blueblood

Your previous post has stated what has capitalism done for us lately, and we can see the results of that. If we're asking what I've done for us lately, I run a 3000 acre farm. I pay close to 20 grand in property tax, 35 grand in corporate tax, and another 15 grand in income tax, and have operating expenses of over a half a million dollars, and invest in various companies in order to finance my future retirement for starters. I think I contribute just fine. I feel i can contribute more if I had less tax expense. When has pure capitalism failed? Every business man knows that there is tax to be paid, that's the way it goes. The debate is how much tax does the state REALLY need in order to function. The business community naturally feels it is much less than it is now, and that's where the never ending debate is. What makes the debate challenging is that a stable state makes for an ideal place to do business, and it takes money to run a state. However, various left leaning people use that premise as a trojan horse as it were to ram tax and spend policies down our throats claiming it is the cost of government and how it works. It is also very challenging debating with people who benefit from big government without having to really pay for those benefits - why would anyone want to argue against getting "free money". Canada is on a campaign to slash corporate taxes, and is setting up a pension pool through financial institutions for small businesses instead of beefing up the CPP. Europe has had the mistake of making the cost of government too high and making gov't too big and is now paying for it. The Americans will end up having to pay for it, and we in Canada had got it under control in the late 90's/early 2000's. I know, the dilemna of not having high speed internet resulting in having to keep posts at a minimum. To Bloodyminded: Bonam's reply will suffice

But I'm not talking about 4000 BC, I'm talking about post 1400 renaissance which brought about the advent of modern banking and equity financing. I'll take over 600 years of great success vs. the socialist experiment of the 20th century that was an absolute failure. Emerging markets are grasping the capitalist concept which has proven time and again to be successful, and that's why they're in the position they are in today. Your attempt to portray me as a racist is pathetic and it adds nothing to the discussion. People are individuals, some make it, some don't. Third world nations have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament they are in. There are various emerging countries with individuals making sound decisions that are allowing them and the rest of the people in their countries to become richer than they previously were. Lazy people exist in all aspects of all societies, some societies are ran by them, some aren't. The fact that the western world is as successful as it is, is a testament to sound decision making such as creating incentive for people to become wealthy. The third world doesn't do that, that's why they are poor. Emerging markets have started to get sound decision making and are now richer for it, and keeping the world's economy afloat.

That all comes to making right decisions. There are some decisions that were made that we are paying for today (re Trudeau and his socialist spending spree and Mulroney trying to fix it) That philosophy has been part of western civilization since the mid 1400's. That philosophy is what allowed western civilization to get out of the thumb of the catholic church. That philosophy is why western society is as successful as it is today, and why emerging markets around the world are starting to become successful. To Bloodyminded: And those that come here have the same opportunities as westerners to succeed or fail. The unemployment rate of the Vietnam boat people during the 1970's and their descendants is rock bottom. At the other end, there are people who's ancestors have been in Canada for much longer and are unemployed. Inherited wealth is no good if it is squandered.

Those areas of the world you stated are "strong", however they tax people differently and have different economic policies. So what you are saying is that "strong" governments are the governments of the developed world. I would say that is not quite accurate, it is the individuals of Europe, North America, and Australia that are "strong", not their governments. I would argue that the gov'ts of China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are strong due to the power over their citizens they wield. That's where the decisions angle comes in. To your second point, a gov't wields significant influence over its jurisdiction no matter how strong its perceived to be. If it makes the right decisions, the country prospers (see developed world and emerging markets). If it makes wrong decisions, the country suffers (3rd world countries). The fact that a gov't has "weak" control over economic policy is a right decision in itself (see the cold war). China is an example of "right decisions" a dictatorship can make. The fundamental question remains, how much tax does a government really need to collect in order to be strong?

And some of the countries that have done the worst since 1900 have had "strong" gov'ts. You would have to define what a "strong" government is. What is it? More importantly, does a "strong" gov't need to tax its citizens or more importantly its wealthy citizens heavily in order to be "strong"? It can be argued that the "strong" government countries of Europe are in a lot of hot water right now. It's not the amount of tax revenue a gov't can squeeze out of its country that makes it strong, it's the people in government making right decisions that does. The 64,000 dollar question is how much do those right decisions really cost taxpayers?

Please tell me what is cheating on taxes? Would that be utilizing the corporate tax rate? High taxes don't create growth, the private sector does. Europe is learning that lesson now with their High Tax, high spending environment. So which gov't is stupid now? How was the tax burden shifted to their trade partners? Canada has been slashing taxes for more than a decade. Is the U.S. debt out of control? It's a value added tax and program cuts away from being paid off (albeit at the expense of an administration). It's not giving tax breaks to the US that's the problem. It's the fact that other countries can do what the US was able to do at a much lower cost. The US Fed is going to have to realize that 7-9% unemployment which is comparable to Canada is now a fact of life. The world is a far better place that the wealthy are able to keep more of what they earn. The fact that so much private capital has gone into emerging markets making them better is a testament to that.

And things go worse for countries that decide to wage class warfare and raid the wealthy's bank accounts. See 1770's USA and modern day Venezuela. It was bye-bye England and bye-bye Hugo. The USSR had the biggest safety net of all, and the US for all intents and purposes does not. Which side won? For someone who advocates a big safety net, why do you want to emulate failure? We don't know if "limited socialism" is successful, or not. Western Civilization is over 2000 years old. Universal Suffrage has existed for around 100 years. Judging by how things are going in developed countries, it might not be looking as good as intended. During these days we are now paying the bill for the "limitied socialism" that the left has lobbyed so hard for. Almost every developed country has serious financial problems that has caused great turmoil eg. the tea party movement, strikes in France, riots in Europe. August makes the excellent point here, how much tax do we really need to pay? Trudeau tried his "limited socialist" experiment, and it took Mulroney bringing in a tax ultimately blowing up the PC party in the process, and Paul Martin getting a free pass from the Reform party to slash spending, to pay for it. Any new tax is a tax increase. That also relates to issues the wealthy have, taxation without representation. If the wealthy are to be taxed at such high levels that you want, should they not have more voting power?

Bullish on the US dollar and equities are we? It's not artificially inflated, its an avenue for North American investors to cash in on emerging market growth. I don't see China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil et. al slowing down any time soon. Who is going to magically release these "huge reserves" of copper? China? They tried releasing their corn stocks and corn is still over 5 dollars. Is it the same corporations that Canada owes boatloads of money to?

And where did that get Venezuela, the only South American country in recession, projected to be in long term recession, and having hyperinflation north of 20+%. Not only that, they're still poor. Venezuela is an example of what happens when you target the wealthy of a country. They take their ball and leave, leaving the country far worse off and the people poorer than ever. To suggest that wealthy people want an impoverished underclass is proposterous, the richer the citizens of a country are, the more likely they are to buy things. Unfortunately for you guys, the fastest and most effecient way to do that is for rich people to invest money through debt, equity, and sweat financing; which means that they demand a return on investment for their trouble. History has shown us that a huge social safety net and socialism has led those countries to rapid failure, did the cold war not teach you anything? The fact that Bill Gates and his foundation aren't getting a return on their investment shows that he is burning money, however if he wants to burn it then he can have at it. He'll have spend 35 billion dollars and had nothing to show for it, those people will still be poor and diseased. He would be far better to invest in companies operating in Africa which provide jobs and an income to Africans, at the same time collecting more money to invest in other endeavours in developing countries. And the American revolution was fought against over-taxation to fund the English social safety net. England was left poorer because of it.

So a 33% yield increase in my Wheat and a 50% yield increase in my Canola is a figment of my imagination because some dude from Stanford said so? If that was the case then I shouldn't have doubled my grain storage, if yields are going to come down.

That's about what I was thinking, except for the greater amt. of gas sold at your particular gas station. Your "unique situation" might be a blessing in disguise because the Co-op chain I don't think would set up shop in that area of the province, and Co-op has a knack of doing well against franchise owners.

Looks like a lot of donations and giving free money away. Thanks for proving my point.

CO2 levels on Earth have fluctuated for the past 4.5 billion years. Earth was Earth then, and will still be earth in the future. And then there is the problem with the vast amounts of rock. Yet crop yields continue to improve. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Pesticides work at temps above 15C. Unless you think the world is going to warm up to 45C. Weeds and pests are a non issue as herbicides and insecticides take care of them. Depending on crop variety, more growth = more yields. Crop nutrition has been steadily improving over time in spite of "Global Warming", same goes with crop yields. Most Plant breeders I talk to say that more CO2 is a good thing. But keep continue pretending you know what you are talking about when it comes to ag production...

From what I've heard, profit margins are tight at gas stations. In a small town, the gas station doubles as a 7-11/macs and those stores selling other things than gas do pretty well. Also small town (in farm country) sells bulk fuel on top of it. In a city, I don't know if those gas stations sell as much other products as gasoline. I've also heard that its the other products sold that can make or break gas stations. Then there is the cost of inventory, the city gas station can turn it over quickly and can get away with charging more, whereas the small town can't. Also to note, the small town had better be on a route that has good access to truck traffic, so the cost of delivering gas to the station isn't too great. That's my opinion, I'll defer to SmallC to fill in the gaps or correct me as this is his bag.

That's ridiculous. That wealthy person provides jobs, pays huge taxes, and invests scores of money. Do you seriously think wealthy people bury their money in the ground? If anything the US government benefits the most from the wealthy person doing business. If the US wants to play that game, there are many other countries who would be more than happy to have that wealthy person do business/live there. This is why there needs to be mandatory business classes to graduate from high school. And if Mr. Gates didn't invent windows et. al the US government would still be using typewriters. How about its my estate and I want my company to continue to prosper boosting the economy? Mr. Gates is bored and is having a crisis of conscience. Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people. Mr. Gates would do the world a lot more better by starting an investment funds company and having it trade on the NYSE. By doling out money to Africans, he is lighting his money on fire. As for the comment posted about how taxing the rich 90%, good luck trying that today. The real estate boom in Bermuda would be mind boggling.

Which corporations does the gov't of Canada owe money to?

About as much right as unions have of forcing workers to join them or look elsewhere for work. To me that is an infringement of the charter of rights and freedoms. It has to be a two way street. Workers have every right to form an organization and workers have every right not to join that organization. Modern companies have learned about how cheaping out leads to lower productivity and leads to unions which lead to even further lower productivity. This isn't the 1890's anymore. Japanese car plants in Canada are an example of this. So? If a union can't survive without having to force its workers to join it is proof positive that it isn't necessary anymore. If work conditions are so horrible, then people would willingly band together and cause problems. Alright then, lets unionize everything, make the cost of doing business prohibitive, and increase outsourcing to emerging markets. Wage earners are a dime a dozen, and during this recession that statement has now become a reality. Everyone becoming richer is a bad thing? Those "robber barons" were horrible business managers. Google is a non-unionized environment and has been voted one of the best places to work on a consistent basis. Not only that Google is a far larger company than the "robber barons". Same goes for Apple. The fear of unions starting up has resulted in better working conditions across the board. There is nothing wrong with workers willingly banding together to negotiate for improved working conditions; however, there is something terribly wrong when workers have to be forced into these organizations or they don't have a job. That's discrimination and you know it. However, those unions right now are paying a price for their arrogance and entitlement due to the fact of outsourcing to emerging markets and large capital investments in these countries where people are willing to work. The only way North America will grow again is when the workers in emerging markets either organize for better working conditions, or there is so much growth in those countries that wages will have to rise in order to get workers to work for said companies. When those wages coupled with freight are higher than wages in North America, then the jobs return. Wrong, the standard of living of people in emerging markets is rapidly improving thanks to deregulation and free markets. Why are profits a bad thing? Do you know who owns multinational corporations? North American wage earner's sense of entitlement has caused the economic problems we have, and once that entitlement is gone, will growth resume.

I'm going to enjoy this... Your synopsis of Williams and Smallwood is fairly accurate. They made some dumb business moves in order to pander to their province's population, such as the Abitibi Bowater controversy, and trying to gouge oil companies for access to NFLD oil to name a few. Quebec Premiers since Levesque have made completely proposterous business moves. The nonsense with NFLD and their hydro, the draconian language laws, out of control social spending resulting in a potential 45 billion dollar deficit in 2030, and my favorite sky high taxes (which by the way ties in mine and smallc's little tax discussion in this thread to how the Quebec gov't is run by incompetant fools). To trash Williams and Smallwood is quite a stretch when Quebec is run by people who would have difficulty running a hamburger stand. And then you stated that Canada becomes richer through compromise and not engaging in foolish disputes. And to top it off, you drop the hammer by stating if Williams or Smallwood ran the country, we would be poor. Judging by Quebec's very similar actions to Smallwood and Williams, I would say they have everything to do with Danny Williams and Joey Smallwood, and Quebec's 45 billion dollar deficit in 2030 due to their Chavez like actions proves your statement about how people who compromise and don't engage in foolish disputes are richer.

How is that dead wrong? Its only dead wrong if the "few" just bury their money in a whole in the ground. Fortunately, they spend and invest their money improving the lives of those around them. The only "few" that have corrupted political proceses are those in communist regimes or military dicatatorships in which capitalists flee because of bad policy and unpredictable nutbar sixes in charge of those countries. The irony is that it was capitalism that got western civilization out of the middle ages. Had western civilization followed your line of thought in the middle ages, we would still be under the thumb of the catholic church and a lot poorer. What's wrong with "Union busting", people have as much right to join a union as they have a right to work.

You can put Levesque and every Quebec premier after him in the Williams/Smallwood - Mugabe Chavez comparison. The Quebec premiers acted like third world dictators and were out to be popular among their people with trying to soak NFLD with access and with out of control social spending. As a result Quebec is poorer and has slammed the door shut on a potential revenue stream to pay off a potential 45 billion dollar deficit in 2030. As you put it, when people compromise everyone benefits. Quebec didn't want to compromise and is now forced to watch hydro line get buried under the water and put up in Nova Scotia.

Outstanding!!! You forgot individuals/companies taking risks on other individuals/companies by offering to finance their growth. No guts no glory.

You forgot the small business rate of PQ is the highest in Canada at 8%. There are many small businesses that are utilized in the resource industry, which this puts Quebec at a major disadvantage. Then there is the tax rates of the other gas producing jurisdictions of Alberta and BC at 10 and 10.5% respectively. Canada 2010 Corporate Income Tax Rates From http://www.taxrates.cc/html/canada-tax-rates.html Then there is the added cost of Royalties and Language laws/Enviro regulations. It all adds up to an expensive place to do business.

It is both access and the gravel itself. In my case, I only have surface rights and since my neighbours also have gravel and surface rights, I have to offer the best price to the people who want to extract the gravel. I can only offer access. If I had mineral rights, the gravel would be mine and I would get a bit more as the market would allow me, and I don't price myself out of access to gravel. What Quebecer's don't get is that they aren't the only access game in town anymore. Nova Scotia has offered a better access deal for NFLD than Quebec did. And since there is no fees for laying cable underwater, that helps put Quebec and their pricing scheme at a disadvantage. If Quebec formed a ring all the way around Churchill falls and there was no alternative way of getting the power to customers I would agree with you. However, there is an alternative way under the water and through Nova Scotia, and that way was perceived as a better deal for NFLD to get there resource to customers, its a classic example of the market at work. Ed Stelmach learned this lesson about charging too much for access when there is someone next door willing to do it for cheaper, and now Charest will learn this lesson about charging too much for access when there is someone next door willing to do it for cheaper

I'd say centre left, at the expense of the Liberal Party. I was confused because as of Today, the total tax bill for small business in Manitoba is around 11-12% as long as your under $500K after expenses. If McFadyen wants to touch that, he's a fool and I'd spoil my ballot.

That doesn't matter, I still have neighbours in the NWT and elsewhere I have to compete with who could potentially allow more favorable access to the resource. Ed Stelmach tried that little game with his resource hikes and Brad Wall comes out laughing, why? Brad Wall offered more favorable terms of access to the resource than Stelmach did. As a result Stelmach had to slash royalty rates in order to bring drilling companies back to Alberta. Same goes if it was 20,000 metres under the ground. If the neighbour can negotiate a more favorable surface rights compensation with a mining company, I'm out thousands of dollars. That resource can be 50,000 metres under the ground or at the centre of the Earth, but if the neighbour right beside me can negotiate more favorable terms with the company he wins and I lose. That's not my problem, I'm in the same boat as Quebec. I provide the land, Quebec provides a possible route. If someone else can provide the land or another province can provide the route at a better price, then myself and Quebec lose. No, I think, I get it quite well, I've undercut neighbours with more favorable terms of access to gravel. I will take the first offer a company gives me because I know a neighbour down the road will try and get one for himself. I would rather take some money than take no money. Quebec got greedy and thought they were the only game in town, they lost.