# Canada, land of mediocrity?



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Pretty tough critique in the Globe and Mail:

Mediocrity

From the article:
""Canadians are complacent and generally unwilling to take risks. This culture holds Canada back." 

I was surprised to see Switzerland as #1 on the list. What's so exciting about the Swiss? 

Do you think these comments are fair? I was surprised by the literacy rate problems they mentioned.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Us Canadians are too polite, and afraid to offend, which usually means we are scared to takes risks. I see it every day.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Looks like a pretty fair assessment to me.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Max said:


> Looks like a pretty fair assessment to me.


Agreed - unfortunately.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Businesses are taxed too much to take risks, little capital means little reinvestment in advancing their business and technology. Not to say that Canadians aren't creative, because when we do it, we can compete with the best of them, i.e. RIM.

I'm not surprised about the Swiss, look at Ikea, one of the most innovative businesses in the world, and known to develop products that push the envelope. A lot of creative thinking, from the manufacturing, to the inventory of products. Ever see their plant, ah inspiring.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

*IKEA is Swedish through and through*

Just for clarification, IKEA is Swedish, not Swiss.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Canada excels at mediocrity.

I have not read the report yet, but some of the conclusions sound odd.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Maybe Canadians are mediocre innovators, perhaps they're just mediocre journalists--and readers.

Given the opportunity to critique the Conference Board of Canada report, the Globe & Mail instead simply repeats its findings.

That isn't journalism or reportage: that's plagiaristic photocopying, lazy and devoid of critical thinking.

Even lazy journalists bother to get an opposing viewpoint or, sometimes, re-inforce the findings of a report they have chanced across--instead of just repeating it.

Think about it: the Conference Board of Canada exists in order to... (1) perpetuate itself and (2) get its rich members easy access to more riches, perhaps by publishing reports that conclude that we need government to stimulate innovative thinking. And how do they do that?

Here is the Conference Board of Canada's Board of Directors:
Board of Directors
*
Do you really think that these people are mediocre non-innovative Canadians?*


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think these studies are stupid. I believe that Canadian's are innovative and we have done all sorts of cool things in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

A lot of what we do is based on an economic decision of what is financially the most efficient way to do things (e.g. waste generation). Claiming a lack of innovation is missing the larger point of what drives innovation.


----------



## NaturesPixel (Apr 30, 2007)

dont be that sad ya beat my country australia...lol i didnt think we was scare to do anything...lol


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> lazy and devoid of critical thinking.


I look forward to hearing your commentary on the report once you've read it, reflecting your critical thinking this time instead of just another rant.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.


God Bless our Canada,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless our Canada
My home sweet home."

With apologies to Irving Berlin, a fellow Jewish New Yorker. He would understand this posting, I believe.

http://www.geocities.com/god_bless_america_lyrics/katesmith1.wav

No one sings it better than Kate Smith.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Beej said:


> I look forward to hearing your commentary on the report once you've read it, reflecting your critical thinking this time instead of just another rant.


If I write and publish a peer-reviewed journal response, I'll let you know.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This is part of a longterm strategy by business interests, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry to increase productivity in Canada (ie. make you work harder for the same, but certainly not more, money).

The strategy is akin to what happened in the early 90's when David Dodge decided that our deficit spending was the biggest holdback to the economy. He, along with the Department of Finance and the Chretien government commissioned lots of public opinion polls to determine how they could get the electorate to buy into this idea and make sure they believed that everyone was taking an equal hit.

Now the Department of Finance and Department of Industry have decided that worker productivity is the biggest problem and are working towards fixing that.

You can expect to see many more articles like this in the coming months and years and you will see the focus gradually start to narrow in on productivity, rather than the broader results of this report.

You can see the general themes in this report, for example, Canada gets a strong mark in education:



> The only area in which Canada receives an A is education, mainly because the country is good at pumping large quantities of students through to postsecondary institutions.


This is important because education is what many in the electorate consider to be the primary thing holding them back...the CBB wants people to think that there isn't a problem with education...you can do it now!!



> At the other end of the spectrum, Canada's low levels of literacy are "shocking," and prevent workers from functioning efficiently and competently in the labour force, the report says. As well, employer investment in training is falling.


Since the CBB says there is nothing wrong with the education system, at least until you get to the very high end, the reason we have "shocking(ly)" low levels of literacy isn't the education system...so what is it?

These two are very closely tied in the mind of the electorate. If someone says we have low literacy levels, the electorate will automatically think it is because the education system is letting us down. The structure of this report is designed to lead people away from that conclusion and towards the "lack of productivity" conclusion (later in the article).



> In the economy, health and society domains, Canada gets a B - although lack of innovation is impeding progress.


Translation: Rich people in this country can't make money off the healthcare system and have to wait in the same lines as commoners...this is unacceptable.



> In health care, Canada does well at saving people from the flu and pneumonia, but performance on infant mortality and death from diabetes is weak.


Again, most of the electorate experience our healthcare system through minor things such as colds and injuries and don't have many complaints. Most Canadians don't have much of an idea how well it handles major problems that could result in death.

The CBB admits what people already know...great for colds...and tries to scare them with issues they don't have much awareness about.



> In economics, Canada gets top marks for low inflation, and does well in growth, labour productivity and unemployment.
> 
> It gets low marks, however, for its ability to attract foreign direct investment, which often brings in fresh ideas, more investment, advanced technology and entrepreneurial ideas.


Translation: Let the Americans buy out the country and the rich will make lots of money through the sale of shares.



> Canada's scientists don't keep up with their global peers in the number of articles published, and its inventors don't keep up in the number of patents, the report shows.


Translation: You are fat and lazy.



> "Canadians are complacent and generally unwilling to take risks," the report scolds. "This culture holds Canada back."


Translation: Canadians are actually happy and satisfied with their lives and don't feel the need to abandon their families and hobbies to increase shareholder value for the companies they work for. This is problematic for rich people who aren't happy or satisfied and want even more money then they have...even if they aren't sure what they will do with it all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Zoz, your translator is broken; possibly smashed by a large conspiracy theory.

What is the translation for, "Canada needs to increase its spending on social programs if rates of child and working-age poverty are to decrease."?

As for productivity, it has been a concern for a very long time. Politicians started tentatively jumping on the bandwagon some years ago, but maybe this time they'll get serious about it. Of course, it takes more than just politicians.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Translation: Canadians are actually happy and satisfied with their lives and don't feel the need to abandon their families and hobbies to increase shareholder value for the companies they work for. This is problematic for rich people who aren't happy or satisfied and want even more money then they have...even if they aren't sure what they will do with it all.


I'd actually concur with this.

Who says more is better?

_“Fame or integrity: which is more important? Money or happiness: which is more valuable? Success or failure: which is more destructive? If you look to others for fulfillment, you will never truly be fulfilled. If your happiness depends on money, you will never be happy with yourself. Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.” _ ~ Lao-tzu


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Zoz, your translator is broken; possibly smashed by a large conspiracy theory.
> 
> What is the translation for, "Canada needs to increase its spending on social programs if rates of child and working-age poverty are to decrease."?


To further your conspiracy theory concerns, I believe the article is worded in such a way that things like this can be quoted to try to distract from what the article is actually about.

There isn't a lot of money that business can make off serving the poor so make yourself sound softer by saying we should target some spending there.

As I mentioned at the top of my last post, this is about adapting the electorate to a "work harder" attitude and they are placing the frog in the pot before bringing it to a boil.



> As for productivity, it has been a concern for a very long time. Politicians started tentatively jumping on the bandwagon some years ago, but maybe this time they'll get serious about it. Of course, it takes more than just politicians.


Pollsters have long noted that the electorate doesn't like talk of productivity because they associate such talk with them being lazy. Right now, I am aware that a lot of public opinion polls are being produced to try to find the right way to sell this notion to Canadians without upsetting them (similar to what they did in the early 90's to get the electorate onboard with deficit cutting).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Right, so quotes favourable to your theory reinforce your theory, as do quotes that are unfavourable. That makes sense.

Productivity is also about a lot more than just working harder and it is quite important for Canada. As for getting the public interested, the same thing goes on for child care, electoral reform etc. Lots of people researching ways to do things better but competing for a limited amount of public interest. No conspiracies needed.

The report also criticised environmental performance in specific areas, but that's probably just part of the coverup or somebody will make money off of it so they bought their way into the conclusions.

Heck the report had lots of stuff (useful and not useful, in my opinion), but that does not matter. Rich people propaganda or covering up for the rich people propaganda. What we need is high unemployment, low productivity and high government deficits to show them rich people what fer!


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Right, so quotes favourable to your theory reinforce your theory, as do quotes that are unfavourable. That makes sense.


It makes sense when it comes to a propaganda piece. Highlight what you can't make money off of and call for increase social spending in that area while making sure the overall article drives home your point.

Come on Beej, you and I both know these things are put together in committees often with the help of marketing agencies in order to sell people on things that they might not like if it was put forward in a blunt way.



> Productivity is also about a lot more than just working harder and it is quite important for Canada. As for getting the public interested, the same thing goes on for child care, electoral reform etc. Lots of people researching ways to do things better but competing for a limited amount of public interest. No conspiracies needed.


I agree 100% with you and, for the record, you were the one who started talking conspiracies...I'm just thinking marketing.  

One thing that working stiffs like me have to watch out for, and really what was on my mind when I made my original post, is that we make sure we get paid for working harder, smarter or any other "er" that might come along.



> The report also criticised environmental performance in specific areas, but that's probably just part of the coverup or somebody will make money off of it so they bought their way into the conclusions.


It is one of the, possibly "the", top ranking issue on the public's mind these days...not a bad thing to slip in between uneducated and lazy.



> Heck the report had lots of stuff (useful and not useful, in my opinion), but that does not matter. Rich people propaganda or covering up for the rich people propaganda. What we need is high unemployment, low productivity and high government deficits to show them rich people what fer!


Again, I'm just raising awareness of this longterm strategy and raising the issue on this forum so that those of us in the employment sector are aware that they will be looking for more work for less money from us down the road.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A long-term strategy of higher productivity as well as better environmental, educational and social outcomes? Bastards! We should give up the productivity gains of the last 50 years for our own good, and that's just for starters.

Zoz, you've spun yourself into a hole. It may be more fun (doesn't everyone like getting dizzy once in a while?), but you could always try just thinking about what kinds of things would make Canada better, or what kinds of things in the report you think would not. That's just an option, and not nearly as fun as your existing posts.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

The article basically says Canadians are uneducated and lazy, yet happy and content. It says this in the face of a strong economy and low unemployment.

It also adds the code words "innovation in healthcare" which basically means private for profit healthcare. It wants barriers removed so the US can extend its corporate reach even further into Canada.

The report concludes with them stating that Canadian culture, the one that has made us happy, has to change so that they can make more money.

I'm not making this stuff up Beej, the article appears to have been formed by a committee trying to sell people on a culture shift, and that they've stacked it with peripherial issues about poverty and the environment to soften the tone, but overall they are trying to sell us on a culture shift despite our present contentment and success.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I'm not making this stuff up Beej


First, the article or the report? I recommend a limited diet of spoon-fed materials. Articles are useful to notify one of someone else's research.

Second, you clearly have a preconceived version and like to fit things into it. That's not making stuff up, it's spinning.

Third, why not just skip all that stuff and get into the specific ideas that, in your opinion, would or would not be good for Canada? 

Productivity, innovation etc. have underlying details. Being against the end results, as I've jokingly pointed to, is ridiculous. It's how you think things should be done and if the related tradeoffs are worth it. Sometimes, there are limited tradeoffs because things just are not run very well to begin with.

I do think this is a great place (the best) but that does not mean that I'm against improvements on the grounds that the wrong kind of person or group suggested it or is behind a group that suggested it (with unknown influence over the research...you'd be surprised at how little influence some boards have over the research). 

Reminds me of a small portion of mac-addicts: if someone criticises Macs or OS X, they just go after the critic. They're ready for it and have their spin. Throw in a couple links proving MS-related use by the critic, and the "proof" is done. Proof of what is another matter. 

Other mac users can talk about the criticisms or come up with their own ideas. Maybe the offhand comment about the critic, but they usually have no problem getting into the ideas.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacBookPro said:


> Just for clarification, IKEA is Swedish, not Swiss.


Oops! I should have known better to trust my mediocre brain, before my mediocre morning coffee, if I would have done some mediocre research, I might have been able to give something better than a mediocre answer. But that might have been unCanadian.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Attaboyaward: Make the Rich Wealthier*

I wonder of the connection between this report and the recent Class Action Lawsuit launched against the CBIC. The poor Bankers were getting huge gains in productivity by not buying the Labour of front line staff. Instead the bankers steal the front line worker's labour. 

Talk about hands in your pockets.

OK! OK! I know, I know, the front line workers took home pens, paper clips and elastic bands. 

Fairs fair right? 


That what our country needs is more "Free Time." That's what the USAsian "call centres" located in New Brunswick used to refer to, when workers perform unpaid duties.

More for less and longer hours just like our cousins in Excited States that's something to shoot for.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lots of paranoia here.

Having an efficient work force improves our standard of living. We can't move forward without making productivity gains. Our shifting demographics are soon to present a major challenge to our country as there will be more people leaving the work force than entering it. The only way to maintain economic growth is for us to become more efficient.

Canada is a land of opportunity. I think our opportunities are greater here than they are in the US. We have free health care, an excellent and accessible eduction system and good governance (for the part). The vast size of our country, our immense resources and location adjacent to the world's biggest economy provides us with UNLIMITED opportunity. 

Quit @#[email protected] whining about eveything. This country is great and we can still make it better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Boeing corporation had to leave BC and Canada a long time ago due to the difficult and restrictive business climate here.


I would like to know more about the history of Boeing leaving B.C.

BigDL: Insightful as usual. Along the same lines, maybe the country needs more lazy overpaid people using cute terms like "USAsian" and "Excited States" who like to talk as if they're looking out for their fellow workers, but really just gain from oppressing the intelligent workers, as you argue for.  Isn't spin fun?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Quit @#[email protected] whining about eveything. This country is great and we can still make it better.


Yep, but government policy (including choosing not to interfere) can make a material difference.

For example, our R&D tax credit program is quite generous but it does not seem to be producing generous results. Perhaps it's time to toss it or revamp it.

Canada, as compared to a peer group of the world's leading countries, did not fare well by certain metrics. The metrics should be questioned but not simply to try and make Canada look better. Regardless of the best metrics, our peer group is a high standard, but we're up to the challenge in my opinion. What can we do better?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Tell that to Boeing.



Exactly! But I would like some useful history on Boeing to fill in the quick story.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Tell that to Boeing.


Wow... an anecdote... they mean nothing.

If you have economic data to support your premise, then please share. In the meantime, we could trade anecdotes till the ice caps melt.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Second, you clearly have a preconceived version and like to fit things into it. That's not making stuff up, it's spinning.


I'm not spinning anything, they are the ones saying that Canadians are complacent, not willing to take risks and that this culture is holding us back.

They say this during a strong economy with low unemployment.

The question isn't "can we be more productive" but rather "do we want to make a culture shift and work longer hours in order to be more productive when we are already successful and happy?"

Do we want private healthcare and an increased US business presence in the country (or more likely a liquidation of the TSX to the New York exchanges). That is in the article, though veiled in cautious language (removing barriers to foreign investment and "innovation" in healthcare).



> Third, why not just skip all that stuff and get into the specific ideas that, in your opinion, would or would not be good for Canada?


Highlighting some aspects of what was discussed to raise awareness of what is being said is a far cry from developing a comprehensive policy on what is and is not good for Canada. Do people think private healthcare is a good idea? Do they like the idea of sacrificing personal time in order to work at the office longer so the CEO can take home a bigger bonus at the end of the year? Do they like the idea of Americans buying out our businesses and transferring talent and wealth south of the border?

Those are some of the things that are discussed...I'm not sure what the best direction is for the country, but I'm also not sure that what the Conference Board discusses lines up with what the average Canadian wants.

Ultimately, this is just another lobby group squawking for attention in a cacophony of other special interest groups...It isn't a bad idea to challenge the language and ideas in their conclusions.



> Productivity, innovation etc. have underlying details. Being against the end results, as I've jokingly pointed to, is ridiculous. It's how you think things should be done and if the related tradeoffs are worth it. Sometimes, there are limited tradeoffs because things just are not run very well to begin with.


I think we need to take a long and sober look at the "limited tradeoffs" that we are being asked to take.



> I do think this is a great place (the best) but that does not mean that I'm against improvements on the grounds that the wrong kind of person or group suggested it or is behind a group that suggested it


Neither am I.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> They say this during a strong economy with low unemployment.


An example of your preconceived notion resulting in spin. Low unemployment and a strong economy relative to? Canada is doing great relative to the mess that we were in but, as pointed out in the report, in many aspects other countries are doing a lot better than us and they have taken a variety of approaches to do it. They even talk about education, social programs and the environment. Creeps.

I'll also point out that it is not just about the U.S., lest you spin yourself around too much. There are examples from non-U.S. countries.  Even non-scary countries like Sweden and Finland.   

On investment, are barriers to foreign (recall: there are non-U.S. countries out there) investment helping us or hurting us? That seems to be one of your fears to the point where if a report (or just the article?) talks about this, then the ideas therein are spun. 

Considering the huge role foreign investment has historically played in Canada, and its role in other countries, there's no reason to assume that it is bad, but evidence of it being beneficial.

"Do they like the idea of Americans buying out our businesses and transferring talent and wealth south of the border?" 

And the evidence of foreign owned firms applying more advanced technologies is just someone else's agenda, I guess. Furthermore, when "Americans" pay more for a company than Canadians value it at, they are actually transferring "American" wealth into the country.

"I'm also not sure that what the Conference Board discusses lines up with what the average Canadian wants."

All of it? Heck no, they even talk about energy taxes and how other nations use them much more...average Canadians don't want that. Note: this was related to the environmental section, I think, which to you is just cover for what you Know is the real agenda.

Maybe think tanks should only discuss what the average Canadian wants lest they expose their motive (that different ways of doing things are worth considering). Of course, in that case they should all be tossed and replaced with polling firms. 

How utterly mediocre.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> I would like to know more about the history of Boeing leaving B.C.
> 
> BigDL: Insightful as usual. Along the same lines, maybe the country needs more lazy overpaid people using cute terms like "USAsian" and "Excited States" who like to talk as if they're looking out for their fellow workers, but really just gain from oppressing the intelligent workers, as you argue for.  Isn't spin fun?


Facts are facts. 

All group activism even led by a lawyer/law firm is heaped upon me?

Some individuals can't stand the fact the individual can't do it all ... well except if capital is involved then groups activities are wonderful, right?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

The language used in the report communicates exactly what I have been saying, Canadians are lazy, uneducated, happy and adverse to risk, this culture has to change so that corporate Canada can make even more money off of us.

Less time with your friends, family and hobbies, more time taking courses that corporate Canada dictates that you need and longer hours at the office so shareholders can see larger profits and CEOs can get bigger bonuses. Increasingly, these shareholders and CEOs will be foreigners with little interest in what our country has outside of money for them.

But the government should spend more on social programs for the poor...there isn't much money that can be made off of them.

That is what they are selling here and they will work night and day to make sure we buy into it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> An example of your preconceived notion resulting in spin. Low unemployment and a strong economy relative to? Canada is doing great* relative to the mess that we were in*


Now who is "spinning".

I remain entirely unconvinced that the eternal goal of "productivity" is all it's cracked up to be in societal terms.

I don't see the US as a society to emulate yet it is "productive".

In some areas increased productivity has indeed been beneficial - electronics to name one areas where value for money has improved steadily.

Others - housing and vehicles....( tho the latter may be changing finally.....$14900 City Golf for instance ) I don't see benefits to society or even the individuals with "increased productivity.

One major unaddressed problem is so many of the goals are based on unlimited growth instead of sustainable management of both population and resources.

While we have many natural resource advantages we still have obscenities occurring like the Nanticoke plant and the oil sands emissions.

I think there IS a lack of vision for large scale projects anymore it seems in Canada.
Perhaps seeing what are goals are as a society are muddled. Lack of inspiring leadership perhaps??


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> The language used in the report communicates exactly what I have been saying, Canadians are lazy, uneducated, happy and adverse to risk, this culture has to change so that corporate Canada can make even more money off of us.
> 
> Less time with your friends, family and hobbies, more time taking courses that corporate Canada dictates that you need and longer hours at the office so shareholders can see larger profits and CEOs can get bigger bonuses. Increasingly, these shareholders and CEOs will be foreigners with little interest in what our country has outside of money for them.
> 
> But the government should spend more on social programs for the poor...there isn't much money that can be made off of them.


That's your agenda, apparently. You're making it quite clear that you're having trouble twisting the results into your spin:
"But the government should spend more on social programs for the poor...there isn't much money that can be made off of them."

Your previous excuse was that it was just a covering line to distract from the "real" agenda. Having trouble erroneously summarizing things into your worldview? :lmao: 

The report looks generally positively at our education system, but highlights problems (how dare they!) and as for, "so that corporate Canada can make even more money off of us" agenda, that's quite a joke. Yes, corporate profits are genernally higher with more economic prosperity, as are earnings.  

You also need to look at what is happening to the environment and society (including wealth redistribution)...something that they happen to do. Of course, that's just a cover-up.  

I was happy to see that they specifically mentioned Canada's success in handling poverty amongst the eldery. We did a good job with that. Of course, maybe mentioning that was just covering for something else.

Zoz, you've spun yourself tightly around your own agenda and that is all that you can seem to see or put forward. But hey, "they" have an agenda too so skip any ideas and just put forth yours! It's too bad such ire is raised when others (who have agendas!) dare to suggest things. Things that are different.  

Maybe some of the ideas are good, maybe not, but you just seem to have your agenda/issues going on. One way to get away from your own spin is to look at a bunch of ideas (from evil people) and consider the opposite -- the real opposite, not the opposite of the erroneous summarising that your spin is creating. Is the opposite better?



MD, a few things regarding your post:
................
Now who is "spinning".

I remain entirely unconvinced that the eternal goal of "productivity" is all it's cracked up to be in societal terms.

I don't see the US as a society to emulate yet it is "productive".
................


As for the relative mess we were in, well, all you need to do is look at the deficits, rising debt-gdp, higher unemployment etc. If the economy is "strong" now and unemployment is low now, it is relative to the mess. It is also relative to many other countries, but not all. There's also a lot going on within GDP (participation rate, productivity etc.).

Next, the report covered a lot more than just productivity, unless preferable social outcomes is also called productivity. Also, you seem to be mixing up productivity growth with how the fruits of the productivity are spent. The tax system (policy again!) can tilt things but a policy of being poorer, as a nation, to prevent luxurious excesses would be silly. 

Of course, there's also the standard focus with the U.S. when considering Canada. The report looked at many non-U.S. countries to see what they were doing too. They generally did better than the U.S. Canada did better than the U.S. in many instances. 

Measuring this stuff is highly subjective but, over time, I think we're going to need more than just GDP, unemployment and such to have well-informed public debate of what policies we want.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> That's your agenda, apparently. You're making it quite clear that you're having trouble twisting the results into your spin:


My only agenda here is to highlight some of the strategic language used in the report, how that ties into the Department of Finance and Department of Industry concerns about productivity and that there has been an effort afoot by these departments for awhile to raise awareness to this.

You have taken my concerns and spinned them to make me look like I’m some kind of anti-globalization activist. As a parent of, pretty quickly, two boys, the economy is very important to me, however, so is personal time with my family.

A culture change to satisfy corporate Canada might not be in my best interests or in the best interests of the average Canadian. I’m just pointing out what the language of this report suggests.




> "But the government should spend more on social programs for the poor...there isn't much money that can be made off of them."
> 
> Your previous excuse was that it was just a covering line to distract from the "real" agenda. Having trouble erroneously summarizing things into your worldview?


What I said was that business can’t make much money off the poor anyways, so highlight that to talk about increasing social spending to soften the overall message of the report.

I don’t really have a solid worldview on this subject, again, I just wanted to highlight the overall message of this report.

You and I both know how these things get put together and vetted to make sure the message is sent in such a way so as not to create a negative reaction. Again, I’m just pointing that out.



> The report looks generally positively at our education system, but highlights problems (how dare they!)


I never said it didn’t, what I said was that it says the education system gets top marks (with the exception of the very high end) and then states that Canadians have “shockingly” low literacy levels.

The conclusion the report wants people to reach is that if the education system is fine but Canadians still have “shockingly” low literacy levels, it is because Canadians aren’t doing enough to educate themselves. IOW, Canadians are stupid because they are lazy.



> and as for, "so that corporate Canada can make even more money off of us" agenda, that's quite a joke. Yes, corporate profits are genernally higher with more economic prosperity, as are earnings.


That is exactly what I said, we work harder and corporate profits will go up, I just question how much of that wealth the average working Canadian will see especially given that they will be the ones sacrificing their personal time to accomplish it.

I’ve worked in business long enough to see them claw back my compensation when times are tough and be very slow, sometimes to the point of having to wave a resignation letter in their faces, when things pick up again and corporate execs are seeing huge bonuses.

All I am saying in my posts is watch out when they lobby for a culture shift because the average Canadian will likely get the short end of that stick.




> You also need to look at what is happening to the environment and society (including wealth redistribution)...something that they happen to do. Of course, that's just a cover-up.


As I said earlier, and this thread is just going around in circles, the environment is a great thing to put in there between stupid and lazy. Of course, there could be a lot of profit to be made by developing new technologies to adapt to this situation and the government hasn’t been overly harsh to the traditional industries that would be affected by a rapid implementation of Kyoto, so why not throw it in there…it doesn’t take away from their conclusion but helps to soften a blunt statement on how stupid and lazy we are by mentioning the issue at the top of the polls for Canadians.

Finding ways to get Canadians to swallow this pill by playing off the most concerning issue in public opinion polls is exactly the kind of thing these groups do.

I’ve sat through plenty of meetings focused on how to tell people about a new policy in a way that employees will react positively to, even if it is to their detriment. The language and structure of this report indicate to me that this was an important factor in how the report was phrased and presented.



> I was happy to see that they specifically mentioned Canada's success in handling poverty amongst the eldery. We did a good job with that. Of course, maybe mentioning that was just covering for something else.


Because poor elderly people can’t be cashed in on either as employees or customers, so throw them a bone and soften your image.



> Zoz, you've spun yourself tightly around your own agenda and that is all that you can seem to see or put forward. But hey, "they" have an agenda too so skip any ideas and just put forth yours! It's too bad such ire is raised when others (who have agendas!) dare to suggest things. Things that are different.


Again, my only agenda is to cut through the psychobabble to show what this report is actually about and to question if it is really in the best interests of the average Canadian.



> Maybe some of the ideas are good, maybe not, but you just seem to have your agenda/issues going on. One way to get away from your own spin is to look at a bunch of ideas (from evil people) and consider the opposite -- the real opposite, not the opposite of the erroneous summarising that your spin is creating. Is the opposite better?


Just because I raised some concerns about what this report is saying does not mean that I necessarily endorse the opposite. The report says that Canadians are complacent with a low tolerance for risk which indicates that we are happy with the current situation. Do we really need to change this culture in order for big business to make more money when we are already happy? Will the average Canadian recognize real fruit from their additional labour, and possible loss of happiness, if this change is made?

You accuse me of agenda and spin and then start using words like “evil people” in reference to my comments. I didn’t call anyone evil, I certainly believe and have stated that this report endorses policies designed to make the rich richer and question if the average Canadian will see much reward for helping them to become so. I’m not saying that is evil but since I am in the latter category, I need watch out for my own interests and so do other working Canadians.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> My only agenda here
> ....
> You have taken my concerns and spinned them to make me look like I’m some kind of anti-globalization activist.
> ....
> ...


You characterise and spin, including making up the "real" conclusions of the report to push your agenda (claiming that it's just cutting through psychobabble). Your claim of what the report is actually about seems to be a source of great worry for you (I'm afraid of bogeymen too). I thought you'd be happy when someone else makes up the "real" conclusions of what your posts are actually about. Where's the happiness?

In the end, are the ideas good or not? You've only spoken out against what you claim are the "real" ideas, thus adhering to the motive game. Playing the strict motive game is pointless; it can add some spice to a discussion, but as your only agenda, it just exposes your spin. Diversify (translation: club baby seals).

This is how Question Period is done: the motive game, with the sorts of rhetoric seen here. The idea from the other Party (of sinister motives not in the "average" or "ordinary" Canadians' interests) is debated against in some netherworld where the actual ideas are often ignored. Funnily enough, each party is the only true defender of average and ordinary Canadians. 

Perhaps, with so many defenders of average and ordinary, mediocrity was inevitable. :lmao: Heck, with how ideas are discussed (exclusively motive, not merit), achieving mediocrity is heroic. (translation: we get the government we deserve)

What happened to good and bad ideas instead of paranoia (supplied, you claim, as a public service from you)?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

:yawn:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> :yawn:


An good summary of your policy ideas. :clap: 

Another version that would have been slightly more accurate: " "

I recommend a career in politics.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..bout right.


----------

