New to the forum

Welcome to vive, I hope you will take a look around,and see the many views presented here, and feel free to contribute your opinions as well. If you haven't already done so take a look at the sidebar with FAQ's and policy for posting. It is pretty basic, no hate mongering, or racist comments, usual, play nice ideology! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

I'm a newbie too. I hope to provide you with insights into America especially from the adoption of Reaganism in the 80s and now leading to the latest irresponsible government under George Bush. I'm in my 50s, so I have seen America go from a culture of fairness to one which generally endorces the notion of "take the money and run". I believe the strength of a country lies in its culture and its people. I've researched from many angles, historic, business, political, etc. You have a wonderful culture and heritage, and are in such a unique environment in which you stand a good chance to emerge as the world's finest example of what a free society can be accomplished through social responsibility combined with free enterprise and technology. I generally find Canadians so refreshing to converse with, unincumbered by attitude problems I so commonly find in Americans, more open minded, less of a chip on their shoulders....in effect....more "free". Life in America contains many built in stress factors now and constant business exploitation promoted by the winner take all mentality. I'm of the overall opinion that free enterprise only works when it supports a vibrant middle class, and this requires a careful amount of social programs and social responsibility. An attitude of every man for himself won't take any country to the promised land. Americans are feeling the effect of too many years of this type of party. They seem to be walking around now as if they have a monkey on their back. You can see it in the eyes of many Americans. As funny as it may sound, this is an analogy which comes to mind. Since my wife and I are avid animal nuts and have done animal rescue for years, we are sensitive to animals which are abused. I can now identify what my wife has always said in terms of "that one has a kind eye". Animals which have been abused tend to have a distant glare and can seemed removed from reality. I've noticed how people in America appear to be developing an "unkind eye". It's no doubt a result of sheer abuse. The cut throat business genre has led to a social dysfunctionality in the workforce and this is now permeating significantly into our private lives too. Americans work longer hours than ever and are getting in general less in return. One of the most important economic indicators of true prosperity is the asset holdings of the middle class. These have gone down consistently from the 80s until now, with some exceptions during the 90s. These factors and a general lack of trust in each other have worked over time to make us rather pessimistic about government and what can be accomplished through government intiatives. The media is low quality, education is become more and more unaffordable unless you're rich, and with all of the above factors promoting psychological depression, it is no surprise the public is getting dumber and dumber. In the end, I hope and pray Canada will not take the course that America has. You have the potential for an ever bright future. Protect and preserve your culture. Be careful to understand why it is important to have successfully engineered social programs. Don't talk yourself out of funding them for the sake of X profit increase. A socially responsible agenda and healthy middle class are your key to long term social/political/business health and performance. Runaway capitalism is like an engine running too hot, producing extra horsepower but meanwhile consuming fuel inefficiently. Capitalism with the proper proportion of social programs is how capitalism flourished in the first place, and is its only true hope for the future.

Welcome AgentM! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> Hope to converse with you here. Get to know you. I'm going to assume if your a Nationalist, we will get along. The funny thing is some Conservatives have labeled many of us here as Nationalist as if it was an evil word. Yet at the same time, in the same post they praise the Republican party. Yep the same party that sounds more like Nationalist then we do here on vive. Apparently what conservatives in Canada forget to mention is we are not aloud to be Nationalist for Canada. We must be Nationalist for the United States of America. They country that does no wrong in the New Conservative Party's eyes. Of course they don't tell us this directly, but its obvious that's where they want to take us just as well. Anyways stay awhile. Have fun. Kevin

Kevin, I originally dabbled in psychology for 2 years, went on to get a BS in engineering, then completed 4 years of business just recently. It was actually this recent 4 years of study which revealed where the gap is between business theory and practice in the US. I also have 30 years experience working with countless companies from very small to large and have seen perhaps every aspect of our business evolution here in the US from the 70s through today. I hope you can help me and I can help you get closer to the truth. Here's just a couple of the big issues I see for democracies in the future: 1. Efficiency and goal of our overall human endeavor - The public must be mindful and technically educated to appreciate good programs and good products. Without this extremely important feedback loop, the products and services which are created within a country can become inefficient, useless, and incapable of long term benefit to the public. Here in the US, the public buys whatever it wants with little regard to the quality of the product, with a few superficial exceptions. There is no long term mindful understanding of issues relating to energy efficiency, quality and availability of education, health care, etc. Without this core public awareness, it is difficult to bring forth and sell the great products and services which will actually help evolve our societies. 2. A mindful responsible government - The government must be dedicated to providing a quality service for its people, and perhaps help to support the development and proliferation of very useful products and services from within the private sector. In order for goverments to be responsible, they must have a knowledge base and overall goal to direct a country in the right direction. This is perhaps where things get very sticky. Over time, one would hope that the public and business develop a happy marriage with government....a win win situation for the people and business because they are in fact pursuing smart technologies, etc and the people all benefit from these endeavors. Here in the US we have a mighty capitalistic machine churning away, but it is completely out of sync with any government direction, or long term goal. There have been too many years of disconnect...leading to a situation where the government would have to make hard choices on how to fix the situation. The odds of this happening are slowing going to vitual zero. There is obviously an argument which can be made for nationalism in all of this. I see Canada as a situation where you have not gotten so far down this road of public apathy, uneducated about what's right for the country, etc that you really have great promise to continue to evolve as a nation. If you were to pursue the reckless US free wheeling capitalistic model which has been in place now for too many decades here, you will undoubtedly degrade to a situation where you become oblivious to a beneficial national direction. The astounding irony of all of this is that those that believe there is no alternative but to let the free market and Adam Smith's invisible hand guide us don't realize or understand the dynamics of a well informed and healthy society working in sync with a responsible government. While the free wheeling market may consume more and create greater profits for a select few if it is allowed to exploit markets, the "well society" will actually achieve a greater overall benefit by providing a higher quality of living for more of its citizens.

Welcome to Vive AgentM and wadestock, it's nice to see more people coming to this site!

Wadestock, what a refreshing post from a neighbour! We don't get many post from the U.S. that aren't just bashing us, we do have a few who contribute thoughtful insightful, information, but they are rare. I think Brother Jonathan is one, and there may be a couple more, but rare. Thanks for sharing and welcome to vive!

I would disagree with Wadestock. In analysis of the american government one thing seems clear, that government at both the local and state levels were beginning to function extremely well. Just like in Canada, that presents a problem for national, or federal, governments since it would eventually render them useless. Thomas Jefferson feared the 'moneyed corporations' would gain power over the republic, which wasn't a democracy but was set up at least to lead to a democracy. In Canada we had no revolution and Canada has always been a business run society, just like the British. In the second world war government DID virtually take over business, while in the states the reverse was true, but the effects are similar since both have the same general interest because they are often the same people. There is really no distinction between business and government, just take a look at actual policies and who the people with power are. Virtually all are businessmen (lawyers are businesspeople as well). The mechanisms of control are quite different though, in the States the people actually have power at the local and state levels. Half the states have citizens initiatives. Where people have power it is very important to control what people think, hence the propaganda. For business though that is too complex a study for here, like Canada there are business interests which control various levels of government-it could be a manufacturer or two in a small town or city, a bank or telecom at the state level, and multinationals like haliburton and the former Enron at the federal level. In Canada I note that's pretty much the same. Many companies are quite benign, sometimes even the most successful ones-because they can afford to be, yet government still bends over backward if they so desire because of the vital function they serve. Here in Waterloo the only environmental subsidies available go to businesses where the regional government will cover half the cost of updating environmental equipment to reduce industrial waste. In former times they would simply be fined and TOLD to reduce, and if I asked for a subsidy to update my home to reduce waste I would be laughed at-and charged if I was pouring hazardous waste into the water supply. The two systems can simply be reduced to 'those with money have power, those with power have control and protect their interests'. That's been almost universally true. Ironically, the two seem to be reversing, there was a story here about the american feds getting more involved in the stock market, and now with the war the feds are virtually dictating corporate policy, while in Canada the government is being more and more pushed aside and letting the corporations dictate policy. In analyzing those two vague 'systems' (and they are vague because government and business will interact differently in virtually every department), one other thing seems evident, and that is that at least with the government control people have the power to affect a change. Corporate rule is closed to virtually everybody, while the example of the CCP and Saskatchewan show the very real power of the people when motivated and united. The government HAD to enact changes that benefitted the people or face a socialist revolution, much the same as in the US. What is rarely discussed in Canada is the fact that virtually ALL those benefits have since evaporated. We can go down the list if somebody so desires, but Canada has indeed become 'america junior'.

These are some great thoughts to chew on. I agree with your assessment that we have a mish mosh of goverment and business. The question I believe comes to whether you want to support an overall plan which truly serves the many, or one which tends to produce a heirarchy of wealth. I would maintain that a good government must have as its overall charter, or "business vision" the need to support programs, provide incentives etc so that the middle class continues to show gains. Once we all come to a consensus that this is in fact the ideal "business model"...then we can argue how best to achieve that plan. The bottom line in the states is that the average person is losing ground. That means the machine is not working. I think I quoted some rough numbers, but there is no doubt that while GNP growth goes up, the middle class assets is going down while cost of living and services is going up. If that is the trend in Canada, I'd be surprised. I haven't spent any time researching Canadian statistics on middle class assets, etc, but you have surpassed us in living standard, and I would assume your middle class is gaining. If it is even treading water it's better than in the states on average. Why is free wheeling capitalism, void of responsible social programs and national direction not a good business model? Well for obvious reasons. Taxes on the rich are a necessity to keep the capitalistic machine vital. This is the main point of difference in theory I see between dems and repubs here. You see Reagan, and then championed by the savy Limbaugh and others succeeded in spreading two very important principles for free wheeling capitalism: #1 - You EARN the money you make. So taxes simply means the government is taking away money that YOU EARNED. #2 - Who can better spend money....you or the government? These two principles have taken root across the fruited plains of America. An unprecedented level of tax breaks have propelled the upper 1% in our country from the early 80s under Reagan and now through Bush to own (debatably because of the fact that the goverment doesn't monitor these assets 100%) 50 Trillion dollars or so. Now we're on the verge of making these tax breaks permanent and even eliminating the estate tax so that the rich can be supercharged to the extremes of wealth. With this level of wealth, those upper eschelon actually have the power to be above government. The founding fathers would not have predicted this type of phenomenon. The problem with those who support these irresponsible business models is that they concentrate on capitalistic wealth generation (figures) rather than what the actual output of the human endeavor accomplishes for the nation. The upper eschelon becomes intoxicated with the wealth and simply view a system like the US as one which can be exploited for their economic gain. It is the ENVIRONMENT of money generation they want to benefit from, and now more than ever even control it, without the responsibility for how their money making impacts the overall community of people. Good business science all theorizes (based on history and case studies) that overconcentration on the "bottom line" doesn't lead to long term business success. Good business and good capitalism actually needs a good business plan. We now know our society here ignors the most compelling evidence to support such facts. Take for instance John Edwards plan to provide preventative health insurance. For decades now we've seen stark evidence that such preventative care is an outstanding investment in our society. On average, the society pays more in the end without such sound business investments. By not championing fuel efficiency, America will progressively starve many of its low income population. A rising class of poor has to be in America's future. A proper view of the nation as a competent business rather than an exploitive capitalistic enviroment would yield the obvious conclusion that fuel efficiency benefits the overall population and produces a better long term business equation by allowing assets to be spent on more productive endeavors. I think we can agree that there are goods and services which have yet to be championed that will benefit us all. How to we get such goods and services? I would maintain that it's got to be a combination of the masses appreciating such good business sense and constantly demanding a better overall standard of living coupled with a responsible goverment which also sees collective business gain over individualist business gains. Based on this overall theory of "collective business success" rather than individual business success, I would maintain that any country which pursues such an approach will ultimately run more efficiently and achieve better long term success.

That's a long letter, I haven't read it all because there's a pretty big debateable point right at the beginning. No doubt some will want to argue with me but statistically Canada is NOT the middle class haven being espoused. Canada's standard of living is plummeting as fast as the states. In fact you can go state by state and province by province and you will find that most canadian provinces fare exceedingly badly. Again, my area of expertise is New Brunswick and Maine. New Brunswick only has a 60% participation rate in the economy, it's unemployment rate ranges from a low of 9% to a high of 25% in the north. In Maine the unemployment rate was 4% the last I checked, with a participation rate of 85%. Maine has a higher minimum wage and somehow lower energy costs. However, some areas are different, in New Brunswick the teachers are unionized and teaching has typically been a well rewarded profession-certainly compared to the states where a teacher will earn approximately a third to a quarter of what canadian ones earn (unless at a private school) The poor have been gutted since 1995, only 20% of the unemployed in Toronto were even eligible to collect unemployment insurance, while welfare, EI and other social programs were gutted since the mid nineties. Many states may not have as 'good' a social safety net, although Canada no longer does either, but prices are far cheaper there than here. It's pretty ironic that the US provides little gas for itself yet somehow manages to have lower gas prices than a country which provides a good proportion of it. However, I don't want to get into a 'canada good', 'US bad' argument. The rich in Canada, like in the US are doing much better and Canada has more billionaires per capita than the US. We can get into other issues, but no doubt the US's economy has often been characterized as a 'war economy', and always has been, while that is obviously less true here, although increasingly weapons manufacturers are springing up in Canada to supply both countries, but mostly US. As far as I can see, that's the reality in Canada, which is why at least federally I see little difference in the federal economic policies. The US obviously has the advantage and we tag along, how much of that is 'forced' and how much is 'communal rich interests' is a different discussion.

That's a good letter as it shows that many, even most americans have the same interests as here in Canada. I certainly won't claim that Canada has all those things, if anything we are closer to americanizing health care than the US is to nationalizing it. Canada is the only country to offer no cost, walk in health care, yet it also funds the fewest health issues. In much of Europe national health programs also include eyes and teeth, in Canada eyes are provincial and in fact have just been cut completely here in ontario. National dental insurance would save canadians billions. There is also more government support for preventative health. Here in Canada years ago I remember they used to have commercials where they'd tell people "chances are you may not have cancer..but why take the chance". Meaning they actually encouraged everyone to run to their doctor for testing, and early detection is of course the main ingredient for ensuring survival. Nowadays such a thing is unthinkable,in fact you'd have to spend hours and days to talk your doctor into testing you-unless it's breast or prostate,but even then only under certain circumstances. So I think it's far better to stop praising one country and belittling another, there are very specific programs that work, and work well, and those are ones to push in both places. Solidarity man.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm Check this link out, although it's old data it shows a comprehensive way of determining how better off the INDIVIDUAL really is in one country or another. Also, I will try to develop in other forums the concept of better "wellness" in one country or another...as a measure of health, etc.

Those figures are 1991 which is another lifetime ago. 1995 is the year that the real cuts began, although as soon as Chretien got in there were significant changes. The other problem is that it is extremely difficult to compare economies when populations are so vastly different. I've been having a conversation elsewhere about Ireland and Canada. Ireland has a population of Toronto and the physical size of the maritimes, so percentages will change much more readily at the slightest impetus than in Canada, which is ten times the size. Then going to the states you get the same problem, the population is ten times the size. Within countries you have a wide divergence in geography. Some areas do very well, others do VERY poorly. Rural areas do worse than urban, however, in Canada as you note from the front page, poverty is very much with us. Here in Waterloo they say 50,000 people live in poverty, which is one sixth the population. Natives, of course, do poorly in both countries, but per capita better than the states because many bands could take advantage of gambling opportunities. Comparing New Brunswick with Maine shows the canadian province doing far worse, except in some aspects of health care-though not all. There is far less unemployment in Maine, so many more can afford insurance. The other problem I see with that is by saying 'my country is better than your country' it reinforces the idea that ALL the policies of that country are better. In Canada there is more opportunity to change government because it is smaller in size, yet it takes a lot of work to get to that point.