takeanumber

Because income taxes pay for more than just roads...the principle of user pay is based on the user paying just for the services that they're using...that's why they're a user. I think the 407 was just a debacle. The government, for a 1 time 3 billion dollar windfall, saddled the next 4 generations of Canadians with these high tolls. Such a conservative (read: shortsighted) view of the world. It really is quite a farce.

They did the right thing. If you were the hostage, you would have expected, nay, HOPED for a similar result to end the nightmare. You shouldn't disagree unless you've been in that situation...with a gun to your head and helpless like that. Bravo Toronto Police.

I think he knows that Martin has really retreated on the whole healthcare file. This is bad for Martin. Klein just wants to accelerate the process. He'll walk in, say, 25%, and then bully the liberal like he likes to bully liberals. (only that Martin isn't a woman, so he might not feel as comfortable as he does in Alberta he bullies.) He'll say, "How much?" And Martin will say, "Well, we can..." Klein: 25%? Marin: "If you'll let me fini...." Klein: So 25% then? Martin: "It's much more, haha, much more..." Klein: So 25% it is. Martin: "Well, over the long run...." Klein: Well then, when you start putting more money into healthcare like you promised in the next election, then you'll have the right to sit at this table. But if you're not committed, this is just a waste of time. And that's the bet that Klein is making. Martin is posturing against big change. Klein sees it. He wants to win the fall election with a boom. By sticking it to Martin, when Martin seems uncertain and nuanced, he'll do just that.

No. I'm much to smart for any political party.

You know, it's a common conservative tactic to cover up a conservative's poor performance (or evil doing, or corruption) by pointing out how much worse somebody else's performance has been. They have a tendency of ignoring the fact that almost everybody has been doing a bad job. Let's tackle Martin. After telling a backbencher to shut up on missile defence (which, coincidentally, Conservatives told her to shut up too...which is interesting, given their position of 'freeing the back benches'), Martin starts to quash everything the Premier's are saying. Where is Harper on any of these issues? Why, he's meeting with Layton and Duceppe behind close doors, and not commenting on anything that they're talking about! How wonderfully transparent. You know, the minority was supposed to deliver us from the same old shiat that we've had over the past 4 years. It's just the same stuff. But it's worse. Harper is hiding from the media. He's being closed lipped about almost everything. And yes, willy, the media do have a few questions that I'd like to hear Harper's position on. Missile defense for instance...is he going to be in cahoots with the Libs on this one? What about healthcare? What does he have to say about the implication that women are not qualified to be on the supreme court, that since they're two women, they must have no merit. What does he have to say about that? In light of the problems down in the US of the 'swiftboats' and 'moveon.org', does he regret taking the position he did with respect to third party advertising? If so, why not. Does he believe that Canadian politics should be Americanized? In light of the gun incident in Toronto, has his position on gun control changed? There's just so much delicious stuff that I'd like to hear about. But nope. King Harper cannot be bothered.

Exactly August. I think of Saudi Arabia as the comparative advantage being applied to the extreme and blindly. The country only does one thing: oil. It's what they do best, and cheaper than anybody else. They outsource everything. I don't believe that extreme policies are best for any country. Arguably, when Saudi Arabia falters, many will attribute it to feudalism and the retardation that occurs to any society when religion is allowed to dictate all aspects of life. But I think that blindly following comparative advantage is certainly a massive factor.

Language is just one factor in determining culture. And in spite of what some Quebeckers contend, it's not the only factor.

Might be a good idea. But it's all the same people though. It takes awhile to cause a shift of culture in any institution.

The message is clear though: Bush had daddy bail him out of real military service, while the middle class was over in Vietnam, fighting and dying. And that doesn't play well in many states. Kerry, on the other hand, was in fact in Vietnam. What's funny is that sooo many people talk like their an authority on conditions in Vietnam, and their ignorance is demonstrated by statements of the "nobody can possibly get that many medals while in vietnam, so there must be something dirty about it there." Well, I can tell you, Vietnam was hell. When you were on the front lines, you got shot at. You don't HAVE to go for surgery to get a medal. So what, he should have taxed the medical system over there because maybe, somebody would question his medals? Give me a break. And those veterans who lied about the fire for 'truth'...let me tell you something: whatever Moore does...twisting the truth, being unfair, being unbalanced...he's a fat slob. He damages nobody but himself. Those veterans are dishonouring themselves and all the other veterans who fought in that war. Just because Moore does something, and then somebody else goes and does something worse (or the same thing), doesn't make either of them right. And Bush calling for an end of the attacks is a lot like calling the kettle black. Ditto Kerry.

They get what they deserve.

Well, we can quibble over the fate of Spain, but it doesn't change the fact that Spain in the 16th Century mirrors Saudi Arabia, and both had fast, easy money through comparative advantage, and Saudi Arabia will eventually go the way of Spain. I believe that it was fundamentally an economic failure that caused Spainish decline, and I believe that it will be fundamentally an economic failure that leads to the Saudi's, and most likely, the United States. (If they continue to trade greenbacks for solid goods...selling trust in effect.) --------------------------- Government DOES have a role in expropriation. Why do you think it happens all the time in the city? There's incentive to extort the city for the maximum amount possible. The government can buy up 101 of the 102 plots needed for a railway, or a highway, that would benefit hundreds of thousands of people, and then you have the risk of a single person holding it all up. Extorting the government for millions if they wanted. And the market says it fine. But I, and most people, would not. It's not pareto optimal, it's not even cost-effective. And worse, it leads to market failure. Why, because it undermines trust and cooperation, which are essential to a well functioning market. This is why PPP's are popular in neo con provinces. You get governments which reduce expropriation risk (imagine a private firm getting held hostage, in fact, I can think of one, look 'Calgary Stampede Board' with respect to Victoria Park. That's a solid example of what happens.) ------------------------------------------- You need government policies to foster capital intensive industries. I'll quote the following case studies: Prussia, 1860's. France, 1850's. Korea, 1950-present. Japan, 1955-present. Canada, "the National Policy", 1870's (I think) Brazil, 1920-1985, 1990-1995. Sure, you might be able to do it the British way (1740-1850) of slow capital accretion, but most people won't wait a hundred years. You need a large amount of land. You need government cooperation. You need a critical mass to form a specialized cluster. I'm not arguing that government should do everything. I'm arguing that government has a moderate role to play in faciliating a desirable outcome. And no, Market outcomes are not always desirable. I understand that intellectualism breeds extremism, but you have to take a step back from being an idealogue and face the realities of our time.

RoC should be used to define the rest of the country outside of Alberta. The political culture of Alberta truly is that different. I think the social culture is quite unique as well, unlike anything you'd find in Sask., BC, or even the 905.

If you take out social transfer payments, you end up with Brazil. I believe in social mobility. I believe that the resulting deadweight loss is affordable. We tolerate all sorts of deadweight losses, because we as a society are willing to pay for them to get non-economic benefits. I think there are literally hundreds of tangible, non-economic spinoffs from social mobility. (reduction of militancy, corruption, and quality of life, just to name a few.) Those who are not willing to accept any deadweight loss are probably those who have already 'made it' and don't see why anybody else should be given the same opportunity. I call that Toryism, because it's what we had in Canada back before 1837. We're not rolling the clock back on this value. It's a value worth defending.

I'm in favour of selling the stock. I don't see the public utlity in having the federal government owning that stock.

Canada would have no choice but to trade through Alberta. (A lot of Sask wheat goes through the Pacific port. A lot of oil goes through Alberta pipelines into Sask. and into Ontario, etc.) The split would more than likely be amicable. Alberta has close ties with the Western United States. The relationship would be amicable. (There's a Western Trade Corridor, in case you didn't now about it.) I think an Albertan Dominion, or an Albertan Republic, would be quite sucessful during the oil boom years. I don't think that an Albertan Dominion would fare so well during the oil bust years. Alberta could do actually do it. But on balance, I don't think they'd be better off.

At least income tax is graduated properly for the most part in Alberta. The premiums are not. (Senior Citizens eating cat food, earning 10 grand a year from pensions, do not qualify for the subsidy (little though a 60% subsidy, which kicks in a 8 large). So they have to pay 44 bucks a month, which is quite a bit of money for somebody earning 800 dollars a month. ------------------------ Klein's entertaining budget has gone up 7 percent in the past year. It's kind of amazing...the arrogance of this government. But, yet again, Albertans will get the government that they deserve.

Opium trade, China, 19th century. Cocaine trade, United States, 20-21st centuries. Still believe that it's wrong for government to get in the way of trade? Careful of blanket statements. They'll bite you. ----------------------------- Current account deficits are not necessarily a good thing. Spain is a great example of how an economy can retard because of them. I challenge anybody to state that Saudi Arabia has a model economy. The point stands. Everything in moderation. You can modify trade flows and control outsourcing with careful and measured policy, and it IS a desirable thing to do. ------------------------------ "Take out a bank loan". This is another one of those statements that is quite funny. True, banks have billions of dollars worth of capital (our capital in reality), but they're not going to invest a massive chunk of it to develop a key strategic industry. There's another side to it too. The market clearly dictates that it's best to have all steel be made in Korea, or all of our oil produced in Saudi Arabia. But is this desirable? I'd argue that it isn't. I'd argue that every country needs to take steps to develop and foster strategic industries. Aerospace is another key example. Pharma is another wonderful example. --------------------------------------- I strongly believe that some outsourcing is alright. I believe that you can't ever sqeeze off the entire flow, just as you can't sqeeze off the flow of Columbia blow into the nostrils of bored NYC'ers and Eurotrash types. But, you can take measures to take the edge off the negative aspects. Just as we use macroeconomic policy to take the harshness out of the business cycle, policy has a role to play in taking out the harshness of global trade. It's a perfectly moderate position to take.

The Google IPO is worth only 2.5-3.0 billion dollars. It takes a lot more capital than that to set up a plastics industry. It takes land expropriation (for the additional pipeline capacity) and coordination of multiple firms. Thus, government is needed. Clearly not. All of Spain's gold went to other countries to buy what it wanted. They coasted on easy money. They had no domestic manufacturing to protect. So how could it possibly have been Mercantilism? Hardly. All the foreign capital flooding into the US economy is mainly Asian, and it's financing the deficit. What's the deficity money being spent on? Mainly waste. Yeah, I consider most military spending to be wasteful. It doesn't benefit anybody materially. So how can this be a good thing? ------------------ A superior response Hugo.

No, people can't do this entirely on their own. Setting up a plastics industry requires billions upon billions of dollars, and requires a coordination, and risk dispersal (both in literal form and in expropriation) that only government can provide. That's where policy comes in. Should government pick winners and losers? Does it not already do so when it picks which industries are going to be opened up (for instance, box wine) and which will be protected (milk)? Is it right? That depends on the policy mix. You said that countries don't trade, people do. Governments set policy which sets the patterns for trade. I think that's a big deal. We shouldn't be handing out tax breaks for outsourcing. It's not healthy in the long run, in spite of what comparative advantage proponents say (and they've been around for centuries, in case you didn't know.). ------------------- You attacked the Solow Growth Model. I told you when it's typically taught, anticipating your next bevy of attacks against economics in general. The fact that you don't know a stich about economic theory, and yet, you behave like an authority. Then, you attack arguements out of hand because you're not educated enough to understand them. What you've demonstrated here tonight is that in one post, you can't even be consistent, little though provide an intelligent rebuttle. Try reading up. Regards, Takeanumber.

See, you're legitimizing government making decisions for people. Let's start with video game/movie censorship, which you label as 'protecting children'. Alright, why not give parents the right to control what their children watch. Ooops, they already got that right. So, what happened to personal responsiblity? Abortion: What happened to personal choice? Marriage: What happened to personal choice? Sex Toys: What happened to personal choice. (If 51 percent don't want to use sex toys, that's their choice, why should they have any say as to what other people do in their homes?) Thongs: What happened to personal choice? So, what happened to personal choice and personal responsibility? Doesn't society function better if government just 'gets out of the way?" I get it now: you're only fine with personal choice so long as it's a personal choice that YOU agree with.

sigh. Solow Growth Model is taught to second year students of economics. The advanced form is often taught in the third year. Graduate programs often feature a large component on the model. I'm not trying to impress anybody. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it's 'impressive'. And just because you don't agree with the results of the model doesn't mean that it's false. ----------------------------- People do trade. Countries cause shifts in trading patterns and policies. There are several acts that were passed by the British Parliament during the late 1700's and early 1800's which sheltered the native mill industry and allowed it to thrive. It's in part the principle of Import Substitution. It is true that such import tarrifs do lead to stagnation IF THEY ARE LEFT IN PLACE TOO LONG. Example: Latin America, 1921-1988. How can you discount the effects of policy by saying "countries don't trade, people do", while simultaneously attacking tariffs, saying that they cause disaster to economies. This is why you never have any chance of winning an economic debate, you don't think through your arguement before you make it. Moreover, I merely stated that there ARE POLICY ALTERNATIVES to deal with the ill effects. I did NOT imply tariffs. Nor do I support import tariffs at this point and time for Canada. YOU implied import tariffs. If you thought about what I said about Spain and Britain, and Saudi Arabia today, you'd get the similarities, and understand my thesis with respect to comparative advantage. But to expect that a Con would respect and learn from history and economics is obviously too much to expect.

What makes somebody go down the wrong path? Somebody who wasn't taught three important life values: 1. Citizenship and Duty. 2. Respect. (Self, Other people's property, other ppl's lives) 3. Risk evaluation. Now why should another town get stuck with this person while he's rehabilitated? There's no justification, of course. After he's done being punished, he should return to Vernon, where he can face his community. It's his fault that he commited the crime in the first place. The community bears secondary fault. The community should have the decency to help mop up some of the mess they helped create. The original community is where he belongs. User-Pay.

There are these 501 and 527 groups. It's the sort of stuff that the Supreme Court ruled against. You get these groups, which are more or less coordinated by one camp or the other, which do this sort of stuff. Personally, with respect to the swiftboat veterans: Disgusting. They've been found to be lying repeatedly. It's a huge black mark on their honour, and worse, they're smearing all the other veterans with the same brush. But that's just me. Sure, they have the freedom of speech. But they don't have the right to slander. And when you lie publicily about somebody else, it is slander. ---------------------------- Equally disturbing is Moveon.org. They are coordinating with the Democrats, just as the swiftboat guys were bankrolled by those really close to the President. Bush is not Hitler. If anything, those sick Islamists have more in common with Hitler than Bush. (rabid anti-semitism.) ----------------------------- Both sides are guilty. ----------------------------- American politics are sick. Bush says the war has to be fought more sensitively Monday. Kerry says the same thing Tuesday. Cheney attacks Kerry for using the word sensitive on Wednesday. He ignores the fact that Bush said the same thing on Monday. I mean...no wonder so few people vote down there. Canadian politicians are often accused of being hipocrites because they say one thing and do another. But in the United States, they say one thing and say another, and then do something totally opposite, both sides do it. --------------------------- On balance: I'm mad at Bush for royally screwing up the War on Terror. He's not the right man for the job. He's soft on the Saudi's. He's soft on the Iranians. He's really soft on NoKo. He's soft on the Palestinians. Worse, he has authorized torture. You don't fight a war against terror by employing terror. You don't fight to preserve civil rights by whiping your ass on them. Bush gets an F for leadership, that's why he should be punted.

I'm a strong believer that it takes a community to raise a child properly. Other parents, teachers, police officers, and residents. I've lived in a few sick communities, which have raised quite a few sick people. Sure, if Vernon BC raises a little bastard, send the bastard back to Vernon to face the community. Feel free to challenge the community thesis, as it's purely anecdotal. Feel free to challenge the 'user' pay thesis. I know how much Cons HATE user pay.

Anything that any Con has written about Mulroney's economic policies. (Defending the deficit.) No, I think cons are worse when it comes to making personal choices for people. You can't buy sex toys in Alabama or Missouri or some other Christian-Taliban enclave. They're trying to ban the displaying of thongs in Louisianna (sic). The abortion debate. The marriage debate. Calgary City Bylaws with respect to anything. (Talk about autocratic...even the Library violates the noise laws) Movie censorship (decency.) Video game censorship. Television censorship (though, I have strong new anti-liberal impulses with respect to hate laws. Curious how that works.) There are multiple Liberal Party examples...but you expect that sort of thing from them. The point is: you don't expect it from Cons like Klein, Harper, Ramsey et al, and the fact that they turn around and do it with a straight face DOES in face make it worse. They're supposed to be all about individual rights and individial choice. Why is it that they're always trampling on those choices when they get in power, merely because it suits them. Isn't that supposed to be the domain of Liberals?