Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[Brad Sallows]

> If, for example, the Liberals created 10,000 Bombardier jobs and win an election

Then I will only wonder if the same money, left in the hands of companies capable of competing without subsidies, might have created 12,000 approximately equivalent jobs.  Where do you think the money comes from?  Subsidization is always a zero-sum game - you take money from productive, healthy companies and individuals and give it to unproductive, unhealthy companies.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
We don't need the money  .............WHAT??

 

[Brad Sallows]

We have 10% (approximately) of the population of the US, and even if we use slightly more per capita, where do you propose to store the excess, genius?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>any boost to the minimum wage is immediately recycled back into the economy as those funds are immediately spent

So what?  Suppose I have $40 and I have 8 hours of yard work to be done.  I can find someone to do it for $5 per hour, but minimum wage laws require $8.
1) I can hire someone for 5 hours and do the remaining 3 myself, thereby losing 3 hours of my time.  Neither more nor less money is recycled.
2) If I can scrape together $64, I can hire someone for 8 hours, thereby losing $24 worth of productivity.
3) If I don't need the work done immediately, I can do it myself in dribs and drabs and use the $40 to get $40 worth of goods and services.  Neither more nor less money is recycled and I get different utility from my $40, but the potential employee remains unemployed.

>a raise in the minimum wage not only creates a better standard of living for those earning the minimum wage

Assuming they don't lose hours, or entire jobs, or the employer doesn't cut corners in other ways which degrade the interests of the employees (eg. benefits, health and safety issues), or the new cost of wages doesn't bring automation within range of making sense, then yes.  Meanwhile, people - low income people - who were earning at or slightly above the new minimum wage see their incomes unchanged, but will get to participate in the price inflation which accompanies the wage inflation.  Your benefit to the poor, is paid for in part by other poor.  How nice.  Those who have no skills or abilities worth anything close to the new minimum wage become more or less permanently unemployed.  I imagine the free time and sense of being beyond value gives them such a boost to their self-esteem that they cease to be one of those social ills that social policies such as minimum wage laws are intended to remove.

The idea that minimum wages should approach a "living wage" relies on the assumption that large numbers of minimum wage earners remain in those circumstances all their working lives.  That isn't what the data show.  We can be certain that to abolish minimum wages would immediately cause some increase in productivity, and an increase in employment.  Whatever is available as welfare and EI will continue to operate as a de facto minimum wage.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Your benefit to the poor, is paid for in part by other poor.  How nice.  Those who have no skills or abilities worth anything close to the new minimum wage become more or less permanently unemployed.  I imagine the free time and sense of being beyond value gives them such a boost to their self-esteem that they cease to be one of those social ills that social policies such as minimum wage laws are intended to remove.

Thanks, Brad. I've never even thought of it that way, but I could see it. If I'm an employer and i have to pay out more money for basic labour than I will be searching for experience, and isn't that the problem we are hearing about in the workforce today,.. lack of experience?
Hmmmm.....

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

his responses aren't even logical, or for that matter well though out.   Canada benefits from free trade with the US plain and simple.   as for other markets, I say sell to whom you can, China, India, to whom ever.

    Quick Geography lesson, we are in North America, our transportation network, road, rail, and river links us to just one other country, our largest trading parner, the largest economy in all of the Americas (North, Central and South).  Europe has united into the EU to recognize and exploit the high level of their own economic integration, to allow them to out compete us.  We formed NAFTA because it was the best way to make North America competative against the EU, and the rise of the Asia.  Our choices are roughly these; recognize that Canada, the US and Mexico form a single economic entity that will succeed or fail together, or, pretend that our economies have nothing to do with each other, and just wonder why ours sneezes everytime theirs (US) gets a cold.  In the first option, we are helping to direct and enhance our joint economic growth, in the other we are simply silent (and less effective) partners in the same struggle, with no knowledge or control over our economic destiny.
    Canada and the US jointly defend our shores, our economies jointly exploit our resources and skills, we are two seperate nations, but we have grown so interconnected for so long, that for either of us to pretend otherwise impossible.  Free Trade makes North America more competative in the world.  Protectionism allows Canadian and US special interest groups to score points off each other, while losing to the rest of the world.  We will succeed or fail together, and our leaders have to recognize this.  If our leaders would recgonize the corallary to this, and rebuild Canada's defence and foreign service to the point where we were internationally relavent again, we would resume our place as a partner, rather than de facto protecterate of the US.

 

[canadianblue]

" and the U.S. has the highest percentage of their population of any country in prison."

That's because:

1.  They don't execute as many as they should.
2.  There police are better funded and solve more crimes than police elsewhere.  We are closing down RCMP labs - and our crime experts are bailing to the states - and they are expanding their crime labs.
3.  Longer sentences in the USA keep scum behind bars longer - hence, a larger prison population.

Tom

Agreed, which is worse keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, or allowing them out on the streets to commit more crimes. Liberals would prefer that dangerous criminals be let out early.

 

[daniel h.]

Agreed, which is worse keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, or allowing them out on the streets to commit more crimes. Liberals would prefer that dangerous criminals be let out early.

I don't really like any party, but I think some would argue they are in jail because a large number are poor, disadvantaged. Little opportunity. That's no excuse but you have to give people something to live for.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
but I think some would argue they are in jail because a large number are poor, disadvantaged.

...and "some" would be so wrong it is friggin' unbelievable and this I can say without hesitation.

 

[daniel h.]

> If, for example, the Liberals created 10,000 Bombardier jobs and win an election

Then I will only wonder if the same money, left in the hands of companies capable of competing without subsidies, might have created 12,000 approximately equivalent jobs.   Where do you think the money comes from?   Subsidization is always a zero-sum game - you take money from productive, healthy companies and individuals and give it to unproductive, unhealthy companies.

But think about it. Bombardier is labelled "unhealthy", yet they are the world leader in regional jets and trains. They bring Canada immense prestige and are a great talent base. How can one of the leading aerospace companies be unhealthy? I think this proves that the market is too unstable when it comes to large, expensive products that most people don't buy. This is why I think it should go public again, or at least give us shares.

It's like trying to make money on airlines. Rich people keep trying to make money on airlines, and will forever fail because airlines are simply a horrible business plan. Air Canada WAS public and was best in the world, privatized and almost bankrupt, higher costs, less serivice.....

 

[daniel h.]

Quote,
We don't need the money   .............WHAT??

We're not poor like Venezuela. We don't need to sell our oil off quickly. We have enough wealth, it simply isn't equitably shared.

Anyway, people who insult my ideas are silly because oil will get MORE valuable as it gets scarcer, so why not wait until it is worth more? AHHHH. ;D

 

[daniel h.]

     Quick Geography lesson, we are in North America, our transportation network, road, rail, and river links us to just one other country, our largest trading parner, the largest economy in all of the Americas (North, Central and South).   Europe has united into the EU to recognize and exploit the high level of their own economic integration, to allow them to out compete us.   We formed NAFTA because it was the best way to make North America competative against the EU, and the rise of the Asia.   Our choices are roughly these; recognize that Canada, the US and Mexico form a single economic entity that will succeed or fail together, or, pretend that our economies have nothing to do with each other, and just wonder why ours sneezes everytime theirs (US) gets a cold.   In the first option, we are helping to direct and enhance our joint economic growth, in the other we are simply silent (and less effective) partners in the same struggle, with no knowledge or control over our economic destiny.
     Canada and the US jointly defend our shores, our economies jointly exploit our resources and skills, we are two seperate nations, but we have grown so interconnected for so long, that for either of us to pretend otherwise impossible.   Free Trade makes North America more competative in the world.   Protectionism allows Canadian and US special interest groups to score points off each other, while losing to the rest of the world.   We will succeed or fail together, and our leaders have to recognize this.   If our leaders would recgonize the corallary to this, and rebuild Canada's defence and foreign service to the point where we were internationally relavent again, we would resume our place as a partner, rather than de facto protecterate of the US.

Why on earth would a country like Canada tie its future to a declining superpower? We have the resources, they don't.

We have ample evidence that the U.S. breaks the agreements it signs--such as NAFTA. They are protectionist, against OUR goods while taking our oil.

The two countries that have stayed out of the E.U. have done the best: Norway and Switzerland. Norway is ranked the best country in the world in which to live, and they have oil like us.

If Norway can do it with 5 million people, we can easily do it with 30 million and many more resources.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Either Bombardier is healthy and can continue to be among the world leaders in regional jets and trains without subsidies, or it is fatally wounded and enjoys that leadership advantage precisely because some of my earnings are confiscated every year to pay the CEOs and employees of Bombardier and, also, to pay for part of the cost of the jets and trains purchased here and abroad.  That I am fractionally in servitude to businessmen and engineers in another province sticks in my craw enough, but I am damned if I understand why paying part of the cost of jets for foreign companies is a duty implied by my Canadian citizenship.

Prestige?  You think the role of government is to ensure we all have enough prestige?  I have no words strong enough to express my sentiments in that regard.  I imagine the lives of a few soldiers every few years in crappy little trouble spots is also a small price to pay for our senior politicians and self-obsessed Canadians to preen and strut about imagining we have prestige.

Canada does not care about its talent base sufficiently to justify subsidizing a selected few.  If Canada cared about its talent base, Canadian voters would elect Canadian politicians who would find a way to keep talented doctors and scientists and engineers and entertainers from fleeing to the US.  Actions belie intentions.  Have the moral courage to call it what it is: pandering to voters in Quebec by using the property of voters in other parts of Canada.  Legal it may be; morally, some might call it theft.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Norway is ranked the best country in the world in which to live, and they have oil like us.

...and, once again, have you been there? I have[twice] , please tell me what I missed over there to make it the "best" place to live, oh guru?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We have enough wealth, it simply isn't equitably shared.

Do you understand how wealth is created?  Put simply, "time is money"; or rather, money is a semi-universal medium for the exchange of time.  People convert their time - by working - into goods and services which have utility to others, and can be traded.  Find a way to produce more or novel goods and services in less time, and you increase wealth.  This is why wealth creation is not a zero-sum game; there is effectively a near-infinite pool of wealth subject to human imagination and endeavour.  What you call "sharing" wealth is merely the transfer of one person's productive time to another.  Life is short, but it falls to some of us to be forced to give part of our time to others so that they have all of their time and some of ours.  Some people imagine that to be "fair", and some imagine themselves to be compassionate in dictating who shall give and who shall receive.

>why not wait until it is worth more

Wait long enough and the market will collapse.  Have you been hanging onto the mineral rights to a coal deposit waiting for the price to increase as the demand for coal to power steam engines shoots through the roof?

 

[Infanteer]

Daniel - you're foaming at the mouth.

Why are you here?

 

[daniel h.]

Either Bombardier is healthy and can continue to be among the world leaders in regional jets and trains without subsidies, or it is fatally wounded and enjoys that leadership advantage precisely because some of my earnings are confiscated every year to pay the CEOs and employees of Bombardier and, also, to pay for part of the cost of the jets and trains purchased here and abroad.   That I am fractionally in servitude to businessmen and engineers in another province sticks in my craw enough, but I am damned if I understand why paying part of the cost of jets for foreign companies is a duty implied by my Canadian citizenship.

Prestige?   You think the role of government is to ensure we all have enough prestige?   I have no words strong enough to express my sentiments in that regard.   I imagine the lives of a few soldiers every few years in crappy little trouble spots is also a small price to pay for our senior politicians and self-obsessed Canadians to preen and strut about imagining we have prestige.

Canada does not care about its talent base sufficiently to justify subsidizing a selected few.   If Canada cared about its talent base, Canadian voters would elect Canadian politicians who would find a way to keep talented doctors and scientists and engineers and entertainers from fleeing to the US.   Actions belie intentions.   Have the moral courage to call it what it is: pandering to voters in Quebec by using the property of voters in other parts of Canada.   Legal it may be; morally, some might call it theft.

Bombardier has factories in Toronto and Thunder Bay as well. I can't stand ideology. The idea they are simply buying votes is funny, because most people in Quebec have other things on their mind. That's cynicism, not reality. There are many reasons for doing what they do.


Part of a government's job is to ensure we have prestige, yes. We are a G-8 country. If you were running Canada we wouldn't clean the windows to save money. :

 

[daniel h.]

Quote,
Norway is ranked the best country in the world in which to live, and they have oil like us.

...and, once again, have you been there? I have[twice] , please tell me what I missed over there to make it the "best" place to live, oh guru?

I didn't say you would like it. I said they are ranked the best country in the world to live in--as Canada used to be. It is subjective but they do provide a large number of services using their oil wealth. Better than Ralph Klein cutting welfare and hospitals in the middle of an oil boom.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Let me get this straight, we should keep our oil and not sell it to the US because we should be more like Norway and ...wait here is a quote I just found "since Norway exports 90 per cent of its entire oil production."
http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa091500a.htm

But we should be like them? no we should be ..no, wait here's what I meant...

Will you at least try and stick to ONE arguement?

 

[TCBF]

Actually, Daniel, the four countries most other people wan't to emigrate to are the USA, Canada, Norway, and Switzerland, in no particular order.   Those four countries also have the worlds highest rates of the private possession of firearms, though I won't go into that here.

Tom