Toro

Why not? He doesn't write that NAFTA has been the be all and the end all. What he's writing is that NAFTA has not been damaging in the manner critics said it would in aggregate and that the productivity gains have been much greater than expected. Seems very reasonable to me. Is this true or is this merely dogma, eureka? From the paper It certainly isn't true in the US. Number of people working in the US 1988 - 108 million 2004 - 131 million ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt Labour participation rate 1988 - 65.9% 2004 - 66.0% ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt So where are they? What rigourously academic studies do the critics have to back them up? Post them because I would be interested to see the work.

No, I think its pretty much spot on.

This is from a paper by Professor Daniel Tefler at the Rotman School of Management published in the American Economic Review in 2004. Some highlights Link

I imagine they would be ... if the bloody taxes weren't so high! Maybe guys like me would be more inclined to either stay or come home to Canada where we could generate revenue and pay a fair amount of taxes instead of doing it down here in the States. I once was a part of a small group of people watch Buzz Hargrove speak. It was in the mid-90s when the Liberals had cut taxes for a family of 4 by about $3,500. After criticizing the cut, Buzz was asked what he was going to do with his windfall. He said he was going to spend the money "on what every other Canadian was going to spend it on, a Caribbean vacation." THAT'S why guys and gals like McQuaig and Buzz are (somewhat) clueless. The way the debate is being framed is disingenuous because the critics are using different time frames and comparing aggregates with per capita data. Hey, I can play that game to. Good for the Liberals for proposing this $600 billion tax cut ($6 billion per year over 100 years as I knowingly manipulate the time frame to illuminate my argument). Notice how this debate is being framed. Its - "$30 billion" over 5 years for spending on medicare v. $120 per person for one year. - 50,000 emergency room doctors v. a shiny toaster. - an emergency room visit v. an X-box. - 55 cents a day for mojo candy v. well, nothing. If the range is $120 to $360 per person, take $240 as the average. For a family of 4, that's $4,800 over five years. For a poor family, its $2,400. Instead of making silly analogies about toasters, x-boxes and mojo candy, how about food, or clothes, or school supplies? How about transportation? How about for energy consumption. How about to pay the rent or the mortgage. How about for day to day living items that most household disposable income is spent on? Why focus on frivolous items? Because the opponents of the tax cuts want to boil it down to something life-saving v. something trite. Well, five grand ain't trite, and the average person knows it. Good for the Liberals. Its our money. Return it to us. That's governing.

$6 billion into the Canadian economy by consumers is A LOT of money. Its better spent in the hands of the people who earned it. If you think 55 cents a day isn't much, send me $0.55 a day for the next five years. PM me and I'll send you my address. If its "only" 55 cents a day, lets cut welfare benefits by 55 cents a day. Clearly, if its "only" 55 cents per day, they don't need it. Its what, a pack of gum a day? The poor can get by without that one pack of gum a day. Heck, they can get by without two packs of gum! We can save a $1 per day!

YES!

Sorry to be jumping into this late, but I have a question. From the link There are about 30 million Canadians. $30 billion divided by 30 million is not $120 to $360 but $1,000 per person! For a family, that's serious money. What am I missing here? Oh, I see PocketRocket and eureka have beaten me to it. That's still a ton o' money over five years. For a family of four, that's a lot of dough. For a low-income family of four, that's about $2,000. Surely that's worthwhile for low-income earners.

But by that thinking, its only $120 to $360 per person for healthcare! How can that help anyone? What's that, one trip to the emergency room per year per person? McQuaig, as classy of a person as I think she is, is clueless. That's money that's going back to individuals to spend as they see fit. If its "only" that much money, why not tax that much more this year. And next year. And next year again. Its only a couple hundred bucks per person per year! What does that matter? Think of all the good government could do with the money? 'Cause government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

He might be a hypocrite, but at least he picked a stock that went up http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y

He sandbagged Harper before the last election too. Its easier for the Alberta Tories to beat up the Ottawa Liberals than the Ottawa Tories is the theory.

You're suggesting that our usage of oil be regulated by pricing. There are probably more important things than price that should determine our useage/conservation of this limited commodity. No, absolutely not. Pricing should be set by the market. However, countries can alter the consumption of hyrdocarbons through energy taxes on "dirty" sources and tax breaks and research credits for clean sources, i.e. solar power. In fact, governments already do this. We have a couple hundred years of energy deposits to satisfy expected demand. Its just going to cost more to get it. However, governments and corporations are researching alternative energy sources, as they should. Like I said earlier, the age of oil will end long before the stock of supplies runs out.

What I mean by utility is the textbook economics definition, not the stock of natural resources. The stock of non-renewable natural resources is depleting.

While it is a pretty safe bet to go with the spectrum of possibility (which is nearly infinite), that doesn't mean it has the ability to 'cross that finish line' without the granted grace of time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If that's the case, then growth will slow.

Oops!

What I mean by man being constrained by the limits of technology is that mankind's ability to adapt to dwindling resources is the key to future growth. I do not believe there are any limits to growth outside the bounds of technological progress. For example, we use less energy per economic output due primarily to technologicaly innovation. We will use less in the future. At some time, I would imagine that demand for hydrocarbons will fall as pricing sends signals to the market for alternative energy sources. You are seeing that already as consumers are switching to more fuel efficient cars and solar panels are being offered more and more to new home buyers. The age of oil will end long before we run out of oil. Nanotechnology could be revolutionary in how we deal with resources. I am optimistic about mankind's ingenuity and ability to adapt. As for "money", its not money per se. Rather, money represents a fixed stock of economic wealth, which is essentially the sum of all transferable, measureable utility. That stock of utility grows almost every year, or at least it does in the modern economy. That stock of utility, over the long-run, is determined primarily through innovation, be it process innovation or goods innovation. To put it into English, if you create something that either makes people's lives better or something cheaper that allows for people to use their resources elsewhere, then you are increasing wealth. So to create more utility, a system must be in place that incentivizes people to create innovation. And that incentive usually, but not always, comes in a system that both allows individuals to profit from innovation - which usually means letting people get rich - AND provides a mechanism that channels resources to the new areas of innovation - which usually, but not always, means the pricing mechanism, ie the free market.

I don't necessarily disagree that there are limits on the planet. However, that's not what restricts the growth of human existence. What restricts the growth of human existence is man's ability to adapt to his constraints, which are technological by nature.

Oh right. Sure it does. Its only given us unprecedented living standards, an ease of life unheard of at any other time in history, breakthroughs in medicines and other health technology, etc., etc., etc. Life would be so much easier on the fantasy utopian commune, where everybody was happy and we could eat unicorn every day.

It is unfortunate, Speaker, that you take such a view of markets. It is as if, seeing the O. J. Simpson verdict, you argued in favour of getting rid of juries. I have to agree with speaker, and try to deal in realities. So do I. That's why I read the Economist and The Globalization Institute, to deal with realities, not some fantasy utopia.

Link

When the Senate votes 96-0 against for whatever reason, it is not "embracing" or "enthusiastically accepting" under any circumstances. Its ridiculous to single out Bush. He just stated the obvious that the US was not going to sign the agreement without changes. Sorry for dousing everyone with cold reality. I'll make you a bet that the majority of countries are not in compliance when Kyoto kicks in.

The US Senate voted 96-0 not to ratify Kyoto when Clinton was President. That's a long way from "embracing" or "enthusiastically accepting" Kyoto.

They can't find him.

I find the tactics in this fascinating. The focus is on tax cuts, not spending. That means the Liberals are tracking to the right to get votes. They must believe that Canadians want tax cuts, not increased spending.

The Republicans are in some trouble in the States. Bush has floundered all year, Iraq is becoming more of a concern, the administration was hammered on Katrina, and the scandal is hurting the White House. The GOP will lose seats in the Senate but probably won't lose control, whereas there is an outside shot the Democrats could re-take the House - that is, if the Dems could exhibit any competence. Montgomery is correct about Virgina. However, Virginia is a solid GOP state, and the results should not be discounted. The Dems would be smart, BTW, to look at the outgoing governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, as a candidate in 2008.

This money is not "stolen" but there is a question about whether or not the government has the right to take it. I don't know if in Canadian law the assets belong to the union. I recall a case a few decades ago concerning Conrad Black and Dominion Foods where Black took the surplus out of the fund. I thought the court ruled in Black's favour, but I don't recall exactly. Either way, the government is responsible for the liabilities of the pension fund. If the government takes the surplus, and in subsequent years the fund falls into deficit, then the government is legally responsible for that deficit in the pension fund.