Canadian Money Forum banner
3421 - 3440 of 4727 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,165 Posts


I am really surprised that privacy watchdog is still surprised by those things - regimes act this way.

The question remains what were the other 13 cases in which the technology was used. 19 were accounted for, but there is 32 in total
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,221 Posts
What are you talking about? You drunk too much today?
Employer telling you what to do at work is not authoritarian at all. You trade your time and skills for certain work. It is as liberal as it gets.

If there isn't a 100% efficiency when working from home then yes, employer has all the right to ask you to get back to the office
Have you ever worked in an office? Do you realize how much time wasting happens at the office? Presenteeism is not productivity.

I am unwilling and unable to put in as many hours on the days that I go to office. Being at the office involves a lot more idle chit chat, visiting the 'water cooler', 15 minute smoke breaks (I don't smoke, but sometimes sit somewhere I can observe the smoking area), long lunch breaks, being invited to meetings that you're not needed for except perhaps tangentially.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,221 Posts
Literally in the article it pinpoints that as a reason. Also, nothing else changed since 2019.
You negate the cause despite having ample evidence that it is one of the reasons.
It's a bit silly to say nothing has changed since 2019. We had, oh, a global pandemic in that time. Many things changed. Next you're going to claim is that global supply chain disruption is due to WFH too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,165 Posts
Well, your office habits are different than they were at my company then.

And global supply chain disruptions were due to work being prohibited. WFH is different - here work is not prohibited, efficiency just drops.

Discussing your or my workplaces is irrelevant though.

The results are undeniable. We KNOW that the Government provided services are in shambles while public employees pretend to work from home
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
No they aren't.
I've used more specific words, as you usually ask for. I said they were a social democracy, not socialists. A social democracy is a political and economical system which includes lots of socialist elements inside of a capitalist and liberal framework.

Not at all, many people have worked, he's just the leader who is helping to make it happen.
Again, many chose to support his vision.
So why most of the wealth all went to him? 40 years ago, CEOs would make about 30x the income of their typical workers. 30 years ago, it surged to 60x. In 2020, it was 350x to 600x and even more, sometimes more than 1000x. How can you make sense of this?

calling the capitalist market economies of the Nordic countries socialist
Quote me. I said they were social democracies, which means mixing socialism inside capitalism. Never said they were pure socialists.


But it really isn't about wealth redistribution, you want to redistribute MY wealth, not yours.
Losing some of your wealth is a small price to pay to get at mine, or those rich people.
Well, considering that I'm in the top 5% wealth, I wonder if it's a small price to pay? Giving more of my wealth means helping the bottom 95% under me.

But adults in our society get to decide for themselves.
Yup, and sadly adults prefer the well-being of their money over the well-being of humans, due to capitalism and the egocentric nature of most humans.

Nightmare in a capitalism system: If you don't have money, you won't survive.
Dream in a capitalism system: If you have money, you don't have to contribute to the society.
How to make money in a capitalism system: Do whatever needed to get other people's money and make sure to keep all of it and give the least to others.


Art and culture are "luxuries".
No. Art and culture doesn't have to be a luxury even though it can be, as much as food doesn't have to be a luxury even though it can be.

If I live by the beach and I build a sand castle it is not a luxury but it is art to be enjoyed. If I do rock balancing it is not a luxury but it is art to be enjoyed.

You are very mistaken if you believe artists require luxuries to create art.

My car is transportation, but my neighgours with it's chrome is "luxury".
Yes, because both cars have the same goal: getting you from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. And that chrome doesn't fit inside that goal.

Tell me, what is the difference between a painting I made, and my cousin (a celebrated artist). Is mine just art, while theirs is "luxury"?
It's both art, though his paintings are appreciated by more people. How some companies use art inside capitalism and how individuals pay for art inside the free market will make it a luxury, but it shouldn't. Art and culture should always be accessible for everyone to enjoy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
I've used more specific words, as you usually ask for. I said they were a social democracy, not socialists. A social democracy is a political and economical system which includes lots of socialist elements inside of a capitalist and liberal framework.
Please source your definition.
From Wikipedia, a social democracy exists within socialism.
Social democracy is a left-wing[1] political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[2] that supports political and economic democracy.[3]

So why most of the wealth all went to him? 40 years ago, CEOs would make about 30x the income of their typical workers. 30 years ago, it surged to 60x. In 2020, it was 350x to 600x and even more, sometimes more than 1000x. How can you make sense of this?
1. It didn't
2. because their boss decided to pay them that much.
There is a bidding war for top talent, as long as they are using their own money they should be able to pay anyone as much as I want.

Quote me. I said they were social democracies, which means mixing socialism inside capitalism. Never said they were pure socialists.
Quote them, they're not socialists.

Well, considering that I'm in the top 5% wealth, I wonder if it's a small price to pay? Giving more of my wealth means helping the bottom 95% under me.
Except you don't really believe that.
Or else you would have done so, why are you holding onto all your money.

Yup, and sadly adults prefer the well-being of their money over the well-being of humans, due to capitalism and the egocentric nature of most humans.

Nightmare in a capitalism system: If you don't have money, you won't survive.
Dream in a capitalism system: If you have money, you don't have to contribute to the society.
How to make money in a capitalism system: Do whatever needed to get other people's money and make sure to keep all of it and give the least to others.
You have an sad perspective on life.
Nightmare in socialist system everyone is poor.
Dream in Socialist system.. at least the black market is capitalist.

No. Art and culture doesn't have to be a luxury even though it can be, as much as food doesn't have to be a luxury even though it can be.

If I live by the beach and I build a sand castle it is not a luxury but it is art to be enjoyed. If I do rock balancing it is not a luxury but it is art to be enjoyed.

You are very mistaken if you believe artists require luxuries to create art.
You had the luxury of wasting all that time on a work of art, when you could be working on food, education or health care.
FYI, I'm using this definition of luxury - Something that is not essential but provides pleasure and comfort.

Yes, because both cars have the same goal: getting you from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. And that chrome doesn't fit inside that goal.
Again those might be your goals, not everyone.

It's both art, though his paintings are appreciated by more people. How some companies use art inside capitalism and how individuals pay for art inside the free market will make it a luxury, but it shouldn't. Art and culture should always be accessible for everyone to enjoy.
Who is going to pay for it, who gets to decide what art is worth paying for or not?
I know, lets have some government appointed manager decide what's good and bad.
I'm not sorry to say I prefer a system where I can choose the art that speaks to me, and you can choose the art that speaks to you.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
I've used more specific words, as you usually ask for. I said they were a social democracy, not socialists. A social democracy is a political and economical system which includes lots of socialist elements inside of a capitalist and liberal framework.
The socialist/communists keep trying to use different words or various other ways to skirt around the fact that they want an authoritarian centrally run society.

They complain about the rich, and say that shouldn't be allowed, but then say in their new socialist hybrid they'd "allow" capitalism and markets to exist.
Like you and Bernie Sanders, they want everyone else to sacrifice their wealth and earnings, but when asked why they hold on to so much wealth, they say things like "but it's my money"

I think workers are entitled to the product of their labour. You're free to redistribute your wealth all you want, just not mine.

IMO the Nordic countries are just high tax high benefit countries.

The reality is communism and socialism are simply evil and don't work out well for the people.
Those system rely on the oppression of the people to function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,220 Posts
Well, your office habits are different than they were at my company then.

And global supply chain disruptions were due to work being prohibited. WFH is different - here work is not prohibited, efficiency just drops.

Discussing your or my workplaces is irrelevant though.

The results are undeniable. We KNOW that the Government provided services are in shambles while public employees pretend to work from home
... so does this mean the private sector employees don't pretend to work while at home? Like on CMF 24/7, who knew?!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,975 Posts
Good thing we don't have free education, universal healthcare, OAS, disability pensions, CPP, child benefits.....and all that other bad socialist stuff.

We hate socialism, they said as they spent their $1500 monthly child benefits.

I hate socialism said the wealthy businessman, as they wheeled him into the operating room for triple bypass heart surgery at no cost.

Some people are so stupid they don't recognize socialism when they are up to their eyeballs in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
Please source your definition.
From Wikipedia
Shows how you have literally no idea of what you're talking about as you keep searching Wikipedia and you can't even read further than the few first sentences.

Also from Wikipedia, the sentence right after:
"As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy."

But since you won't hear my words, I'll quote the words of other people:

Annenberg Classroom
"Social democratic political parties try to mobilize political support for positive state and government actions. They aim to provide such social and economic rights as equal opportunities for basic education, adequate health care, acceptable housing, productive employment in the workforce, fair payment for workers, and guaranteed pension plans for people retired from the workforce.

Social democrats claim that their commitment to social and economic rights in addition to traditional liberal ideas about political and private rights is an advanced or more fully developed model of democracy in comparison with the liberal model. While the traditional liberal model of democracy only emphasizes individual liberty, the social democratic model, according to its proponents, stresses both liberal and egalitarian ideals."


World Population Review
"A democratic socialist believes that the government should provide a range of essential services to the public for free or at a significant discount, such as health care and education. Unlike socialists, democratic socialists do not believe the government should control all aspects of the economy, only help provide basic needs and help all of its citizens have an equal chance of success.

Social democracy and democratic socialism are often used as synonyms; however, there are differences. Social democracy has a mostly capitalistic economy (i.e.: a less-regulated market and fewer rules against private ownership of land, utilities, etc.), but also with large-scale social welfare programs.

Social democracy is seen in the Nordic model, which includes a welfare state based on free market capitalism. The model also include multi-level collective bargaining, a high percentage of the workforce unionized, and a large percentage of the workforce employed by the public sector. The Nordic countries were shaped by social democracy. Many other European countries have social democracies.

Both democratic socialism and socialism advocate for a redistribution of wealth and power to meet public needs, not make profits for a few. Both aim to weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of the working people.

Democratic socialists, however, do not think the government should immediately take control of all aspects of the economy. Democratic socialism focuses more on providing basic needs to all people, such as health care and education. Democratic socialism, unlike socialism, would achieve this through democratic means and not an authoritarian rule."


Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"The idea of social democracy is now used to describe a society the economy of which is predominantly capitalist, but where the state acts to regulate the economy in the general interest, provides welfare services outside of it and attempts to alter the distribution of income and wealth in the name of social justice. Originally ’social democracy’ was more or less equivalent to ’socialism’. But since the mid-twentieth century, those who think of themselves as social democrats have come to believe that the old opposition between capitalism and socialism is outmoded; many of the values upheld by earlier socialists can be promoted by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it."

And if you want more details, I guess this 45-page document from Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung would properly clarify what is understood today as a social democracy, but I know that you won't read it.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,975 Posts
Interesting new poll out on Pierre P.

Although he will win the CPC leadership race with 44% support from conservatives (pretty low support numbers from among his own party), he only has 16% support by the general public.

Those are abysmal numbers that reveal his anti-Trudeau, anti-Canada, pro libertarian views are not acceptable to the voting public.

Will Pierre make the big pivot after he becomes CPC leader........like O'Toole tried to do ? Will the results be any different ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Shows how you have literally no idea of what you're talking about as you keep searching Wikipedia and you can't even read further than the few first sentences.
Actually this shows the issue from my side very nicely.

You're blaming capitalism, and instead want social democracy.
But wait, that's still capitalism!
The position is inherently self-contradictory.
It's a false identifier to hide the real aims.

The socialists are trying to invent terms and build a slippery slope to what they really want, socialism.
Or they want "half way" socialism.

They'll twist and pervert everything to their goal. It's like the courts ruling that freedom of association includes a right to unionize, but does NOT include the right NOT to unionize.

Social Democracy is really just a step on the way to socialism and authoritarianism.
They will not immediately take over, they'll gradually suck the private sector dry and grow government until that's all that's left.

Also we'll get to vote for our authoritarian leaders, like they do in China! That will make it good.

2 people voting to steal from the third might make it democratic, it doesn't make it right.


Social democracy is seen in the Nordic model, which includes a welfare state based on free market capitalism. The model also include multi-level collective bargaining, a high percentage of the workforce unionized, and a large percentage of the workforce employed by the public sector. The Nordic countries were shaped by social democracy. Many other European countries have social democracies.

Both democratic socialism and socialism advocate for a redistribution of wealth and power to meet public needs, not make profits for a few. Both aim to weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of the working people.

Democratic socialists, however, do not think the government should immediately take control of all aspects of the economy. Democratic socialism focuses more on providing basic needs to all people, such as health care and education. Democratic socialism, unlike socialism, would achieve this through democratic means and not an authoritarian rule."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
I'll pull a few more key points.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"The idea of social democracy is now used to describe a society the economy of which is predominantly capitalist, but where the state acts to regulate the economy in the general interest, provides welfare services outside of it and attempts to alter the distribution of income and wealth in the name of social justice.
With half the economy being government controlled, and the "social democracy" types pushing more I'm not sure their goal is "predemoninantly capitalist".

Originally ’social democracy’ was more or less equivalent to ’socialism’. But since the mid-twentieth century, those who think of themselves as social democrats have come to believe that the old opposition between capitalism and socialism is outmoded; many of the values upheld by earlier socialists can be promoted by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it."
So they realized that being socialist is bad, now they're trying to rebrand themselves. This is very common with the leftists, who want to push bad ideas, so they "change the definition".

Even here you're bashing capitalism, and you're pushing socialism, and you're mostly authoritarian.
I'd suggest you really are an authoritarian socialist, you just don't want to admit it. Just like the NDP who are clearly socialists, but decided to drop that label.

I'll freely admit I'm a liberal, I'm not embarrassed by it at all.

"Reforming capitalism" means tax it until the capitalists are powerless and all power is under the government controlled authoritarian regime.
Yeah, not really good for human rights.

Social democracy is just the next step on the way to socialism.

Also their values are wrong, they don't believe in human rights, they don't believe you should own the product of your labour, they don't think you should have freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
Since you clearly aren't open to discussion, which requires to at least try to understand opinions of other people (and you clearly haven't read anything about social democracy or you are simply unable to understand the concepts or totally closed-minded while reading), I won't waste more of my time after this post.

It's pretty simple to understand: Yes, there's still capitalism, but it has to be regulated. Not sufficient regulation in capitalism to help those in need (for equal opportunities) is what I blame. Not sufficient redistribution of wealth (to those in need, for equal opportunities) inside of a capitalist economy is also what I blame.

Smart billionaires like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and Ray Dalio all agree that higher taxes is the right thing to do and that the government should help the population in order to reduce the current inequalities. Don't you want to reduce inequalities and increase equality of opportunity?

The position is inherently self-contradictory.
It's a false identifier to hide the real aims.
Tell me how your goals of equality within an unregulated capitalist economy is not self-contradictory. The goal of capitalism is competition, which obviously leads to inequality when there's little-to-no government intervention.

Now my question for you is the same for which you couldn't find a good answer:

What I'm trying to figure out when libertarianism gets so high is how can this achieve goals of fairness, for instance equality of opportunity? Don't we want people to have equality of opportunity? How can this be achieved if we want to minimize government intervention? Take education for instance, how can every kid have access to the same quality education without government intervention?
Well I'm for that too, and I don't have a good answer.
So... What real aims are you hiding? You don't want inequalities, but you don't want the government interventions and regulation of capitalism to help introduce social programs reducing the inequalities and increasing the equality of opportunities and the fairness. You agree with the liberal ideas of political and private rights allowing freedom and individual liberty but you don't want to add social and economic rights which would increase freedom even more and egalitarian ideals? Actually, you want those rights, like basic education, adequate health care, acceptable housing, productive employment in the workforce, fair payment for workers. Honestly, read a bit more about what a social democracy advocates for, as its goals is to increase equality of opportunities and freedom. Basically, its goal is to increase liberal and egalitarian ideals, which I thought you agreed with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,727 Posts
Since you clearly aren't open to discussion
I still have a suspicion that the guy you're arguing with could be a bot, something like GPT-3.

American conservatives have a lot of money, and they probably spend $$ experimenting with influencing public opinion by leveraging social media. A combination of a human operator plus advanced modern software (like GPT-3) could easy create a convincing social media presence that's capable of pumping out tons of text and making good arguments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
Mr. Blackhill you continue to talk about equality of outcome.
Mr. Matt talks about equality of opportunity.

Once you realize the distinction, you will realize your last post is completely useless
Nice troll, I specifically used "equality of opportunity" everywhere, but yet you still decided to troll.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Beaver101

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,165 Posts
Nice troll, I specifically used "equality of opportunity" everywhere, but yet you still decided to troll.
"Not sufficient redistribution of wealth (to those in need, for equal opportunities) inside of a capitalist economy is also what I blame."

'Redistribution of wealth' is affecting outcome, not opportunities. Just because you mention 'equal opportunity' out of context of the sentence and entire post doesn't somehow change the meaning of the sentence or the post


"The goal of capitalism is competition, which obviously leads to inequality when there's little-to-no government intervention. "

Competition leads to different outcomes, which indicates you mean 'equality of outcome'
 
3421 - 3440 of 4727 Posts
Top