tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post2771074322871471401..comments2024-03-05T06:32:42.206-05:00Comments on A Different Point of View....: Globe's article on income gap really propagandaNick Fillmorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01164453733837765836noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-43479139688602738182013-11-14T15:47:58.432-05:002013-11-14T15:47:58.432-05:00Dear Mr. Fillmore,
I read your mail this AM and th...Dear Mr. Fillmore,<br />I read your mail this AM and therefore paid special attention to the McKenna story. I think that your analysis is unfair.<br /><br />McKenna highlighted inequality as a problem. It is a well known thing that the first step to solving problems is to recognize them. He described the better examples (Scandanavia) and the worse ones (US). He detailed historical trends and the dangers of not doing something. This is all useful.<br /><br />His sin, by you, appears to have not single-mindedly attacked Stephen Harper. Lord knows Mr. Harper deserves much criticism for many things, but as Mr. McKenna made clear, the inequality indices have been rising for 30 years or more. These are very long term phenomena, far beyond the short-term influences of any one Prime Minister. In fact, Canada has been doing rather better lately - again, not because of a PM but because of other factors, aka our resources.<br /><br />I don't understand this attack unless it was driven by partisan sentiment. It was disappointing. Better by far to have congratulated the author on a new series on inequality. Your usefulness as a media critic rests on a necessary perception of fairness, a perception not earned here.<br />Regards, Gordon Gibson.<br />Nick Fillmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01164453733837765836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-83116675051050625332013-11-14T15:42:49.214-05:002013-11-14T15:42:49.214-05:00Posted for Michaele Kustudic
Thanks for this arti...Posted for Michaele Kustudic<br /><br />Thanks for this article, and your excellent critique, Nick. I'm sure you've already read Raj Patal's book, 'The Value of Nothing' (which I am just reading now), but in case you haven't, it's really an excellent and clear (and not too heavy or too long) explanation of the evils of capitalism, and how we got to be in the mess we find ourselves in. Well worth a read, if you haven't already.<br /> <br /><br />Nick Fillmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01164453733837765836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-38705690354392116012013-11-12T14:43:00.104-05:002013-11-12T14:43:00.104-05:00We bought Mulroney's NAFTA knowing in the back...We bought Mulroney's NAFTA knowing in the back of our minds that somehow this was going to do us in. At the time I and a number of others remember saying that corporations were trying to get cheap labour with no regulations as a way of countering unions and Canadian labour. The result is income disparity. Now we have another Con. in the name of Harper doing the same thing. Mind you, this is occurring across the world. Economist state it has been good because our GDP has risen. So the real story is that corporate profits has risen, GDP has risen but Canadian wages have dropped. Of what benefit has this been to the average Canadian? None whatsoever. This at a time when labour has been more productive while corporate R&D and investment has diminished. I's a shame that people don't recognize the issues. Instead, they prefer to watch organized reality TV.Smurfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10880690758012867653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-45717269528160017642013-11-12T11:28:46.090-05:002013-11-12T11:28:46.090-05:00Media $
For Canada 2013
population 35 million
GD...Media $<br /><br />For Canada 2013<br /><br />population 35 million<br />GDP 2 trillion<br />percent of GDP spent on advertising in the media 2%<br /><br />2% of the GDP = $40 billion is spent on advertising in the media. That means that $40 billion is advertising's annual contribution to sustaining the media in Canada.<br /><br />For the average Canadian If you got paid the average Canadian wage for all the time you spent watching or reading ads all year you would make over $12,000<br /><br />Time is money. For each Canadian, advertising wastes on average $12,000 worth of time each year. (for the average Canadian making the average Canadian wage of $20/hour)<br /><br />If instead of relying on ads to pay for $40 billion worth of media, we equally shared the $40 billion cost, it would cost us each $1,140 a year or $2.75 a day<br /><br />one persons share of funding should equal 2% of GDP(2 trillion) / population (35 million) = $1,140<br /><br />Deal? or Rip off? Canadians pay on average $12,000 worth of time each year for media that would cost us $1,140 each if we chose to equally share the cost.<br /><br />thank you<br />Breezy Brian Gregg<br />no ads Canada | http://no-ads.caBreezy Brian Gregghttp://no-ads.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-60417996058460266182013-11-12T10:54:54.398-05:002013-11-12T10:54:54.398-05:00For those of us with short memories or too many di...For those of us with short memories or too many distractions, I would have liked to see examples of the policies you refer to, examples of the trickle down policies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com