Class Notes (834,820)
Canada (508,737)
Geography (1,064)
GEO 793 (145)
Lecture

geo notes february 26th.docx

4 Pages
99 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Geography
Course
GEO 793
Professor
Valentina Capurri
Semester
Winter

Description
G20: Protesters: not against globilzation, just a certain form of globilization where one country gets richer while the other gets poorer. Neo-liberism: GDP for usa and Canada has raised over the past few years. In the united states its true that total gdp has increased. But who has really benefitted?? Owners of apple, bill gates etc. Majority of the Americans have gotten worse. Homelessness has increased. The same in Canada.Yes the total gdp has gone up but has benfitted the 1% of the population, and has not improved the situation of the common people. It’s good to rely on data, but you have to see what is behind the data. Because the data doesn’t reflect to reality. Wouldn’t it be better to proceed through regular channels (voters) instead of protesting the street? To a certain degree, yes it would be better through the voting booths, but the issue is that sometimes voting is not enough. In this pereticular case, if you look at the 4 main parties (cons, liberals, ndp, green) if you look at their platforms, they all have embraced this neoliberism ideology. No matter who you vote for, they are all supporting neo-liberism policy. If people want to move away from this, they don’t have much choice during election time. This is also the case in the USA, Obama was supposed to be the face of change, who was going to increase welfare rates and care about the poor people. None of this has happened, and he follows the same elements of neoliberism as bush. Obama won at the end of the day because he had 3 times as many donations from corporations. He was able to get elected due to financial support from the corporations he was supposed to be fighting against. Next reading: Mike Harris was the most responsible for turning Ontario into neoliberism. It’s not that municipal mayors were completely innocent though. Here in Toronto we had mel lassmen? Who was doing the same David Miller was the next mayor, and he presented himself as a left wing candidate, and we automatically assumed he was against neoliberism. He was certainly more left wing than melassmen, but he continued a “softer” form of neoliberism. But one of the effects of this continuation, was the continuous emphasis on on the upper class, which caused more gentrification, which caused the poorer to get poorer in downtown Toronto. Miller is out Ford is in. Not looking at Ford actions after he became mayor, but look at his speeches and promises he made in order to get their vote. Voting results for the 2010 election show the neighbourhoods outside the downtown core (smitherman) all voted for Ford. Similar to Miller and Tory election results. In this case Miller had the downtown core, and the outside suburbs had John Tory, 2003. Ford’s Agenda: Video: he said that in the years before he came to power, the gravy train was happening, politicians before him had just wasted tax payers money. And Ford was helping you to recover your money. The only issue he talked about was money, nothing about developing Toronto or inclusivity or anything, just money. “the party with taxpayers money is over” If you look a the data in the budget at city hall, you see that the Miller administration had actually gained a surplus. Most people don’t bother/don’t know how/no time to read the city hall 50 page report about the financial situation. And many people actually believed this, and our money up to this point had been completely wasted up to that point. “it comes down to, people come up to me and say ‘I trust you with my money’” This argument stems from him being a business and being able to manage money better than the public sector. The private sector more efficient than the public sector. Most people’s understanding that the public government is something inneficient, and the private sector is celebrated as something extremely efficient. “homeless people won’t be laying on the sidewalks when im elected mayor” As a mayor you need to represent all people in Toronto, no matter what your personal opinions are. “lets talk about money, that’s what everything revolves around-money” Is it really all about the money? The city is not a business. What happens to those who: 1. Don’t have money to spend (there are many of us who are prevented from spending because they just don’t have enough money, are you still representing these people?) 2. What happens to those who do not pay taxes? All speeches only once he refers to you as citizens, all the other time he refers to you as Tax-payers. Are you concerned about people who don’t pay taxes? Not everyone in the city owns a house and not property tax payers, what happens to us? Children do not pay taxes, and yet I expect my mayor to want the best for the children in this city-build schools, childcare, kindergartens. Does this mean he is excluding these people? Refer as a “resident” of this city, not a taxpayer, because I have a right to be represented whether or not I pay taxes, am rich or poor, white or black. When we use the term “citizen” and “taxpayer”, citizen refers to anyone that has been given citizenship in a community, and irrespective or income-race-religion-etc. and inclusive term. Taxpayer is a discriminatory term. If you pay taxes you are important, if you don’t I don’t represent you. You have to realize that people are left out through this wording Toronto’s Inner Suburbs: Old Tor
More Less

Related notes for GEO 793

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit