turningrite

Based about what I've heard about the situation, I don't think you're living in the real world. I'm now retired myself, mainly due to a serious degenerative illness, and luckily I have a modest although sufficient pension, but I've had many friends and acquaintances in who in their 50s were displaced from professional jobs during the last recession and never fully recovered. One, a university-educated manager at a major firm, was downsized and after three years of looking, during which he spent almost all his savings to survive, eventually found a minimum wage service industry job. He could barely hold onto housing in the overpriced Toronto rental market and even though ostensibly in good physical shape died a couple years ago of a massive heart attack. We, his friends, believed it was the stress of the circumstances he'd faced that killed him. My friend who works in IT says the government has cancelled all programs that once helped older workers remain in the workforce. He believes that one of the main reasons he can't find employment is his age - late 50s - and I suspect he's correct. The government serves the interests of corporations, and worries about integrating immigrants. Older and even highly qualified Canadian workers? Not so much.

You're in Toronto? A friend of mine who works as an IT contractor in Toronto has been out of work for several months and in fact over the past five or six years has only worked half the time. He's university educated and has credentials and certifications galore. When he applies for even a single opportunity, he says he's often in competition with hundreds and even thousands of applicants from both inside Canada and internationally. An agency has told him that some companies don't even hire Canadians most of the time but simply interview them in order to tell the government they can't find suitable candidates here and then bring in workers from overseas. Hourly rates paid in his field, he says, have dropped by anywhere from 15 to 25 percent over the past decade. Maybe you should have a talk with some among the horde of STEM graduates who are leaving Canada following graduation every year due to the lack of opportunities for them here. It seems like a big game to me, where Canadian workers and the Canadian public are being played while the government colludes in undermining the interests of its own citizens. It appears that there are lots of low-wage service industry jobs in Canada, though, although many who aren't working appear to have little interest in taking these jobs.

Kudlow speaks for an administration to which he definitionally belongs. His defense of the administration's policies is therefore part of his job. When, say, Morneau defends the Trudeau government's economic policies and record nobody holds his statements to inherently amount to rationally objective analysis. He's a partisan, and so, whatever his qualifications, is Kudlow. You know, many economists who work with and for various administrations are later found to have operated on the basis of faulty logic and analysis. Supply-side economics grounded in tax cuts and "trickle-down" theory has largely been discredited, although Trump and the Republicans, presumably including Kudlow, are still believers. (Of course they are, because the corporate sector and the rich largely back the Republican Party.) A major IMF study, discussed in a 2015 Huffingtonpost article, 'The Benefits Do Not Trickle Down...'' (link below), concluded that when government gives tax breaks to the poor an economy will grow while if they're given to the rich it will grow more slowly. So, if you want to be objective, take Kudlow's views with a grain of salt. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/16/imf-trickle-down-economics-inequality_n_7595860.html

Thanks for the link. It's an excellent article and given that almost a week later we have no clearer understanding of the shooter's circumstances and motives than was the case when Murphy wrote the article, the official silence is even more problematic. To hide behind supposed ISU jurisdiction in this case amounts to an enormous public disservice. As Murphy notes, if ever there were a valid reason for police to justifiably kill a suspect, assuming that's what happened to the Danforth shooter, this was it. One has to believe that the police and public officials know a lot more than we are being told. Trudeau's opaque comment about citizen safety, uttered when he was in Toronto a few days ago, suggested that he knew a whole lot more than he was willing to acknowledge. He avoided direct questions about the Danforth incident and looked like he wanted to get out of town as quickly as possible. I'm even more concerned that Canadian media outlets have for the most part been so apparently deferential about the Danforth investigation. Without an inquisitive, free and critical press, do we even live in a functioning democracy? Hmmm...

1.) So, why don't you acknowledge its impact on your argument? Obama's continuation of Bush II's policies was warranted to bolster sagging aggregate demand while when implemented Bush II's similar policies were unnecessarily and dangerously expansionary. Apples and oranges... 2.) As I said, good leaders can and must address current crises while at the same time addressing issues with serious future implications. It is possible to be able to walk and talk at the same time, after all. 3.) Deficits arise from the fiscal policies implemented by various administrations. Some administrations, like Bush II's, when catering to special interests (i.e. corporations and the rich) implement policies that can turn out to be particularly destructive, depending on the underlying economic circumstances. Similar policies, however, can become necessary where economic circumstances warrant, as was the case following the 2008/09 crash. It's fair to say that the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations all implemented policies that to some degree fed into the almost catastrophic 2008/09 recession. Bush II's regime simply implemented what the French call the 'coup de gras' or death blow, almost guaranteeing a more severe crash than might otherwise have occurred. I think the biggest failure on Obama's part was that he didn't force an accounting of or compensation from the elites for the financial debacle his government used public funds to remedy, thus reinforcing the problem of assuming public risk to ensure private gain that bedevils many Western countries. 4.) To the extent that Canadian banks received any funds from the U.S. bailout, my assumption is receipt of such funds related to the operations of these institutions in the U.S., as most Canadian banks have over the past few decades moved to establish footholds in U.S. markets. I seriously doubt that U.S. bailout funds were in any way utilized to buy out mortgages issued in Canada, as was done by the Canadian government.

1.) Why? Because it's inconvenient to your argument? You should explain your contention rather than simply dismiss out of hand an obvious conclusion. 2.) I don't have a clue what you mean by this. Do you? Again, please explain.

1.) Bush II's tax measures, in particular, helped to fuel the speculative boom that resulted in the 2008/09 crash. The tax cuts fed the speculative beast while Obama had to continue those measures for an entirely different reason. Obama had to pursue fiscal policies that sustained aggregate demand in the economy and stanched surging unemployment as the consumer economy was at risk of collapse in the aftermath of the crash. According to Keynsian theory, which has dominated fiscal policy in the Western world for much of the post-WW II period, the proper role of government is to restrict access to money in boom periods when an economy is operating at or near capacity and to expand access to money during recessions in order to foster greater economic activity. So, the same solution doesn't similarly apply to the two situations. Knowledge of Keynsian theory helps to explain the difference. Many economists, including Stiglitz are now warning that Trump's tax measures, which are mainly giveaways to corporations and the rich, will unwisely generate adverse effects on an economy already operating at or near capacity. The lessons of 2008/09 aren't being heeded. 2.) I believe Obama spent most of his first term focused on addressing the consequences of the 2008/09 crash. He also understood that addressing America's health care system was crucial to resolving long-term fiscal and financial problems facing the U.S. government and economy, including the sustainability of Social Security. He largely failed in his pursuit of effective health care reform, mainly as a result of the election of Republican majorities in Congress. And he seemed to lose his nerve as well, particularly where he eventually caved in on the "public option" he originally proposed in his reforms. Dealing with both immediate and longer-term economic issues is both advisable and necessary for governments. There's no contradiction in pursuing both paths at the same time. 3.) Obama inherited a massive deficit situation from Bush II, which he sought throughout his two terms to address. That progress is now being reversed by Trump. 4.) Which Canadian banks got bailouts from the U.S.? I'd be fascinated to see any proof you might provide for this contention. The Canadian government enhanced bank liquidity by buying some mortgages from the banks, but the bailout was minor in comparison to the situation south of the border. Canada's federal deficit situation remains far less problematic than is the case in the U.S., however there are problems where some provinces are concerned, and particularly with Ontario's situation. And Trudeau hasn't helped much with his approach, which is to increase non-productive spending and deficits mainly in the promotion of dependency rather than increased productivity. But at least many (most?) Canadians are willing to contemplate that our federal government is imperfect and often unwise, something many Trump supporters seem unable to admit about his regime.

I've read and seen television reports about Mr. Foley's case, which for personal reasons I've followed with great interest. It's problematic, to be sure, but it does raise some vital questions about what we expect our public health care system to do. Many who've had extensive contact with the health care system, as I have, come to realize how limited the available resources actually are. I believe that Mr. Foley had access to publicly-funded chronic care but was unhappy with the quality of that care. Now he's lying in a hospital bed for which administrators argue he should be paying more than $1K a day as he doesn't require acute care and has apparently rejected other options.But do we get a say on our quality of care, particularly where chronic illness is concerned? In an ideal world, one would think we should but in a system paid for by others (i.e. taxpayers), where resources are essentially rationed, is it realistic to allow patients who can't pay for their own care to be able to get from the system (and taxpayers) exactly the quality of care they demand? As a person living with a serious chronic illness myself, I've thought about this problem a lot. As I too live with a degenerative illness, I'm aware that when I can no longer live independently I can afford to direct and pay for my own care only to a certain extent - perhaps a couple or three years, after which I too will either have to accept what I believe to be the generally mediocre care offered by our public system or make other arrangements. I tend to look at the situation from a "quality of life" perspective. When that quality of life becomes insufficient to justify remaining alive mainly for the sake of so doing, I've resigned myself to making a choice that will definitively put an end to the situation. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Foley can succeed in his battle. I wish him luck but am not optimistic at this point that he will be successful. He might be offered a resolution that addresses his individual concerns, but I suspect he won't be able to achieve systemic change. And given an aging population, the situation is likely to get worse, and likely much worse, which is why I believe assisted death should be an option that's easily accessible for a broad range of patients. The potential for abuse exists, of course, but that shouldn't serve to negate the ability of seriously ill patients to rationally decide to end their own suffering.

Yes, this is a contradiction that policy makers seem to avoid discussing. We're being fed two conflicting narratives that practically cancel each other out where we're told by progressive politicians both that we must change our income redistribution system to account for job losses and restructuring that will result from automation and at the same time that we must import vast numbers of foreign workers (i.e. immigrants) to address current and looming labor shortages. Might it be that the politicians and policy makers simply don't have a clue as to what will happen and are hedging their bets, in which case both programs are simply experiments in social engineering? In the short term,, and perhaps in the longer term as well, depending on how the automation doomsayer's theory works out, Increasing dependency programs encourages more dependency by discouraging people from participating in the work force while large scale immigration disconnected from actual and anticipated labor market conditions also guarantees greater dependency. So, if encouraging dependency is the primary objective of public policy, implementing both of these policies at the same time is a wonderful recipe for encouraging ever greater dependency. It's either the best of all possible outcomes for those who favor dependency or a nightmare for the taxpaying workers who have to pay for these policies in the form of lower wages and higher taxes.

The chart you cite doesn't address the actual nature of the reported incidents, and in particular doesn't delineate between incidents that were violent in nature and those that weren't. And you have to remember that these are reported incidents and do not necessarily reflect the number of cases resulting in charges or convictions. So all one can reasonably claim is that there were more reported anti-Muslim hate incidents in 2016 than in prior years. If one delves into the numbers from 2015 (see Stats Can reference chart I cited in a comment on the previous page), it's clear that most hate-related incidents grounded in religious intolerance reported to police fell into the non-violent category. I suspect this is a growing trend as many are now sensitized to the notion that garden variety offensive and/or rude conduct can now be reported as hate-related harassment and there has been greater encouragement to do so. A decade ago, the police likely wouldn't in many circumstances have taken reports on these kinds of incidents. There has been no explosion in hate-related crime in Canada. According to 2015 stats, the incidence of reported violent hate-related incidents of all kinds, which are far more likely to result in criminal charges or convictions than are non-violent incidents, was lower than the incidence of murder in this country. And I believe Canada has the lowest murder rate in the Western Hemisphere.

Is Kudlow really an objective analyst? While he has a background in the financial sector (including with Bear Stearns, no less) and as a neoliberal lobbyist, it's my understanding that he was appointed by Trump to the post of Director of the National Economic Council earlier this year. So, he's part of Trump's regime and has an obvious interest in championing the policies of the administration. It would be absurd to imagine that he wouldn't support its policies when that's part of his job. Can you cite an independent or objective source to counter the criticism economists like Stiglitz and Krugman have raised concerning the Trump administration's policies?

1.) And yet you don't/can't acknowledge that the 2008/09 recession was the result of a massive policy failure the roots of which extend back to Reagan era policies and were in the years immediately prior to the 2008 crash exacerbated by Bush II's policies, which overstimulated and already overstimulated boom in speculation? Many believe that Trump is simply doubling down on the same kinds of policies that led to the crash. Oh my, how little people learn. 2.) Of course, he didn't save the Western world by himself. But he led the effort to restore liquidity to the financial system and to address some of the flaws that contributed to the crisis. He had help from other institutions as well as from other, mainly Western, governments. If he failed in any fashion, it was in not taking the opportunity to exert concessions from American capitalism and in particular from sectors, like banking and finance, that the government bailed out. 3.) No, but as stated previously, he hasn't learned the lessons either. 4.) Well, Canada experienced the 2008/09 recession as well, even if not to the extent the Americans did. For one thing, our more heavily regulated banking sector didn't experience the liquidity crisis to nearly the same extent as did its American counterpart. As Pierre Trudeau once noted, living next door to the U.S. is like sleeping with an elephant in that you have to be aware of its every twitch and groan lest you get crushed. Canadians have to take an interest in the U.S. as it's both prudent and crucial for us to do so. It's not clear to me, however, why you're so frustrated with our attentiveness to America?

You have to wonder why this has happened? What do the authorities not want us to know and why have mainstream media outlets for the most part been so docile in not apparently seeking to obtain, much less reveal, details concerning the investigation? The incident has virtually been buried and we know little more than we knew the day after the shooting. I can't think of another instance in this country nor in any other Western democracy where such an incident has been handled in this manner. This is serious stuff that calls into question the essence and efficacy of our democracy and institutions.

1.) Oh my. I don't think you understand the 2008/09 recession nor the extent to which the Obama regime's policies saved the American and Western economies. TARP was seen by the Bush administration as a one-time stimulus measure to shore up bank liquidity but as the crisis continued to spiraled out of control Obama became involved in the intervention (even prior to his inauguration), fighting Republicans who resisted further government intervention in the economy. (See link) Obama understood the crisis to a degree that neither Bush nor many Republican politicians could match. He wasn't blinded by ideology. 2.) And yet you're on a Canadian forum. If you don't want to interact with Canadians or listen to their views, why are you on here? https://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-gets-first-major-win-with-tarp-017504

1.) Well, if I want to go to court about something I hire a lawyer. A lot of people don't like lawyers and think the legal profession detestable. But somehow their credentials give them credibility within their field that the rest of us don't enjoy. That's the thing about credentials. They generally indicate that a person attended school long enough to know something about their chosen field of work. And Nobel awards are generally given to those whose accomplishments warrant recognition and prestige. You seem frustrated that I reference the credentials of qualified authorities. But I don't see the problem in so doing. 2.) And you know this how? As you seem to provide your own views to refute Stiglitz, do you have the education and/or training and/or credentials to do so? Generally, if you want to effectively object to the views of an accomplished Nobel winner you have to reference analysis by other professionals who work in the same field or at least provide countervailing opinions expressed by those with demonstrable knowledge in the field.

You do realize that Obama inherited an economy from George W. Bush that was near total collapse, right? Obama had to implement an expensive stimulus program and maintain it for an extended period to restore liquidity to a financial system that was brought to its knees by deregulation and greed. Comparing Obama's stimulus policies with Bush's tax cuts is misleading as Bush's policies contributed to the crisis while Obama's responded to it. Many believe that Obama saved capitalism from itself. Some reports have suggested that Bush was utterly unable to comprehend or quickly respond to the 2008 collapse. America's economy might today look like Venezuela's had the intervention not been swift and massive, a response that Obama was able to marshal. Obama righted the course of the American economy and substantially reduced the deficit and cut unemployment in so doing. Any self-respecting capitalist in the U.S. owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Obama. It's shocking that he's so reviled by many right wingers. Of course there are boom and bust cycles in any economy, but to implement policies that have been demonstrated to fail in the past seems foolish. But Trump seems willing to give it a go. Good luck with that.

I don't believe Stiglitz is associated with any major American media outlet. (If this is not true, feel free to correct me.) He's been quite objective in expressing his opposition to trade deals he doesn't like, including the TPP, which Trump got out of shortly after taking office. You may like getting your economic news from Fox News but that doesn't mean you actually understand economic analysis, which is a complex field. Stiglitz points out the downstream disadvantages of the burgeoning federal deficit, noting that the annual deficit is expected to exceed $1 trillion in the very near future as a result of the Trump/Republican tax changes. This sort of thing happened under George W. Bush and the consequences for the American and global economies were dire. W handed off an economy near collapse with the deficit associated with his final budget period (2008/09) reaching a record $1.4 trillion. It took the Obama administration years to dig the federal budget out of this abyss, something the apparently knowledge-challenged Trump seems intent on ignoring.

Maybe it's time for you to get your economic news and advice from a less biased source. Just saying. The U.S. economy may be booming now but there are warning signs that the fundamentals may be problematic and Trump may be worsening the situation with his tax and trade policies. The foundations for economic collapse are generally established during boom times, as was the case during the period preceding the 2008/09 recession. Yes, the U.S. is continuing to benefit from the policies implemented during the Obama years to stabilize the U.S. economy, but booms never last forever and are often followed by recessions that few except those who have solid economic knowledge generally see coming.

Maybe you don't want to read what you don't want to hear? Stiglitz is among the world's most respected economists. He's simply pointing out that Trump's tariff war(s) are not likely going to benefit the U.S. in the long run and that Trump's domestic policies, and in particular his tax policies, which will drive the U.S. federal deficit to over $1 trillion a year very shortly, will undermine America's competitiveness and worsen trade balances. You can ignore others who post on here at will. But a growing chorus of respected economists, including Stiglitz and Krugman, both of whom are Nobel winners, strongly believe Trump's policies will backfire. I'm not a Nobel prize winning economist myself, for sure, but think it wise to heed the advice of those with expertise the field.

The pro-Trumpers really need to get a grip. Your guy is going to cost the U.S. big time. Earlier today I read an article (link below) written by the Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who states the U.S. is almost certain to lose the trade war(s) Trump has started. In fact, he says that Trump's domestic policies, and particularly his tax policies, almost guarantee that the U.S. trade deficit will actually worsen. But Trump's not one to worry about macroeconomics, as brandishing his TV-honed tough guy image is more important to him. If only running the world's largest economy were a reality show! The article focuses on China, in particular, but notes how currency fluctuations and other factors offset the kind of tariff strategies Trump is pursuing. And Stiglitz is no ideologue, so you can't accuse him of implicit bias and/or predictability. He's been a strong critic of the TPP and corporate-driven trade deals. The guy knows a clunker when he sees one and he certainly appears to see one in Trump. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-us-is-at-risk-of-losing-a-trade-war-with-china/

I think your position and that of some other commentators on this topic to be a bit overblown. Hate crime is more commonly being reported nowadays, likely as a result of greater publicity about and acceptance of its existence, but also because the meaning of the term has expanded. Many incidents that are now reported as hate crimes likely wouldn't have warranted police attention even a decade ago. We now consider insults and all manner of other rude behavior to fall into the category of hate crime. But even with the broader definition of and increased credibility accorded hate crime, including much behavior that in the past would likely have been considered merely uncivil conduct, there were according to Stats Canada fewer than 1,300 hate crime incidents reported to police across the country in 2015 (see link), which, given a population of 36 million or so, works out to one report for every 27 thousand people. And presumably far fewer criminal convictions resulted, particularly in cases where non-violent incidents were reported. Further undermining the notion that there's been an explosion in hate crimes is the fact that fewer than 40 percent of the total incidents reported in 2015 were violent in nature. And the Stats Can report the table accompanies indicates that those most statistically likely to suffer violent attacks were members of the LGBTQ community while those least likely among the categories analyzed to face violence were those who reported incidents grounded in religiously motivated intolerance. Sometimes it helps to stand back and broaden one's perspective on these matters. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14832/tbl/tbl02-eng.htm

Because you're in the U.S., I think it unlikely you and many other Americans recognize the degree to which Trump is detested beyond America's borders, especially in Western countries. Basically, he's seen as a boor and a bully and most people can't believe that an advanced country could elect such a leader. This could have longer term negative implications for America's reputation than many in the U.S. currently realize. Nationalism in Canada isn't particularly strong, and certainly not much, if any, stronger than it was prior to Trump's election. Oddly, Trump has united a broad swath of Canadians across the political spectrum in their dislike of him. This hasn't translated into greater personal popularity for our own PM, whose limitations have become more apparent as time has passed, even though his party has had a bit of a 'Trump bump' in recent polling due to adopting a firm stance against Trump's tariff rhetoric and measures. There's still a rump on the right who favor Trump but they constitute a distinct minority. But he isn't seen as an existential concern for most Canadians, at least outside of a few industries that his actions could seriously impact. Our economy is functioning relatively well and recently experiencing better growth than was the case prior to Trump's tariff tantrums. Were the economy not doing as well, there might be more panic.

Your commentary seems somewhat harsh but does appear to acknowledge that encouraging long-term subsidy dependency does nobody any good. In some smaller and more isolated communities there might be very few employment options available so innovative solutions might have to be considered. But in the bigger cities I don't see this as an issue. In my area of the city it seems that almost every fast food place has a help wanted sign in the window. So why are thousands reportedly sitting on welfare? It makes no sense. I think the whole subsidy system needs a rethink.

A friend noted this as well, wondering whether Trudeau found it so difficult to summon sympathy/empathy for the actual victims that he had to find a way to personalize the situation. It's seemed to me over the past several days that the government would rather this incident just disappear. Does it now just consider this kind of thing a 'cost of doing business' in an interconnected world? If so, perhaps it should let the rest of us in on this. Trudeau's oddly detached statement on citizen safety, devoid of any explanation, was particularly worrying as he seemed to be admitting that such safety doesn't now exist. If I were him, I'd be very worried lest Canadians start to connect the dots and conclude that this government hasn't been particularly concerned about their security.

Yes, thanks. I twice got an error message when I tried to copy it. Who knows why?