The capital would flow out pretty quickly if something more compelling came along.
We saw exactly that watching our friends to the south in 2006 when “Web 2.0” started attracting investor interest towards tech, prompting the now-famous housing crash (not to be confused with the securities crash of 2008).
Trouble in Canada is that we’re so busy going to university in a quest to attain degrees to maintain our “most educated nation in the world” status that we forget to actually do anything.
Yes and no. Early Canada saw, by and large, equal contribution across the entire population. The establishment of such oligarchs was most efficient and inconsequential as everyone was already operating in their own lane. I give you food, you give me shelter – we are in balance – you need me as much as I need you.
Oligarchies become a problem when some segment of the population starts to become useless. You give me food, Bob gives me shelter, and in return I give… a pat on the back? That doesn’t fly. It is true that without the encumberments that lead to oligarchies, I too can start to provide food and/or shelter, which is something. But we would all be better off if I started offering something entirely new; something that will change the world.
Going back to university for a moment, it was once believed that university research labs would promote R&D into those entirely new things, giving the useless segment of the population a chance to restore balance. This is where the idea that university will lead to higher incomes comes from. It wasn’t a bad theory, but of course it never panned out. Incomes have held as stagnant as can be and balance was never restored as people clung to the classroom instead of the research lab.
So, in theory, if people started doing things it could solve the oligarchy problem by offering the aforementioned balance. But I agree that Canadian’s don’t have it in them. It goes against the social fabric of Canada to try new things. We are very much “Go to school, get a low paying job, and pretend that you are happy.” and any deviation will feel the full scorn of the society’s disdain.
Housing is money’s place of last resort, but if that’s all that you have remaining to offer, that is for sure where it will go.
That said, when your mind grinds on such inconsequential matters, it is its way of telling you that you don’t have sufficient understanding to get started. You might want to take some time for introspection there.
Lemmy truly is like to old internet sometimes, obvious troll.
Early Canada saw, by and large, equal contribution across the entire population… you need me as much as I need you.
This is SO true, everyone TOTALLY contributed equally to industry and got fair compensation for their efforts: British colonists, native Canadians, Black slaves, and the Chinese immigrants who worked on our railroads. It was just so efficient for the rich to also massacre entire populations of people, force people to work, and pay either nothing or next to nothing. I totally agree with you here, you are such a scholar with a clear understanding of Canadian history 🙇. I also hear that after a hard days work the rich colonists and workers (the ones who didn’t happen to die that day when building infrastructure) would all go out for a cold beer and have a jolly old time!
…
The HEAVIEST of sarcasm, jesus fucking christ. I won’t even continue with the rest of the post, but let’s just say I might slightly disagree with you 😉
Like seriously, everything he said had that base level stupidity. And he said it like he was just five fedoras and a neckbeard stapled together pretending to be a person.
I noticed, but it is always fun getting the troll to do their little dance, so I have no qualms about providing the feed. And dance the troll did! Worth it.
This is SO true, everyone TOTALLY contributed equally to industry and got fair compensation for their efforts
“By and large” means “in totality” now? I’m sorry, I did miss the day they updated the dictionary with that replaced definition. Alas.
let’s just say I might slightly disagree with you 😉
Okay, and? Let’s say you also live in a different home, have a different job, go to a different grocery store… Should I be worried that you are not my exact clone, or what are you trying to add here?
The capital would flow out pretty quickly if something more compelling came along.
We saw exactly that watching our friends to the south in 2006 when “Web 2.0” started attracting investor interest towards tech, prompting the now-famous housing crash (not to be confused with the securities crash of 2008).
Trouble in Canada is that we’re so busy going to university in a quest to attain degrees to maintain our “most educated nation in the world” status that we forget to actually do anything.
Yeah but that doesn’t solve the corporate oligarchy problem in my opinion.
Yes and no. Early Canada saw, by and large, equal contribution across the entire population. The establishment of such oligarchs was most efficient and inconsequential as everyone was already operating in their own lane. I give you food, you give me shelter – we are in balance – you need me as much as I need you.
Oligarchies become a problem when some segment of the population starts to become useless. You give me food, Bob gives me shelter, and in return I give… a pat on the back? That doesn’t fly. It is true that without the encumberments that lead to oligarchies, I too can start to provide food and/or shelter, which is something. But we would all be better off if I started offering something entirely new; something that will change the world.
Going back to university for a moment, it was once believed that university research labs would promote R&D into those entirely new things, giving the useless segment of the population a chance to restore balance. This is where the idea that university will lead to higher incomes comes from. It wasn’t a bad theory, but of course it never panned out. Incomes have held as stagnant as can be and balance was never restored as people clung to the classroom instead of the research lab.
So, in theory, if people started doing things it could solve the oligarchy problem by offering the aforementioned balance. But I agree that Canadian’s don’t have it in them. It goes against the social fabric of Canada to try new things. We are very much “Go to school, get a low paying job, and pretend that you are happy.” and any deviation will feel the full scorn of the society’s disdain.
Housing is money’s place of last resort, but if that’s all that you have remaining to offer, that is for sure where it will go.
Man that was just wrong in so many directions I don’t even know where to begin.
Any place is fine. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
That said, when your mind grinds on such inconsequential matters, it is its way of telling you that you don’t have sufficient understanding to get started. You might want to take some time for introspection there.
Lemmy truly is like to old internet sometimes, obvious troll.
This is SO true, everyone TOTALLY contributed equally to industry and got fair compensation for their efforts: British colonists, native Canadians, Black slaves, and the Chinese immigrants who worked on our railroads. It was just so efficient for the rich to also massacre entire populations of people, force people to work, and pay either nothing or next to nothing. I totally agree with you here, you are such a scholar with a clear understanding of Canadian history 🙇. I also hear that after a hard days work the rich colonists and workers (the ones who didn’t happen to die that day when building infrastructure) would all go out for a cold beer and have a jolly old time!
…
The HEAVIEST of sarcasm, jesus fucking christ. I won’t even continue with the rest of the post, but let’s just say I might slightly disagree with you 😉
Like seriously, everything he said had that base level stupidity. And he said it like he was just five fedoras and a neckbeard stapled together pretending to be a person.
I noticed, but it is always fun getting the troll to do their little dance, so I have no qualms about providing the feed. And dance the troll did! Worth it.
“By and large” means “in totality” now? I’m sorry, I did miss the day they updated the dictionary with that replaced definition. Alas.
Okay, and? Let’s say you also live in a different home, have a different job, go to a different grocery store… Should I be worried that you are not my exact clone, or what are you trying to add here?