Income gap widens between Canada's rich and poor, OECD study says

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's auto industry was established to reflect Canada's share of the auto sales market and had absolutely nothing to do with benevolence from Uncle Sam. Lower production costs, ie. medical coverage, allowed the industry to expand here.

In other words...no...the loss of American auto worker jobs was perfectly acceptable post Auto Pact, which removed tarriffs and protectionism, grew the automotive sector to exceed timber/pulp/paper, and erase a trade deficit with the USA.

BTW, are you considering a moniker trade-in? I understand McCain/Palin will be pretty cheap in about a week.

No, I am still enjoying the afterglow of 2004, when international rubes like you were left to pick up their jaws.

[Argus]

I really have no use for this conversation anymore. It's not progressing anybody's understanding of anything. It's simply a tennis match of insults, which I thought would be considered infantile by some one of your high intellectual ability

<shrug> It doesn't appear to be too infantile for you.

You are arrogant and closed-minded. Your view of poverty is very narrow, as others have noted,

And yet you're incapable of providing any kind of sound, logical basis for your disagreement.

and you label me as weak minded because I disagree.

Not because you disagree, but because your arguments, like your disagreement, seem based on emotionalism and indignation, not on reality or facts.

I am not stupid because I don't arrive at the same conclusions that you do. Nor is anybody who disagrees with me.

I don't believe I've ever said you were stupid. As I said earlier, people can be mistaken for a lot of reasons. Stupidity isn't necessarily the cause of your being wrong.

Your attacks on my abilities are unfounded and ridiculous.

My attacks were a response to yours, and in any event, were only a sidebar. Apparently you've decided to make them the focus of your post because you don't have anything logical to use to rebut my own statements on poverty - except your indignation.

[August1991]

When did age become part of the discussion? A few of you, now, have claimed that rich and poor people are not static groups. Well, young and old are, and you're trying to link wealth to age.

I think I introduced age into the discussion of rich and poor. And of course it matters.

By and large, people become richer with age - up to about 60 or so. (Think of your own life, kitch, or that of people around you.) At present in North America, there is a a whack of people in their mid-to-late 50s, early 60s. These are prime earning years and their various savings, houses, pensions - sucha s they are - will be at their peak.

As such, I would expect to see stats showing a great or an increasing difference between "rich and "poor". There are more late-50s people in Canada now than of any other age demographic. The boomers dominate, and they're at their peak wealth. (Is it any wonder that house and equity matrkets are taking a hit?)

Edited October 26, 2008 by August1991

[marksman]

Really, and who gets to make this determination? The government? You perhaps? I will suggest this line of reasoning deserves to be deep sixed immediately, unless of course you wish to bring back Uncle Adolf from the dead and perhaps recreate a Fourth version of that era.

sarcasm

A form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another meaning.

[marksman]

That is the beauty of speaking in absolutes as Churchill did in this instance. Its about simplicity of communication. In one sentence we are able to see both the positive and negative of both isms. This sentence brings the debate to a simple choice. Which would you prefer the security of knowing that you will be just the same as everybody else and brought down to the same common denominator, or take the risk? A risk that could provide you with great reward in your life, what ever you deem that to be.

This statement does indeed to justice to the debate, it frames it.

You ignore the weaknesses of speaking in absolutes. It didn't show the positive and negative of both isms. It showed the positive of 1 and the negative of the other. A statement may simplify or frame a debate but that doesn't mean it's a helpful way of looking at an issue. Ignoring the complexities of isms like capitalism and socialism doesn't do justice to the debate at all. The quote just supports 1 side of that debate.

When talking about socialism there is no varying degree as per Karl Marx, its nothing more than a transition between capitalism, and communisim.

That's nonsense. Some people call public healthcare socialism but Canada isn't the USSR. Some people call the financial bailout in the US socialism but I don't think the US is going communist in the near future. Not even everyone who says they believe in socialism can agree on exactly what socialism is so saying there's no variation is just hiding from reality.

[marksman]

It is not binary. The longer an individual has been part of a family the stronger the bonds are and the greater impact of breaking those bonds, thus there shoudl be greater justification for doing so. There is no maximium age or duration. No one seems to have an issue of breeaking up a family if the child is in an abusive situation regardless of how old the child is. The same should be true for parents without capacity to bring up kids. However I woudl say that the longer the kids have been in the family, the more the justitication which is required to remove them from that situation.

But your statement implied a binary situation. You didn't see forcing someone to give up their newborn for adoption as breaking up a family. So at what point does forcing adoption on someone count as breaking up a family? Unless you're saying that forced adoption is never breaking up a family.

You're right where there's harm to a child I don't have a problem with removing that child from harm. And I think we do this in Canada not only for abusive situations but for other reasons too like extreme living conditions. But it's preferable to stop the harm and have children remain with their families not just take them away.

Quite right. You are responsible for your own choices. I certainly can discuss each of your examples if you wish, but it would probably divert this thread.

Even the example about not giving medical treatment to car accident victims?

Thanks!! I didn't know that you had been appointed by the forum to judge, or even what makes you qualified to judge but thanks anyway.

It's a selfappointed position. Others're free to give out their own awards and many do. We've even had a bad teacher prize in this topic.

What makes me qualified to judge is the same thing that makes you qualified to judge other people's life situations. Now we can all feel morally superior together.

[marksman]

Hmm, we regulate to make sure that only qualified individuals drive or can assume a mortgage, or own a firearm, all without resorting to extreme measures, yet you seem to suggest that we shouldn't do so for a vastly more important role of parenting.

But who gets to judge? And how does it get enforced? What happens when circumstances change for better or worse? Can people get their children back? Owning an item like a gun isn't the same as having children.

It is quite simple, people should either expect complete freedom to make choices as parents and both they and their kids should live with the consequences of those freecdoms or people should expect limited choices on making individual choices if they are expecting a state support for their choices. Personally I prefer the former "hands-off" approach, however if society insists on providing support systems to parents, then society should have a say in who is a parent.

You continue to assume that the only explanation for needing help is poor choices by a person. That's just not true. Where we are in life is largely because of our choices but not completely. You're not where you are in life only because of your choices any more than someone who needs support is only in that position because of their choices.

I want people to have freedom to make choices. So if someone can't get skills training they need because they've got to spend all their time working a low paid job just to have food for themselves and their children then I don't have a problem with government helping them access that training.

So your sarcasm aside, do you think there are any prerequesites which should be enforced (aside from the obvious biological ones) to be a parent?

Thanks for at least recognizing it was sarcasm. I'm not sure everyone got that.

But my answer is no I don't think any government should be setting prerequisites on people for having children and I don't think they should be enforcing any.

I do think as a society we can recognize that people need help for all sorts of reasons and I see no reason why we shouldn't be compassionate enough to offer that help.

[August1991]

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a study Tuesday showing clearly that the gap between rich and poor is widening in Europe and North America.

Newsweek/Washington Post

Expect to see more reports along the same lines. Unless the baby boomers lose. Then, you can expect to see reports about impoverished retirees. For example:

If McCain wins (very unlikely), you will see reports of impoverished pensioners.

If Obama wins (likely), you will see reports of struggling pensioners.

If Obama wins and has no money (most likely), you will see increasingly angry reports of suffering pensioners.

----

In North America, the question of rich and poor is largely about age. Young people are poor; old, honest, hard working people are rich.

The incentive is clear.

Edited October 26, 2008 by August1991

[Kitch]

<shrug> It doesn't appear to be too infantile for you.

And yet you're incapable of providing any kind of sound, logical basis for your disagreement.

You're not wrong that I reacted emotionally. Because while I 'tremble with indignation' at what I perceive as injustice leading to poverty, you seem indignant of the poor. So, my emotional response was amplified. And you're right, I did start the attacks. I apologize.

Poverty can, though, happen by chance and it can happen as a result of the decisions that other people make. It's not always the poor's fault for being poor and I don't think we should immediately treat them all like free loaders. If you saw somebody carrying too many groceries in one bag (bad decision) and the bag broke, would you not stop and help that person pick up their groceries? Obviously this is very simplistic but I think it shows that bad decisions don't always NEED to be punished, or allowed to be punished by consequence.

I know that you didn't deny the possibility of reasons other than poor decisions.

[Kitch]

I think I introduced age into the discussion of rich and poor. And of course it matters.

By and large, people become richer with age - up to about 60 or so. (Think of your own life, kitch, or that of people around you.) At present in North America, there is a a whack of people in their mid-to-late 50s, early 60s. These are prime earning years and their various savings, houses, pensions - sucha s they are - will be at their peak.

As such, I would expect to see stats showing a great or an increasing difference between "rich and "poor". There are more late-50s people in Canada now than of any other age demographic. The boomers dominate, and they're at their peak wealth. (Is it any wonder that house and equity matrkets are taking a hit?)

Ya, I already realized that it was ridiculous for me to say age isn't a factor. But I still don't know that it's as important as you say.

I thought about my own life, and well, I can't say that I was every poor. I mean, as a 13 year old, living entirely off my parents, of course I had no money. But that didn't make me poor... I was under the care of my parents. And now, as a new teacher, I'm not making near what I will make in 10 years, so I am less 'wealthy' now than I will be, but I'm by no means poor now.

The point is that poverty can be considered a relative concept but at some point it doesn't matter how wealthy other people are. If you can't provide yourself with food and/or shelter, you're poor. That's not relative to the median income. And it might be more likely that young people are in this situation, but noting the correlation implies that these people naturally cease to be poor as they age, which is not necessarily true.

[normanchateau]

It would not bother me to see these programs cancelled since I see them as pure pandering.

Pandering has been the hallmark of this government since their election in 2006. This is why government spending is now up an astonishing 29% and 48 billion dollars since Harper was elected.

[whowhere]

So if we were to nationalize certain industries... say health care, but leave others open to market forces, that's a transition toward communism?

It amazes me how people twist and abuse the communist structure. Communism is undemocratic system. What you have is an elite group of people who create laws, police the people, and direct the economy for their own gain. In contrast to a democracy who elects the people who in turn creates the laws and directs the economy in the interest of the Country and people as a whole. If it is in Canada's and the people interest to nationalize any industry it is not communism so long as Canada is being run by democratically elected politicians who are acting in the interest of the people in general.

[Riverwind]

It amazes me how people twist and abuse the communist structure. Communism is undemocratic system. What you have is an elite group of people who create laws, police the people, and direct the economy for their own gain.

I suggest you do a little more reading on economics.

Communism is an economic system that is based on the presumption that the government is better able to direct the economy for the 'common good'. Private effort for private gain is considered immoral and each person is considered to be an equal contributor to society whether they are a doctor or a garbageman.

Communism, like capitalism, has nothing to do with democracy and there is nothing preventing a communist state from being democratic. In fact, many extreme examples of socialist democracies are only capitalist in name only (e.g. Venezuela).

That said, most capitalist systems accept that some things are best run by the government (e.g. police and military), however, there are some types of businesses (i.e. Banks) that are so fundemental to the definition of captitalism that letting them being run by the government legimately compared to communism.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[Renegade]

But your statement implied a binary situation. You didn't see forcing someone to give up their newborn for adoption as breaking up a family. So at what point does forcing adoption on someone count as breaking up a family? Unless you're saying that forced adoption is never breaking up a family.

No I didn't mean to imply a binary situation. We can sit and argue about what constitutes a family if you wish. For example, is a fetus part of a family? If not at what point does it become part of a family? If you want to call a newly-born baby part of the family then I have not issue with breaking up that "family" if it is not in the best interest of the child to be part of that family.

You're right where there's harm to a child I don't have a problem with removing that child from harm. And I think we do this in Canada not only for abusive situations but for other reasons too like extreme living conditions. But it's preferable to stop the harm and have children remain with their families not just take them away.

I don't have an issue with removing a child from harm or potential harm. It is completely consistent that when incapable parents have kids, they could inflict harm on their kids. To best protect the kids, some poeple shouldn't be parents and analogus to removeing kids from physical abuse, kids should be removed from other forms or potential forms of harm.

Even the example about not giving medical treatment to car accident victims?

Car accident victims should get treatment however the cost of that treatment shoudl be borne by those responsible for the accident, either directly or indirectly through the cost of increased insurance rates.

It's a selfappointed position. Others're free to give out their own awards and many do. We've even had a bad teacher prize in this topic.

What makes me qualified to judge is the same thing that makes you qualified to judge other people's life situations. Now we can all feel morally superior together.

No I don't judge other people's life situation, I care little about how they run their life. I only judge situations when I'm asked to contirbute to their life situation. Since I ask no such contribution from you, your qualification is meaningless to me.

[Renegade]

But who gets to judge? And how does it get enforced? What happens when circumstances change for better or worse? Can people get their children back? Owning an item like a gun isn't the same as having children.

Who gets to judge the standard for driver's licences, and how does it get enforced? Look and you'll see a model. Standards should be set, and should be adujsted based upon their impact on the results. Today there are no standards, with sometimes tragic consequences. In my opinion a decision is make once for life, similar to when a woman gives a child up for adoption. Even if her circumstances improve later and wishes to change her mind, it is an irreversable decision. Assuming a system of parental qualification is in place, if a parent has a child without being qualifed they risk not being allowed to keep that child. BTW, I don't believe the qualification should simply be finanical. It should be mental and emotional as well. Your right possessing a gun is not the same as having children. The responsibly and potential for harm is much greater with children thus if anything more care should be taken.

You continue to assume that the only explanation for needing help is poor choices by a person. That's just not true. Where we are in life is largely because of our choices but not completely. You're not where you are in life only because of your choices any more than someone who needs support is only in that position because of their choices.

No, where have I ever made that assumption? I'm saying it doesnt' matter whether their situation is a result of poor choices, mistakes, or dumb luck. Their situation should be evaluated without blame, but the situation is what is is and should be evaluated on whether it is the right environment to develop kids.

I want people to have freedom to make choices. So if someone can't get skills training they need because they've got to spend all their time working a low paid job just to have food for themselves and their children then I don't have a problem with government helping them access that training.

The freedom you so readly assign them is freedom you steal from the rest of the taxpayers. You steal the freedom of taxpayers to choose where to spend the money they have earned. If you made taxpayer contribution to such a program voluntary, I too would have no problem with it.

Thanks for at least recognizing it was sarcasm. I'm not sure everyone got that.

But my answer is no I don't think any government should be setting prerequisites on people for having children and I don't think they should be enforcing any.

I do think as a society we can recognize that people need help for all sorts of reasons and I see no reason why we shouldn't be compassionate enough to offer that help.

It is interesting that you belive that nomatter how unqualifed, or unprepared a person is, they should be no intervention in them having kids and continuing a cycle which leads to a host of problems. If you look at many of the problems in society, you will see that they are a result of kids being brought up in an inadequate environment without suitable parenting. You solutoin is to try and address after the fact. My contention is that preventing the situation to begin with would far more effective. How effective? We won't really know until we try.

[JB Globe]

If the past 10-15 years of strong economic growth didn't translate into middle/lower income folks see their income increase relative to inflation, while at the same time the richest folks in society saw their income skyrocket, I think it's safe to say that the notion of trickle-down economics is pretty much dead in the water.

Turns out that no - rich folks don't invest their money won on the stock market into small mom-and-pop businesses that transfers wealth from the upper echelons of society to the bottom. They put that money into, among other things, off-shore accounts to avoid having to pay taxes to the country that enabled them to make that money in the first place.

The past 15 years combined with the current crises provides enough evidence that yes, we do need a social contract, and yes - some amount of socialist (yes, I said it) wealth-redistribution is necessary in order to avoid wealth concentration. It's not perfect, but it works for the most part when done right and in moderation. It's a hell of a lot better than the "let the magic free market handle it" approach - which just doesn't work at all.

[Renegade]

If the past 10-15 years of strong economic growth didn't translate into middle/lower income folks see their income increase relative to inflation, while at the same time the richest folks in society saw their income skyrocket, I think it's safe to say that the notion of trickle-down economics is pretty much dead in the water.

Is that supprising to you? The rich tend to invest and stand the most to gain in a rising economy. They also stand to lose the most in a declining economy or financial crisis. Why should anyone object to them enjoying the fruits of their risk-taking?

Turns out that no - rich folks don't invest their money won on the stock market into small mom-and-pop businesses that transfers wealth from the upper echelons of society to the bottom. They put that money into, among other things, off-shore accounts to avoid having to pay taxes to the country that enabled them to make that money in the first place.

Rich folks, quite rationally, invest their money into where they can get the best return for the least risk. If that turns out to be a mom-and-pop business then they will do so if not they will put their money elsewhere or out of the country. Why should you or anyone object, because afterall it is their money to do with as they please. BTW, putting money into offshore accounts doesn't avoid paying taxes so long as the holder is still a Canadian resident.

The past 15 years combined with the current crises provides enough evidence that yes, we do need a social contract, and yes - some amount of socialist (yes, I said it) wealth-redistribution is necessary in order to avoid wealth concentration. It's not perfect, but it works for the most part when done right and in moderation. It's a hell of a lot better than the "let the magic free market handle it" approach - which just doesn't work at all.

A social-contract is nothing more than an execuse to steal from those who earn, and give to those who don't. A true contract is one in which both sides agree to terms rather than have them imposed on them.

[whowhere]

I suggest you do a little more reading on economics.

Communism is an economic system that is based on the presumption that the government is better able to direct the economy for the 'common good'. Private effort for private gain is considered immoral and each person is considered to be an equal contributor to society whether they are a doctor or a garbageman.

I suggest take your head out of those books and look at the living working examples. We have china where 70 million people are members of the red party. These are are the communist elite who use the police and army to direct the 1.2 billion people to their will. These people have little say as to what happens to them. There was russia who also who had an elite group of people that made who use of the KGB, the army, and various police to direct the Soviet Union to their will. These people had no say as what rules or policies were put in place. We have cuba where there is an elite group of people who dictates to the rest of the cuban people as to what to think and do. I don't care what books you are reading. Communism has nothing to do with economics but everything to do with political structure and power.

As for your social class heirarchy, democratic capitalistic markets have no place for elitism in the drive for profits. In any business if one person does not do their job or is of questionable character profits are often wiped out because of this. The social heirarchy being drummed out by the media actually stems from the Aristocracy of Europe. What you had were people who held titles of the king or Queens court of medevil Europe. Of Course that System was washed away with the Establishment of the United States and the acts of Napoleon on Europe which has led to the now European Union.

Modern Democracies such as the United States and Europe have no place for Aristocratic thinkers. The fact is the flow of Capital is king and for the government to function requires tax revenues. Any dumbass aristocrat thinker who gets in the way of the flow of Capital is a cancer to capitalistic markets and has to be irradiated out of existance.

If you honestly think a doctor is better than a garbageman I suggest you read the Book of Job in the old Testament. It has a few words to say about the proud.

Communism, like capitalism, has nothing to do with democracy and there is nothing preventing a communist state from being democratic. In fact, many extreme examples of socialist democracies are only capitalist in name only (e.g. Venezuela).

Communism is political Structure as is democracy a political structure

That said, most capitalist systems accept that some things are best run by the government (e.g. police and military), however, there are some types of businesses (i.e. Banks) that are so fundemental to the definition of captitalism that letting them being run by the government legimately compared to communism.

In a democracy the police and military are use to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereingnty of nation against foreign invaders. In a communist system the police and army are used direct the people according to the will of the elite. Do you understand??

Democracy => Freedom

Communism => Imprisonment

Do not confuse capital with political structures.

[White Doors]

If the past 10-15 years of strong economic growth didn't translate into middle/lower income folks see their income increase relative to inflation, while at the same time the richest folks in society saw their income skyrocket, I think it's safe to say that the notion of trickle-down economics is pretty much dead in the water.

Turns out that no - rich folks don't invest their money won on the stock market into small mom-and-pop businesses that transfers wealth from the upper echelons of society to the bottom. They put that money into, among other things, off-shore accounts to avoid having to pay taxes to the country that enabled them to make that money in the first place.

The past 15 years combined with the current crises provides enough evidence that yes, we do need a social contract, and yes - some amount of socialist (yes, I said it) wealth-redistribution is necessary in order to avoid wealth concentration. It's not perfect, but it works for the most part when done right and in moderation. It's a hell of a lot better than the "let the magic free market handle it" approach - which just doesn't work at all.

But you are implying a fallacy that the 'poor' people 15 years ago are the same 'poor' people today and the same for the 'rich'. I think this is a logical fallacy. Some people get along fine being 'poor' and don't care to move up. What we should be measuring is how difficult it is for people to 'better' their financials should they have a desire to do so. Government should facilitate this not penalize people with higher taxes once they put that hard work in to become financially independant.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were not born with Silver Spoons and I suspsect that is more often the norm than 'silver spoons' which the left love to rail about which really just equates to good old fashioned envy.

Our economic system should not be based on envy.

Edited October 27, 2008 by White Doors

[Kitch]

It amazes me how people twist and abuse the communist structure. Communism is undemocratic system. What you have is an elite group of people who create laws, police the people, and direct the economy for their own gain. In contrast to a democracy who elects the people who in turn creates the laws and directs the economy in the interest of the Country and people as a whole. If it is in Canada's and the people interest to nationalize any industry it is not communism so long as Canada is being run by democratically elected politicians who are acting in the interest of the people in general.

Well, the concept of communism has nothing to do with government. The idea of a group of people, undemocratically 'chosen', is a perceived necessity to coordinate a communist country... at least by those who attempted to force a communist lifestyle on a large population.

This word, communism, is one of the most ambiguous words out there. EVERYONE has their own definition of what it means. It makes it really difficult to discuss certain topics.

I agree with what you say though. The problem is that in a capitalist society, there can be undemocratic control of certain industries/companies as well. So really, it is possible to lose 'freedoms' under each system, regardless of which is 'better' or which is preferred. My point is that a decision to nationalize an industry, as you said, is a decision that is made by the people because it is in their best interest, for whatever reason.

[JB Globe]

The rich tend to invest and stand the most to gain in a rising economy.

While those who aren't rich gain absolutely nothing, and then still lose when the hard times hit. That kind of system only sounds good for a select group of people.

They also stand to lose the most in a declining economy or financial crisis.

A father who earns $25 million dollars a year who looses $5 million during an economic crisis is still stinking rich. A father who earns $25K a year and looses $5K of that may be out of a home.

But you're right, the rich person looses the most amount of total money, so who cares about the fact that, in practical terms, the poor person is loosing more.

. . . You know, there's a reason why Laissez-faire capitalism is criticized as being out of touch the reality of most ordinary people - because it doesn't concern itself with the reality of most ordinary people.

Rich folks, quite rationally, invest their money into where they can get the best return for the least risk.

Which of course, often means that their investments run counter to the interests of the nation that they are a part of.

A social-contract is nothing more than an excuse to steal from those who earn, and give to those who don't.

In an unbalanced economic system where individuals don't have equal access to the means of generating capital, wealth redistribution isn't stealing - it's a means of leveling the playing field and in turn, ensuring economic and social stability.

Perhaps you could explain to me just how exactly, if the Free Market is Jesus and government regulation Satan - why the free market wasn't able to make the lives of 90% of people better? Why didn't they see their incomes grow during such a long economic boom? Surely the test of any economic system is to ask: is your life any better now than it was 10 years ago?

[JB Globe]

What we should be measuring is how difficult it is for people to 'better' their financials should they have a desire to do so.

And considering that the middle class in Canada & the US has been shrinking for a decade or longer, and those folks slipping into lower classes of income, I'd say that the ability of people to work themselves up the ladder is being hindered by an economic system which favours those who already are in the top income bracket.

[Brunopolis]

I'm working on a book right now about people who live in the rain forest in Panama. People in Canada have no idea what poverty is.

I completely agree. I immigrated from Uruguay at a young age and have spent a large portion of my life here in Canada and I can tell people here don't know how poverty affects everybody.

When someone is poor/uneducated and not helped in any way the situation usually does not get better the following generation. Also these poor and uneducated people do not simply "disappear". They will remain in society and lower the standard of living for all of us.

One thing that has always surprised me about Uruguay is that it offers free education(university, college, etc) to all. Not only that but non-Uruguayans who come here also get free education.

Also Uruguay is the first nation to apply the OLPC program in the world.

If a country so lacking in resources can manage these programs I don't understand why Canada cannot either.

[White Doors]

And considering that the middle class in Canada & the US has been shrinking for a decade or longer, and those folks slipping into lower classes of income, I'd say that the ability of people to work themselves up the ladder is being hindered by an economic system which favours those who already are in the top income bracket.

Do you have a link (preferably mainstream) that documents this and also says it is the fault of capitalism?

Thanks!

[Renegade]

While those who aren't rich gain absolutely nothing, and then still lose when the hard times hit. That kind of system only sounds good for a select group of people.

Yes it is good for a select group. That group is the one which is smart enough to take advantage of the growth for economic gain. That applies to both rich and poor. If you look at the economic boom in Alberta, do you not think that poorer people are also benefiting because there is a huge demand for their skills?

A father who earns $25 million dollars a year who looses $5 million during an economic crisis is still stinking rich. A father who earns $25K a year and looses $5K of that may be out of a home.

But you're right, the rich person looses the most amount of total money, so who cares about the fact that, in practical terms, the poor person is loosing more..

Why exactly in your scenario is the father who earns $25K a year losing $5K since clearly he is not invested in the stock market?

Which of course, often means that their investments run counter to the interests of the nation that they are a part of.

They don't owe their investments to a country, not the country they reside in nor any other. If the country they are part of feels that that investments are best made within that country they need to make it as attractive as possible by providing favourable taxation schemes and paying suitable returns.

In an unbalanced economic system where individuals don't have equal access to the means of generating capital, wealth redistribution isn't stealing - it's a means of leveling the playing field and in turn, ensuring economic and social stability.

It is stealing!! Simply legalizing it or going by euphismisms like "leveling the playing field" doesn't change that fact. The fact is that some people succeed because they are smarter, harder working, or luckier than others. Why should they not be entitled to fully enjoy the fruits of their luck, work, or smarts without theft.

Perhaps you could explain to me just how exactly, if the Free Market is Jesus and government regulation Satan - why the free market wasn't able to make the lives of 90% of people better? Why didn't they see their incomes grow during such a long economic boom? Surely the test of any economic system is to ask: is your life any better now than it was 10 years ago?

I didn't say the free-market was better for eveyone. It is better for the skilled, the smart, the hard-working, and anyone who can excell above others. It isn't so good for the unskilled, uneducated, lazy or stupid as they would likely not economically thrive, so it is they who are propoenents of wealth redistribution. It is far easier for them to support such a parasitic system than have to justify why they actually deserve a smaller piece of the economic pie.

The test of an economic system is most certainly not "is your life any better now than it was 10 years ago?", because regardless of the answer there are any number or reasons for the outcome 10 years later which may have nothing to do with the economic system.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Renegade