Mad_Michael

Check out Toyota profits vs Ford profits at this 'reduced' sales level. Ford has huge problems of their own making (as does GM and Crysler). One cannot blame market conditions for Ford, GM or Crysler's enormous financial difficulties. Present conditions are cyclical - Ford, GM and Crysler's problems are structural and endemic, not cyclical. Toyota's problem is entirely cyclical. No sympathy from me for the Big-three. All three deserve to hit bankruptcy. According to classical economic theory, the Canadian economy (and the Canadian auto industry) will be stronger when this eventually happens. Too much capital is tied up in these massively unprofitable and dead-end companies. Toyota could do wonders if they were able to acquire some of these assets at firesale prices.

And why are we not surprised? Does one really need to read what you've posted to justify your partisan opinion? Will it tell us anything we don't know already? Does it say anything that can actually be backed up with facts or sources?

The Green Shift plan is designed to be essentially neutral on tax. Yes, it raises taxes on carbon but balances this against tax credits and tax reductions. Overall, the plan is meant to produce no net increase in tax revenue to the Government. It merely shifts the onus of taxation onto carbon pollution. In other words, calling the Green Shift plan nothing more than a "tax increase" is not entirely accurate and just a Conservative Party talking point (propaganda if you prefer). Indeed, it seems the whole Conservative election strategy is built upon this mis-representation.

Isn't Izzy Asper just another 'crony-capitalist' that Canada seems to produce so many of? (crony capitalists are those that owe their private fortunes to having political connections) Without a doubt, judging by his policy support, Izzy has to be the most 'conservative-right-wing' liberal supporter in the nation.

Precisely how is CPP funding at risk? Can someone please state the problem clearly? For CPP funding to be at risk, one has to assert that Canada is about to default on sovereign debt (which is rather absurd given the facts of the matter).

Destruction of the environment is caused by the status quo existing laws that protect private capital's right to pollute. It also protects the consumer's right to pollute. Our economy is built on this principle. Carbon taxes are a way to (theoretically) address this growing problem.

As one who follows Canadian politics and would like to participate at a Canadian political forum, I must say that your posts at this forum are one of the main reasons I don't bother posting at this forum (there are others as well). I just drop by this forum once every few months to see if it is still as toxic, partisan and uninformative as it has been in the past. When I see your post here, I'm assured that it is.

I was explaining how immigration assists the Canadian economy - in direct contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. And then I applied your own assertion to that segment of the Canadian citizenry that actually is a huge drag on public finances and the economy and concluded that we ought to encourage uneducated louts to emmigrate. You don't like the result? Not my problem. It was your policy suggestion, not mine. And I don't need your insults. That's petty, tiresome, uncivil and entirely designed to end the discussion. If you can't win the debate, you apparently need to end the discussion. No surprise there. I usually can't be bothered to post at this forum precisely because of this phenomena that is so unbelievably common at this particular forum. And people brag about Canadians being polite. That's bullshit as any review of this specific forum will attest. I see much more decorum at American political discussion sites (the same about of uneducated ignorance though).

Lack of need. 1. Canada generally has among the lowest costs of pharmaceutical products in the western world. 2. Seniors (the primary consumers of pharmceutical products) are among the wealthiest cohort in Canada (2nd wealthiest age cohort). Where's the problem? If Canada had huge amounts of poor seniors who couldn't afford pharmaceutical products, then perhaps you might have a case for government program. But as it stands, there's no substantial problem here. In other words, taxing modest working people to pay for the pharmaceutical products for one of the wealthiest groups in society doesn't sound like good public policy. Canada is not France and it isn't the UK where such factors may be different.

According to classical liberal economic theory, it has been long understood that the proper role of the government in the economy is to do those things that are needed but cannot be done profitably by the private sector. Insurance appears to fall into this category. Insurance can only be done profitably by denying the payment of claims. Thus, even though private insurance systems may be profitable (in some cases) the bottom line is that those who pay for the insurance do not always get the benefit of their insurance. This suggests that insurance is not generally done well by the private sector.

It would appear I'm definitely missing something here. Thanks for the confirmation.

Get thee to an economics class! In a capitalist economy, zero growth will cause economic contraction. Economic contractions result in layoffs for the "common person". Oh yes, the 45% of our economy dependent upon exports I'm sure we can do without. I am not your buddy and I'd ask that you not imply that I am. And the immigrants that come to Canada have (on average) more education and more job skills than 'Canadian-born' citizens. They also draw less welfare, less UI, commit less crimes and serve less jail time than 'Canadian-born' citizens. If one wants to place limits on citizens in order to help the Canadian economy, perhaps we ought to encourage some of our deadbeat uneducated 'Canadian-born' citizens to emmigrate? That would boost the Canadian economy.

So the support of the Liberal Party of Canada for official recognition of same-sex marriage caused IndyMac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie and Freddie Mac to collapse? Am I missing something here?

Sorry, political immunity applies ONLY to politicians inside the House. Anyone else is subject to full legal responsibility for their words/actions. This is as it should be.

The principle opposition to carbon taxes in Canada comes from the Alberta oil & gas industry. They are the ones who are most likely to be seriously affected by any introduction of any kind of carbon taxes.

Ford's sales figures do.

No sympathy for people who like to drive cars at speeds of 50kmph ABOVE the posted speed limit. I don't care if they are average citizens and not engaged in actual 'street racing'. Driving above 90kmph through a school zone (40kmph limit) does seem to be worthy of horrendeous fines and/or vehicle impoundment. I don't care about one's "intention" or "motive" for speeding (racing or not racing). All that matters is the result. Driving 50kmph above the posted speed limit poses a massive and significant danger to the public and thus the government is entirely justified in applying this policy. If you drive your car 50kmph above the posted speed limit, you deserve to loose your driving license and/or your car. Driving a car in public is a privilege, not a right.

As one who is generally unimpressed with the working efforts of our elected politicians, I should think that a day off from the Legislature is a day that our government won't pass any stupid pieces of legislation, steal more of my money or create any new boondoggles or engage in generally official stupidity. That's good in my book.

What problems? Can you be specific? Did the nasty Liberals (from the opposition backbenches) cause the mortgage crisis in the USA? Did they cause Iceland's banks to collapse? Did the Liberals cause Fortis in Belgium to collapse or AIG to dabble in derivatives trading? Wow.

So Harper is to be praised for Canada's relatively good banking regulatory situation that was created by a Liberal government? What am I missing here? Are we to be thankful that Harper didn't gut our banking regulations like conservatives in the USA did? Perhaps he's only waiting for a majority in order to bring in 'financial deregulation' of the financial services sector. Conservatives are always whinging about the need to eliminate 'red tape' and free the markets from the heavy hand of government. Suffice it to say that the Conservative party's track record on the management of government finances (and issues of financial regulation generally) offers zero basis for confidence.

Closing the door to immigration in Canada is probably the height of government irresponsibility - especially at at time of economic downturn. Historically speaking, immigration contributes approximately 1% to Canada's GDP each year (and this is accumulative). When growth is low, tossing out this free "1%" growth is madness. As a general rule, xenophobia and racism are not valid public policy options.

You forgot to pat me on the head and call me "sonny boy" with this pompus remark.

I should have expected such trash-talking crap from August1991. You are at least keeping in character. I haven't been around this forum much due to the high number of toxic posters at this forum. I dropped by and made a few posts just to see if this forum was still as toxic, hyper-partisan and low-quality as it has been in the past. Apparently it is. Thanks for the reminder. No use wasting effort to type words at this forum with the likes of you still hanging around.

I agree with the first. As to the second, that just seems so unCanadian if there is such a word. Beating our chests about our fine country will not improve or help it in any way. Indeed, it just looks silly and tends to draw attention (especially while wearing mittens and a snowsuit). Canada seems like a mixture of American 'can do' with British 'stiff upper lip' and just a hint of French 'attitude' - and a dash of good humour! (which is why Canada seems rather 'cosmopolitian' despite being a huge rural country). In other words, we do have pride in our country, we all know it well. What's more to talk about?

The benchmark oil price went above $120 last week. I have no doubt we will see $200 oil two years from now as the reality of our 'oil problem' is just beginning to actually hit the markets with world oil demand now reaching parity with an apparent ceiling in oil production (in the 86-89 million barrels per day zone). I see no reason to expect any increase in oil production over the short to medium term above this level. World demand growth for oil has actually been rising lately above 2% per year... Sure as heck looks like we are getting darn close to 'the peak', if we are not perhaps on top of it already. The market is screaming out signals for more supply right now.