u/Natural_Thought808

When a recession starts, people get scared and spend less money.

When people buy less, businesses make less money.

Businesses then cut jobs and stop investing.

People who lose jobs have even less money to spend.

Now businesses lose even more customers.

This creates a circle:

Less spending → fewer sales → fewer jobs → even less spending.

If every family and business is trying to save money at the same time, who starts spending again?

Businesses normally do not build new factories when customers are disappearing. Banks may not want to lend when businesses are failing.

This is why governments and central banks often step in during recessions. Governments can build roads, hire workers, cut taxes or help families. Central banks can lower interest rates.

The goal is to get money moving again until families and businesses feel safe enough to spend and invest.

So my question is simple:

If government does nothing during a bad recession, what tool does the free market have that can quickly stop this circle?

During a recession, people lose jobs and spend less money. Businesses lose customers, so they also spend less and may fire more workers.

Austerity says government should cut spending too and let the private economy recover.

But then who is spending money?

If workers, businesses and government are all cutting spending at the same time, does that make the recession worse?

Is there strong evidence that austerity has actually helped countries recover faster?

Or does history show that temporary government stimulus, such as infrastructure, jobs and support for struggling families, works better until private spending returns?

A nurse, teacher, plumber, or construction worker goes to work and earns a paycheque. The government taxes that money as income.

But rich people can make money from stocks, businesses, and property. Some of that money can be taxed less than money from a job.

This seems backwards.

Workers build homes, teach children, fix things, and care for people. Society needs their work.

But our economy can make it easier to get rich by owning and trading things instead of working or building new things.

Why should money made from wealth get better tax treatment than money someone worked for?

A nurse, teacher, plumber, or construction worker goes to work and earns a paycheque. The government taxes that money as income.

But rich people can make money from stocks, businesses, and property. Some of that money can be taxed less than money from a job.

This seems backwards.

Workers build homes, teach children, fix things, and care for people. Society needs their work.

But our economy can make it easier to get rich by owning and trading things instead of working or building new things.

Why should money made from wealth get better tax treatment than money someone worked for?

The Alberta NDP feels too weak right now. Nenshi seems to be hoping the UCP will make enough mistakes that voters will choose the NDP instead. That strategy is not working. Some election models currently give the UCP about a 98% chance of winning.

The NDP needs to stop playing defence and give Albertans a strong alternative vision.

That means bold progressive ideas on healthcare, housing, affordability, wages and public services. It also means taking strong positions instead of worrying about every possible political risk.

The Forever Canadian campaign was a good example. Instead of jumping in front of an issue that most Albertans supported, the NDP hesitated and stayed on the sidelines before later launching its own campaign.

Albertans should know exactly what an NDP government would build and change, not just what it dislikes about Danielle Smith.

Right now, it does not feel like Alberta has a government and a strong government in waiting. It feels like we have the UCP setting the agenda and an opposition reacting to it.

You do not defeat a government by waiting for it to defeat itself. Give Albertans something bold to vote for.

I want to understand why working people in India should vote for the BJP.

Many people work hard but still worry about jobs, low pay, food, homes, health care and school.

What BJP economic plans make life better for these people? How are these plans better than what Congress, AAP or other parties offer?

I am not asking about religion or leaders. I want to talk about money and jobs.

What has the BJP done that has clearly made life better for normal workers, and what would another party have done differently?

Here is the part people miss American taxpayers already help pay for new medicine.

The NIH is a government agency that uses tax dollars to fund medical research. Scientists use that money to learn how diseases work and find ideas for new treatments. Drug companies then spend their own money testing those ideas and turning them into medicines.

A study found NIH funded research was connected to 354 of 356 new drugs approved from 2010 to 2019.

So yes, drug companies take risks and should make money. But taxpayers take risks too. If taxpayers help pay for the science, why should Americans also have to pay some of the highest drug prices in the world?

Imagine two schools.

School A spends $15,000 on each student but gets some of the worst test scores.

School B spends $8,000 and gets better scores.

You would probably ask where School A's money is going.

That is basically the problem with American healthcare.

The OECD estimates the U.S. spent more than $14,880 per person on healthcare in 2024. Canada, Australia and several Western European countries spent roughly $7,000 to $8,500. Yet Americans are not getting twice as much health for twice the money.

Americans live about 78.4 years, 2.7 years below the OECD average. The U.S. has 217 preventable deaths per 100,000 people compared with an OECD average of 145. Deaths that should be treatable are also higher: 95 versus 77 per 100,000.

A major international comparison looked at Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the U.S. The U.S. ranked last overall despite spending by far the most. Australia ranked first, the Netherlands second and the UK third. The U.S. also ranked last on health outcomes.

Why?

The U.S. does not have a purely private system, but it relies much more heavily on private insurance and a complicated mix of insurers, hospitals and government programs. That creates enormous administrative costs. Americans also generally pay much higher prices for medical services and prescription drugs. And millions remain uninsured or face deductibles and bills that can make them delay treatment.

Universal systems have problems too. Canada and the UK, for example, struggle with waiting times for some nonemergency care. The U.S. can provide excellent and very fast specialist care to people with good insurance and money. In fact, the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. second for its "care process" measures.

But that is exactly the bigger question:

If America spends roughly twice as much per person as many wealthy countries, why should success be measured by how amazing healthcare can be for someone who can afford it?

Shouldn't we measure a healthcare system by what the average working family gets for all the money society spends?

Australia, the Netherlands and the UK show that you can guarantee healthcare to everyone, spend dramatically less than America and still achieve better overall system results.

I keep hearing the argument that Americans need to pay extremely high drug prices because that money creates new medicines.

But if high prices are necessary for innovation, how do we explain countries like Switzerland and Denmark?

America is the world leader in total pharmaceutical research and produces more new medicines overall. But America also has 340+ million people and the world’s largest economy. Once we compare countries to their size, the picture changes.

Switzerland has fewer than 10 million people, yet pharmaceutical companies there spend roughly 0.8% to 1% of GDP on R&D, compared with roughly 0.35% to 0.4% in America in comparable OECD data. Switzerland has historically produced an unusually high number of new medicines relative to the size of its economy. Denmark and Belgium also have extremely large pharmaceutical research sectors relative to their size.

These countries did not accomplish this by letting drug companies charge whatever they want. Switzerland regulates medicine prices and regularly reviews whether drugs are worth their price. Denmark also uses government negotiation and reimbursement rules to control what taxpayers pay.

Think about the difference:

America: Allow very high drug prices → drug companies make more money → hope enough gets invested into new medicines.

Alternative: Control unreasonable prices → directly reward R&D and real innovation → fund universities and basic research → give companies strong incentives for developing genuinely new medicines.

Capitalism does not require giving a company unlimited pricing power just because it owns a patent. A patent itself is a government created temporary monopoly designed to reward invention.

America deserves enormous credit for medical innovation. But Switzerland shows something important: you can have capitalism, profitable pharmaceutical companies, price regulation AND an incredibly innovative pharmaceutical industry.

So why not make the goal rewarding innovation rather than rewarding high prices?

If a company develops a breakthrough cancer treatment, reward the hell out of it. If it invests billions into genuine R&D, give it incentives. But Americans paying two or three times more for the same patented medicine should not automatically be treated as the price capitalism requires for innovation

I keep hearing the argument that Americans need to pay extremely high drug prices because that money creates new medicines.

But if high prices are necessary for innovation, how do we explain countries like Switzerland and Denmark?

America is the world leader in total pharmaceutical research and produces more new medicines overall. But America also has 340+ million people and the world’s largest economy. Once we compare countries to their size, the picture changes.

Switzerland has fewer than 10 million people, yet pharmaceutical companies there spend roughly 0.8% to 1% of GDP on R&D, compared with roughly 0.35% to 0.4% in America in comparable OECD data. Switzerland has historically produced an unusually high number of new medicines relative to the size of its economy. Denmark and Belgium also have extremely large pharmaceutical research sectors relative to their size.

These countries did not accomplish this by letting drug companies charge whatever they want. Switzerland regulates medicine prices and regularly reviews whether drugs are worth their price. Denmark also uses government negotiation and reimbursement rules to control what taxpayers pay.

Think about the difference:

America: Allow very high drug prices → drug companies make more money → hope enough gets invested into new medicines.

Alternative: Control unreasonable prices → directly reward R&D and real innovation → fund universities and basic research → give companies strong incentives for developing genuinely new medicines.

Capitalism does not require giving a company unlimited pricing power just because it owns a patent. A patent itself is a government created temporary monopoly designed to reward invention.

America deserves enormous credit for medical innovation. But Switzerland shows something important: you can have capitalism, profitable pharmaceutical companies, price regulation AND an incredibly innovative pharmaceutical industry.

So why not make the goal rewarding innovation rather than rewarding high prices?

If a company develops a breakthrough cancer treatment, reward the hell out of it. If it invests billions into genuine R&D, give it incentives. But Americans paying two or three times more for the same patented medicine should not automatically be treated as the price capitalism requires for innovation

Imagine two schools.

School A spends $15,000 on each student but gets some of the worst test scores.

School B spends $8,000 and gets better scores.

You would probably ask where School A's money is going.

That is basically the problem with American healthcare.

The OECD estimates the U.S. spent more than $14,880 per person on healthcare in 2024. Canada, Australia and several Western European countries spent roughly $7,000 to $8,500. Yet Americans are not getting twice as much health for twice the money.

Americans live about 78.4 years, 2.7 years below the OECD average. The U.S. has 217 preventable deaths per 100,000 people compared with an OECD average of 145. Deaths that should be treatable are also higher: 95 versus 77 per 100,000.

A major international comparison looked at Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the U.S. The U.S. ranked last overall despite spending by far the most. Australia ranked first, the Netherlands second and the UK third. The U.S. also ranked last on health outcomes.

Why?

The U.S. does not have a purely private system, but it relies much more heavily on private insurance and a complicated mix of insurers, hospitals and government programs. That creates enormous administrative costs. Americans also generally pay much higher prices for medical services and prescription drugs. And millions remain uninsured or face deductibles and bills that can make them delay treatment.

Universal systems have problems too. Canada and the UK, for example, struggle with waiting times for some nonemergency care. The U.S. can provide excellent and very fast specialist care to people with good insurance and money. In fact, the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. second for its "care process" measures.

But that is exactly the bigger question:

If America spends roughly twice as much per person as many wealthy countries, why should success be measured by how amazing healthcare can be for someone who can afford it?

Shouldn't we measure a healthcare system by what the average working family gets for all the money society spends?

Australia, the Netherlands and the UK show that you can guarantee healthcare to everyone, spend dramatically less than America and still achieve better overall system results.

India talks a lot about becoming a richer and more powerful country. But what is the point of becoming richer if ordinary people do not become healthier, better educated and more secure?

Kerala shows that development does not have to mean helping businesses first and hoping the benefits eventually reach everyone else.

Kerala spent decades putting more focus on public education, healthcare, social programs and basic services.

Look at the results.

Kerala is tied for first place among Indian states in NITI Aayog's latest overall Sustainable Development Goals ranking, with a score of 79 compared with 71 for India overall. It also ranks first on the education goal.

People in Kerala live longer. Life expectancy is about 75.1 years compared with 70.3 years for India overall.

Kerala also has one of India's strongest education systems. About 89.5% of young people at the higher secondary school age are enrolled, placing Kerala near the very top of India.

And Kerala is not simply poor people receiving good government services. Its income per person is also well above the Indian average

The basic idea behind the Kerala model is simple.

Educate children → they become more skilled.

Provide healthcare → people live longer and healthier lives.

Reduce extreme poverty → children have a better chance of succeeding.

Build public infrastructure and services → families and businesses have a stronger foundation.

More skilled and healthy workers → a more productive economy.

So why doesn't India take more of these ideas nationwide?

Spend much more on government schools and healthcare. Strengthen worker protections. Expand programs that guarantee employment. Invest in clean water, sanitation, housing and transportation. Make wealthy people contribute more through progressive taxation.

This does not mean copying every Kerala policy.

It means asking a simple question:

If Kerala can achieve some of India's best results in health, education, poverty reduction and overall human development, why shouldn't the rest of India learn from what worked?

India needs businesses to make money. Profitable companies create products, employ people and help the economy grow. But should simply making a large profit automatically mean paying lower taxes?

India could take a different approach: reward companies when they actually do something that helps grow the economy and improves life for workers.

Instead of giving every profitable corporation a large tax cut, tell companies: if you want a tax break, earn it.

Build a new factory in India → get a tax credit.

Create new full time jobs → get a tax credit.

Buy better machines that make workers more productive → get a tax credit.

Train workers in valuable skills → get a tax credit.

Invest in research and new technology → get a tax credit.

Raise wages → get rewarded.

Why does this matter?

Imagine the government gives a profitable company ₹100 crore through a broad tax cut. The company could build a factory, but it could also keep the money, increase dividends or use cash in ways that mainly benefit its owners.

Now imagine the government says, “Invest ₹100 crore building a factory and creating jobs, and we will give you a tax credit.”

The company only gets the benefit after doing something the country actually wants.

India already uses part of this idea through its Production Linked Incentive programs, which reward companies for expanding production in targeted industries.

The bigger idea is simple:

Corporate tax cut → company gets the benefit → India hopes investment follows.

Investment and jobs tax credit → company invests and creates jobs → company earns the benefit.

Businesses should absolutely be allowed to become successful and wealthy.

But if working people are helping pay for corporate tax incentives, shouldn't those incentives require something in return?

More investment. More factories. Better technology. Higher productivity. Better wages. More good jobs.

That seems like a much better deal for India's working and middle class.

Alberta families have to pay for car insurance, electricity, internet and cell phones. These are not things most people can simply stop using when prices get too high.

So why doesn’t Alberta own companies that compete with private companies in these industries?

Other provinces already do this.

Saskatchewan has SGI for auto insurance. Average auto insurance premiums in Saskatchewan are about $1,146 a year, compared with about $1,835 in Alberta. Alberta is currently the second most expensive province for auto insurance.

Saskatchewan also has SaskTel. It competes directly with private telecom companies. This means companies like Bell, Rogers and Telus have another major competitor fighting for Saskatchewan customers. SaskTel currently offers a promotional 50 GB wireless plan for $60 a month.

Then look at electricity. Provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have publicly owned electricity companies. Instead of depending almost entirely on private companies to produce electricity, the public owns major parts of the system.

Alberta could do the same thing without banning private companies.

Create an Alberta Crown auto insurance company.

Create an Alberta Crown electricity company.

Create an Alberta Crown telecom company.

Let them compete against private businesses.

The biggest difference is where the money goes. A private company's profits belong to its shareholders. A Crown corporation belongs to the public. It can use its earnings to keep prices competitive, improve services, invest in infrastructure or return money to the province.

This is not about getting rid of private businesses. It is about giving working Albertans a public option and forcing everyone to compete harder for our money.

If Saskatchewan can have SaskTel and SGI, why can't Alberta?

Rachel Notley raised Alberta’s corporate tax rate from 10% to 12%. But her government also offered incentives to companies that made certain new investments in Alberta, including new petrochemical projects.

The basic idea was simple:

If a company invested money in a new Alberta project, it could qualify for incentives.

If a company did not make that investment, it did not get that specific incentive.

Jason Kenney went in a different direction. His government eventually lowered Alberta’s corporate tax rate from 12% to 8%. Companies benefited from the lower rate whether they built something new in Alberta or not.

This is the part I am questioning.

Say two companies each make $100 million in profit. One takes its profits and does not expand in Alberta. The other spends millions building a new facility and creating jobs.

Why should both companies get the same tax cut?

Would it be better to keep corporate taxes competitive, but tell companies: If you build a factory, buy equipment, expand production, or create new investment in Alberta, you earn a bigger tax break?

That way Alberta is giving up tax revenue in exchange for something: new investment.

I understand the UCP argument that lower taxes can attract businesses and encourage investment. But I want to understand why giving every profitable corporation a lower tax rate is better than giving the biggest tax savings to companies that actually invest in Alberta.

I have a simple question.

Why don't more people in India vote for leaders who focus on improving schools, hospitals, roads, and reducing poverty, like Kerala has done?

Kerala is one of the most developed states in India. It has:

• Almost everyone can read and write.
• Good hospitals that most people can use.
• Low infant and child death rates.
• People who live longer lives.
• Good schools and colleges.
• Better roads, clean water, and other basic services.
• Much lower extreme poverty than many other Indian states.

Because of this, many people say Kerala has a quality of life that is similar to that of developed countries in many ways.

At the same time, states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh still have many families living in poverty. They also face bigger challenges with education, healthcare, roads, and other basic services.

So my question is:

If Kerala has shown that investing in people can improve life so much, why don't more Indians vote for leaders who promise similar policies?

Is it because every state is different, or are there other reasons why the Kerala model is difficult to copy?

I would love to hear different opinions from people across India.

One reason I ask is because many reports show that India has become much wealthier over the years, but the benefits have not been shared equally. For example:

• The richest 10% of Indians own about 77% of the country's wealth.
• In 2024, about 83% of all new wealth went to the richest 1% of the population.
• Around 670 million people, who make up the poorest half of India, saw only about a 1% increase in their wealth during the same period.
• India is also home to more than 100 billionaires.

Given these numbers, why don't more voters choose leaders whose main goal is to improve healthcare, education, and reduce poverty instead of focusing on other issues?

I've been learning about how the stock market is supposed to help businesses grow. When a company first sells shares, it gets money to build factories, hire workers, invent new products, or create better technology. That helps the economy because it creates real jobs and real wealth.

But after those shares are sold, most trading happens between investors. People are mostly buying and selling the same shares to each other. The company usually does not get any new money. That made me wonder if today's financial markets are creating real wealth or just moving money around.

We have seen this happen before. During the dot com bubble, people paid huge prices for internet companies that were not making much money. Eventually the bubble burst and many investors lost billions of dollars.

Before the 2008 financial crisis, people believed house prices would keep going up forever. Investors bought homes just to sell them for more money later. When prices finally fell, the bubble burst and it caused one of the biggest financial crashes in history.

More recently, stocks like GameStop became worth far more than many experts believed the company itself was worth because millions of people rushed to buy the stock. When the excitement faded, many people lost money.

Another thing I find interesting is taxes. In Canada, money earned from wages is generally taxed more heavily than capital gains. Only half of a capital gain is included in taxable income for most individuals, while employment income is fully taxable. This means some forms of investment income can receive more favourable tax treatment than income earned from working.

Do you think modern capitalism has become too focused on financial speculation instead of creating real wealth? Should governments encourage more investment in businesses, factories, technology, and infrastructure instead of rewarding short term trading? I'd like to hear what economists, investors, and supporters of capitalism think.