Thursday, March 6, 2014

New U.S. Government Report Warns of 'Cascading System Failures' Caused By Climate Change

New Government Report Warns of 'Cascading System Failures' Caused By Climate Change
WASHINGTON -- From roads and bridges to power plants and gas pipelines, American infrastructure is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, according to a pair of government reports released Thursday.

The reports are technical documents supporting the National Climate Assessment, a major review compiled by 13 government agencies that the
U.S. Global Change Research Program is expected to release in April. Scientists at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory put together the reports, which warn that climate-fueled storms, flooding and droughts could cause "cascading system failures" unless there are changes made to minimize those effects. Island Press has published the full-length version of the reports, which focus on energy and infrastructure more broadly.

Thomas Wilbanks, a research fellow at Oak Ridge and the lead author and editor of the reports, said this is the first attempt to look at the climate implications across all sectors and regions. Rather than isolating specific types of infrastructure, Wilbanks said, the report looks at how "one impact can have impacts on the others."

Previous extreme weather events, which scientists warn
may be exacerbated by climate change, offer insight to the types of failures they're talking about. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, the loss of electricity in the region meant that several major oil pipelines could not ship oil and gas for several days, and some refineries could not operate. Gas prices rose around the country.

Other scenarios include a major storm wiping out communications lines, a blackout that cuts power to sewage treatment or wastewater systems, and a weather event that damages a bridge or major highway. In the latter case, the damage would not only cost money to repair, but could cause traffic backups or delays in the shipment of goods, which could in turn have wider economic implications. As the report describes it:

A central theme of the report is that vulnerabilities and impacts are issues beyond physical infrastructures themselves. The concern is with the value of services provided by infrastructures, where the true consequences of impacts and disruptions involve not only the costs associated with the cleanup, repair, and/or replacement of affected infrastructures but also economic, social, and environmental effects as supply chains are disrupted, economic activities are suspended, and/or social well-being is threatened.

While many reports on climate change focus on the long-term impacts, looking ahead 50 or 100 years, the effects described in Thursday's reports are the kind that cities, states and the federal government can expect to see in the next few decades, Wilbanks said.

"There's this crunch between vulnerability of infrastructure because it's aging or stressed because they are so heavily used, and they're being exposed to new threats like more frequent, extreme weather events," says Wilbanks. All this comes at a time, Wilbanks said, where governments at every level are facing "great difficulty in coming up with public sector financing to replace or revitalize them."
The energy report also exposes vulnerabilities in the system. It points to recent cases where heat waves caused massive spikes in energy use for cooling buildings, putting strain on the power grid. It also highlights instances where power plants were at risk of flooding, or had to shut down or scale back operations due to high temperatures and droughts.

"One-quarter of existing power generation facilities are in counties associated with some type of water sustainability concern,” said David Schmalzer, co-author of the energy-focused report. "Warmer air and water are expected to reduce the efficiency of thermal power, while hydropower and biofuels will also face increased uncertainty. Even electricity sources not dependent on water supplies, such as wind and solar power, also face increased variability, as a changing climate will potentially impact the variability of their resources."

"Fixing infrastructure resilience problems [requires] a partnership between different levels of government, industry, nongovernmental organizations and community groups. No one party is the best to do it all," said Wilbanks. "What we really need is some innovative thinking about financing."
Unfortunately "innovative" financing in an infinite growth debt based economy just isn't going to happen.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for CenturyLink

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

My commenting guideline

The thing I find the most interesting about Progressive Bloggers and that which I like about it is that there is such a wide variety of opinion. It's a great experience rolling through the blogs and reading opinion whether you agree or disagree with them. I also enjoy the fact it is a loose-knit community, I read many of the blogs on there fairly regularly and I would hope the other authors read mine. The more ideas that are exchanged the better the dialogue that can develop.

Often while reading other blogs I find they jog different trains of thought, influence, or as was the case the other day a direct comment. All have been extremely useful since I started to dabble in blogging.

My intentions when commenting or directly responding are never malicious, or self promoting, my only intention is to convey my thoughts and usually only if the subject is something that is a core part of what I cover. Even if I disagree, or am writing a rebuttal, it is never meant to put down the other author or insult them, rather the intention is to get some discourse going. I view these issues I cover as extremely serious and I went in to this realizing I will be stepping on toes by covering them, I don't fuck around but I don't think anyone should be fucking around. I believe if you believe your convictions you should be able to debate them without the need to resort to slurs or insults or to misrepresent information on purpose to make yourself appear in the right without allowing anyone else that's viewing to properly weigh the opinions for themselves.

To ensure that I stand by my intentions I've sort of created a set of guidelines I use when commenting on other pieces, either professional journalism or other blogs. These guidelines I believe provide a layer of respect for all writers in the political scene regardless of how I feel about their opinion though I know some may not agree. I'm going to share my guidelines with you as I've noticed a number of posts going back and forth on there lately which reference other blogs without due respect. It's not my place to say people should follow these guidelines, but I have a fairly good reasoning for them and believe they are not only beneficial to the other author, myself, but also public discourse.

  1. Always link the post in question. I try to substantiate everything I say with some sort of source (unless it's something I say a lot as I've sourced it enough already). I expect my readers to follow my links, otherwise I wouldn't put them. My posts are meaningless if you don't take the time to understand the information I'm basing my opinion and commentary on. It's only courteous to the user to allow them to investigate for themselves.
  2. Always quote directly and in context. Not only is this proper, it's also more effective. I will write my opinion on what I think someone means but if I am commenting on another piece I paste the entire piece, or paragraph, always within full context, differentiate it so the reader clearly knows where it's coming from, and then provide my comment afterward. This allows the reader to compare the two, and if the source truly describes what you are saying it is always more powerful to simply allow the subject matter itself to say it. Inferring, or interpreting, especially if incorrect, leads to misinformation especially if no links or quotes are provided.
  3. Do not personally insult the author. If you feel what he says is actually offensive express your anger utilizing the subject matter.
  4. Always contact the author informing them the piece is being published and allow them to respond if they wish. If they respond on their own blog or from another source (instead of within comment forms) update your post to provide a link to their response. This is extremely important, there is no point commenting on someone else's opinion if you don't give them a chance to respond, or at least become aware of your opinion and more importantly reasoning.
So those are the guidelines I follow and feel they provide a less adversarial atmosphere and a lot more clarity regarding people's positions and I hope you find them useful.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for CenturyLink

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

A double standard of living

It's so cute when the corporate stooges we call politicians complain about costs especially when those costs are then in turn cheered for. Alison Redford has provided the excuse that apparently she's a mother and thus improperly using the people's graciously provided (as if we have a choice) transportation services is perfectly justifiable. Of course she's now paying the currency back out of her own luscious salary but clearly not because she actually feels it was wrong, it's because she got caught doing it.

Redford defends travel expenses as costs of being a mother
Alberta Premier Alison Redford used her role as a mother to defend breaking the province's travel expense rules by taking her daughter on government business trips.

Redford announced Tuesday that she'd repay $3,156 to cover flights taken by her daughter's friends on government planes.

New Democratic Party leader Brian Mason asked Redford if she knowingly broke the rules set by the auditor general eight years ago.

"The auditor general specified family members other than spouses attending official events should not travel on government aircraft," he said.

Redford responded saying the policy needs to change to keep with the times.

"We think it is important for issues to evolve, she said. "I'll tell you quite frankly one of the evolutions in this province is you have a premier who has a 12-year-old daughter."

Mason was undeterred.

"There are thousands of government employees who are women and who have families who are not allowed to bring their children to work," he said.

Redford also found herself defending yet again her decision not to repay $45,000 racked up on a controversial trip to South Africa.

"One of the big questions today is are there enough checks and balances in place to make sure the Premier's following the rules when claiming expenses," said Wildrose Opposition leader Danielle Smith.

"The idea that somebody could be spending this kind of money without oversight from anybody and then try to duck and run by referring the matter to the auditor general to avoid tough questions in question period, that's not a sign of leadership," she said.

A political ethics expert at the University of Toronto said he's not surprised about the public backlash over the expenses.

"Especially when you have a government telling everyone they have to tighten their belts," said Duff Conacher. "And then the government is essentially — and the Premier —​ abusing not only the public's expenses, but the public's trust.

"It is of course something that pushes everyone's buttons and makes them very upset."
Ahh, yes, the costs of being a mother. I guess it's the sort of costs a $211,000 salary just can't cover anymore with how high costs have climbed even though the Alberta government expects everyone to get by with significantly less. In fact Alberta's latest budget outlook is completely predicated on everyone having less, higher costs, and less affordability.
In its third-quarter financial report released Wednesday, Finance Minister Doug Horner said the government’s rainy day contingency account — originally expected to be drained below $700 million — is now likely to be $4.6 billion by the end of the fiscal year on March 31, thanks to buoyant energy prices and a low Canadian dollar.
At the same time, the Tory government said it had borrowed $2.7 billion for capital projects so far this year.

Debt used to be a dirty word in Alberta politics, with the Tory government boasting in 2004 after the provincial debt was eliminated under former premier Ralph Klein.

But Redford said the rapid population and economic growth of the province, which recently topped four million people, has changed the mindset around borrowing. Schools and other facilities are long-term assets that represent “an investment in the future,” she said.

“Albertans said, ‘We know we’re growing, we want to make sure we’re keeping up with that growth, that we’re building infrastructure and that we’re ensuring that the quality of life for Albertans today will continue to improve in the long term,’ ” said Redford.

However, taking on debt has attracted ferocious criticism from the official Opposition.

At a news conference earlier this week, Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said the government is refusing to properly account for its debt load.

The government’s total borrowing liability will be $17 billion by 2016, resulting in a debt servicing charge estimated at $600 million, she said.

“It has a real impact on the budget over time,” Smith told reporters.

“I talk to a lot of Albertans, I don’t think that they want to see $600 million of their hard-earned tax dollars every single year going to the banks to service the debt.”
That's right, thanks to a lower Canadian dollar and "buoyant energy prices" both of which are temporary market conditions out of the government's control, a bet, gambling, and also make the cost of living for everyone else higher, the government missed it's projections by $3.9billion dollars (because you can't accurately predict the results of gambling, of course) and yet talk about it as though it was all part of some strategic plan and can't reverse just as quickly. Buoyant energy costs of course translate to buoyant fuel costs which jet fuel has been seeing continual spikes over the years. I wonder if that's factoring into Redford's costs of being a mother.

So I have to wonder if the Premier is aware the "hardships of being a mother" aren't hers alone to bare? I have to wonder if she's aware if her policies of wishing for ever higher energy prices and a higher cost of living for everyone translate directly to it being harder for mothers without a taxpayer funded slush fund to get by. I have to wonder if she's really so disconnected looking down from her position of corporate royalty masquerading as public service that she actually thought complaining about the costs of being a mother on a salary most mothers could only dream of (and fathers, for that matter) would garner any sympathy at all.

But it gets even worse, because on top of policy meant to drive up the cost of living for everyone else the government is also borrowing from the future to support the investment that should have been made in the past and the squandered billions on Olympic Trains and public relations hocus pocus. The government squandered all of the money, ALL OF IT, from the major run on oil prices up to $147 / barrel and now after the fact want to borrow from the population, at interest from private banks, to do what they refused to do with the squandered wealth and that's what we're paying her a $211,000 salary to do.

A $3.9 billion miss, even though it's a positive miss, is still a major miss. It's dumb luck, not good planning and can easily go the other way at a moment's notice. Alison Redford is extremely deceptive and out of touch, the boom Alberta experienced prior to 2008 is never coming back there is just simply not enough momentum to drive energy costs up that high, for that long. Alberta treats the exception in market activity and the biggest bull run oil had ever seen as the rule and fools the population into supporting the lifestyles of royalty. You don't need "incredibly highly skilled quality people" to make bad market bets.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for CenturyLink

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

The insanity of "sane" growth

Lately instead of focusing on news analysis I've been instead focusing on the burden of infinite growth and in particular Justin Trudeau's unwavering support of such insanity. It's always interesting writing as a non-partisan in a hyper-partisan world and I take it very seriously and work very hard to ensure my posts fit that description. I think I've been quite successful at making this website a neutral ground for discussion of issues and not political parties. I'm one of the few blogs around where the comment section doesn't devolve into a series of political team sport trolls that write complete non-sense filled with childish partisan slurs (like "Libtards" or "RWNJ"). My blog has readers and my Twitter has followers from every political stripe because there is common ground and it's the common ground I try to stay focused on.

I've learned over the last few years that the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" in modern day society really have no more meaning than the relevance of the city stamped on the identical corporate sponsored sports teams. Trading players in hockey, for instance, used to be a rare occurrence, a team's players once represented the city they claimed to. Not anymore though, today you cheer for the jersey and nothing more. This year you might hate "Crosby" but depending on who he's playing for next year you might love him. Political brand names have become just as meaningless.

For instance, many on the "left" see Harper as the "right", but I'm sure if you ask the MPs resigning from his government their "right wing" ideology hasn't changed, just the team they play for has. So is ex-MP Brian Jean no longer a self-identified conservative because he disagrees with conservative "growth" policy?

In my last post which I believe is a clear non-partisan response on the generational divide between the baby boomers and the younger generations (from the perspective of the younger generation) the author I was responding to decided to respond to me. Go ahead and read all the comments but one in particular I think illustrates the destructive nature of hyper-partisan politics.
I DON'T LOOK DOWN ON THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS. I like young people a whole hell of a lot better than middle-aged ones. My friends are in their 20's. I'm 64. This is not a youth vs.old debate. It's a right vs. left debate and what happens when the left fails. You blame me. That's OK.
 I don't even understand what he meant by "when the left fails". I have no idea how he came to the determination that it was a "right vs. left" debate when I clearly call out both past and future governments of both Liberal and Conservative stripes. I specifically name Justin Trudeau but only because he is the next likely Prime Minister and I expect no difference between his "growth agenda" and Harper's. Political ideology leads to irrational bias as a response on Twitter to my criticism of Trudeau clearly demonstrates.
"Sane" growth, if such a thing exists, is simply not possible in our infinite exponential growth world and banking system. It's really quite shocking how many Canadians don't understand what growth is, why it's currently needed, and how it works. To put it simply: If the "growth" we're doing today is "insane don't give a fuck about anything growth" and growth essentially translates to "more on top of what we already have", then any "growth" on top of "insane growth" must be likewise insane purely due to the exponential nature of growth. Growth is ever more ever greater and the greater it gets the more sacrifice we're going to have to offer to maintain it in a post peak-oil world. There is no possible way that "sane" growth (if such a thing existed) can be even larger than "insane" growth.

This was followed by another tweet in regards to "growth" and "green tech".
The world's existing problem is not "jobs", or "tech", the world's existing problem is that "insane growth" has actually been "ludicrous growth" since the Reagan era. Central banks are in their fifth year of "record low interest rates" and money printing and still "low inflation persists". You're probably not noticing this "low inflation"  at your gas pump or grocery store shelves though. We've reached the upper limits of insanity and growth and any return to "sanity" isn't "growth" at all. It's de-growth, it's contraction, a reversal from insane to sane. It's not going to be a future of more, it's going to be a future of less, and the very fact that even with unfettered "insane" production of fossil fuels "real growth" isn't materializing the notion is completely destroyed that any "growth" is possible by a switch to green tech, or at all. Fossil fuels represent the best in energy density mankind has ever encountered, growth and production is a direct application of energy, thus a switch to sparser energy forms will likewise represent de-growth.

We exist in a society today where corners are cut for "growth" and that's with the fossil fuel subsidy. We can pass all the laws of regulation we want but if the regulators funding is itself cut those inspections don't get made anyway. We're not making the full investments needed today to maintain current tech due to desire for "growth" nevermind expecting an open-ended investment in the future of green tech with unquantifiable returns. We live in a world where policy is reactionary and foresight extends into the next quarter at best. Our current policy model is all about preserving an unsustainable standard of living predicated on cheap energy which no longer exists at the expense of the future where as instead for a real transition away from rampant energy consumption that would need to reverse to a situation where the sacrifice is made today for the prosperity of tomorrow.

No matter how you slice it infinite growth is insane, unsustainable, and ultimately impossible. It is an impossible economic model that now exists purely to service the bankers and the "easy money" policies of the last 5 years which have no end in sight are a last ditch effort to maintain the house of cards. Trudeau's claim a "growth agenda" will save the middle class is nothing more than populist propaganda as it's been a free trade oriented easy money rapid growth agenda that has been destroying them in the first place.

What solution has Trudeau proposed to solve your devaluing savings? Remember when this country used to have a penny? Remember when that penny used to be made of copper? What's Trudeau's solution for an entire generation that's already priced out of the housing market? The devaluation of your currency and housing bubble buoyed by "cheap money" policy is a direct result of an attempt to "return to growth" how exactly is more of the same going to result in something different? According to Einstein that is the very definition of insanity and yet that represents "sane" growth policy? I don't think so. Justin Trudeau hasn't said one thing that leads me to believe his "growth agenda" is sane while the others are insane, they're the exact same agendas. Literally Trudeau is advocating we do the same thing over again and expect different results but because of such a deep hatred of Harper this fact seems to be lost on the Canadian people.

It's not "right vs left", it's not even "old vs young", it's us vs the banks and monetary policy and overcoming the false and arbitrary divisions and identities we've come to trust. It's the needs of the people vs the needs to service debt because our monetary system is one in which every dollar of currency has debt and interest attached which means there is always more debt than currency in existence. It's a fight against indebting our children ever more and ensuring longevity of the species and the nation. What is Justin Trudeau offering to solve that? Does he even have any interest in solving that? Do you, or is your own immediate gain and comfort more important?

At the end of the day no politician can run on the type of platform that needs to be run because it would require the truth of our situation to be told and wouldn't be all rainbows and lollipops and ultimately who wants to hear that? nobody. Instead what people want to hear is that the booms in growth we've experienced in the past will return and that the party isn't over. People want to hear that the "middle class" will return to it's former glory even though the single family income is never mentioned and a "wage race to the bottom" brought on by free trade and global wage competition is the accepted reality. This is called cognitive dissonance, they are completely opposing viewpoints which can not be simultaneously true and yet people seem to believe that both are possible. The only "problem" being that only one is currently and can possibly be true.

No tweaks to growth policy can change what growth policy represents and as such I don't see this upcoming election as "left vs right" or Harper vs Trudeau". With the "fair election act" passing I barely even call it an election anyway. All it is a vote for growth more growth and an elaborate propaganda campaign to maintain your confidence and convince you that's what we need. It's a vote for the status quo. It's a vote to continue doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Today's dialogue is seriously lacking any talk of personal responsibility for the present situation but is filled with grandiose promises that if we just borrow enough we'll be able to spend the growth into existence. It just doesn't work like that especially when we already artificially inflate growth so far above and beyond what it really is.

When you see companies creating crap so that it can be tossed and rebought shortly later, planned obsolescence, know that that is the "growth" you're voting for. That's where we're already at, that's what has been required to maintain this illusion, and it's only going to get worse, not better, so long as growth is the pursuit. The other day while I was out for lunch I actually heard someone refer to a "tablet" as "disposable". "they're so cheap," he said, "that you just throw them out and buy another one.". Of course they're only "so cheap" thanks to third world labor exploitation granted to us by the very free trade that's destroyed local wage competition, even Justin Trudeau can admit that and he's extremely pleased with it. Never mind all of the rare-earth metals, fossil fuels for the plastics, etc, etc filling our landfills as a result. That's "growth" today and it's fucking insane.

If you don't like where we are headed today then for you it is not "Harper" that must be defeated, it is this growth mentality. Growth is not in your best interest, it's not going to provide more jobs as automation becomes a cheaper path to "profit growth". It's not going to provide higher wages as "global wage competition" provides a cheaper path to profit growth. It's not going to result in safer communities as more and more safety nets are destroyed and corners cut in the name of balanced budgets which just don't make sense in a debt based economy and really represent nothing more than paying more for less.

It is selfish desires and the belief we'll never have to pay the piper which makes it so easy to burden younger generations with the cost of our standard of living. The complete lack of guilt, and in fact sense of entitlement we have while doing it is simply appalling as we rationalize it away with meaningless debt-to-GDP ratios without considering that the GDP is an estimate and the debt is absolute and will have to be paid regardless. We really have no idea what sort of resources and production capacity will be available in the future - but it's a good bet it won't be anything compared to the past -  but we're sure spending like we do.

Unfortunately though we can't spend water into existence. We can't spend ever cheaper oil into existence. Somewhere along the line we've lost sight of the fact that currency itself is not wealth, it is a symbol, a representation of wealth and this is something no political parties wish to discuss. No political leader today could possibly offer something approaching responsible policy because we don't have a responsible mindset required to objectively evaluate it. It's all "me me me". "My portfolio". "my house". "my job". "my future" and the political parties prey on that spinning the banker's agenda into what you want to hear absolving us of responsibility and when we don't like what's happening we just blame the current political party and replace them with another promising the same impossible shit. Real change will come when we accept real responsibility, until then expect more of the same regardless what political sports team you cheer for.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for CenturyLink

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Monday, March 3, 2014

The coming age of ageism

Another Progressive Blogger has put up a post that I feel I must respond to. It's a rare occurrence, but since I believe that I accurately fit the description of the people he's describing I can't help but respond and maybe try to clear up a few things.

Let Freedom Reign II: My two predictions for not-so-distant future
1. As climate change slowly becomes a reality to the deniers, expect those deniers outside Canada to be the first to invade our borders to escape the desolation of their lands. The battle will be titanic. Global warming could very well be the 'apocalypse,' but not in the way religious people think. Americans don't care if you're in their way. Plus, they have guns.

2. Ageism will become the new acceptable form of discrimination against a huge segment of the population over 60. I've already read too many insulting, disgusting articles from 'Millenials' and other ages talking about elders the same way Americans once talked about blacks.

Anybody over 60 will be held personally responsible for the degradation of the environment, the ruination of Iraq, the deterioration of women's rights and any other issue we on the left have been fighting so long. Like Obama, the aged will be held personally responsible for every catastrophe, every bad political decision, every war - all the things conservatives created and love. But it will be ALL our faults and we will ALL be attacked for the right's selfish, violent, sexist, racist, petulant, petty, sexually-repressed ideology for decades to come.

I definitely fall under point 2. I've written many articles where I call baby boomer's out on their shit. I don't disagree that ageism is going to become an accepted form of discrimination, but what I don't see is any exploration into why. I, too, have been forecasting the same thing, though I wouldn't myself call it ageism. For instance:

Canadian Trends: The real generational time-bomb isn't in pensions

You're damn skippy there is going to be some animosity about many of those issues, but what I don't see is any responsibility. All I see is blame laid on the "conservatives" but how many baby boomers do I see on the streets protecting their childrens' old age security at 65? Hmm? How many baby boomers do you see jumping up to sacrifice the standard of living they are in effect borrowing from their children? Baby boomers are going to be blamed because it is baby boomers who have benefited from it and continue to be perfectly happy putting all the responsibility on their children. Tailings ponds? Oh those will be clean in 15-20 years right! Climate change? Well, sure, but we need growth too.

This is not age discrimination. This will be anger at a generational theft the world has never seen before. I'm telling you baby boomers, if you don't want to see riots in your streets you'll have to really show that you're pushing hard for long term policy in your children's favour. If you think multiple generations are going to live in ever declining squalor while your generations' "investments" in homes has driven them through the roof with the help of historic low interest loans which though they may help you acquire more and more they ensure that any currency "saved" in the bank doesn't even keep up with an incredibly lopsided inflation I think you'll find you're sadly mistaken. Savings is what built you.

Job insecurity is prevalent amongst the lower generations as the baby boomers stood by and cheered as free trade shipped it all over seas. These events have unfolded over much time, with both Liberal, and Conservative governments in power and the new Liberal hero Justin Trudeau is no different, continuing to push free trade and "growth" for the banks at the populations - primarily the younger populations - expense. The ninja generation.

Oh yea, there is going to be anger. Just as there's been anger in Spain, Greece, etc where the problem that Canada is on the exact same path to repeat is much further along.

If ageism is happening then it's happening already. Right now. By the baby boomers, towards the younger generation, who criticize them while stealing from them simply by benefiting and allowing what's going on to go on. A generation that stood idly by while their children were beaten in the streets of Toronto because "economy". Because "world stage".

There will be anger and discrimination towards you, baby boomers, not because you created the problems, but rather because you left it up to the younger generations to fix them and no inheritance to do it with. There will be anger because attempts to fix the problems have been and will continue to be met by force and you will do nothing but prey your investments are ok. Oh yes, there will be anger.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for CenturyLink

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.