Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[vangemeren]

This is interesting, this topic seems to have changed course since I posted on the first or second page. It has changed to a young people are doomed theme.

I have always grown up in smaller towns and cities. I just laugh when I see highschool kids that try to act all gangster and all that in the inner-city hood of Petawawa/Pembroke. I have a younger brother who  just turned 13 and I don't like a lot of his wiener friends. They always seemed to satisfied with setting low goals and failing to achieve them. However, they expect to be rich and successful like their idols.
(Well it looks like I'm starting a rant) I think there has to better role models than ones that espouse violence, gratuitous sexualism (some is good for me at the age of 20, but not for my brother and his wiener friends), and drugs. Many of the celebrities (in my opinion) have wealth through previous generations of hard work. They don't have real jobs and sit around spending their money. What young people don't realise is that 99% of the time any kind of wealth is earned through hard work, some form of education or workable skill and time. I guess this is why I don't idolize celebrities, watch ET, have any pity when something bad happens in terms of materialism (for the most part I still have sensitivy to natural death or tragic loss) or give two ^%$#!$$%^&%#@ about what they do from day to day. (I really don't care about where they went to go shopping for a food dish for their pet that is worth as much as half my house).

okay I'm done my rant now. It seems to be a cross of the new general theme of the thread and materialism. Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is Society Doomed?"

 

[Zipper]

Vangeemeren - You've hit upon a good point. Much of today's youth are falling into that "I can do nothing and still be rich" trap. This is not exclusive to Canada nor North America, although it is more previlant in NA because of the video culture that kids are growing up in these days.

Its been well documented that more and more men are staying home with mom and living off of the poge. In the 60's I believe it was that less then 20% of men stayed at home beyond the age of 30. Today it is closer to 50%. This is scary.

The idea that our culture is aging and will be leaving the workforce in droves is well on its way. And yet we have far less people to fill these jobs because their staying home, not getting an education, and not living productive lives. We're breeding a culture of slack jawed urban slobs.

What can you do? Get an education. Eat right. Turn the TV off and read. Get out from in front of the computer and play a sport. Move out on your own and live responsibly. Don't live on a credit card. Get a life. And most of all...                                        ...pass these things on to our kids!!! In other words, be a good parent.

We've got our work cut out for us.

 

[vangemeren]

Its been well documented that more and more men are staying home with mom and living off of the poge. In the 60's I believe it was that less then 20% of men stayed at home beyond the age of 30. Today it is closer to 50%. This is scary.

I have a friend that is a foreign exchange student from Finland. He said over there that youth become independent at a younger age than Canadians do. He said that some of his friend were living on their own for a year or two before 18.

 

[JBP]

Its been well documented that more and more men are staying home with mom and living off of the poge. In the 60's I believe it was that less then 20% of men stayed at home beyond the age of 30. Today it is closer to 50%. This is scary.

Ah, another good statistic, in my hometown, the population on paper is just a scratch above 18,000 people. Guess how many unemployed???

You'd sh*t...

And I checked in on my hometown's website: over 12,000... It's actually 12 and a half...

We have one main "downtown" area called "Front" street... Guess how many BARS there are? 5 BARS!!!! On 1 little street, how do they stay open? Hmmm.. I don't know Johnny Bloggins!!! Guess who the town ALWAYS votes for in ANY election... NDP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol....

Not saying anything directly against NDP, just a hint that they always fight hard for the "working man" and "poor" of society and always want more money for social programs... I suppose that's fine, if the money these slobs recieved actually WENT to thier families or for good things.

Put all these loosers through boot camp, then force them to get jobs!!!

There are very real and legitimate cases of unemployed people in my hometown, like my sister who has an accident-induced brain injury and now can't walk etc etc... Permanently disabled. But whenever I drive/walk/bike or swear down Front St, the bars are always at least half full, even in the middle of the day!!!! Drives me crazy...

Joe

 

[Zipper]

Not saying anything directly against NDP, just a hint that they always fight hard for the "working man" and "poor" of society and always want more money for social programs... I suppose that's fine, if the money these slobs recieved actually WENT to thier families or for good things.

Put all these loosers through boot camp, then force them to get jobs!!!

Funny? Sounds like you are? Ah well.

You are right to a point. The fact that they give money out without accountability is what is wrong. So the intention is fine, but the application is all wrong. Easier said then done of course, but if your going to try to help people there has to be a willingness on their part to help themselves and their families.

So if we could get an NDP type intention combined with a conservative style of delivery and checks and balances, we "might" just have a more workable system. To bad the two sides would rather spit at each other then work together.

 

[TCBF]

" We're breeding a culture of slack jawed urban slobs.

What can you do? Get an education. Eat right. Turn the TV off and read. Get out from in front of the computer and play a sport. Move out on your own and live responsibly. Don't live on a credit card. Get a life. And most of all...                                        ...pass these things on to our kids!!! In other words, be a good parent.

We've got our work cut out for us."

Very well said, Zipper. 

Tom 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Funny? Sounds like you are? Ah well.

You are right to a point. The fact that they give money out without accountability is what is wrong. So the intention is fine, but the application is all wrong. Easier said then done of course, but if your going to try to help people there has to be a willingness on their part to help themselves and their families.

So if we could get an NDP type intention combined with a conservative style of delivery and checks and balances, we "might" just have a more workable system. To bad the two sides would rather spit at each other then work together.

My biggest pet peave remains individuals on any sort of taxpayer-funded support (EI, Welfare, Indian Affairs payments) spending their money on cigarettes, beer and booze.

The fact the anti-poverty coalitions biitch about them being below the poverty line and unable to afford diapers while resting their feet on an empty 24's, and having drag just makes my blood boil.

In my world:
1)  Mandatory Drug Testing for anyone wishing to obtain government benefits of any sort.  No test, no money. 
2)  Benefits paid directly onto "EI/Welfare-identified debit card" (and if they're embarrassed, they'll get the hell off) that are only usable at approved locations such as Loblaws, A&P and Shopper's Drug Mart
3)  I'd raise the minimum wage and lower benefits to a point that working was actually worth more than sitting on one's fat rump (there's a hell of a concept).

This isn't rocket science. 

It's just the fact that our country is so friggin' pussified as to have become embarrassing....




Matthew. 

 

[canadianblue]

So if we could get an NDP type intention combined with a conservative style of delivery and checks and balances, we "might" just have a more workable system. To bad the two sides would rather spit at each other then work together.

Actaully Alberta used to have a system similar to that under social credit. Some people won't admit it, but COOP's in a way were socialist enterprises. However I think that we should make a new system were instead of sending off welfare payments, we should make work for people who are unemployed. If the people don't work, then to bad, looks like they won't be getting any money. I actaully have a friend whose parents spoon feed him, whenever he wants money from them, he gets it. So far the kid has a computer with high speed internet, XBOX, PS2, Gamecube, 24inch TV, all in his room. His parents only started to spoil him at the end of his second year of high school, now he skips school to play World of Warcraft in his bedroom :. The problem is with the parents, my parents gave me a car, but that was it, for everything else I had to work and get money to buy anything that I wanted. I never got handouts, I'm happier that I didn't, because then I'd be a spoiled brat. If the parents were to tell their kids at lets say 16 that they had to get a job because they wouldn't recieve their allowance, then I think we'd see fewer and fewer of these spoiled brats.

The whole gangsta thing is stupid to. Kids think that if they get money then they will have the whole world in their hands. I was talking to this one kid about money, and I said that I'd be happier earning about 40,000$ a year working as a police officer then earning 10,000,000$ a year working only for money and nothing else. Guess what the response was, "Well if you have money then you can get any job you want". How the **** does it make a difference, if I'm applying for an MP, they won't say, this guy's rich lets give him the job. Another thing said was, well with lots of money you can have any woman you want. But I don't think I'd be happier if everybody just liked me because I'm rich. I was even at a job fair, and guess what was the first thing people looked at when looking for a job, the amount they'd make in a year.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

john gault,

maybe mark steyn's got a fancier bloomberg terminal than i do, but i haven't been seeing any great stampede, or even trickle, of investments away from the currencies, stocks and bonds of europe or canada, or any latin-america-style warnings of political risk from any of the credit ratings agencies about these economies.

so steyn can toast our demise all he wants, but i'm afraid i'm just going to have to go with the market on this one.

(unless, of course, you're privy to some information the world's investment analysts have all overlooked, in which case you should immediately be setting up a hedge fund)

I think you've missed the point: the slow decay has already been priced into markets.  One would only expect to see a change in trends in the event of a sudden change for the worse (increasing socialism) or better (less socialism).  The disparity in incomes are the result of the differing levels of socialism: the differing levels of growth also reflect the increasing disparity in the level of socialization; that is, more socialism = less wealth (which is exactly what one would expect from an economic system that is concerned with the primacy of wealth distribution over creation).  The historic evidence suggests that socialism doesn't 'freeze' the level of wealth (so that redistribution is a zero-sum game) but actually destroys it and thus the slide into socialism results less wealth for everyone, which was Steyn's point.

My biggest pet peave remains individuals on any sort of taxpayer-funded support (EI, Welfare, Indian Affairs payments) spending their money on cigarettes, beer and booze.

The fact the anti-poverty coalitions biitch about them being below the poverty line and unable to afford diapers while resting their feet on an empty 24's, and having drag just makes my blood boil.

The "social safety net" is a hammock!  People know their needs and basic wants will be taken care of by "the government" so what incentive to work is there for the individual with (real or perceived) "limited" earning potential?

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

Cdn Blackshirt:

It's not rocket Science, nor is it as simple as you want to make it.

For starters, raising minimum wage decreases demand (among employers) for unskilled labour which means less jobs (cyclical unemployment). Less Jobs means higher demand for EI. I'd dispense completely with your third point. It's not necessary, and won't help.

Your other two suggestions are just fine, and I would even add to them by saying that EI should not be available to seasonal workers. (BC fisherman can worf 5 weeks in the summer and collect EI the rest of the year) Also, government doll to unprofitable sectors (I don't know, maybe fisheries, miners etc.) needs to be cut. It provides incentive for too many people to crowd in and try and get lucrative government subsidies while not actualy providing anything for the economy.

There is so much wrong with EI right now, it's ridiculous. Yet Mr. Martin has just made it easier to collect benefits. Why hasn't anything been done?

Well Simple Politics. High cyclical unemployment is localized to certain areas in Canada. These areas represent voting blocks. If you cut EI you lose seats in the house.

 

[daniel h.]

I think you've missed the point: the slow decay has already been priced into markets.    One would only expect to see a change in trends in the event of a sudden change for the worse (increasing socialism) or better (less socialism).   The disparity in incomes are the result of the differing levels of socialism: the differing levels of growth also reflect the increasing disparity in the level of socialization; that is, more socialism = less wealth (which is exactly what one would expect from an economic system that is concerned with the primacy of wealth distribution over creation).   The historic evidence suggests that socialism doesn't 'freeze' the level of wealth (so that redistribution is a zero-sum game) but actually destroys it and thus the slide into socialism results less wealth for everyone, which was Steyn's point.


The "social safety net" is a hammock!   People know their needs and basic wants will be taken care of by "the government" so what incentive to work is there for the individual with (real or perceived) "limited" earning potential?

If someone wants to work in a non-service indsutry job, then they'll usually be out of luck. We have sent our manufacturing jobs to China, and our research and development jobs to the U.S. because we send them raw-resources rather than designing and buillding things in Canada.

The social safety net wouldn't be as necessary if our government cared about creating jobs. I have friends who were in the aerospace industry and were laid off. They had to live on welfare because they were depressed and have no job opportunities. They are now shovelling snow for a living. They used to be repairing commercial jets. There really aren't many good jobs for labour or research in Canada.

 

[daniel h.]

Cdn Blackshirt:

It's not rocket Science, nor is it as simple as you want to make it.

For starters, raising minimum wage decreases demand (among employers) for unskilled labour which means less jobs (cyclical unemployment). Less Jobs means higher demand for EI. I'd dispense completely with your third point. It's not necessary, and won't help.

Your other two suggestions are just fine, and I would even add to them by saying that EI should not be available to seasonal workers. (BC fisherman can worf 5 weeks in the summer and collect EI the rest of the year) Also, government doll to unprofitable sectors (I don't know, maybe fisheries, miners etc.) needs to be cut. It provides incentive for too many people to crowd in and try and get lucrative government subsidies while not actualy providing anything for the economy.

There is so much wrong with EI right now, it's ridiculous. Yet Mr. Martin has just made it easier to collect benefits. Why hasn't anything been done?

Well Simple Politics. High cyclical unemployment is localized to certain areas in Canada. These areas represent voting blocks. If you cut EI you lose seats in the house.

Paul Martin was the guy who made it almost impossible to get E.I.....he made it so those fired or those who quit didn't qualify--only those laid off. He used over 40 billion of the E.I. fund that workers paid into to pay the banks to reduce our debt. Rich [banks] get richer, workers [that means soldiers too] get screwed.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

If someone wants to work in a non-service indsutry job, then they'll usually be out of luck. We have sent our manufacturing jobs to China, and our research and development jobs to the U.S. because we send them raw-resources rather than designing and buillding things in Canada.

That is a fallacy, we haven't 'sent' jobs anywhere: through taxation and social policy we have priced ourselves out of the market.  In a similar vein, we don't 'send' our raw resources anywhere: we SELL them.

The social safety net wouldn't be as necessary if our government cared about creating jobs. I have friends who were in the aerospace industry and were laid off. They had to live on welfare because they were depressed and have no job opportunities. They are now shovelling snow for a living. They used to be repairing commercial jets. There really aren't many good jobs for labour or research in Canada.

That really sucks for your friends, and I don't mean to appear insensitive, but government doesn't create jobs: it merely displaces them.  Subsidies to the aerospace industry (worldwide) evidence the economic disaster that is corporate welfare (i.e., directing wealth from sources that created it to sources that merely consume it) and how out-of-hand it can get (the words 'death-spiral' come to mind).  Andrew Coyne had an interesting editorial on the subject: http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/003913.php

 

[a_majoor]

The fact that so many of these arguments are still being raised only speaks to the abysmal level of education in this country. Most of the concepts that John Gault are effectively demolishing are quickly dealt with in any introductory economics class. The fact that so many people  like daniel h, James Laxiter or our political class draw the opposite conclusions indicates that either:

a. They were not paying attention in class

b. They do not look out the window and pay attention to what is happening around them

c. They didn't take economics, history, accounting or basic business ever.

d. A perverse view of history and economics is being taught, which is directly at varience to the theory and practice of the real world.

e. All of the above

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Here is also a good report by the Fraser Institute that does an excellent job of explaining why we lose out on manufacturing jobs........as was published in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner.

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050329/DGOPINION02/203290494&SearchID=73203641400857

 

[daniel h.]

That is a fallacy, we haven't 'sent' jobs anywhere: through taxation and social policy we have priced ourselves out of the market.   In a similar vein, we don't 'send' our raw resources anywhere: we SELL them.
That really sucks for your friends, and I don't mean to appear insensitive, but government doesn't create jobs: it merely displaces them.   Subsidies to the aerospace industry (worldwide) evidence the economic disaster that is corporate welfare (i.e., directing wealth from sources that created it to sources that merely consume it) and how out-of-hand it can get (the words 'death-spiral' come to mind).   Andrew Coyne had an interesting editorial on the subject: http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/003913.php

Letting Bombardier die would be even worse than subsidizing them. I do think we should get shares or the loans should get repaid, but every country does this.

The government can do whatever it wants. We have crown corporations in this country that employ over 2.5 million people. Bombardier used to be a bunch of different crown (public) corporations. So was Hawker Siddeley (now BAE systems) in Britain.

The government can also indirectly stimulate jobs by changing economic priorities from low inflation for the rich to job creation. It's almost as if the 1950s and 1960s never happened to some people.

 

[daniel h.]

The fact that so many of these arguments are still being raised only speaks to the abysmal level of education in this country. Most of the concepts that John Gault are effectively demolishing are quickly dealt with in any introductory economics class. The fact that so many people   like daniel h, James Laxiter or our political class draw the opposite conclusions indicates that either:

a. They were not paying attention in class

b. They do not look out the window and pay attention to what is happening around them

c. They didn't take economics, history, accounting or basic business ever.

d. A perverse view of history and economics is being taught, which is directly at varience to the theory and practice of the real world.

e. All of the above

If I get a warning then so should this guy. Stop insulting my intelligence.


Did it ever occur to you that there is more than one way to run a country, and that I may simply have job creation as a higher priority? Goodness. I

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The fact that so many of these arguments are still being raised only speaks to the abysmal level of education in this country. Most of the concepts that John Gault are effectively demolishing are quickly dealt with in any introductory economics class. The fact that so many people   like daniel h, James Laxiter or our political class draw the opposite conclusions indicates that either:

a. They were not paying attention in class

b. They do not look out the window and pay attention to what is happening around them

c. They didn't take economics, history, accounting or basic business ever.

d. A perverse view of history and economics is being taught, which is directly at varience to the theory and practice of the real world.

e. All of the above

Actually I took advanced micro, advanced macro, international economics, business in university.

I took my Canadian Securities Course (stock brokerage requiring ability to analyze financial statements, etc) and came in the top 5% of my class on my first attempt.

In my professional experience I have hired, fired and managed groups of 25+, done bookkeeping, submitted source deductions, GST for a company with gross revenues over $1m, and produced then implemented numerous feasibility studies and business plans.

Tax Cut and their true Stimulatory Effect
Current economic models (and economists) are absolutely foolhardy in that they ignore the impact of free access to a domestic market.   Quite simply tax cuts are only highly stimulatory and create jobs in a closed-cycle economy. If on the other hand tax cuts are provided that are then spent by consumers on imported goods (let's say Chinese goods), you have instead just taken money out of federal coffers and created a great stimulus in the nation supplying those imports.

Tax Cuts and who gets them
There is a traditional economic belief that whoever gets those tax cuts is moot and it is simply a dollar issue.   That is in fact totally false.   As someone with disposable income I am far more likely to save my funds and reinvest in equity (some domestic/some foreign) that someone closer to the poverty line who will immediately dump those newfound funds back into the economy to the benefit of everyone.

The Minimum Wage
Like tax cuts for low income earners, any boost to the minimum wage is immediately recycled back into the economy as those funds are immediately spent.   In essence, a raise in the minimum wage not only creates a better standard of living for those earning the minimum wage, but also for all the businesses who sell to those minimum wage earners, and their shareholders.    You have the added benefit as previously mentioned which is as working becomes more attractive than collecting EI, more individuals will choose to work, lowering the demand for EI, and lowering EI premiums for the rest of us.   Lastly, as you bring people from subsistence to have at least some disposable income, I would argue you greatly reduce the likelihood that family will resort to criminal activity out of desperation (which again due to policing and court costs is another indirect method of reducing taxation on the general public).  

What does effect domestic labour demand is foreign nations with different labour standards who intentionally deflate their currency in order to create a competitive imbalance and corporate entities with no loyalty to either their home nation or their workers as they scour the world in pursuit of higher profits (and the resulting stock option gains).

Bottom Line:    If you want to see your tenets of traditional economics at work, have a look at the US economy, and before you point to the most recent number indicating US GDP growth at 3.8%, try calculating that GDP in a bundle of world currencies since the Bush tax cuts went into effect and you will see the US economy in fact not expanded at all, but instead has dramatically contracted....

I'll look forward to your response....



Matthew.    

 

[a_majoor]

Job creation eh?

See point "b", and ask yourself how many jobs have been created by the billion dollar boondoggle, sending $100,000,000 to "Liberal friendly" advertising agencies, permanent welfare traps in the seasonal industries or all the corporate welfare the various levels of government blow off every year.

The answer is "very few".

If you are in fact concerned with economic growth and job creation, then look south and explain how there is 1/2 the unemployment rate and 2X the economic growth without reference to the low tax and regulatory environment the Bush administration is implimenting. As a control measure, you can also look at the general trends between the "Red" states, which are also implimenting such policies, and the "Blue" states, which tend to be high tax and high regulatory environments.

Empirical evidence from over 70 countries demonstrates that low taxes, limited regulation and free trade are the drivers of economic growth and prosperity. There are other ways to run a country, I happen to approve of using proven policies with positive outcomes over the present way Canada is being run.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Job creation eh?

See point "b", and ask yourself how many jobs have been created by the billion dollar boondoggle, sending $100,000,000 to "Liberal friendly" advertising agencies, permanent welfare traps in the seasonal industries or all the corporate welfare the various levels of government blow off every year.

The answer is "very few".

If you are in fact concerned with economic growth and job creation, then look south and explain how there is 1/2 the unemployment rate and 2X the economic growth without reference to the low tax and regulatory environment the Bush administration is implimenting. As a control measure, you can also look at the general trends between the "Red" states, which are also implimenting such policies, and the "Blue" states, which tend to be high tax and high regulatory environments.

Empirical evidence from over 70 countries demonstrates that low taxes, limited regulation and free trade are the drivers of economic growth and prosperity. There are other ways to run a country, I happen to approve of using proven policies with positive outcomes over the present way Canada is being run.

At what point did I say I was in favour of the billion dollar boondoggle or the Liberal Adscam.  I am also not in favour of ACOA or the Quebec development agency.  Nor am I in favour of how equalization is calculated nor tax-exempt status for natives.

If you're Canadian, you're Canadian....everyone should play by the same set of rules.

I am in favour of harmonized regulations within trade blocks (NAFTA) and the fact that balanced budgets aren't good enough (believe in a mandatory legislated debt repayment).  I also do believe in tax cuts and think tax increases given the size of bureaucracies and what they deliver is obnoxious. 

RE:  US Growth Rates - Once again, measure US growth in Yen or Euros and US growth has been negative which has to do with WHO got the funds and how they've been spent, and the trade imbalance with China.

Bottom Line:  I don't have time to give you my full economic plan (I will post it sometime in the next week) but lower tax rates are good, as long as they don't undermine the fiscal standing of the government (creating indirect debt on each individual) and where possible, your trade policy should ensure imports come from nations with unmanipulated currencies, similar labour laws and having open markets to your products, so that the tax cut spending will eventually boomerang back.




Matthew.