3 ms·

"he system should either break even (which it doesn't do), or cost money (which means taxpayers subsidise it), or make money (which means users subsidise other

"he system should either break even (which it doesn't do), or cost money (which means taxpayers subsidise it), or make money (which means users subsidise other taxpayers)" That assumes a fixed amount of money and a fixed amount of stuff. Neither of which is the case in a country with its own floating exchange rate like Canada. Government doesn't spend money, it spends people. What else were you proposing to do with the electrical engineer that is so much more important than maintaining electrical grid connections to citizens?

iso1210 5y ago
You can of course print money instead of raising taxes but the principle's the same. Lets rephrase it then. How many hours of electrical engineer time should be spent hooking up a new home in rural Ontario? Why would an electrical engineer who lives in the Toronto suburbs want to do this? How much time and effort should a country devote to running and maintaining this connection? What does the engineer get in return? Either he gets more in return (thus "makes money"), gets less in return (thus "requires subsidy") or it's even (thus "breaks even") How much should the person who wants to live in rural ontario give for the engineer's time? It seems Canada decides they should give a little, but not the same amount of time the engineer gives (and instead the engineer should be compensated by time from the rest of the country) As to what that electrical engineer could be doing that would be better? Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital? Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  "Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital?" Do they not have their own engineers? In which case what are you doing about the shortage of engineers. Again this is all fixed amount thinking. Are you sure you are supply limited in engineers? It's only then that you need to think about taxation. And then the taxation has to be targeted at those using engineers - to free them up for the public use. Are you absolutely sure all engineers and equipment is engaged doing things that are required? There isn't a fixed amount of stuff, and if there is any unemployment at all then there is capacity to expand. "Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix." Why should engineers work any less hours a week than anybody else? The person growing their food needs to work a full week, why not engineers? Government deploys resources, not money. And whether those resources are used hooking up people to the grid, or fitting out another server room for Pornhub is a political choice, not a financial one.

iso1210 5y ago

You can of course print money instead of raising taxes but the principle's the same. Lets rephrase it then. How many hours of electrical engineer time should be spent hooking up a new home in rural Ontario? Why would an electrical engineer who lives in the Toronto suburbs want to do this? How much time and effort should a country devote to running and maintaining this connection? What does the engineer get in return? Either he gets more in return (thus "makes money"), gets less in return (thus "requires subsidy") or it's even (thus "breaks even") How much should the person who wants to live in rural ontario give for the engineer's time? It seems Canada decides they should give a little, but not the same amount of time the engineer gives (and instead the engineer should be compensated by time from the rest of the country) As to what that electrical engineer could be doing that would be better? Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital? Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix.

neilwilson 5y ago
"Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital?" Do they not have their own engineers? In which case what are you doing about the shortage of engineers. Again this is all fixed amount thinking. Are you sure you are supply limited in engineers? It's only then that you need to think about taxation. And then the taxation has to be targeted at those using engineers - to free them up for the public use. Are you absolutely sure all engineers and equipment is engaged doing things that are required? There isn't a fixed amount of stuff, and if there is any unemployment at all then there is capacity to expand. "Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix." Why should engineers work any less hours a week than anybody else? The person growing their food needs to work a full week, why not engineers? Government deploys resources, not money. And whether those resources are used hooking up people to the grid, or fitting out another server room for Pornhub is a political choice, not a financial one.