andyt andyt:
I'm sure Harper has his plans.
I doubt it; politicians have a 5-year lifespan, and as such so do their policies. I doubt that any plan intended to ensure a stable health/EI/CPP/etc system over a 20-30 year span is in any parties books.
If it was, adding billions to our debt in an ill-fated attempt to buy our way out of a recession would never have been on the table - or at least faced opposition other than "you're not spending enough". For that matter, if it was Harper would have done something to increase revenue and begin building some equity that can be drawn on at a later date.
andyt andyt:
To truly reverse the aging of our population, we'd have to triple our immigration to 750,000 a year, and make sure they're all young, breeding, couples and their kids. No family reunification class grannies...Maybe it's time to rethink a system that's based on continual growth, and continuing increase in material affluence.
I agree, the idea of continuing growth for economic stability is a short-term plan at best. Even here, there is only so much space and resources to go around. We'd be better off with a plan based on stabilising our population at some reasonable level, and changing our focus from simple "make the economy bigger" to an economy based on the production of higher value items.
But the above would be a plan looking 50 or more years into the future. Given politicians have trouble planning more than 5, what's the chance of them actually going this route?
Bryan
CKA Uber 
