>Every person on the planet should have a carbon consumption rating and have exponential taxes applied accordingly.
Anyone know how practical it might be to have a "progressive" carbon tax, similar in nature to a progressive income tax? I can't think of a good way to measure individual carbon-dioxide generation offhand, but that doesn't mean that there isn't. Maybe in a piecemeal fashion? Bringing back carbon based Luxury taxes on airline tickets, with a $100 tax on the first transoceanic flight, $200 for the second, $400 for the third, etc.?
Would piecemeal through household/business energy bills and fuel costs cover the bulk of it? I'd guess transport, home heating/cooling, etc to be a significant portion?
Do a re-write. If your manager says no to the re-write then add another if condition to handle the current business logic and, at the same time, look for a new job (which is probably what the last guy did).
The problem, as I see it, is that when wealth becomes too concentrated it in fact destroys opportunities and therefore social mobility.
Some people want to believe that you can create a solution that fixes the opportunity/social-mobility problem without eroding the concentrations of wealth. Others believe that you have to attack those concentrations of wealth in order to bring back opportunity/social-mobility. I sit in the latter camp.
To give an example. When house prices expand out of reach for the much of the local population many will object to any additional taxation that targets excessive ownership (landlords) or even foreign ownership. They all have the same argument, that it will cause house prices to go down and harm the economy. Instead they promote low income housing programs which are just handouts that only slightly offsets this gigantic problem. These people really don't seem to understand that house prices are abnormal and need to go down to sane levels that will on average align with normal incomes in order for the gentrification process to reverse course.
In other words you can't really fix the problems that both Paul and Russell agree on without directly attacking the concentration of wealth problem. Everything else is just bullshit.
The world is not the USA. The world is 7 billion people, in countries and cities of varying economic outcomes. While income inequality is rising between inhabitants of the first world, global income inequality is shrinking. Specifically, the gap between Brooklyn, Beijing and Botswana is shrinking, even as the gap between individual citizens is rising.
And the biggest gap of all - the gap between 21 meals a week and < 21, is shrinking rapidly. As much as we bemoan great wealth compared to middle-classness, this gap - the gap between the never-hungry and the sometimes hungry - is IMHO the single biggest gap of all.
It was an example. An example that was on topic towards economic inequality.
Just because you can find some examples where economic normalization is occurring doesn't mean that excessive wealth concentration isn't killing more opportunities than it creates.
Wow, that's a pretty unimpressive response. It's bad enough you did it, but I seriously doubt you realize how wrong what you have done really is when you discount that wrong doing so easily.
To make it clear: You advertised an anonymous service to a community you're a direct member of and didn't disclose your involvement in it. You not only willingly broke a moral code that you knew about, but you actually misrepresented the service in your advertisement and broke any trust you had with everyone who participated. That's a pretty serious wrong doing that warrants a little more self reflection and much more empathy towards the people you screwed over.
It's more like Canada is sticking to the same old plans and is failing to adapt to a future where its economic cycles no longer work.
Canada has what's known as Dutch disease. When the loonie is strong the natural resource sector booms since they get more value in return for selling these assets, however the services and manufacturing sector tend to fall off a cliff since labour cost become too high.
Historically the Ontario govt has banked on this cycle. When the loonie rises and Ontario crashes then govt spending increases to compensate. When the loonie crashes and employment increases, tax revenue increases and then they payoff the debt from the crash. Ditto can be said for Alberta using the opposite scenario.
The federal tax transfer system adds additional funding mechanics to level the playing field between provinces.
That all said, everything has become very different. Oil has crashed due to external forces and the loonie has crashed too. That's fine, but I think govt is trying to figure out why the manufacturing services sectors are not gaining traction as they historical would (which is because other countries are now more equipped to compete within Canada and are still much cheaper... Example Mexico has taken all the auto manufacturing work). At the same time housing prices are 30 to 50% overpriced and the energy sectors nose dive is not a typical down cycle, it's a long term structural change.
I'm probably wrong, but my spidey senses are telling me that Canada is going to go through a rough time and will continue to do so until the govt models these structural changes to compensate. If the Canadian govt jumps into a thoughtless spending spree (which is the current plan) using the old economic model then in 5 to 10 years Canadas outcome could be dire.
[Edit: removed "Greece 2.0" as it highlighted aspects that could not compare to Canada's circumstances.]
Might be the Greece 2.0 prediction. I was with you till there. Greece's debt was in Euros, which the Greek government didn't control.
So Greece had no option to devalue it's currency in response to a slowing economy. Whereas Canada can devalue currency (as we're doing). We have the additional benefit that our debt load is in our domestic currency, so we don't face the debt appreciation challenge many countries face when they devalue their currency.
I think Canada's in trouble, but the Greek situation is fundamentally a different type of problem.
I thought that Greeces problems stemmed from excessive govt spending leading to a situation where the tax revenue could not compensate for the debt load with a consequence of either bankruptcy or bailouts from other countries. At least that's where my comparison starts and ends.
Capital accumulation can still happen without wage accumulation. Just don't pay yourself too much and keep the money inside the business. Naturally the money will get spent on building things like tesla.
Tesla happened because individuals were able to take extremely large sums out of an unrelated business (Paypal), as did a huge part of early stage tech investments, funded at that point mainly by individuals who got multimillion exits in their previous businesses. If the money had been kept inside business, then you'd have the innovation rate that internal subsidiaries of IBM achieved, not the innovation rate of the Silicon Valley.
Or perhaps with sufficient tax revenue in its coffers, the federal government would be able to properly fund NASA, or a Manhattan Project aimed at reducing oil dependency.
When I fly to and land in Germany I know I'm in Germany because I have an easy to use map that tells me so and the odds are that 90 percent of the people will identify as German.
Is there such a map for the First Nations? Can I rely on that map to identify with the people?
Corporate workplaces really are designed for humans who mimic robots.
Some people can do a better job mimicking robots that others and some can keep it up for longer. For most, the longer you keep it going the more robotic you become. People leave because they need to feel human again. No one likes to admit this truth because once they do they have to live with it.
I can even see it in the authors writing; on two occasions he refers to his employees as "humans" as opposed to just 'people' or 'employees'. That's typical dissociative behaviour and the kind of stuff that leads to people feeling less than human and eventually leaving via whatever alternative reasoning.
1. Every person on the planet should have a carbon consumption rating and have exponential taxes applied accordingly.
2. Automobiles should be banned from cities, roads should be turned into parks maybe with some commuter trains.
3. The top 62 richest people on the planet should give their money over to make wish number 1 and 2 come true.
;)