Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Food. Would you want the AHS or any public health service to run your food distribution?

No. But I also wouldn't want the people running the Loblaws SAP portal administering my appendectomy.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Unions provide a happy medium for goverment employees who may never get a raise versus free market empoyees who get raises every year. Getting raises every few years is better than nothing but not as good a employees in competitve free market industries.


The middle!

When did private sector businesses start guaranteeing raises every year?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When did private sector businesses start guaranteeing raises every year?

Like i have said before we don't live in 1908 anymore.

Most companies will provide a yearly review and compensate where needed, it's never not happen to me in my storied professional life.

If a company doesn't and they are wondering why they aren't attracting people, they will find out and change.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Unions provide a happy medium for goverment employees who may never get a raise versus free market empoyees who get raises every year.

lol you gumdrop

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by BigThief

lol you gumdrop

yup gumdrops!

Care to counter? Or you sticking with Ad Hominzzzzzz

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Like i have said before we don't live in 1908 anymore.

I live in the present, that much I can be sure of.

Most companies will provide a yearly review and compensate where needed,

But not all of them?

it's never not happen to me in my storied professional life.

I’m sure it’s quite the story.

If a company doesn't and they are wondering why they aren't attracting people, they will find out and change.

Makes you wonder why that hasn’t always been the case.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

No. But I also wouldn't want the people running the Loblaws SAP portal administering my appendectomy.

I should hope not!

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

But not all of them?

Nothing is black and white, i am sure there are companies who don't, like ones who pay minimum wage which is a wage controlled by the goverment. why give raises when you can wait for the goverment to do it lol.

But my criteria was clear, competitve free market enterprises.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Your misinterpretation doesn’t mean the question was worded poorly. You’ve been rambling on about socialism without clarifying that you only don’t like some parts of it.



And you continue to be vague about it. Healthcare delivery isn’t a capitalist or socialist issue in itself. Both a publicly funded and free-market system can work and/or be flawed to varying degrees. Neither system is a mood though, that’s kind of a ridiculous assertion in my opinion.

ok. Show me a country that has "zero socialist policies"...and I will decide if it is aspirational or not.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

ok. Show me a country that has "zero socialist policies"...and I will decide if it is aspirational or not.

That’s the point. It’s ridiculous to label all socialist policies as bad since every country that I can think of has them. You’ve (somewhat) clarified that that was not your intention so hopefully you’ll choose your words a little better going forward.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

It comes directly from one of his books, Values I believe it was. Good job on jumping to false conclusions though.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher


I dont disagree that some principles of socialism are good, and that there are areas where society should have strong socialist supports. However, I am fundamentally also opposed to programs like UBI.

Quote the source material then.

Your source is likely this article

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pet...nt-be-pleasant

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Nothing is black and white, i am sure there are companies who don't, like ones who pay minimum wage which is a wage controlled by the goverment. why give raises when you can wait for the goverment to do it lol.

But my criteria was clear, competitve free market enterprises.

There are competitive companies that pay above minimum wage that don’t give annual raises to their employees.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There are competitive companies that pay above minimum wage that don’t give annual raises to their employees.

Oh i am sure there are some edge cases but that is changing, progress doesn't happen overnight. There could be some people who don't get raises cause they don't deserve it, that is perfectly find, they should do better.

Meanwhile the nurse just got her 3 percent for the next 3 years lol

Was it that nurse in Ontario who kept killing patients but kept her job thanks to her union? Therefore continued to kill patients..if we are gonna to bring up the edge cases

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Oh i am sure there are but that is changing, progress doesn't happen overnight.

If it hasn’t happened since 1908 what makes you so certain that it’s coming anytime soon?

Meanwhile the nurse just got her 3 percent for the next 3 years lol

Nursing isn’t government work.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If it hasn’t happened since 1908 what makes you so certain that it’s coming anytime soon?



Nursing isn’t government work.

Still unionized and depends on the province.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Still unionized and depends on the province.

But your original point was that it only benefits government employees, no?

Are you now suggesting that a company isn’t competing in the free market if their employees are unionized?

[dissentowner]

Reading this thread makes me wonder how in the F did I get voted CP's worst poster.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That’s the point. It’s ridiculous to label all socialist policies as bad since every country that I can think of has them. You’ve (somewhat) clarified that that was not your intention so hopefully you’ll choose your words a little better going forward.

"socialist policies" is too vague of a term to be useful.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"socialist policies" is too vague of a term to be useful.

Sounds about right.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Well, your question was worded in a way that wasn't useful if you were looking for a specific answer. You asked if there were countries with "zero socialst policies". I take it that you meant zero social programs.

Healthcare is a good example. We know that the best way to deliver necessary services to your people is through a competition based system (let's call it capitalist). The challenge with healthcare appears to be ensuring that that system isn't corrupted. People erroneously use the US as a model for market based healthcare, but it's a straw man. The US healthcare system is highly funded by the public coffers, and the remainder of it is captured by any number of interests - usually using the long arm of gov't to enforce various rent-seeking policies. The "socialized" alternative, like Canada's also does a poor job: mostly because of administrative capture, labour union excesses, and a general lack of motivation (ie incentive), to deliver.

I think there is good data to show that social safety nets can have a positive impact on entrepreneurism, and I believe that is likely the case. The flipside is that capitalism and socialism aren't just systems, they are moods. It's harder to have the benefit of capitalism if the citizenry aren't into it. Is a citizenry that is very into social programs the same citizenry that is interested in the go hard or go home attitude that makes capitalism work?

We are probably better off when gov't spending was predominantly on infrastructure, defence, etc. instead of the current version which is predominantly on services and little on infrastructure. The former creates a public good(s), and the latter does not.

Id argue Health is a terrible example of something that is optimized by capitalism. (I think diagnostics and facility medicine have opportunity)

Health Care is opaque, it’s difficult to evaluate the quality of service provided
Health care is not something you frequently use so your ability to shop around is limited
Healthcare is something you need in crisis so you don’t have time to shop around.

So all of the aspects of the ability to create the competition motive in the consumer are constrained.

On the capacity side you want to pay for excess capacity to do nothing in a perfectly funded system. You don’t want just in time logistics here. To incentivize spare capacity in the private sector requires subsidy. And when you have to subsidize you might as well have the government do it

Also on the capacity side high barriers to entry prevent competition from forming

Take something like lab services in Alberta. The private sector failed miserably to deliver services. When privatized a monopoly was created because there aren’t many suitable providers of the service. People had no suitable alternative.

The things that make capitalism effective at optimization of resources don’t work in improving the cost or availability of health care. It is successful at focusing health care resources on those with the ability to pay.