Saturday, December 18, 2010
>:( Hudak Attacks!
Another example of irresponsible behaviour: Governments that want to “scrap” progressive “work”.
Instead of innovating and improving, is the intent to just “discredit the other political parties” (politics 101)?
Does Mr. Hudak, of the Ontario CPC, feel that electronics are healthy for our environment? Does he trust corporations with the health of Ontario residents? Does he understand that electronics are poisonous and that recycling them is a potential revenue stream that helps corporations and citizen health?
Talk about wasting taxes, Mr. Hudak. Are you incapable of generating new business opportunity?
What is the total taxpayer cost: administration + “government time” + studies and the private costs associated with passing legislation then initiating them, just to “scrap it”. What is your “return on government”? Are you obsolete?
In my business, we “scrap” nothing. Everything is “tweaked”, with science, to optimize profits. If it is a viable business opportunity, seems like all sides of government need to make it work. Improve it. Make it more “profitable for companies” and “cost less”, in taxes. Something our current government is incapable of? If “it” is not built for innovation, is “it” just “managing the “least of progress” without jeopardizing re-election” at any cost? The cost of your “integrity and wisdom”, Mr Hudak?
Sounds like the only “stimulus on this” is another “jolt” for the “legal industry” in Toronto? All the “expensive lawyers”, salivating at any “big or small change made by government”. Taxes consumed by “circular paperwork”. Much like the "big plastic swirl in my oceans": not helping my environment.
Mr. Hudak, science has done the homework for you, already.
Sorry, you cannot reinvent “this wheel”, I call science and math. If you feel up to it, try. Please sit down Mr. Hudak. You are incapable, now.
Disaster capitalism is a “no brainer”: Make “them” “make it”, then “you” “break it”. I wonder if the same lawyers could “work both sides of this street”? Well, actually, they are working all 3 sides of the street, because taxpayers pay for it all. What a “competitive market”?
Maybe Naomi Klein should have called it “Disaster Democracy”? Seems like governments better evolve quickly to the same technologies and communications, that business uses, to remain viable.
Is Hudak not smart enough to “make improvements” AND make it “lower in tax cost” for us? You have admitted failure by proposed cuts to the “e-tax”. I guess you are incapable of progress and reducing government costs? Wait, progress and reducing taxes are “your song”. Oh yes, this is politics, not science.
Tim Hudak will scrap the “Eco Tax on Electronics”? This program was designed to collect tax dollars on electronics devices, that people buy, to lessen the impact of electronics consumption on our environment. Tim thinks people will not be able to afford a TV if it is another $26.25? Is Dalton operating this system to the best it can be? Probably not. Politics does not use "math to determine method".
If that is “the deal breaker”, on a TV, I guess Tim is asserting that “low savings customers” should be using credit cards. Are rates going up? I am not sure, I guess yes!
Am I stupid? Perhaps, but, “the only rule I use for my analysis” is that “corporations force Canadian politicians to keep product prices cheap”, regardless of “total environmental cost”, so more people can buy them.
I know, this is bold thinking, I would rather be designing a 1 GW Geothermal Plant, a couple blocks from my house, next week. Can I buy the parts and services, and have them delivered? I wonder if I could do the whole project from home? Probably not. I do not want to be the “President of the Universe”*.
Politicians that can help corporations to exploit new revenue streams are “positive leaders”?
Politicians that “scramble to shore the sinking Canadian tax revenues” ( Tony Clement: iPod tax vs. Internet tax ) by resorting to exploiting “captive monopolies” are “butt puppets of corporations”?
Politicians that innovate to resolve real issues, make corporations work “for their keep”. But, as we all know, corporations are defined as “antisocial-psychopathic”. This is simple social science?
Politicians that provide the space to innovate, reap downstream tax revenues and “healthy companies” ( Blackberry ). These innovations can then be leveraged for foreign trade ( Blackberry ). These innovations also help Canadian business ( Blackberry ). Maybe even help politicians with their jobs ( Blackberry ). I wonder if this idea of innovating Canadian science on climate change could do the same? I assert yes.
But, the corporate model does not include the “entire lifecycle of any process”, well except for “monitary gains” and the lifecycles of Canadian citizens: currently maximized “actual cost of living” with “winky promises of lowered taxes”. Well, except military spending, it seems lately.
The medical system seems to exploit peoples life savings, when they need "the most help from their governments". Keeping some "alive to ensure maximum profits for a profit modelled healthcare system"? Sounds "sick" to me.
Look at our population demographics, I am sure a “first year economics student” would see the potential in a “large uncompetitive captive market”. But, would that student find it moral? If they have no conscious, I guess that market is simply a “no brainer” opportunity.
So, Mr. Hudak, what are the potential downstream revenues are you “throwing away”? Did you calculate them and find them unviable? Can I see your calculations, please?
I have an idea for you to innovate! I call it“#LIEDAR”, science has the technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system . It is much like photo radar, but, it is a camera installed in all levels of public government. Everytime a politician lies, or acts or refutes, without viable proof, they pay a fine of $1500 from their pension. A lie tax for government.
This would stimulate our economy quickly: add a "new tax revenue stream" for all levels of government, and “zap useless politicians” that negatively impact "high downstream tax costs for Canada".
Would you be the first “guinea pig”?
P.S. - I sure hope “you guys” are paperless by now. Most companies are. Are you? Do you care?
All information and concepts on my blog is property of me, Graham Chivers.
Retweeting is highly recommended!
This information may not be used, in any publications, without direct prior consent from Graham Chivers @ http://deepgreendesign.blogspot.com/. My Blog is not to be within or, on any entities that have advertising. Sounds weird? Well, that is my choice. Freedom of speech and freedom of access, without any capitalism, by companies, that I do not find green enough. I assert that my Blogs will deliver my blog with NO ADVERTISING! As such, If you wish to rebroadcast my content, ask for permission. If your publication has absolutely no advertising, anywhere, I will be happy let you use my content, on the condition that I verify the publication for content, first. I dreaded the day that my blog would be beside advertising for laptops or other non-green thingies, but, it did. Support Ad-Free knowledge! If you see this blog beside advertising, please, let them know to respect my authority as a citizen. Thank you! I assert the right to assert my opinion on each blog, I blog. I assert that I am not a “domestic terrorist”. I assert that I am an individual, not a marketing scam. I collect no data from my Blog. All the products use to manufacture this product are “free” on the Internet. I use no marketing software for data collection. I feel that anyone should be able to read my blog with only knowledge being the product for free.
If you do not agree with any above content, prove it first. If you can teach me something, I will thank you in a manner warranted. If you are intending to “limit my internet access” or Freedom of Speech or my Human Rights: please go away!