Manitoba Provincial Election

[pacman]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

It’s not my calculator. It’s the Bank of Canada’s. And you should care about what other provinces do because Manitoba isn’t special nor does it exist in a vacuum. It’s arrogant to think that outside perspective is not relevant. So calm down.

I used your same calculator and presented the numbers on a year by year basis which is the context people always talk about when discussing inflation. You presented inflation numbers that were accumulated over multiple years. Both are factually correct and I didn't say you were factually wrong, but I implied (and I doubt you would disagree) that you were purposely misleading with non-traditional analysis in order to exaggerate your point and imply that high inflation has been a massive issue for a longer period of time than it really has been.

I don't live in a vacuum, I'm quite aware and care about things outside the borders of Manitoba, but I'm not required to care about it as much as I care about Manitoba, and specifically in a Manitoba election thread. I actually took the time to click on your link for the calculator to decipher your intentions because it was relevant to the topic so that should count for something. Calling it arrogant to not care about you taking a shot at your "far-right government" over in Sask land is...interesting? I didn't notice any other substance in your comment but maybe I arrogantly ignored something?

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by pacman

I used your same calculator and presented the numbers on a year by year basis which is the context people always talk about when discussing inflation. You presented inflation numbers that were accumulated over multiple years. Both are factually correct and I didn't say you were factually wrong, but I implied (and I doubt you would disagree) that you were purposely misleading with non-traditional analysis in order to exaggerate your point and imply that high inflation has been a massive issue for a longer period of time than it really has been.

I don't live in a vacuum, I'm quite aware and care about things outside the borders of Manitoba, but I'm not required to care about it as much as I care about Manitoba, and specifically in a Manitoba election thread. I actually took the time to click on your link for the calculator to decipher your intentions because it was relevant to the topic so that should count for something. Calling it arrogant to not care about you taking a shot at your "far-right government" over in Sask land is...interesting? I didn't notice any other substance in your comment but maybe I arrogantly ignored something?

My intentions were to show how much inflation was over increasingly longer time frames into the past, in the context of the bare minimum of what teachers should expect for accumulated raises over those same hypothetical periods. That is it. You are reading too much into it. And if you don't care what I have to say, move on. When you say it twice, you are implying I have no business posting in here, even though it is relevant to the discussion about education funding, and is in fact, showing how it could be worse. So again, calm down.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

My intentions were to show how much inflation was over increasingly longer time frames into the past, in the context of the bare minimum of what teachers should expect for accumulated raises over those same hypothetical periods. That is it. You are reading too much into it. And if you don't care what I have to say, move on. When you say it twice, you are implying I have no business posting in here, even though it is relevant to the discussion about education funding, and is in fact, showing how it could be worse. So again, calm down.

No worries, sounds like I read too much into it. Again, I didn't say I don't care what you have to say. Pretty sure I engaged with you where you discussed inflation related things, no problemo. You didn't say anything about Manitoba regarding education funding, you brought up Saskatchewan's funding and took a shot at the government there. I actually responded to you saying that 2.5% wasn't out of line as an increase given traditional inflation rates so I don't see how I implied twice that you have no business posting here. I have tried to keep things related to Manitoba and was probably a bit harsh... was this more calm?

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by pacman

No worries, sounds like I read too much into it. Again, I didn't say I don't care what you have to say. Pretty sure I engaged with you where you discussed inflation related things, no problemo. You didn't say anything about Manitoba regarding education funding, you brought up Saskatchewan's funding and took a shot at the government there. I actually responded to you saying that 2.5% wasn't out of line as an increase given traditional inflation rates so I don't see how I implied twice that you have no business posting here. I have tried to keep things related to Manitoba and was probably a bit harsh... was this more calm?

Yes, thank you. 2.5% is incredibly small for this year, especially considering education has been underfunded here for many years under this government and hasn't kept up with population growth. So, not only do you have to keep up with population growth but with inflation as well. You need more teachers and those teachers deserve to be paid well for such an important job. Plus almost every other department got much higher increases. I just don't understand why conservatives hate education so much (well, I do, but I'll save that for another discussion). I am sure its not much different for Manitoba.

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

The only goal of publicly traded corporations, specifically, in the absence of any government regulation that forces them otherwise, is to return the highest profits possible to shareholders. That is it. Due to competitive pressures, that will always be more important than doing what's morally right, especially in a world of giant conglomerates with little consumer choice. It also doesn't help that these shareholders typically don't have ties to the communities these businesses operate in and tend to not have to suffer the consequences of their company's actions. And yes, this reality will result in the most sociopathic people rising to the top.

“Do what’s morally right” Good god. Ok Pension funds for teachers, firefighters, police and all kinds of public and private servants invest in these public companies and look to get a return on their investment. The return that they receive feeds pensions. Would you prefer that they operate at no profit and the pensions don't get a return on their investment?

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

“Do what’s morally right” Good god. Ok Pension funds for teachers, firefighters, police and all kinds of public and private servants invest in these public companies and look to get a return on their investment. The return that they receive feeds pensions. Would you prefer that they operate at no profit and the pensions don't get a return on their investment?

Corporations and the wealthy have been flowing in cash for decades. I would prefer those profits go to the people who actually make that value. You don’t need the stock market to accomplish this.

[pspeid]

Many years ago I was in a meeting with a financial advisor when I asked about what I believe were then called "ethical stocks". The guy angrily shut me down and said "if you want to help people give money to charity", and wouldn't discuss it any further (I never saw him again, btw).

It's interesting how suggesting that moral/ethical standards should be applied to business makes some folks absolutely livid. It's like you suggested that pigs should grow wings and fly.

The last I saw, the world of "business", including commerce, investments, trading, the whole ball of wax, was a creating of human beings, by and for human beings (at for least some of them). However, some seem to want to believe that it's an immutable cosmic force, sprung from the swirling gasses of creation, forever and always untouchable by man's puny notion of "ethics".

Humans can change and so can their institutions, even if it's difficult.

[djforsberg]

The whole concept of charity and personal responsibility as a solution to systemic problems is a deliberate ploy to remove responsibility of those with the true power to make actual systemic changes (business and government), on to consumers and voters. As someone who cares more about results than intentions, this was one of the driving factors of me becoming a socialist. Before that, for awhile I dabbled in libertarianism, then more of a centre-left economic liberal as I realized that individual actions will absolutely not change a god damned thing except give me a sense of moral superiority. Sure, the Bill Gates and Elon Musks of the world could end world hunger and dependence on fossil fuels, for example, but they haven't and they won't because their importance is greatly diminished by solving these problems. Regular people like you and I certainly won't do anything significant by recycling or driving EVs, for example. Sure, we should try to do what we can, but systemic change can only happen by democratic, collective action. Not because we are selfish by nature. But because those who are selfish enough will always win out against the rest of us.

[wags_in_the_peg]

thanks for ruining yet another thread where MB politics is to be discussed

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

thanks for ruining yet another thread where MB politics is to be discussed

Oh go cry in a corner. This literally doesn't effect you at all. Others are engaging so feel free to just move along.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

The only goal of publicly traded corporations, specifically, in the absence of any government regulation that forces them otherwise, is to return the highest profits possible to shareholders. That is it. Due to competitive pressures, that will always be more important than doing what's morally right, especially in a world of giant conglomerates with little consumer choice. It also doesn't help that these shareholders typically don't have ties to the communities these businesses operate in and tend to not have to suffer the consequences of their company's actions. And yes, this reality will result in the most sociopathic people rising to the top.

The problem I think with this reasoning, is that who gets to decide what is morally right? Who gets to say that one type of morality is truly better than the other?

The issue you're focused on is an issue for anti-trust laws, not for the complete dismantling of our economic system. It's like prescribing amputation for a sprained ankle.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The problem I think with this reasoning, is that who gets to decide what is morally right? Who gets to say that one type of morality is truly better than the other?

The issue you're focused on is an issue for anti-trust laws, not for the complete dismantling of our economic system. It's like prescribing amputation for a sprained ankle.

Remember when there were anti-trust laws, and then they went away? Under capitalism, this cycle will always happen. Socialism ends this cycle and democratizes the economy. Who gets to make these decisions is something that itself is decided on by the people and depends on the context but it is done transparently, cooperatively, and democratically, unlike today where it is whoever has the most money gets to make the decisions. Your metaphor of amputation is incorrect because it assumes it is removing something useful. What socialism removes is the power of capital, something utterly useless and unnecessary but dangerous and toxic. A better metaphor would be an appendectomy.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Remember when there were anti-trust laws, and then they went away? Under capitalism, this cycle will always happen. Socialism ends this cycle and democratizes the economy. Who gets to make these decisions is something that itself is decided on by the people and depends on the context but it is done transparently, cooperatively, and democratically, unlike today where it is whoever has the most money gets to make the decisions. Your metaphor of amputation is incorrect because it assumes it is removing something useful. What socialism removes is the power of capital, something utterly useless and unnecessary. A better metaphor would be an appendectomy.

So what if the democratic process results in a rejection of socialism.................................

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

So what if the democratic process results in a rejection of socialism.................................

Funny you say that. Socialism has won democratically in many places over the past 100 years only to be weakened or destroyed by the power of capital and their right wing or liberal allies, usually with the help of America, so their access to cheap resources is not limited and to wipe out any ideological competition. And I would argue that if Western countries had true democratic processes without the influence of capital in elections, education, culture, and the media, socialism would overwhelmingly win out, even in America. There is absolutely no argument against socialism working best for the vast majority of people and I will debate anyone on that at any time.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Funny you say that. Socialism has won democratically in many places over the past 100 years only to be weakened or destroyed by the power of capital and their right wing or liberal allies, usually with the help of America. And I would argue that if Western countries had true democratic processes without the influence of capital in elections, culture, and the media, socialism would overwhelmingly win out, even in America.

Ah yes, people couldn't possibly want capitalism, got it

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Ah yes, people couldn't possibly want capitalism, got it

Some people do, absolutely. Many people think they do. When you poll people on issues, there tends to be a majority who want all the things that socialism would provide. But people tend to vote against their own best interests because of poor education and because the culture war dominates due to it being pushed by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. In Canada its Trudeau, Quebec, and environmentalists. In the US its American exceptionalism, guns, and trans people. Its obviously more complicated than that and I would love to get into it (much to the chagrin of others here), but that's the gist of it. People want affordable housing, healthcare, a clean environment, good paying jobs, etc but many are convinced one way or the other that the culture issues are more important. And then you have people who think they are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires... Capitalism is basically just a lottery. A very remote chance to strike it rich, that we each have little control over, as the evidence has shown. Except there is a lot of collective sacrifice to allow this lottery to exist.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

So what if the democratic process results in a rejection of socialism.................................

Do you have anything to say about what I said in the post you're replying to or are you just going to go against anything I say because I'm a socialist? Its OK to do that but at least admit its not the points that you are disagreeing with and that it is dogma driving you.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Do you have anything to say about what I said in the post you're replying to or are you just going to go against anything I say because I'm a socialist? Its OK to do that but at least admit its not the points that you are disagreeing with and that it is dogma driving you.

I'm just pointing out some possible issues with what you're saying. Socialists tend to be some of the most blindly dogmatic folks out there (there are many of all political stripes, but there aren't many quite as much as socialists). There is a religious fervor present that you mostly see in evangelical circles, but I digress.

Socialism (the ideology) has been responsible for some of the worst evils ever perpetrated, because everything is justifiable if the end goal can be framed as the ultimate good. Top down planned economies don't work, because people are individuals. The broader socialist society doesn't work because it requires 100% buy-in, and people are individuals with their own dreams and aspirations. It's incredibly oppressive in practice, and even if it did work in theory, the people living in such a world - perfect as it may seem - would be utterly miserable, because they would be forced to conform. Dissidents are not tolerated, the only people who are truly better off are the oligarchs. The funny thing is, that class gap doesn't disappear, it just changes what the currency is. Difference is now, there is no rising economic tide to float the pions' boats, just brutal put-downs of those who dare try and make a good life for themselves.

That's what socialism does in practice. And if by socialism, you mean Scandinavia, they have more free markets than we do for the most part, but they too are not perfect. I am continuously shocked at the sheer hubris of people who suggest that it just hasn't been done properly. No, it has, the warts are not a bug, they are the feature, and that's been proven again and again. Don't get me wrong, there have been other seriously repugnant political forces before, but the existance of badguys in no way exculpates the ideology for its results.

The end goals you ask for are noble and good things. Unfortunately the prescription you suggest is not, and it will not produce the results you seek. The free market has its limits, of course, and certainly I would agree that the way it is currently operated is quite destructive occasionally, and less than optimal at the best of times. That said, I promise that "socialism" in the true sense of the term, will not produce a better society.

[djforsberg]

Come on man, I thought you were going to give me something challenging and original, but here I go, even though I mostly likely already addressed all these things at some point on here...

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'm just pointing out some possible issues with what you're saying. Socialists tend to be some of the most blindly dogmatic folks out there (there are many of all political stripes, but there aren't many quite as much as socialists). There is a religious fervor present that you mostly see in evangelical circles, but I digress.

I am not sure what this means. Of course there are blindly dogmatic people of all political stripes. But being against socialism is almost more ingrained into our culture than being against fascism. I'm not sure if you have watched TV lately or opened the news or been on the Interent or been outside your house but almost everything in our culture is religiously pro-capitalism. We are told to consume consume consume everywhere we go. I shouldn't really have to explain this further.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Socialism (the ideology) has been responsible for some of the worst evils ever perpetrated, because everything is justifiable if the end goal can be framed as the ultimate good.

Wrong. Capitalism including colonialism has been responsible for FAR more evils than socialism ever has and those evils (death, despair, destruction of ecosystems, abuse of animals, etc) are continuing to be perpetuated today. It's not even close.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Top down planned economies don't work, because people are individuals.

Capitalism is top-down planned. There is no such thing as the free market, especially as companies monopolize the market, which as I mentioned, will always be the result in capitalism no matter how many guardrails you attempt to put in.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The broader socialist society doesn't work because it requires 100% buy-in, and people are individuals with their own dreams and aspirations. It's incredibly oppressive in practice, and even if it did work in theory, the people living in such a world - perfect as it may seem - would be utterly miserable, because they would be forced to conform. Dissidents are not tolerated, the only people who are truly better off are the oligarchs. The funny thing is, that class gap doesn't disappear, it just changes what the currency is. Difference is now, there is no rising economic tide to float the pions' boats, just brutal put-downs of those who dare try and make a good life for themselves. That's what socialism does in practice.

Interesting because this sounds exactly like our reality under capitalism today. You do know the US has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world, right? Socialism isn't about stripping people of their own interests or making everyone equal. It's about stripping people of the ability to accumulate massive amounts of wealth and power and their ability to exploit others. It's about democratizing the workplace and economy, and allowing people and communities to decide for themselves how to redistribute the fruits of their labour. It de-centralizes a lot of decisions that has been centralized under capitalism.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

And if by socialism, you mean Scandinavia, they have more free markets than we do for the most part, but they too are not perfect.

You're right, they aren't perfect because they aren't socialist. They are social democracies, and that will never be enough.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I am continuously shocked at the sheer hubris of people who suggest that it just hasn't been done properly. No, it has, the warts are not a bug, they are the feature, and that's been proven again and again. Don't get me wrong, there have been other seriously repugnant political forces before, but the existance of badguys in no way exculpates the ideology for its results.

It is not that it hasn't been done properly. Its that socialism was never allowed to flourish. How many times do I have to explain that the world's most powerful military and superpower since World War 2 singlehandedly have put an end to any chance of socialism ever being successful, almost anywhere it has been attempted? This is not a conspiracy. The information is all out there in the open. John Bolton recently was bragging about couping Bolivia. Read up on what is probably the most famous case of this with Pinochet in Chile. Right wing authoritarians are currently being propped up or supported by the West throughout the world to this day, including in Peru, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The end goals you ask for are noble and good things. Unfortunately the prescription you suggest is not, and it will not produce the results you seek. The free market has its limits, of course, and certainly I would agree that the way it is currently operated is quite destructive occasionally, and less than optimal at the best of times. That said, I promise that "socialism" in the true sense of the term, will not produce a better society.

I mean, you couldn't be more wrong bud

I am just one person so I suggest if you really are interested in the topic, and want to learn about the truth about both socialism and capitalism, I would suggest the YouTube channel Second Thought. It corrects pretty much all the claims you have made here better than I could. There is also a great podcast that I subscribe to that goes into detail about how ingrained capitalism and imperialism is in our media and news called Citations Needed. I hope you (and others) find the courage and curiosity to open your mind, challenge what you already know, and expand your understanding of our world.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You're right, they aren't perfect because they aren't socialist. They are social democracies, and that will never be enough.

YIKES...

Originally Posted by djforsberg

It is not that it hasn't been done properly. Its that socialism was never allowed to flourish.

Right on cue... thanks for refuting my point by making my point.

Originally Posted by djforsberg

How many times do I have to explain that the world's most powerful military and superpower since World War 2 singlehandedly have put an end to any chance of socialism ever being successful, almost anywhere it has been attempted? This is not a conspiracy.

I mean in a techincal sense what you're describing is a conspiracy by the west to keep people from discovering the joys of the ideology.

I note that socialism was alive and kicking long before WWII. Holodomor ring any bells?