You speak way too confidently about "the answer to the problem" when you haven't a clue what the problem is. In the short term the solution may very well be to subsidize food costs. But in the long run granted it may be better to simply have greater transparency as to what the "real" cost of bringing in food stuffs, potentially starting co-ops to reduce the overhead, more local production... who knows... there is a lot of research going on as to what options may work on each individual local level. But to say you know the solution is just plain arrogant.
I'll rephrase it. The only long-term solution acceptable to me. There is a "real cost" associated with bringing the food in by airplane. However, remaining in these communities is not an essential component of any solution--that's only your non-negotiable item. This situation isn't new. Only the protests are. These high prices have been reported for the past 50 years. The cost of food in Barrow, Alaska is about three times what it is in the contiguous states, which is to be expected. All of the studies and research and options over five decades have resulted in market pricing of food. That's about as transparent as you can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap10subtext
And if you're going to argue, at least keep on task. There are all sorts of "equalizations" that happen across the board, call them what you want, from power to lumber to food, so don't pretend like doing it once for an indeterminate period of time is somehow a monstrous burden on our economy or some slippery slope to socialism. And we're certainly not even talking about the scale of some of the transfers that have become completely normalized.
I don't support ANY of the equalizations. And I certainly don't support one that involves keeping people alive in some sort of bizarre northern bio-dome and pretending that food imported from Florida should cost the same in Nunavut as it does in Winnipeg or Toronto.
I would support only one government solution for the aboriginal people living in these communities--a one-time buy-out of any property they may own to encourage them to live elsewhere.
I have clients in huntsville, I was shocked what it cost to buy food there; then my client said its the cost of doing business - trucking fee..
so yes the food is more - but I don't see any one moving out in mass or protesting?
I also have clients that live on remote islands in the Caribbean - i was very much in shock with the cost of food ( avg lunch is $50 ) - when I asked the clients they say the chicken - came on the same plane you do and we laugh about it.. - now I don't see them running...
If people can't make the best of where they live move.. no one would ever help me if I can not where I live or food.. they would say - sell what you have and find better.. { yes you could find this heartless - but if we constantly have to pay for them, then they should move closer and we will pay them to live and make them clean our cities for pay back or other jobs }
Why is it now that a person who is a fisher man in PEI or NS or NL, must now move to find a job or risk losing UI or welfare? rules are rules.. - they should stop being above the laws..
__________________
Apple MacBook Pro 13" 2.9GHZ i7 12GBs
Apple Thunderbolt display 27", Macally Bluetooth Keyboard
Internal 1 x OCZ Deneva2 SSD 480 GBs ( removed superdrive - installed 750GB HD in place )
LaCie Stark 1TB for time machine, Apple Track Pad
Moshi Keyboard cover ( to catch the drool when surfing rumor sites )
Heartless, short sighted, needlessly antagonistic, take your pick... Not a single point you've made has made me feel any different about this nor do your analogies seem to offer any insight other than to say you seem to be fine with the way things are. I cannot agree. If anything it's got me wondering if it wouldn't be in Canada's best interest to invest more in food equalization based on geography even if that comes in the form of short term food subsidies and long term infrastructure. I'd consider that an investment in our future.
As for your other suggestion as to full scale evacuation of the communities I anyone who can't afford to live there, why stop there? Can't afford to live in Red Deer? Toronto? Huntsville? Deer lake? Food costing to much? Get out! Might I suggest voicing these opinions at your local food bank? Good a place as any to start intimidating low income families and calling them lazy. Or you could keep tilting at windmills behind your keyboard. In fact I think I prefer you do the latter so they can deal with the very real problems they face, rather than deal with another ignorant voice shouting them down from the peanut gallery.
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 16,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Harper should be subsidizing their food until a road can be built to the North,
As much as I detest this kind of thing happening in Canada,
I'm hoping that the people that respond to this thread don't get this thread locked.
Don't fight about these people,
Please keep your replies within normal shocked perimeters.
Keep them alive.
Uh no it would need to be the provincial/territorial government building a road not the feds it is a simple matter of jurisdiction so if you want to blame someone start by blaming the right person.
Heartless, short sighted, needlessly antagonistic, take your pick... Not a single point you've made has made me feel any different about this nor do your analogies seem to offer any insight other than to say you seem to be fine with the way things are. I cannot agree. If anything it's got me wondering if it wouldn't be in Canada's best interest to invest more in food equalization based on geography even if that comes in the form of short term food subsidies and long term infrastructure. I'd consider that an investment in our future.
It's no investment at all--it's an eternal support program. There are no guarantees that infrastructure investments will pay off, or reduce food prices. But why stop with Nunavut when Huntsville beckons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap10subtext
As for your other suggestion as to full scale evacuation of the communities I anyone who can't afford to live there, why stop there? Can't afford to live in Red Deer? Toronto? Huntsville? Deer lake? Food costing to much? Get out!
Absolutely! If you can't afford to live in one community, move to one you can afford. Don't sit within reach of a light switch while cursing the darkness.
Absolutely! If you can't afford to live in one community, move to one you can afford. Don't sit within reach of a light switch while cursing the darkness.
Did you just think of that? or did you borrow it? It sort of has a ring to it.. nice one..
I have an Idea.. how to build infrastructure and bring money to them..
the next G8 and G20 summits should be held there.. WE the Canadians will build what we would need for the summits - which is seems to be a lot, then when we leave - its all theirs and lets see what and how long they use it and say it stopped working again..
I think that is a fair trade off..
they end up with a new city and we end up with a place no one would want to go protest in, in first place
__________________
Apple MacBook Pro 13" 2.9GHZ i7 12GBs
Apple Thunderbolt display 27", Macally Bluetooth Keyboard
Internal 1 x OCZ Deneva2 SSD 480 GBs ( removed superdrive - installed 750GB HD in place )
LaCie Stark 1TB for time machine, Apple Track Pad
Moshi Keyboard cover ( to catch the drool when surfing rumor sites )
It's no investment at all--it's an eternal support program. There are no guarantees that infrastructure investments will pay off, or reduce food prices. But why stop with Nunavut when Huntsville beckons?
Absolutely! If you can't afford to live in one community, move to one you can afford. Don't sit within reach of a light switch while cursing the darkness.
Ha! Guaranteed investment? Now you are really reaching.
Once again, if you think everyone moving and abandoning all of these towns is "reachable", viable, practical or in any way shape or form a good idea, there's clearly no getting through to you.
Linear Mode
