CPCFTW

You can get a teaching degree in 4 yrs with a 3yr BA. There are no specialized courses to take during your freshman year. The requirement for entry into teacher's college is a university degree of any kind. If you want to be a teacher, then make your "backup" degree useful in case there are no teaching positions. Also Argus was talking about teacher's college admitting fewer applicants if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps there should be a standardized test of some sort like the gmat, mcat, lsat, etc., so that only the best and brightest are admitted to teacher's college, instead of people like MLW's "socialist". Maybe then their compensation could be justified.

What does that have to do with tim's argument that employers would prefer a great writer who is also great at math?

Canadians voted to buy f35s and kill the CWB and gun registry, but that hasn't stopped you from arguing that it shouldn't be done. And not funding PBS is unlikely to be a deciding factor in most people's votes.

We're talking about private sector employment. Everyone knows the public sector has no issue employing people with those degrees...

That's funny because my employer has paid for over $5000 worth of external education in the past 2 years (on top of internal training which costs labour hours of HR and senior employees). In fact, continuing education is a requirement of most jobs in the financial services industry. I also had a few jobs with the federal government and the only education that I can recall being undertaken by myself or any of my co-workers was french language training or seminars in hotel conference rooms which most people attended for the free food. The truth of the matter is that the majority of professional private sector jobs in Canada are in financial services, management, or natural resources (ie. engineering). Employers for those positions aren't exactly screaming out for philosophy and english grads. Sorry to soften your corporate hate-ons.

I don't agree to that. I'm saying that Canadian stimulus is irrelevant within a global recession. If the US, China, and Europe chose to forego growth and focus on correcting their fiscal imbalances, then Canadian stimulus spending would have sent us the way of Greece, Italy, and Spain. We are a leaf in the wind and stimulus spending would be an unnecessary gamble. Whether or not I agree that global stimulus is the correct thing to do is not relevant to Canadian policy. Other governments stimulating the economy by going further into debt and devaluing their currencies benefits Canada in the short run... but that debt will eventually have to be paid.

Canadian stimulus won't affect the global recovery. Europe and US stimulus is all the stimulus we need. All we can do is position ourselves as well as we can within the context of the global economy. When the global economy recovers, having a lot of cash to invest, balanced budgets, low taxes, and free trade agreements in place is the best position we could hope for.

The conclusion that conservative economics are failing us because of lower GDP growth rates is laughable. GDP growth isn't a holy grail. Obviously GDP growth will slow when the government doesn't promise to print/borrow unlimited money to pay for socialized everything. That is the mandate they were given when elected. Complaining that Canada's government is mismanaging the economy because of lower growth rates relative to its peers is like complaining that Apple is mismanaged because RIMM outperformed it over the past month. The other countries are simply recouping the lost growth due to mismanagement. That isn't a knock on the conservatives. When the global economy recovers, Canadian companies will have hoards of cash to invest, and we'll have balanced budgets or surpluses to further stimulate a growth cycle unlike any modern Canadian growth period in history. We just need to stay the course and keep letting the CPC do what they do best. We've been growing through a global recession and government spending cuts... Things are looking bright in Canada.

Yes, the possibility of "the end of civilization as we know it" occuring due to GW is about as likely as an asteroid hitting the earth. Oh noes it will be warmer in Canada and we'll have to spend less of snow removal and road repairs!!! My poor simple mind is scared! You have to have land to farm. A third of all deaths in the world are poverty related. It won't be the wealthy dying from climate induced droughts and disasters. It will be the poor who can't afford food/shelter. Focusing on growth shrinks the amount of vulnerable people. You want to increase the amount of vulnerable in the hope that the marginal reduction in global CO2 will somehow feed and shelter them. You have to be a truly devout worshipper of climate change pseudo-science to believe that climate change costs the world economy (approx $70 Trillion total GDP), $1.2 trillion per annum. Maybe you can dazzle your fellow sheeple banging steel drums and singing kumbaya at the nearest occupy protest with your citations of the most extreme cc pseudo-science you can find, but it doesn't work on critical thinkers.

If the public has those concerns then profit will not be maximized for businesses which do not address those concerns. The problem is that the public's main concern is also monetary. Only the truly affluent care enough about the environment to incur significant costs for it, yet we expect business, which responds to the aggregate actions of thousands of consumers, to care for us? You're typing on a computer with microchips manufactured and flown to you from the other side of the world. Would it be more "moral" to manufacture those computers here with wind and geothermal energy, using unionized employees, and charge $10,000 for computers so that only the wealthy could afford them? Profit is moral because the aggregate consumer considers it moral. When the aggregate consumer has the means to buy that $10,000 computer manufactured locally with the best safety standards and most expensive green energies, then your morals will be reflected by the actions of business. Until then, all you can do is force people to accept your morals through taxation/regulation, just like Mao, Hitler, and Stalin forced people to accept their morals.

I've got a better analogy for you... Two worst case scenarios: 1. An asteroid hits the earth and destroys all life. 2. Temporary economic collapse Which would you take? Answer the question coward!! See how ridiculous you sound? The question is irrelevant. We don't make government spending decisions based on worst case scenarios. Why don't you take out a bank loan to build a bomb shelter in your backyard in case the worst case scenario of nuclear war occurs? Because we take into account probabilities when making decisions. And if you want to talk about credibility then you should note that even the most extreme climatologists wouldn't classify the worst case scenario of global warming as the end of civilization. There goes your credibility. The thing climatologists and the green movement has failed to quantify or consider, is the costs of their agenda. We can say with 100% probability that people WILL die due to poverty in a slower growing economy. If we spend 100B on reducing emissions instead of on growth, then we are choosing to kill people now in the hopes that it saves people in the future. I don't think that is a moral decision to make given the uncertainty of the future (this also reminds me of the argument against torturing terrorists.. Except the green movement wants to kill innocents, but would never torture enemies).

Just ask China.

Ummmm.... what? You seriously think health transfers increased by 20%/yr before Harper? Your Harper hate-on has gone a little too far methinks.

If I replace the "say"'s with "believe"'s in my original quote, will MLW esteemed member waldo be happy hey? Do you think naturopaths don't believe in what they do (or even if they didn't, would they admit to it in a poll)?

Science proper: Wow that's like almost 2 years of college/university... Scientists.

Oh sorry I thought we were talking about climatologists, not science proper.

Well that was a good debate. Same time tomorrow?

97% of dentists say you should get a check up every 6 months. 97% of chiropractors say you should get your back cracked every 6 months. 97% of naturopaths say you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face. 97% of car salesmen say you should buy a car. Should I go on?

It's pretty simple. What do people compete for? To find a suitable mate. What do men need to find a suitable mate? Money/wealth (good looks help). What do women need to find a suitable mate? Good looks (money/wealth helps). Women are generally just as competitive as men, just they spend most of their young adult lives competing at being the most attractive, not the richest or most successful. Whether you want to call that cultural or biological is up to you.

Ontario currently imports billions of dollars of oil every year. That requires selling CAD for the foreign currency. If Ontario and the other eastern provinces don't have to sell CAD anymore than the CAD will be stronger. However, the alternative is to export more oil to other countries (causing other countries to buy more CAD), so either way the CAD becomes stronger. The point is that moving the oil from AB to ON instead of AB to foreign markets will not reduce Canada's alleged (by Mulcair) dutch disease.

Cite? Afaik the refineries would be existing Suncor refineries in ON and QC. Except Harper has broad support from across he country (and is virtually guaranteed to regain all his seats in AB regardless of what he does). Mulcair's support (in terms of seats) is almost entirely segregated to Quebec and is by no means guaranteed.

Except that keeping the oil within Canada means we won't have to import as much oil anymore = less buying foreign currency = strong Canadian dollar. There's no reason to believe foreign investment would decrease either. Mulcair's flip flopping.

How is the problem a world food shortage? If that is the problem, then doesn't the millions of people supposedly dying from GW help us? Wouldn't there be more land to farm in Canada if temperatures rose? Does giving away taxpayer dollars to China and India for carbon credits because our "cumulative" emissions are higher somehow protect us from this world food shortage? In case you haven't noticed, there has always been a world food shortage. Billions have been starving for centuries. The only thing that has reduced the impacts of the "world food shortage" are petroleum-based fertilizers, and the pursuit/creation of wealth leasing to industrialization. The problem is that as more people get lifted out of poverty by capitalism (see China, India, Brazil) food demand and prices will continue to rise. But this thread is about the NDP who hated the tar sands until they heard they could ship the oil to Quebec refineries. Anyone who has paid attention can now see the NDP is lost and will say anything to get elected. NDP's message: polluting is despicable... unless it creates jobs for Quebecers!

Who cares? I live in canada, I want it to be warmer. Toronto saved tons of money on snowplowing last year. Poverty causes a hell of a lot more deaths than rain and flooding... Destroying wealth trying to solve this "problem" will kill far more people than it will save.