Why isn't the NDP doing better? part 3

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
Why isn't the NDP doing better? part 3

moving right along...

KenS
George Victor

Yes.

Fidel

Are either of the two Bay Street parties running big money campaigns any closer to the coveted phony majority?  Apparently it's difficult to even buy a false majority these days. Canadians jaded by big money politics don't seem to be falling for the baby kissers or barbeque circuit politicos. It's tough all over.

George Victor

Fidel :" Canadians jaded by big money politics don't seem to be falling for the baby kissers or barbeque circuit politicos. It's tough all over."

 

I think the "barbecue circuit politicos" who make a point of nibbling hotdogs are doing quite well, stealing the NDPs populist thunder, as we see in the Rob Ford thread and in news out of the U.S.

However,this thread is an attempt to explain why New Democrats aren't able to "capitalize" on the current economic state of affairs...and perhaps just what might be done to change party fortunes.

Take a shot at it, and leave the Bay Street and big money bullshit to another venue.

Please.

siamdave

George Victor wrote:

Fidel :" Canadians jaded by big money politics don't seem to be falling for the baby kissers or barbeque circuit politicos. It's tough all over."

I think the "barbecue circuit politicos" who make a point of nibbling hotdogs are doing quite well, stealing the NDPs populist thunder, as we see in the Rob Ford thread and in news out of the U.S.

However,this thread is an attempt to explain why New Democrats aren't able to "capitalize" on the current economic state of affairs...and perhaps just what might be done to change party fortunes.

Take a shot at it, and leave the Bay Street and big money bullshit to another venue.

Please.

Bay St and Big money aren't 'bullshit', GV, they're the new feudalist overlords. I've been curious about your defence of them, your comments all over the place on these threads that essentially try to make the case that these powers are unassailable, and we must figure out how to adapt to them, to 'Supercapitalism' as the quisling Reich has written about and whose words you seem to admire greatly. Some of us think fighting these capitalist predators is the path, not begging them to treat us a bit better. And to fight them we need to talk about them, dissect them, understand them a great deal better than most people seem to already. 

 

George Victor

siamdave wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Fidel :" Canadians jaded by big money politics don't seem to be falling for the baby kissers or barbeque circuit politicos. It's tough all over."

I think the "barbecue circuit politicos" who make a point of nibbling hotdogs are doing quite well, stealing the NDPs populist thunder, as we see in the Rob Ford thread and in news out of the U.S.

However,this thread is an attempt to explain why New Democrats aren't able to "capitalize" on the current economic state of affairs...and perhaps just what might be done to change party fortunes.

Take a shot at it, and leave the Bay Street and big money bullshit to another venue.

Please.

Bay St and Big money aren't 'bullshit', GV, they're the new feudalist overlords. I've been curious about your defence of them, your comments all over the place on these threads that essentially try to make the case that these powers are unassailable, and we must figure out how to adapt to them, to 'Supercapitalism' as the quisling Reich has written about and whose words you seem to admire greatly. Some of us think fighting these capitalist predators is the path, not begging them to treat us a bit better. And to fight them we need to talk about them, dissect them, understand them a great deal better than most people seem to already. 

 

But there you go, sd.  You confuse my attempts to USE the overiding current economic structure to actively DO something for folks, with a "defence" of  "Bay St. Big money...and the new feudalist overlords."

One only has to see how your (theoretically correct) position on reform resonates hereabouts to appreciate how it would go over at Speakers Corner in Kitchener or a soapbox in Hyde Park.

You obviously did not read the previous thread in the series where I very pointedly said to Michael that one has to know the enemy to defeat the "bastards."  Any sign of a  "Quisling" association with Robert Reich in that?  Of course not.  But one with your imagination and creativity is not swayed by any need to identify either motives or the possibility of achievable change...in this century. This thread is about the NDP and real people with real economic and social needs and how they can be met in their lifetime. 

And the next time you accuse me of "begging" anyone to "treat us a bit better", I might be inclined to tell you,without preamble, to BOff, like the fine, facile creator of bullshit that you are. 

siamdave

George Victor wrote:

....

And the next time you accuse me of "begging" anyone to "treat us a bit better", I might be inclined to tell you,without preamble, to BOff, like the fine, facile creator of bullshit that you are. 

my, I so love the civilized discourse here

BOff yourself.

George Victor

"my, I so love the civilized discourse here"

 

sd:" Bay St and Big money aren't 'bullshit', GV, they're the new feudalist overlords. I've been curious about your defence of them,..."

 

 

 

"Civilized" my backside, sd. Read a bit more of that "Quisling", Reich's stuff and tell me where he's wrong. His account of the last thirty years, that is.  What really has taken place.  He and Krugman (and the late Tony Judt) are an element of the last vestiges of sanity down there. 

David Young

The NDP just recorded support of 19.3% in the latest EKOS poll.

Who says they aren't doing better?

KenS

The reference would be beyond horse race polls that go up and down.

20% has been a glass ceiling for some time. And that continues with condititons as good as they can get.

Fidel

Exactly, DY. And let's elect a federal NDP government first as a simple exercise in democracy. And perhaps electing the NDP to official opposition role in Ottawa would be a nice first step toward democratizing things.

siamdave wrote:
Some of us think fighting these capitalist predators is the path, not begging them to treat us a bit better. And to fight them we need to talk about them, dissect them, understand them a great deal better than most people seem to already.

What if there is a way to raise another $35 billion a year with a stroke of a pen and just as easily as chartered banks create money whenever they enter a number into a computer to represent the new money as interest owing debt? I say $35 big ones because that is roughly what COMER says the feds could raise additionally every year if they simply created some modest percentage of the money supply through the BoC. And we could raise even more money every year the same alternate way.

What if there isn't a darned thing Bay Street could do or say about this method for raising money for social programs, because it fits entirely within free market rules for any government in the world?

And what if other rich countries are already doing it and have been doing for years and years? Many of them might not be perfect social democracies, but they are currently affording social program spending levels as a percentages of GDP that would make Ottawa appear to be stingy as hell.

I think there is an easier and less politically abrasive way of achieving social democracy in Canada than to insist on GCM and have to defend that kind of election platform plank in the face of a likely smear campaign labelling our party as Soviet style socialists or that other dirty cold war era word, communists.

I think very many babblers would agree to the idea of government money creation, or the way it was between 1938 and 1974. And afterall, Mulroney did ram that bill making changes to the Bank of Canada Act without any Parliamentary debate. That was the easy part. the hard part would be convincing Canadians that WE wouldn't be trying to pull the wool over theiry eyes, and this after millions probably not even realizing how the wool was pulled over their eyes by 1991. We would have to explain what Mulroney did and why we want to switch things back to the way they were. Canadians are a tough crowd when the newz media are acting like a third fist for the Bay Street election extravaganza.

But again, there is a much easier way to fund social democracy without attracting a lot unnecessary ire and unwanted negative media attention during what is sure to be another miserable FPTP election campaign with the big money parties looking to exploit anything out of the ordinary. And they would surely crucify any party promising GCM. They would make it appear as if GCM will be the ruin of our nation etcetera. Lies basically.

But this new idea is not so new. It's so clever and by their own book of free market rules at the same time that we probably shouldn't even mention it here in this thread. Hush-hush and on the QT eh.

KenS

The argument that there is a glass ceiling goe that the NDP can rise, as it seems to be at the moment, but the ceiling is still there.

Pundits would say that this is just the way it is: the NDP's niche. Friendly critics disagree with the finality, but agree that without breakout moves the dynamic will stay the same.

I'm among those who would argue that total reliance on the politics of little incrementalist gains, riding on narrow and short duration populist messages, is highly unlikely to ever add up to a breakout.

[Not totaly unlikely, because if nothing else, we could fluke into it.]

siamdave

George Victor wrote:

"my, I so love the civilized discourse here"

sd:" Bay St and Big money aren't 'bullshit', GV, they're the new feudalist overlords. I've been curious about your defence of them,..."

 

"Civilized" my backside, sd. Read a bit more of that "Quisling", Reich's stuff and tell me where he's wrong. His account of the last thirty years, that is.  What really has taken place.  He and Krugman (and the late Tony Judt) are an element of the last vestiges of sanity down there. 

If you're finding 'insights' in Krugman and Reich, then you're a long way back from those of us out in front figuring out what is going on around here, and you shouldn't be sarcastically telling me I know nothing, you should drop the extremely misplaced hubris and try to learn from those who know more than you do.
(I mean, really, GV, to read you presuming to lecture others about "..And I just take such ideas from reading.  Robert Reich's After-Shock, for instance, now informs me just "How Concentrated Income at the Top Hurts the Economy.  And partly, that is by investors investing abroad ... " (http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1193833/And-I-just-take-such-ideas ) - I'm sorry to have to tell you, but somebody needs to - you sound like a somewhat precocious preschooler playing Economist or something ... capitalism concentrates income at the top, and that hurts the economy. Who'd a ever thunk ...)
It's not that these guys are wrong - it's that their 'analysis' is actually quite shallow, and simply ignores the most important problem related to modern economics which some of us have begun sussing out - your basic 'limited hangout' in practice. Reich and Krugman speak for capitalist light, a position you and many others appear to be in agreement with - capitalism really is about the greatest economic system ever invented, we just have to smooth off the rough edges, make a few more rules, or something. I think this is very mistaken - capitalism is (for those of us a little more aware of what it really means) by definition a cancer, and the only way forward is to get rid of this malignant disease in our midst that has now metastasized to the point it is really running our entire society - for it's benefit, certainly not ours. And like any cancer that is metastasizing out of control, it's going to kill us all if we don't stop it.
And at the heart of capitalism, esp modern financial capitalism, the latest and even more deadly metastasis, it really is all about where the money comes from, a fact you seem to want to keep other people away from understanding, perhaps because you don't yet understand it yourself.
Since you're so familiar with Krugman and Reich, however, maybe you can point myself, and anyone else interested, to where they talk about the central problem of allowing private banks to create our money supply as interest-bearing debt? I've read various things they both have written, and, as do you, they appear determined to refuse to acknowledge this central fact of our current economic system, which is causing ALL of our problems (as explained in my essay, and quite a number of other places as more people catch on - something you have yet, apparently, to look forward to).
As they both get published in the NYT, I don't think the word 'quisling' is at all out of place - they are pretending to be 'good cops', and helping pour oil on the waters of the natural anger of a populace who is being robbed blind - very much a 'limited hangout' sort of defence. Which you are doing here with your continual reference to them, and your attempt to steer people away from getting any knowlege through my essay or elsewhere of the money supply fraud that is at the root of all this.
(note - I didn't accuse you directly of being a quisling - interesting you were so quick to assume the title.)
We fight this cancer in our midst and get rid of it - or they turn this world into Feudalism 2000. Anyone advocating capitalism in and form is the enemy, as far as I am concerned. I fight for Democracy - capitalism is one of the major enemies we few face today.

George Victor

Here's your "Quisling", Reich, at work in Aftershock, sd, in his chapter "Why Policymakers Obsess Aboutthe Financial Economy Instead of About the Real One, written in 2009, based on Bush's  $700 billion bailout of Wall Street...and this by "the most dogmatically conservative administratin in recent American history - which had consistently and vociferously argued against giving anyone a helping hand for fear they'd become dependent on government..." :

"In less than a year, Wall Street was back. The six largest remaining banks had grown larger; their executives and traders were as rich or richer, their strategies of placing large bets with other people's money no less bold than than they were before the meltdown of September 2008. The possibility of new financial regulations emanating from Congress barelyinhibited the Street's exuberance. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had made up for some of its losses, and the financial recovery was proceeding nicely.

"But...the everyday lives of large numbers of Americans continued tobe subject to overwhelming trauma, chaos, and disruption."

This is the message that must be universally understood if anything is to be done to correct conservative politicalhegemony in future.

It is that kind of description of events in the U.S. from your "Quisling" (a Quisling would be one who went over to the enemy, like his Norwegian wartime namesake, by the way, not the former labour secretary in Clinton's cabinet) that is understandable to the ordinary American, and  likely to be useful in combatting the lies emanating from right field.

AS I said, your theoretical ramblings demonstrate good logic, but have a piss-poor chance of being acted on in this century. 

And I certainly do not pretend, like some, to have the invented answers.  I lean heavily on the printed word from experienced and knowledgeable people.   And I still don't believe you can have read the fellow and then called him a "Quisling."

KenS

siamdave wrote:

If you're finding 'insights' in Krugman and Reich, then you're a long way back from those of us out in front figuring out what is going on around here, and you shouldn't be sarcastically telling me I know nothing, you should drop the extremely misplaced hubris and try to learn from those who know more than you do.

[highlight added]

 

George Victor

Yes, I caught that, and agonized between responding with Laughing  or Laughing

siamdave

George Victor wrote:

Yes, I caught that, and agonized between responding with Laughing  or Laughing

- anyone browsing through this thread wondering about an answer to the thread title could do worse than ponder a bit upon these last two posts .....

KenS

Its ironic that Dave sees in others hubris and that they see a general lack of knowledge in discussion participants.

But I actually dont think thats the problem. Its symptomatic.

The problem being that the left is caught up in the bourgeois individualist understanding of politics and 'knowledge'.

Where, if the problem is not directly seen as 'lack of understanding' in the public.... then the fix is to 'get them to understand,' and/or the fix requires that people acquire some set of understandings.

So its no wonder when this general politics specifically takes a look 'in house' to discussing with allies.... voila, it sees lack of understanding.

There are lots of exceptions to this debilitated view of politics. When I look around here at individual babblers, those exceptions run the complete gamut of political perspectives.

But collectively, we err heavily on the side of a practical model that sees political discourse as didactic.

ETA: You're going to have to spell out what post17 means Dave. Becasue the only thing that makes sense is that look at the thread title (Why doesnt the NDP do better?), and the answer is because its supporters dont listen to people who know more. I'm assuming you meant something different than that.

siamdave

KenS wrote:

...

ETA: You're going to have to spell out what post17 means Dave. Becasue the only thing that makes sense is that look at the thread title (Why doesnt the NDP do better?), and the answer is because its supporters dont listen to people who know more. I'm assuming you meant something different than that.

- as with so many things, it's a bit more nuanced than that. But nuance doesn't seem to be in the toolbox of a lot of people. I wasn't referring to 'its supporters', I think it's pretty obvious I was referring to you and gv alone - but of course, like so many people out to demonize someone else, you try to accuse me of making uncomplimentary remarks about everyone.

Why isn't the NDP doing better? One reason is their/your absolute refusal to simply acknowledge capitalism as the enemy - they sure as hell aren't shy about identifying you, as even remotely socialist, as the enemy, and spreading all kinds of lies around about you, and what 'socialism' means. You react to what the right does - they, in other words, set the agenda, you react. Not a winning sort of strategy, not a leadership position. When was the last time the neocons got in a snit about something *you* (NDP, left) did, screaming 'You can't do that!!!'? pretty rare.

You, all of us, are held completely in chains by the money system - and yet when I try to talk about it, as above, you ignore me, and since you know not many people understand it yet, have a little snicker to further encourage anyone reading not to pay attention. So clever.

Money is the main thing that is holding you back - and when I try to get people to understand this, you set up every roadblock you can.

Which is very central to why the NDP is not winning. Not, I suppose, so much your own actions, I don't suppose you deserve all that much credit - but because over the years the average citizen - NDPers included - has simply lost the power to do much serious thinking for themselves, relying on 'experts' on the tv, or those who get columns in the major papers or books published and districuted by the capitalists for most of their 'ideas'. And their leaders aren't telling them to think about money, so they don't.

If you aren't going to name your enemy, and face him directly - well, have fun trying to get master to give you a bit more gruel. (prediction - he won't)

KenS

Dave, that is not just 'nuanced' where you get from your actual quote to what you just argued. Besides the part I highlighted- the front end is more of the same: 'you arent listening to people who are out in front of you'.

So pardon me for 'not getting it'. But that is why I asked you to spell it out. It would have been easy for to dismiss you for the obnoxious thing you said as the only thing you had to say. I gave you the credit there was something else. And for my effort get a sideslap for not seeing what you were 'obviously' referring to.

siamdave wrote:

You, all of us, are held completely in chains by the money system - and yet when I try to talk about it, as above, you ignore me, and since you know not many people understand it yet, have a little snicker to further encourage anyone reading not to pay attention. So clever.Money is the main thing that is holding you back - and when I try to get people to understand this, you set up every roadblock you can.

Which is very central to why the NDP is not winning. Not, I suppose, so much your own actions, I don't suppose you deserve all that much credit - but because over the years the average citizen - NDPers included - has simply lost the power to do much serious thinking for themselves, relying on 'experts' on the tv, or those who get columns in the major papers or books published and districuted by the capitalists for most of their 'ideas'. And their leaders aren't telling them to think about money, so they don't.

If you aren't going to name your enemy, and face him directly - well, have fun trying to get master to give you a bit more gruel. (prediction - he won't)

Talk about ignoring people. I've explained a fundamental political difference we have, which you do not engage at all. Ever. The crap about snickering at you because I know people dont understand and I want it to stay that way... thats just stupid. Yes, I do think you are on the wrong track. And we're the same as far as that goes. Except you fold that up with 'lack of understanding,' refusal to talk about what is essential, etc. And now, working to make sure other people dont pay attention either.

KenS

siamdave wrote:

... over the years the average citizen - NDPers included - has simply lost the power to do much serious thinking for themselves, relying on 'experts' on the tv, or those who get columns in the major papers or books published and districuted by the capitalists for most of their 'ideas'.

Pay close attention to what you just said there Dave.

People have lost the ability to think for themselves, relying on experts. And you dont just mean the 'masses' who dont pay much attention to politics.

What if people were to rely on you Dave? You have a book. Yes, access to it is more than merely 'unequal'. But suppose people rely on you instead of the experts they rely on now... how is that different?

Not the different outcome you expect. You said the problem is the reliance on experts. People have "lost the power to do serious thinking for themselves." How would the reliance on you be different?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KenS wrote:

Its ironic that Dave sees in others hubris and that they see a general lack of knowledge in discussion participants.

 

I love the discussion here somedays.  Let me see, Slamdave's idea that people rely on experts to much is wrong because that would make him an expert and therefore he would be relied on. So the answer is what? Do nothing? Make everyone agree with everything you say? 

Could you explain for the rest of us who it is that YOU think Dave sees hubris in and how YOU know what they are thinking.  Maybe this style of debate is part of the problem.  How is one to respond to a view predicated on you knowing the minds of others?

Polunatic2

Actually, the latest EKOS poll shows the NDP at a two-year high of 20% with the two mainline parties both at around 30%. 

NDP makes gains amid ‘startling’ Tory-Liberal deadlock

Quote:
It is significant, Mr. Graves said, that no single party can reach the threshold of 30 per cent support. “In a country which historically would have seen at least one choice running in the 40 per cent region and sometime 50 per cent a decade or so ago, it’s really startling to see just how much things have changed.”

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thx for answering my question KenS.  So the answer was he accused you of hubris and you see a general lack of knowledge in discussion participants.  I often have a hard time when people use the third person instead of just speaking for themselves. It confuses me and makes me think they are talking about other peoples opinions not their own.

KenS

Another way to put the question to Dave that is in post21.

I'm getting to 60. Before I was 16 I averaged a couple hours of TV a week- and it was favourite shows, no news or analysis. After 16, it was zero TV, and little mass media of any kind. I started on my own looking around, reading, and figuring out how the world works... which is how I 'discivered' socialism and Marx. That intensified when I grew up in the New Left struggles. Intensified again when I was in Cuba. Continued when the movements fizzled and I returned to my class and geographical location roots.

So like other people around here, I'm no candidate for someone who does not know how to do serious thinking. But in your analysis Dave there is no difference between me being in thrall of money and capitalists, than how your analysis applies to the masses.

Let alone squaring that with the problem being people's ability to do serious thinking... where is the political route from this analysis?

 

KenS

I've said elsewhere that this spike is still within the range of 'under the [established] glass ceiling'.

@Kropotkin:

Exactly as quoting Dave before [post15]:

siamdave wrote:

If you're finding 'insights' in Krugman and Reich, then you're a long way back from those of us out in front figuring out what is going on around here, and you shouldn't be sarcastically telling me I know nothing, you should drop the extremely misplaced hubris and try to learn from those who know more than you do.

I was having trouble expressing in general terms what I felt he was doing,  that was exactly what he accused others of. The 'hubris' part is easy since its one word, and Dave used it himself.

The related part is calling people on telling others that they dont know what they are talking about. Although to get technical, when Dave is talking about and to people here, he accuses us of being in thrall of the reality put out for us by the powers that be. Which is of a piece with the 'imposed ignorance' of the masses. [My problem being 'willful thralldom.']

siamdave

KenS wrote:

Talk about ignoring people. I've explained a fundamental political difference we have, which you do not engage at all. Ever.....

- Ken, this particuar section of this particular thread was about money - if you want to bring up something else from old threads, do so directly, without trying to divert this discussion. I well know you do not want to talk about money - I do. If you want to get in here, you might explain in a bit more detail why you do not want to go there - something like "Dave - I well understand that commercial banks create all of our money, as interest-bearing debt - and I think that is just fine."

I think it's pretty telling that you refuse to even mention money, you just try to make this into a conversation about me - the old strategy - if you can't dispute the message, go after the messenger. Usually seen as a predator tactic rather than a progresive one.

siamdave

KenS wrote:

I was having trouble expressing in general terms what I felt he was doing,  that was exactly what he accused others of. The 'hubris' part is easy since its one word, and Dave used it himself.

...

The thing about 'hubris' is that the idea of '.. being out of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities,' is involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris ). Reading the things the mainstream media (including the mainstream alternative media, such as rabble) gives you, and thinking you know pretty much all you need to know on this basis, and then mocking somebody who has read these things and a great deal else besides, who dares suggest things from other sources you are not familiar with, fits the definition, I think. Particularly if your refusal to read 'outside the box' (note again, things like rabble or NYT columnists are very much *not* outside the box) gives you a quite shallow and controlled picture of how things work in our world. I am familiar with all of the ideas offered herein by the quite highly (self)-esteemed mr victor economically - the thing is, I have read very widely, for many years, and am familiar with a great deal of alternative thought as well (that is to say, *real* alternative ideas, not just the mainstream-alt stuff you're reading on rabble and similar places), things you evidently are not familiar with, and are very determinedly refusing to even consider.
And after many years of wide reading, and thinking, and writing - yes, I do indeed think I know quite a bit about what is going on - there is a large difference, however, between having some confidence in one's own uderstanding, and 'hubris' - although if you are simply name-calling, then I suppose the difference isn't important. I am always open to new ideas, which you do not appear to be here - of course, being open to new ideas does not mean simply changing your mind anytime somebody disagrees with you (and I am sure you are going to cleverly turn that one back on me in defence of your own refusal to consider anything I suggest - intellectual dishonesty is another thing we could talk about sometime). Dismissing what thoughts I offer, without even bothering to read the longer essay or any of the many other available writings or films, assuming for whatever reason I have nothing to offer or this information is of no value, strikes me as fitting the definition quite well. That you then accuse me of hubris myself for daring to suggest I know more than you do - without in any way trying to demonstrate the falsity of the statement, simply snickering dismissively at such an outrageous idea is, again, quite hubristic, and more akin to simply adolescent name-calling than reasoned criticism.

siamdave

KenS wrote:

siamdave wrote:

... over the years the average citizen - NDPers included - has simply lost the power to do much serious thinking for themselves, relying on 'experts' on the tv, or those who get columns in the major papers or books published and districuted by the capitalists for most of their 'ideas'.

Pay close attention to what you just said there Dave.

People have lost the ability to think for themselves, relying on experts. And you dont just mean the 'masses' who dont pay much attention to politics.

What if people were to rely on you Dave? You have a book. Yes, access to it is more than merely 'unequal'. But suppose people rely on you instead of the experts they rely on now... how is that different?

Not the different outcome you expect. You said the problem is the reliance on experts. People have "lost the power to do serious thinking for themselves." How would the reliance on you be different?

- I have *never* said people should rely on me, or look to me as some kind of 'expert' - once again, you set up straw dogs, attack the messenger rather than the message, a sign of some pretty weak arguments that you don't want to chance otherwise. I have always said people must think for themselves. That means, among other things, not relying on 'approved' experts you see on the tv - or who get published on rabble - but you should read widely outside of the mainstream media (including mainstream alternative media, which are just as controlling), especially concerning important issues, and make your own mind up about things. I suggest people read, not necessarily my essay, but anything that expresses the same ideas, there are many things - and then decide for themselves if they think allowing private banks to create all of our money as interest-bearing debt is fine, or if maybe, as I and others suggest, this really is one of the major problems we face today, and we are going to be facing financial chains until we get these parasites entirely out of our system. Or somewhere in between, whatever. Your insistence that nobody needs to go there, not even think about this thing that I and others think of pretty central importance, and just have a quick see for themselves, has me considerably puzzled. I cannot think of any good reason you would not want to be aware of this yourself, or to have others be aware of it.

KenS

siamdave wrote:

The thing about 'hubris' is that the idea of '.. being out of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities,' is involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris ). Reading the things the mainstream media (including the mainstream alternative media, such as rabble) gives you, and thinking you know pretty much all you need to know on this basis, and then mocking somebody who has read these things and a great deal else besides, who dares suggest things from other sources you are not familiar with, fits the definition, I think. Particularly if your refusal to read 'outside the box' (note again, things like rabble or NYT columnists are very much *not* outside the box) gives you a quite shallow and controlled picture of how things work in our world. I am familiar with all of the ideas offered herein by the quite highly (self)-esteemed mr victor economically - the thing is, I have read very widely, for many years, and am familiar with a great deal of alternative thought as well (that is to say, *real* alternative ideas, not just the mainstream-alt stuff you're reading on rabble and similar places), things you evidently are not familiar with, and are very determinedly refusing to even consider.
And after many years of wide reading, and thinking, and writing - yes, I do indeed think I know quite a bit about what is going on - there is a large difference, however, between having some confidence in one's own uderstanding, and 'hubris' - although if you are simply name-calling, then I suppose the difference isn't important. I am always open to new ideas, which you do not appear to be here - of course, being open to new ideas does not mean simply changing your mind anytime somebody disagrees with you (and I am sure you are going to cleverly turn that one back on me in defence of your own refusal to consider anything I suggest - intellectual dishonesty is another thing we could talk about sometime). Dismissing what thoughts I offer, without even bothering to read the longer essay or any of the many other available writings or films, assuming for whatever reason I have nothing to offer or this information is of no value, strikes me as fitting the definition quite well. That you then accuse me of hubris myself for daring to suggest I know more than you do - without in any way trying to demonstrate the falsity of the statement, simply snickering dismissively at such an outrageous idea is, again, quite hubristic, and more akin to simply adolescent name-calling than reasoned criticism.

 

"Name calling"? When you accuse others of hubris, and I say you are one to talk?

I do not mock you. And its just an assumption you make that I dont understand, dont want to 'read', [even that I dont want others to].

All you know Dave is that I'm not intereted in engaging on what you have said are issues that must be discussed, before any progress can be made. I've explained why I think its a dead end distraction. If I dont want to discuss the merits of the analysis itself, so be it.

Thats no different than your continual refusal to address the questions I bring up. But somehow that makes me all those things you say, while you are open minded and blah, blah. The kind of questions you never even acknowledge they exist, let alone address them, as in this thread:

KenS wrote:

So like other people around here, I'm no candidate for someone who does not know how to do serious thinking. But in your analysis Dave there is no difference between me being in thrall of money and capitalists, than how your analysis applies to the masses.

Let alone squaring [my history and my obvious ability to do serious thinking] with you saying the problem being people's ability to do serious thinking... where is the political route from this analysis?

The point about you also being an expert that people can/should rely on is not that you ask that. Obviously you dont, and I didnt say you did. Its the same question about where people are supposed to 'get religion'. Especially when people have lost the ability to do serious thinking... and that applies even to people like me. Ther's no difference between people dont have the ability and people like me "wont". Where is the political route out?

George Victor

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KenS wrote:

Its ironic that Dave sees in others hubris and that they see a general lack of knowledge in discussion participants.

 

I love the discussion here somedays.  Let me see, Slamdave's idea that people rely on experts to much is wrong because that would make him an expert and therefore he would be relied on. So the answer is what? Do nothing? Make everyone agree with everything you say? 

Could you explain for the rest of us who it is that YOU think Dave sees hubris in and how YOU know what they are thinking.  Maybe this style of debate is part of the problem.  How is one to respond to a view predicated on you knowing the minds of others?

 

In the first of this (now) 3-part series, there were attempts to focus discussion on the economy, which, of course, is important to all, and one could say, particularly important for those without an independent means of support. I believe it was North Reports report from Germany that led me to add:

"Sounds like we should provide the education that would build a technically competent workforce, and demand that our offshore owners restore the apprenticeship programs that were found in all Canadian industry at war's end. (agreed)

Looks like we have to raise a ruckus, like the folks of Saskatchewan, when faced with the threat of resource sellout (a national responsibility...and we'll hear from Steve's industrial bat boy on the potash question today).

And how do we get industry to locate here and prosper?   Replicate the low corporate tax structure of the Scandinavian countries and train Canadian citizenry to bite the personal income tax bullet?

Get what's left of the organized workforce here to sit down with industry and government to PLAN together...like over there?

 

And there must be more, "whine-free" ideas..."

 

Could we again try to relate ideas about where the NDP shold be at with current economic events that are stirring the minds of Canada's working population...rather than what is happening in/to the minds of babblers?

siamdave

KenS wrote:

All you know Dave is that I'm not intereted in engaging on what you have said are issues that must be discussed, before any progress can be made. .....

- you seem to have a lot to say for something you aren't interested in. There's dozens of threads on rabble you do NOT find me - that I'm not interested in. I get it you're not interested in talking about where the money comes from and etc  - it's a little more puzzling to me that you seem to feel you have to tell others they should not be interested either .... back to money, Ken - don't keep attacking me, talk about the ideas. Why is allowing private banks to create and control our money so acceptable to you?

KenS

I dont think you can help reading in positions Dave. I didnt say that I'm not interested in the general issues Dave. If you want to take it out of conext you can make it look that way. The larger issues are the politics of moving things forward. You insist that the road to that must cover _______ and ________ . I'm not only not buying, I say why its a diversion to making progress. Then you insist, without arguing when I say otherwise, that is not wanting to discuss ideas.

Did I ever say to you Dave that you dont want to discuss ideas because you will not discuss the questions I put forward? Even though you wont even acknowledge that I asked the questions. [Repeatedly.]

Evening Star

I was really interested in these points, George. Are there reasons why they might possibly fail in Canada?  Since the Nordic model seems so successfuly in a few small countries, why has it not been embraced more widely?  If our consumption taxes and income taxes rose to those levels, would we just see cross-border shopping en masse and a 'brain drain' of sorts where educated middle-class taxpayers would relocate to the US?  The Nordic countries are a little more isolated from the rest of Europe, both geographically and culturally/linguistically.  Would some programmes be perhaps harder to administer over a much larger area with a more decentralized political structure?

Also, my impression is that countries like Norway and Sweden actually have more private options in areas like health care and education?

George Victor wrote:

In the first of this (now) 3-part series, there were attempts to focus discussion on the economy, which, of course, is important to all, and one could say, particularly important for those without an independent means of support. I believe it was North Reports report from Germany that led me to add:

"Sounds like we should provide the education that would build a technically competent workforce, and demand that our offshore owners restore the apprenticeship programs that were found in all Canadian industry at war's end. (agreed)

Looks like we have to raise a ruckus, like the folks of Saskatchewan, when faced with the threat of resource sellout (a national responsibility...and we'll hear from Steve's industrial bat boy on the potash question today).

And how do we get industry to locate here and prosper?   Replicate the low corporate tax structure of the Scandinavian countries and train Canadian citizenry to bite the personal income tax bullet?

Get what's left of the organized workforce here to sit down with industry and government to PLAN together...like over there?

 

And there must be more, "whine-free" ideas..."

 

Could we again try to relate ideas about where the NDP shold be at with current economic events that are stirring the minds of Canada's working population...rather than what is happening in/to the minds of babblers?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

IMO The reason why the Scandinavian model will not work currently in Canada is a free[dom for corporations] trade agreement with an elephant. Does anyone know how resources are owned in those countries?  In Canada being a land owner means an oil or uranium company who paid pennies originally for the rights can use your lands and pollute and all you can do is sue. If it is FN's land then the leaders get jailed for opposing it.  

The NDP needs to discuss repealing free trade as a precondition to getting our economy back on track.  Our only industrial jobs will soon be in branch plants of the American arms manufacturers.  The NDP needs to join hands across the border with the democrats who support ending these corporate control agreements.  Trading with America has always been a central theme of our economy and that will not change if the agreements are repealed. 

George Victor

@ Evening Star

 

Yes, in Ill Fares the Land the late Tony Judt points out that there are really not very many people in those countries, and very little in the way of social or cultural distinctions that would prevent cohesive social action.  And you maybe know the old one about the difference between a Swede and a Canadian when, as pedestrians, they are confronted with a stop-light.      

The Swede would stop.

But that is only a play on the idea of a rather authoritarian upbringing. 

Medicine?  One can see that Canada was very, very lucky in Tommy Douglas acting when he did, when there was still an expanding economy and $ left over for redistribution and health care for all.  Believe it or not, serious social democrats...and others...were talking about a future in which we would need counselling on what to do with our leisure time.Cry

A confenece of New Democrats in late 70s in B.C., heard Tommy and others puttiing paid to that soppy idea.  They saw the economic hand-writing on the chalkboards of economists throughout the land. And now a host of writers have told us just why Conservatives have had the upper hand, lately. 

The Nordic left is under extreme pressure to maintain what has been built up in the post-war periiod. Judt makes clear the extent of the pressure on social democracy worldwide, and gives it historical perspective.  I'm afraid that all I'm up to is to try to revive a soupcon of hope for our re-emergence as climatic and resource factors come into play (finally  : ) ) 42 years after reading Dr. Paul Ehrlich,and 40 years after the first Earth Day prompted a few of us to get active.

I've suggested elsewhere that these conditiions will perhaps prepare the way for us to "capitalize" on our propensity and NEED to set aside capital for our senior years, and build the kind of sovereign funds that Norway has been able to do with its North Sea oil.  Eastern Canada will not be able to do anything similar with Alberta's oil...that's a broken reed.  But we should be able to finance our own future from national earnings and savings.

Anyway. Perhaps you see that as impossibly optimistic...but I DO get so tired of the lament that passes for social or economic analysis hereabouts, and that always ends in acrimony as egos go by the board. And there is never evidence of research, only the twitterings of equally alienated bloggers yearning after the revolution.

But what do YOU think about the possibility of USING capitalist PUBLIC institutions (ones that NO Canadian finds fault with, like pension funds, RRSPs , etc.) to further PUBLIC programs for the employment of Canadians, say, in Green industries that we now import ? 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Since I asked the question of how the resources are owned I decided to find the answer.  As I suspected in the Nordic countries the important minerals are state owned and the rest are land owner owned.  I think that is one of the underlying reasons they have better managed their resources. 

Quote:

4.4.1 Ownership of Minerals 

The ownership of mineral rights systems in Member States usually date back many 

years. Acts such as the Napoleon Code have left a legacy of two-tier ownership in most 

Member States. In general, the ownership of mineral rights belongs either to the State or 

the owner of the land.  

State owned minerals are usually minerals which are relatively scarce and of national 

interest and importance. Traditionally metallic ores and energy minerals fall in the 

category of state owned minerals. More recently certain industrial minerals have been 

added to the list of state owned minerals in some countries21.  

A key aspect of state owned minerals is that the owner of the land on which deposits 

exist, is not the owner of the minerals. Extraction of these minerals may take place even 

against the will of the owner of the land if it is considered to be in the national interest. 

In this instance the land may be expropriated and the owner receives compensation for 

the loss of value of the land.  

 

20 

 In the case of aggregates: Extractive activities (may) depend on geology and the particular location of 

mineral deposits, relative to other land use and societal issues. 

21 

The Austrian Mineral Resources Law incorporates gypsum, anhydrite, barytes, graphite, talc as well as 

carbonic rocks with a very high content of CaCO3 (CaCO3 quotas of more than 95%) in the category of “free 

minerals” which fall in the group of state controlled minerals. 

Study of Minerals Planning Policies in Europe – Extended Summary  

Study of Minerals Planning Policies in Europe – Extended Summary  

In some of the Member States, the State receives a mineral rent for the extraction of 

state owned minerals.  A special category of state owned minerals exists in some of the 

Member States, which is known as “free minerals”.22 In this case the ownership of the 

minerals rests with the state but these minerals are free in terms of mineral extraction. 

No mineral rent has to be paid to the state but permits have to be obtained for 

exploration and exploitation. 

Landowner minerals are more common minerals that are of comparatively low value 

and/or minerals that are not considered to be of national interest.23 For these reasons the 

mineral rights of these minerals usually rest with the landowner. Experiences in some 

Member States have shown that due to environmental constraints and other use of land,  

construction minerals 24 are no longer readily available in some areas, which raises the 

question whether it is still correct to consider this category of minerals to be of  low 

national value. Views expressed by the German Building Materials Association are that 

this is no longer the case in some are25

 

 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/best-practic...

George Victor

"State owned minerals are usually minerals which are relatively scarce and of national 

interest and importance. Traditionally metallic ores and energy minerals fall in the 

category of state owned minerals. More recently certain industrial minerals have been 

added to the list of state owned minerals in some countries21. "

 

In our case, one goes out and stakes "crown" land, and sells the site to the highest bidder.

 

Who develops the mine over there, and with capital from where, and with profits going where? (Sorry if I've overlooked that).  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Indeed the difference is that private interest cannot just go out and "stake" the public interest. It is an individual process here while it is a public process there. The government was not much involved in mineral development in Canada until the advent of environmental regulations.  Prior to that a gold miner could ruin FN's salmon beds or leach toxic arsenic into the watersheds as just a matter of doing business. I think the Nordic countries culturally see their state as belonging to the whole as a community. The system seems more slanted towards the government having control and less speculative bubble development of resources.  

But back to the topic at hand.  So George do you think the NDP should talk about the integrated economy and integrated military and clearly set out a different strategy.  I think it needs to be discussed and decoupling form the empire has to be a priority for at least one party IMO

George Victor

I believe that Canadian mineral wealth should be nationalized (like an old CCFer) and developed with the aid of our own pension funds. I don't believe that an opportunity for this would come much before the harmony of a Globalized economy was being strained by others.

I'm just trying to winkle out a starting point at which we could regain control of resource development and end the paper chase of higher investment returns abroad...and the current use of Canadian public funds to privatize economies elsewhere. Perhaps you could suggest a better "starting point" ? "My" military would consist one one big nuclear icebreaker, a couple of frigates on each coast,  and a host of small, very fast coast guard vessels to prevent the marijuana from getting soaked with seawater.  : )

ANd just briefly back to Norway... does it then use state funds to develop the mine and operate it as a nationalized entity, selling product into the private sector? 

Evening Star

George Victor wrote:

But what do YOU think about the possibility of USING capitalist PUBLIC institutions (ones that NO Canadian finds fault with, like pension funds, RRSPs , etc.) to further PUBLIC programs for the employment of Canadians, say, in Green industries that we now import ? 

I don't know much about it but it sounds good at face value.

George Victor

Listening to Jacques Parizeau interviewed by Michael Enright on CBC 1, this morning, I learned that that is exactly the route that Quebec has taken.  Cest la vie.   : )   Although Parizeau, the economist, hums and haws about taking it farther because of complexities that Globalization presents in finding capital...if one is trying to play outside the league.   That is, pension funds demand some sort of security (particularly since finance capital screwed up in its paroxism of greed.)  And I'm not sure about the intensity of socialist thought circulating among the independentistes...certainly since the rise of a new right in rural Quebec. Perhaps someone else can bring light to that question.