A lot of people say I post a lot on the book. They are right. I don't want the book to be a place where I crowd people's news feed when I mainly want to use it to stay connected with my friends. So I decided to switch to this. Keep that in mind if you plan on following me.
Because it is true that the best social advancements in terms of rights and protections occurred during times of economic prosperity, people often forget a few things.
The era of unprecedented, almost completely international, economic prosperity that ended in the early 70’s, the likes of which have not been seen since then, did not end due to the establishment of social programs or the laziness of the population. It just ended. Things end. The economy is surprisingly alive. It had its prime in which it was fast and energetic and booming, then it got old and slow and needed constant assistance. Like my generation will in 50 years.
This propensity to blame anything or anyone for something that was always naturally going to slow down is illogical. Mexicans and Quebecois and increased immigration are not to blame for the end of the economy; the lack of economy’s ability to adapt and evolve is to blame.
If something does not adapt to the changing times, it dies out. Evolution 101.
So social issues are a big deal now. People want, and more importantly need help. Help paying for housing and food and education and health. And they deserve it. The maintenance of a person’s minimum necessities of living, and equalizing of access to opportunities should be state obligations as much as protection of civil and political rights are.
And all of the other social programs coming in to existence occurred during the economy doing well. No surprise. When your wallets full, you can afford to spare change. So there’s pretty big focus now on refilling our empty wallet.
And yeah, next time its full, there will probably be really awesome social and humanist changes occurring. But getting to that point is the troublesome part.
There is a great deal of focus paid to the economy now, also a great deal of funding paid. This focus and funding is being diverted from social programs. Yes they exist, but they are poorly funded or on the verge of being shut down.
But the focus is on the wallet, and when the wallets full, those things will be back, so its okay right?
Wrong. Focusing solely on the economy will not automatically fix all of our problems. If the programs that were put in place during economic prosperity were to be slashed, it will not make bringing the economy back to life any easier. There’s a 100% chance that people will suffer for a 50% chance the economy will bounce back. That’s not a gamble I’d take.
But surprise, the economy is made up of people. Through the lowest to the highest level of the economy, none of it is automated only through machinery and legislation, people are behind those things. So if we took care of people, there would be more people to take care of the economy, and then so much funding wouldn’t have to be put in to its aging corpse. New people, well-taken-care-of people, could make a new economy, with several new options and ideas on increasing their own income and thus the country’s GDP.
There’s your solution.
What sucks about the election system: 499 people could be anti-change, 500 people could be pro-change, but because those 500 people are divided between liberal, NDP, Green, and whatever else party they think will cause the kind of change they want, the anti-change party gets all the anti-change votes, and wins in what appears to be a landslide majority.
But if everyone knew who was most likely to beat the anti-change party, for instance if some how we had a way of knowing who the Loyal Opposition Party was, perhaps by remembering who came in second in the last federal election, and voting for them just so the same party doesn’t win again, that might actually cause some change.