POLITICS - One of Many Sources of Waste of Time & Resources!

In British Columbia Canada, where I live, we have the BC Lotto Corporation. It is a government owned mufti-billion dollar rip-off. It is so pervasive that's it's found almost everywhere: shopping malls, corner stores, neighborhood pubs, hospitals, restaurants, casinos etc.

I find it offensive, invasive and hypocritical. The B.C. Lottery Corp. reported a record $2.4 billion in gross revenues for 2006-07. About $650 million was paid out in prizes.

God my previous post was full of typos. Sorry about that everyone. I really shouldn't type when I'm 3/4ths asleep.

But I stand by the post.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason why either federal or state governments should be allowed to conduct a lottery that propagates an addiction and overwhelmingly taxes the poor, especially when they ban private enterprises from holding lotteries and gambling enterprises in those same locales.

Anyone here disagree with that stance?

And if not, do you guys agree that there's many areas where we need the government to be more of a nanny state (just as there are many areas where it needs to be less of a nanny state - medicinal marijuana, janet jackson's nipple etc).

We already have medicinal marijuana in Canada, it's the weakness over Antitrust that concerns me. Subsidies don't increase competitiveness. If they did, the most competitive economy in history would have been the Soviet Union, where all businesses were 100% subsidized; and the most competitive businesses here would be state corporations.

Here are just a few:

Supply managed:

BC Broiler Hatching Egg Commission
BC Chicken Marketing Board
BC Egg Marketing Board
BC Milk Marketing Board
BC Turkey Marketing Board

Regulated industries:

BC Cranberry Marketing Commission
BC Hog Marketing Commission
BC Vegetable Marketing Commission

First of all, I already declared that Canada is the superior society (and has clearly superior zamboni technology), even before you started listing reasons why. So why are you still listing them (a freaking turkey marketing board!! god what I would give to have one of those in the States). To rub it in my face that I don't live in Canada? Stop it already.

Second, if you look at what I'm advocating here, I am advocating a nanny state that it restricts people from loafing off and wasting time.

Subsidies usually have the opposite effect. They reward inefficency and encourage failure.

I do think subsidies are rarely warranted.

When an otherwise productive successful business (or a person) is hurt through no fault of their own (when people stop using airplanes temporarily after a terrorist attack for example), it makes sense for a government to temporarily subsidize them to make up for their bad luck. Just as its okay for a govt to nourish and educate a child who lost his parents.

And even when the corporation or individual has a setback from their own doing, if there's a very good chance they can return to profitability and productivity with a temporarily subsidy or investment, it makes more sense to provide it for them because the long term benefits of doing so for the society overweight the shortterm costs. Just as it is okay to forgive and free a minor for a drug violation rather than taking away permanently his eligibility for federal loans or federal educational assistence all but assuring that they wind up on the streets and eventually back in prison.

And there are certain services that the govt should subsidisize as they are integral for society. Maintaining a modest military, enforcing contracts, funding fire stations and I think even providing healthcare for the poor are a few examples.

What I don't support are govt subsidies to things that are neither neccesary for society, nor have little chance of ever becoming self sufficent and profitable.

So to be more specific, when I use the word "nanny" state, I'm referring to one of those badass super nannies that don't have any qualms about hitting you with a ruler if you loaf off and don't do your homework.

So its ok to give a subsidities to Gm, or chrysler or wall street but wrong to give one to someone who has cancer, or a heart attack or some other personal disaster.

Did you just glance past this entire paragraph?



Of course I think the govt should help out someone who's had a heart attack.

Which oddly enough is a position that republican party (composed of the most religious people in the country) refuses to get behind.

And where did you get the idea that I think we should subsidize GM. I said that we should subsidize a company, for example GM if either a) GM is vital to this nation's daily functioning (it's not) or b) GM's economic troubles were not their own doing (it is there own doing, they had decades to build more efficent cars, safer cars etc. they chose not to) or c) GM has a high chance of returning to profitability with just a temporary bit of assistance (I see no compelling reason this has a high chance of occuring either).

Ok. Screw GM. How about Chrysler and the wall street people who caused the housing problem. Also how about the money given to the farm bill. Most of the money goes to big farmers who don't need the help. Its alright to give money to big business but wrong to give it to the poor. And don't give me that crap about not working because I know many working poor in my little town who put in more hours working them the mega million CEO's.

Just reread my post substiting the farm bill, Chrysler or Banking with GM. I don't think any of these would be subsidized under the criteria I established.

Well possibly Banking if in fact the industry would collapse without aid but would return to profitibility with some temporarly help.

In that case it makes sense to subsidize them temporarily. Yes they screwed up, (but so did the borrowers too by the way), but I think it would be worse for the nation as a whole if they went under, than if they got some aid and returned to profitibility all the wiser from having learned from past mistakes.

Japan is living proof that subsidies are sometimes a good thing. When their economy was going through a crisis a few years ago, they subsidized everything, way too much actually. Eventually they figured out which industries are never going to return to profitibiilty and cut the chaff, but the rest recovered. And now Japan's economy is doing well again. I doubt they would be as well off right now if the govt didn't bail out anyone at all.

The only subsidies I unconditionally disagree with, are the permanent ones. Any industry that could never become viable on it's own is one that shouldn't be a for profit industry.

In that case, they should just be demanded to be nonprofit industries and renamed to what they actually are, govt sponsored research and govt sponsored welfare.

I think we could get pretty far as a society if we just did away with medicaid, medicare, social security, disability, welfare, and unemployment checks.

Basically, let everyone that's not working or unable to work freeze in the streets.

How is that for an economic stimulus?

And this from a poster who started out supporting Howard Dean for President and proposing a German-style health care system... Centroles, what hast fate done with thee?

Is there any doubt that these past few months, productivity is down to among it's lowest levels in years, all thanks to politics?

Yes.