“He says the Northern Gateway project for example is being opposed for all the wrong reasons and says there is a great deal of misinformation about the project.”

So, I and many others are saying the Northern Gateway project for example is being supported for all the wrong reasons and says there is a great deal of misinformation about the project.

Interesting he should show his hand so readily ….. packaged in nice rhetoric…

Sorry … old style at work there …..

In a discussion Friday with energy industry leaders in Calgary, Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, said Ottawa is still very keen to develop new markets for Canada’s oil, but is also keeping an eye on public opinion.

“If we don’t get people on side, we don’t get the social licence — politics often follows opinion — and so we could well get a positive regulatory conclusion from the joint panel that is looking at the Northern Gateway, but if the population is not on side, there is a big problem,” he said at the Canada Energy Summit hosted by the Economic Club of Canada.

Ottawa dials down support for Northern Gateway pipeline, citing ‘huge challenges’

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/11/30/ottawa-dials-down-support-for-northern-gateway-pipeline-citing-huge-challenges/

“both support the project”

Looking back in the article, it appears to say the both the Liberals and the NDP support the the Northern Gateway project. I don’t think so! If what he calls the Northern Gateway is the oil pipeline, then he has it very wrong. I have yet to see any proof that the pipeline will be a continuing source of funding for BC’s social services. Construction will provide a short term boost to BC’s income, bring with it a parallel boost to BC’s social expenses. Long term, it will employ fewer people than a medium sized sawmill, but spread these employees across the width of the Province. At least a sawmill puts everyone in one town where its benefit can be seen in the local shops.

Nicely put!!!

“We have median incomes in B.C. that are lower than they should be and costs to live here that are higher than they should be.”

Who says what incomes in BC “should be”? Based on what factors? It is a “free market economy” isn’t it?

They might be lower than one wants them to be, but one is going to have to make a pretty darn substantial argument that they are lower than they should be.

And the same holds for the costs to live here. Move to the boonies of BC and you will find that the costs are not exactly as high as you think. Now there is the rub, isn’t it?

“”He says the Northern Gateway project for example is being opposed for all the wrong reasons””

Why do these people keep coming here to tell us we are too stupid to understand the risk/benefits of Northern Gateway?

Mr. Winter, do a cost analysis of what it would cost BC if this project went ahead and a major leak or tanker spill happened. Make sure you factor in the losses to our fishing industry, our tourism industry…add in all the legal fees trying to collect from Enbridge too. You have it right…who is going to pay the bills.

The pipeline will continue to support the reason why we have incomes which are “lower than they should be”. We continue to export opportunities to create added value to other countries that can add value for less money due to their lower standard of living.

We have to develop the ability to compete with those countries which are adding value at a much higher level of income for products and services to support the continuing high standard of living they enjoy.

We have to remember that we cannot eat energy. Energy does not sustain our health. Energy does not give us shelter.

Energy is used to create what shelters us, what sustains our food creation and distribution system and what supports our health as well as our recreation. It is the creation of those things from the raw material of energy which generates the real wealth.

In fact, if we are truly on the verge of incrasing the period over which “traditional” fossil energy sources will remai avaialable, the level of income we will receive for exporting that energy could drop dramatically.

I strongly believe that the cost analysis which needs to be done is a simple marketing analysis of whether this country would gain more by exporting the energy and paying for the products which will be developed from it or by keeping the energy to create those products and services in this country and on this continent.

Selling the energy is the quick but short fix. Since Mr. Winter is not Chinese or even European, he has yet to learn that simple principle of sustainability.

See how we are not all working from a common data base? There is no common data base Mr. Winter!!! Understand that and you might be on the way to solving a problem.

Getting just a little sick off all the BS,the BC Government has been boasting about low corporate tax’s and low personal income tax,then tell us were 1.7 billion further in the hole have to cut, cut and raise user fees more lay-offs. Lets deal with the real problem with the cost of health care, education on the rise and the Feds off loading on the Province can we afford Billions in tax credits to Banks and corporations on top of low tax’s? here is the problem cut the loop holes and back off on all the tax credits to these companys. Working people pay their share and then some, so if you want the health care , education then everyone pays and pull back at least on the billions in tax credits to thse corps after all their free enterprise give them the freedom to stand on their own and stop sucking the blood out of the rest of us.

I sure am glad I can come here and read from those who sit at home on their computers and have all the answers.

Of course, to do such an analysis is kind of useless since it is not Canada’s oil and gas but Alberta’s primarily and BC’s for a much smaller amount at this time.

Talk about disparity. Many countries would laugh at us for putting such restrictions on ourselves as a country. Talk about a lack of a common fact base!!

Better than reading from carpetbaggers who have all the answers ….

Beware of strangers bearing gifts …. ;-)

Remember, John Winter is the guy who is known for his famous quote …. “HST is key to a strong economy in B.C.”

He was using a different fact base than the common people who voted it down. So, he was not using a common fact base by that definition …. LOL

http://www.straight.com/article-327679/vancouver/john-winter-hst-key-strong-economy-bc

Another famous quote from that article: “Experience in Atlantic Canada and other jurisdictions confirms that shifting to a value-added sales tax like the HST paves the way for increased capital spending on machinery, equipment, structures, new technologies, and other productive assets.”

Right ….. that is why, other than Newfoundland which relied on our old friend of rags to riches – oil – the rest of Atlantic Canada is still floundering. (pun intended)

“We don’t think British Columbia is doing as well as it could, or should be doing economically. We are not competing very well, even with other Canadian Provinces”

Pure rubbish.

Based on a recent forecast by the Royal Bank, BC is expected to rank 4th out of the 11 Provinces in real GDP growth by the time 2012 is up. In 2013, they are expected to be 5th. In both instances, BC’s GDP growth is projected to be above the national average.

Energy and Agriculture seem to be behind the fact that the Prairie Provinces occupy the top spots. A slow down in lumber exports to the US is hurting BC.

It is totally ludicrous to expect BC to lead GDP growth in Canada right now given that the markets and commodities that are in demand are not BC’s core strength. I believe that Mr. Winter is talking nonsense if he thinks that BC can bump the others in this particular economic climate.

Yikes, make that 10 Provinces!!!! Tough night, LOL.

“”here is the problem cut the loop holes and back off on all the tax credits””

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20121130/PRINCEGEORGE0304/311309999/0/princegeorge/tips-to-prevent-money-slipping-through-your-fingers

“”If a family member has no other income, they could earn up to $10,000 of interest income, $20,000 of capital gains or $30,000-$50,000 of Canadian dividends tax-free annually through income splitting.””

So you can arrange your affairs in such a way that your wife, and four kids all make $30-$50,000 in Canadian dividends each year and pay zero income tax??? Interesting little loophole.

Interesting isn’t it, that now the wealth is seen to be in the north of the province these money-grubbers want to have a “shared prosperity”.

Where were they when the north was suffering with low lumber prices, etc.? Not a single one of them came up offering to have a “shared prosperity”.

It is still a ‘we’ versus ‘they’ in the province. It’s just that when ‘they’ don’t have it, and ‘we’ do, then the greed rises up under the cloak of sharing.

Disgusting really.

“”We’ve got a number of disconnects in terms of our ability to attract workers to the province and its various regions, skills shortages.””

Disconnects…like Carbon taxes, inflated fuel prices and ICBC insurance rates? There is a reason they call BC..”Bring Cash”

As quoted from Winter: “make a decision based on facts as opposed to emotional, rhetorical or ideological persuasions.”

You can tell he is old school in that he does not consider
1. emotional to = facts
2. rhetorical to = facts
3. ideological persuasions = facts.

In FACT, they are facts of human lives. They are called human factors in many disciplines which actually coonsider the nature of humans ….. oh the horrors of it all that we should actuall condsider flesh and blood rather than incorporation papers!!!!

The John Winter quote that I liked the best was.

**It will be a cold day in hell before the HST is recinded in BC**

So much for John

Winter says-“We’ve got a number of disconnects in terms of our ability to attract workers to the province and its various regions, skills shortages.” Winter go check the flights up in Ft. Nelson. Also we have a school system that implies you are a loser if going into the trades.

Winter-” He says the Northern Gateway project for example is being opposed for all the wrong reasons and says there is a great deal of misinformation about the project.” Well I have to agree with him here on the technical side.

Steve Cooly says-“Construction will provide a short term boost to BC’s income. I always get a chuckle when a person says that.” Implying that is the one and only constuction job for ever.

I wonder how Mr. Winter would define the ‘prosperity’ he wants us all to share in?

My guess is he would regard it as a rise in prices followed by a rise in incomes sufficient enough to service the still faster increase in debt we’ll incur trying to fully meet them.

Rather than what it really is, a genuine increase in the actual purchasing power that each dollar of income received will actually buy.

Until he, and his good buddies in the BC Liberal Party, get that sorted out I doubt whether he’ll have anything to offer that hasn’t already been tried. And failed.

Whispers into JohhnyB’s ear……apparently you have all the answers too!

The main reason that the pipeline should not be built is what happened to the Kalamazoo river. Enbridge ignored the fact that the pipeline needed maintenance for 5 or so years. When it finally burst the people monitoring the gauges kept pumping oil ignoring the warnings. It wasn’t until someone on the ground complained about the spill that they finally turned the tap off 887,000 gallons later. Two years later they are still cleaning it up.

Who is going to tell these people if the pipe breaks over the Stuart river? I guess the people of Prince George will when we are wondering where the smell is coming from after we fill our cups with water from the Nechako and it reeks of Tarsands Bitumen.

Go away Enbridge!

Must be bad Koolaid if johnnytroll was the only one who liked it.

No pipeline protesters, no problem.

Gus:-“Who says what incomes in BC “should be”? Based on what factors? It is a “free market economy” isn’t it? They might be lower than one wants them to be, but one is going to have to make a pretty darn substantial argument that they are lower than they should be.”

==========================================

Okay. Lets try to make that “pretty darn substantial argument”. Without having to write something book length on it. And NOT the way you’re ever going to hear John Winter make it.

Will the flow of collective incomes in BC, which are comprised of all wages, salaries, dividends, and interest PAID OUT to the public in any given period, a day, week, month, etc., ever add up to a sum equal to all costs, again taken collectively, that are carried forward into prices in that ONE AND THE SAME given period ?

Classic economists hold that in the economy as a whole Costs=Incomes=Spending from Incomes, and the financial system is fully ‘self-liquidating’ as EACH successive cycle of Production continually flows through to become Consumption.

But what if it ISN’T? What if Costs are greater than Incomes, which are in turn greater than Spending from Incomes? What if Costs, and the Prices they generate, contain sums for things like Depreciation, say, that don’t pay out any Income to anyone in that given period, whatever length it may be? How then, if that latter were so, could what we’ve Produced ALL be Consumed at the Cost of its making? Does the FACT that Canadian Consumers, on average, are now
$ 1.63 in DEBT for every $ 1.00 of disposable income they receive ring a bell? A figure that has steadily risen, and will shortly be even higher than it is now.

Incomes, taken collectively, are indeed LESS than they should be. But we will never correct that the way Winter, and others of his ilk, seem to believe. We’ll only succeed in making it worse.

I do not take Winter’s words the way you do, socredible.

To me he was speaking in the context of comparing to other provinces and even other countries, not because we are paying infrastructure of all kinds forward in some cases, but very rarely since typically we are borrowing the money.

“we don’t think British Columbia is doing as well as it could” …. in other words, we could be doing better.

Well yes, I agree we could, but we would have to move to some other products/services to create and sell. But we don’t. As they say, we are too used to pick the low hanging fruit. As soon as it gets tougher, we have the attitude that others are already doing it and we are entering the market too late.

So the question is, why are we too late so often? THAT is the question I am posing and have posed for some time.

To quote from an article in November’s edition of HBR …. “Change Faster” … “how to build adaptive genius in your organization” (province)

I do not see that we have adaptive genius in our province. I mean, where is it supposed to come from? There is no adaptive genius Ministry and Minister. In fact, drop the word genius and just give us building something adaptive or even a Ministry of “emerging issues”.

There is no huge hunger for forward thinking. In my opinion, Mr. Winter is the epitome of that lack in this province’s general business community.

There are two sides to every issue and the Enbridge pipeline is no exception. For me I think I will be content to wait to see what the Environmental Review panel reports. They will have mountains of input from both sides and it all comes down to whether or people will trust the Panel’s decision. If the Panel says “approved” then all those who oppose the project on any terms will likely say the Panel is in bed with Enbridge…If the Panel says “not approved” then all those who approved the project on any terms will likely say the Panel is in bed with the activists and First Nations. For me I am prepared to accept that the panel members are independant and have the expertise and knowledge to make an intelligent decision.

I am prepared to go with what the Panel decides and I feel very comfortable with my position.

Its pretty clear which way the panel is going to go based on WHO is on it, not to mention the numerous times they have stifled those opposed to the project citing the wrong time and place to bring up those concerns, most notably Nathan Cullen who has been elected to speak on behalf of his constituents.

Gus:- “I do not take Winter’s words the way you do, Socredible.”

============================================
And THAT is the fundamental problem, gus, reduced to one sentence. You confirm that completely when you state, that for us to do ‘better’ “…we would have to move to some other product/services to create and sell.” And call that a move to ‘adaptive thinking’.

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you, gus, but that is in no ways ‘adaptive thinking’.

It is simply a repetition of the vary same failed thinking that’s served as a smokescreen for so many years, and caused us to miss what we should really be seeing clearly.

It is akin to the never ending call for more ‘jobs’, without ever questioning whether the increase in total incomes more jobs will supposedly create can then FULLY liquidate the corresponding increase in the total costs of production of which those incomes are STILL only a PART. And in any modern, industrial economy ~ fueled by ‘adaptive thinking’ geared towards doing what anybody else, anywhere else is doing, only more productively, a continually DECLINING PART of overall costs, as ‘capital costs’ continue apace to displace ‘labor costs’ as components of any product’s price at final retail.

Truly ‘adaptive thinking’ would recognise that prices, as they are now arrived at financially, can NEVER be fully paid from ‘earned’ incomes that were only a part of the costs that were impressed into them.

That ‘earned’ incomes must be augmented by additional money that was NOT ‘costed’ into prices at all.

The basis for the distribution of this needed additional money is found in the ever increasing ratio between the rate of overall Capital Appreciation ~ our increased ability to continually Produce MORE, and more effciently, through the application of all the advances of science and technology ~ over Capital Depreciation. Which is the wearing out, and obsolescence of the means of production.

Currently, we are debited, in prices, for all Capital Depreciation. But we are never FULLY credited, as a society, for the distribution to every individual that comprises that society, (both directly, as a National dividend, and indirectly as a ‘rebate’ on all consumer product prices), any money for Capital Appreciation, which is always greater.

We currently bridge the ever widening ‘gap’ with ever rising debt which, in its totality, can NEVER be repaid, and prostrates us to continually and increasingly mortgage the future to consume in the present what we produced in the past.

……

You assume too much ….

I said nothing about the number of jobs ….

I have absolutely no problem with introducing a guaranteed minimum income for people that is considerably higher than current welfare as long as we have some method of paying it, whether it is because of infinite resources or highly efficient goods and services production or whatever ….

To do only one thing without integrating it fully into our social system is ludicrous and unproductive.

http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/canadian-business/are-canadians-lazier-than-americans-or-smarter

As stated in the above article, we have to first decide what we want ….. without knowing one’s goal, one does not know how to get there …. obviously ….. at least it is to me.

But people like Winters and you as well socredible, have a one track mind ….. evertyhing is seen though the same pair of glasses you guys have worn for decades …..

As Green says … time to have a conversation that is controlled by the general population and is nationwide as well as province wide and city wide …..

Get beyond talking about 5% of the topic ….

“But we are never FULLY credited, as a society, for the distribution to every individual that comprises that society”

Who cares ….. those credits are just words ….. no different than the pretend credits the banks hand out other than ownership …. does not make us any richer as far as how we support ourselves tomorrow goes …..

Time to turn off the looped tape ….

Hey, socredible ….. I produced 3 times the value I actually got paid for so far in my life …..

Tell me how I could cash in if we were living in the socredible economy world and how we could all do so.

That’s easy, gus. You wouldn’t HAVE TO produce three times the value of what you got paid for just to pay for the value of what you did get paid for. :}

You see, gus, that’s our problem. There are two kinds of credit. REAL credit ~ which is a correct estimate of our actual capacity to produce and provide goods and services, as, when, and where required.

And FINANCIAL credit ~ which should be, but is increasingly NOT, a continually accurate numerical ‘reflection’ of that actual capacity.

Instead, Financial credit is now the rate at which the banking system, which has a monopoly over its creation and destruction, will agree to provide money to the public ON TERMS SUFFICIENTLY FAVORABLE TO ITSELF.

There is currently no accurate nexus between these two forms of credit. Nor any move to properly relate them. And from this numerous problems arise.

Ones that really have nothing to do whether Canadians have more net worth than Americans, or are more, or less productive. Or whether we work fewer days in a year, or choose to fund healthcare publicly rather than privately, and other such like obfuscations.

Nor do they have anything to do with whether our banking system is privately owned, as it is, for the most part, or publicly (government) owned. Or how anything else that provides goods and services to the public, too, is owned, for that matter.

What Social Credit would do, and I’m talking here now about the original ideas behind it, not the political Parties of that name that once governed BC and Alberta, and was active Federally for several decades, is to create and maintain a proper ongoing nexus between the flow of the overall Costs of Production continually being impressed into Prices at the point of final retail, and the simultaneous overall flow of Consumer Incomes that are necessary to fully meet those Prices if what we’ve produced is ever going to be capable of being consumed at the cost of its making.
And if it isn’t, then WHY did we produce it in the first place?

We should not, as Hermann Goering once preached to the German people, have to have, “Guns before butter.” Or, as the originator of the Social Credit prescriptions put it, “I do not regard as a sane economic system one in which you must make a machine gun before you can buy a cabbage.”

We should always be able to FULLY pay FOR what we’ve done FROM what we’ve done. Not have to engage in what will always denigrate into some kind of extra and completely superfluous production which cannot be ‘sold’ to anyone in any economic sense, just to distribute enough incomes to buy what we’ve produced that we DO need.

someone please tell me the “risks” of the proposed pipeline. There’s a risk to flying and driving and walking acrosss the street too but those risks are bigger than the pipeline risk. We have to expand with a growng world population — we have no choice.

There is a risk to watching TV ….. and a risk to taking a splinter out of your finger.

The risk is assessed from a point of view. The risks you speak of are risks to lives of a single human or multiple humans as well as to the cost of doing business.

Each activity has different hazards and consequences the hazards of a pipeline depends on hundreds of actions such as river crossings, slope crossing, remote passages, open exposures, buried conditions, etc. etc. The consequences of a failure are also quite different. Each such condition has risks from high to low. The ones which have the highest risks are the weakest links of the line and should likely get the most attention, although there is a danger that some of the lower ones will be ignored.

The lives which are threatened may not be human but animals as well as the inconvenience to humans and certainly to the costs we impose on the level of cleanup required from none to total cleanup.

I do not have the faintest clue what the risk to the business of transporting bitumen would be in the case of the Enbridge pipeline. Again, there are many factors to be considered, most being man made factors such as manmade regulations, contracts, public reaction in case of a failure, etc.

What would happen to the business of transporting bitumen, should an event requiring a multi-billion dollar cleanup within the first few months of operation occur, I do not know. The whole thing may be available for purchase in that case by someone at a fire sale, with the investment gained paying for the cleanup and the rest of the business of transporting making a potential windfall profit. That could continue for many years in the case where the fault has been located and decades of eventless movement of bitumen will follow.

To compare risks as mentioned previously is totally meaningless since they are not the same other than easily comparable risks to human life and monetary risks to the business involved in each case.

In each case, the business risks will have to be assessed by the business owners as well as their insurers. The risks to lives, environment and other public properties and infrastructure will have to be assesses by the people potentially affected as well as the governments who take care of the people’s assets.

So, when it comes to my life or death situation I am concerned about driving, crossing the street and flying as far as transportation goes. I am not concerned about my life when it comes to the pipeline since I will likely be nowhere near it should it rupture and a lightning strike cause an explosion.

You have set up an apples and oranges comparison supertech which makes no sense.

I personally think the pipeline’s ‘risks’ are somewhat over-rated. We already have pipelines all over this and other continents, and the amount of spillage considered in ratio to the volumes moved is really pretty small.

Spills do happen, occasionally, of course. Just as sawmills occasionally get dust explosions, and all other manner of accidents in any field of human endeavour occasionally happen. Should we stop doing everything as a result? Or realise and accept that nothing man made is ever going to be totally fool-proof? By and large, we’ve become pretty adept at learning from past mistakes, though, when they do occur, and mitigating future ‘risks’ wherever possible.

What’s coming together here in opposition to the Northern Gateway proposal is more a coalition of interests that oppose it for a wide variety of reasons, and protection of the environment from potential oil spills, while being the most prominently voiced, is really only one of them. It’s the one that gets the easiest media attention in the battle to capture the public consciousness and mold it to opposition to the project, at the moment.

Like the caption displayed under an Exxon sign outside one of their service stations once asked, “Where’s all the media when we AREN’T spilling something?” The media IS the message.

We do have to expand with a growing world population, absolutely. But the real question should be why do WE have to ‘financially’ pay for that expansion more than once if it is of real benefit to us, and even once if it isn’t?

And make no mistake about it, WE will be the ones paying. Not to clean up oil spills, if any occur, which might cost us dearly, too, but in the rise in all consumer product prices here, including real estate, when it gets underway.

(And I say ‘when’ rather than ‘if’, because I believe the decision has already been made to proceed with this pipeline, and all that’s left to do is convince us that it’s going to be ‘good’ for us ~ which the kind of money behind it will presently do, right after interest in opposing it begins to dissipate ~ public anger is a potent force, but it can’t be long sustained. Witness what happened when public outrage stopped the sale of the Coquihalla. But where was it when the toll was raised from $ 10 to $ 13 afterwards? For a road that was already paid for long ago? It had dissipated, it couldn’t be sustained.

WE will be paying far more for the supposed ‘prosperity’ we’re told the pipeline will bring, (which, to most of us in BC, will be pure price ‘inflation’), than it will ever really profit US. It doesn’t have to be that way, but shortly that’s the way it will most likely be.

Socred: “I personally think the pipeline’s ‘risks’ are somewhat over-rated. We already have pipelines all over this and other continents, and the amount of spillage considered in ratio to the volumes moved is really pretty small. “

“Spills do happen, occasionally, of course. Just as sawmills occasionally get dust explosions, and all other manner of accidents in any field of human endeavour occasionally happen. Should we stop doing everything as a result? Or realise and accept that nothing man made is ever going to be totally fool-proof? By and large, we’ve become pretty adept at learning from past mistakes, though, when they do occur, and mitigating future ‘risks’ wherever possible.”

That kind of common sense is not welcome around here. People would rather scream, “Kalamazoo! Kalamazoo!” a hundred times. It’s what the media wants.

I think John Winter has a lot of people in his organization fooled. His ideology seems to be for monopoly capitalism and advocating on their behalf… after one cuts through all the rhetoric.

The work of the Chamber of Commerce one would think should be to advocate for free enterprise and the small business entrepreneur. Problem is monopoly capitalism is as much of an enemy of free enterprise as is communism, and both are responsible for the lowering of real wealth in the free enterprise economy.

As for Socred’s argument in favor of ‘social credit’… I wonder if his model factors in the social credit Mark Carney envisions for Britain… printing Canadian dollars to bail out the pound economy. He was appointed for a reason and its no secret Britain has been pushing for a Canadian central bank bailout of their pound for some time now. So is the social credit only good for central banks or should it involve social policy too is the real question for Socred.

I’m not aware of what Mark Carney envisions for Britain, Eagle. Except it won’t be ‘social credit’ in the sense I’ve used that term.

So…there are 10 people sitting at the Canadian table, about 5 of them work and contribute and about 2 or 3 play the pogey cycle game ( which ironically is not a popular nonattendo game for adults) and about 2 or 3 will not work ever…(because they are busy practising for when the numbtendo pogey game comes out) and maybe one that actually cannot work.

Obviously the 5 hardworking people aren’t paying enough taxes because Canada owes over 600 BILLION and the province of BC has a 147 million deficit this year. Each and every one of the 10 can vote and elect a government and each and every one of the 10 can express their opinions of which government is supposed to respond and in a manner that suits most of the vocal ones.

If this was a big family it would not be able to borrow enough money to do this and there would be no table with 10 places or a place (indoors at least) to put that table….unless… our government/parents being mom was a prostitute and dad sold drugs to whoever would buy them. Mom and dad are sick of this but they like having the majority of their family love them even if they know it cannot last because mom’s rates are slipping and dad gets beat up and robbed more often than not.

In case the morals of this little story isn’t obvious enough it is to say that it is impossible to maintain the standards of living we have become accustomed to when the screaming spoiled brats demand governments to provide them with everything that they never worked for and it is no small wonder why government is doing the desperate things it does to keep their place at the table and stay elected. I’m guessing that at least 50% of people will not agree.

So what 50% would the guy living off an inheritance of investments, or the banker gambling with other peoples money trying to create their own risk values and then getting government bailouts when they lose? Or the corrupted politicians, volunteers, house wives and other people that don’t neatly fit the above model… there are many ways to get to 50%.

Socred, that’s kind of how I see it. I’m not going to knock your version of social credit when it comes to a minimum standard, and the economics of it, but I find it striking how social credit concepts can be applied to central banks and all their unaccountable capital, but not to society itself. Its backwards and that says a lot.