a faction of sikhs who believe in the separatist movement, and consider parmar a hero for his alleged terrorist attack.
and the only discourse of mr. singh is to cry 'racist', because the question made him uncomfortable.
i guess softball is the only sport allowed when it comes to identity politics

[Manic!]

Andrew Scheers father is a deacon of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa paid tens of thousands of dollars to keep children who where abused quiet and not go to the police.

Maybe someone should ask Scheer about that and also ask if he denounces the Roman Catholic church, a church that systematically abused tens of thousands of children and then tried to cover it up.

[CivicBlues]

Don't forget to ask newly re-elected Naheed Nenshi about his thoughts on ISIS. It's not racist to do so, cause Muslims ain't a race!!

[OnTheRun]

Don't forget to ask newly re-elected Naheed Nenshi about his thoughts on ISIS. It's not racist to do so, cause Muslims ain't a race!!

OT, but Calgary's municipal elections are going to go down along with the 2013 BC provincial election, Brexit and the 2014 Ontario election as the archetype of political polls being mistaken. I've always wondered how elections in France always get it so consistently right when polling in Anglophone countries is full of endless fails.

[CivicBlues]

^ I didn't follow the Calgary election closely. What were the polling numbers?

[OnTheRun]

^ I didn't follow the Calgary election closely. What were the polling numbers?

Polls consistently showed Bill Smith with a double digit percentage point lead over Nenshi, up to election day. The biggest lead gave Smith nearly half of all voters (Smith 48%, Nenshi 31%, Chabot 6%, 13% undecided) and a 36-point lead among the 18-34 vote. The final tally was Nenshi 51.41%, Smith 43.73%, Chabot 3.08%

[welfare]

Andrew Scheers father is a deacon of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa paid tens of thousands of dollars to keep children who where abused quiet and not go to the police.

Maybe someone should ask Scheer about that and also ask if he denounces the Roman Catholic church, a church that systematically abused tens of thousands of children and then tried to cover it up.

No one asked Singh to denounce Sikhism.

Don't forget to ask newly re-elected Naheed Nenshi about his thoughts on ISIS. It's not racist to do so, cause Muslims ain't a race!!

I wonder how difficult it would be for him to denounce ISIS if he were asked.

[welfare]

And whether or not you believe the question was racist isn't as relevant as the answer he gave.

[welfare]

But. if he wasn't an Indian guy, nobody would be asking him this question

this i think is a real problem.
the fact that we've become so politically ''correct'' that we're unable to distinguish actual racism from someone asking questions based on their ethnicity.
yes. people are different. different sexes, races, ethnicities, religions, etc.. they will be asked questions based on their differences.
that's not racist. it's not hateful.
and to try and just shut it down, as if it is, because you don't like the line of questioning, i find very disturbing

[Manic!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9RmWYIyR0

A good watch.

[Manic!]

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh to run in Burnaby South byelection

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/federal-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-to-run-in-burnaby-south-byelection-1.4775082

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh intends to run in the upcoming byelection in the Burnaby South riding of British Columbia, CBC News has learned.

The riding is held by NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who is vacating his seat to run for mayor of Vancouver.

Analysis
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh won't have a free pass if he runs in a byelection

Two anonymous sources revealed the news about Singh to CBC. A party spokesperson said Singh will be "doing events" in the Greater Vancouver area on Wednesday and Thursday.

The spokesperson wouldn't confirm the decision, but said many people in the Metro Vancouver suburb have been encouraging Singh to run in the upcoming byelection.

"When Mr. Singh was in Burnaby last month he found that the problems people are facing there reflect so many of the issues Canadians are struggling with across the country," the spokesperson said in an email.

"Issues like uncertain and precarious work, special tax loopholes for the super rich, rising out-of-pocket health costs and longer waits times, unaffordable housing, and concerns about a clean environment."
NDP MP Kennedy Stewart is running as an independent candidate in Vancouver's upcoming election this fall. (CBC)

The spokesperson said Singh was "very moved by the support" and will make a decision in the near future.

The Burnaby South riding was created prior to the 2015 election, which Stewart won by 547 votes over Liberal candidate Adam Pankratz.

[yray]

is the ndp retarded?

you don't send an important person to a riding that was won over 547 votes

[Manic!]

is the ndp retarded?

you don't send an important person to a riding that was won over 547 votes

It's actually genius. The pipeline is one of the biggest issues right now and Burnaby is at the center of it. He is going to ride the pipe issue all the way to victory.

[Zedbra]

^ I don't know about victory, the NDP seem to be a sinking ship. Losing Quebec votes, broke, and Singh is very washy on any serious topic.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mb4pvn/the-ndp-is-so-broke-jagmeet-singh-isnt-being-paid

[Manic!]

^ I don't know about victory, the NDP seem to be a sinking ship. Losing Quebec votes, broke, and Singh is very washy on any serious topic.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mb4pvn/the-ndp-is-so-broke-jagmeet-singh-isnt-being-paid

If you live in Burnaby and you are anti pipe you only have one option and that's the NDP.

[welfare]

I wonder how many residents of Burnaby are actually opposed to the pipeline relative to the amount of noise being created

[welfare]

^ I don't know about victory, the NDP seem to be a sinking ship. Losing Quebec votes, broke, and Singh is very washy on any serious topic.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mb4pvn/the-ndp-is-so-broke-jagmeet-singh-isnt-being-paid

Maybe they're banking on some of that sweet anti pipeline cash

[yray]

I live in burnaby south, don't give a fuck about the pipeline as its a valley away from me. I care more about housing than a twining a pipeline. City of burnaby is pretty much ndp and look at the housing madness. :lawl: If he becomes MP, he better live his ass here.

Kennedy stewart was more independent then NDP and was just riding the ndp banner to get in.

[Digitalis]

600k at 10% over 25 years was how much total paid? Now this.....
Please tell me what your predictions are for the stock market.
is the ndp retarded?

you don't send an important person to a riding that was won over 547 votes

[yray]

600k at 10% over 25 years was how much total paid? Now this.....
Please tell me what your predictions are for the stock market.

I think you got the wrong thread burh but as per below

FastAnna you literally talk out your ass
FastAnna i really cant
FastAnna yray i cant stand you

:fullofwin:
CMHC going after HELOCs
china runs out of QE
hodl gold :lol

[Zedbra]

Maybe they're banking on some of that sweet anti pipeline cash

hippy gold. They'll drive to the voting booth, too

[Traum]

If he becomes MP, he better live his ass here.

Since it is a (federal) MP position, the MP will be spending gobs of time in Ottawa anyway. So while I totally agree the optics will look very bad if he doesn't actually move his "permanent residency" here to South Burnaby, I'd say it is really more for show and optics than anything else.

Also, did Crusty Clark actually move to West Kelowna when she lost her initial election in Point Grey or somewhere in LM?

is the ndp retarded?

you don't send an important person to a riding that was won over 547 votes
Apparently, the Burnaby South riding was supposed to be a stronghold for NDP. It's just that somehow it turned into a close race last time?

[yray]

Apparently, the Burnaby South riding was supposed to be a stronghold for NDP. It's just that somehow it turned into a close race last time?

Yep, lots of teachers and government employees here but alot has changed in the last few years. Just take a look at metrotown with so many people moving in and SFH retiring and moving to the okanagan with their thrifty pensions and RE payout.

[Traum]

Yep, lots of teachers and government employees here but alot has changed in the last few years. Just take a look at metrotown with so many people moving in and SFH retiring and moving to the okanagan with their thrifty pensions and RE payout.
True -- Metrotown's new massive (Mainland?) Chinese population is probably very non-NDP. At the same time, how many of those newer residents are eligible to vote? And how many of them are interested in voting?