Economic viability

If it proves economically non-viable to grow tropical produce indoors, perhaps the way we transport the produce from the tropical countries still needs an overhaul. I happen to think that if all the countries that would be involved built a cargo-first railway system that was based on mag-lev technology, it would allow for quick and efficient transport of goods.
As far as island countries' hookup to the network would go, perhaps they would still need to use boats - but what's wrong with submarines, then? Subs can be nuclear powered, and I like the idea of low-radiation thorium reactors.

As far as introducing a VAT to everything we buy is concerned, though, my logic for introducing it went like this:

If we have a sustainable (and consistent) source of energy, the price of production, once set, is unlikely to rise. If the geothermal energy we can get from the ground beneath our feet powers not only the grow lamps, but the transport system that gets it to market, there should be a cost savings there, because the energy does not have to be carried to market in oil tankers, pipelines, or other vehicles, etc. This is the disadvantage I see with oil-based transport. When the price of oil goes up, so does EVERYTHING else. Eventually it will get to the point where growing in underground greenhouses will be cheaper than shipping from tropical countries.

If we have low costs from farm-to-fork, perhaps we CAN get bananas below 49 cents a pound - and then adding a 9% GST would not impact us so harshly.

--
As far as GMO is concerned, I'm on board with it, as much as it scares other people. I do have caveats, though.
I think that genetically engineered foods that are resistant to infection are a good idea, but I don't think that one monopolistic company (Monsanto) should be able to secure the rights for these on an indefinite basis. Give them a certain number of years, and let it then become public domain, just like digital music and movies. They can still make their ridiculous profits, but not in perpetuity.

I, for one, think lab-grown meat would be a great idea, as it would free up millions of acres of farmland used by livestock. I think I read somewhere that human cities take up 3% of the land on the planet, but our farms take up a further 40%. Reducing this by a factor of 100 would surely have a beneficial impact. And as far as the concentration of waster that would result?

Well, by keeping the farms enclosed, we could hopefully not have to use pesticides or herbicides at all, unless they were natural, like aphids. So the wastewater produced would then not be toxic, and could actually be fed back into the system in a more or less closed loop.

Green social democracy

I do not think that the principles of social democracy are at odds with green politics at all; in fact, I think they compliment each other well. We live in a world with a limit to the amount of resources we can use. This means, ultimately, that human society all over the planet can only grow so much.

This site provides a good example of numbers to back me up.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
I have often heard the number 4 billion floated around as the amount of humans that could possibly live on this planet with a standard of living comparable to that which the North American middle class does. So the number in the article backs me up. It says that we would need 1 1/2 Earths to sustain a standard of living for the 7 billion currently hear that compares to what we currently have in North America.

So clearly, there is a problem.

My solutions that I have been developing, based on the research and development of many others before me, are based on the principle of sustainability. We need to find a way to balance our collective impact on mothership Earth before she tosses us overboard.

Now how does this relate to my social democratic outlook on governance?
I believe that everyone has the right to compete in a market environment for things that they want. It provides a motivation that we need as human beings to work hard - something that is not present in countries that completely follow a communist model.

Where I differ from complete capitalism, which believes that "if you're poor, you're out of luck" is that I believe that as compassionate human beings, we have a duty not only to be stewards of the environment we live in, but caregivers for those who through no fault of their own, do not have the resources needed to live a comfortable and meaningful life.

This is why I support social assistance programs, insofar as they help people to get to a point where they can "get back on the horse" and become contributing members to society.

I also understand that, through no fault of their own, some people have conditions and diagnoses which make them incapable of working a 9-5, 5 day a week job. This does not make these people any less important. They are living, breathing human beings who have their own unique talents, qualities and personalities. They need the opportunity to be expressed. They need to have lives that are engaged in their community.

For this reason, I support social assistance programs and non-profit organizations dedicated to helping people with disabilities achieve a meaningful standard of living. It may mean that some of us who are not diagnosed with these conditions have to give up a little bit of what we have - but clearly, we have a lot to give. We do not need all of the resources we use. We can afford to give. It is the compassionate thing to do.

Another reason for my support of social democratic principles is perhaps less obvious, but it does happen.

Market forces will cause some businesses to succeed, and others to crash and burn. When that happens, even the millionaire CEO can lose everything they have. At this point, the former millionaire CEO is in a financial state comparable to someone who is on social assistance - they might have zero credit rating due to bad investments, and they may have had to sell and liquidate a large portion of their assets, including their home.

It goes to show that bad things can happen to anyone, regardless of our socio-economic status. When that happens, we all need help to get us up out of the situation we have fallen into.
For that reason, I support social assistance.
 
Having said that, it needs to be sustainable.
 
We cannot have more than 50% of the population living on social assistance. That would tip over the economic ship. We ALSO cannot have more than 50% of the population living in large houses, with two or three cars, a boat, and a time-share in Aruba.
 
There simply are not enough resources on the planet for that.

But -

I do believe that everyone deserves to have the OPPORTUNITY to visit Aruba, if they can put the effort in to get there.

Some of us may never go, and some of us may not want to go, even. It comes down to personal preferences of what people like.

And now for a tangent, and little example of that last statement.
 
--
I was at a horse show recently. It helped me get a better sense of the lifestyle of people who care for, breed, and love their horses. Just because I'm a city boy and don't need the wide open spaces in my life, doesn't mean I am against how they live their lives.
I might be against the concept of using vast tracts of land that used to be nature to grow our food (cattle and crops), but the truth about some of the animals that these folks breed and care for is that the animals have always lived in wide open spaces - we humans have simply domesticated some of them.

I have no problem with horse farms - other than the use of fossil fuels in their trucks. I hope for the day when you can pull a horse trailer with horse inside by a 2-ton Ford that runs on algae fuel, ethanol, or green electricity. Giddy up. That's a country song I'd like to hear.

"Got my truck filled up with ethanol 
Goin' down to the horse show to have a ball...
Chicken, beer, and jumpin' barrels -
Hell, it's better than a Christmas carol!"

Human-based (tangible) wealth creation

So here's a concept for you:
Human-based wealth creation, as opposed to monetary policy set by central banks.
By the sweat of your brow, money is created.

How it could be accurately monitored? A combination of RFID chips on workers' uniforms, plus a smart punch clock that would be able to track when the worker is on the job site, would accurately monitor a worker's time spent working.
Multiply that by the hourly rate, and you get the salary - created by their efforts and skills, not by government policy, per se. The government would then be able to approve this creation of value, and grant that they have generated some wealth for the economy, and grant it into their bank account.
Just like how tangible goods (say food) have a value, tangible effort should have a value as well. But I don't think creating money out of thin air and charging interest on it is a sustainable model for an economy. This is what central banks all over the globe do - and it does not add up.

1 + interest does not equal 1. That's how you get inflation.

If you want to start a business, governments should be able to give you a grant - not a loan, in the interest of growing the economy. A loan with interest would imply that they expect something in return, that does not exist yet.

Again, 1 + interest does not equal 1, resulting in more money needing to be printed, and devaluing the currency.

Perhaps there is some leeway with the concept of interest based on my proposal of measuring the effort put into a job for a set number of hours/weeks/etc. 

But for now, that's what I would like to see.

1/3 of Canadians live paycheque to paycheque, survey suggests

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/05/22/business-bills-survey.html
Poster "1991 Canadian" had this to say on the following article, which states that 1/3 of Canadians now live paycheck to paycheck:

Although there are some people living paycheque to paycheque who are simply down on their luck, for many people this situation is self inflicted. Today's middle class have priced themselves out of the middle class.
Lets look at the 1960s middle class lifestyle (or any decade up to about the 80s for that matter) and compare it to today's spending habits.

Housing: The average house size has roughly doubled since the 60s. Tripled since the 30s. But believe it or not, the average price per square foot for new homes when adjusted for inflation has stayed relatively flat over the last decade. The increase is price is largely a result in the increase in size/amenities.
---
I totally agree. Why does a family of 4 need a 3,000+ square foot house? Sure, things like a pool and a man cave are nice, but as you can see with my compact building designs, you can still have those things, and they don't have to take up floors upon floors.

Link: http://s1203.photobucket.com/user/EBFilmsMan/library/Better%20Living%20Through%20Compact%20Cities%20In%20Towers?sort=2&page=1
--- 
Food: Today, meat is eaten at almost every meal. Food is imported from around the world. We are distancing ourselves from eating food in season. We eat out more. We spend more for convenient prepared food. Contrast this to the days when meat was a luxury, seasonal vegetables were eaten, and most food was prepared at home.
---
Eat local - or at least try your best to. I think that if the public at large discovered how much of our food costs went to transportation and processing, we would be disgusted, and all opt to start growing our own food and/or buying closer to home. I even cringe when I drink orange juice now - I prefer to get juices where the fruits could possibly be grown in a northern climate, because until the funding is put aside for an underground citrus farm in Northern Ontario, the citrus purchased for northern businesses will continue to be imported. That will not only cost us money, but will also massively add to our collective carbon imprints.
--
Entertainment: The amount of money people spend on entertainment/activities these days is staggering. Organized sports, concerts, sporting events, cable tv, vacations, etc... have replaced cheaper entertainment from the past.
-- 
This is true, so I try to strike a balance, because you can't sit at home bored most of the time. I try to support local musicians as much as possible. In fact, my favourite band as of late has been one based in my hometown. I have a bunch of their merchandise, and attend every performance they do in town.
--
Communication: While internet and cell phones are great technology, most people are spending over $100/month on these services. Contrast this to the days when we got by with just landlines.
--
A lot has changed since the 1990s. I happen to differ in opinions with this poster on this issue, as I now find both internet access and a cell phone to be necessities for keeping in communication, and I know people for whom their cell is their only telephone - they have cut out their landline entirely. I think this is down to personal preference, as I remember watching a "16:9" TV special about the people living on a small island around Vancouver Island who have gotten used to living off the grid. I, for one, don't think I can do so for a period of time longer than a couple of weeks.

--
If someone like myself, living an average student lifestyle can save $400 a month living on my own with a full time minimum wage job, you can to. I live in a big city. I live a normal life. I just don't spend my money frivolously like most of my friends."
--

I hope for the day when inflation can stop, and we can all live our lives comfortably, not having to decide whether to buy food or pay rent in a given month. I also hope we have enough left over to save for the future. This is the world I want to see.

I think it can only happen if we reform our transport networks, and get off of fossil fuels.

We must change the way parliament works

I believe that councils, where members of EACH political party WORK TOGETHER on crafting legislation with input from all parties, would work more smoothly than the current process, where one party drafts some proposals for law, and then it is debated ad nauseum in parliament until amendments are added and it is reintroduced weeks later for its second and third reading, etc.

This concept, of course, works best when each party has an appropriate number of seats in parliament, so for the purpose of this experiment, I presume that each party listed (except for the Green Party, which only recently gained its first elected member) has enough members to put one on every ministerial portfolio. In Canada's Parliament as it stands, there are 164 CPCs, 100 NDPs, and 35 LIBs - more than enough for each party to sit on all 16 listed ministries.

In my reworked model of parliament, the councils would all sit on the outside of the chamber, and when it is their turn to address parliament, they can do so either from their own seats, or from the central addressing platform, which is intended for all members of parliament to have equal opportunity to face them. Perhaps swivel chairs would be a good idea?

Instead of the hierarchical approach to seating that is present in most parliaments, I intend for my redesign to mimic the Round Table from the legends of King Arthur, as it implies equality between all members of parliament. You may notice that there seems to be no designated spot for the prime minister or leader of the opposition. If we still wish to have those positions, I believe that they can sit with the speaker of the house. Oh, and the Finance Ministry (with its three ministers from three different parties) is named the Budgetary Council in this diagram.

I also have a 3-D rendering of the new parliament chamber (click to zoom):

As you can see, the ministries all sit in a round, with the Budgetary Council and prime minister able to sit with the speaker in the centre, to direct the process. I believe that these changes to the way our government works would result in better governance for all Canadians.

So what do you think?

Thoughts for today

Taxes and Retirement Savings

I believe that all businesses (and all people receiving money from them) should be made to file their taxes electronically, with multiple backup systems available. (Including paper printouts when necessary). The employees should have access to these systems as well, to make filing taxes quick and easy (well, easier). I feel that if we filed taxes that way, tax dodgers would have nowhere to hide.

I also think that decentralization of assets away from major banks would be a good idea. The federal government should be able to keep a backup record of a person or company's financial records as a safeguard against data loss, but people should be able to keep their savings with them, in their own secure, biometric-activated "piggy bank" device. Even if the device were to be physically stolen, it would not be able to be used, because the device would be coded for its proper owner only.

Pension Plans

How are pension plans funded?

Taking a little bit out of your pay cheque every time to put it toward the future.

(Currently in Canada, I believe it is “5% of income between $3500 and $50,100”)

So what would I do if I had my own country to run?

I'd just say “do it yourself”, so that your retirement funds don't get loaded into a big pot that gets invested (and possibly lost on a bad investment). All investments carry risk, and as was seen with the housing crisis that launched the worldwide recession, that was one heck of a bad risk.
--

A careful budget would allow someone to set aside money for retirement on their own.

If you can make $16,000 per year (($400 X 40 weeks x $10 per hour) or (350x48x10)), and your costs of living are $400 per month for food, $500 per month for rent, and $80 per month for other things, then your total monthly expenditures on average will be $980 (yearly expenses: 11,760). $620 will be left over to be put toward retirement per month (Okay, the numbers are a little off – yearly savings of $4,240).

That's $4,240 per year. Over a period of 30 years, this simple frugality would give you $127,200.

If your monthly expenses remained at $980 after you retire, that amount of savings would keep you solvent for 130 months (10 years). So if you retired at 55, you would have enough savings to live until 65, just on your savings. Obviously, that's not enough, so let's extend the working period.

If you worked from age 25 until 65 (40 years under this model), your savings would end up being $169,600. That would be enough savings for 14 years (age 79, which is the average life expectancy for Canadian men).

Now, it is highly unlikely that people can be this frugal for 40 straight years, but even a 40-year savings of $100,000 from a theoretical maximum of $169,600 (spending of an extra $69,600 on trips or things over a time period of 40 years) would still give you enough savings for 8½ years of retirement (age 73). If you sell some of the items you accumulate over the years (even possibly your home, which you have been steadily paying off with rent over the last 40 years – I'll get to that in a minute), you could live comfortably for the rest of your days. And all this assumes that your salary does not increase at all over your entire working life, so the savings are likely to be higher.

*To put a point on selling your home: Let's say the assessed value of a 1000-square foot condo is $100,000 (not feasible in Sudbury, but I'm dreaming here, so leave it be). Under a payment plan of $$250 per month (let's say half the rent cost goes to this), the condo would be under your full ownership in 400 months (33 years, 4 months). So if you got your condo at age 25, you would fully own it by age 58. Not bad! That's a $100,000 asset that you can now sell at any time. Add that to the projected retirement savings of $100,000, and you now have 17 years of retirement savings, all without investing your money in any crazy schemes that would bankrupt the world.*

So why can't we do this now?

I've noticed that there's one thing that seems to cost a lot of money, but that most people seem to want/need in order to live independently in society. That thing is an automobile. Cars cost a lot of money, not just for the initial purchase or lease, but for upkeep, licensing, and worst of all, car insurance. I see ads on Spike TV for car insurance all the time, and I think to myself “That's nice and all, but I'd rather not have to own a car, and pay ZERO on my car insurance every month.” It would be one less expense to worry about for someone living on minimum wage.

So that's why I designed my compact cities. If you don't have to do a daily commute of half an hour in the car, it will save you a lot of money over your lifetime. And for those that still would have to commute to work (let's say lumberjacks, miners, etc.) because their workplace is in a remote location, their businesses should contribute funding to a train system that gets people to and from work reliably. If there's only one train on the track as opposed to hundreds of cars on a road, it's a lot less likely to have a collision. And what if the train system breaks down? Well, of course there should be a backup plan to get people to work. The backup system could be a road, I suppose, and people could ride electric vehicles to work if they needed to. My point is that this need not be an every day occurrence for 90+% of the population.

So what about all those people that would be put out of work in the auto industry if this were to happen?

I don't think those workers would necessarily have to lose their jobs at all - they would simply be changing industries. In switching to rail transport, a lot more manufacturers of rail-specific parts would be needed. I'm sure that with the proper training, auto assembly plant workers could make a smooth transition to manufacturing things such as motor scooters, emergency vehicles, and mass-transit systems. 

RBC - time to switch to a credit union?

I'm sure you all know what is going on with RBC.
Here's an interesting alternative:
http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2013/apr/02/in-spain-a-mattress-that-lets-your-money-rest-easy/

The concept is pretty similar to my idea of having your own biometric activated, digital savings bank in your own home.

What do you all think about either of these ideas?

It's here!

I don't expect this initial campaign to be a success. In fact, the goal is very lofty, indeed. This campaign is about awareness. The Green Bay Packers are owned by 115,000 shareholders, not one of which receives a dividend. They do it because they want to see the team succeed.
My project has similar goals.

So here it is:
Making a movie | Indiegogo
Please join! It can only happen if we all work together!

So what would happen if...

Just a bit of open speculation today.
What would happen if we somehow managed to prevent inflation altogether, through a gradual phaseout of use of non-renewable resources, and a rethinking of how our economy is generated in the first place (i.e. zero interest loans - which I guess would be defined as grants).
Loans don't make a lot of sense to me. If you have X money available in the entire economy, how do you expect to get X+interest back unless you continually make more money and devalue your currency in the process? Zero-interest loans should exist and be used. This would help stabilize the world economy, by actually allowing people (and nations) to get a leg up instead of being buried under an ever-increasing mountain of debt. I realize that the credit card companies would go bankrupt by handing out zero-interest loans, but they seem to be one of the roots of the whole mess, to me. It's time for them to go.

(Tangent)
I myself have a credit card, and I hate it. I only use it when there is no other option of payment available. I would much prefer to use an instant money transfer service (debit) than a credit card, because I see where the money goes instantly, without having it sit on my mind for up to a month before paying it off. The illusion of having more money than you actually have is what drives people into the situations you see on shows like Til Debt Do Us Part. It's sad, really. We need to get rid of the opportunity for people to spend beyond their means. People will learn how to manage money wisely, and we will all be better off for it.

Trial separation?

It's clear that we in Canada are fractured as a nation - and not that I like to think about it, but I wonder if the often-mentioned balkanization of this country would become a reality in the not-distant future. The West resents the East because the West is under-represented in parliament. The East resents the West because they have dirty oil, etc. etc...perhaps a trial separation is in order.
I'd dissolve the federal government for about a year's time - effectively making us 13 jurisdictions under one common currency, like the EU. Then our provincial governments could set their own policies and run things as they see fit. If, after a year, the provinces are in better shape than they were under Confederation, we could hold a nation-wide referendum on how to move forward.

Thoughts?

Asteroid mining?

Considering that my cities are designed to be enclosed loops, with little interaction with the natural world, they may necessarily need to reach out to other places beyond the Earth to find the resources required for continued existence. I am a big proponent of asteroid mining, as it would provide us with ample resources from throughout our Solar System. With the closed-loop design, the hope is that no contaminants would leak into the natural environment, but that we humans could still get what we needed for our society. The launch loop that I designed would be used to launch our miners into space. Once they have their cargo, in order to return to the surface, they could re-enter like the Shuttle does now, but I would prefer a controlled descent, in order to avoid a Russian meteor-type incident.

Here is the launch loop:

The concept shown needs a large flat area to be built (probably over the prairies). It is 200 km from one end to the other, and reaches a height of 10 km in the centre. It is a shallow-angled arc with an inital angle of less than 10 degrees. A vehicle needs to reach a speed of 11 kilometres per second in order to get into orbit. In this model the craft will be accelerated along the track at a rate of 4 G, (39.2 metres per second squared) or an increase in speed of 140 kph every second. Because this acceleration force can cause some people to black out, safety restraints will of course be used, as well as the option of putting passengers to sleep during launch. Acceleration time will be 5 minutes, covering a distance of 3300 km, most of which will be achieved after the vehicle exits the launcher. The advantage of the launch loop to traditional rockets is that once the vehicle exits this launcher, it will be clear of 99% of the atmosphere, which will drastically reduce the requirement for heat shielding on the craft, cutting down on energy requirements to get the craft moving. Also, while space-faring crafts may still use traditional rocket propulsion to complete acceleration, they need not be. Ion propulsion and other technologies can also be used
to complete acceleration to the speed needed to escape Earth's gravity.

First Nations independence?

I do not wish to carve up Canada, but I would be interested to see what it would take in order for the First Nations of Canada to form their own true, independent nation(s), which could be recognized by the UN and given greater control over their own affairs from top to bottom.
It seems to me that ever since the European settlers arrived, the First Nations peoples have been treated as second-class citizens of this Earth. While it would take a long time to set up the necessary infrastructure, this process would stimulate both the economies of the nation(s) to emerge, and the Canadian economy.
It is true that if the current First Nations were all to declare unilateral separation from Canada to form their own nations that they would end up being like islands to themselves in the short term, but I do not believe this to be a hindrance to their potential for overall growth and prosperity.
Japan is a country composed of many islands separated by water, and they have grown to become one of the most important economic engines of the world economy, owing to the strength and determination of its own people.
Separation of the First Nations from Canada could be very bad, instantly plunging them into Third World status with the cutoff of government funding, but it also could be very good if they formed a unified front. The cutoff of direct Canadian government funding to First Nations would force these nations to be innovative, and promote industrial and commercial growth. I believe in the power of the free market, as long as it is carefully regulated and monitored by responsible third parties (the people).
There is no doubt that people in positions of power, such as the chiefs of some First Nations, could abuse their power, and may have done so. So this plan is not foolproof. But it is a suggestion which I believe needs to be explored.
The United Nations charter states that “nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference”. I think it is time that the First Nations were recognized as nations.

Stats

This is why I want a society without cars.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

In particular - this:

TEN LEADING CAUSES OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH, MID-1990s

CAUSE
(1) Motor Vehicles
(2) Falls
(3) Drowning (Nontransport)
(4) Fires & Flames
(5) Poisoning, Solids & Liquids
(6) Medical Misadventures
(7) Firearms
(8) Natural & Environmental
(9) Water Transport
(10) Machinery, Cutting & Piercing

I realize that this is not what everyone wants, and for those who want to live in cities with cars, I am not asking you to abandon your vehicle. I simply think that the benefits of a car-free society would outweigh the disadvantages. If you still want to go on a road trip, rental agencies on the edge of town might be a possibility, but I think that with my compact city design, cars need not be a necessity.

I mean, look at what happens in Russia:
Russian Drivers

Black Friday

I have mixed feelings about Black Friday-inspired consumerism. Being frugal and on a budget is important if you have limited income; however, those who have money should be able to spend it, in order to provide for higher wages for those they buy from. As long as your CEO/manager/boss isn't taking home millions while workers are struggling to pay for housing, food, and utilities, I support consumerism - but it shouldn't be mindless. If you don't host a lot of big game parties or movie nights, you probably do not need that wall-sized flatscreen.

Madness like this makes me appalled at what Western society has become.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/black-friday-2012-begins-for-deal-hunters/

NHL v.2 - preventing a lockout

Let's start with the premise that the owners and players need to work together in order to attract their client base (the fans). In the spirit of togetherness and equal partnership, (something a lot of collective bargaining agreements in industries around the world are sorely lacking) agree to split the HRR down the middle, 50-50.

Limit contract lengths to 5 years for free agents in an effort to curtail ridiculous front-loaded contracts. Provide an allowance for teams that develop their stars to keep them at least until they reach the UFA stage, rather than letting them leave for “greener” pastures after only a couple of seasons.

Drop the requirement for a hard salary floor, BUT say that any teams that drop below it will not be eligible for revenue sharing. My hope is that for certain teams, this will have the effect of lowering their team salary to a minimum level (aka. budgeting.) If they still can't turn a profit after that, it should be fairly clear to the owners of said teams that the team(s) need(s) to either relocate or disband, as they are in a financial quagmire that they are unlikely to get out of by staying the course. (I hate that phrase.)

At the salary ceiling threshold, impose a (minimum) dollar-for-dollar tax. Put that money into a fund for player development in the AHL, ECHL, CHL, NCAA - and minor and junior leagues. I know it's hard for middle-class families to pay for all the costs of hockey, so why can't the NHL give back to its fans in this way?

Just another rant about how messed up the world is

Fiat money and speculation were the root causes of the current global economic situation.
The subprime mortgage crisis in the States started the domino effect of economies around the world spiralling into recession. The fact is, though, the physical resources of the Earth (what we used to base value on) are still, and have always been there. The exception to always being there are non-renewable resources like fossil fuels. I think the entire world needs a gradual shift to an economic reset. We need to base the value of goods and services on something other than speculation. One suggestion is to base it on the cost of energy needed to produce a good or service, which is sort of the same as now: a certain amount of gas is needed to raise crops and bring them to stores. But what I am proposing is the rapid
phase-out of non-renewable energy sources. We can build cars that run on corn, hydrogen, algae fuel, or batteries - whatever is needed to reduce pollution while continuing to recycle the elements we are using, instead of just burning them up into the atmosphere.

So let's say that a standard is set on the cost of one kilowatt-hour of green energy, be it from wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal sources. This can be the new basis for the worth of goods in the new economy.

We can't let banks have all the power. They led us into this mess.

NHL contracts

I like to keep things simple. Simplicity means easier understanding for all parties involved. If I ran a pro hockey league, I would have these rules with regard to contract negotiations:

Each contract signed is for the next season only. That's right. One year deals. Why? Instead of a player showing supposed loyalty to an organization by sticking around for their whole career, they can still show their loyalty by re-signing each season. It gives the option, however, of moving to a different team without the current team having a player on their books for a long time. The same problem would apply to a player signing a long-term contract, only to get injured (like Chris Pronger, for example). Re-signing every year opens up the free agent market wide, but still allows players to commit to a team that works for them.

Olympics

So, I'm sure that most people around the interwebs at least know that the Summer Olympics are being held in London, England right now. I figure it's time for my thoughts on it.

Generally I don't care to watch the Summer Olympics. You can blame that mostly on the fact that where I live, winter lasts about half the year. (In fact, the joke in my neck of the woods is that our seasons are winter, almost winter, still winter, and construction).

I am sure I will tune in to some of the events that I have a passing interest in (women's football (soccer for the uninitiated), perhaps the track events, maybe the basketball).

I applaud the efforts and sacrifice of any athlete, no matter what their sport. It takes a great deal of time, money and effort to get to the Olympic stage. I just don't happen to be interested in a lot of the events. So have a good time, and make your fans proud, okay?

I'm off to watch the CFL.

Guns. Why?

I've come to the conclusion that people who want to use guns will get them through legal or illegal means no matter what. I think the best way to reduce gun violence is to create a society where people are not forced into a situation where they believe they need to have a gun; either to protect themselves from harm, to threaten/shoot other people in order to get what they want.

My ideal society, as described on this blog, would have plenty of preventative technologies (metal detectors, scanners, etc.) in public buildings, and at the entrances to cities, in order to control the flow of guns and other materials used in crime into the city. Law enforcement officials may not necessarily even have guns, although they could have some sort of non-lethal armament, that would be designed to subdue would-be criminals rather than injure or kill outright. The jury seems to be out on tasers at the moment, but I am sure there are other technologies that are just as effective (rubber bullets, sonic weaponry, etc.)

There are still people who are ideologically driven to commit violent acts, and others who have mental disorders who will attempt to commit acts of violence. I think that the people with mental disorders should receive treatment rather than receive punishment. The ideologues who wish to force their views of how the world should be through violent means should simply not be allowed to enter the city.

My ideas surely aren't perfect, but those are my proposals. I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions.

Clean coal is a myth

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/us/embed-america-energy-war/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

While I deplore the lack of jobs available in the US economy, (not to mention here at home), I can't get behind the coal industry. Forget about how much it pollutes for a moment; that's my usual argument. The average lifespan of a coal miner is 53 years due to health issues from working in a coal mine, not to mention the risk of catastrophes occurring down there. Any coal miners hoping to see their grandkids may not make it to the age where they will get to. Of course, mining in general is a dangerous occupation - that's a given. I live in a city heavily supported by mining. But I think there are definitely ways to mine smarter, such as mining by remote-controlled robotic vehicles.
I also think that there are many other resources that could be mined for that this city and others across the world would be better suited to looking for, rather than dirty, disgusting coal. So the lady's husband doesn't have to quit mining; the industry he works for needs to change their focus.

The greatest country? Really?

I'm not big on the phrase "American exceptionalism", nor any country claiming to be "the best in the world", for that matter. Exceptionalism is the perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles. This leads to a superiority complex and a sense of arrogance, which leads to a false justification for greed and corruption. No country or nation should be seen as exceptional in this sense. We are all human beings. We should strive to be stewards of the world we live in, not exceptions to the rule.

Happy Canada Day

On this date, 135 years ago, the British North America Act created the modern nation of Canada, which began with four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The last province to join Canada was Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949. The latest change to the political map was the foundation of the Territory of Nunavut in 1999.

Today, Canada is a nation bordering 3 of the world's oceans. We have a population of approximately 34 million people. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. I am happy to live in this country. I hope you are as well.

Just a quick graphic I made up

I was talking to my brother about the possibility of future space colonization, and somehow we came up with the idea for this picture. Hope you enjoy.

A future Canada?

This is a hypothetical scenario where Quebec and Alberta both secede from Canada and become separate countries. I don't want this to happen, but if our national politics continue to be polarized the way they are now, this may be a solution that pleases the parties, since they can't seem to get along.

Some people may have questions about this scenario. Firstly, what happens to the Atlantic provinces if Quebec secedes? Won't they feel isolated from the rest of the country? My solution to that is the following: Quebec agrees to cede a small strip of land that will become a bridge to the Atlantic provinces. This land will either become a part of Canada, or will be designated an international crossing route with no actual attachment to any country.

Probably the more important question, though, is why would you want to split up our great nation? Well, I addressed that at the top. I think our federal political parties are taking steps to fracture the country. This could be a result if they decide not to work together. It's an ugly one, but a possibility, nonetheless.

One other, less important question, if this were ever to occur:
What would Montreal's NHL team be called?

Justice served

I believe in the right to a fair trial. I also believe in sentencing those who are found guilty of heinous crimes to lengthy amounts of time in prisons and/or correctional facilities. In this case, this man has been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, and I think it was the right decision.
Jerry Sandusky

Dear oil companies...

Dear ExxonMobil, Texaco, BP et al:
Guess what? You are not oil companies. Oh, you may think you are oil companies. You are energy companies. Oil is a finite resource. It will run out some day. Even if you tap every source of oil you can possibly find on this planet, it will run out some day. What does that mean when it runs out? No more profit. In fact, no more revenue. This is why each one of you needs to seriously shift your business model today if you want to continue to exist in the future.

Thank you for your time. I expect the first of my cheques (10% of all your future profits, each quarter, for the rest of my life) to arrive tomorrow. ;)

I've come to a conclusion

The rich keep getting richer. The poor continue to stay poor. Eventually, the system will collapse if this trend continues. That's why I support heavy taxation on those who make exorbitant salaries. Taxes support programs that help people who can't afford basic necessities to get what they need. One thing that also needs to be done on an international scale, though, is the closure of tax havens for the rich. If they can't hide away the millions they make, they can be taxed on those millions - a benefit which will actually help people.

Those who are against high taxation say things like "you are punishing people for working hard, and rewarding the lazy". My counterpoint to that is that even if CEO John Q. Westminster works 70 hours a week, he's probably not doing tasks that leave him drenched in sweat every day. He probably isn't a single parent who has to feed 3 children. There needs to be a system of support for people in need. That's what opponents of taxation don't seem to understand.

Wikipedia (okay, I know it's not always the most accurate source) has some fairly good info on what taxes do for a society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

Y'all should read that, y'hear?

Daily musings

I'm happy that the LA Kings defeated the New Jersey Devils for the Stanley Cup. I'm upset that the NBA title will either be won by a team with a truly horrendous logo, or a team of self-styled superstars. I'm very upset about Bill C-38. Read more about it here.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1211728--omnibus-budget-bill-c-38-survives-marathon-voting-session?bn=1

Government stupidity

I have noticed a lot of news articles lately that reported on dumb actions that various levels of government are taking.

Case in point:

Quebec sues tobacco companies for $60B

The province already collects heaps of taxes from the sale of tobacco – and while I understand (and support) the idea that the money raised from this cash grab is supposed to support healthcare, you can't both sell a product and then sue a company for the sale of that product. See my stance on tobacco here.

Item number two:

Feds suggest U.S. EPA could replace Canadian pollution team

http://www.canada.com/technology/Feds+suggest+could+replace+Canadian+pollution+team/6722912/story.html

So essentially we would be getting a US government agency to monitor our environment? Isn't that what we have our own environment ministry for? Or does The Harper Government (Monarchy) think that we should just take the full step and become a part of the USA? Oh wait, they do. My mistake.
(Side note: That would make Quebec a nation within a united Canada within a United States of America. Inception?)

I am particularly critical of decisions made by the current Conservative Party of Canada ever since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister. To see why, look here.

But it's not just that I have disdain for the Conservative Party - I would like to be able to criticize the government no matter which party is in power - that is because I have the right to free speech (well, at least until the government takes that right away as well). Political musings are a large part of the content of this blog. So please, join the discussion, and voice your opinions.

Blah

Nothing pressing on my mind this week.

Hurricanes

I have always had a fascination with hurricanes. Perhaps that is because I have been fortunate enough to never have been in the path of one. I was first captivated by the intensity of hurricanes when I saw news reports about Hurricane Mitch in 1998. That year I also was fascinated with the El Nino phenomenon, which seemed to be all over the news that year.

Hurricane Mitch was a Category 5 hurricane that devastated Central America, killing almost 20,000 people. Watching the footage of the storm's destruction woke me up to a fact about hurricanes:

Just because the wind is blowing really fast doesn't mean the wind is what will kill you. It is the effect of the water that really causes the most damage. Most of the deaths and damage were caused by massive flooding.

I think that misconception about hurricanes blowing you to death is likely caused by their close association with tornados – but tornadoes are much more violent locally because they are a more concentrated column of spinning air. The spinning vortex in a tornado can get much faster than it can in most hurricanes because it's a tighter loop, comparatively.

The fastest recorded tornado wind speed ever was 484 kph. The fastest hurricane speed on record was 305 kph. I still would prefer to avoid both.

You can theoretically sidestep a tornado that is bearing down on you if you take the right path. But hurricanes cover a much larger surface area – you pretty much have to move inland to avoid a hurricane. And inland is where most tornadoes form.

--

Now for a tangent.

Why are a Texas tornado and a Tennessee divorce similar? Somebody's gonna lose a trailer.

I don't understand how mobile homes seem to often get swept up in tornadoes. It's a mobile home! You can at least make the effort to put the key in the ignition and try to drive out of the path of the funnel cloud...

--

In all seriousness, hurricanes are forces of nature to be wary of. I want to offer a prayer to all those living in areas that will be affected by hurricanes this year. May you be safe, and be able to rebuild all that you have lost.