There is no way that is correct.
The average American household has a net worth of $320k? Really? I find this suspect
As reported by US News & World Report: for the first time ever, the average Canadian is richer than the average American: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...than-americans
Originally Posted by USN&WR
It was reported by U.S. News but the statement came from Environics, a research group in Canada.
It should be noted they are comparing the average Canadian to the average American.
Proof, some say, that Socialism works; if your goal is to be average. Its also a much easier statement to make when you are a country of 30 million.
Socialism always looks smart during tough times. When times are prosperous, you don't hear anything from them.
Canadian banks barely ranked in the top 50 globally as measured by market capitalization.
That was no more than 5 years ago.
Since then they have moved up the rankings considerably; largely by the default of other FI's that once occupied those spots.
They did nothing to advance that position and will do nothing when they lose those positions.
That's not prosperity. That's perpetual mediocrity.
Last edited by BetterByDesign; 07-20-2012 at 09:45 AM.
which i disagree with.
UNLESS the house is paid off... or they are AT LEAST, only including the equity amount of the property not the potential market value.
i have $500k of house... that don't mean i add $500k to my net worth.
I need to follow this... "Not everything you eat has to, or should, taste really f*cking awesome. Sometimes you need to eat 'boring' food to stay healthy.
CA is a socialist commune of 30 million people. Please tell me why you think its NOT.
Last edited by BetterByDesign; 07-20-2012 at 02:11 PM.
Agreed.Canadians are far more practical than Americans and tend not to get all wrapped up in right/left labels, and political squabbles, although its getting more like the US every day
Well yes...I've always thought so. Not sure if "realization" implies that is something only Canada can deduce.They realize that public ownership is useful for some things, while the "free market" is better for others.
Deliver my mail? Issue parking permits and tags? Enjoy!
Can't help you here. I agree there is no shortage of mediocrity in the U.S. Guess what... there is no shortage of ANYTHING in the U.S. Same can't be said under socialism.But I don't see how socialism equates to mediocrity at all. There's certainly no shortage of mediocrity in the US,
What could be worse than mediocrity? Competition? That's not an arguement. That is the most basic tenet of socialism.
in fact an argument can be made that the free market has to cater to the lowest common denominator by definition, which leads to a result worse than mediocrity.
This is from ABC News a month ago:
Median household net worth declined 35 percent between 2005 and 2010 to $66,740, the Census Bureau reported on Monday.
The federal agency reported median net worth dropped to $66,740 from $102,844 in constant dollars in that period, which included the last recession.
However, excluding home equity, median household net worth actually increased to $15,000 from $13,859 between 2009 and 2010.
Yeah, socialism means many different things, and different things to different people etc. but the article is discussing the average Canadian and the average American. So Canada compared to the U.S. is socialist but Canada compared to oh lets just say Sweden is well...not so socialist?
Just so that I get a better idea of where you are coming from, with all due respect, in your opinion what are some differences between Canada and the U.S.?
Of course not, and that's not what I said. Mediocrity is a by product of socialism. I was referring to what I think you eluded to as competition or your apparent distaste for it as a tenet of socialism. Because competition creates winners and losers and that is unfair because we are all winners and "we are in this all together."Mediocrity is not a basic tenet of socialism, in fact socialism was designed to achieve a utopian society so I'm not sure what you are on about there.
Let me get this straight. You are saying the intent behind achieving great things is more important than the great thing itself and without it, that leads to mediocrity, not the other way around?
I have found that capitalist societies tend to be the most mediocre, generally because any effort is only expended on the basis of how much profit can be derived from it, not to achieve a great thing for its own sake. This leads to a situation where everything tends to be "just good enough to sell" rather than better than necessary.
Acheiving a great thing for its own sake sounds to me like an artist or Bernie Madoff. So starving artists are dynamic but artists that make a nice living are mediocre a holes?
What happens when a piece of art work sells for millions of dollars in Canada? Do people shake their heads at such gluttony and excess? Does the Canadian government impose hefty taxes on the sale of that million dollar piece of art and upon the artist?
Last edited by BetterByDesign; 07-22-2012 at 01:11 AM.
In fact, companies donate millions to politicians for the purpose of getting legislation passed to further entrench their mono/duopolies. I've always wondered why people think the fortune 500 is some bastion of the "free market" that collectively uphold the principles behind the constitution, but then also think the gov't is so corrupt, when its more or less a rotating door between fortune 500 board members, and gov't executive positions. Are these people corrupt while working in gov't and then somehow transform into ethical people when a fortune 500 company hires them? I don't think so...
The gov't isn't a private enterprise and shouldn't be run like one. If it were, we wouldn't have the internet, since that was developed without the need for profit by the gov't (DARPA). If it were developed by private enterprise, we would instead have 10 incompatible internets, each supported by a different private enterprise using different technology, unable to pass data between them, etc. All the tech created to build the internet was done on the taxpayers dime. Why didn't private enterprise build it? Well, likely because the profit from it wouldn't show up for many years/decades, and their shareholders weren't going to tolerate that length of time before their ROI. Leaving everything up to private enterprise would be a big mistake in my opinion.
EDIT: It appears that you may be mistaken regarding the origin of the phrase "it's good enough for government work".
"Has this phrase always meant the lowest passing quality? The answer is no.
In a commentary by retired Maj. Gen. Arthur Rooney, he states, "The phrase, 'It's good enough for government work' originated in World War II. It was during a time when the likes of 'Rosie the Riveter' were made famous as we worked hard to provide our allies and our very own soldiers the ships, planes and weapons to fight and win the war against the Axis powers."
When the phrase was used during this period in time, it meant it was good enough to pass very stringent standards, Rooney said. It also meant it was good enough to be used by your son, father or loved one in our country's fight against the enemy."
Last edited by a_riot; 07-22-2012 at 02:21 PM.
I guess you haven't heard of cell phone standards. All PC's are compatible. All DVD players are compatible. All MP3's files are compatible. TVs channels are pretty compatible. All TV's are "compatible". Home plumbings are compatible. I mean I could go on and on.The gov't isn't a private enterprise and shouldn't be run like one. If it were, we wouldn't have the internet, since that was developed without the need for profit by the gov't (DARPA). If it were developed by private enterprise, we would instead have 10 incompatible internets, each supported by a different private enterprise using different technology, unable to pass data between them, etc.
All industries have standards. Have you heard of IEEE? I mean there are thousands of them. They get together and work it out.
Government is a double edge sword. Private entities at least you can put it out of business. Government will be around forever.
But having said all that, the best system is a combination of two working together.
Home plumbing is compatible? I wonder why I spent all that time and money replacing all the steel pipes with copper in my house then? Why didn't I just replace the broken steel pipes with copper and mix the two?
You do realize that NOTHING is absolute right? The "internet" by absolute is not "compatible".
The basis of internet was "created" by the government but you do realize that afterward, millions of things went into it by various private entities to make it "compatible" ?
Do you realized by the "internet" by itself has all sort of "standards" right? You can't just hook up an "internet" here and connect to any "internet" there and expect them to work right? A 1G internet cannot be hooked up to a 10G internet. They are not all compatible, understand?
There are all sorts of works done by the private industry (such as Cisco, Intel, ....) to make the "internet" workable the way it is right now.
Like I said in my previous posts, people like you are good at making argument for argument sake without adding any values to the subject matter.
So what is your point again?
Then again... he is saying there is no difference in service from gov't than service from Google, MS and Apple?
I dont think we are even talking about socialism and Canada anymore. This sounds like the part where everyone lines up for government to give out loaves of bread and there is waiting list the receive your car which comes in two colors: black or black.
Last edited by BetterByDesign; 07-22-2012 at 06:55 PM.
Since you have no clue what a 1G network is, here is a quick cliff note. It runs at 1.25GHz rate but the real data rate is 1G. For someone who writes software for a living, you're quite dumb.
I guess the only thing you can do ow is attacking my semantics Mr. Al Gore.
Last edited by livingVoice; 07-25-2012 at 01:44 PM.