Why would I go live in the East when they have less jobs because of higher taxes and provincial trade barriers.
Why would I go live in Alberta when I'd make way less money than I do now?
Why would I go live in the East when they have less jobs because of higher taxes and provincial trade barriers.
Your last sentence seems to bear little relation to the rest of your post. In terms of its social welfare system, Ireland is much closer to the continental Europe model than the US model. Also, currently, Ireland's economy is in s***. See here:- http://www.davy.ie/content/pubarticles/dotiecr20081204.pdf
Neither is Ireland's saving ratio particularly impressive over the last few years (although not as bad as the US). On the other hand, the savings ratio has improved slightly recently (as referenced in the above link), which I imagine meets with your approval.
Here's just another shitty generalization of yours...
Why would I go live in Alberta when I'd make way less money than I do now?
I'm talking about Ireland compared to what it was 20 years ago. Sure it's not doing well during the downturn but most of the world is in a downturn at the same time. When they recover they will be able to move ahead if they keep their taxes in check and trade flowing. I like Ireland. It's definitely a good example for Europe recession or no.
List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This shows Ireland in 7th place. Not bad for the northern tiger.
Though I bet Iceland is not in 10th place anymore. It will be interesting to see next year what the placements are.
While many valid critiques can be made of Purpleoscar's arguments in this thread, it's a bit over the top to take exception to a statement that most posters here are more interested in politics than economics. I would have thought the statement almost a truism.
Indeed, it is only since Purpleoscar started posting on the forum that we have had anything in the way of decent debates on economics.
The cost of living is less in Alberta unless you look at Fort McMurray which is the hot spot for the oil industry. Purchasing power is what matters.
For example, we have huge private sector debt.
And, you know, we get to live in TO as opposed to say, Red Deer.
And, you know, we get to live in TO as opposed to say, Red Deer.
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.
These professions do not create wealth for society, however. They enrich themselves, but they do not create wealth. Lawyers and bankers are not creative. Scientists and engineers are largely the real wealth creators.
It gets exasperating when people say I have to travel to a place before I can make a comment on economics in that particular place. We know that nobody follows this rule. It ends up looking like politics. If people just agree to disagree it's much better than arguing about travel.
Well I think this ignores the fact that politics and economics are closely tied together, and to completely seperate the two is quite ridiculous.While many valid critiques can be made of Purpleoscar's arguments in this thread, it's a bit over the top to take exception to a statement that most posters here are more interested in politics than economics. I would have thought the statement almost a truism.
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...Indeed, it is only since Purpleoscar started posting on the forum that we have had anything in the way of decent debates on economics.
So everybody how are your government jobs treating you today? I hope none of you are working to your full potential!!
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.
Well I think this ignores the fact that politics and economics are closely tied together, and to completely seperate the two is quite ridiculous.
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.
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...
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.
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.
And, you know, we get to live in TO as opposed to say, Red Deer.
Anyways Anitram likes to annoy me. He gets a kick out of it.
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.
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.