carepov

Fine let's debate. How about we compile a list of attributes that quantify the "stadard of living of the poor"? Then we can try to compare these metrics for different countries over time. We can also compare different states. In what states do the poor enjoy the highest standard of living? Why? There was another key point in the paper: "First, more unequal societies tend to redistribute more." Again you have it backwards, the more equal the society, the less the government needs to spend on entitlements.

Yes, this would be condemned, Montreal has always been a part of Quebec. Here's a better analogy: Let's say in the 1950's for some reason, Labrador was made part of Quebec. In 1995 Quebec separated, what happens to Labrador?

Yes probably, but in Canada and most other OECD countries the lot of the poor has improved much faster and has surpased the standard of living of the poor in the US. I am not sure that this is the main reason, but there are certainly also other reasons for the improvement. Again, you are falsely equating reduction of inequality to an increase in debt, according to the IMF the opposite is true. Reduced inequality = increased economic growth = reduced long term debt Yes it is both.

No, we are not talking about increased spending, we are talking about re-distribution. For example, increase taxes for the rich and lower taxes for the poor. In the long term, the best way to fight the debt is faster and more durable growth, therefore narrowing inequality helps slay the debt.

Thanks, I am familiar with Doug Short's excellent graphs. True, for the most part, life has been steadily improving and we need to keep this in mind. Nevertheless, improvements in the quality of life in some countries/regions has clearly outperformed others. Why? One answer is in the IMF report: "On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political, or broader social considerations." http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf In other words: "Tax the rich (moderately more than we are now)" As an aside, it is wonderful to see all the "progressive" organizations trumpeting an IMF report. Is the IMF now a progressive institution? Or is it (still) an imorral-neoliberal-loan-shark? http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf/oppose

Interesting graph. My take is that, since 1967, the rich have doubled their income, upper-middle class inomes have had minuscule growth while the incomes of the working class and poor have been stagnant. All incomes have declined since 2000 - why is that? How does a household in the US survive on on $11,490 per year - $1000 per month, or less?

I was talking about Canada. You may be right about the US, I will look into it. If (big if) the top graph is real $ (adjusted for inflation) then the last 30 years have been good for the middle class. By the way I agree with Buffett, increase taxes on the rich. I agree that the rich have unfairly avoided taxation. I am also convinced however that the Canadian middle class and poor are better off today than ever in history.

That would be nice. I would not expect a big change, given that the middle class survived the Great Recession and other economic downturns. Sure, that's too bad for them. There are people that move from middle class to lower class but there an equal ammount of people that move from the lower class to the middle class. On average, the real incomes of the middle class are steadily increasing.

You of all people should know that in these matters there is no such thing as "certainty" or "zero risk". By this logic all violent criminals and drunk drivers should be locked up forever, right? My understanding is that doctors and others on the parole board determine if the NCR person's odds of re-offending are less that that of the general population. If yes, then they are released.

The data is adjusted for inflation, that is what 2011 constant dollars means.

What/where/when is this disappearing middle class? To me it is clear that incomes for the middle class (middle 60 percentile) has been steadily growing in Canada. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=22

IMO, if anything was "bureaucratic" it was the original DCSD finding (which was completely annulled). In any case, I am more interested in discussing actual arguments and supporting data rather than the people making the arguments.

What could be more effective and more sustainable than people eating the same thing that they currently eat (rice) at no extra cost that includes beta carotene? Greenpeace's position reminds me of some religious organizations that say, "We are against condoms and other birth control. We promote a more effective and sustainable solution to STDs and unwanted pregnancy: abstinence"

I like this forum and think that Charles and Greg are doing a great job. The lines defining "trolling", "flaming" and "thread drift" are fuzzy and they seem to have the right approach by just ignoring most of these violations. This was a good intervention by Charles: Personal attacks must stop. If you don't have anything nice to say about someone - don't say anything at all. -I like how BC2004 consistently avoids personal attacks despite often being the target. -I admire waldo's passion in all his posts. -I respect Dog on Porch's historical knowledge. -I learned a lot about our military thanks to Derek and SignalsCpl. -Has anyone seen segnosaur and Wayward Son? I miss them. Perhaps it would be nice to have a few more members but in most threads, a discussion with 4-6 people seems to be optimal. I would like a feature where we can store/save some of our personal favourite posts, and perhaps there could also be a public list where we can vote on the best ever posts: -I loved when dre said "nationalism is a mild form of mental retardation" -My favourite posts by far are Rue's, I practically fell out of my chair after reading the one about counties diddling other countries and his rap songs

IMO, the bolded text is an admission of guilt by GP. In adddion to Golden Rice, I support other effective and sustainable solutions for tackling vitamin A deficiency. Just like the HKI and IRRI.

Bjørn Lomborg is a good source. Yes, he was censured by the DCSD but: "On 13 February 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On 17 December 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

Simplistic? Gates takes every one of Moyo's arguments and refutes it, such as "..far from being a catalyst, foreign aid has been the biggest single inhibitor of Africa's growth" Gates: "Critics are right to say there is no definitive proof that aid drives economic growth. But you could say the same thing about almost any other factor in the economy. It is very hard to know exactly which investments will spark economic growth, especially in the near term. However, we do know that aid drives improvements in health, agriculture, and infrastructure that correlate strongly with growth in the long run. Health aid saves lives and allows children to develop mentally and physically, which will pay off within a generation. Studies show that these children become healthier adults who work more productively. If you’re arguing against that kind of aid, you’ve got to argue that saving lives doesn’t matter to economic growth, or that saving lives simply doesn’t matter." Do you agree that saving lives is a long-term net benefit? Really? Not the case with Morocco, Ghana, Rwanda, Botswana? And if aid worked for Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, China, and India, then why can't it work for the rest of Africa? Also from Gates: "Even in sub-Saharan Africa, the share of the economy that comes from aid is a third lower now than it was 20 years ago, while the total amount of aid to the region has doubled. There are a few countries like Ethiopia that depend on aid, and while we all—especially Ethiopians themselves—want to get to a point where that is no longer true, I don’t know of any compelling argument that says Ethiopia would be better off with a lot less aid today."

I agree. And for these reasons I think that we ordinary people need to educate ourselves so that progress/justice and political expediancy are more likely to point in the same direction.

Here is an excellent, current and topical read on this subject: Myth: Aid creates dependancy "Another argument from critics is that aid holds back normal economic development, keeping countries dependent on generosity from outsiders.... The money America spent in the 1960s to develop more productive crops made Asian and Latin American countries less dependent on us, not more. The money we spend today on a Green Revolution for Africa is helping countries grow more food, making them less dependent as well.... Here is a quick list of former major recipients that have grown so much that they receive hardly any aid today: Botswana, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, and Malaysia. South Korea received enormous amounts of aid after the Korean War, and is now a net donor. China is also a net aid donor and funds a lot of science to help developing countries. India receives 0.09 percent of its GDP in aid, down from 1 percent in 1991...." "Looking ahead If you read the news every day, it’s easy to get the impression that the world is getting worse. There is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on bad news, of course—as long as you get it in context. Melinda and I are disgusted by the fact that more than six million children died last year. But we are motivated by the fact that this number is the lowest ever recorded. We want to make sure it keeps going down." http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?_ga=1.220473816.1769363082.1390491417#section=home

First of all, here in Canada, the incentive of any governement policy is political expediancy. While there are notable exceptions, I call BS on most claims that a certain goverment policy in Canada is "social engineering". Do you realy think that people really factor in government policy when they decide to have children or how many children they want? How many families today in Canada would like to have one partner stay at home but are a few thousand dollers per year short, and therefore, without income splitting both need to work? My guess is it is a very small number. And, of these families, how many spend more than a few thousand dollars per year on luxuries that if they chose to forego they could really live of one income if they chose to? Perhaps a better term is "household". Income splitting would have no impact on the staus quo for separated families. I may be wrong, but my underdtanding is that alimony paid reduces your taxable income and alimony received is taxable income. Child support is non-taxable.

"And Greenpeace has openly admitted, in its own reports, that it has pushed these worries: “In the Philippines, we supported and highlighted the community rejection of golden rice in the Mindanao area. We will continue our campaign to halt release of GE rice to the environment, and to support public resistance to GE foods.”"... "Using an ever-changing but incorrect array of allegations against Golden Rice, opponents have managed to delay the deployment of this product for more than a decade. During this time, about 8 million kids have died from vitamin A deficiency. Trashing the field trials and potentially postponing Golden Rice could add to the death tally. It is now appropriate to ask: Are the anti-GM activists not at least partially responsible for these millions of dead children?" http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/29/bjorn-lomborg-trashing-rice-killing-children/ "For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health." We believe that Greenpeace's actions during the past 14 years to prevent Golden Rice from being produced and reaching the millions of people who now suffer needlessly from vitamin A deficiency constitute a crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute. There is no doubt that Greenpeace and its allies are largely if not entirely responsible for the opposition to Golden Rice that has effectively blocked its cultivation and delivery to the millions of people who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. There is no doubt, given the results of clinical trials with animals, adult humans and children that Golden Rice is effective in delivering beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, into human body at levels that will eliminate vitamin A deficiency. There is no doubt that the continued lack of access to Golden Rice is resulting in "great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental and physical health" and that Greenpeace's actions are "intentional", that their campaign is "a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/crimes-against-humanity

Income splitting is not about social engineering, it is about fairness. In your example the unmarried person earning $70k has way more disposable income and therefore it is only fair that they pay more taxes than a couple that earns $35k per person, n'est pas? It is only fair that people are taxed based on their disposable income; isn't that the main point of a progressive tax system? A marriage (including commom law) is akin to a business partnership or a corporation. One partner is "earning the income" (delivering product and services) and the other may not be bringing in money (managing the books, human resources, cleaning the shop/office...). Both partners are working equally hard and profits are equally split. Couples should file a single tax return just like a corporation.

A combination of a reduced surplus and spending cuts should make up for the revenue loss. If more revenue is needed then the GST should be raised, perhaps taxes should be raised on the rich. While we are at it, let's put in a carbon tax and offset revenue with a reduction in the payroll tax.

Not if tax brackets were doubled.

Then your position is contrary to that of Greenpeace - right? I am in favour of the othe solutions propsed by GP. They are not mutually exclusive to the development of Golden Rice and are therefore not "alternative" but rather complementary solutions. GP would have more credibility if if was actually implementing some of their solutions and not just impeding the development of Golden Rice.