CPCFTW

Nope the right wing shares the same beliefs as I do. I'm not parroting anything. If anything you're parroting the left wing. What is your educational background besides reading left wing websites like democracynow and links on twitter? A major in english? sociology? philosophy?

I said from the start that it was a widely accepted phenomenom among economists. Doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. You tried to claim I was just parroting the right wing. These are my beliefs from my studies, nothing to do with politics. I don't follow politics that much but this election was an exception because of what was at stake (an NDP + new ultra left Liberal coalition)... shudder.

It's called hyperbole. You don't think unskilled, unionized public service workers are overpaid?

Are you serious? I quoted it in the response you just quoted. I'm offering the rationale for it.

See:

The data is confirmed by looking at the historical natural rate of unemployment in Canada vs US. I believe the rationale for why it is hard to find a direct correlation is that a lot of the time the natural minimum wage rate is above the legislated minimum wage rate anyway.

More from a simple google search: It's a 40-50 year old idea and you said: Care to retract?

The source is a nobel prize winner. I'm not saying I agree with all of his ideas, but the trade off between natural unemployment level and minimum wage / unions is pretty widely accepted. Punked is acting like I made it up when it's a 40 year old theory. And I'm sure it's a better source than "Punked" on mapleleafweb forums. The Bank of Canada, not the "government", aims to slow growth past FULL EMPLOYMENT which happens to be around 5% in Canada due to hippies spouting whatever BS they read on the twitter and blogs of other hippies. I'm saying the natural rate of unemployment should be lower if we didn't insist on paying people 100k to pick up trash cans.

Until now the government hasn't been aiming for shit other than pleasing the electorate. We're debating what they SHOULD aim for. The trade off between minimum wage / labour unions vs natural unemployment is a well known phenomenon. My source is Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winner in economics. Quit spouting BS, you're just throwing economics terminology around pretending to know what you're talking about. I get my sources from years of reading academia in pursuit of an undergrad in finance, CFA designation, MBA, and various CSI courses plus years of experience in financial services. I suppose you know best in your 2nd year of sociology plus minor in women's studies. Go to bed son.

I oversimplify because I rounded the unemployment number to what it was a few months ago? I'm not writing a phd thesis here buddy. I know full well what natural unemployment is and full employement is at 5% due to social programs and minimum wage laws. Look it up in an economics paper rather than a liberal propaganda geocities site.

The left's stance on globalization doesn't make any sense. Is it a bad thing because it exports jobs from our country to create wealth in much poorer countries, or is it a good thing because it redistributes wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries? Is income inequity only important within a country's borders? If you ask me, the left just likes to find boogeymen to blame all of the world's problems are. Until you all realize that the world isn't fair, you'll continue to have misguided opinions and ideals.

8% of the LABOUR FORCE is unemployed in Canada. Creating jobs creates a larger tax base and reduces the amount of those who depend on government handouts. Those who can't perform a job (ie. are outside of the labour force) are the ones who should be supported, not the 8% who can't find a job because companies have to pay extra taxes to install solar powered bidets in every home rather than paying wages, or because you believe in the right of bus drivers and garbagemen to hold us hostage for our tax dollars until they make 6 figures.

"By most accounts"? Sounds like a solid source to me. The economic benefits of globalization are going to other countries. You know, the countries that you want to lock out of trading with us to make into a slave class that depends on handouts from Western economies? And who said anything about globalization? I said reduce taxes to get more jobs in Canada and let people pay for their own shit instead of having 8% unemployed.

It's ok, I was a commie when I was 18 too. Some of us grow out of it.

Who cares about income gaps. Should people care if millionaires are billionaires if the average canadian is making 70k instead of 40k? Get that communist shit out of here. Quit passing off your jealousy as "compassion".

Since the corporate tax cuts we've also been one of the fastest growing countries in the g7. Too bad there's more than 7 countries in the world and the developing countries are tearing the g7 a new anus.

The entitlement mentality in this thread is sickening. "You only succeeded because of the opportunities provided to you by this country so give me everything you worked for!!" We all have the same opportunities. And don't give me that BS about being born into a wealthy family. If someone's family is wealthier or better connected than another, then the family has earned it. What gives you the right to freeload off of the hard work of someone else's parents? My parents aren't wealthy, but I don't bemoan those with wealthy parents who worked hard enough to provide ample opportunities for their children.

Taxes aren't the only cost of business and corporate taxes in Canada still have a ways to go. America isn't the only industrialized country in the world although the left seems to think they are the only country we should compare our corporate tax rate with. 1. By creating jobs, thereby increasing the tax base. 2. By switching to a two tier system to reduce the costs of the public health care system.

I guess we just have different ideas on how to resolve these issues. I believe in minimizing poverty by maximizing the wealth of society. You believe in reducing the extremity of individual poverty by impoverishing more.

Why should the majority be able to vote to steal from the minority? Would you say it is theft if a party was elected campaigning on the promise to seize 50% of the assets from anyone that had over 1 million in assets, and to grant those assets to the state to be redistributed to people with no assets? I guess not if that party had been elected by a majority?

Such as? I doubt that the majority of those paying taxes support these things. Or at least not in the ways that have been proposed. I would like daycare to be affordable by creating jobs and minimizing taxation so that people have enough disposable income to pay for daycare. I would like to minimize the time people are between jobs by ensuring there are many jobs available in Canada by making Canada the most competitive business environment in the world. I would like to minimize the amount of seniors in poverty by ensuring that their children and grandchildren have sufficient incomes to help them out. What do these things say about me? That I'm patriotic and believe in rewarding hard work?

WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what a call option is? How is buying a car a call option? Because you have the right to use it? What kind of asinine argument is that? Any product you use is a call option by your definition. My Mach III razor is a call option. My friend buys his shaving call options differently, he just goes to a barber and gets shaved!

So you're saying taxes should be used for the protection and defense of property? For example to buy jet fighters and build prisons to house criminals? Agreed. It is only theft when taxes used to redistribute income for social causes such as to provide daycare for other people's kids or increased pensions for other people's grandparents, or as EI and welfare payments to people who choose not to work. The majority don't agree to the Layton social contract.

Hey Jim, I know you from HFBoards... I used to post there but got banned for hating the canucks too much. The Canucks global mod is a typical canucks fanboy and couldn't handle so much reality from one poster. Welcome to this board. Glad to have another sane conservative mind around.

Since you're such an economics whiz, explain how to "borrow from the german bond market" please. Canada issues its own bonds when it wants to borrow money. Foreign investors interested in Canadian government bonds can buy them. Issuing more bonds to borrow money causes inflation and weakens the CAD so that your $1000 will not have the same purchasing power. More debt = weaker dollar = consumers can afford less imported products (which is basically everything we consume).