G20: Toronto in Flames

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I know, but I've heard the NDP campaign on my campus before and that is some of the nonsense that they spout to university students.

Oh I was just giving my impression from the film. I dont pay attention to campaign material because it is irrelevant most of the time.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Try part 5 and 6...

Oh no... please don't tell me it's Elizabeth May that you are listening to? That woman is insane.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The police are acting like bigger thugs than the thugs.

Never mess with the team with the better weapons.

Though I'm sure a rocket scientist like you would just pull a gun and get innocent people killed.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Try part 5 and 6...

Okay, I can't watch anymore. This guy has no clue what he is talking about. He seems to think that the Bank of Canada, creating a fixed sum of money and then simply recirculating that same sum over and over again is going to drive the economy.

Suppose there is $100 of Canadian currency for everyone to use. Obviously the value of a Canadian dollar would be extremely high in this situation, but another thing it would do is stagnate the economy. Banks need to be regulated to a certain degree so that people aren't able to finance themselves into bankruptcy so easily. Getting rid of banks altogether is asinine.

Look at it this way: Say you need $100,000 to buy a house. Under this proposed idea, you would go to the government, who would issue bonds worth $100,000 to the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada would then print and hand over $100,000 in Canadian currency to you. You would then, repay the government the $100,000 at no interest. There are several reasons that this would not work:

1. It does nothing to take into consideration the time value of money. $1 today is worth more than $1 tomorrow, and this is because of inflation. Part of interest compensates for inflation. If it takes you 20 years to pay off your debt of $100,000, you would, in effect, be paying back a significantly lower amount to the government. You may be thinking that without interest rates, there would be no inflation, but you would be wrong. Which brings me to the next point.

2. Inflation is caused by several things, one of which is a money supply that grows faster than the economy. The more money that is in circulation, the more the value of the dollar will decrease, just as in the scenario where only $100 in circulation increases the value of a dollar.

3. Another issue is that these bonds are not charging any interest, which means that foreign investors have no incentive to invest in the Canadian dollar, which further devalues the Canadian dollar relative to foreign currency. This means that when we import goods, it would require more of our money to purchase foreign goods, which drives up their prices and further increases inflation.

What really bothers me about this documentary is that, from what I have watched, this person hasn't bothered to talk to a single economist or anyone that actually understands how the economy works. Sure, he asks a bunch of unprepared politicians and only shows you the parts where they stumble for an answer before cutting to his own oversimplified nonsense, but what does that prove? How does that help anyone understand how things work? I find it really disappointing when I read the comments posted below that video and seem to only find people saying that they agree with this person's view. Makes me really scared about the day when these kids will be old enough to vote.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Never mess with the team with the better weapons.

Though I'm sure a rocket scientist like you would just pull a gun and get innocent people killed.

I read an article about some town in Texas that made it a law where every adult had to carry a concealed fire arm (this was years ago). The sheriff went on record to say that this was a terrible idea and that bedlum would ensue. The reality was the crime in that town plummetted, specifically gun related crime. Generally, the people that fear guns the most are the ones that are the least educated about them.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

There is a fine line here Nage....

You really think our government spent more than a billion dollars to stop a few hooligans and anarchists?

No ,no ......this is all a result of the so called war on terror..

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin

You bet there is a fine line, and I don't think it was crossed, or even got close to being crossed. Once things start burning down, the cops are going to charge. What did you find was out of line for the police?

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I read an article about some town in Texas that made it a law where every adult had to carry a concealed fire arm (this was years ago). The sheriff went on record to say that this was a terrible idea and that bedlum would ensue. The reality was the crime in that town plummetted, specifically gun related crime. Generally, the people that fear guns the most are the ones that are the least educated about them.

I doubt they had to carry one...probably just gave them the ability to carry a concealed weapon

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

I doubt they had to carry one...probably just gave them the ability to carry a concealed weapon

It's been a while since I read an article, but I imagine that the belief that everyone in a coffee shop is carrying a gun is going to make you a lot less inclined to want to throw a brick through one of its windows.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It's been a while since I read an article, but I imagine that the belief that everyone in a coffee shop is carrying a gun is going to make you a lot less inclined to want to throw a brick through one of its windows.

Oh I believe it...I'm just saying I doubt they were forced to carry guns, just given the legal ability too

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You bet there is a fine line, and I don't think it was crossed, or even got close to being crossed. Once things start burning down, the cops are going to charge. What did you find was out of line for the police?

That's not what I was talking about. I meant that our government spent a billion dollars on these extreme security measures, not because of these small time anarchist vandals but because of the "war on terror".......
The whole thing is over the top...

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Look at it this way: Say you need $100,000 to buy a house. Under this proposed idea, you would go to the government, who would issue bonds worth $100,000 to the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada would then print and hand over $100,000 in Canadian currency to you. You would then, repay the government the $100,000 at no interest. There are several reasons that this would not work:

You could pay interest, ...to the government(the people), who then invests the money into health, education, infrastructure etc...

...which would result in lower income taxes....or maybe even NO income tax.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

That's not what I was talking about. I meant that our government spent a billion dollars on these extreme security measures, not because of these small time anarchist vandals but because of the "war on terror".......
The whole thing is over the top...

Yah, I have no clue what it costs to run a g20 summit, so a billion to me seems expensive. I also have no idea what that got them in terms of assets, or is it all gone now? I know a few cops that were down there (from Calgary), I will ask them what was going on. I am not sure what was so extreme either.

How many leisure centers can a billion get us? How many schools can be built with that? How many hospitals? Sure, 1 billion is a lot of dough, and it can buy a lot of stuff. But what is a G20 summit worth? Apparently a lot to Harper.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ark2

1. It does nothing to take into consideration the time value of money. $1 today is worth more than $1 tomorrow, and this is because of inflation. Part of interest compensates for inflation. If it takes you 20 years to pay off your debt of $100,000, you would, in effect, be paying back a significantly lower amount to the government. You may be thinking that without interest rates, there would be no inflation, but you would be wrong. Which brings me to the next point.

2. Inflation is caused by several things, one of which is a money supply that grows faster than the economy. The more money that is in circulation, the more the value of the dollar will decrease, just as in the scenario where only $100 in circulation increases the value of a dollar.

3. Another issue is that these bonds are not charging any interest, which means that foreign investors have no incentive to invest in the Canadian dollar, which further devalues the Canadian dollar relative to foreign currency. This means that when we import goods, it would require more of our money to purchase foreign goods, which drives up their prices and further increases inflation.

All of these factors, especially your second point are in private control right now, and they are not working in Canadians' favor......it will bankrupt our country or we will be completely owned by corporations.

So you don't go for the film makers idea, even though you watched a fraction of it, that is fine. The point is that the system is set up for us to fail. If private hands wrote up legislation to take control of our money, there is surely a way we can write laws that will take it back.

Maybe some day we will be able to pay off our debt ....because as the system stands, we are doomed for American-scale debt and a REAL crisis.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You could pay interest, ...to the government(the people), who then invests the money into health, education, infrastructure etc...

...which would result in lower income taxes....or maybe even NO income tax.

I think this would still stagnate the economy and it wouldn't address inflation issues caused by a money supply that exceeds economic growth.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

All of these factors, especially your second point are in private control right now, and they are not working in Canadians' favor......it will bankrupt our country or we will be completely owned by corporations.

Why do you think it will bankrupt our country? Our banks are all fairly healthy and are not in jeopardy of going under. If you are talking about it bankrupting individual people, then it shouldn't matter who is issuing the debt if you regulate debt requirements (which is something that Canada has done and is one of the reasons why we are in better shape than the US). People will make poor financial decisions regardless of regulations in place however, but I'm not sure why this is all being put on the banks. If you don't like the fact that they are making so much money then don't borrow as much from them. Buy a smaller house, get a smaller care, don't send your kids to private school, etc. Don't want to give those things up? Oh well, then borrow away. Just don't complain about the CEO of RBC being rich enough to buy a small country.

So you don't go for the film makers idea, even though you watched a fraction of it, that is fine. The point is that the system is set up for us to fail. If private hands wrote up legislation to take control of our money, there is surely a way we can write laws that will take it back.

It's actually not set up for us to fail anymore than his proposed solution is (in fact, it is significantly less). I think what you are confusing here is a anti-corporation agenda for sound monetary policy.

Maybe some day we will be able to pay off our debt ....because as the system stands, we are doomed for American-scale debt and a REAL crisis.

I don't think we are. All we need is some more fiscal restraint and for national debt payments to be made every year. I liked the orginal budget that was tabled by the Conservatives before the Liberals and NDP got their hands all over it. It called for some cuts and ended in a small surplus. In an attempt to gain political points, the NDP and Liberals threatened to vote it down unless massive government funding was added and now we're back into a deficit. Ah, the pitfalls of democracy...

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

How many leisure centers can a billion get us? How many schools can be built with that? How many hospitals? Sure, 1 billion is a lot of dough, and it can buy a lot of stuff. But what is a G20 summit worth? Apparently a lot to Harper.

I think if you're in the G20/G8, you have to host these things every once in a while, unless of course you choose to not participate at all. Think of this $1 billion as the cost to have a say in how the world economy is run.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think if you're in the G20/G8, you have to host these things every once in a while, unless of course you choose to not participate at all. Think of this $1 billion as the cost to have a say in how the world economy is run.

I think we've lost sight of what a billion dollars actually is.

"Bla bla bla a billion dollars, that's what it costs to have a say..."

500 million dollars a day? How does this add up? I'm quite sure the cops on the street aren't walking out of there with the bulk of that.

Was the fence made of solid gold?

Somebody got robbed here, and I think it was us.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think we've lost sight of what a billion dollars actually is.

"Bla bla bla a billion dollars, that's what it costs to have a say..."

500 million dollars a day? How does this add up? I'm quite sure the cops on the street aren't walking out of there with the bulk of that.

Was the fence made of solid gold?

Somebody got robbed here, and I think it was us.

Well... I'm sure the lake wasn't exactly necessary

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Never mess with the team with the better weapons.

Though I'm sure a rocket scientist like you would just pull a gun and get innocent people killed.

What is this? Flame-by post number ???? on me.

Straight to insults no stopping at conversation is there for you? So what exactly did I say to get you all huffy this time?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think if you're in the G20/G8, you have to host these things every once in a while, unless of course you choose to not participate at all. Think of this $1 billion as the cost to have a say in how the world economy is run.

These events do not need to be hosted. There is no justifiable reason to have 20,000 people meet. Cut the meeting down to 1000 people spend 50 million on it. Don't annouce to the world that it is going on and just have a press conference at the end with the results. Or just have your regular diplomatic staff do this work over time and get together to announce the results.

The problem is these meetings have gotten so large they have to be planned out so far in advance their is no guarentee that the agreements will have been reached by the time the meeting starts making the meetings essentially useless.

The deals on Banking Reform, Debt reduction and other envrionmental issues need to be 99% complete before heads of state and ministers start meeting face to face otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time and money.

Security at the Olympics only cost 1 Billion dollars it was far longer, far less secure, had just as many heads of state and didn't fence people off from the event minus the well protected olympic torch.