# Successful economic recovery



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I know how much people love to complain about economic problems, so I'm sure people here at CMF will be equally happy at the reverse: the Canadian economy has been enormously successful under the Trudeau government.

Bloomberg writes about how strongly Canadian jobs have come back:

_The nation created 886,000 new jobs in 2021, a record year. After losing 3 million jobs at the start of the pandemic, *employment is now 240,500 above where it was in February 2020. In the U.S., employment is still almost 3 million below that mark. *_​​_Commodities have also been doing well, helping to fuel national income. Yet, analysts also worry about the soundness of the recovery, which has relied on a surge in housing and one of the largest fiscal expansions (and increases in central bank balance sheets) anywhere._​​
Overall the powerful bounce back, and employment above the level at the start of the pandemic, seems to give the Bank of Canada more leeway to tighten than the US Federal Reserve.

I can't wait to read all the celebratory responses from CMF people who are happy and grateful that our economy + job picture is so great. Frankly if you can't be happy about this, you'll probably never be happy about the economy -- ever.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The economic strength is the measure of how well the government led us through the pandemic.

Inflation is temporary and will abate when the supply chains shake out the kinks, but we still need to learn the lessons of the pandemic.

More PPE and drugs made in Canada. More money spent on healthcare solutions and a revamp of social services collectively under one program benefit.

Forward progress is made one step at a time.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Yet Canadians are at an all-time low about how optimistic they are about their own situation for the next 5 years.


















How People Around the World Feel About Their Economic Prospects


In many of the world's largest economies, including the U.S., Germany, and China, optimism around economic prospects sits at an all-time low.




www.visualcapitalist.com


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

Aside from the jobs numbers, I'd be more curious about the median salary of Canadians right now. If someone was an airline Captain before covid, and now they are shoveling rock, it would show up in the statistics that a job was not lost.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our SIL's biggest challenge at the moment is hiring skilled workers in Alberta. He has projects on the go from Calgary to Ft. Mac.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

What if the jobs suck?

Also, what's the population increase from February 2020? Maybe the employment rate is still below pre-pandemic levels?

If the economy is so great, shouldn't goods be plentiful and affordable?

It remains to be seen if I'm even getting a 5% raise, but real inflation is far higher than 5%. Housing is up 30%, so getting an extra 5% is like pissing in the wind. The wealthy might qualify for a million dollar mortgage, but regular people sure as hell can't.

What I see is a fake economy built on house-flipping, renovations and mountains of debt. That's how they planned it, after all.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> What I see is a fake economy built on house-flipping, renovations and mountains of debt. That's how they planned it, after all.





james4beach said:


> _Commodities have also been doing well, helping to fuel national income. *Yet, analysts also worry about the soundness of the recovery, which has relied on a surge in housing and one of the largest fiscal expansions (and increases in central bank balance sheets) anywhere*_


Bingo

Lots of jobs rotating by the sounds of it. Air force got their pilots back from the airliners for example

We need to add some value to our commodities


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The economy is changing. Seems to me there used to be many jobs between service industry and those that required a skill or training. Not so many now with manufacturing going offshore. 

Trend seems to be increasingly towards a knowledge based economy.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Trudeau has killed business investment here even before the pandemic. Our phony economy is people working for or supported by the govt, some resource exports and the huge % of gdp in housing leading to the 2nd largest housing bubble in the world. Once they start raising interest rates look for gdp to fall off a cliff.

" The *growth rate of business investment* in Canada from *2015-2019* — before the COVID-19 pandemic hit — *was lower than in almost every other period since 1970*, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute.

*Canada’s growth rate of 11.6%* from 2015-19, *was well below the average achieved by comparable industrialized countries* belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, *which averaged 19.6%, and the United States at 19.7%*, according to the study, _An International Comparison of Capital Expenditures_ .

“Business investment is critically important because of its effects on economic growth and higher living standards for workers, but lately, *Canada has experienced some of the lowest growth rates in 50 years*,” said study co-author Steven Globerman, in a release accompanying the report.

Record low business investment threatens standard of living: Report | Toronto Sun


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

nathan79 said:


> What if the jobs suck?
> 
> Also, what's the population increase from February 2020? Maybe the employment rate is still below pre-pandemic levels?
> 
> ...


Well put. I'm willing to bet many average Canadians would have a similar take.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yet Canadians are at an all-time low about how optimistic they are about their own situation for the next 5 years.


Great chart, and it IMO simply shows that people expect globalization to continue.
If we fully globalize and equalize it's obvious that the averages in a low income area will go up, and in a high income area they'll go down,, or at least not go up as much.

This is the actual objective of the globalists and their desire for a massive wealth transfer from rich countries. 

I don't think political leaders (in general) are at all interested in helping people at the lower end, as that is much more difficult than simple wealth redistribution.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

james4beach said:


> I know how much people love to complain about economic problems,
> ...
> 
> Frankly if you can't be happy about this, you'll probably never be happy about the economy -- ever.


Excellent forecast. Spot on.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

nathan79 said:


> What if the jobs suck?
> 
> It remains to be seen if I'm even getting a 5% raise, but real inflation is far higher than 5%. Housing is up 30%, so getting an extra 5% is like pissing in the wind. The wealthy might qualify for a million dollar mortgage, but regular people sure as hell can't.
> 
> What I see is a fake economy built on house-flipping, renovations and mountains of debt. That's how they planned it, after all.


I honestly think they are scared to raise interest rates as it will collapse their phony housing economy. They know people have a lot of their wealth in their houses which is providing a phony sense of security and fueling consumption growth w other financings ie HELOCs etc. It would lead to a recession here similar to the US's in 2008 though far less severe.

Libs know a Liberal made in Canada recession would be a disaster for them at the polls. As the US raises rates, I could see them holding pat and letting the $ tank instead which people will still struggle w a lower standard of living from more inflation but they can blame supply chain issues and everyone else for it.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

I read a story that actually said Canada may lead the world in raising interest rates. Yeah right. Canada is reactive, not proactive and rates will not go up here until after the US makes the first move. The rates need to go up and let the chips fall where they may with the phony housing economy. They have nothing left to counter the next recession except more money printing, so if the economy is so great, quit stalling on raising the cost money.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

diharv said:


> I read a story that actually said Canada may lead the world in raising interest rates. Yeah right. Canada is reactive, not proactive and rates will not go up here until after the US makes the first move. The rates need to go up and let the chips fall where they may with the phony housing economy. They have nothing left to counter the next recession except more money printing, so if the economy is so great, quit stalling on raising the cost money.


I'm not sure, Canada has an exceptionally good public service by most standards.

Historically they've been non-partisan.

I agree that rates need to go up, but a "let the chips fall where they may" isn't responsible. This needs to be done, but in a measured way that gives appropriate time for adaptation.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Trudeau has pretty much screwed everyone under 40 and future unborn generations. Inflating the Can buck is pretty much the only way to service the debt. My grand kids will be washing American peoples windshields. I don't think O'Toole would do any better. Sad state but it seems to be what voters want.
Any serious change will be too little too late.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

diharv said:


> I read a story that actually said Canada may lead the world in raising interest rates. Yeah right.


I am conflicted on this matter. I do agree with the posts above that raising rates could crater Canada's phony house flipping / mortgage economy.

Maybe we'll get some insight into this, this week. The Bank of Canada is expected to raise rates this Wednesday January 26, and it's believed they may do this before the Federal Reserve does.

If the BoC really does this, I think they would be the first western country to raise rates. I'll believe it when I see it, and wake me up when the BoC rate hits 1%.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I am conflicted on this matter. I do agree with the posts above that raising rates could crater Canada's phony house flipping / mortgage economy.


Yes, which is what's holding them back.
One big difference between Canada and the US is our anti-Housing policy, which has left us susceptible, particularly with our short lock in tims.
The US deduction for mortgage interest encourages debt, but they also have rate lock ins for >5years.



> Maybe we'll get some insight into this, this week. The Bank of Canada is expected to raise rates this Wednesday January 26, and it's believed they may do this before the Federal Reserve does.
> 
> If the BoC really does this, I think they would be the first western country to raise rates. I'll believe it when I see it, and wake me up when the BoC rate hits 1%.


I think they'll have to raise rates, we need it, also it will be the kick for everyone to start shaping up.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I am conflicted on this matter. I do agree with the posts above that raising rates could crater Canada's phony house flipping / mortgage economy.


It needs to be cratered! There is no reason houses in Canada (2nd largest country in the world and 1 of the top 5 tree producers in the world) are high....ridiculous...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> It needs to be cratered! There is no reason houses in Canada (2nd largest country in the world and 1 of the top 5 tree producers in the world) are high....ridiculous...


It needs to be brought down to earth in a reasonable manner.
If there were enough housing options to stop bidding wars, that would help.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Eder said:


> Trudeau has pretty much screwed everyone under 40 and future unborn generations. Inflating the Can buck is pretty much the only way to service the debt. My grand kids will be washing American peoples windshields. I don't think O'Toole would do any better. Sad state but it seems to be what voters want.
> Any serious change will be too little too late.


Nailed it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> Trudeau has pretty much screwed everyone under 40 and future unborn generations. Inflating the Can buck is pretty much the only way to service the debt. My grand kids will be washing American peoples windshields. I don't think O'Toole would do any better. Sad state but it seems to be what voters want.
> Any serious change will be too little too late.


The thing is the <40 is voting for Trudeau.
I'll admit, if you don't know how things work, and don't understand the problems in his "good sounding" ideas, of course you'll vote for him.
That's why they're trying to float the idea of lowering the voting age, the lack of understanding makes their plan sound like a good idea.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The thing is the <40 is voting for Trudeau.
> I'll admit, if you don't know how things work, and don't understand the problems in his "good sounding" ideas, of course you'll vote for him.
> That's why they're trying to float the idea of lowering the voting age, the lack of understanding makes their plan sound like a good idea.


They really are.

Because the younger generation is a bunch of snowflakes. They want to feel good about themselves and pat themselves on the back. They just don't understand the harm they are causing to themselves.

All the young people I work with vote Liberal or NDP and it blows my mind.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Because the younger generation is a bunch of snowflakes. They want to feel good about themselves and pat themselves on the back. They just don't understand the harm they are causing to themselves.
> 
> All the young people I work with vote Liberal or NDP and it blows my mind.


I think it's more with a lack of perspective. 

They actually think their feelings are the big issues that need to be dealt with.
Which to be fair are likely the biggest problems they've ever experienced, because they have an overly coddled existance.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I had this conversation with my younger brothers a couple months back.

It became clear to me that the younger generation feels so out of touch with reality and they feel so overwhelmed and defeated, they just want more social aid.

They feel they can't ever make it in this world, so why keep voting for the right? Why vote for capitalism? They are already screwed.

It is clear they just feel like it's such an uphill battle, all they want is the government to take care of them, because it's too daunting to start working hard for nothing at this point.

And you know what? I can't even blame them. If I was them, why not vote NDP? How can it get much worse for them? Let's be real. I would probably vote NDP if I was in their shoes, too. Can't get blood from a stone and you can't hurt the people who already have nothing.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> It is clear they just feel like it's such an uphill battle, all they want is the government to take care of them, because it's too daunting to start working hard for nothing at this point.


I am simultaneously glad that they've had it so easy, yet also so sad that they feel they're working for nothing.



> And you know what? I can't even blame them. If I was them, why not vote NDP? How can it get much worse for them?


I think that's the really telling point.
When people say "how much worse can it get", it shows how clueless they are.

They totally lack perspective.
They have it really good by almost every objective standard, and even a basic understanding of history, or even current events shows that it can easily get so much worse.

I'm glad that they have such a secure and safe and wonderful life that they literally can't think of it getting worse.
Unfortunately that causes them not to appreciate what they have.



> .... and you can't hurt the people who already have nothing.


They have so much, yet they think they have nothing.
They have food, education, safety, security.

Maybe they should watch "Slumdog millionaire", then talk about how they "have nothing", and it "couldn't get worse".
How many of them say such ridiculous things with Starbucks in one hand and an iPhone in the other?

I think your post describing their situation and mindset shows how out of touch with reality they really are, unfortunately I don't know how to help them get a grip.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

We know two things.

1) Capitalism has a lot of problems but compared to any of the other economic systems, from our past, it creates the most economic output, but for it to work, the benefit of that output cannot be shared equally.
2) Wealth under capitalism, is simply the difference between the rich and the poor. If everything was equally shared, nothing would be worth very much and more importantly, we would not have as much of anything to share equally.

So with all that in mind, one not only needs to figure out a plan to get ahead on their own, but more importantly, part of the plan must recognize that life is a competition with the others around you, and for you to prosper you need to do better then the others around you. You cannot prosper the same as others. 

Those two points also illustrate that since wealth cannot be equally shared, since the sharing of it actually reduces its value, and more importantly its abundance, it should also illustrate the futility of hoping that some government can come along and allocate a portion of someone else's wealth to you and when completed, you will somehow be better off. You won't, unless it is only given to you and not others, which is very unlikely.

Better idea. Quit whining. Learn how our system works. Figure out a plan. Work the plan. Grab your piece of the pie...or become part of someone else's plan. There is no other way. The longer the whining goes on the further behind you will get.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

KaeJS said:


> They really are.
> 
> Because the younger generation is a bunch of snowflakes. They want to feel good about themselves and pat themselves on the back. They just don't understand the harm they are causing to themselves.
> 
> All the young people I work with vote Liberal or NDP and it blows my mind.


I am not young. The opposite. I voted for Trudeau (even though I live in Alberta). 

I did not want to. But my only alternative was voting for a divided Conservative party that is split between Reformers, red Tories, southern Ontario socons, and a few Quebecers. All at odds with each other, all with sharpened knives aimed at the Leader's back. And a Leader who was, and is still focused on flip flopping to hold the party together vs looking forward to what Canadian voters, especially urban voters want.

I truly did not want to vote Liberal. My challenge is that IMHO we have an Opposition Party that is so divided that they are not capable of forming a responsible Government let alone fulfilling their role as an effective Opposition Party.

For me it was either holding my nose and voting Liberal vs voting for that clown car full of Conservatives who cannot seem to agree on any policy for more than five minutes at a time. Many of whom seem to be spending their time blaming each other, sharpening knives, or off trying to gain support for launching their own party or group.

It is no wonder that they have failed to attract any star candidates post Harper and some of the most capable in their midst decided to not to run post Harper. They are left with hangers on.

In my view the sad reality is that the current federal Conservative Party and Leader(s) shoulder the blame for Trudeau's victory, not the under 40 voters.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I voted Liberal because I support their policies. I voted for them the second time because I thought they did a good job of rolling back Harper changes and moving Canada forward. I voted for them the third time because they were doing a good job with the pandemic. I will vote for them again.

Since the Liberals were elected the Conservatives have been unable to produce a coherent set of policies, acceptable to the majority of Canadians.

They complain, they rage, they whine.......but they never say what they would have done or would do differently.

Their ideology of cutting spending on social programs, health care and education to offset lower taxes would have been a disaster.

I think the Conservatives are already in danger of losing their control of Provincial governments, due to their failed ideology.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

You could have chosen to not vote at all...


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> Better idea. Quit whining. Learn how our system works. Figure out a plan. Work the plan. Grab your piece of the pie...or become part of someone else's plan. There is no other way. The longer the whining goes on the further behind you will get.


I so wish we had a harder capitalistic system to drive that point through. The majority of people, should not be living off the bounty of someone else's hard work. Get out and dig your own ditch. Learn to hunt (metaphorically) and support yourself and your family. Not everyone deserves a gold metal.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> We know two things.
> 2) Wealth under capitalism, is simply the difference between the rich and the poor. If everything was equally shared, nothing would be worth very much and more importantly, we would not have as much of anything to share equally.


Sorry #2 is fundamentally wrong.
The definition of wealth is the abundance of valuable possessions or money.
Lets take 2 cases
in one case both people have 1 apple, they are equally wealthy,
in case 2, 1 person has 5 apples, the other has 100 apples. they are both objectively wealthier than the people of case 1.

The thing that most people who are anti capitalist fail to realize is that capitalism creates MORE WEALTH, and often even the poor benefit. 

The wrongful focus on equality, not wealth is part of the problem. 
Now I accept some people think case 1 where everyone has one apple is good, I much prefer case 2 where there are simply more apples.

The reason capitalism works is that if someone goes through the effort to plant that apple tree, they get the apples, they get the fruit of their labour. There are more apples in the world, than if they didn't plant that tree, that is objectively better.
But they can't eat all the apples, so they give them to others for trade, better to get something than nothing for all those exess apples.
In short everyone who participates and does something of value wins under capitalism.

Under other systems they unfortunately destroy the incentive to plant the apple tree and increase wealth.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Sorry #2 is fundamentally wrong.
> The definition of wealth is the abundance of valuable possessions or money.
> Lets take 2 cases
> in one case both people have 1 apple, they are equally wealthy,
> in case 2, 1 person has 5 apples, the other has 100 apples. they are both objectively wealthier than the people of case 1.


If everyone has as many apples as they need then all the apples will be worthless. Having more worthless apples then someone else will not make anyone rich. My definition is correct. You just need to think about it a little more.

It is the desire of other people to want what you have that makes you wealthy...and that is the only thing that makes you wealthy. If no one wants or needs what you have, what do you really have?

Give it some more thought.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

What we have now isn't real capitalism. It's a central bank ponzi scheme designed to inflate the assets of the wealthy and homeowners.

Until that changes there's no future for young people. All they can really do is throw a few pennies into an index fund, but they're already so far behind it won't matter. Save up for 20 years to buy a condo that's smaller than your parents' basement... lol.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

afulldeck said:


> I so wish we had a harder capitalistic system to drive that point through. The majority of people, should not be living off the bounty of someone else's hard work. Get out and dig your own ditch. Learn to hunt (metaphorically) and support yourself and your family. Not everyone deserves a gold metal.


I get tired of all the whining and the sniveling. The accusations and the excuses. 

Canada is not perfect but it is hardly the disaster that some debbie downers like to portray it as. The reality is that there remains abundant opportunity for those who focus on creating and attaining goals through working hard, working smart, etc instead of sitting on their backsides and crying because they cannot figure out how to move forward. Or are too lazy to even bother to try.

For some there will never be a perfect environment but this is hardly the reason to throw up ones hands and become a perennial whiner full of the the 'poor me' attitude.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

As a millenial who has "made it", I think you are wrong.

I think the whining is justified. And I am always a proponent for people working harder. Life is tough for younger folks. It's not tough in the sense they are growing up in Ethiopia, but it is tough to get further behind every year for trying hard. It ruins confidence, motivation, and it kills drive and desire.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I've been very successful but I'm also conscious that it will be harder for those who come after me to repeat my success.

The difference is that things are trending downward. Those who already managed to succeed or are heading in the direction can ride the Ponzi scheme to higher success. As long as the birth/immigration rate keeps enough wage slaves propping up the system and they don't decide to pick up a pitchfork I'll be great. Something will have to give at some point and I figure I'll be alive to see that.

The boomers are pretty much detached from where things are trending in the future because they can already see the sunset.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our daughter and SIL operate several businesses. They are in their mid/late 30's.

All I hear from them talk of is taking advantage of business opportunities and the challenge to get skilled employees and reliable/responsible employees. They have been in expansion mode for several years.

When they complain it is typically about their receivables...slow trade payers or about the challenge in securing product. When business slowed down in one area they proactively searched out opportunities in another area. He often works 12 hrs day, 7 days because he has so many projects on the go.

Our son moved across the country to further his education to enhance his skills and his career opportunities. Not much different that what I did 40 or so years ago. Only the opposite direction to us.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

ian said:


> He often works 12 hrs day, 7 days because he has so many projects on the go.


And they wonder why nobody in their right mind wants to work for them?

There's lots of opportunity. I am financially independent at their age and sacrificed a lot to pull that off. I worked 16 hr days for months straight overseas and believe it or not 48hr at times because people literally died. Work life balance will eventually catch up with them and hopefully they can reap the rewards at some point.

Sure everyone can brag about how hard they work. I am just aware that people will have to sacrifice more life for less reward the way the system is trending


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> If everyone has as many apples as they need then all the apples will be worthless


No, it's still an apple, and it still does the job of the apple.

Now if everyone has enough apples, and some have way more than enough, I'd say they're all much wealthier than the person with no apples, who is starving.



> Having more worthless apples then someone else will not make anyone rich. My definition is correct. You just need to think about it a little more.


Again having many apples, or again to use the definition of "rich" - a plentify/abudant supply of apples would make you "rich" at least with respect to apples.



> It is the desire of other people to want what you have that makes you wealthy...and that is the only thing that makes you wealthy. If no one wants or needs what you have, what do you really have?


I disagree with your definition of wealth. My definition of wealth or rich fits very nicely with the dictionary.
Rich - 
having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.
If I have enough apples to fulfil all my apple needs, I am rich in apples.

You could have more apples, and you'd be "relatively wealthier", but that doesn't mean I'm not wealthy myself.
Again my point is that since capitalism creates more wealth, it is a system that is more likely to make more of us wealthy. 
Capitalism doesn't address relative wealth very well. Arguably that's a problem, but I'd rather have the relatively minor problem of a bunch of rich people arguing that some people are richer, than the alternative where almost everyone is poor.



> Give it some more thought.


I have, the answer is you don't share the same definition of wealth.
It sounds like your definition of wealth is "relative wealth", whereas I hold to wealth, or "absolute wealth".

I much prefer the system where even the poor have enough to survive, and in todays modern capitalist world, even our poor are relatively wealthy compared to historic and global standards.

Given the choice between everyone being poor, and no wealth inequaltiy, and everyone being wealthy with lots of wealth inequaltiy, I choose the latter.
There is no workable system which is good at making everyone wealthy without wealth inequality, the reason is that people who are bad at managing wealth will destroy it, not make more. That's why many family fortunes end up disappearing after a a generation or two.
"A staggering *70 percent of wealthy families lose their wealth by the next generation*, with 90 percent losing it the generation after that."


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/5-huge-lies-generational-wealth-181719865.html



Most people who become relatively wealthy EARNED THEIR FORTUNES. They do something useful and people pay them to do so, so they reinvest their energy and wealth to do more of that.
Honestly I want Elon Musk to have billions to push electric cars, he's succeeding and making a profit doing so.
His wealth has been used to make electric cars affordable (or almost affordable), we all benefit from him being stupidly wealthy. Not to mention, people freely give him money, he didn't have to take it from anyone. That's the really big trick in capitalism, it's all consentual.

I want people good at creating wealth to get more tools to build more wealth for all of us to enjoy.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Use Covid induced toilet paper shortage in your analogy. I think Optsy has a point.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

KaeJS said:


> As a millenial who has "made it", I think you are wrong.
> 
> I think the whining is justified. And I am always a proponent for people working harder. Life is tough for younger folks. It's not tough in the sense they are growing up in Ethiopia, but it is tough to get further behind every year for trying hard. It ruins confidence, motivation, and it kills drive and desire.


How is it tough for the younger folks? All I hear is "I can't, I don't have anything" ......"Gerry had it easy and didn't need to work, why should I work that hard?" These are excuses for lack of effort. Time to wake up and dig their own ditch....what else are these folks going to do? We live in a world that requires competition. So compete. You have to fail many times before you succeed- sometimes you have to starve and freeze before you win. Sometime you never do win.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> As a millenial who has "made it", I think you are wrong.
> 
> I think the whining is justified. And I am always a proponent for people working harder. Life is tough for younger folks. It's not tough in the sense they are growing up in Ethiopia, but it is tough to get further behind every year for trying hard. It ruins confidence, motivation, and it kills drive and desire.


Yes, but I think part of that is unrealistic expectations.
Also because of globalization real wage growth has been flat for decades.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> No, it's still an apple, and it still does the job of the apple.
> 
> Now if everyone has enough apples, and some have way more than enough, I'd say they're all much wealthier than the person with no apples, who is starving.
> 
> ...


Give it more thought. You spent a lot of words above trying to get around the fact that I am right.

Wealth is not an amount of money or an accumulation of things. Wealth is having something others want or need.  That is all it is. The rich cannot be rich unless someone else is poorer and needs and wants what they have. The larger the difference in the haves and have nots, the wealthier one is.

I did not invent this and it would be nice if it were not true, but it is. The reason I point it out is too many people do not understand this law of wealth and hence have a hard time accumulating it. Just look at everything you have, that has value, and you will easily visualize many, many people who want it. Now think about all the things you own, that are almost worthless, and we all own too much of that stuff too. Guess what? It is worthless because no one wants it or needs it. Even if it is in high abundance and especially if it is in high abundance, it is still worthless. The desire from others is the only difference between the value of the two items categories, valuable or worthless, that determines how wealthy you are.

This should not be difficult to see. Don't waste time with your dictionaries. Just think about it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Wealth is not an amount of money or an accumulation of things. Wealth is having something others want or need.


You're wrong.
That is not the definition of wealth.



> I did not invent this and it would be nice if it were not true, but it is.


You invented a new definition.



> Don't waste time with your dictionaries. Just think about it.


The reason I mention the definition of the word is to have a discussion. We are talking about different things.
I am talking about wealth, you are talking about something else, but calling it wealth.

Just think about your idea, and please figure out the right term to express it, I'm not saying you need to read a dictionary, but it would be a good place if you want common understanding.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Wealth - an abundance of valuable possessions or money. "he used his wealth to bribe officials"

Apples aren't valuable if nobody wants them because they all have access to apples already. Good luck bribing an official with a truckload of apples.

Paper money is only valuable if somebody actually wants it. Good luck surviving on mars with your fiat


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

My terms are fine Matt. m3s says it pretty much the same way. I think your confusion is you are talking about capitalism and I am talking about wealth. Although they are related they are not the same. The reason I responded to your post is, in your confusion, you said my definition of wealth was wrong. It may not be the definition of everything Capitalism creates but without the desire for wealth, Capitalism is dead. And wealth requires others to want or need what you have. Therefore, an inequality is critical for wealth to be created and since wealth is critical to capitalism, an inequality is therefore critical for both. It's not that both groups, more wealthy and less wealthy, cannot do better. If you create more apples more people can have them and if they did not have them before they will be better off, but not wealthier. An apple, that everyone has as much as they need or want, is almost worthless. It is still something you can consume or use, like all the other worthless stuff we own, but it has very little value and therefore does not constitute wealth.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

KaeJS said:


> All the young people I work with vote Liberal or NDP and it blows my mind.


@Eder @KaeJS @MrMatt 

You do realize that the Conservatives also massively pumped up the real estate market and CMHC, right?

The Conservatives also assisted in bank bail-outs which prevented the housing and mortgage market from cratering. If we had gotten a proper washout in 2008, we might be in a different situation today. In fact the pro-bank stimulus and rescues under Harper probably dramatically suppressed the feeling of risk in Canadian real estate.

Harper made sure that banks never had to feel pain in mortgage lending in the 2008 aftermath, and made sure nobody had to modify their behaviours. This amped up our real estate bubble to new heights.

All parties inflate real estate.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> @Eder @KaeJS @MrMatt
> 
> You do realize that the Conservatives also massively pumped up the real estate market and CMHC, right?


Canada has pursued a flawed "don't build housing" strategy at the provincial/local level for decades, while simultaneously pushing a "buy housing" policy at the federal level, leading to the logical shortfall we have today.
Most other countries don't have governments working against each other as policy, for decades, in a non partisan manner.

The engineered housing crisis is a longstanding non-partisan program, arguably one of the longest standing.

Secondly just because the CPC might be the least bad option at times, doesn't mean I endorse all their actions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> My terms are fine Matt.


Well this is what I'm talking about.

wealth
_noun_
1. an abundance of valuable possessions or money.
2. the state of being rich; material prosperity.
3. plentiful supplies of a particular resource.



> I think your confusion is you are talking about capitalism and I am talking about wealth.


No I think the confusion is I'm talking about wealth, but you're talking about something else and calling it wealth.



> Therefore, an inequality is critical for wealth to be created and since wealth is critical to capitalism,


Nope, I can plant an apple tree and so can my neighbour, then we can both have lots of apples.
If I have an abundance of apples, that's good and it really doesn't matter if my neighbour does or not. 

Now this is where you seem to confuse capitalism and something you call wealth, where it isn't wealth unless it's traded. 
I'm not really concerned about capitalism, it's simply a means to an end. 

I want more wealth for EVERYONE, and Capitalism simply happens to be the best system we've devised to support that objective. Give me a better system and I'll support it today.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Nope, I can plant an apple tree and so can my neighbour, then we can both have lots of apples.
> If I have an abundance of apples, that's good and it really doesn't matter if my neighbour does or not.


False.
Economics 101.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The engineered housing crisis is a longstanding non-partisan program, arguably one of the longest standing.


Interesting. I never heard this view before.



MrMatt said:


> Secondly just because the CPC might be the least bad option at times, doesn't mean I endorse all their actions.


Fair enough, and I have gripes with all the parties myself.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> False.
> Economics 101.


If 2 people produce a lot of an item, they both have lots of that item, and it's good for them.

You must have failed Econ 101. But feel free to link the the source that says 2 people having lots of stuff is bad for them. I must have slept in that day.

As someone has said, you just have to think about it.
I wonder if the reason so many people seem to have a distaste for wealth is that they have this weird view of what the word actually means.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I think the problem here @MrMatt is that you are talking about national wealth, or what comes from good working capitalism and I am talking about individual wealth. If everyone plants an apple tree it may add to the national wealth or the living standard of the nation but will not make anyone, who actually did it, wealthy. Since that is a requirement to get things produced in a capitalistic society, it is unlikely everyone will plant an apple tree.

Since there would be no chance of wealth if it is produced in over abundance, since that would drive down the price and value of the apples, capitalism will stop short of providing apples for everyone, but will in the end provide more apples then any other economic system.

Wealth is the ability to convince someone else to do something for you or give you something that was there's. It is basically a desire or the opinion of others that provides your wealth. Individual wealth is a critical component of capitalism, that when done properly, provides all those things you are talking about for the nation. All from the desire to become wealthy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada is leading the world in benchmarks of economic health.

The Liberals have done an exceptionally good job directing the economy through the pandemic.

Canada is set for solid economic growth going forward.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Thought experiment. Imagine I am the last person on the planet. Further Imagine that I can arrive in this state with two different sets of circumstances:

1 - I have no resources but my bare hands.

2 - I have a house and a shop building. I have tools and a library of technical books. I have solar panels, batteries, and related infrastructure to have electricity. I have cleared fields. I have a tractor and field implements and can make biodiesel because I grow potatoes (to produce methanol in my still) and canola ( to provide vegetable oil), together which reacts in the appropriate reactor to make biodiesel. You get the general idea.

Most people would argue that the person in scenario 2 has more wealth than the person in scenario 1. Someone here is arguing that by definition the last surviving person on the planet in scenario 2 has no wealth because there is no other person to want it.

Having people around to want what you have is a driver of wealth creation via capitalism, but people having different levels of wealth clearly isn't wealth in and of itself. Wealth isn't like energy where you need a temperature or potential difference to have something valuable.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

hboy54 said:


> Having people around to want what you have is a driver of wealth creation via capitalism, but people having different levels of wealth clearly isn't wealth in and of itself. Wealth isn't like energy where you need a temperature or potential difference to have something valuable.


I am not saying one cannot be happy without wealth. Happiness is a state of mind and if happiness is the definition of wealth then the hermit in the woods, who has everything he needs, may be the richest person on the planet...but he would have very little wealth.

True wealth is determined by others. The wealth I am talking about may or may not make you happy, but it is wealth. Eventually what you can have on your own will be limited by your wealth. Having others do things for you and give you things that are theirs can take your standard of living to a much higher level, if you want it AND more importantly, if you have the wealth to convince those other people to do it for you.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

hboy54 said:


> Thought experiment. Imagine I am the last person on the planet. Further Imagine that I can arrive in this state with two different sets of circumstances:
> 
> 1 - I have no resources but my bare hands.
> 
> ...


 ... with the example you've given, I would agree in the heart of the message. At the same time, neither has wealth IMO since it would be the last person on the planet.

Unfortunuately "people" (even a few where it becomes fortunate) likes to "compare" to see if that "they=selves" are "wealthy", meaning at least 2 persons need to be involved in the heart of your example.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> ... with the example you've given, I would agree in the heart of the message. At the same time, neither has wealth IMO since it would be the last person on the planet.
> 
> Unfortunuately "people" (even a few where it becomes fortunate) likes to "compare" to see if that "they=selves" are "wealthy", meaning at least 2 persons need to be involved in the heart of your example.


I guess some people consider wealth to be something to lord over others with, to exploit, to compare and deem themselves superior. All seems kind of vile to me. I'll stick with my definition where an easier life is had by wealth without regard to whom I can step on in the process.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I don't think having something in your possession, that someone else might actually want, so they will sell you a bag of milk is "lording over others and feeling superior".

I am just trying to help people understand the system we have, so they can prosper in it as opposed to being oppressed by it. I did not invent it. I recognized it and now work within it. Everyone else can as well, but it would help if they understood the true nature of the game or they will find it hard to excel in it. Like most games, someone has to lose. I don't like that part much either but since there is no fix for that, apart from a few regulations, I suggest you play it to win.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> I think the problem here @MrMatt is that you are talking about national wealth, or what comes from good working capitalism and I am talking about individual wealth.


No, I'm specifically talking about individual wealth.



> If everyone plants an apple tree it may add to the national wealth or the living standard of the nation but will not make anyone, who actually did it, wealthy.


I disagree, if everyone has enough apples to eat they wouldn't be starving.



> Since there would be no chance of wealth if it is produced in over abundance, since that would drive down the price and value of the apples, capitalism will stop short of providing apples for everyone, but will in the end provide more apples then any other economic system.


Again I'm talking about wealth, not capitalism.
But yes, I agree that capitalism will create more apples than other systems.



> Wealth is the ability to convince someone else to do something for you or give you something that was there's.


No, that is not the definition of wealth. You keep misusing the word, no wonder you appear confused about what I'm saying.
Please read the actual definition of wealth, I've provided it multiple times, and think on what I'm saying.



> It is basically a desire or the opinion of others that provides your wealth. Individual wealth is a critical component of capitalism, that when done properly, provides all those things you are talking about for the nation. All from the desire to become wealthy.


Again from the way you're using the word "wealth" I think you're referring to something like "relative wealth", and in such linking the concept of wealth to wealth inequalities and the economic incentives that opens up.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out your continued misuse of the world wealth is confusing.

I'll just circle back, I want everyone to have more wealth. I want everyone to have more apples. 
I don't really care about what system is used to make this happen, but history has shown us Capitalism is pretty good at this.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

FYI, if it makes it easier, replace my use of "wealth" with "assets" or "resources"


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Actually, if it makes it easier lets forget about the word entirely and focus on the point I am making. Individual wealth is determined by others. If everyone plants an apple tree in their backyard and are inundated with apples, taking a bag of them to the grocery store is not going to help you buy anything. Sure, people will have plenty to eat, as long as they are happy existing on only apples. If they want a better life then that I suggest they look at what other people really, really want and need, and think about producing some of that.

Call it what you want but you will end up being better off if you spend a little time thinking about the opinions of others and how they value what you are doing, then just going ahead and producing more apples because you think that there is no limit to how many apples the world can use. The more apples the better. Do you really believe that?

Come on. Are we seriously just arguing about the right word for it all? Call it what you want. I have explained how our world works.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Actually, if it makes it easier lets forget about the word entirely and focus on the point I am making. Individual wealth is determined by others.


I understand your point, I think you're wrong.
I think part of the reason is you're using the word wealth for a different concept.

Individual wealth is what you have irrespective of what others have. That's been my point from the beginning.




> If everyone plants an apple tree in their backyard and are inundated with apples, taking a bag of them to the grocery store is not going to help you buy anything.


The fact that you have apples, and the market value of those apples are different.
You're viewing this whole exercise as part of a capitalist market system.




> Sure, people will have plenty to eat, as long as they are happy existing on only apples. If they want a better life then that I suggest they look at what other people really, really want and need, and think about producing some of that.


That only works in capitalism & market economies, in a non market economy producing things that people want won't get you a better life.

I'm looking at ones resources irrespective of the economic system they're in.



> Come on. Are we seriously just arguing about the right word for it all? Call it what you want. I have explained how our world works.


I understand how the word works, but your ideas are confusing, since you insist on using the wrong words to represent ideas. And yes using the rights words is important, I'm trying to understand what you're meaning, but you seem to be thinking of everything in terms of relative "mark to market" valuation. 

I think you're stuck in a very specific relativistic market capitalism view. I do hope you take econ 101, along with some economic theory and such so you can gain a broader perspective on things.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

List of Gilded Age mansions - Wikipedia 

Here is a list of homes of the "wealthiest" people from the gilded age. Allow very lavish and impressive residences, many people of "average wealth" today have houses with superior amenities (heat, air conditioning, TV, internet, etc. to a century ago. Now imagine you were form the wealthiest in society 500 years ago.... or conversely imagine you were from the poorest... The definitions being batted back and forth are somewhat subjective but I do appreciate the discourse as it has been for the most part free of insult which is common on forum boards.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Individual wealth is what you have irrespective of what others have. That's been my point from the beginning.


And that is just plain wrong. If everyone had what you had nothing you have would be worth much. You still have it and can enjoy it but trying to sell it would be very difficult. You would be stuck with precisely where you have. Have you ever tried to sell a bicycle to someone who already has one, that they like and think is better then yours?

Other peoples opinions and desires, which are primarily determined by what they have is critical to your wealth. I have no idea why you cannot see that. God knows I have tried.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Because you are talking about relative wealth vs individual wealth (for example, assets). Using same word to describe different concepts.

Example:
I have a bicycle that has zero market value.
vs: I don't have a bicycle

I think it is hard to argue that it is better to be in the first situation, even though the bicycle adds nothing to your net worth.

And when it comes to original topic, I don't see it at all. Real wages are down, people are more pessimistic than they have ever been about their economic future. Housing makes up for majority of economic growth in last 5 years in Canada, and it is non-producing asset. 
The economy is structurally broken and it appears that current leadership is insisting on creating more problems rather than create solutions.
The best occupations currently are real estate agents and immigration lawyers 😂


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Having the bicycle adds to your well being. Calling that wealth is just an error in your mind trying to explain how happy having that bicycle makes you feel. It is not wealth. The ability to sell the bicycle is where the wealth comes in. That is primarily determined by how badly someone else wants or needs the bicycle.

That may seem like a mute point but it is critical to understanding how important others are to your personal well being. Since it is unlikely everyone is going be just given a bicycle it would be important, if you want a bicycle, to be able to create the wealth to acquire it. Again, your ability to do so will be determined by other people. You have control over it only to the extent you can control the other people.

This means that your wealth is also determined by the comparison of what you have and/or can do compared to what others have and/or can do. For example. One of the dumbest things I have seen in my lifetime, was an employee creating a manual or procedure document to teach others how to do their job, without being forced to do so or asked less then 4 or 5 times. Think about how dumb that really is. We see it all the time. Many times you will be asked to do things like this: "Bob, the last time you were sick we ran into a problem on the production floor, so could you show Joe how to run the XYZ machine". That is not a job you want to rush out and do. When layoff time comes your employer can now easily and more cheaply fire you compared to Joe. What you actually want to do is learn everyone else's job in the company while doing your best to ensure no one figures out yours. Become the most indispensable employee they have.

You see what I mean. Life is a competition between you and other people, whether you like it or not. The most successful will understand this, the less successful will plant apple trees because someone here said that there was no limit to the wealth that can be provided by having more apples. You decide which makes more sense.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Others are only as important as you make them to be.
Competition certainly exists, for example in the workplace, like the example you have given. It doesn't need to exist or define everything in life though.
You can focus on personal well being (what I call wealth, but again, definitions are secondary here)
Or you can focus on relative wealth.
You can be happy that you have a bike.
Or you can be miserable because your neighbor has two or has a better one.

And I think that's where the entire issue arises. People are happier having less in absolute terms but more than their neighbors, than they are having more in absolute terms but less than their neighbor.

Success is also not clearly defined. You can define success as having more than your peers. That is fine.
Some people define success as simply having 'enough'


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> When layoff time comes your employee can now easily and more cheaply fire you compared to Joe. What you actually want to do is learn everyone else's job in the company while doing your best to ensure no one figures out yours. Become the most indispensable employee they have.
> 
> You see what I mean. Life is a competition between you and other people, whether you like it or not. The most successful will understand this, the less successful will plant apple trees because someone here said that there was no limit to the wealth that can be provided by having more apples. You decide which makes more sense.


I agree that life is a competition and the possibility for exploitation and being replaced does exist. Having more skills than others increases job security. Conversely, being unwilling to help others is not a trait I would not find admirable in an employee. It shows that the worker is insecure in his/her own abilities and feels threatened by others. I have seen this as an employer and it often became a deciding factor in not promoting them over others. By training and mentoring others one shows they are capable for more than their current level. It definitely adds value to the company. My approach in hiring was to build a team of competent workers with a positive attitude. Skillsets are easier to teach than to change attitudes of even the most skilled worker. 

If one can do what you have suggested without creating friction or animosity then yes indeed one will be very successful.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

londoncalling said:


> I agree that life is a competition and the possibility for exploitation and being replaced does exist. Having more skills than others increases job security. Conversely, being unwilling to help others is not a trait I would not find admirable in an employee. It shows that the worker is insecure in his/her own abilities and feels threatened by others. I have seen this as an employer and it often became a deciding factor in not promoting them over others. By training and mentoring others one shows they are capable for more than their current level. It definitely adds value to the company. My approach in hiring was to build a team of competent workers with a positive attitude. Skillsets are easier to teach than to change attitudes of even the most skilled worker.
> 
> If one can do what you have suggested without creating friction or animosity then yes indeed one will be very successful.


I did not say announce to the company that you are not willing to help train others.  I am talking about understanding the true nature of the game. Of course you help others with their jobs, when you can. That is how you prove you can do their job as well and learn how to do it even better.

I am just saying that helping a company improve their ability to replace you or reduce the value you provide to the company by providing your own replacement, without being commanded to do so, is a huge success mistake. The reason I posted about it, and it is not the only mistake like this I see, is because it is actually quite common. You see this all the time. I could go on forever and in more situations then just the workplace.

I have said many times, I did not make the rules of this economic system nor do I necessarily like them. I just simply understand them and do my best to prosper. It does help me that others have not figured all this out. Not sure why, but that is what it is. This is only something I talk about on an anonymous forum. No one ever knew my strategies or ever said I was not a company man, but I certainly did not work hard at developing my replacement or reducing the dependency, the company had on me. That is what less successful people do and the unemployed. I trained replacements when I was promoted or I left the company for better opportunities...or when I was asked about 4 or 5 times. I was usually a pretty busy guy, so this was not a difficult issue to explain why it had fallen through the cracks.

Just saying. Take it for what it is worth. You may not like it but it is the way it is.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> I did not say announce to the company that you are not willing to help train others.  I am talking about understanding the true nature of the game. Of course you help others with their jobs, when you can. That is how you prove you can do their job as well and learn how to do it even better.
> 
> I am just saying that helping a company improve their ability to replace you or reduce the value you provide to the company by providing your own replacement, without being commanded to do so, is a huge success mistake. The reason I posted about it, and it is not the only mistake like this I see, is because it is actually quite common. You see this all the time. I could go on forever and in more situations then just the workplace.
> 
> ...


We seem to be in agreement and is why I included the last sentence in my post. I was concerned those reading your post as a how to guide may overlook that the employment world is very complex and that one needs to be helpful but not so helpful that they are easily replaceable, smart but not so smart they become a threat, easy to work with but not a push over, firm but not stubborn etc. etc.

Your comments have value. I don't like that is how the game works but I have managed to play along as well. The current great resignation(it's no longer just minimum wage workers that are opting not to participate in the workplace and is now permeating into higher paying jobs as well) may likely become a reshuffle and some of the nuances of employment will change. Every generation causes a subtle shift to the world of work and it will be interesting to see the longer term outcome of current events on workplace culture and the economy in general. As to the successful economic recovery we may be at a crossroads. Will we follow the aging economies of Europe and see more muted growth and even stagnation in some cases? Or will we be able to see a rebound, more productivity and economic growth in the years to come?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> And that is just plain wrong. If everyone had what you had nothing you have would be worth much. You still have it and can enjoy it but trying to sell it would be very difficult. You would be stuck with precisely where you have. Have you ever tried to sell a bicycle to someone who already has one, that they like and think is better then yours?
> 
> Other peoples opinions and desires, which are primarily determined by what they have is critical to your wealth. I have no idea why you cannot see that. God knows I have tried.


That's the fundamental difference in our perspectives.

Yes I'd have a bicycle and I can enjoy it, we're all wealthier than people without bicycles. So this is good and what I want.

No, other peoples opinions and desires are irrelevant. What matters if I have my bicycle or I do not have my bicycle. Not in how others perceive it.
It's the old value vs price discussion. I'm focused on value, you're focused on price.

I want to provide more VALUE to everyone. I don't care what the price tag says.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Oh I am talking about value. All of us may be able to plant an apple tree but we are all definitely not able to build our own bicycles from scratch. So thinking about economics. As I said, if everyone has a bicycle then each bicycle will be worth nothing to anyone else. Call that what you want. As more and more bicycles are owned and that price gets close to nothing who is going to build them for the remaining people who want one?

That is my point and the point of this thread. Not whether we would all like to have bicycles or not. Of course we would like to have everything we want. I am talking about how to get it and I have really no idea what you are talking about @MrMatt . I think you might be talking about grammar. You seem to have got bogged down on a word. Wealth is priced. Everything else is just enjoyment and happiness.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Wealth is priced. Everything else is just enjoyment and happiness._

All assets are converted to dollars to determine the level of wealth....value of homes, collectibles, stocks, vehicles, purses, fine wines or art etc.

Low income, middle income, high income. low net worth, high net worth......it is all about the accumulation of dollars.

Our income is higher than "average" retirees, but don't consider ourselves "wealthy" as a result.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ So it's all in the head ... until "someone" with a sense of security has to make a comparison with the "my balls are bigger than your balls", just like the bully in the schoolyard.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Our income is higher than "average" retirees, but don't consider ourselves "wealthy" as a result.


Again, what you consider about yourself and your well being is a state of mind, it is not wealth. Wealth, on the other hand is priced. It may not be priced right, at all times, but it is always priced. And prices are determined by other people. The price your stuff is worth and the price your labour is worth are determined by other people. Other people who need it and other people who may also be able to provide it.

That was the point I wanted to make. With that in mind one can start to see what will happen to wealth if everyone has it. Since it will deplete, one then should see that there can never be an equal amount of wealth for everyone and therefore life will always be a competition for it. Not just a competition with strangers. Competition with other people in your own country and city. Competition with your co-workers and your managers. Competition with contractors, retailers, your lawyer, your doctor and your dentist. Competition with your school mates and sometimes even competition within your circle of family and friends.

This may not be the world we wish we lived in but it is the world we do live in and since the edge is provided to the person who understands it, I suggest you teach it to the people you care about. I have seen way too many people who have not learned the importance of this reality, to the serious detriment of their success.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Well, the interest rate increase predicted for today didn't materialize. 
They keep insisting on playing the game of musical chairs and the poorest Canadians get shafted in the process.
Got to keep housing as expensive as possible since it accounts for over half of economic growth.
Screw the little guy and lower middle class


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Well, the interest rate increase predicted for today didn't materialize.
> They keep insisting on playing the game of musical chairs and the poorest Canadians get shafted in the process.
> Got to keep housing as expensive as possible since it accounts for over half of economic growth.
> Screw the little guy and lower middle class


This is the name of the game.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

So we are even in competition with the BOC. I will have to add them to my very long list. lol


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I honestly can't imagine being 20 years old right now.
But I guess most of them are too young to understand how screwed they are.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Again, what you consider about yourself and your well being is a state of mind, it is not wealth.


Yes it is, but since you disagree with the dictionary definition of the word, I suggested alternatives.



> Wealth, on the other hand is priced. It may not be priced right, at all times, but it is always priced.


Nope.
And even if something is priced, that doesn't mean that price is correct. 
The value of an item is different for every person, therefore a single price can not accurately reflect the value.

Lets say I have 100 apples, but will only eat 10.
The extra 90 apples are nearly worthless to me, and might be very valuable to someone else.
So we agree on a price, say $1/apple. 
For the buyer they think the apple is worth more than $1, so they buy one.
I think the apple is worth less than $1, so I will sell it.
We BOTH come out ahead, and the "price" of $1 that we agreed on doesn't actually represent the value of that apple to either the buyer or the seller.

This is Econ 101/102



> And prices are determined by other people. The price your stuff is worth and the price your labour is worth are determined by other people. Other people who need it and other people who may also be able to provide it.
> 
> That was the point I wanted to make.


As above, your point is wrong. 



> With that in mind one can start to see what will happen to wealth if everyone has it.


Since the foundation of your position is wrong, the rest of it really doesn't make sense.
I think you really need to think on what value and price actually are, because you're missing the point.

I personally think there is an infinite amount of wealth to be created, and the challenge is to get as many people creating as much wealth as possible. 
To phrase it a different way, I think there is an infinite amount of value to be created, and I want everyone to create as much value as possible. It isn't a zero sum game. 
That's the important concept many people miss


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

OK. Let's end this. Good luck with your dream.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> I honestly can't imagine being 20 years old right now.
> But I guess most of them are too young to understand how screwed they are.


I think they have a lot of challenges going forward, particularly if you're white, or even worse white and male.
It's going to be near impossible for the average young white guy to get a white collar job, systematic racism and discrimination is the norm, and it's only getting worse.








Minority professor denied grants because he hires on merit: 'People are afraid to think'


'I don't care about the colour of your skin. I'm interested in hiring someone who wants to work on the project and is good at it,' Prof. Patanjali Kambhampati…




nationalpost.com





I think it's absolutely disgusting that open blatant racial discrimination is not only tolerated, it's an actual requirement to get funding.

Not only is this bad for them, it's bad from a national competitiveness perspective.
When we can't hire & promote based on merit or performance, it is going to get harder to excel.

It is beyond stupid to arbitrarily exclude members of the labour pool because of skin colour.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The value of an item is different for every person, therefore a single price can not accurately reflect the value.
> 
> Lets say I have 100 apples, but will only eat 10.
> The extra 90 apples are nearly worthless to me, and might be very valuable to someone else.
> ...


It doesn't work that way in reality. Not even close. If you produce too much you will lose wealth

It costs money, time and labour to produce anything and you have to satisfy all the taxes and regulations. In reality the market only wants so many of your apples and producing extras yields nothing but expenses. Picking fruit is beneath most Canadians so the labour costs alone can't compete

My family has 2 apple orchards and many other products. We used to have a herd of cattle and chickens but those are long gone. My grandfather used to sell raw apple cider and many other products direct to consumer or at worst to the local farmer's market. None of that is feasible anymore unless you like working to lose money

We still maintain the orchards mostly because farmers don't know what to do besides work. My uncle calls it therapy. I guess it's a hobby and a sense of pride. The reality is people prefer apples that are designed to look glossy red even if they have tough skin and taste like crap. Just call them "delicious red" lol

We sell bags of apples to deer hunters for $5. Not worth the effort besides having good produce for yourself.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I think they have a lot of challenges going forward, particularly if you're white, or even worse white and male.
> It's going to be near impossible for the average young white guy to get a white collar job, systematic racism and discrimination is the norm, and it's only getting worse.
> 
> 
> ...


 ... why are you so surprised and that all of a sudden it's a "problem" for "white", particularly a "white male" in your eyes? Been like this since the history of Canada. It's a matter of ignoring the past and now of a sudden it's a problem identifying yourself as a minority.

Hell, the poster agreeing with you practice age discrimination too with his constant identification of "boomers" versus "millenials" in his posts so it's nothing new with this set up. Just repeat the mantra of "it's my country".


----------



## Jamesdean (Jan 4, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> The thing is the <40 is voting for Trudeau.
> I'll admit, if you don't know how things work, and don't understand the problems in his "good sounding" ideas, of course you'll vote for him.
> That's why they're trying to float the idea of lowering the voting age, the lack of understanding makes their plan sound like a good idea.


I'm under 40 and I voted him once for the one and only reason.... cannabis.


----------



## Jamesdean (Jan 4, 2021)

james4beach said:


> @Eder @KaeJS @MrMatt
> 
> You do realize that the Conservatives also massively pumped up the real estate market and CMHC, right?
> 
> ...


That isn't a fair comparison. 2008 was a real recession....no choice there. But here we are with years of Trudeau and look at the deficit.... laughable if you compare the two.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Jamesdean said:


> That isn't a fair comparison. 2008 was a real recession....no choice there. But here we are with years of Trudeau and look at the deficit.... laughable if you compare the two.


The contradictory housing policy goes back decades.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)




----------

