Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jimayo

Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jimayo

  1. Even if we did we would need pipelines all over the place, a massive increase in not just liquid natural gas but everything pipeline you could think of, massive increases in oilsands production, and of course massive budget surpluses.

    If you think the oil industry doesn't contribute massively to government revenues already then you simply look at how keen the feds are to increase oil production. To get to Norway levels we would need to increase oil exports by a factor of five.

    Norway has all it's power done by hydropower so if we wanted to be like them better approve site C and a few other hydro dams while we are at it.

    Ooh, and of course they are the sixth largest producer of weapons and the second biggest exporter of fish.

    So with all that money it won't matter if you went public or private - with so much money to stash around the world you would be focusing more one what things NOT to own!

    So agread! Let's pillage the planet and hoarde all the money! Norway is awesome that way!

    Why am I not surprised you are king of supposition, hyberole and strawmen? You assume we can't make money while being safe and clean. You assume we can't profit without raping the environment and increasing production. And then you pretend that's how things are done in norway. Come back when you want to discuss reality instead of your libertarian fantasy land.

  2. They export tons of oil and other things especially for their size and are thus so rich their "pension" fund now owns over 1% of the entire strock market.

    http://en.wikipedia...._Fund_of_Norway

    Needless to say, when you have cash like that, you can afford gold plated welfare packages. If they get much richer the whole country could go on welfare.

    Yeah, we totally couldn't do that. We totally couldn't nationalise our immense natural resources and have high taxes on the top earners. It's impossible!

  3. Because with a smaller population, welfare doesn't cost a fortune. Less immigrants means allowing less low-skilled workers who require more government assistance into the country. Norway has a population of just over 5 million, its a completely different story. I never lashed out at their system, it's great. Who wouldn't pass up on high salaries for all?

    But achieving through that by simply taxing people more is counter-productive here.

    "Oh gee, I should keep working harder while the government takes more of my money because it's better for the common good." Sure it may be, but to think that the majority will have this sort of moral ground is crazy talk. What happens instead:

    Cut costs. Layoff employees. Pack your bags, off to China! It's definitely selfish but it's reality.

    I'll gladly owe up to your claim that I am selfish. Like I said, when and even if, I make 100k salary eventually after I get out of college, I want to be able to keep as much of that as I can. Can you really blame me? By then, I will have finished over 20 years of school and hardwork. I come from an immigrant family and all I want to do is to repay the people who came to this country and raised me while working tirelessly day after day. And of course lastly, I want to enjoy my life. Keeping most of that 100k I hopefully make is surely going to help with that.

    I got a little melodramatic in the end, but that's what I've come to think when it comes to this whole endless debate around the distribution of wealth and money.

    I'm sorry, but I value a safer, healthier, well educated population to your right to have more than you need.

    And we have way more natural resources in canada than norway does. A lot more than 6 times as much, as would be the percentage difference in population, so you're "point" isn't really much of one.

    And you know what's worse than having your money taken? 28,000,000 pissed off starving people. It's good for the wealthy too.

    One would think they could have afforded a good education that includes lessons in history. You can only boot stomp the poor for so long. There's not that much difference between inherited wealth and inherited titles and the idea that it's just a matter of working hard is asinine. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/poverty-mental-capacity-complex-tasks

  4. But what about those who don't try and cheat the system? A healthy person living on his own making 100k gets to keep 60 percent of that here in Canada.

    Where's the justice in that? That person worked hard to earn that 100k and government suddenly has the right to take away 40 thousand just because a body of elected individuals feel that they know what's morally best for people? Is it not government that is the parasite when it comes to taxation?

    And quit using the Scandinavian countries as a counter-argument. They have populations that are fraction of what we have here in Canada and even more in the US. Not to mention the fact that they have incredibly low immigration populations. The cost of welfare up there is chump change compared to what we would have to deal with if we were to match Norway, Sweden, etc.

    Why do people always says, it only works their because of the small pop?

    How does that disprove that it can work? We've never tried it here but you assume it can't work based on what exactly? That there's more people here? How does that mean it can't possibly work?

    I'm going to continue to point at scandinavian countries because they have a system that works for the vast majority. That system makes life much better overall. Your selfish desire to garner more than you need may make you wish to lash out at the clear success of their system, but I prefer low poverty, high average and median salaries, and low crime.

    You can have your prison population like the U.S. if that's what works for you. Hopefully you won't get knifed by some desperate starving person but I wouldn't count on it.

  5. I can certainly see why. When the likes of ^ ^ say things like "charity" when referring to their share of the contribution to a prosperous society, it's certainly disheartening. Worry not, more and more people see that their ideologies are based on fluff, and bear a suiting result.

    I think you're wrong. It think the wealthies plan has worked and they've used mass media to condition enough to the population to fall into line. I think we're in for some hard times before another revolution.

    I'm starting to think the flow of events from Star Trek might be fairly accurate.

  6. you are making my point. Trump developed his brand. George W. Bush made his own money in the oil field in Midland.

    Trump went bankrupt three times. The only reason he's still around is because he's trump.

    As for bush, you mean the company that went belly up and bought out. Where, as a member of the board of directors at the new company, he was investigated for insider trading.

    Totally proves you right.

  7. Not would. Will. It's inevitable as our society progresses. Conservative ideals are going to start dying out in short order once the baby boomers kick the bucket. The remaining young conservatives will be on par with the communists soon enough.

    Society will stop growing, economic growth will stop, we'll have to rethink the way we do things. Once the environmental damage hurts our food supply we'll have to rethink the way we do things. Once water becomes a real issue we'll have to rethink things. Once the third world nations begin approaching the western standard in quality of life, we'll have to rethink things. Once technology produces a viable AI, we'll have to rethink things... or rather it will (I jest). We have another 20-30 years at this rate at best. It's inevitable.

    I don't think it's inevitable. I agree with everything, but I don't have faith in the population to take control from the wealthy elite. I see socialism as the prefered method, but I agree that a 17th century agrarian style serfdom-plutocracy as an entirely possible stage to hit.

  8. Pay your dues: I firmly believe that having abundance is the result and reward of productivity, and that charity should be a free choice.

    Right, Donald Trump is wealthy because he totally earned.

    Bush was capable. I mean he was elected so he must of been.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/poverty-mental-capacity-complex-tasks

    Same opportunity being born wealthy. It's totally all about work ethic.

  9. Obviously your mind is black/white greedy or not. Over simplification of people and the real world. There is not one person in the world that would describe me as the least bit greedy, try and take 75% of my earnings regardless of what I make, not going to happen if I have an out.

    There is not one? I'm pretty sure there is at least one in this thread caling you greedy.

  10. Making it less opulant and a bit harder would certainly lead to more of them getting jobs.

    No, it would increase the crime rate. It's ****ty and I wouldn't trust any info from the bulls*** cato institute.

    Welfare and other social programs need to be vastly expanded in this country. Not only can we deal with poverty by such actions but crime as well. There's a reason norway has the lowest crime rate on the planet.

  11. Call sounds genuine to me. If someone offered you a million dollars, would you take it? If you make more money sitting at home overall, compared with paying taxes on a crappy job, and then paying for childcare, why would you do that when it's not in your economic interest, never mind the lifestyle?

    What I find shocking is that some people are shocked!

    That's because you live in a world that is different from reality. In reality the vast majority of people want to work and you don't understand that. Most people don't want to sit around and be taken care of by the government. It's called pride. And the stats back up that version of reality as opposed to yours. The number of people who spend more than 5 years on welfare is less than 20%.

  12. Honestly, I don't find the "new atheists'" opinions on religion to be particularly interesting. They're unnecessarily abrasive and their views on the subject are pretty shallow and without nuance.

    http://s229.photobucket.com/user/Jimayo/media/quitwhiningaboutangstheists_zpsaf33933f.jpg.html?sort=3&o=7

    http://s229.photobucket.com/user/Jimayo/media/quitwhiningaboutangstheists2_zpsd0d6b6d5.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3

×
×
  • Create New...