bleeding heart

But companies would still shift jobs overseas, because it would still be cheaper. So why wouldn't they?

Me too. There are a lot of problems with it....not the least of which is the State determining what is proper, what is true, and what is acceptable paramaters of thought.

I actually like it better. But it's a matter of taste; The Sopranos and The Wire are so damn good that I won't go so far as to say BB IS better. Just that I enjoy it more. I liked the first two seasons a lot, but then it started to lose me. (Though John Lithgow as "Arthur" was amazing, I give him credit.)

No, we are not blank slates; we are inherently moral creatures, else we couldn't, wouldn't practice moral behaviour and try to codify it. You can no more make an inherently amoral being moral than you could teach a human being to spread his arms and fly. Our mental/emotional states are as intrinsic as are our physical properties...in fact, the mind-body distinction is mostly fallacious. I hasten to add that, obviously, environment is important to our behaviour; crucial to it. You're right about that. But without the inherent qualities, the entire point would be moot.

Yes, good point. At any rate, since clarification is usually good, I take the OECD reports with a little dollop of nice salt. I'm not really questioning their veracity, but rather their significance when discussing something as complex as a gigantic economy. For example, I feel pretty confident that my life in America would be perfectly comparable to the one I have here; I don't think I'd be suffering in food lines and cursing the US economy. "Rumours of its death are greatly exaggerated," to paraphrase someone else on another subject.

Then America isn't--or not unequivocally--your best bet. Maybe it will be, again. Very possible. Not at the moment.

Sure, why not? I wasn't insulting America. Merely destroying a (constantly shifting) argument which first implicitly denounces the American social safety net (while I defended it)...and then pretends there isn't one.

No doubt they do, at least analogously. But rising in economic station is no longer easier in the US than in many other places, so the argument doesn't hold water except in few narrow circumstances. Some heady mix of inferiority/superiority complex, in my opinion. It's a Canadian malady.

But you used the word "burden," which of course is incorrect. And even as it stands--even if I"m to take your argument seriously as you alter it to mean Canada only, rather than the US too (as, a little ironically given this new tenor of the discussion, the video we just watched was about the United States), looking at the doctor "brain drain" is too narrow. According to the OECD, upward mobility generally is now lower in the US than in several other countries...including Canada.

Your video was about the U.S., internally, not about Canadians moving to the US.

It's not about some imaginary "burden," it's simply about making more money. When I choose a higher-paying job over a lower-paying one--which of course I"ve done--it has nothing whatsoever to do with a "burden" placed upon me by the initial employer.

Sure...but you're talking about someone searching for "greater economic freedoms" in a neighbouring country with a similarly robust social safety net. So the whole point about it still stands. Whether they choose one wealthy welfare state over another wealthy welfare state is of zero consequence to every point I've made. By definition.

It's not relevant to the issue. You're talking about the rich leaving en masse...and not just from Canada, but from countries like the US as well, which also has a strong social safety net. As we have said over and over--and as you have freely admitted--one of the reasons for the fabulous rise of the wealthy class (in the US as well, certainly)--is that there is a social safety net.

Yeah, that's another irritant. Some of us are financially stable. It's not all about me personally.

No, I didn't, as I don't know that it's true; those decrying taxes for the rich routinely argue that it's fruitless, because most taxes derive from the middle class. Arguably moot anyway--even if it were wholly funded by the rich (which it isn't), it's not about "largesse"; it's about self-preservation, about having a strong, healthy, educated, stable society form which to draw employees. … I wouldn't, no, certainly not. Either, presumably, would the doctors, the other professionals, and the super-rich. They'd prefer to remain here, for the most part. And they will continue to do so.

True enough. The word "fascist" has been woefully over- and mis-used since--well, since the glory days of fascism, presumably. I'm not a fan of the Harper government, but to refer to them as "fascist" is so over-the-top that it actually harms honest discussion. The misuse of "commies" isn't too helpful, either.

It wouldn't happen, the boilerplate universe of Ayn Rand notwithstanding. Again--and as you've already conceded--the benefits that have accrued to the wealthy thanks to the social safety net precludes the idea, as far as I can see. They're not petulant irrationals who would "go on strike," Atlas Shrugged style.

Why would they leave, when (as you are implicitly conceding) the social safety net has made their lives--and the acquisition of wealth, in fact--easier?

And to illustrate your points, it can be argued that the large increases in number of wealthy people and the amount of the wealth they have correlates with the advent of the social safety net.

Well said! It's not about inventing new costs; the costs are already present. It's about who should pay.

Leaving aside the fact that killing somebody to relieve victims' loved ones from emotional distress is a questionable way to proceed, aren't we at any rate missing a step here? What about the life without the possibility of parole? I don't think many Canadians would have serious reservations about this, not when it comes to the Olsens and Bernardos of the world.

1. I personally know a Quaker couple. He is a professor of Economics, and she's a pediatrician. So I think it's safe to suggest that they receive social benefits (medicare, for example; potential police protection; etc etc. And while I don't know them well, I don't think that they "reject the culture" of their country. 2. We're talking about some woman whom you know nothing about; why in your hypothetical does she "promote violence"? 3. If she's a citizen, she's not "tak[ing] our social benefits"; she's rightfully receiving her social benefits.

I'm just surprised someone could be speaking with Piers Morgan, and appear sillier than Piers Morgan. Quite an achievement.

This is all awesome, but I don't think it's authoritarian enough. You gotta lose those wimpy liberal sensibilities that are holding you back, man. They're downright....feminine...and what could be worse than that?

You haven't received the memo? The death penalty is damned expensive. So costs can't be your actual complaint. So why pretend they are? So...you support the death penalty, but you don't think it should be funded with public money? ???