Canadian politics maybe getting interesting! - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-04-2008, 11:49 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

So everybody how are your government jobs treating you today? I hope none of you are working to your full potential!!
Actually, I do work for the federal gov't

And I haven't been around in a couple days because I've been damned busy at work (and we aren't allowed to go on the internet) ! (mad face not directed at your Anitram)
__________________

__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 10:32 AM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I just find it hilarious that you rail on the East for feeding from the government trough when Toronto is still the financial capital, it's where the major banks are, the centre of corporate law, etc. You are just Houston to Canada's New York, but the way you talk you'd think we're Somalia out here.
No that's not the way I talk. The taxes in Ontario are too high. If they paid down some debt so they would have less interest payments there would be more money available for BOTH some spending and tax cuts. You don't have to eliminate government totally and all social programs. Certainly Alberta hasn't.

Sure Ontario isn't as bad as Quebec because they have even higher taxes. Saying that I'm talking as if Ontario is Somalia is just facetious. Somalia doesn't even have a government and is tribal in nature. Ontario isn't communism either but the mix of government and business could benefit Toronto with less taxes. You can't have less taxes without keeping the government budget in order. Bailing out big auto isn't going to help that. Ontario is now receiving equalization payments for the first time in a long time. I actually want Ontario to recover and do better. Ontario should focus on attracting business with their tax policy in my opinion.

New York has lots of companies but lots of high taxes and many people have to get a big salary to make it there. Those who can't move elsewhere where the cost of living is easier.

Prairies to remain on 'strong footing'

People are still moving west to find a better economy. The problem with conservatives like Mike Harris in Ontario is that they lowered taxes without dealing with the debt first. You can't lower taxes without some surplus created from reduced provincial debt. This is a lesson that Bush should have learned.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 10:46 AM   #168
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 06:14 AM
You talk about paying off debt like it's something easy... Like Ontario and Quebec have a couple of overdrawn Credit Cards and just need to tighten their belts a little

We're talking about 100s of billions of dollars of debt here... Debt, I might add that was partially to blame because of equalization payments made to other "have not" provinces, which, until the recent oil boom, included your province as well...
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 11:59 AM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Well I think this ignores the fact that politics and economics are closely tied together, and to completely seperate the two is quite ridiculous.
I'm not separating the two in the context you're talking about now. I was talking about your comments on travel which looked like you wanted to steer me into a conversation about if I'm well travelled enough to have my opinions. To me it looked like a dodge of the subject of economics.

The world is going through a recession because most of the world got into huge debt and the wages couldn't keep up with it. This problem is applicable all over the world whether there are different languages and cultures. Too much debt is too much debt.

In some countries they don't have private property rights like we do. Countries in South America are a good example.

Hernando de Soto (economist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

When a person in a country without proper property rights buys a plot of land from someone else he cannot assume the problems with the purchase are over. Some people who have enough money to hire lawyers can both collect payment for the house and lie and tell a lawyer that the purchaser is really a squatter. Then he can get his house back after he collected the money for it with a little bit spent to pay off the crooked lawyer.

Wouldn't it be nice if countries that had this problem adopt similar private property rights that we take for granted in Canada and the U.S.? There are lots of economic concepts that apply in all countries as long as there are humans in them and they demand goods and services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Really? Wow, I would have thought that you of all people could see through his lack of full understanding, and that the majority of economic debate since he started posting has been about how one can't make such blanket statements, how one can confuse the micro with the macro, etc etc...

It's true he's brought about some debates of theory, I'll give him that, but application has been a trainwreck.
My application is quite detailed for a person posting on the internet using internet sources. I know there is a problem with the "authority" factor in that I'm not a hired economist with special authority, but looking at the record of those economists can allow an amateur like me to get informed and have an educated opinion beyond someone who never read an economics or history book in their life. Authorities can make mistakes too, and the public needs to get more aware so they can catch them on it.

Macroeconomics can be very reductive. There is no "economy" in the sense of a separate entity. If individuals and corporations are doing badly and have bad finances with low savings and high debt it doesn't matter what macro economic moves are made to coax spending. If I have high debt it will be hard for me to spend whether there are low interest rates and bailout spending or not. The debt has to be worked out by people paying it off so they are out of danger, like when a job could be lost. We need to have low interest rates and low taxes to not get in the way of people reducing their debt and companies can start reinvesting in new projects based on what people want. People can't spend as if their wages will keep on rising forever. Once their debt is reduced they can start feeling confident in spending. But when there is a recovery and the public starts over spending and getting in huge debt again there will be the same problem over and over again. That's why interest rates can't stay low forever or else the incentive for abusing cheap debt remains. Individuals are the ultimate sub unit of the economy and they will save and pay down debt when they feel scared for a lost job. Those who have jobs in areas where demand is decreasing, (because people don't want their products anymore), should be fearful of losing their job. Jobs in nonproductive companies are not secure.

Now the government has tried to force more savings by creating government pension plans, but they have allocated much of the money into general revenues and spent it in other social programs leaving the retiree with less to show for. The government then decides they want to tax the children of the retiree but there are less children being born to handle the lost savings. The next option is to reduce the pension benefits. This has already happened and if there isn't a massive baby boom it will continue. This forces the current worker to pay hefty taxes and he/she has to find more money to save for their own retirement to compensate for reduced benefits.

Keynesians are obsessed about spending. That's why they look to retail sales a lot as a measure of how the economy is doing. Spending is only one part of the economy. They also make an assumption that when the government goes in a deficit during the bust that they will pay off the deficit when the economy recovers. This has in the past been rare in the U.S. and Canada. That's why Harper doesn't want to just go head over heals with the U.S. as if that's the only way to save the economy. If the deficit gets very large it will be hard to pay it back in the future. Harper also was going to get attacked by liberals for deficit spending because during the boom when liberals were in power they had massive surpluses. If they were still in power up to today they would be facing a worse deficit problem because they would have continued to ignore the overall debt that the conservatives actually made some inroads in. That surplus was wasted. It could have gone to pay down much more debt during the '90s and '00s to create more wiggle room when government revenues naturally decreased in a recession. Keeping the GST wouldn't be enough if people are doing less consumer transactions anyways.

Even in Alberta the spending has been much more increased since Klein left and even during Klein's last few years in power. Now that there are less revenues the government has to retrench and find wiggle room to not go into a deficit. The government grows on the back of a boom and needs to shrink with the rest of the economy. The shrinking part is the part that is unpopular but it is the part that creates incentive for business to continue on and reinvest faster. Companies that make money during a recession can, with less corporate taxes, reinvest that money instead of paying the government.

At least the new coalition is not going to raise corporate taxes like Layton campaigned as a strategy. Phew!
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 12:22 PM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elevated_u2_fan View Post
You talk about paying off debt like it's something easy... Like Ontario and Quebec have a couple of overdrawn Credit Cards and just need to tighten their belts a little

We're talking about 100s of billions of dollars of debt here... Debt, I might add that was partially to blame because of equalization payments made to other "have not" provinces, which, until the recent oil boom, included your province as well...
I'm not saying it's easy. What do you think a recession is? People are paying down their debts faster which means they are not spending on consumer products as much. The underproductive companies go belly-up and those who lose those unproductive jobs can't pay off their debt and they go bankrupt (if they have no emergency savings) or use their emergency savings as a buffer to pay the bills until they can get another job. The G20 economists expect the bad economy to last for 18 months. 24 months is a technical depression. Nothing easy here.

Much of this could have been avoided if during the inflationary boom Greenspan raised interest rates instead of lowering them. This is unpopular because you can cause a slowdown in the economy, yet not as many people would have borrowed as much as they did if the interest rates weren't constantly low. Greenspan called himself a monetarist but didn't act like one. Politically appointed jobs involve political pressure to not raise interest rates. There is also a problem with how inflation is calculated. Under the consumer price index food and energy are eliminated from the inflation statistics because they are considered too volatile. Yet we all pay for energy and food. That allows them to stealthly reduce our purchasing power to avoid raising interest rates.

I don't like "booms" because it's just simply cheap debt allowing unproductive companies to arise and for a moment lots of jobs are created but when the consumer debt gets too big the fake jobs will have to disappear.

What we need is Real Growth that actually increases the standard of living of the population. If more labour resources go after unproductive jobs for years at a time we don't get that.

Money is a medium of exchange. If someone works in an unproductive car factory and he gets paid money to exchange his work for good products he is essentially trading a crappy car and consuming good products in exchange. It's a bad trade. We want people trading good products and services with each other. This is based on marginal utility which views the value of products and services being subjective to the human being. So if American cars are popular for a time they won't necessarily always be popular.

If the interest rates are raised to prevent a boom from getting out of control and then lowered to avoid a massive downturn we get an economy that doesn't yo-yo as much with large booms and large busts. With higher interest rates during a boom a whole bunch of companies would have to restructure to make better products or go bust and new companies with useless product and service ideas wouldn't be able to get off the ground in the first place taking up labor resources for those bad ideas.

Also the government revenues would be more stable and the government could plan their budgets without overinflating expectations of future government revenues. When they miss the mark a big deficit occurs.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 11:58 PM   #171
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

New York has lots of companies but lots of high taxes and many people have to get a big salary to make it there. Those who can't move elsewhere where the cost of living is easier.
Having lived in both NYC and Toronto, I gotta tell you I'll take the higher taxes and live there over Alberta every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 12:02 AM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Much of this could have been avoided if during the inflationary boom Greenspan raised interest rates instead of lowering them. This is unpopular because you can cause a slowdown in the economy, yet not as many people would have borrowed as much as they did if the interest rates weren't constantly low. Greenspan called himself a monetarist but didn't act like one. Politically appointed jobs involve political pressure to not raise interest rates.
Very true.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 10:10 AM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Saving, not spending will halt crisis, expert says

Saving, not spending will halt crisis, expert says
Renowned fund manager says bailouts, deficits will only defer necessary fall

Ray Turchansky
Freelance


Wednesday, December 03, 2008


EDMONTON - Amid all the calls for government bailouts and consumer spending to prop up the global economy and stock markets, Peter Schiff leads a growing list of contrarians who say frivolous spending will only make things worse.

Schiff, who heads up Connecticut-based Euro Pacific Capital, was dubbed "Dr. Doom" on CNBC television in 2004 when he warned that getting Americans into houses they couldn't afford would cripple the financial system.

Schiff doubts that borrowing to spend, either by government, businesses or consumers, will end the year-long United States recession, which is trickling over into Canada. Confused, U.S. treasury secretary Henry Paulson switched horses in mid-stream, from buying toxic mortgages to giving banks and homeowners bailouts. And the Canadian government was so befuddled as to what might work that it announced no stimulus.

In an economy with no growth, governments can go into surplus by raising personal and business taxes and by reducing spending. Or the government can run a deficit by reducing taxes and increasing spending. The prudent strategy is usually felt to be spending as much as you can while producing a balanced budget.

Similarly, personal finance experts suggest individuals can help the economy by spending as much as they can as long as they pay off their credit every month to avoid paying interest.

On Bloomberg television, Schiff said: "Everything the (U.S.) government is doing now, and everything the Obama government is going to do when it takes over, is making the situation worse.

"We got into this mess because we borrowed and spent too much money. The solution isn't going into deeper debt to encourage Americans to borrow even more money, we need a serious recession and the government needs to get out of the way and let it happen. We need higher interest rates, we need more savings, we need more production. The problem is for years we borrowed money we couldn't repay. We ran up trillions of dollars of debt, and now we're too broke to pay it back.

"We have a phoney economy that's been propped up by foreign governments and foreign workers who have produced the stuff that we bought, and lent us the money to buy it. We need to recreate a viable economy in this country again, and unfortunately that comes with a lot of pain, and we have to suck it up."

On BNN in Canada, Schiff said Americans "still think the government can solve these problems by printing money, by borrowing money, by trying to encourage more reckless borrowing and consumption, which really is at the root of this problem."

"The government is trying to force feed more credit down the throats of overly indebted Americans and prop up asset prices, trying to make more credit available to homebuyers and students.

"Why don't they just let the markets work? The market wants to bring down college tuitions, the market wants to bring down home prices. The next crisis is going to be a run on the U.S. dollar, which is going to happen in the next year or two.

"If interest rates rise and asset prices fall, Americans will start saving money again, will have money for businesses to borrow, entrepreneurs will take the capital and invest it in factories and plants and equipment, we'll become more productive and eventually we'll be able to consume more because we'll be producing more. Right now we're not producing anything and we're living beyond our means."

In Canada, Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets wrote: "What about the trail of record deficits that lies in the wake of such fiscal action? How many years of program spending cuts and tax hikes will it take to whittle down such a massive deficit? Will future taxpayers simply wish we had bitten the bullet for a few quarters and not mortgaged their future?"

Malcolm Hamilton of Mercer Human Resource Consulting said on BNN that two ways seniors can stretch their shrinking retirement assets are to be more selective in their spending and to save.

In Edmonton, Leo de Bever, head of the $70-billion Alberta government investment company AIMCo, said in an interview: "We need to get people to save more ... and be ready for the next boom."

Meanwhile, Schiff has the following advice for investors: "Avoid the United States like the plague, and don't buy companies that are heavily exposed to Americans. I'm investing in the resource sectors, I've got some money up in Canada, I think a lot of the trusts have been beaten down up there and you guys should buy these things. I'm also buying in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan, in commodity markets in Australia and Scandinavia."

Ray Turchansky, a freelance writer and income tax preparer, writes Wednesdays and Fridays in the Journal. He may be contacted at turchan@telusplanet.net.

© The Edmonton Journal 2008
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 10:47 PM   #174
Blue Crack Addict
 
love_u2_adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Heaven In Alberta, Where We Got All Hell For A Basement..
Posts: 22,307
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
And, you know, we get to live in TO as opposed to say, Red Deer.
HEY SCREW YOU Red Deer is kinda the bomb for bush parties,life and best buy #1 in the country!

Purpleoscar just let it go, We're the only Albertans on here and it looks like we will never win... Like question: have any of you lived out here for 10 plus years??? Do you have family in the oil industry?!? I'd love to know!
__________________
love_u2_adam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 12:32 AM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Canada has been divided into regions since its birth and the cultural divide continues. Anyways Anitram likes to annoy me. He gets a kick out of it.

Anyways Dion is so useless he's even screwing up the new coalition. I'm having such a laugh Canadians don't want Seperatists with leverage on the liberals and NDP giving them a default running of the country.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 12:38 AM   #176
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Anyways Anitram likes to annoy me. He gets a kick out of it.
Spell anitram backwards and report back with your findings.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 12:44 AM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
If I could have an anitram and initram backwards that would be a VERY good night.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 12:51 AM   #178
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Canada has been divided into regions since its birth and the cultural divide continues. Anyways Anitram likes to annoy me. He gets a kick out of it.
Anitram is a she. Hint: spell her username backwards.



Also, partisanship is great, isn't it? The "separatists" may have leverage over the Liberals and NDP, but the same could have been said had Harper actually formed a coalition with the Bloc in 2004. He DID sign that letter with the Bloc in 2004. Surely you're not blinded to the point of not seeing that.

Remember this: minority governments create strange bedfellows, so as long as minority governments exist, these things will always be possible. It's all politics. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND THAT IF THE LIBERALS HAVE A MINORITY IN THE FUTURE AND THE CONSERVATIVES THINK THAT THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THAT THEY WOULDN'T THINK TWICE OF USING WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.

(Caps used to clarify point,not yelling.)

I think people would take you more seriously around here if you'd just admit these things. I certainly will call out the Liberals when I think they're doing something I deem to be wrong.

Oh, and say what you will about Dion. I know him personally, and whatever you think about his policies (as is your right) and leadership qualities (it was a huge mistake, in retrospect, electing him as leader) you cannot question his intellect, his passion and love for Canada, and his sincerity. That doesn't come through on television, but spend some time with him, as I did, and you'll at least come away with a lot of respect for him.

And I judge Harper based on the same criteria. I don't agree with his policies, but I know that he thinks it's what's best for the country. And I can respect that.
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 01:02 AM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Anitram is a she. Hint: spell her username backwards.

Yeah I got that. That's why an initram in my hand and a night out with an anitram would be a good night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Also, partisanship is great, isn't it? The "separatists" may have leverage over the Liberals and NDP, but the same could have been said had Harper actually formed a coalition with the Bloc in 2004. He DID sign that letter with the Bloc in 2004. Surely you're not blinded to the point of not seeing that.

Remember this: minority governments create strange bedfellows, so as long as minority governments exist, these things will always be possible. It's all politics. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND THAT IF THE LIBERALS HAVE A MINORITY IN THE FUTURE AND THE CONSERVATIVES THINK THAT THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THAT THEY WOULDN'T THINK TWICE OF USING WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.

(Caps used to clarify point,not yelling.)

I think people would take you more seriously around here if you'd just admit these things. I certainly will call out the Liberals when I think they're doing something I deem to be wrong.

Oh, and say what you will about Dion. I know him personally, and whatever you think about his policies (as is your right) and leadership qualities (it was a huge mistake, in retrospect, electing him as leader) you cannot question his intellect, his passion and love for Canada, and his sincerity. That doesn't come through on television, but spend some time with him, as I did, and you'll at least come away with a lot of respect for him.
That's true and it was a mistake but in the end he DIDN'T join with them and the liberals DID join with them. He also got backstabbed during the election with his policies to freeze spending on some bloated arts projects and tougher sentences on youth crime. Conservatives shouldn't make a coalition government with a quasi-NDP party. It just proves that joining the other side gets you bitten either way. If Harper goes for massive stimulus packages and it's passed by the left then it will still be like the left are running the country anyways.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 01:10 AM   #180
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yeah I got that. That's why an initram in my hand and a night out with an anitram would be a good night.



That's true and it was a mistake but in the end he DIDN'T join with them and the liberals DID join with them. He also got backstabbed during the election with his policies to freeze spending on some bloated arts projects and tougher sentences on youth crime. Conservatives shouldn't make a coalition government with a quasi-NDP party. It just proves that joining the other side gets you bitten either way. If Harper goes for massive stimulus packages and it's passed by the left then it will still be like the left are running the country anyways.

I understand what you're saying, but the proposed coalition was just that: a proposal. Until they vote in the House, nothing is official, so no one joined with anyone. All they had was a signed piece of paper, the same as that letter to the GG in 2004. Don't kid yourself. Harper would have formed a coalition with whomever if he thought it was in his best interests politically, and best for the country. I think he was willing to do it in 2004, but the government fell instead.

It's all politics, no matter which end of the spectrum you reside in. Minority governments tend to create these situations and always will.

Fun Fact: Do you know who told me that the government fell in November 2005? Bono did. I was waiting in the GA line all day, so I was out of the loop as to what was happening in Ottawa. Then, during One, Bono mentioned that the government fell and we would be going to the polls. I was shocked, but not surprised. While my mind was processing that information, Bono said that we had to make sure that whomever is elected promise to help Africa's debt situation. That snapped me back to reality and I thought, "Oh, Bono, please just sing the song. "

__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com