• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomahawk6 said:
To be relevent Canada needs to spend more money on defense, plain and simple. The Navy needs to go ahead with the CADRE project. They could use more CPF's. This would enable Canadian warships to fully participate in naval operations in support of the war on terror. Another area would be in transport aircraft. I would like to see Canada buy 15-20 C-17's. With C-17's the CF could support airlift requirements. Two tankers are coming on line, but could use 2 more. Supporting the US doesn't necessarily require ground forces.
      With respect to our American brethren, I don't see the need for C-17's and CPF to support the American armed forces, I see them needed so we can deploy and support our own forces.  As it is, if we were to send troops to Iraq today, we would have to rely on US supply lines to get them there, and support them once in place.  As a coalition partner increased airlift would make us more of a real aid, rather than a PR coup with a logistics cost that offsets any benefit.  As a nation with our own priorities and foreign policy, it is inexcusable that we are dependant on others to deploy, support, and recover our own troops.  Does anyone else remember the humiliating spectacle of Canadian armour held hostage on the high seas due to a contract dispute with a former Soviet block tank transport that we had hired to recover them?  Without the ability to deploy, support, and recover our own assets, we do not have a military option in foreign policy unless someone (US or UK) with an actual logistics capability is willing to do the grunt work for us.
 
Zipper said:
Well that was some spun story there.

Its amazing how many people and levels of government can be attacked in one article.

Raving? Or journalism? You decide.
     Hyperbole is ridiculous on the face of it.   As editorials go that one was a bit strong.   That being said, some of the points were good.   Why is it that we refused the award the US wished to honour our PPCLI snipers with?   Do you think that shows respect for the Canadians who were fighting over there?   Do you think that shows respect for the Americans who were doing the bulk of the fighting, and bleeding?   This country grabs onto any military scandal, any shame, and milks it on the front pages for months at a time.   If our troops actually shine in the performance of their duties, and in our trade, that means killing people, it is kept in the back pages, if reported at all, like it is something to be ashamed of.   Canadians died in a friendly fire incident, all honour to them.   Americans lived because of the quick and decisive action, the training and will of our PPCLI snipers, and of this our nation is not proud?   Of that attitude I am ashamed.   Canadians recently came under fire on patrol in Afghanistan (how unusual hey?) and our media tries to paint them as helpless victims endangered recklessly.   How about trained professionals who were too disciplined to start a shooting incident with no clear target for return fire.   No word on the bravery or professionalism of our troops: the implication of the articles, the stressing of the danger, implies that our troops are unwilling to face danger in the performance of their duties.   We don't have Kamikazes in our Armed Forces, but I am sick and tired of our media assuming that cowardice is the only rational reaction to danger.   I am tired of the assumption that Canada is not worth the risk to defend.   I am sick to death of a country that thinks its military is unable, or unwilling to fight, when the only moral weakness I saw in the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces came from our civilian leadership.   The article was overblown, but it pointed out some nasty truths that our people, and most especially our media, prefer to be blind to.   Our media has decided it is morally superior to be a victim than a victor.   Our military is trained to win, not to whine.   If one of the two is wrong, I know which one I choose.
 
Agreed. The article is far to black and white and over stated. Which is what I was pointing out.

As for the those issues you are talking about Mainer. I agree totally.

What I would question on this is, Is it the media's fault for printing only the "Bad, sensational" things? The Military's fault for letting them do so without comment. The Military's for not pressing the issues of "our glories". The Government for playing politics's with awards that were well earned? Etc...

The public can only make decisions with what they know. The media prints what it knows, or wants you to know. The Government only allows out what it wants you to know. And the military is constrained by the government.

So how do we solve these catch-22's?

I remember back in the day when Esprit De Corp magazine came out. It was meant to solve just some of these problems by publishing those things that the government controlled military mags would not. To bad they hardly sold. Then they started to slip down the slope to tabloid and now they are a fringe mag that is ignored by most.

Whats the solution?
 
a_majoor said:
Styen should get in another word here:

i will agree completely that politicians and others have milked this whole "peacekeeping" schtick to the detriment of our military. That "peacekeeping monument" on the $10-bill annoys the h out of me. But then again, the way mark steyn throws around accusations of cowardice like confetti at a wedding is every bit as grating.

and i realise it's not strictly relevant to his argument, such as it is, but i just can't help but wonder what military experience steyn has (or not) ...
 
The first step to making Canada relevant again is to reform the way we govern ourselves.
 
"..thrown away in the form of corporate tax cuts and debt repayments."

Part of that debt is Pension Plan commitments and   CSBs.

If you pay off the debt, then we don't have to sewer our programs when the interest rates climb to 12 % again.  

Corporate tax cuts increase commerce, which you can then tax.   What you want to avoid is propping up dead dogs like Aihr Kanada and Bombardyeh.

Tom
 
Economics 101. I really wish people would pay attention in class.....

Evidence, Evidence, and More Evidence
Lower tax rates spur economic growth. End of story.

WAn opinion piece by reporter Anna Bernasek in last Sunday's New York Times actually argues that there's no real evidence that lower tax rates spur economic growth. Bernasek finds a couple of economists to back up her idea before concluding that tax â Å“reform based on a notion that taxes are bad for the economy is just that: a notion not backed by strong evidence.â ?

Let me beg to differ in a very strong way.

Before making her strange assertions, Bernasek should have referenced the work of Harvard economists Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw, along with numerous articles published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Then there's the work of Columbia economist Glenn Hubbard and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen. These are no small thinkers when it comes to tax theory. Each has found a high correlation between lower tax rates and higher economic growth.

Then there's the Nobel-prize-winning Edward Prescott of Arizona State and Robert Mundell of Columbia. Add two more sound minds to the lower-tax, higher-growth list. Sure, the above economists have been Republican advisors at one time or another, but Bernasek could have found a trove of data contrary to her thesis had she looked to the â Å“non-partisanâ ? OECD, IMF, or Congressional Budget Office.

Then there's the real-world evidence. Let's start overseas.

Margaret Thatcher's tax cuts had made Britain the strongest European Union economy until Ireland passed it with even lower tax rates. Russia and almost all the former Soviet bloc countries in East Europe have moved to low flat-tax-rate systems. Western Europe, until recently, has not. Consequently, their economic growth rate has fallen 25 percent behind the pace set in the U.S. over the last decade.

A recent BusinessWeek article notes that only last year â Å“Germany was among the ringleaders of an effort to force low-tax countries like Estonia to raise their rates.â ? Now Germany is joining the race to cut taxes by slashing their corporate income tax. BusinessWeek continues, â Å“Chances for just such economy-boosting tax cuts are looking better.â ? (My italics.)

Back at home, real-world evidence throughout the 20th century shows a stark contrast between high- and low-tax policies. In the 1920s, the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts produced the Roaring Twenties. But repeated tax increases by Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt produced and prolonged the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy vowed to get the economy moving again after the sluggish growth of the high-tax Truman-Eisenhower years. JFK made good on his promise when he lowered the top income-tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. The result was the 1960's boom. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan turned stagflation into the 1980's boom by slashing the top personal tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

President Clinton, you might recall, raised taxes in his first term, but lowered them in his second term, contributing to a burst of investment and growth. Note the difference. In his first four years, the economy increased at a 3.2 percent annual rate. But his next four years produced a 4.2 percent economic pace.

Are we to throw out all this overwhelming historical evidence? Hardly. More likely, former-Sen. Connie Mack, the head of President Bush's tax-reform commission, will recommend a new tax plan for the U.S. that will borrow heavily from the path-breaking flat-tax-reform work of Steve Forbes, Dick Armey, and Art Laffer. No amount of academic-style econometric finagling can take away from the historical evidence that flatter and simpler taxes are the best way to maximize our economy's potential to grow.

To think otherwise only defies the laws of common sense. Higher after-tax returns to work, investment, and entrepreneurial risk-taking will promote more employment, more capital formation, and more wealth. If it pays more to produce then people will produce more. As Dr. Laffer put it three decades ago, when you tax something more you get less of it. When you tax something less you get more of it. Higher after-tax rewards always generate a greater supply of work effort and investment capital.

In our capitalist free-market system, strengthening the link between effort and reward has proven to work time and again. I respectfully disagree with Anna Bernasek and the New York Times. More tax freedom will always fuel our free economy.

â ” Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200504060758.asp

If we want to become relevant again, we need to ditch the high tax high regulatory environment and free the productive energies of all Canadians, rather than harness the productive energies of Canadians to feed the friends of the Liberal Party
 
a_majoor said:
Economics 101. I really wish people would pay attention in class.....

If we want to become relevant again, we need to ditch the high tax high regulatory environment and free the productive energies of all Canadians, rather than harness the productive energies of Canadians to feed the friends of the Liberal Party

More like Economics 001!!!

Fundamental truth in the way the world works: people have a better idea of how they want their money spent than any government does!!!  :o

-This is proven by virtue of the fact that taxes are taken coercively.  :threat:
363.gif

-Failure to acknowledge this truth is the fatal flaw of Socialism.  :skull:
 
More backing for John Gault: Adscam is just one of the many drains on our collective resources which takes away from the potential that Canada could have had. The 20th century belongs to Canada? It took only 10 years for the Liberals to make Canada dissapear....

One Canadian's Thoughts on AdScam
by Guest Author at April 8, 2005 05:14 AM

by "DoubleZero"

I just finished reading the book 'Hot Money' by R.T. Naylor. This highly informative and detailed book explains how tax revenues are systematically looted by government officials, their business cronies, and banks in Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Caribbean, the United States, and Africa. Canada is barely mentioned in the book, but perhaps in the next edition, it should be. What I read on the Captain's Quarters blog was shocking. You expect this sort of thing from municipal politicians and corporate executives, but not from the federal government.

The way I understand Mr. Breault's testimony, the Liberal Party was embezzling government funds allocated to the Ministry of Public Works with the full knowledge and winking consent of its then Minister, the now-discredited Alfonso Gagliano. These funds were embezzled by being 'spent' on contracts doled out to faithful Liberal-friendly advertising firms in Montreal. Little or no work was completed for these payments, but no matter, none was expected. The true reason the Liberals were handing out these contracts was so that the advertising firms would then recycle the money back into the Liberal Party of Canada in the form of political donations.

Some of the money was siphoned off and never actually reached the outstretched arms of the Liberal Party, it went into the pockets of people who were working for the Liberals in Quebec, in order to purchase their loyalty. People were put on the payroll of these firms and never showed up to work, but were still paid, a la Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs. The available testimony on the CQ blog just gives us the basics, so we don't know if these individuals then turned around and donated the money they received back to the Liberal Party; i.e. they were just another buffer to throw off the scent of the money for government of Canada accountants who might be trying to follow the trail.

Now I understand the Quebec Sponsorship Program; before, it never really made sense to me.

For example, since the referendum was held in 1995, why was the Sponsorship Program only shut down seven years later? The standard Liberal explanation for the Sponsorship Program was that the Canadian government was trying to increase the profile of Canada and its institutions in the Province of Quebec, in order to lessen the risks of Quebec leaving Confederation. But even back before the Sponsorship program got underway, the independence movement in Quebec was already fading away. Parti Quebecois Premiers such as Bouchard and Landry were having a tough time staying in power due to their fiscal cutbacks and perceived slight shift towards the neo-conservatism which had already swept across the United States, English Canada, and many parts of Europe and Latin America. This angered the voters and made them elect Jean Charest's Parti Liberal in Quebec in 2002. Federally, the Bloc Quebecois was doing a fine job of defending Quebec's interests without even bothering to talk about independence. They even stopped mentioning sovereignty-association several years ago.

So why was the Sponsorship Program still going on?

The entire rationale for the Sponsorship Program seemed suspect. No Liberal official was ever able to adequately explain exactly how slapping up a bunch of Canadian flags all over Quebec was supposed to make Quebec separatists feel more like staying part of Canada. Were I a separatist, waking up and seeing Canadian flags waving out the window would definitely make me see red. If anything, I would be insulted and feel more like working to make Quebec independent.

Think about it. All Canadians know that we are experiencing a great deal of friction with the United States right now. If you, as a Canadian, woke up one morning to see U.S. flags all over the place, wouldn't you feel a bit alarmed? Maybe even angry? Sure, some conservatives out west would celebrate by throwing their cowboy hats in the air and roasting a steer... but you get my point.

Back to the scandal, Mr. Breault apparently broke down crying while recounting that on one occasion in which he was being extorted by Gagliano's lieutenants, he feared for his life. He seems to have realized that he was in over his head.

I find it ironic that Breault was being extorted over a government contract to provide advertising for Via Rail, which is the direct descendant of the passenger train services of the CPR, which also figured prominently in the previous worst-ever scandal in Canadian history, the Pacific Scandal, which forced Conservative Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald from office in 1873.

Breault will probably make an ideal candidate for the witness protection program after this trial is over. This sad tale illustrates the severity of the scandal.

Whether or not the Liberal Party was in cahoots with the Mafia will be difficult to prove. Gagliano himself, after returning from exile in Denmark, vehemently denied ever being part of any 'family' or 'organization' of that sort. However, it is well-known that a former hitman turned FBI informant, Frank Lino, fingered Gagliano as being a made man in the Bonnano 'famiglia' of New York.

If in fact the Liberal Party is not working with, and has never had friendly relations with the Mafia, they certainly are well-versed in the art of laundering money, Mafia-style. Everything I read of Jean Breault's testimony is almost identical to some of the scams I have read about which have taken place over the years in places such as the Phillippines, Argentina, and Mexico. The only difference is that the Liberals were not actually funneling money into offshore accounts in Switzerland and Panama - although they may have been, that just hasn't come out in the testimony so far.

Near as I can tell, the Quebec Sponsorhip Program was not designed to 'Increase the Visibility of Canadian Federal Institutions in Quebec', it was designed to be a cash cow. Its true purpose was Mafia-style money laundering, conceived, designed, approved, and implemented from the very top.

It's entirely possible that Jean Chretien knew nothing about the scam, although the onus is on him to prove it. After all, his brother Gabriel is a central figure in the scandal, as is his designated point man in Quebec, Alfonso (Big Spender) Gagliano. Guilty or not, Chretien will deny everything and get off; he's a lawyer with some of the best connections money can buy. Still, some heads are going to roll for this, whether an election is forced soon or not.

Realizing what had been going on in the back rooms and dimly lit restaurants of Ottawa under Chretien's tenure, it seems a wholly good thing that Chretien was overthrown by Paul Martin, or else the scam might have been going on still, today. However, whether you're a Conservative, a Liberal, a supporter of the NDP or even a separatist, you have to kind of feel sorry for Martin because even though he requested the public inquiry, he's going to go down in flames when this government falls.

Unless I see unequivocal evidence, solid proof, that Paul Martin had absolutely nothing to do with the Sponsorship Program, other than closing it down, I cannot see myself voting for the Liberal Party in the looming election, or even the one after that. Only if an airtight case is made that all the corrosive elements in the Liberal Party have been completely purged would I even remotely consider it.

Even then, I probably wouldn't vote Liberal because I have several other problems with them. I live in downtown Toronto, which is supposedly the centre of Liberal power. When you live and work here, though, it really doesn't feel like the Liberals are paying attention to the concerns of this city at all. Maybe if you live in Medicine Hat or Fredericton you might assume that everyone in Toronto and Southern Ontario is happy with our friends the Liberals, but that is absolutely not the case. They just take our money and shovel it all over the country. If we ask for some of it back, even Liberal MPs whose ridings are in Toronto tell us to shut up and stop being selfish. Once they get elected, they move to Ottawa and become trained seals.

People from all over the country come here with little or no skills expecting to find a job waiting for them. When they don't find one, they end up smoking crack and living on the streets and Toronto has to pay to take care of them. Meanwhile, foreign immigrants with doctorates in engineering and medicine are driving taxis or delivering pizzas. The Toronto Star recently printed an article stating that Chinese immigrants are leaving the country in droves, because there aren't enough opportunities here. Where are they moving to? China!

When a communist country can provide more opportunities than Canada, we have a serious problem which needs to be looked at urgently. As a matter of fact, one of my oldest friends moved to Shanghai last month to work as an architect. He doesn't even have any Chinese background. There was nothing for him here. How does Paul Martin respond to Ontario's budget deficit? What does he do when Toronto tells him it can no longer afford to fully maintain basic services like transit and sewers? He sends a cheque... to Newfoundland, allowing them to keep their oil and gas revenues while collecting still more of Toronto's and Ontario's taxes.

My friends and I used to laugh about what the government does with our taxes. We would joke that they stuff airplanes with bags of money and dump them over Quebec. That's what makes the Sponsorship Scandal so disturbing - the Liberals were actually doing that for at least five years, and it's just not funny anymore.

All rights reserved. This article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006636.php

Imagine that, a wealthy G-8 nation has so few opportunities that it makes more sense to go to mainland China. But what could possibly motivate a person to invest time, money and energy here knowing his hard work and effort will be taken to provide expensive lunches and the trappings of fine living to a few politicians and their hangers on? The potential consequences are clear.

Our economy is on life support now, the only real growth seems to be in resource extraction industries to feed the United States and China's growing demand for raw resources. Canada at this rate will be the 21rst centuries "Hewers of wood, drawers of water" in the most literal sense; China will be the nation most likely to bulldoze the WTO to allow the sale of fresh water from Canada.

My fear is it is already too late to halt the plunge, I have heard few ideas coming from the Conservative party, and most Canadians don't seem to care. Without a flame of rightious anger burning in the breasts of the majorety of Canadians, there will be no change, and we will sleepwalk along the same path we are taking presently.
 
While this compares Europe to the US, the effective withering away of economic and military power is also quite evident here (military power by inference, since it takes economic power tcreate and weild "hard power")

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?ei=5090&en=44ea05b3e068feb5&ex=1271390400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&position=

April 17, 2005
PERSPECTIVE
We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.
By BRUCE BAWER

OSLO â ” THE received wisdom about economic life in the Nordic countries is easily summed up: people here are incomparably affluent, with all their needs met by an efficient welfare state. They believe it themselves. Yet the reality - as this Oslo-dwelling American can attest, and as some recent studies confirm - is not quite what it appears.

Even as the Scandinavian establishment peddles this dubious line, it serves up a picture of the United States as a nation divided, inequitably, among robber barons and wage slaves, not to mention armies of the homeless and unemployed. It does this to keep people believing that their social welfare system, financed by lofty income taxes, provides far more in the way of economic protections and amenities than the American system. Protections, yes -but some Norwegians might question the part about amenities.

In Oslo, library collections are woefully outdated, and public swimming pools are in desperate need of maintenance. News reports describe serious shortages of police officers and school supplies. When my mother-in-law went to an emergency room recently, the hospital was out of cough medicine. Drug addicts crowd downtown Oslo streets, as The Los Angeles Times recently reported, but applicants for methadone programs are put on a months-long waiting list.

In Norway, the standard line is that there must be some mistake, that such things simply should not happen in "the world's richest country." Why do Norwegians have such a wealthy self-image? Partly because, compared with their grandparents (who lived before the discovery of North Sea oil), they are rich. Few, however, question whether it really is the world's richest country.

After I moved here six years ago, I quickly noticed that Norwegians live more frugally than Americans do. They hang on to old appliances and furniture that we would throw out. And they drive around in wrecks. In 2003, when my partner and I took his teenage brother to New York - his first trip outside of Europe - he stared boggle-eyed at the cars in the Newark Airport parking lot, as mesmerized as Robin Williams in a New York grocery store in "Moscow on the Hudson."

One image in particular sticks in my mind. In a Norwegian language class, my teacher illustrated the meaning of the word matpakke - "packed lunch" - by reaching into her backpack and pulling out a hero sandwich wrapped in wax paper. It was her lunch. She held it up for all to see.

Yes, teachers are underpaid everywhere. But in Norway the matpakke is ubiquitous, from classroom to boardroom. In New York, an office worker might pop out at lunchtime to a deli; in Paris, she might enjoy quiche and a glass of wine at a brasserie. In Norway, she will sit at her desk with a sandwich from home.

It is not simply a matter of tradition, or a preference for a basic, nonmaterialistic life. Dining out is just too pricey in a country where teachers, for example, make about $50,000 a year before taxes. Even the humblest of meals - a large pizza delivered from Oslo's most popular pizza joint - will run from $34 to $48, including delivery fee and a 25 percent value added tax.

Not that groceries are cheap, either. Every weekend, armies of Norwegians drive to Sweden to stock up at supermarkets that are a bargain only by Norwegian standards. And this isn't a great solution, either, since gasoline (in this oil-exporting nation) costs more than $6 a gallon.

All this was illuminated last year in a study by a Swedish research organization, Timbro, which compared the gross domestic products of the 15 European Union members (before the 2004 expansion) with those of the 50 American states and the District of Columbia. (Norway, not being a member of the union, was not included.)

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

The next European country on the list was Ireland, down at 41st place out of 66; Sweden was 14th from the bottom (after Alabama), followed by Oklahoma, and then Britain, France, Finland, Germany and Italy. The bottom three spots on the list went to Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Alternatively, the study found, if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi. In short, while Scandinavians are constantly told how much better they have it than Americans, Timbro's statistics suggest otherwise. So did a paper by a Swedish economics writer, Johan Norberg.

Contrasting "the American dream" with "the European daydream," Mr. Norberg described the difference: "Economic growth in the last 25 years has been 3 percent per annum in the U.S., compared to 2.2 percent in the E.U. That means that the American economy has almost doubled, whereas the E.U. economy has grown by slightly more than half. The purchasing power in the U.S. is $36,100 per capita, and in the E.U. $26,000 - and the gap is constantly widening."

The one detail in Timbro's study that didn't feel right to me was the placement of Scandinavian countries near the top of the list and Spain near the bottom. My own sense of things is that Spaniards live far better than Scandinavians. In Norwegian pubs, for example, anyone rich or insane enough to order, say, a gin and tonic is charged about $15 for a few teaspoons of gin at the bottom of a glass of tonic; in Spain, the drinks are dirt-cheap and the bartender will pour the gin up to the rim unless you say "stop."

In late March, another study, this one from KPMG, the international accounting and consulting firm, cast light on this paradox. It indicated that when disposable income was adjusted for cost of living, Scandinavians were the poorest people in Western Europe. Danes had the lowest adjusted income, Norwegians the second lowest, Swedes the third. Spain and Portugal, with two of Europe's least regulated economies, led the list.

Most recently, the Danish Ministry of Finance released a study comparing the income available for private consumption in 30 countries. Norway did somewhat better here than in the KPMG study, lagging behind most of Western Europe but at least beating out Ireland and Portugal.

The thrust, however, was to confirm Timbro's and Mr. Norberg's picture of American and European wealth. While the private-consumption figure for the United States was $32,900 per person, the countries of Western Europe (again excepting Luxembourg, at $29,450) ranged between $13,850 and $23,500, with Norway at $18,350.

Meanwhile, the references to Norway as "the world's richest country" keep on coming. An April 2 article in Dagsavisen, a major Oslo daily, asked: How is it that "in the world's richest country we're tearing down social services that were built up when Norway was much poorer?"

Obviously, this is one misconception that won't be put to rest by a measly think-tank study or two.

Bruce Bawer,a freelance writer based in Oslo, reports frequently on social and cultural issues.

Same smug sense of superioraty, same economic assumptions, same results.
 
a_majoor said:
While this compares Europe to the US, the effective withering away of economic and military power is also quite evident here (military power by inference, since it takes economic power tcreate and weild "hard power")

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?ei=5090&en=44ea05b3e068feb5&ex=1271390400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&position=

Same smug sense of superioraty, same economic assumptions, same results.

And the Leftists will continue to put their hands over their ears and plow straight on ahead ...
 
Lol.

And once again they base all their numbers on GDP. Which of course doesn't look at the fact that the EU (and Norway) as a "people" are healthier and better off per capita, and also does not take into account national debt nor trade deficits.

There are always ways to twist the numbers to view what you want to view.

And the neo-right will continue to see through their red, white, and blue coloured glasses and plow straight on ahead...

;D
 
Zipper said:
Lol.

And once again they base all their numbers on GDP. Which of course doesn't look at the fact that the EU (and Norway) as a "people" are healthier

That Europeans are "healthier" is Socialist orthodoxy, not "a fact": Norway's wealth is purely a function of it's natural resources, not economic performance.

and better off per capita

That's what per-capita GDP is ... this "fact" is the opposite of reality: the vast majority of Europeans are worse-off than the vast majority of Amrericans.

, and also does not take into account national debt nor trade deficits.

So?  They aren't measures of wealth ... Debt:GDP is what matters vis-a-vis debt and the US ranks in the middle of European countries in that measure (and much better than several, with France and Italy coming immediately to mind, and FAR better than Canada) ... the trade deficit simply means that the US economy consumes more than it produces: in other words, people live better in the US than they "should".

There are always ways to twist the numbers to view what you want to view.

No there isn't: you can selectively choose inappropriate statistics to draw misleading conclusions for the purpose of rationalizing socialist dogma, but eventually reality is going to hit (the subject of this thread and of the article on Norway posted above).

And the neo-right will continue to see through their red, white, and blue coloured glasses and plow straight on ahead...

No, that's black-and-white: you know, rational economic thought, empirical evidence ...  :warstory:
 
It's funny how statistics are supplied and the counter-arguement is "healthier"....
 
Fact: You cannot judge the "health" of a nation based off economics alone.

Fact: The per capita level of poverty in the States is far above that in most other 1st world nations.

Fact: The number of people who are considered "worse of" (whatever that means) may be true. But the level of disparity between those who are "well off" and those who are "poor" is far wider in the States then any other 1st world country. See above fact. Thus the gap between rich and poor is far less in Europe.

I find it funny that you take as an insult the fact that a teacher in Norway decides to, or even needs to, bring her lunch to school with her as opposed to going out and buying it? The fundamental idea that she should wish to save her money for other things of more importance I would think would appeal to those of the fiscally prudent "conservative" minded set. This idea that your "well off" because you feed into the consumerist ideal of having to buy your meals everyday seems rather poorly thought out.

But then again, everybody who is not as "rich" as you are MUST be fundamentally worse off as a whole.

Good grief.
 
As far as poverty goes, Black Americans have made greater  economic gains in the last forty years than Canadians of all stripes.  So we now have a new disadvantaged economic group in North America... called Canadians.
 
Zipper - I see "facts" but no data of any sort to back them - this is why I questioned "healthy".  The article made a comparative analysis of a certain statistic and you mocked it and dismissed it.  Are you going to provide counter-factual evidence?
 
Zipper said:
Fact: You cannot judge the "health" of a nation based off economics alone.

So how would you judge the "health" of a nation?   Let me guess, Americans are all trigger-happy-psycopathic-war-mongers, so therefore Europeans are automaticaly "healthier", right?   Give me a break.   Your judgement of "health" is pure speculation;   it's your opinion, which means nothing to anyone else.   Everyone's allowed to an opinion, but unless you've got some statistics to back it up, don't expect anyone to listen to you.

Zipper said:
Fact: The per capita level of poverty in the States is far above that in most other 1st world nations.

Really?   Wow.   US unemployment rate is below 6%, Canada's is above 7%.   Guess we must be at the top of the list of poorest 1st world nations.

Zipper said:
Fact: The number of people who are considered "worse of" (whatever that means) may be true. But the level of disparity between those who are "well off" and those who are "poor" is far wider in the States then any other 1st world country. See above fact. Thus the gap between rich and poor is far less in Europe.

Ofcourse it is.   What's the problem with that?   All it means is that there's a lot of hard working people who have managed to earn a lot of money, and a lot of lazy bastards who like to sit on their asses all day.   Are you perhaps suggesting that the government should take it upon itself to take away the money of those who work hard, and give it to those who don't want to work?   I'm sorry, but I'm not a big fan of communism.   You'll have to do better than that if you're trying to make the US look bad.

Zipper said:
I find it funny that you take as an insult the fact that a teacher in Norway decides to, or even needs to, bring her lunch to school with her as opposed to going out and buying it? The fundamental idea that she should wish to save her money for other things of more importance I would think would appeal to those of the fiscally prudent "conservative" minded set. This idea that your "well off" because you feed into the consumerist ideal of having to buy your meals everyday seems rather poorly thought out.

Making that choice is a wonderful thing.   I too try to pack a lunch whenever I can.   You seem to have misunderstood the article though.   The problem isn't that this teacher decided to bring a sandwich for lunch;   the problem is that a teacher there makes about 75%-85% of what a teacher makes here, while buying lunch there would cost about 290% of what it costs here.   That gas costs about 667% of what it costs here.   That people need to go over the border to a different country in order to buy groceries.   Go back and read the article again, and this time try not to be so damn cynical.
 
I think you are having trouble with the meaning of "fact".

Zipper said:
Fact: You cannot judge the "health" of a nation based off economics alone.
Real Fact: "Health" is a subjective notion that can be supported to some degree by objective statistics.  You have made a (rather spurious) asserion without a shred of support beyond simple presumption.

Fact: The per capita level of poverty in the States is far above that in most other 1st world nations.
Real Fact: There is no such thing as "per capita level of poverty" anywhere.  Comparison of Poverty Rates across nations is impossible, as the standards are so different.  In the United States, for example, the "poor" have access to luxuries that those living above the poverty line don't have in most other countries.
For instance, it has been pointed out that many of the lowest ten percent of U.S. households, all officially denominated as poor, have possessions which were considered luxuries, or in some cases nonexistent, fifty years ago. (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031005-111129-3478r.htm)

    * color televisions, 91%
    * microwave ovens, 74%;
    * VCR's, 55%;
    * clothes dryers, 47%;
    * stereos, 42%;
    * dishwashers, 23%;
    * computers, 21%;
    * garbage disposers, 19%

Certain commentators have questioned the placement of the poverty line, asking whether people with access to such resources should be denominated as poor.

Fact: The number of people who are considered "worse of" (whatever that means) may be true. But the level of disparity between those who are "well off" and those who are "poor" is far wider in the States then any other 1st world country. See above fact. Thus the gap between rich and poor is far less in Europe.
Income disparity is a measure of wealth distribution and has no bearing on the level of wealth.  This is a typical Socialist diversionary tactic ("well sure you're better-off, but someone else might be even better-off than you"): would you rather have a $40,000 income and buddy the same, or would you rather have $50,000 and buddy $60,000: would you rather have a Lada than a Porche, only because it meant that your neighbour had to have a Lada instead of a Ferrari?  Socialism is not economics, it's envy.

I find it funny that you take as an insult the fact that a teacher in Norway decides to, or even needs to, bring her lunch to school with her as opposed to going out and buying it? The fundamental idea that she should wish to save her money for other things of more importance I would think would appeal to those of the fiscally prudent "conservative" minded set. This idea that your "well off" because you feed into the consumerist ideal of having to buy your meals everyday seems rather poorly thought out.
See 48th's response: it's about CHOICE.

But then again, everybody who is not as "rich" as you are MUST be fundamentally worse off as a whole.
What?  Are you trying to railroad us with more Socialist dogma ("the noble poor")?  I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if you asked a lot of poor people if they'd rather have more money, most would say "yes".

Good grief.
No kidding!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top