Moonbox

I think to get VERY BASIC understanding of the concepts a first year university economics course would point you in the right direction. It doesn't take a genius to understand that higher inflation means higher interest rates and vice versa, or that higher interest rates can appreciate the value of the dollar, but the problem really is that all the factors are inter-linked and affect each other in different ways and in different directions. What I mean here is that it's really complicated to understand how the various factors affect one another and by how much they will do so. Nobody can ever get it right all the time, but some people do a hell of a lot better than others. Some of the candidates (Jack Layton particularly) shows such a fundamentally lacking understanding of economic theory that he's basically ensured he'll never be PM. This is what scares me. When economic policies like Trudeau's fail so miserably it shows just how dangerous it is to have a PM governing without a good understanding of how the markets work.

I think the electorate gets more respect than it deserves. The electorate is incredibly easy to fool and it has always been that way. The average voter is NOTHING like the average poster on this forum. The very fact that you're posting here means you have 100x more interest in our political system than the average Canadian does. The average Canadian votes blindly based on what: a ) They see on their chosen TV channel b ) They read in their chosen newspaper That's really as far as it goes. Given that newspapers and TV stations are heavily partisan most of the time you're never going to get a clear and objective opinion. You really have to spend hours and hours researching the issues like we do here and arguing with people from opposite persectives to have an inkling of what's going on. It's a FACT that most Canadians don't do that. Conservatives, Liberals, NDP'ers...it doesn't matter who you're talking about. The average voter doesn't have a clue. The strategy here is he wanted to come across as the candidate with the most 'leadership' qualities. He wanted to show a calm and measured image who would act prudently and responsibly. The other parties' economic plans are, in my educated opinion (I work as an advisor for investments and went to university for it etc), knee-jerk plans that most assuredly WILL hurt the economy. Jack Layton's plan is to raise corporate taxes. That has never helped ANY economy ANYWHERE. Dion's plan has been picked apart by economists and they are ALL saying it will raise prices and cost Canadians more in taxes. Harper's steady hand plan IS a good plan for the economy for the time being. The problem, however, is that the average voter/investor is infinetly stupid and when they saw the stock market go down 800 points in one day, that all of the sudden meant Harper was wrong about everything, it was all his fault and somehow higher taxes and prices would somehow reverse this. It makes no sense but that's not important to the average voter. This one I'll have to agree with. Harper has shown himself as a giant hypocrite and as PM everyone focuses on him more. The opposition is just as bad or worse, but as PM the focus is going to be on him.

There are bad economists and good economists. One of the biggest problems with economic analysts is that they provide analysis which is often very politically tilted. Whatever your position or point of view you can usually find 'economists' who will agree with you for various reasons. Another problem with economists is that external events are often unpredictable and they can never account for that. Having said that, at least an economist understands the driving forces of supply, demand, inflation, interest rates, currency exchange rates etc and can look at them objectively. The 70's and 80''s showed a disgusting ignorance of basic economic theory (under Trudeau and Mulroney) and we are paying for that now.

That's the Harper I like. This economic 'crisis' was coming for almost a year. It was PAINFULLY obvious and anyone who didn't do anything about their investments has themselves to blame just as much as anyone else. With that said, all of these people crying about their retirement savings going away need to realize that they're only losing money when they panic and sell their equity immediately after it loses 20% of its value. The investments will largely recover. Personally, I sold everything I had back in November when CIBC started posting its billion dollar losses. I have all my money in cash equivalents and I've secured credit for doing exactly what Harper said. Buy low, sell high. It's too bad the average person is too stupid to realize that: A) Equity Markets are cyclical Nothing Harper has done thus far did ANYTHING to encourage a financial slowdown in Canada C) The Canadian government's capacity to halt an economic slowdown in Canada is virtually nil at the best of times. The government can smoothe things out a little and that's IT. At this point any initiatives by ANY elected government in Canada would do NOTHING to prevent a spillover if it's actually coming unless that government is looking to start running huge deficits.

GST vs Income Tax Cuts There's one. Whether people know enough to understand him will be interesting.

I think this is a pretty good post. I think corporate tax cuts are good in that they DO encourage business. Any government, whether NDP, Liberal or whoever that is looking to increase them is nuts. On the other hand, WIP is right in that the income disparity in Canada is getting absurd and the middle and poorer classes need to be protected from exploitive corporations. The only way to do this is put up trade barriers and prevent companies from manufacturing everything in China and Mexico where these countries enjoy completely unfair advantages. I'm all for Free Trade as long as it's fair. Trade with most of the rest of the world, however, is not in the least bit fair. Having our steel and everything else manufactured in China ultimately does a lot more good to shareholders than it does to the rest of Canada.

I actually read that as well and I'm pretty sure the CTF didn't say Harper's spending leaped past 2001 and 2006 levels. It said that he went over budget twice and that government spending increased at almost EXACTLY the same rate as under the Martin Liberals. Also, the CTF certainly didn't endorse the other parties. In fact, its criticism of the Liberal Party was scathing: "Mr. Dion will instead levy a $15-billion carbon tax on traditional energy sources. The revenue will be used to lower personal and business income taxes by $9.5-billion. Low-income families will receive payments totaling $4.5-billion and the remaining $1-billion spent on research and development. In other words, for every $2 in income tax relief there will be $3 in additional taxes and another $1 in spending. This plan will grow the size of government, drain more resources from the economy, and make middle-class families poorer." Jdobbin, some of your points are indisputable. I can't argue that Harper isn't spending over budget. I can't argue that he's probably spending more than I would like him to. What I've been arguing all along is that the other parties, specifically the Liberals, are going to be spending WAY MORE than the Tories and that we'll all have LESS money in our wallets after they're done. The CTF, which you just referenced, confirms this.

If you actually look at ALL of the numbers, as in the ones that actually MATTER, like inflation rates, debt relative to GDP and interest rates paid for debt accumulated already, spending under Trudeau did WAY more to hurt Canada than under Mulroney. Mulroney was a bad PM but Trudeau was 5 times worse. You bring this argument up all the time whowhere but the fact of the matter is Conservative immigration policy is more selective than Liberal policy ever was and they are improving it immensely. You seem to have a problem with the fact the conservatives are ensuring that skilled and productive immigrants come to the country instead of how the Liberals let ANYONE in on a first come first serve basis. Not to sound insensitive but the fact that your department was dead weight on the corporation and needed trimming isn't really the fault of Conservative Policy. The conservatives really made no changes to immigration policy as far as I know of prior to the last 3-4 months. Even if you lost your job in that period, the policies hadn't even been implemented yet really. You're complaining that the Conservatives are making it so that skilled immigrants get into the country first ahead of unskilled non-english speaking immigrants. Naturally they will be competing for skilled work but to argue against these policies is to suggest that Canada is better off with unskilled immigrants suitable only for minimum wage work so they can mooch off our social system. Your argument isn't really making sense. You can't find a job because immigrants have a low standard of living and that's why you're still on temporary employment making $20,000? The immigrants, with their lowly standard of living, are doing your $50,000 job and doing it for less than $20,000? I would love to know what your lowly immigrant manager's department was and what your job was. I think there is a lot of 'poor me' and blame game being played here. Generally speaking, native Canadians have a VASTLY better time finding jobs than immigrants. To say that ALL of the jobs you could apply for are being filled by foreigners on work permits is juvenile. It's strange that it's never occurred to you that there MIGHT be other reasons other than mythical conservative policy why certain specific people lost and then can't find jobs.

The GST vs Income tax debate was really based on a GST cut of 1% vs an Income Tax cut of 1%. On this basis, the income tax cut was better for almost everyone except for the very wealthy or the ridiculously poor. A 2% GST decrease, however, is a great deal better than a 1% income tax cut by the very simplest of math. I'm young, I'm working for slightly less than $20/hour, and given my spending habits the GST cuts save me almost $400/year. My income would have to be over 40,000/year for me to save 400/year with Dion's previously promised 1% income tax cut, but then if I was making 40,000 per year I'd be spending enough to offset the difference either way. The other benefit is the GST cut encourages consumption which, regardless of what Green economists say, drives our economy.

The problem is that a very large number of Liberal supporters are considerably more opposed to the idealogies of parties like the NDP than they are to the conservatives. Liberal support over the last 20 years has been very much centre and centre right. There has been very little left of centre to speak of since Trudeau's disastrous terms. If the Liberals were to join with the NDP and the Greens you'd likely see an exodus of centre-right voters from the Liberal party.

She was loud, obnoxious and had to be quieted by the moderator on numerous occasions because she couldn't follow simple debate rules. The benefit that she had was also that nobody ever paid attention to anything she said. Harper defended against some of her attacks but largely she was ignored. It's easy to appear successful in a debate if nobody is really debating with you.

Every leader dodges questions. They dodge questions in a debate for a reason. Your opponents in a debate are usually asking loaded questions where to answer honestly would look bad in the eyes of the average uninformed viewer. Here's what happen: 1) Person A goes on briefly about how Policy A will solve Problem A. He then asks Person B why he hasn't yet supported Policy A. 2) Person B has a limited amount of time to answer the question and thus tries to explain what his Policy B would do to solve the same problem. 3) Person A says, "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" 4) Person B doesn't believe the context of the question was fair and tries to explain. 5) Person A then yells again, "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" 6) Finally, Person B gives up and says, "No Mr Duceppe, we haven't. We looked into reimbursable tax credits and they will simply not work given the budget." The questions the leaders ask are unfair in nature. They all do it and they're all trying to trap each other. The only question in particular that I thought anyone looked to really be burnt for was the one where the moderator challenged one of Layton's "Harper hates people/doesn't care" statements. He asked Layton to back it up and the only thing Layton could do after blustering and looking stupid for a few seconds was, "Well just LOOK at him!"

Elizabeth May didn't behave like a serious leader in that debate. She was rude, obnoxious, loud and all I heard from her was, "The OECD said.....!" She kept repeating it over, and over and over. The problem, however, is that the OECD is a European-based (France I think) group whose authority and expertise is far far FAR from absolute. Economists in Canada have NOT thrown their support behind her and you'd be hard pressed to find even one doing so regardless of what recommendations foreign economists in the OECD make. Nobody was arguing her or really even acknowledging that she was there. Her response to this was just to get louder and even more obnoxious. I didn't know a lot about her before the debates and I have almost been cheering for her because she'll split the left even further, but I tuned her out halfway through because she was so unbelievably irritating. I doubt very strongly that the personality she showed there (ie rude, crude and loud) will have helped at all.

My thoughts exactly. Again, I will likely be voting for Harper, but I think you're REALLY stretching this whole 'real job' thing.

Jack Layton was a city councillor in Toronto in 1985 and on for awhile. From 1988 - march 1990 he lived in a $800/month three bedroom subsidized apartment. By 1990 he and his wife had a combined income was $120,000. It took 2.5 years almost for him to start paying even REASONABLE rent given his income. He's a snake, a cheat and a completely unscrupulous liar. It was a Toronto Star article YEARS ago but it was a disgusting abuse of the system. I'll give you a wikipedia link and you can look it up from there because I'm going to bed right now and don't feel like searching. Layton and Subsidized Housing - Hahahaha

I was impressed with Dion in the French debate. In the English debate I think he did terrible and I truly feel bad for the guy because he's not as bad as he seems. I think Duceppe did a decent job but he is extremely rude and was a little too aggressive. I think May spoke decently but I don't think Canadians will have been impressed as she was just too obnoxious for anyone to relate to. I was dissapointed in Harper. I think he did a relatively decent job but he was far too restrained. There were numerous times where he could have delivered some heavy blows on Dion and Layton particularly but his new sweater vest image stayed his hand. I was completely disgusted with Layton. Just like last time, he was all hot air and rhetoric. The highlight of the debate for me was when the moderator asked him to explain one of his "Big bad Harper" claims and he just stuttered and bumbled. His response, after trying to avoid the question and after looking embarrassed at being called out, was something along the lines of, "Just LOOK at him!" Haha Jack. You are such a joke. I respect the intelligence at least of the rest of the leaders. You're a used car salesman.

Yeah Argus I can't really back you up on that one. University professor can sometimes be a wishy-washy job but it IS a job nonetheless and some of them work pretty hard. I support Harper too but I don't think this is a very strong point. You could maybe say that Dion is an out of touch academic and Layton is a proven social assistance cheat (which he really truly is) but they all worked for a living.

I find that so weird too. The more the election drags on the more I like Dion. I dislike his party, but I found out of everyone in the debate last night he was the most composed and most passionate when he was talking. He seemed, unfortunately, to speak the least during the debate and seemed to have been less a part of the arguments, but when he DID speak I liked him a lot. That's probably because I understood his french better than his english and he wasn't reaching for words but that's an altogether different issue.

The constant problem with Liberal promises for social services, however, is that they never explain how they are going to afford them and for 13 years in power they never delivered them despite promising them. Dion can promise all he wants but his Liberals can be squarely blamed for the drop in social services since the 1990's. NDP promises are so out of this world I won't even discuss them.

I understand all this. What I was saying was that nobody ever said Harper was going to win the socialist vote either way so that doesn't really matter. We were talking about the economy though, and you've again dodged my challenge/question to you. The only thing I got out of that was that you would have rather had income tax cuts than GST cuts. Fair enough but where was the explanation I was asking you for all of Harper's apparently disastrous economic policies?

I really didn't like the way they did this one, or at least how it was moderated. There was FAR too much interrupting and people talking over one another. Duceppe, May and Layton wouldn't shut up when everyone else was talking. It was pretty much a big 4v1 against Harper. I think he did alright and so did Dion. The debate really didn't do anything for me other than make me like May and Layton even less. I liked Dion though. I felt that of everyone in the opposition he was the only other one who acted like a human being and wasn't just blowing hot air and yelling.

You can disagree with all of these things. Harper is not a pandering socialist nor is he socially liberal. We know that. His stance on same sex marriage is irrelevant as it will never affect Canadians. His daycare policy helped families. It may not have been enough for you, but he's never been about massively expensive social programs. You can disagree on him not wasting Canadian time and money intervening on the death penalty for a confessed multi-murderer, but I have more important things to care about. As for the GST vs Income Tax cuts, do you know how that affects you differently, or is that again just you towing the party line?

Seriously?! He called you dobby! You'll survive that verbal atom bomb I promise! And this is your response to my challenge for you to EXPLAIN what you think are Harper's bad economic policies!!? Providing internet links does not magically mean that you're right! All your links were just references to Harper spending announcements. Every government has spending announcements! Every opposition party has proposed even HEAVIER spending increases than the Harper government! Get your head out of the sand!! You said Harper went overbudget. I acknowledged that. With that said, it was a budget HE set in the first place and HE STILL has a balanced budget with LOWER taxes. PLEASE. I beg of you! Explain what his bad economic policies are. Specifically, Jdobbin, what economic policies has Harper implemented that have set Canada so astray and how is the Liberal opposition's proposed spending increases of $80 billion going to help bring the supposed 'overspending' Conservative budget in line!?? Answer the question! If you can't do that, then at least acknowledge that you don't have anything even resembling a clue what you're talking about. So far you've shown us that you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

It's actually kind of funny. I suggest watching it.

No I don't ignore them. I read them, and then I explain to you that increased spending can help soften an economic downturn. I also explain that the Conservatives are a minority government and that they need to be spending to maintain support and ensure the polls don't dive on them. You've now blatently refused to EXPLAIN any of your balogna statements and I'm sure we'll continue to see you wailing on and on about how Conservative spending has been out of hand DESPITE a balanced budget with lower taxes during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. You'll no doubt try to say they're on the way to a deficit, but like I've said it's sound economic policy to run a slight deficit in the first place to encourage spending in a sinking economy. Finally, and we'll leave you with this tidbit: WHY ARE THE LIBERALS CRITICIZING HARPER'S SPENDING POLICIES WHEN THEY ARE PROMISING OVER 80 BILLION IN INCREASED SPENDING!????? Again Jdobbin, I invite you to EXPLAIN your statements and rationalize how you came to them. I fully expect you to dodge as usual but a guy can hope.