Capitalism
Correct. The longer version is that those who benefit most from the current system, a tiny minority, have outsized political power, and have managed to avoid policies which would clearly benefit the whole of society at the cost of some of their wealth.
Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?
Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?
Yes, of course. But in this case, it is one which gives provably non-optimum results. No opinion required, except on values.
Private insurance companies have to charge premiums to create profit. Paying into any insurance means you are paying for someone else's meds. Pharmacare is a non-profit single-payer insurance program.
It seems to me that for ideological reasons people on the left tend to support establishing new public insurance programs and for ideological reasons people on the right tend to oppose establishing new public insurance programs. In Canada I think there is a clear ideological divide on the issue of Pharmacare whereby the centre-left parties, the NDP, GPC, LPC, and BQ, tend to support establishing a new Pharmacare program and the right of centre parties, the CPC and PP’s tend to oppose a new Pharmacare program. I think most Canadians see this ideological divide.
Yes, but the evidence is clear that public insurance is always better and cheaper than private because there is no profit added on to the actual costs of administering the insurance, which is a well understood and easily managed task. A cost benefit analysis will always favour public over private insurance.
So why doesn’t universal public insurance cover areas such as pharmaceuticals, dental, optometry, and home care?
Because it benefits people over profits. That's why the Liberal's plan is just for people who don't have private insurance which isn't pharmacare. As long as people with more money are paying into the private system then "pharmacare" is just covering the drugs of people who can't afford private insurance.
When medicare came in many doctors and hospitals supported it and still do because bills went unpaid. Pharmaceuticals, dental, optometry, and home care are profit generators because if you don't have the money you don't get the treatment. They get the money upfront. Doctors and hospitals couldn't not treat someone while they are having a heart attack and people could run out of coverage while in the hospital and unable to leave.
Government is getting more involved in home care because old people are taking up hospital beds but can't just be released into the street to wander about confused or weak without any money.
Hospitals and many government programs cover pharmaceuticals so a single buyer makes sense. Insurance companies like it too as it lowers their costs not their profits. Pharmacare puts them out of business in a key area that sells their coverage.
Optometry won't be covered any time soon because it too is a profit generator with little to no risk of being left unpaid.
We are in a topsy turvy world in which the general public is virtually brainwashed to support neoliberalism without even knowing it exists.
Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?
Capitalism (without the quotes) is not an an ideology. It's the economic system which developed as a result of the end of feudalism and technological advances which made possible mass production and labour and resource mobility. Nobody sat down and wrote a book advocating its adoption. Adam Smith for example was just describing what was already in place.
On the other hand there is an ideology of "capitalism" which was developed as a reaction to Marxism, but this came much later.
I think that capitalism is an ideology started by people in power to justify their actions. Capitalism is the system that resulted from the British Lords stealing the commons and forcing the people into factory towns while at the same time saying they personally could not be held responsible for the actions of their companies, beyond the amount of their investment.
ideology
n.
A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?
Yes, of course. But in this case, it is one which gives provably non-optimum results. No opinion required, except on values.
What difference is their between “ideologies” and “values?” I think they are greatly synonymous.
There's been a subtle shift in the use of "ideology" in popular media, pushed by "centrist" types. These days it's often used as synonymous with "dogma", an ideology slavishly and religiously adhered to at the expense of common sense – with the natural inference that only self-proclaimed "non-ideological" types, the Liberal Party people who believe in nothing but their own power, are truly enlightened and pragmatic.
We are in a topsy turvy world in which the general public is virtually brainwashed to support neoliberalism without even knowing it exists.
I think many people generally support neo-liberalism/ capitalism because they feel that it creates a great amount of wealth. I think that there is a lot to be said for that opinion. That’s why I generally support a mixed economy where capitalism and socialism are melded to offset the others weaknesses.
Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?
Yes, of course. But in this case, it is one which gives provably non-optimum results. No opinion required, except on values.
What difference is their between “ideologies” and “values?” I think they are greatly synonymous.
Ideologies are built as philosophical structures on the foundation of a set of values. In this case, the values behind capitalism are self interest and greed. The values behind socialism and other non-capitalist alternatives are empathy and sharing. I know which set of values I prefer, and I don't need a logical argument to make my choice.
Ideologies are built as philosophical structures on the foundation of a set of values. In this case, the values behind capitalism are self interest and greed. The values behind socialism and other non-capitalist alternatives are empathy and sharing. I know which set of values I prefer, and I don't need a logical argument to make my choice.
Even though you don’t need a logical argument to support socialism, your argument in support of socialism is logical. : )
Dr. Helena Jaczek, Ontario Liberal MPP between 2007-2018, who was also a cabinet minister, is running for the Liberal nomination in Markham-Stouffville:
https://globalnews.ca/news/5478902/helena-jaczek-markham-stouffville/
Former Wilson-Raybould staffer running for PPC in Vancouver Granville
What's that saying... "politics makes for strange bedfellows".
It also shows that JWR has hired right-winger staffers in the past, and isn't as progressive as she claims.
It also shows that JWR has hired right-winger staffers in the past, and isn't as progressive as she claims.
She was a Liberal cabinet minister that means she is definitely not a progressive. She was an unforgiving prosecutor who made no friends among advocacy groups on the Downtown Eastside.
But she was so pure of heart when she went after Trudeau!
It also shows that JWR has hired right-winger staffers in the past, and isn't as progressive as she claims.
I honestly hope ideological lockstep never becoems a requirement for hiring constituency assistants. I know I probably hope in vain.
But in anyc ase, if you read the article, you will see that it proves nothing one way or the other about Wildon-Raybould's political beliefs. (It does prove that one of her constituency assistants thought she was not a good constituency MP, which i can easily believe.)
But in anyc ase, if you read the article, you will see that it proves nothing one way or the other about Wildon-Raybould's political beliefs. (It does prove that one of her constituency assistants thought she was not a good constituency MP, which i can easily believe.)
I entirely agree. And I think drawing attention to and focusing on some minor flaw (if it even is a flaw) really detracts from the big issues. JWR encouraged Vancouver City Council to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism (thankfully they haven't), thus showing herself to be an enemy of the Palestinian people and their legal and human rights. I'd rather we keep talking about things like that - as well as her actions and inactions as minister (re Meng Wanzhou, Hassan Diab, etc.). Who knows, maybe she'll hear, listen, take to heart, and change.
It also shows that JWR has hired right-winger staffers in the past, and isn't as progressive as she claims.
I honestly hope ideological lockstep never becoems a requirement for hiring constituency assistants. I know I probably hope in vain.
But in anyc ase, if you read the article, you will see that it proves nothing one way or the other about Wildon-Raybould's political beliefs. (It does prove that one of her constituency assistants thought she was not a good constituency MP, which i can easily believe.)
I did scan the article before I posted it.
There are other reasons to indicate she is a conservative:
1) It was reported earlier this year that JWR tried to get Trudeau to appoint a more conservative Justice to the Supreme Court but he chose someone more liberal instead.
2) One of JWR's former legal colleagues has been on Twitter this year regularly posting about her conservative inclinations during the time when he worked with her.
Indigenous rights activists like Arthur Manuel considered her a right wing politicians in First Nations terms. Indigenous sovereignist see the treaty process as an extinquishment process designed to strip future generations of their inherent aboriginal rights which are sui generis and do not belong to this generation to extinguish .
She is only considered liberal by white people because she is a strong indigenous woman, not because of her views or world outlook.
She is only considered liberal by white people because she is a strong indigenous woman, not because of her views or world outlook.
Agree. Her being offended by being offere the Indigenous Affairs portfolio because she did not abide with having to preside over the hateful Indian Act was certainly spun as progressive bona fides. It never accounted for the fact that her spouse has benefited from numerous consultancy contracts from that same offensive department over the years.
Liberals have chosen Taleeb Noormohamed as their candidate for Vancouver Granville:
Yvonne Hanson is the NDP candidate.
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/08/09/liberals-candidate-vancouver-granville/
There are, as Unionist says, many reasons to call her conservative rather than progressive. (If she was a progressive, she woud likely have picked the NDP rather than the Liberals in any case.)
But an article saying that one of her former constituency assistants is now a Bernier-acolyte is not proof she's conservative. I think it is important to keep contituency offices focussed on serving constituents, not require ideological purity tests. Again this is part of what's wrong with our hyper-partisan politics and constant demands for loyalty oaths to our own "team."
I think that an NDP MP would have a hard time hiring a neo-con to do anything in a constituency office. How can one employ someone whose ideological believe includes the total lack of empathy for any one in need.
I'd like to suggest that we've reached consensus on where Philpott and Wilson-Raybould should go:
They should go...away.
Just...away.
Why? They're more honest politicians than the prime minister and most of those in parliament.... I'd much prefer that Trudeau and Scheer and Berneir went away.
JWR & Philpott are not the paragons of virtue they have made themselves out to be.
Their actions, particularly those of JWR, are very self-seeking.
Not paragons, of course not. Just more honest than the prime minister & most of parliament.
Why? They're more honest politicians than the prime minister and most of those in parliament.... I'd much prefer that Trudeau and Scheer and Berneir went away.
How about having all five of them go away? If nothing else it's time to give up on the idea of trying to recruit Philpott and Wilson-Raybould to the NDP, since they are clearly sharply to the party's right and have nothing to offer the party.
Not sure about PHILPOT, Ken, but I agree with you abt Raybould. There was little progressive and much reactionary about her career both as Minister of Justice and as a prosecutor before that.
much like Kamala Harris, A’s is now being more thoroughly exposed.
Not sure about PHILPOT, Ken, but I agree with you abt Raybould. There was little progressive and much reactionary about her career both as Minister of Justice and as a prosecutor before that.
much like Kamala Harris, A’s is now being more thoroughly exposed.
Those who read the Bay Area Guardian(the main Left paper in the SF-Oakland area for many years) knew about how horrible Harris was by the early Nineties, and possibly the late Eighties.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act, ethics commissioner finds.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-snc-ethics-commissioner-violated-code-1.5246551
Wilson-Raybould's statement on ethics commissioner's finding: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/read-jody-wilson-rayboulds-full-statement-on-the-ethics-ruling-on-the-snc-lavalin-affair
Jody Wilson-Raybould’s Book Shows-Again-She Is Not Just Another Politician
https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2019/09/23/Jody-Wilson-Raybould-Book-Not-Just-Another-Politician/
Been out doing some canvassing for Yvonne Hanson, the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Granville. According to Yvonne's campaign manager (who is a close personal friend), the Liberals are pouring money/resources into Vancouver-Granville in a bid to defeat JWR. From what he's heard, Liberal candidate Taleb Noormohamed has 10 paid staffers working on his campaign, and has commissioned multiple riding-level polls.
LT
With Singh surging any chance of winning that seat!
LT
With Singh surging any chance of winning that seat!
Here's where they'd be starting from:
LT
With Singh surging any chance of winning that seat!
Here's where they'd be starting from:
The NDP will almost certainly get more than the 7.7% from the September 24 poll, because Yvonne has been running a strong campaign. Unfortunately we're not seeing enough of an uptick in NDP support to be confident that the NDP could win.
Yvonne is getting more of a positive response than would be expected based on the riding polls. In particular, because Yvonne is a climate activist on the left of the NDP, she's appears to be having success reaching out to left-of-NDP folks who don't usually vote. At the same time we're getting a lot of voters who are either saying they will vote Liberal, or who are simply taking our flyer without giving any indication of how they will vote. And the Liberals seem to have the most signs in the riding.
We're not getting that many voters indicating they will vote for JWR or the Conservatives. With JWR, this may indicate declining support; with the Conservatives, this could be because we have not canvassed in the polls that the Conservatives won in 2015. Also should be noted that the Conservatives appear to be running a weak campaign.
The Green Party is running a paper candidate who is not campaigning in the riding, and is just there so the Greens can have a candidate in every riding. EMay has openly supported JWR, and the Greens are concentrating their Metro Vancouver efforts on Vancouver East.
LT
With Singh surging any chance of winning that seat!
Here's where they'd be starting from:
The NDP will almost certainly get more than the 7.7% from the September 24 poll, because Yvonne has been running a strong campaign. Unfortunately we're not seeing enough of an uptick in NDP support to be confident that the NDP could win.
Yvonne is getting more of a positive response than would be expected based on the riding polls. In particular, because Yvonne is a climate activist on the left of the NDP, she's appears to be having success reaching out to left-of-NDP folks who don't usually vote. At the same time we're getting a lot of voters who are either saying they will vote Liberal, or who are simply taking our flyer without giving any indication of how they will vote. And the Liberals seem to have the most signs in the riding.
We're not getting that many voters indicating they will vote for JWR or the Conservatives. With JWR, this may indicate declining support; with the Conservatives, this could be because we have not canvassed in the polls that the Conservatives won in 2015. Also should be noted that the Conservatives appear to be running a weak campaign.
The Green Party is running a paper candidate who is not campaigning in the riding, and is just there so the Greens can have a candidate in every riding. EMay has openly supported JWR, and the Greens are concentrating their Metro Vancouver efforts on Vancouver East.
Are Conservative voters going for JWR just to stick it to Trudeau?
Are Conservative voters going for JWR just to stick it to Trudeau?
Some may, though I havn't seen any indication one way or the other. Worth noting that the Conservative vote in this riding mostly leans either very wealthy or very zionist. This riding includes both the Shaugnessy neighbourhood (old-school mansions), and the only notable concentration of Vancouver's Jewish community in the Oakridge neighbourhood (which also includes the Jewish Community Centre). The Oakridge polls went most heavily Conservative in 2015, and we havn't canvassed either there or Shaugnessy.
I think that a Singh led NDP will at least hold its 27% of the vote from the last election and it is not inconceivable that this riding could be won with not much more than a 30% NDP vote.
The NDP could win with 27%, the Cons at 26% and Libs and JWR virtually tied with 23%.
I think that a Singh led NDP will at least hold its 27% of the vote from the last election and it is not inconceivable that this riding could be won with not much more than a 30% NDP vote.
The NDP could win with 27%, the Cons at 26% and Libs and JWR virtually tied with 23%.
I would hope you're right, especially given how strong of a candidate Yvonne is.
That said, I don't know if I entirely share your optimism. The riding-polls seem to indicate that much of the Liberals 2015 vote is sticking with the Liberals, and that JWR picked up a lot of support from the NDP. The strong ground game the NDP has going in the riding has likely reversed much of the bleeding, but I don't know if it will be enough to win. And I really don't expect the Conservatives to get as high as 26% in this riding.
That said, if Jagmeet Singh/NDP truly are surging, then the riding-polls would already be out of date and all bets could be off.
Ask Jagmeet to hold a rally in the riding if he can
Found out today that JWR is also running hard in Vancouver-Granville; she is spending the maximum allowable amount, and has the most volunteers of any candidate in the Riding (though many of these live outside the riding). Liberals also spending the maximum, although it looks as though Teleb has fewer volunteers than JWR (possibly even fewer volunteers than Yvonne).
Yvonne has more volunteers than the NDP would have in this riding if they were running a more traditional candidate; but her campaign is underfunded -- her only staff are a campaign manager and two poll-cats -- because many of the establishment NDP types who have more money to give don't want to pony up for a more radical candidate (that plus the high cost of office rent in this riding).
Ask Jagmeet to hold a rally in the riding if he can
Jagmeet will be at Granville Island this Monday morning -- located in Vancouver Centre -- at an annual event called the Turkey Trot (10k run). He'll be making an announcement, and has invited Yvonne and Vancouver Centre candidate Breen Ouellette to join him. Jagmeet's handlers are hoping he will get mobbed again the way he did at Ryerson.
There is also a large rally with Jagmeet at the Vogue Theatre -- also in Vancouver Centre -- on Satruday, October 19 at 12:30 PM. It's being billed as "Jagmeet Rocks Vancouver". All of the Vancouver area candidates have been invited to appear onstage with Jagmeet at the rally.
Wonderful and thanks for the info
..
