carepov

War is never a sure bet. It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war before starting another.

For everyone. The War inAfghanistan would have been over in half the time.

Oh really. The size of the Swiss bank accounts of these so-called selfless leaders seems to contradict your theory.

What corporations would flee and why?

Imagine if all of the UK and US troops that were deployed in Iraq were instead depoyed in Afghanistan in 2002/2003. Based on the success of the Surge in 2009 we could of had way beeter results at far less cost.

Leaders usually do what's best for themselves, the interests of "their people" often overlap but are a secondary priority.

If some ressources used in the Iraq War had been deployed in Afghanistan instead... If the West/NATO cooperated more instead of arguing and mistrusting each other...

Our work in Afghanistan was ruined by the War in Iraq.

There is certainly a balancing act needed. However, I agree with Buffett, taxes for the rich in the USA are too low. I also think that taxes on the rich in Canada should be increased a bit. Perhaps there should "progressive taxtation" on Capital Gains, 50% exemption for the first $X then at a certain level capital gains are taxed as normal income? Stock options received by an employer should also be taxed as normal income.

Not much to disagree with there. The trouble is that "some people were voting from a position of ignorance" is not what KIS way saying. Also, no matter what the referendum question and no matter which side and on both sides of every election in all of history "some people were voting from a position of ignorance". Some people are very informed and voted yes because they value having a new country more than the sacrifices mentionned. Some people voted yes because it is in their own self-interest. Some people voted yes because they are so pissed off with the status quo. Some people voted yes because they felt there was no chance of separation and a large yes vote would allow Quebec to negotiate more independance/favors from Ottawa. etc....

Sure it would be problematic, I agree. I am mainly taking issue with labelling the majority of separatists as ignorant. What is ignorant are people that believe that if Quebec separates there will be a civil war or some kind of similarly dire consequences.

How do you know that the majority of separatists are not aware of the costs of separation?

Thanks for clarifying, but still when you say "Separation is based in large part on ignorance" I do not think this is true or helpful. Separation is more besed on different values where other interests outweigh economic interests. For example when children move out from their parent's house or when couples separate there is almost always a lowering of standards of living... What happened when Czechoslovakia separated? Not much. What would happen if Scotland separated? Not much.

I am not in favour of separation but I respect the views of separatists and am strongly against your calling them "ignorant blockheads". You state "Quebec is still largely rural", yet it is 81 % Urban http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo62f-eng.htm why would you say that? If it were to separate, there is no reason to believe that life in Quebec would be significantly different than what it is today. For example why would the credit rating of the "nation of Quebec" be any different than the current credit rating of the Province of Quebec? Economic standards of living would likely decline in Quebec but not by much.

"Britain, for example, opted to build its four new naval supply ships much more cheaply, at the Daewoo shipyard in South Korea. The contract is for roughly $1.1 billion Cdn. That's for all four. By contrast, Canada plans to build just two ships, in Vancouver, for $1.3 billion each. So Canada's ships will be roughly five times more costly than the British ones. But there's a twist. Canada's supply ships will also carry less fuel and other supplies, because they'll be smaller — about 20,000 tonnes. The U.K. ships are nearly twice as big — 37,000 tonnes. Canadians will lay out a lot more cash for a lot less ship." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-memo-shows-more-delays-cost-overruns-1.2563948 Does anyone know why our (smaller) ships cost five times as much as Britain's? Does anyone care that we are wasting so much money?

While not perfect, Stats Canada provides many ways to conduct good apples-apples comparisons. The CPI does include energy, food and shelter: http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/2301_D45_T9_V2-eng.htm Therefore real incomes are a good way to compare standards of living over time. Here is a good indication on Canadian spending in 2009, for the poor, middle-class and rich: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-202-x/2008000/t070-eng.htm Notice that education eats up a very small percentage of the average Canadian spending. Home ownership is up: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011002/c-g/c-g01-eng.cfm Total debt is at record highs, however: -with today's interest rates I am sure that debt servicing is far from its peaks -What matters more is the ratio of debt/income or debt/assets. Net worth is clearly way up for the middle class: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140225/t140225b003-eng.htm; debt to assets is up but it does not seem alarming: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140225/t140225b004-eng.htm Another indicator of the quality of life for the middle class are life satisfaction surveys, everything I've read on these sheds a very positive light and improving level of satisfaction for Canadians. And finally we can compare the data for middle-class Canadians, including life-satisfaction surveys, with other countries and see how we are consistently in the top 5 countries in the world. For all of these reasons I think that we should stop whining about how hard life is for the middle-class in Canada and demand that our leaders attack real problems. Two issues that come to my mind are aboriginal poverty and mental health.

Yes, but less car, less food, and less clothing, problably less natural gas, less appliances (and less efficient too)..

Good theory and I'm sure it's true for some families but not most. The fact that families are spending a lower percentage of their income on necessities disproves your idea that purchasing power is dropping. Look at all the discretionary spending it is certainly not all rich people eating at the new sushi restaurant at every corner, getting their nails done, grooming their pets, filling their way larger houses with massive ammounts of useless stuff, club memberships, concert/sporting events, tavel, maid service, lawn service, etc... My theory is that most people think that they are worse off because they are not spending wisely.

And yet more Canadians than ever own homes and have post-secondary education degrees. Add to the fact that real incomes, disposable incomes and net worth are at all time highs tells me that the average middle-class Canadians have never had it so good. If you disagree, when do you think life was any better?

Oh but growth does care about inequality, your author says: "...economists have long recognized the conflict between economic equality and maximizing economic growth. Put most simply, penalizing investors, successful entrepreneurs, and job creators with higher taxes, to reward the less productive with government handouts, to make everyone more equal, is a sure fire way to get less productivity, fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced economic growth." while my guys say: "lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth" Compare your article with the IMF report and it is clear that your guy is full of...

"on average" means that the rule will apply to most cases, and in the long run will apply to practically all cases. On average, roulette players will loose money. In the long run, all roulette players will loose money.

There is a 30 page IMF report that concludes "yes" but you you say "no" for no clear reason. These points are true but beside the point.

There are exceptional time periods but even in the US, on average, the greater the gini the slower the GDP per capita growth. Proof: The slope of the first graph is the oposite as the slope of the second graph: This supprts the IMF report that states: "lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth" All else being equal, a more equal economy will grow faster than a less equal economy.

Diet and lifestyle go hand-in-hand: "Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.” The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear." http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

One reason is that it would be impossible to objectively define and then prove the difference between regularly and occasionally. Another reason is that having your parent accused of child abuse is probably more harmful than regularly eating meals that are garbage.