View Single Post
Old 02-17-2005, 08:55 AM
this this is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 281
Default Re: The Illusion of Safety

Cynic, there is probably something to compare between Canada and Australia related to the privatization issue. It's probably worth talking about, however in one of your posts you seem to not care about 'Armageddon' since it's phrophesised which seems a little defeatist.

Every world ends at some point, it certainly did for WWII Germany, for Ceasars's Rome I guess, etc. In biblical times they only knew their world, and major battles spelled the end of their world, as they knew it. Battles were fought on the hill of Megiddo as I understand, and the end "was near" for the Roman empire or whatever take you want to have on that.

I'm familiar with the privatization issue in Canada, it certainly seems to be at cross purposes to Communism - on the surface. I suggest however that losing labels makes the discussion easier. In 1988 or thereabouts Canada signed the Canada/US Free Trade deal. It was a treaty that allowed either side to buy up assets regardless of nationality. It had no power to affect US law.

There were and continue to be more trade disputes after the deal was signed than before it. The US doesn't like to be outcompeted, and flaunts the spirit of the agreement. The US wanted the agreement so it had guaranteed access to the continent's dwindling energy resources. Canada signed it hoping to get protection from punitive US trade practices. As the US continues to out-subsidize it's agriculture, our farmers are retiring and giving up. The only Canadian sectors protected by the deal - dairy, beer, and film production, have survived so far.

I have wondered whether the push for privatization is a cyclical one, maybe government ownership will be the next craze to keep us distracted. There is a revolving door in the West between the halls of government and industry. Every time a deal is made between the two there is an opportunity to scam the public. Get the gov't to build the stadium or toll-road then sell (at reduced value) to a corporation (bank financed deal). Did the corporation go bankrupt, unable to pay it's taxes, creditors and employees? Oh well, I guess the gov't better step in and guarantee another loan. Or pick up the pieces.

The point is, corrupt government allows corrupt practices. And we like it that way apparently. Our whole financial system is corrupt, and you won't hear a Communist (or Capitalist) complain about that. Either they don't know, or more likely that's not part of their programming so it's not an issue.

I think when the labels are dropped it's easier to see parallels between corrupt power brokers, no matter their team colours. A decade ago a Canadian state/province elected it's most overtly socialist leader to date. He was a protegé of Maurice Strong, the millionaire who is assumed to be a UN communist, and probably is. Bob Rae was elected to bring in public car insurance because the public was tired of getting fleeced. Rae backed down when elected but kept secret his reservation - that under the FTA treaty his government could be sued for lost profits. Rae is a Rhodes scholar like Clinton, and I guess just about as useful. They play a part to bring about change, in a flavour that is acceptable in their region.

If we are approaching a world wide economic crisis, and wars to go along with it, the governments want to be able to step in afterwards to pick up the pieces as they did in 1945. Change is stressful, so they're always working towards that. In the meantime privatization allows for maximum fraud and loss of money. It's also a good way to get left wing activists excited, who will some day lobby for more government control.
Reply With Quote