Controversy with Bono's opinions on aid to Africa?

[purpleoscar]

FYI these posts have been moved from this thread:
http://forum.interference.com/f196/...ything-about-the-new-album-here-188125-8.html

-Sicy
--------------------------------

I take it you just found out about the band?

I don't agree with his politics all the time but I expect him to be political because they always were. The music is great on it's own. If the music wasn't good nobody would care what he says. Look at Bullet the Blue Sky, Silver & Gold, Crumbs from your table, Love and peace or else. Activist musicians already happened in the 60's. Most popular bands take up some political cause, often because they are pressured by special interest groups when they attain success. Special interest groups will often act like journalists and ask political questions about global warming, fair trade, or Africa to the band kind of forcing their hand through embarrasment. I seen questions asked of Coldplay in that manner.

Radiohead wanted to quit touring because of their carbon footprint and some activist artist said they shouldn't because their so important. “And someone like (him), I’m like please go on tour! Because so many people will follow what you say, because they really respect you. And they know that you really know what you’re talking about.” I guess some people's carbon footprints are more equal than others.

KT Tunstall questions Thom Yorke’s eco attitude | Radiohead At Ease [In Rainbows]

Maybe only Van Halen avoids politics like the plague but U2 sound much better them.

I mean I bought a Led Zeppelin DVD and it was talking about electing John Kerry on it. What about The Bealtes, The Rolling Stones, REM, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crow, and Coldplay? Don't they do the same thing?

In the end special interest groups are competing against each other for TV space, concert space, newspaper space for their pet projects; but money for fighting global warming interferes with money for AIDS, and money for disaster relief. With low savings rates in the western world people can't donate much to all without drastically changing their lifestyle. All the jobs for McDonalds, travel agents, cars and such would have to disappear if people chose to spend substantially on donations.

Look at the lyrics for Acrobat. He was already telling people then not to look to him to save the world, and that he was really a hypocrite or "acrobat". At least he was honest about it. I dare any successful band to openly express Conservative points of view as part of your concert every concert. I think that would be very rare and would be met with large resistance in the media and audience. I don't know of any conservative musicians that make great music. I think economics can't be put into a song.

You got to understand that Bono isn't a socialist with his money and we should all emulate his capitalist attitudes because that's actually WHAT HE DOES and ignore what he says in concert.

Bono said in this article:

Bono elevated to capital heights but claims he's not money-driven | U2 news article from @U2

"So many great painters, great musicians, great geniuses, ended up with nothing. With broken hearts in rooms with broken windows, I want to see artists sitting at the table that decides the outcome of their lives." He saves money and invests so his capital can pay his own way. The average person has to save 40% of what they make to get to the point of self sufficiency by 65 which is a big struggle if you took too long to pay off your mortgage.

U2 are making a new album because they want to, not because they have to. If I was Bono I would have trouble putting down the microphone simply because it's so awesome to have 50,000 people singing your songs back to you. That would be hard to give up.

 

[BVS]

You got to understand that Bono isn't a socialist with his money and we should all emulate his capitalist attitudes because that's actually WHAT HE DOES and ignore what he says in concert.

What does this even mean?

 

[purpleoscar]

What does this even mean?

What it means is that people should save their money so they don't become slaves to their jobs and they should control their own destiny like Bono controls his own destiny and how he believes the starving artist is not the way.

With people like Bono and his wealth a few millions in charity is only a small percentage of what he has. For the average ticket buyer it's a sacrifice to be generous with donations when the market is difficult and people have trouble with their mortgages.

Unless you can start a successful business or win the lottery, financial independence is hard work and full of self denial. Saving 40% of what you make is hard. There are people trying to retire and still have mortgages to pay because they didn't save in the past. It's hard with pensions the average people get outside government employment to actually pay their basic necessities. Lots of older people end up working when they don't want to, to make ends meet.

Between buying music, and movies I don't have the money to go on many vacations around the world like many people do because retirement is a long road and it's a priority over vacations or even donations. I want to control my own destiny. I want to be able to say "Naahhh. I'm not working anymore I want to spend time with my family", instead of having to work at age 68 because I'm desperate.

I'm certain this is the reason a lot of bands try and target younger audiences to keep their success alive. Once families start with financial responsibilities of mortgage and raising kids a rock 'n roll lifestyle and lots of fun becomes something in the background. How many families can really afford to travel to multiple U2 dates and still meet the basic responsibilities of an adult?

I don't know if many people on this site have jobs or are in school, but once people get a taste for workplace politics many people either try to escape into a fantasy world with entertainment, drugs, or they escape bullies by saving their pennies and retiring as early as possible. Or people start a rock band and make music that sells millions, or start a business, or in the rare occasion win the lottery.

I love U2's music and will buy their new album and remastered albums but my entertainment spending is allowed only because I don't indulge in other things like expensive vacations. I'm pretty sure U2 would agree that purchasing U2 tickets shouldn't come infront of healthcare for the kids, mortgage payments or food on table. Politics aside, people will buy the new album because it SOUNDS AWESOME.

Once a boss knows you have kids and a mortgage they often feel they can bully you and grind you because you're desperate for pay, especially during a recession.

Dream out loud and make YOUR OWN destiny. "Don't let the bastards grind you down."

 

[BVS]

What it means is that people should save their money so they don't become slaves to their jobs and they should control their own destiny like Bono controls his own destiny and how he believes the starving artist is not the way.

With people like Bono and his wealth a few millions in charity is only a small percentage of what he has. For the average ticket buyer it's a sacrifice to be generous with donations when the market is difficult and people have trouble with their mortgages.

Unless you can start a successful business or win the lottery, financial independence is hard work and full of self denial. Saving 40% of what you make is hard. There are people trying to retire and still have mortgages to pay because they didn't save in the past. It's hard with pensions the average people get outside government employment to actually pay their basic necessities. Lots of older people end up working when they don't want to, to make ends meet.

Between buying music, and movies I don't have the money to go on many vacations around the world like many people do because retirement is a long road and it's a priority over vacations or even donations. I want to control my own destiny. I want to be able to say "Naahhh. I'm not working anymore I want to spend time with my family", instead of having to work at age 68 because I'm desperate.

I'm certain this is the reason a lot of bands try and target younger audiences to keep their success alive. Once families start with financial responsibilities of mortgage and raising kids a rock 'n roll lifestyle and lots of fun becomes something in the background. How many families can really afford to travel to multiple U2 dates and still meet the basic responsibilities of an adult?

I don't know if many people on this site have jobs or are in school, but once people get a taste for workplace politics many people either try to escape into a fantasy world with entertainment, drugs, or they escape bullies by saving their pennies and retiring as early as possible. Or people start a rock band and make music that sells millions, or start a business, or in the rare occasion win the lottery.

I love U2's music and will buy their new album and remastered albums but my entertainment spending is allowed only because I don't indulge in other things like expensive vacations. I'm pretty sure U2 would agree that purchasing U2 tickets shouldn't come infront of healthcare for the kids, mortgage payments or food on table. Politics aside, people will buy the new album because it SOUNDS AWESOME.

Once a boss knows you have kids and a mortgage they often feel they can bully you and grind you because you're desperate for pay, especially during a recession.

Dream out loud and make YOUR OWN destiny. "Don't let the bastards grind you down."

Little long winded and somewhat eyebrow raising, but never once did you show me where Bono asked you for your money.

 

[purpleoscar]

Little long winded, but never once did you show me where Bono asked you for your money.

Watch a concert. Bono will say "I don't want your money, I want your voice." Of course your voice goes to politicians who tax you and there goes your money.

Then Bono will use liberal guilt by saying if we don't do a Marshall plan for Africa it will be like the holocaust if we don't do anything. So I guess we are all NAZIS

At some point the average individual has to look at their pocket books and decide if 1% of the GDP should go to a money pit where dictators and NGO employees collect most of the money for themselves. 1% of the GDP is a lot of money if you look at all the social programs countries try to fund competing with it. Everyone wants Education, Health Care, Military, and to Stop! (The Poverty) in their own countries. Some of the aid also puts people out of jobs in Africa. Why be a farmer and compete against free food?

I'm more in agreement with the African journalist that Bono shouted down recently Andrew Mwenda. Muhammad Yunus who beat Bono for Nobel Peace prize won because he was able to get microloans to people in 3rd world countries to start businesses. Political systems and economic systems are the reason why some countries do better than others. Guilt doesn't do it for me.

Bono thinks Ireland did well by hand outs but ignores the lower taxes Ireland had in recent years and European Union membership that increased foreign trade. Education spending is only good if there are jobs waiting for the students. Ireland and Africa are quite different.

Democracy, freer trade, property rights. These are things that if African countries could muster would do more to help them than aid.

Also you have to ask yourself if a social worker cured all the social problems of the world would they still have a job? There are people who are financially vested in charity programs that don't want them to stop even if they were not needed.

I'm sorry if I'm long winded but unfortunately when people talk politics and economics they have to explain themselves in more detail so people understand where they are coming from.

 

[BVS]

Wow, now long winded and uninformed...

"would the social worker still have a job?" One of the weakest arguments I've ever seen. Well this isn't the place. So I'll let it go.

 

[dan_smee]

Watch a concert. Bono will say "I don't want your money, I want your voice." Of course your voice goes to politicians who tax you and there goes your money.

worst arguement ever. that arguement would hinge on politicians taxing us more for giving our voices. Thats stupid.

You also tread thin ice by telling people to hoard their money. Bono can hoard money, and save people because he has a lot of it. For 99% of the world, its a choice between the two, or a very low level compromise. Are you telling me that, if given the choice, everyone should become dyed in the wool capitalists, save all their money, and leave others to fight for themselves? Those who are born into poverty and don't have equal access to proper education, stable food water and shelter, those born into racial groups that are subjectified and discriminated against, women! The glass ceiling is still a reality. I believe that anyone who is lucky enough to be born into a stable economic and social environment has a responsibility to help those who aren't.

 

[purpleoscar]

worst arguement ever. that arguement would hinge on politicians taxing us more for giving our voices. Thats stupid.

You also tread thin ice by telling people to hoard their money. Bono can hoard money, and save people because he has a lot of it. For 99% of the world, its a choice between the two, or a very low level compromise. Are you telling me that, if given the choice, everyone should become dyed in the wool capitalists, save all their money, and leave others to fight for themselves? Those who are born into poverty and don't have equal access to proper education, stable food water and shelter, those born into racial groups that are subjectified and discriminated against, women! The glass ceiling is still a reality. I believe that anyone who is lucky enough to be born into a stable economic and social environment has a responsibility to help those who aren't.

If you guys want I can continue the argument in another part of the forum. Just lead the way. I find it interesting you guys think my ideas aren't just wrong but weak. I assure you their not. They are arguments that economists would use. You may not agree with them but they aren't strange or unknown points of view. My argument of the social worker is also not unknown either. It's a typical argument economists have for government workers, or anybody that has self interest and philanthropy connected.

I'll just post my last post in the political forum.

 

[purpleoscar]

Bono's conflicting points of view

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Little long winded, but never once did you show me where Bono asked you for your money.

Watch a concert. Bono will say "I don't want your money, I want your voice." Of course your voice goes to politicians who tax you and there goes your money.

Then Bono will use liberal guilt by saying if we don't do a Marshall plan for Africa it will be like the holocaust if we don't do anything. So I guess we are all NAZIS

At some point the average individual has to look at their pocket books and decide if 1% of the GDP should go to a money pit where dictators and NGO employees collect most of the money for themselves. 1% of the GDP is a lot of money if you look at all the social programs countries try to fund competing with it. Everyone wants Education, Health Care, Military, and to Stop! (The Poverty) in their own countries. Some of the aid also puts people out of jobs in Africa. Why be a farmer and compete against free food?

I'm more in agreement with the African journalist that Bono shouted down recently Andrew Mwenda. Muhammad Yunus who beat Bono for Nobel Peace prize won because he was able to get microloans to people in 3rd world countries to start businesses. Political systems and economic systems are the reason why some countries do better than others. Guilt doesn't do it for me.

Bono thinks Ireland did well by hand outs but ignores the lower taxes Ireland had in recent years and European Union membership that increased foreign trade. Education spending is only good if there are jobs waiting for the students. Ireland and Africa are quite different.

Democracy, freer trade, property rights. These are things that if African countries could muster would do more to help them than aid.

Also you have to ask yourself if a social worker cured all the social problems of the world would they still have a job? There are people who are financially vested in charity programs that don't want them to stop even if they were not needed.

I'm sorry if I'm long winded but unfortunately when people talk politics and economics they have to explain themselves in more detail so people understand where they are coming from.

 

[dan_smee]

The social worker example is a bean counters perspective. Social workers don't just provide aid, and if you want a shocking paradox: once all the worlds problems are solved, and the social worker is out of work, then we will need social workers to help the fallen social workers.

You didn't adress my point that you don't get taxed more for expressing your voice. You will be taxed whether or not you air opinions, so having a voice costs you no more, thereofre Bono is justified in saying that he doesn't want money, he wants voice.

Yes there are some corrupt governments that siphon off aid, and in some cases, little of it reaches the people who need it. But by not giving aid, we are punishing the world's poorest. It is better to lose some of the funds to corrupt governments, that get no funds to anyone.

No economist would argue for aid. It's against everything they believe in. Just ebcause economists support your arguements doesn't make them right. I have a huge moral objection to people who are more prepared to improve their own exceptional situations, than to try heloing those who need it the most.

 

[BVS]

If you guys want I can continue the argument in another part of the forum. Just lead the way. I find it interesting you guys think my ideas aren't just wrong but weak. I assure you their not. They are arguments that economists would use. You may not agree with them but they aren't strange or unknown points of view. My argument of the social worker is also not unknown either. It's a typical argument economists have for government workers, or anybody that has self interest and philanthropy connected.

I'll just post my last post in the political forum.

Show me one economist(worth their salt) that would ever use those arguments and I will shut up.

 

[purpleoscar]

The social worker example is a bean counters perspective. Social workers don't just provide aid, and if you want a shocking paradox: once all the worlds problems are solved, and the social worker is out of work, then we will need social workers to help the fallen social workers.

You didn't adress my point that you don't get taxed more for expressing your voice. You will be taxed whether or not you air opinions, so having a voice costs you no more, thereofre Bono is justified in saying that he doesn't want money, he wants voice.

Yes there are some corrupt governments that siphon off aid, and in some cases, little of it reaches the people who need it. But by not giving aid, we are punishing the world's poorest. It is better to lose some of the funds to corrupt governments, that get no funds to anyone.

No economist would argue for aid. It's against everything they believe in. Just ebcause economists support your arguements doesn't make them right. I have a huge moral objection to people who are more prepared to improve their own exceptional situations, than to try heloing those who need it the most.

I think my point on the taxing part is that Bono wants us to give our voice to the politicians to increase aid to Africa. The main way of getting this money is taxation. Bono wants 1-2% of the GDP (our output) to be sent to Africa. This amount competes against other government priorities and ultimately our net pay which we need to save for retirement. If you have a good salary maybe you don't care but for some people 1-2% could mean foreclosure on their mortgage, or scrimping on other necessities.

I'm sure there are sincere social workers out there but I have to be honest that there are many people who like to do jobs where it's not really apparent that they add value to society. If there is really no expectation of success from our current methods it evenutally leads to cynicism and those cynical people will enter the workforce with a nice career in mind where they don't actually have to have results. Global warming bureaucrats are the new guys trying to invent jobs. If it's not really certain that they will save the world with their policies and we just pay billions for nothing they obviously won't mind. I would go even farther and say that it's the very thing they want. (Of course that is another HUGE discussion I'll avoid for the moment)

Now not all economists would agree with me, and many economists would argue for politicians who agree with Bono because it's the only way they can get a job; but that would be another point that would add to my argument.

The argument for social programs is that certain citizens of our own country cannot handle their financial stress because of no fault of their own like when a health catastrophe occurs. This I and most economists would agree they need help, but they are a small percentage of our economy. Adding the 3rd world which has a larger population couldn't feasibly happen. The problem is that people want the government to cover ALL people and provide entitlements that are not affordable because it's in their interest to expand government, not to actually solve problems. I've taken Sociology in university and my very left wing professor actually agreed with that assessment, though he says he sees no problem with that. He just loves government that much, being a government employee and all. He just believes people are so fallible that they don't really need freedom. He also believed that working or not working should be a choice. Though if everyone decided not to work I don't know where the food would come from.

If people want to do philanthropy on their own that's okay because it's their own choice but when the government starts a program like a Marshall plan for Africa there is no end to it and it will likely increase to a higher level. When you start a social program it's hard to eliminate afterwards because the employees and their families become a special interest and vote for political parties that protect that interest.

I hope you see the perverse incentives I'm talking about.

I can talk about real solutions in my next post.

 

[purpleoscar]

Show me one economist(worth their salt) that would ever use those arguments and I will shut up.

Well you would have to look for economists like Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and Frederich Hayek. Frederic Bastiat is a good place to start for basic economics. These guys influence economists in Africa. Of course there aren't very many economists in Africa and they have little political say. Dictators don't like the idea of giving up their power and opening markets up and allowing private property to their citizens.

I hope though you wouldn't just listen to economists just because they are economists. Everyone should learn some of the basics themselves and look at newer books that cover current research. It's okay for you to use your own mind to argue against them or me or anyone. Don't shut up.

The current World Vision child sponsorship and NGO method is not working and has been in operation since the 1970's without success. Africa in fact statistacally is worse than the 1970's so aid hasn't really made the impact we want ane HIV has complicated things.

 

[BVS]

Well you would have to look for economists like Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and Frederich Hayek. Frederic Bastiat is a good place to start for basic economics. These guys influence economists in Africa. Of course there aren't very many economists in Africa and they have little political say. Dictators don't like the idea of giving up their power and opening markets up and allowing private property to their citizens.

I hope though you wouldn't just listen to economists just because they are economists. Everyone should learn some of the basics themselves and look at newer books that cover current research. It's okay for you to use your own mind to argue against them or me or anyone. Don't shut up.

The current World Vision child sponsorship and NGO method is not working and has been in operation since the 1970's without success. Africa in fact statistacally is worse than the 1970's so aid hasn't really made the impact we want ane HIV has complicated things.

And those econmist argue that we need poor sick people in order to keep social worker's jobs?

Aid hasn't helped because of many reasons. One we had no clue the size of the problem, two yes there is corruption, and many other reasons.

But we've come a long way since then, and many of the plans set forth don't go through local governments, many are set up to bypass corruption.

To go back to your earlier post, hoarding money is not the answer, your money isn't going to do you any good if you keep allowing places of the world grow in extreme poverty, you'll be creating breeding grounds for future terrorists and genocides. What good is money when you aren't secure? Taxes are taxes, they exist, it depends on who you vote for where they go, Bono isn't taking anything directly from you so the whole premise of this thread is pretty moot. You have no clue how much he gives and he never asked any of us to be socialists...

 

[purpleoscar]

And those econmist argue that we need poor sick people in order to keep social worker's jobs?

Aid hasn't helped because of many reasons. One we had no clue the size of the problem, two yes there is corruption, and many other reasons.

But we've come a long way since then, and many of the plans set forth don't go through local governments, many are set up to bypass corruption.

To go back to your earlier post, hoarding money is not the answer, your money isn't going to do you any good if you keep allowing places of the world grow in extreme poverty, you'll be creating breeding grounds for future terrorists and genocides. What good is money when you aren't secure? Taxes are taxes, they exist, it depends on who you vote for where they go, Bono isn't taking anything directly from you so the whole premise of this thread is pretty moot. You have no clue how much he gives and he never asked any of us to be socialists...

The economists aren't arguing that we need poverty to have social workers. They are saying social workers don't really want the poverty to be alleviated at the level it is in the west because their jobs would be at stake. It's not easy to move from one job to another because people are creatures of habit. That's why when a government program is created and yields little results it's really difficult to remove it afterwards. The economists want the healthy and reasonably intelligent people to take care of themselves, and they want people in poor countries to have the same rights (property rights, democracy, trade) so they can achieve what we have.

The bypassing corruption in Africa has not actually happened. Also NGO's non-governmental organizations that manage the money actually pay themselves and much of the money goes to "administration". It's basically targeted help that doesn't address the real problem of why they are poor in the first place. If Bono doesn’t want to give aid to places like Zimbabwe then we have to deny aid to most of Africa because the continent has lots of corrupt dictators or fake democracies.

My answer to your terrorism warning is that giving aid because people point a gun at our heads is really a weak position that will create more violent demands. We shouldn’t reward violent actions with money or else they will do more. We have a military for a reason. The only solution I have seen to war is that it’s rare for democracies and trading partners to fight each other but when trade barriers increase and dictatorships increase so does war. War is based on a conflict of interests. Trade reduces the conflict of interests and creates interdependence. Doing violent actions to your trading partner always creates an economic question. “If I attack my trading partner what will happen to our economy?” “If I increase trade barriers on my trading partner what barriers will they erect?”

Now savings is another point. If people don't save we won't have much of a middle class to speak of. The western world's savings rate is at a record low. This is why there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor. What freedom from work will you have when you're 65 and have only the basic pension that most governments give? The good pensions are for government workers but that can't be spread to the entire population because it's a privilege that taxpayers have to pay for it to even exist. The rest of the population has to save for retirement. You practically need 800,000 – 900,000 saved in investments after you pay your house to have this independence that government employees have. Saving money is for freedom. It means you avoid shopping until you drop. That was the middle class lifestyle before. Today it’s travel around the world and pay rent your entire life. Then when you get old you become a senior complaining that there should be more entitlements and benefits from the government than there are.

Nowadays it’s like people want to drive off a cliff with their debt and somehow expect no consequences in the future. This is what is at stake for economists. People with financial freedom usually have increased opportunities for happiness, (because they are financially independent), and can choose to retire sooner instead of being desperate and having to work in old age.

Savings also helps the economy. When we put money in the bank the bank lends the money to companies so they can fund their operations and grow them. When the operations grow and they make more products (output) then the prices can lower so we can still increase our standard of living and save at the same time. If you save 10% of what you make by the next year you will be able to buy more with the 90% you spend while still continuing to save 10%. When you die the money you save can be given in inheritance to your kids which is another tool that helps keep a larger middle class. Seeing how hard it is to start a business or just save for retirement, an inheritance can help savers achieve that goal. Having a large middle class helps to create stakeholders who actually care about what’s going on in the government and are ready to replace leaders who are despotic and corrupt. If you don’t have any savings you’ll be begging the government to tax others for your living, therefore giving the government too much power over you.

Now is Bono asking us to be socialists? Of course he does. Edge is at least honest in saying that the band are social democrats. They believe in some of the basic rights for citizens but they want the government to redistribute lots of money from “the rich” to the rest of the population.

 

[BVS]

They are saying social workers don't really want the poverty to be alleviated at the level it is in the west because their jobs would be at stake. It's not easy to move from one job to another because people are creatures of habit.

This is still one of the weakest most unfounded arguments I've ever heard. Do you think people work for non-profits or do social work because it's fun or pays a lot? Creature of habit? I take it you don't really know any social workers, and I doubt you can find any economist that backs up such an argument.

The economists want the healthy and reasonably intelligent people to take care of themselves, and they want people in poor countries to have the same rights (property rights, democracy, trade) so they can achieve what we have.

How do you acheive property rights, democracy, and trade when you're dying off at an accelerated rate? Do you know anything about the sitution in Africa?

The bypassing corruption in Africa has not actually happened. Also NGO's non-governmental organizations that manage the money actually pay themselves and much of the money goes to "administration". It's basically targeted help that doesn't address the real problem of why they are poor in the first place.

Do you have anything to back this up?

My answer to your terrorism warning is that giving aid because people point a gun at our heads is really a weak position that will create more violent demands. We shouldn’t reward violent actions with money or else they will do more.

Wow, you missed my point completely.

Now savings is another point. If people don't save we won't have much of a middle class to speak of. The western world's savings rate is at a record low. This is why there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor. What freedom from work will you have when you're 65 and have only the basic pension that most governments give? The good pensions are for government workers but that can't be spread to the entire population because it's a privilege that taxpayers have to pay for it to even exist. The rest of the population has to save for retirement. You practically need 800,000 – 900,000 saved in investments after you pay your house to have this independence that government employees have. Saving money is for freedom. It means you avoid shopping until you drop. That was the middle class lifestyle before. Today it’s travel around the world and pay rent your entire life. Then when you get old you become a senior complaining that there should be more entitlements and benefits from the government than there are.

What does this have to do with Bono?

And saving helps the economy? Have you ever taken an economics class?

Now is Bono asking us to be socialists? Of course he does. Edge is at least honest in saying that the band are social democrats. They believe in some of the basic rights for citizens but they want the government to redistribute lots of money from “the rich” to the rest of the population.

So social democrat = socialists?
Aid = socialism?
And U2 have called for the redistribution of wealth for all populations?

At least you're entertaining...

 

[bonoman]

This could be a good thread if it were'nt so confused. You're linking far too many issues together. Aid, Savings, NGOs, and you're underlying hate for government workers (and probably union workers in general). If workers were smart enough and had the determination to join unions or get employers to provide livable pensions they wouldnt need 800-900K.

I do, though, agree with how aid is provided. But I feel its far more complicated then how you're presenting it. As others have said, there are plenty of reasons why aid does'nt reach the people it is intended for. You need to stop and ask yourself if removing aid altogether is the right thing to do. You are right in saying that we need to set up a more capitalistic environment in Africa, but how is that done? Aid?

I see you're from Alberta, so you must hate big government? I hope you didnt vote PC in the last election! They are the apitamy of big government, but I have a feeling you voted for Stelmach cause he would change things

 

[purpleoscar]

This is still one of the weakest most unfounded arguments I've ever heard. Do you think people work for non-profits or do social work because it's fun or pays a lot? Creature of habit? I take it you don't really know any social workers, and I doubt you can find any economist that backs up such an argument.

I don't see the weakness. I could apply the same point of view to many government workers. I work in accounting and I see people talk about their future and viability all the time. I see bully workers trying to push out new employees that they find are a threat to their jobs whether they are or not. That's a large part of what people think about in their jobs and where most of the politics comes from. I see bosses try and push favorite employees against long standing ones to push them out. People naturally want easy money with no competition and try to make systems that allow it whether it's bad for the economy or not. Try and change careers when you have bills to pay. Human beings are motivated by short-term self interest and habit. If a bureaucrat makes lots of money adding little value for their work, that's the best job in their mind by far. I've seen government or even the accountants themselves create extra procedures on a file without it being necessary other than increasing their fees.

Yes there are social workers who like their work but to ignore the financial self-interest as being a major motivator for many employees will make you miss out on how humans work in economics.

The economists I mentioned in a prior post all talk about perverse self-interest and the need for organizations to constantly grow even if their use has expired. Much of economics is about creating efficiencies in the economy so we get a higher standard of living, and most economists would agree that government can be VERY inefficient. It shouldn't be hard for you to find economists that think that, should it?

How do you acheive property rights, democracy, and trade when you're dying off at an accelerated rate? Do you know anything about the sitution in Africa?

Revolution. Maybe military help from outside governments. How did we get democracy? It wasn't handed to us. We had to fight for it. Yet the revolution has to be to establish a middle class and not some Chavez, Castro revolution.

There is no cure for HIV so people who aren't infected at least will have to be celibate until marriage and stay true to their partners so the disease doesn't spread as fast. We have a much lower rate in North America because we understand the risk and can take precautions. Many people in Africa have tribal beliefs that include ending HIV infection by sleeping with a virgin as a solution. With solutions like that of course it spreads. If we do find a cure for HIV spending money to cure them would of course be worth it because these people could go to work. This is provided that it doesn't cost so much that it buckles our chances of providing health care for our children and families. Of course having a dictatorship would still interfere with that. Would a warlord try to get supplies of the cure and manipulate the population to gain power? It certainly can happen with food.

This article sheds some light on the lack of progress.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4272569.ece

Do you have anything to back this up?

http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/1264/2008/06/18-163310-1.htm

http://www.newstatesman.com/200003130008

I'm sure I can find many more examples, but these articles should pass on the point that aid is not the main solution. At best it's like a band-aid.

Wow, you missed my point completely.

You're point is that if we don't do lots of aid to help poor countries they will be a breeding ground for terrorists, right?

My last post on that still answers it. Violent threats or possible violent threats in the future should be handled by military, not aid; especially if aid is not really working that well.

What does this have to do with Bono?

And saving helps the economy? Have you ever taken an economics class?

Yes. I've read on my own which is even better. Teachers have their agendas which side with Keynesian economics which is part of the reason we have problems today that mirror the problems in the 1970's. Keynes believed that saved money didn't really go anywhere. People like Friedman proved that you couldn't have an economy without savings. I explained the role of savings in my last post. The bank lends the money so it's still circulating in the economy. With the debt (if it's a managable size) companies can expand and create MORE goods. With a ratio of goods increasing over demand the prices go down so people will still buy goods but not at the sacrifice of savings for retirement. Savings = Capital. Capital = Buildings, machinery, hire staff and pay them right away. We can over consume beyond the goods we make. This then would go into a conversation on interest rates and how they effect the economy. Do you want me to go into that?

So social democrat = socialists?
Aid = socialism?
And U2 have called for the redistribution of wealth for all populations?

At least you're entertaining...

Social democrat does equal socialist. Social democrat isn't communist. Communists believe in historical determinism, meaning that we can scientifically predict what social systems will evolve in the future. The idea was Despotism > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > violent revolution of the proletariat (lower economic classes) to take over the means of production AKA Capital > Communism (gradual reduction of government to a state of no government). At this point people are supposed to be self-sufficient and have common ownership of everything. Marx couldn't explain how that would really come about that's why the dictatorship part is where they stop at and they reneg at releasing that power for obvious reasons.

If U2 want redistribution of wealth from all the rich nations to the poor ones, which Bono advocates (along with the UN) then the people in those nations have to pay it. So yes they want what the UN wants. So do most socialist artists everywhere. They love the UN.

Then finally we get to see Bono who wants, what would inevitably mean more taxes for us, to move his money to a tax shelter for artists. Percentage wise the average Joe has to have standard of living adjustments that are hard to pay the increased taxes and even if U2 stayed in Ireland financially, their standard of living isn't going to complete overwhelm the capital that they have to keep them independent of needing to work. They're work has tough moments but it's not exactly working in a mine.

 

[purpleoscar]

This could be a good thread if it were'nt so confused. You're linking far too many issues together. Aid, Savings, NGOs, and you're underlying hate for government workers (and probably union workers in general). If workers were smart enough and had the determination to join unions or get employers to provide livable pensions they wouldnt need 800-900K.

I do, though, agree with how aid is provided. But I feel its far more complicated then how you're presenting it. As others have said, there are plenty of reasons why aid does'nt reach the people it is intended for. You need to stop and ask yourself if removing aid altogether is the right thing to do. You are right in saying that we need to set up a more capitalistic environment in Africa, but how is that done? Aid?

I see you're from Alberta, so you must hate big government? I hope you didnt vote PC in the last election! They are the apitamy of big government, but I have a feeling you voted for Stelmach cause he would change things

I apologize for including many issues into my argument but unfortunately there is no choice. All these issues affect decisions we make.

I don't hate government workers and I think we need some government. The argument is HOW MUCH government should we have and not whether we should have it or not.

I'm not completely against unions because there are abusive managers and working conditions can be ignored; BUT I know that in order to give union workers the benefits they have the union must limit the number of workers available and greenbelt against competition. This means that not all workers can work for a union without the benefits being watered down. That's part of the reason why unions have diminished in the past 20 years. In Europe they have more unions but more unemployment.

Yes I'm Albertan and proud of it. I don't like Stelmach as much as Morton because he's the more liberal of them all but not as liberal as Taft. Liberals want to spend more money and inch ourselves closer to what a more liberal PC Getty did in the 90's. If oil goes down in the future and we spend like it doesn't we will have deficits again. I prefer Klein by a mile. He's the reason companies wanted to move to Alberta. Alberta needs to expand to other industries instead of just oil. When oil goes down this province depopulates big time.

The reason Stelmach won a landslide was because liberals were talking about the environmental impact of oilsands and a lot of people felt their jobs with an axe on their necks and they took action.

In regards to pensions we have to understand that employers can go bankrupt and be bought out so our pension funds can disappear. Government can't go under because they can increase taxes, but they give better pensions for government workers and often spend CPP money on other programs so all you can trust is yourself. If you do the savings yourself you have more control over you own life and don't surrender you independence to associations, governments, or corporations. The idea is to have more peace.

 

[BVS]

I don't see the weakness. I could apply the same point of view to many government workers. I work in accounting and I see people talk about their future and viability all the time. I see bully workers trying to push out new employees that they find are a threat to their jobs whether they are or not. That's a large part of what people think about in their jobs and where most of the politics comes from. I see bosses try and push favorite employees against long standing ones to push them out. People naturally want easy money with no competition and try to make systems that allow it whether it's bad for the economy or not. Try and change careers when you have bills to pay. Human beings are motivated by short-term self interest and habit. If a bureaucrat makes lots of money adding little value for their work, that's the best job in their mind by far. I've seen government or even the accountants themselves create extra procedures on a file without it being necessary other than increasing their fees.

I give up, not one sentence above addresses what we are talking about. You obviously don't know social workers.

The economists I mentioned in a prior post all talk about perverse self-interest and the need for organizations to constantly grow even if their use has expired. Much of economics is about creating efficiencies in the economy so we get a higher standard of living, and most economists would agree that government can be VERY inefficient. It shouldn't be hard for you to find economists that think that, should it?

Once again, what does this have to do with social work?

Revolution. Maybe military help from outside governments. How did we get democracy? It wasn't handed to us. We had to fight for it. Yet the revolution has to be to establish a middle class and not some Chavez, Castro revolution.

We weren't a people that were dying of AIDS or diseases the rest of the world haven't seen in decades. We weren't a people that didn't have food. COME ON MAN!

There is no cure for HIV so people who aren't infected at least will have to be celibate until marriage and stay true to their partners so the disease doesn't spread as fast. We have a much lower rate in North America because we understand the risk and can take precautions. Many people in Africa have tribal beliefs that include ending HIV infection by sleeping with a virgin as a solution. With solutions like that of course it spreads. If we do find a cure for HIV spending money to cure them would of course be worth it because these people could go to work. This is provided that it doesn't cost so much that it buckles our chances of providing health care for our children and families. Of course having a dictatorship would still interfere with that. Would a warlord try to get supplies of the cure and manipulate the population to gain power? It certainly can happen with food.

So abstinence is the answer? Wow, someone's drank the kool aid. You don't think something like... oh, I don't know... EDUCATION might help?

This article sheds some light on the lack of progress.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4272569.ece




http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/1264/2008/06/18-163310-1.htm

http://www.newstatesman.com/200003130008

I'm sure I can find many more examples, but these articles should pass on the point that aid is not the main solution. At best it's like a band-aid.

I admitted earlier that yes there is corruption, but there are also many programs that have addressed this and are getting beyond corruption.

You're point is that if we don't do lots of aid to help poor countries they will be a breeding ground for terrorists, right?

My last post on that still answers it. Violent threats or possible violent threats in the future should be handled by military, not aid; especially if aid is not really working that well.

Wow, so we just ignore it till it's a threat, then kill them all... Talk about a band-aid solution... such backwards logic.

Yes. I've read on my own which is even better. Teachers have their agendas which side with Keynesian economics which is part of the reason we have problems today that mirror the problems in the 1970's. Keynes believed that saved money didn't really go anywhere. People like Friedman proved that you couldn't have an economy without savings. I explained the role of savings in my last post. The bank lends the money so it's still circulating in the economy. With the debt (if it's a managable size) companies can expand and create MORE goods. With a ratio of goods increasing over demand the prices go down so people will still buy goods but not at the sacrifice of savings for retirement. Savings = Capital. Capital = Buildings, machinery, hire staff and pay them right away. We can over consume beyond the goods we make. This then would go into a conversation on interest rates and how they effect the economy. Do you want me to go into that?

Of course we can over consume, and everyone knows it's better to pay with cash than debt; this is all common knowledge, but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about saving without spending, that will never lead to anywhere.

Social democrat does equal socialist. Social democrat isn't communist. Communists believe in historical determinism, meaning that we can scientifically predict what social systems will evolve in the future. The idea was Despotism > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > violent revolution of the proletariat (lower economic classes) to take over the means of production AKA Capital > Communism (gradual reduction of government to a state of no government). At this point people are supposed to be self-sufficient and have common ownership of everything. Marx couldn't explain how that would really come about that's why the dictatorship part is where they stop at and they reneg at releasing that power for obvious reasons.

If U2 want redistribution of wealth from all the rich nations to the poor ones, which Bono advocates (along with the UN) then the people in those nations have to pay it. So yes they want what the UN wants. So do most socialist artists everywhere. They love the UN.

Wow, just wow... There's so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

Well to correct your first sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

The rest I won't even bother, it would take too long.

 

[bonoman]

Yes I'm Albertan and proud of it. I don't like Stelmach as much as Morton because he's the more liberal of them all but not as liberal as Taft. Liberals want to spend more money and inch ourselves closer to what a more liberal PC Getty did in the 90's. If oil goes down in the future and we spend like it doesn't we will have deficits again. I prefer Klein by a mile. He's the reason companies wanted to move to Alberta. Alberta needs to expand to other industries instead of just oil. When oil goes down this province depopulates big time.

I guess that says it all for me. Ted Morton?

Oil companies did'nt move to Alberta because of Klein, they came to Alberta because we have OIL! And not only that but the roads were already built and some plants already existed. I always love those Albertans, like yourself, that think that we are flooded in money because we did something so out of the ordinary.

This PC government has been spending like NDPers for the last 8 years and dont seem to want to stop. Endless anouncements of more money being spent, the highest per capita spending in the country, and really not a whole lot to show for it.

If you can't relize this in your own backyard how can I take you seriously about spending aid on poor and dying Africans. Too funny.

 

[purpleoscar]

I guess that says it all for me. Ted Morton?

Oil companies did'nt move to Alberta because of Klein, they came to Alberta because we have OIL! And not only that but the roads were already built and some plants already existed. I always love those Albertans, like yourself, that think that we are flooded in money because we did something so out of the ordinary.

This PC government has been spending like NDPers for the last 8 years and dont seem to want to stop. Endless anouncements of more money being spent, the highest per capita spending in the country, and really not a whole lot to show for it.

If you can't relize this in your own backyard how can I take you seriously about spending aid on poor and dying Africans. Too funny.

First, I said I think Stelmach is more liberal than other candidates but not as much. Are PC's spending more than NDP? PC's have a balanced budget and no debt. NDP has never achieved that. PC's are not spending more than their revenues. So basically I'm more fiscally conservative than Stelmach but he's definately more fiscally conservative than what the liberals and NDP were proposing, on top of wanting to halt oil production.

Also we are flooded with money not just because of oil. We always had oil, but Klein cut spending paid down the debt in intervals which freed up interest payments we didn't have to pay anymore. That extra money went into tax cuts and spending. Companies like to be in places where their tax bill is less. What Klein did financially was more than most regions in North America. How would voting for Liberals and NDP instead of Klein eliminated the debt? How did that happen? We have lots to show for it. We are one of the richest regions of North America. Are you assuming that these are not difficult objectives? Saudi Arabia has oil but are they creating an economy that all people can partake in? Where are you from Bonoman? Are you another guy who's envious of Alberta?

And your comment on spending money on Africans ignores what I was saying before. Should we be spending money on our own infrastructure and Africans because we are some how guilty? Why don't they have good revolutions. All the revolutions they had were marxist, or military dictatorships.

 

[Diemen]

Why don't they have good revolutions.

Um, what?

 

[purpleoscar]

I give up, not one sentence above addresses what we are talking about. You obviously don't know social workers.

You obviously don't read my posts at all. I've explained it over and over again. Anyone who gets paid money for a job wants that job to continue and not change whether it's useful or not. It doesn't matter if the job has philanthropic objectives or not. Self-righteousness doesn't cover self interest.

Once again, what does this have to do with social work?

It has to do with your post on what economists would back up these ideas.

We weren't a people that were dying of AIDS or diseases the rest of the world haven't seen in decades. We weren't a people that didn't have food. COME ON MAN!

Africans weren't always dying of HIV. I don't believe in colonialism, but the infrastructure for Africans then was better then it is now, which is disappointing. You have to ask yourself how we got wealthy. The principles are the same for every race on earth. If we push handouts only and ignore politics and economics the results will continue to be disappointing. Don't you get tired of Self-righteous people saying they care more than you because they donate, or using guilt to make you spend on their NGO's? I would agree if handouts created wealthy economies but there is more to it than that.

So abstinence is the answer? Wow, someone's drank the kool aid. You don't think something like... oh, I don't know... EDUCATION might help?

Education doesn't cost that much and is being done. If tribal members are willing to change their attitudes sometime this century that would be great. Abstinance and increased condom usage is ultimately up to the individual no matter how much education.

I admitted earlier that yes there is corruption, but there are also many programs that have addressed this and are getting beyond corruption.

Can you do some work and show me evidence. Also remember that aid doesn't create an economy so it's a small part of the solution. If you look at the discussion on aid to Africa in the media it's being touted as the main solution to poverty.

Wow, so we just ignore it till it's a threat, then kill them all... Talk about a band-aid solution... such backwards logic.

Actually it's not a band-aid solution. Do we have enough money to solve all the problems of the world? Why don't countries try and take responsbility for themselves. All I hear is the west has to give.

Of course we can over consume, and everyone knows it's better to pay with cash than debt; this is all common knowledge, but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about saving without spending, that will never lead to anywhere.

You need to read my posts more carefully. I talked about how money flows through the bank from individuals to companies who produce products and services. You can save some and spend some at the same time. Do you have to spend ALL the money you made? Do a budget and slice it up and see how much you need to spend and how much you can save. Don't save to the point of starving yourself but don't spend all the money you have. Unless you have a government pension you will be spending almost all your social security in old age on necessities with not much left for anything else.

Considering current spending habits that people have in the western world your comment that everyone knows its better to pay with cash than with debt is I think optimistic. Debt is okay as long as people don't carry too much. With all the foreclosures happening it appears people don't seem to get this message.

Wow, just wow... There's so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

Show me that it's wrong. I can sit there and say you are wrong but that doesn't offer any constructive criticism.

Well to correct your first sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Here's the first sentence of your link:

"Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement." Social democracies are socialist. Most countries are socialist to an extent, but socialist parties want MORE redistribution and MORE nationalization.

Social democracies are mixed economies that stop short of communism, because they don't believe we can go that far. Marx felt that it was a stage before the revolution. Social democracies would be more left wing than many democrats in the U.S. and closer to NDP in Canada. Of course parties can change over time. Also those political parties I mentioned above are the ones that push for what Bono wants much more than conservatives. It's obvious what direction they lean. LEFT.

Here are some of the criticisms on your webpage:

"The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit economic efficiency and growth.

Social democracy limits indivdual rights to reach its societal goals.

Social democratic programs sometimes entail large government outlays, which can result in sizeable budget deficits.

State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services limits individual choice. Even where private alternatives are available, some liberals would argue that it still limits individual choice, since it requires that an individual effectively pay twice for a service (to the state and the private provider).

It has been argued that social democracy tends to tax the working class more than the rich who can resort to tax evasion through sophisticated accounting, therefore impeding the efforts of the working class to build wealth."

Okay. I think it's time for you to do some work and actually show what you think Africa needs to improve their living standards.

The rest I won't even bother, it would take too long.

That's right. You can't put these issues into a sound bite. They take actual work.

Oh well I least this conversation isn't about boring subjects like whether Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian or bisexual.

 

[purpleoscar]

Um, what?

Unfortunately democracy wasn't given to us and even when we fought for it there were many challenges in the twentieth century to try and stamp it out. The American revolution ended up being more of a revolution for the middle class and property rights. Marxist revolutions (inspired by the French revolution) lead to top down runned regimes. The equality of slaves had to be fought for as well with the Civil War. Thankfully some places like England removed slavery with laws instead of having a violent revolution.

It's a struggle to keep freedom. The temptation of power for some would be dictators is so great that the threat of violence against them is the only way to prevent new dictatorships from arising.

 

[BVS]

You obviously don't read my posts at all. I've explained it over and over again. Anyone who gets paid money for a job wants that job to continue and not change whether it's useful or not. It doesn't matter if the job has philanthropic objectives or not. Self-righteousness doesn't cover self interest.

This is like saying therapists who specialize in addiction always hope there are junkies in this world because they will always have a job. They don't hope this. I'm sure the therapists would tell you they would love it if they could find a way to stop drug addicts, for they could always move on to another specialty. You are treating social work like a supply and demand job, when it's not like that, believe me they could be making a lot more money with the same skills somewhere else.

Africans weren't always dying of HIV. I don't believe in colonialism, but the infrastructure for Africans then was better then it is now, which is disappointing. You have to ask yourself how we got wealthy. The principles are the same for every race on earth. If we push handouts only and ignore politics and economics the results will continue to be disappointing. Don't you get tired of Self-righteous people saying they care more than you because they donate, or using guilt to make you spend on their NGO's? I would agree if handouts created wealthy economies but there is more to it than that.

How did we get wealthy? YOU have to ask yourself about the history of Africa. Famine, stealing their people for slavery, apartheid, etc etc... No one is claiming that "handouts" will create a wealthy economy, that's not what this is about, this is about trying to keep humans alive so that someday their grandchildren can rise from the ashes.

Education doesn't cost that much and is being done. If tribal members are willing to change their attitudes sometime this century that would be great. Abstinance and increased condom usage is ultimately up to the individual no matter how much education.

Education doesn't cost that much, we have education issues in our own back yard. But if we can just teach them the basics of hygene and sex ed, which I know isn't as easy as it sounds, but there has been very little attempt up to this point.

Can you do some work and show me evidence. Also remember that aid doesn't create an economy so it's a small part of the solution. If you look at the discussion on aid to Africa in the media it's being touted as the main solution to poverty.

No one is talking about aid creating economy, where do you get this from? We're talking about getting them mosquito nets, vaccines, medications all of which we've had for decades. And there are many programs getting these things in the villages directly not going through the governments.

An economy can only be created after the people have water, food, and can stay alive.

Actually it's not a band-aid solution. Do we have enough money to solve all the problems of the world? Why don't countries try and take responsbility for themselves. All I hear is the west has to give.

Here you go again, tell the child that was born with HIV that his country needs to get their act together while you sit there with free water and food on your table.

Listen, if we all voted and lived our lives with just our self interest in mind, we'd almost all be Republicans and conservatives. Blinders are easy to wear, opening up your eyes, that takes strength.

Here's the first sentence of your link:

"Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement." Social democracies are socialist. Most countries are socialist to an extent, but socialist parties want MORE redistribution and MORE nationalization.

That's funny, I almost even wrote in my response that you wouldn't get past the first sentence, you're easy to read. It's very similar to your elementary explanations of economics, you read the first sentence then move on.

Read the following sentences.

 

[A stor]

Great thread! Excellent points of view, all of which, are well thought out.

I agree with aid to some point. While, it can initially help solve the immediate problems. But, if it is continued as hand outs. It will create others. There must be a better educational system in Africa. Not only as to how aids is spread, but the basics of reading, writing, math, then job training. So, young Africans can compete in the global job market. And there must be more access to fair trade.

What amazes me about Africa, is that in some of the poorest nations, parents have to pay school fees. Where as in the US and Europe a public education is basically free, supported by the tax payers.

 

[bonoman]

First, I said I think Stelmach is more liberal than other candidates but not as much. Are PC's spending more than NDP? PC's have a balanced budget and no debt. NDP has never achieved that. PC's are not spending more than their revenues. So basically I'm more fiscally conservative than Stelmach but he's definately more fiscally conservative than what the liberals and NDP were proposing, on top of wanting to halt oil production.

Also we are flooded with money not just because of oil. We always had oil, but Klein cut spending paid down the debt in intervals which freed up interest payments we didn't have to pay anymore. That extra money went into tax cuts and spending. Companies like to be in places where their tax bill is less. What Klein did financially was more than most regions in North America. How would voting for Liberals and NDP instead of Klein eliminated the debt? How did that happen? We have lots to show for it. We are one of the richest regions of North America. Are you assuming that these are not difficult objectives? Saudi Arabia has oil but are they creating an economy that all people can partake in? Where are you from Bonoman? Are you another guy who's envious of Alberta?

And your comment on spending money on Africans ignores what I was saying before. Should we be spending money on our own infrastructure and Africans because we are some how guilty? Why don't they have good revolutions. All the revolutions they had were marxist, or military dictatorships.

I'm born and raised in Alberta, and I'm currently sitting at CNRL. So envious isnt the word for it. Sick of it, yes.

You seem to think that Klien did something that couldnt have been done by anyone else. I would have prefered to pay down the debt at a pace that wouldnt cause harm to the social and infustrucre that we are seeing now. I dont know if youve been up to Fort Mac lately, but the lack of planning is apparent, I spent 4 hours in traffic yesterday, but who cares about me, lets just build another plant.

Some people think that this oil is somehow going to get up one day and walk away. If we start to plan these jobs a bit better and make sure we can handle this devolpment enviromentally, we will be better off down the road. I would rather live in a place that I have some confidence that in 10 years time there will still be work. The PC govt and full steam ahead approach are ruining Alberta. We are paying the price of Kliens refusal to make Alberta sustainable over the next half century. Unfortunatly I cant see Alberta running at this speed for the rest of my working life, and I shudder to think about my kids.

And about balanced budgets, I could let my 3yr old niece at the budget and she'd balance it. Thats not the point, we are'nt saving enough, and we need to be investing in sectors that are going to sustainable long after the oil slows its flow. But our govt has only the short term on its mind!

 

[purpleoscar]

I'm born and raised in Alberta, and I'm currently sitting at CNRL. So envious isnt the word for it. Sick of it, yes.

You seem to think that Klien did something that couldnt have been done by anyone else. I would have prefered to pay down the debt at a pace that wouldnt cause harm to the social and infustrucre that we are seeing now. I dont know if youve been up to Fort Mac lately, but the lack of planning is apparent, I spent 4 hours in traffic yesterday, but who cares about me, lets just build another plant.

Some people think that this oil is somehow going to get up one day and walk away. If we start to plan these jobs a bit better and make sure we can handle this devolpment enviromentally, we will be better off down the road. I would rather live in a place that I have some confidence that in 10 years time there will still be work. The PC govt and full steam ahead approach are ruining Alberta. We are paying the price of Kliens refusal to make Alberta sustainable over the next half century. Unfortunatly I cant see Alberta running at this speed for the rest of my working life, and I shudder to think about my kids.

And about balanced budgets, I could let my 3yr old niece at the budget and she'd balance it. Thats not the point, we are'nt saving enough, and we need to be investing in sectors that are going to sustainable long after the oil slows its flow. But our govt has only the short term on its mind!

I agree that we need to look at other industries other than oil, but oil is a commodity and they are always volitile. The only way to stabilize that is to have other industries.

Government has a short term mind and so does everyone else. I don't trust the government in "saving" for us. We need to save more as individuals. Yes Stelmach is using the boom to spend insane amounts and will have to curtail it but he's just not as conservative as Klein was. We should be taking a lot of the surpluses and giving either tax breaks or targeted oil refund cheques to the populace since it's owned by the Albertan citizens. It's up to us to get independent. We need more industries to show up here and the government can't just use spending to attract because when the spending stops then industries start leaving like Dell. Part of the tax responsibility now is on the Federal government because 10% in Alberta is pretty damn good.

This idea of "planning" is another joke by the left. "No plan!" Governments have huge problems with planning. After the communist 5 year plans I'm tired of hearing of planning. The planning would cost so much money that the growth of the economy wouldn't be as much as it was. Just a hint of increasing royalties made it clear we are in competition with other places for oil workers. Even some of them have already gone to Saskatchewan that has found more oil and uranium. Also the NDP has made comparisons of our oil to Alaska and how they have higher royalties. Obama even threatened to not accept our oil because it's "dirty". The royalties have to be lower than Alaska because our oil has sand in it making it cost more to extract it.

I'm happy we are getting a nuclear power plant. That will answer some of the questions of the environment since it's the only viable clean energy we have until something else better is invented. The companies have already pledged plenty of money for clean up after they've gone. Some environmental accidents have happened but hardly to the point that Alberta is destroyed.

I hope you dislike the environmentalist protesters of greenpeace in Alberta because they are just the biggest hypocrites. I tell you the reason Stelmach won as much as he did was because the environmentalists scared tons of families that feared they would lose their jobs. The world needs energy including environmentalists. Why don't they practice what they preach and live a hunting and gathering lifestyle if they don't like conventional energy. I can go on an on about the environmental impact of only using trees or skipping to useless technologies like Solar Power which are unreliable in the cold north with less sun. They also use precious minerals to create the solar panels so we can't even mass produce them to lower the prices of it. Oil is going to be with us for our lifetimes and we are not going to sacrifice our living standards, and neither are the individuals in environmental groups.

Some of the reason for this insane spike in oil is because environmentalists have successfully lobbied government to make it difficult to make new refineries and exploration like in Alaska. With a price as high as it is lots of people want to get in on it in Alberta. Hence the inflation in Fort Mac is brutal. Certainly the government should find ways to increase supply.

Another point of view on the boom in oil is to understand the role of debt in the economy. The central bank controls inflation by how much money is created (electronically and physically). The idea is to create money in proportion to the growth of the economy. It's never perfect but you can have high inflation and low inflation. Since John Maynard Keynes economists in the government believed in doing tricks (often to manipulate elections) by creating an abundance of money during downturns which then have to be restricted during upturns in the economy. This (unknown to Keynes) created a shorter boom bust cycle that often exacerbates the economy. If people, governments and corporations take on too much debt it derails our economy by creating fake jobs based on cheap money. When the economy fails to produce output because many companies are useless making useless products and services with cheap debt we start over consuming our products and services. The only way to stop that is to eventually raise interest rates which eliminates those fake jobs causing bouts of unemployment that the government has to tax to support slowing our economy. This is a problem in the Western world that Milton Friedman addressed. We need to raise interest rates sooner during an upturn in the economy so that it's more stable and useless companies disappear sooner instead of increasing with cheap debt and hiring tons of people who will eventually have to pack it in later when interest rates are forced to increase to deal with inflation. We want our economy to grow more efficiently so we create products and services that people actually want. Governments often avoid raising interest rates especially during election periods. There's an American election coming and nobody is doing much at all to curb inflation. Apparently the way they did inflation statistics 20 years ago inflation now would be around 10%. The government excludes food, energy, and housing from the statistics despite all people in the world requiring to spend on those things.

 

[purpleoscar]

This is like saying therapists who specialize in addiction always hope there are junkies in this world because they will always have a job. They don't hope this. I'm sure the therapists would tell you they would love it if they could find a way to stop drug addicts, for they could always move on to another specialty. You are treating social work like a supply and demand job, when it's not like that, believe me they could be making a lot more money with the same skills somewhere else.

I think we should just drop this area because we obviously will repeat ourselves over and over. We agree to disagree. I firmly believe that government often causes the problem and then then proposes itself as the solution. Philanthropy and self-interest mesh badly. Frederic Bastiat was right that when he noticed that when philanthropy and self-interest come together that those individuals can become very shrill with exagerrated emotion over their "causes". He understood this in the 1800's already when the socialists were making some political inroads.

How did we get wealthy? YOU have to ask yourself about the history of Africa. Famine, stealing their people for slavery, apartheid, etc etc... No one is claiming that "handouts" will create a wealthy economy, that's not what this is about, this is about trying to keep humans alive so that someday their grandchildren can rise from the ashes.

This sounds like guilt. If we really wanted to solve problems to that level we would be bankrupt. Even 1% of the GDP wouldn't be enough. At some point the Africans are going to have to decide what they want. Many are hostile to our point of view because they call it "cultural colonialism". Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Aid has some short-term benefits, but as I pointed out in my other post, the economic ideas are not given as much fanfare and it is what is mainly needed. Education, health care and infrastructure paid by us for all poor Africans is too expensive. Even Bono knows that what we promise to do and what he asks is only the beginning. The idea that Bono has is to get us to commit to more spending in aid and then once we do that and it doesn't do enough, then we need to spend MORE. One of the guys from DATA mentioned the same thing about debt. If we write off debt, then lend more and they get into debt trouble again we should just keep writing it off. I'm sorry but we have our own responsibilities to our citizens. Taxpayers shouldn't be treated that way.

Education doesn't cost that much, we have education issues in our own back yard. But if we can just teach them the basics of hygene and sex ed, which I know isn't as easy as it sounds, but there has been very little attempt up to this point.

We are doing that but only some are listening. This kind of education I'm for because we need some communication and it's not as costly, but Bono wants education spending at the level of Ireland and that's just not possible for us to spend on. He thinks he can compare Ireland to Africa. Ireland was poor in the past but never as bad off in infrastructure and poverty as Africa. Ireland has private property laws, democracy, and when Ireland joined the Euro and lowered taxes their economy expanded and people saved money and invested. The education then was useful at that point. There was capital flowing to create jobs to take advantage of the educated populace. A lot of education is created when there is more international trade. I agree we need to trade with Africa more. Lots of trade barriers and farm subsidies are keeping Africans farmers down. Yet this would make Bono (who agrees with this) closer to Margaret Thatcher. Oh the HORROR! Free Trade! Also Africans need to embrace more trade too. They are often proponents of trade barriers as well.

No one is talking about aid creating economy, where do you get this from? We're talking about getting them mosquito nets, vaccines, medications all of which we've had for decades. And there are many programs getting these things in the villages directly not going through the governments.

We have an aid economy already. That is what the African journalist was trying to explain to Bono when he got shot down. Making Africans into beggars creates new dependency problems.

An economy can only be created after the people have water, food, and can stay alive.

The Western world was able to create better economies with the same problems. I'll add some detail later in this post.

Here you go again, tell the child that was born with HIV that his country needs to get their act together while you sit there with free water and food on your table.

Sorry, but there is no free lunch. If we get all bleeding heart and emotional about it all we will have is a bunch of activists asking for more money and the western population saying "screw you". We need to start trading with Africa because more money will be made by Africans who are healthy (yes they do exist) and they can pay for their own infrastructure. Also business owners will want to have property rights to protect their profits from their despotic leaders. They may even fight them because they will have a stake in society to fight for.

My mom recently died of Alzheimer's disease. There was no cure and I could ask other people to donate tons of money to the Alzheimer's Society but that is just not fair. If everyone knocks on the door of their neighbor for handouts we won't PRODUCE an economy that is self sustaining. I've long realized seeing stars on World Vision using emotional music in the background and pleading us to contribute while they bring cameras into poor peoples huts, which embarrasses them, that it doesn't ultimately work. It creates envy. It's not the solution. It reminds me of nobles, and church in the middle ages giving alms for the poor (which were the majority of the population then) and how it didn't do much at all. We discovered these ideas I'm talking about, by accident. When the black plague in Europe killed a quarter of the peasant population workers became scarce. Nobles had to bid with other nobles and pay more to get workers to farm their land, hence competition. Peasant workers could now get more money and a surplus to save so they became more independent. They would be migrant workers and move from employer to employer. The middle class started then despite horrible diseases and low life expectancy. It's important that we learn how this happened because there are left wing people in the western world that infiltrate schools and have changed in the curriculum in the 1960's to eliminate a lot of that knowledge which they call "imperialistic". Whatever! We are in danger of losing this knowledge and repeating economic mistakes. People in the 1700's were just beginning to understand these principles but the majority of the population even today don't understand them yet.

Listen, if we all voted and lived our lives with just our self interest in mind, we'd almost all be Republicans and conservatives. Blinders are easy to wear, opening up your eyes, that takes strength.

I don't have blinders. I'm showing you how wealth is created. The blind people are the ones who ignore economics to their detriment. If we keep going on this path of aid as the main goal we will create disappointed populaces in the west and may cause even more apathy. The results will be disappointing and have already been.

I believe family should be the center of life for most people and donating your free time to helping others is okay, but it's always limited and hanging on the assumption that the donator will be in circumstances that won't require him to stop in the future. Saving money also forces people to focus their money on things that are REALLY important to them. Consumerism is what we have today in the west not much Capitalism. See below on how too much easy credit and easy monetary policies can put countries, people, and corporations in a bind.

That's funny, I almost even wrote in my response that you wouldn't get past the first sentence, you're easy to read. It's very similar to your elementary explanations of economics, you read the first sentence then move on.

I did read it all. You missed the point of the first sentence. Also I would like to have you connect some of my ideas with it so you understand what I believe. I believe social democracies will always want more dependencies of the populace (for the bureaucrats self-interest) which undermines individual independence from the government. This can lead to a Julius Caesar situation where we have to tolerate increased government intrusion because we are desperate for their handouts. I also believe that the mixed economies of social democracies want a tax burden that is too enormous. Look at New Zealand and their socialist economy in the 1990's. It was considered a jewel of a social democracy but the government eventually promised social benefits they couldn't pay for and the taxes couldn't go higher. Unions and government often have "the fish basket never empties" attitude of the bible when they strike and ask for more benefits. Eventually the government says "okay" to their demands, whether they are possible or not, because it's really the taxpayers money and they want strikes to end. A lot of the benefits had to be curtailed or eliminated forcing older populations back to work. They weren't producing enough to pay for programs.

The U.S. under Bush and the Republicans have also increased entitlements beyond what they can pay for. This cannot continue. The problem is that people want the programs and they don't want to pay for them. That's why debt has to bridge the gap for the short-term, but one day you have to pay for it. Bush is part of the Nixon wing of the Republicans, hence he is more liberal or "compassionate conservative". That's fine and dandy, but can the Americans pay for it?

The U.S. needs a Goldwater conservative like Reagan and a congress that isn't into porkbarrel politics to fix their own debt problem by cutting spending. If China wants to sell their American Bonds can the taxpayer pay for it? If they can't the American dollar will be worth toilet paper and the Chinese will be screwed at the same time having lost their investments in Treasury bonds. If Americans don't wake up they will be in need of loans to be written off to.

In the end if we don't follow basic classical economics in most of the western democracies, and in the majority of the economy, we will always be giving little in aid to Africa because our cicumstances will be bad enough. Nobody cares about aid or the environment when they don't have a job. Notice how global warming politics is starting to cool off now that Europeans and North Americans are starting to worry about the economy.

I always get annoyed when protesters in the 3rd world ask for the elimination of poverty. If we don't BUILD weath first there is nothing to distribute. Socialism ironically requires capitalism to fund its operations. If you look up the Laffer curve you'll understand that the pie can shrink if we "kill the goose that lays the golden egg" and over tax industry. When taxes are less the economy grows and the government collects much more income. Isn't that already a good place to start in understanding how much faster Africa can improve if they adopt western institutions of private property rights, trade, banking, democracy?

Economics is not as sexy as World Vision and DATA I guess.