First of all ASS MAN    If Canadian universities doubled their spending how would that benefit the students? I believe many are already complaining about the cost of the education already. Besides the teachers already make enough and the larger universities like McGill, Queens or UBC and there are others already have pretty much all the equipment they need. So sinking in more money puts the cost on the students when they are already just as trained at the end of their educatiion.

meant to put a question mark behind ass man because I'm not going to resort to name calling cause its normally a sign of admitting you're wrong.

Their are only two provinces that give more to the federal government than they receive. Alberta and Ontario the rest receive compensation. and yes I have been to Quebec many times and not by choice had to pick up material. Now we changed suppliers so now my closest is Ottawa. And if your economy is so good in Quebec how come so many of you work in Ontario(no work in Quebec). The rest of Canadian citizens do not work in Quebec because we're not allowed to do to your backward thinking government. Even when you talkabout leaving Canada(good ridance) you don't want to take your share of any debt, still use Canadian passports, Canadian money Canadian trading partners and still work in Ontario as well as keep federaly owned equipment. so learn your facts and finish your education then you will know the truth.

Well, about a free Québec, leaving Canada, that's another debate, would be really complex to start that and could create strong rivalty wich might be fun, but well, let's dont do it.Like I said in my post, my boss is english. In fact the western part of the center of Montréal Island is all english.So yes english people from the rest of Canada come here often. Mostly from Ontario, New-Brunswick and Manitoba.but yes you are right, lot of quebecers go outside to find some work. And you know, lot of quebecers too feel canadians even if they are french speaking people, some of them will do anything to stay in Canada. There might be many reasons other than money, like I know myself lot of people who did it. To be honest, my last hope is to go in the west of Canada, but that might be a bad idea I got from them that is not true anymore.


--Still, in 1994 when we tried to separate, tons of groups of western english from the west came here making public demonstration to convince us to stay, giving money to federalists groups, using intidimation against Québec citizen, insulting the people. That was a democratic process, so they didnt had the right to do that. I just remember that, I was 12 years old and I was not able to understand what they were saying, but I didnt felt good about it.


About the economy in Québec,

the difference here, is that most of people dont need 80 000$ by year to be happy people, so they consider 30 000 to 40 000$ a year is good for them.

Why ?

Because of our whole social system who give them a chance to live, not only to work.

Generally in the world, lot of people are not really working, and lives with multi-million dollars. So why would some people start bashing thoses who prefer to live an happy life with less money if they are still people who work and contribute to the system ? To be simple, they contribute to the system, so the system is making benefits for them, it's how it work

what are you bragging about? on the one hand, it seems you're attempting a rebuttal to the claim that other French-speaking people don't especially like those found in Quebec. okay, perhaps i'm wrong. but the fact that about a quarter of your major univerity's students are foreign doesn't mean they like Quebec; it means they can afford and be accepted to an educational program there. whether they like Quebec is determined by whether or not they stay after getting their degrees.

you tout your education as the cornerstone of (questionable) economic prosperity in Quebec, but that's ludicrous. economies adapt to the lowest skill level of their labor pools. if we gave PhDs to all the burger-flippers and lawn-mowers in the country, they'd still be doing what they're doing and making what they're making. education only helps an individual when s/he's receiving a higher level of education than her/his economic peers.



in that case, you shouldn't go around insulting others' educations. to whit:



this is just insulting. all you've done is talk about how great your system is and insulted everyone who doesn't see its beauty. that's not productive; it's childish. with that kind of behavior, why should anyone think you're doing anything but garbage debating with propaganda? in fact, merely throwing around insults shows less education (critical reasoning) than calmly replying with articulated arguments. if you're not just spouting off about how great you are - if you do actually care about the living conditions of people elsewhere - i think you should carefully consider what they say, and thoughtfully reply. otherwise it's just blowing smoke up your own backside.

PS: after financial aid, i only paid $7,000 per year at UCSD, which is one of the best public universities in the U.S. (6th or so).

I pulled that from your post, made it funny, and gave it back to you. so according to you, you must be admitting your wrong?



Your kidding rite?? remember that i did not say double the fees, i said double the budget.

But i do get your point, your talking about value for money, what is the best education you can get for your buck. However for me, i would choose a university based on its reputation in the business world, since as i mentioned before, When you are standing in line for a job, with a degree in your hand, standing behind 50 other people with degrees in their hands, what counts is the perception of the employer.

MYSTIKMIND I dont think I called you an ass man I think I said you were talking out of your ass   anyhow I see some people thought this was somewhat humourous to read and thats what it should be about. I definately thought that you are right and misread your post in some ways( my wife made me write that)  I believe we think the same thing, only not quite able to put it in words correctly. The only one I completely disagree with is Manowar because he has been tainted by the governement there. No offence. I used to live in B.C.(Prince George)and other places but we got lots of quebecers out there for work(tree planting) and you were accepted,it is Quebec that does not accept the rest of the country. But you are right, that is another debate for when you get older and learn the truth and live all over the country such as I. And Dystopic was 100% correct in what he said about trashing another countries education system, NEVER DO IT that was the only reason I even got involved in this hopefully friendly discussion. CHAT WITH YOU ALL LATER RYE AND COKE TIME  

hehehe thats ok.

I know you didn't call me ass man, but you did introduce the word 'ass' against me in an insulting way, so that gave me licence to label you as ass man, but in a playful/sarcastic way, i wasn't trying to be malicious.

I stand somewhat corrected  

Thank you for that Evil, Don't ever think I am the first to shed a tear or feel disgraced for our way of life, that isnt the point, we have the power to raise world standards and maybe share a prosperous future, I am happy for the benifits my western lifestyle gives me and in some ways amazed as how easy it is to live here.

I just think that we should try and look to the future with some sort of understanding as to what it means to be so blessed, with this in mind, would it hurt our economies so much if our " bleeding hearts" trouble those without one. if some think so, then tough, maybe they shouldn't be so self absorbed.

P.s. It says a lot when all the posts on here seem to point at poverty in their own countries, I was refering more to other countries being exploited but it is a tragic fact that poverty is mostly exploited at home,
Maybe we should all fix ourselves before trying to fix the world.

It's all a matter of priority, is starvation worse then unemployment?
Are forigners living standards less important than our neighbours?


We all have a duty to help our own. out fellow citizens, but it's a big world and were all the same, so where does our fellow man end?
At our borders or further.

Marcus

Very good write Marcus  

I really like this thread so in an effort to keep it going I want to ask how exactly could we fix poverty? I'll start in the US. If we raise minimum wage significantly that will not neccessarily help due to the fact that wages reflect what a business can afford to make and would hurt the smaller businesses more than the super elite rich who will just downsize a company or two. One major thing that would need to happen would be to tighten our oversight on companies and thier practices and for local goverments to stop giving huge tax breaks to non industrial businesses unless they are local. Wal-Marts should not get a free cut on their property taxes for example but I can understand how a small community would make this choice for a factory since the jobs could literally double its yearly income. Of course the same could be said for Wal-Marts too. Catch 22 I guess but I still think more localized economies are friendlier to the workers.

Lobyists should be eliminated from goverment. Politicians should have to follow SEC (college basketball) rules. No cars, no gifts, you step up to play ball with the shirt on your back and you get payed the same as any other public servant. This would be hard to enforce but I think it would make the difference and change the paradigm of politics. It seems whoever has the best looking ads and the biggest jet wins the elections anyway, if lobyists where eliminated then we would all be sure the guy with any jet at all was sucking the proverbial teet. This would help make sure laws are made for the people and not for the companies that can buy a suit and a smile.

More socialization of certain things like higher education, and healthcare is a great idea and would definantly help alleviate the stresses on the lower and middle class (the poor and the getting poor) but really as our system stands now we cannot accurately regulate and control the systems we have in place such as welfare and social security. Property taxes should be eliminated for everyone. Not just the rich as it stands now but everyone. Once you buy a plot and stick a house on it, it shoudl be yours. Thats one of the things we actually did start this country for. Income tax should also be fair for everyone. If you make 5 billion a year and I make 5 thousand you should have to pay 2 billion and I should pay 2 thousand. After that is said and done I should be able to get social support out of your 2 billion to pay for the fact that my 5k won't keep me alive 6 months. Its not about who is stronger or who deserves it more or any of that crap its about SOCIAL WELFARE. Whats good for society. You're 5 billion won't matter much btw if enough people are so poor they will willingly stab you for a 5 dollar bill or if the country you are in falls apart in a social revolution.

World poverty seems to be even more complicated. Is free market capitalism the answer? China seems to be leaning that way and russia has. A more globalized economy? Europe seems to think that helps but many of the so called undeveloped countries don't seem to want that. Might be the kids making tennis shoes thing or it might just be something cultural about not wanting to be assimilated into a globalized market.

Thanks Marcus I'm relatively new on the computer so I screwed up trying the same thing you did   but lets hope they fix it. Dont hold your breath because you cant live without air that long. And Earthfreeze by the time they fix things it'll be hellfreeze   One way is to stop hiring so many in the public sector which by rights should lower taxes at some time but I doubt it.

You have touched on a key issue here... I remember when i used to see people wasting money and recources to help animals, and i would think that those people would be far better off helping poor suffering humans instead!

I realised that it is the wrong way to think. There are so many things we could try to fix, there are so many different priorities and problems, it is not right to just work on the worst things and ignore everything else... What i mean to say is, "to each his own". So if you are passionate about animals, then you should help animals, if you are passionate about helping suffering people overseas, then help those people, if you are passionate about helping suffering people in your own country then do that, so yes, "to each his own" truely defines our path to making the world a better place.

which is what truley counts

well, i don't know what country you're in, but if you're an American voter, you might consider registering at one.org. it's a letter-writing organization (heck, you don't even need to vote or have the right, as long as you live somewhere with congressional representation).

also, i think you bring up many of the major things that could happen to reduce or eliminate poverty. in addition, a lot of the welfare programs we have in place now would work a lot better if they received just a bit more funding and if red tape were cut down for those seeking aid. public agencies in the U.S. at least tend overwhelmingly to be under-staffed, under-funded and overworked.

but the U.S. alone has the power to end extreme poverty globally (by 'alone' i mean that we could do it on our own if we chose to, not that we're the only ones who could). there are a lot of things we could do to make the world a better place. people too easily say there wouldn't be money, but i honestly don't believe that. the very rich don't need to make as much as they do. most of us posting on here don't have have an accurate concept of what 'very rich' means on a practical level. businesses evade taxes. we dump untold billions into funding an offensive military. no, it wouldn't be easy. it wouldn't be cheap. it certainly wouldn't happen over night. but i believe in my heart of hearts we stand at a point in history where we command the power to end poverty, epidemics, and all that. maybe we wouldn't see the end result in our lifetimes, but our kids and grand kids would certainly live in a better world.

the problem is belief. these are things i believe. other people believe in other things. many believe such dreams as mine are impossible. the fact that everyone has the same objections doesn't make those objections anymore valid, only more widely believed. the beliefs that hold us to this lifestyle of mediocrity and inequity are deeply imbedded in our culture, our daily lifestyles, and possibly even in the things we seek to bring about.

i can't help but notice that, here in the U.S. at least, the dissenters are more often people who've had some trauma in their life. sometimes it's being born on the less-priveledged side of race, gender, etc. sometimes it's just bad luck, and it's not a guarantee. but what seems to be the case to me is that being born into more economic affluence makes people selfish and short-sighted. i believe little will change until the culture changes, until people's beliefs change. that view certainly makes me an idealist, and i guess i'm like Weber in that respect (see The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).

This might be deviating from whats currently being discussed right now, but do you think that poverty should be measured more as a function of income or standard of living? Because taking one or the other into account would yield significantly different rates in the United States vs. Canada and the EU

As for alleviating poverty...

As an American, I strongly believe that a system of universal healthcare would do wonders in terms of helping those on the lower and middle rungs of society who currently are uninsured or underinsured and just dont know it. Things have gotten so bad that 50% of personal bankruptcies result from unexpected events of a medical nature and the subsequent failure to pay for them.

It's pathetic that according to the 2004 UN HDI, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba (that's not to say that Cuba isn't a dirt-poor totalitarian regime, but imo that makes this fact even sadder). We're the richest country in the world, but are 8th in terms of standard of living.

in at least one of my sociology classes, my professor said her preferred definition for class is hinged on "life chances," i.e., the chances you'll do ________ given your circumstances at birth. "_________" can be anything from "have indoor plumbing" to "go to college" to "live past the age of 50." i think that's a very good definition because it goes a little past 'standard of living,' which doesn't tend to focus on changes throughout an invidiual's lifetime.



we also use the death penalty more frequently than China or the Soviet Union ever did.



this doesn't even account for the number of people who refuse to declare bankruptcy (or under the new, stricter laws, don't qualify) and struggle through their entire lives with these debts - never being able to qualify a mortgage or even an auto loan. nice, huh?

mm even if this is true why should anyone care.... these governments also just made their own people disappear by the millions.... without Trial... who needs a death penalty when you can kill with imputnity!

why should people care that the U.S. openly kills more of its own people than any other developed country? oh that's easy, it's called decency.

you're right, though, to a degree. however, the U.S. has also killed with impunity and is still doing so. you think the McCarthy era didn't see people just disappear without due process?

we should care because we like to tout ourselves as leaders of the modern world, yet so much of what we do is pretty damnably barbaric.

you can call it indecency if ya want.... but I wont..... the only way you can stop someone from ever killing again is to kill that person. There is no such thing as life with out possiblity of parole.



I don t believe anyone disappeared during that time, nor if they had it wasn t near the same levels as the Soviets or the Chinese did. Now if you want to say it ruined lives unjustly I ll agree to that... but some of the people that are now considered victims such as the Rosenbergs were really were guilty of treason.

Yeah I m barbaric I don t speak Latin!

I don't think the American federal government is in controll of the death penalty,,, it is a state issue is it not? which is kinda weird, since you would think that life and death might qualify as being more important than state rights??

Meh its kind of off topic but I cant pass up a chance to talk about the death penalty. I like to use the village example even if it doesn't exactly fit. You live in a village 100 years ago. Someone in your village raped and killed 10 other people in your village. If you ban them from the village you still have to expect them to come back in the night and kill more, perhaps everyone. If you lock them in the local jail they may escape and even if they do not you will have to feed and shelter them even in the coldest of winters and during the worst droughts. OR you can throw them off a cliff. I personally would throw them off the cliff. Sure that is a micro example but many of the points apply to any country. Do we pay for life without parole? Do my taxes go to someone who needs assistance or to the guy who slaughtered 20 people in a drunken rage so he can eat 3 squares and have a comfortable cot and a tv and a pool and a good walk around the yard maybe some exercise equipment and of course books and college degree he will never use...
Of course economically is it really good practice to try to rehabilitate any rapist or murderer? How many chances at rehabilitation should they get? Perhaps I might feel differently if our prisons where not already overcrowded and underfunded though. Our prison system is definantly broken. I am not even sure if they are meant to rehabilitate or punish criminals but from all the guards I have known and talked to its really about baby sitting and nothing else. I might not care about lock em up and throw away the key if the keys where not so damn expensive and the cage was not so comfortable. Don't misunderstand though. My point is not that prisons should be more hellish its that the more hellish criminals should logically be exterminated for the betterment of everyone including the unfortunant check bouncer or drug addict who needs to be rehabilitated in jail but doesn't need the psycho baby killer in there with them either.

The Death penalty is a state right issue yes.



I disagree.

HMMMMMM? and people call me barbaric. refering to earthfaze  I dont know how to quote sections in a statement.