Who really isn't "paying their fair share"?

[Shwa]

Are you suggesting direct government management of profit distribution?

Then what's with the concept of a minimum wage? Like, duh.

Employees are paidwhat the market will bare bear.

Minimum wage again.

If you have skills that are commonly available in the general public you shouldn't expect to paid more than a common wage.

A "common wage" is it? Oh my. Who sets that again? And do they do it directly?

IF your skills are more rare, require additional training, experience and are harder to find you can expect a wage that reflects that. CEO's are not stupid people, or even average joes that were in the right place at the right time. It takes a certain type of drive, and personality and a great deal of brains to run a successful and profitable business, as a result they can demand a very high compensation package.

Has it always been this way? Nope. So why is it now? I dunno. Could it be..."direct government management of profit distribution..." such as subsidies and bailouts?

Who determines what is fair? You are suggesting that all employees do an equal share of the work or are of equal importance in the corporation, this is not the case, the guy with higher skill/education/experience should not get an equal share to the new guy, or the fellow that works the mail room.

The government decides what is "fair" or did you miss the minumum wage point above? On top of that then, unions are also fair. Including public sector ones. I am glad we agree on this.

There are special tax exemptions that are available to individuals only and not corporations also, what's your point?

What's your point in admitting you missed my point? That you don't have one? Thought so...

No argument there, monopolies are terrible for the consumer, and Microsoft is one of the worst, fortunately things are changing, and Apple is coming into their own, there are also corporations like RIM that have corned markets that Microsoft will never come even remotely close to touching.

No, I am not talking about monopolies I am talking about ripping people right off, having the freedom to use 'public' airwaves to convince people they need to fill their houses full of crap and call it a high standard of living and then using all this public infrastructure to transport their garbage and leave it up the publoc sector to clean up their mess. Including the financial messes they get in because their CEO's are greedy or worse.

I don't quite understand this I suppose, could you elaborate? What specific public servants are you referring too? I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you're referring to.

CPCFTW said, "The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else."

He/She is wrong and indicates He/She doesn't know what they are talking about.

[Topaz]

Since we are talking about civil servants lets talk about MPPs and MPs salary. I heard tonight on CBC, that a MP backbench that doesn't do much gets a 140,000 pay cheque, that seems high to me but then I remember when Harper came in they raised they pay. The show also talked about their pensions which taxpayers put in more money then the members do something like they put 1 and we put 3-4$ towards their pension. The guy wanted a review and bring the pensions of these members to realize pensions. I think this also goes to the upper civil servants working for the Feds.

[Smallc]

You weren't even listening to CBC. They get 157K per year.

[Slim MacSquinty]

This is all really a bit of a diversion, there are many good public service workers who do a decent days work for a decent amount of pay, union or no union. You just aren't going to get a better value privatizing alot of those jobs (even if you could).

I agree that much of the public grevience with regular folks of all stripes is the apparent rise of in the increcredible incomes of the top 1%.

Taxes are in no small way responsible for this but not how you think; corportate taxes are rightly kept low, this encorages investment and retained earnings which allows for various distribution. Where the problem starts is personal taxes, our marginal tax rate maxes out around $128K which means that you pay about 29% on your income above that threshold even if you make $2Mil. What that encourages is, for those individuals who can, to take the cash. This then translates into the silly salaries of the top 1%, if personal taxes got more progressive at the very high levels, say over $250K it would encourage these people to keep their money in their businesses. This has a double benefit, they would be interested in the long term value of the companies, since they would be investors not just payroll, and it would keep that money in productive use in the economy instead of wasteful savings or foolish spending on excessive luxury goods.

[WIP]

I have read constant posts from the left about how the corporations aren't "paying their fair share", but I don't think that could be further from the truth. The only people who aren't "paying their fair share" are public servants.

Yeah right! Seems like the next stupid conservative strategy imported from American Republicans is to attack public service unions! Never mind the corporate fatcats who are shipping jobs to China and Indonesia, focus your rage on federal government workers...because they still have union benefits which are disappearing in the private sector with each new announcement of a factory closure.

Canada's rich getting richer faster Top 3.8% of households control 67% of Canada's wealth, study says

Corporations run a business that generates revenues. Lets do a simple breakdown what they do with these revenues:

1. These revenues are used to employ people to run and grow the business. These people then pay taxes on their personal income.

2. Other than labour costs, revenues are used to cover the cost of the goods or services the corporation produces. This can create jobs domestically for the extraction/production of the inputs to the final product, or foreign jobs through outsourcing. In turn, this gives developing countries a chance to build their own economies and eventually increase demand for Canadian goods and services.

3. Corporations then pay taxes on the earnings they have left over after deducting costs.

4. Corporations also distribute earnings as dividends, or invest in growth opportunities which lead to capital gains. Investors in these corporations are taxed on their dividends or capital gains.

And let me guess -- the benefits of allowing deregulated corporations to pay lower taxes will trickle down to us! This was a plausible argument 30 years ago, but after 30 years of supply side economic theory, all that has happened is the rich have gotten richer, while everyone else has stalled or become poorer as jobs are exported to countries where it can be manufactured by cheap labour who have no workplace safety standards or benefits, so a cheap product can be imported back here to stock on the shelves of the local Walmart! But, like they say, never let the facts get in the way of a good argument!

Corporate tax cuts fail to boost jobs: study

A decade’s worth of corporate tax cuts have padded the bottom lines of Canada’s largest corporations, but those same companies have created jobs at a somewhat slower rate than the economy as a whole, according to the results of a study released Wednesday.

The study, produced by the Ottawa-based think tank Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, concluded that 198 of Canada’s largest publicly traded corporations made 52% more in profit in 2009 than in 2000 while paying 20% less in taxes. Between 2005 and 2009, when employment in Canada grew by 6% despite a global recession, the largest companies created 5% more jobs.

“Despite their growing profits and massive tax savings, the number of jobs created by Canada’s largest corporations was lower than the average employment growth across all sectors of the economy,”

The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants.

Yes, teachers are a burden...police and firefighters are a burden...nurses are a burden...until their jobs are privatized and the services are contracted out to one of these corporations that are bidding to take over public services...like the U.S. governors of Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin are doing right now....then the spending is okay it seems.

Be forewarned Canadians -- all across America right now, Republican mayors and governors are trying to decertify public service unions, because they are the last bastions of organized labour in the U.S. And our Conservatives here are following every bad idea that Republicans concoct over there, so we can expect the same gutting of organized labour here if we sit back and allow Harper devotees to divide and conquer us in a similar manner.

We need to work within the framework of a globalization

Bull....Shit! We "need" to follow globalization? Maybe you're heavily invested in China, or you've read too much insanity from Terence Corcoran, but for everyone else, economic globalization has been a curse that has made large multinational corporations more powerful than national governments, since they can continually pit one nation against another to get the kind of low or non-existent taxes and deregulated business conditions they desire.

and the corporate form of organization to invite more business and private enterprise into our country to support our social wants. Enough with the demonization of corporations. Canada is a nation that is blessed with vast and diverse natural resources, we could be economic superpowers. Corporations are the true key to the utopian society we all dream of.

Discuss.

Already done! We've seen this movie! It's been playing for the past 30 years, as free trade agreements and globalization have outsourced jobs, degraded working conditions, weakened collective bargaining, and harmed environmental protection policies, including attempts to reduce carbon added to the atmosphere.

[Battletoads]

The multinationals who export our jobs and wealth, oh and leave our lands polluted and unusable.

[Dave_ON]

And the word fair keeps being bandied about in this and other threads. Define fair.

A fair salary is what the market will pay. Is it fair that some dingbat who can hit a baseball makes multi-millions per year? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that a movie star makes multi-millions for a few months, if that, of work? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some long-haired freak who can beat on a guitar and shout makes billions? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some guy or guyette is getting $8.00/hr for flipping burgers? Yes, because that's all that market is willing to pay.

I agree with you, but the market affords good compensation for actual usefull skill as well. Your examples are extreme but illustrative. In fairness the the pro athletes, the actors, and rock stars, they do have skills/features/training not widely available in the general population. This increases the value of the services they can provide. Such is the case with those of us who have trained specifically for their career, we have focused our energy on gaining skills and specialities that set us apart from the masses, therefore we have our pick of employment and can demand a higher wage than your run of the mill burger flipper. This is not to say that the burger flipper doesn't work hard, I know first hand it's how I put myself through university doing it, but the skills are widely available. The availability of a commodity or skill determines it's value. The less of it there is or the supply if you will the more people will pay for it, if there is a demand for it. Something that is rare and no one wants is of course worthless.

So I agree, that something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, but the general availability of said item also factors a great deal into it's value. Many do not like to hear this but Supply/Demand does make wages fair. We can't all make 100k a year, if we did, the supply of money would increase and it's value would decrease. It's really quite that simple.

[Shwa]

So I agree, that something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, but the general availability of said item also factors a great deal into it's value. Many do not like to hear this but Supply/Demand does make wages fair. We can't all make 100k a year, if we did, the supply of money would increase and it's value would decrease. It's really quite that simple.

This is all well and good Dave, but the OP is looking at things as if corporations operate in a vacuum operating under the "utopian" ideals of pure capitalism. We know this is simply not true. For example:

"Many do not like to hear this but Supply/Demand does make wages fair."

No, the government makes "wages fair." And you have to ask yourself, why is that? Why does the government have to legislate a base wage rate? What experience informs them to find it necessary to do so?

Heck, I won't even start on subsidies and bail-outs, only to say that these two items are directly related to the public purse.

[Dave_ON]

Then what's with the concept of a minimum wage? Like, duh.

Minimum wage again.

A "common wage" is it? Oh my. Who sets that again? And do they do it directly?

Firstly let's keep this civil, if you can't have an intelligent discussion without resorting to insults and condescension I really do not wish to discuss the matter further with you.

Do you feel that minimum wage makes things fair? Is this the equitable share of profits you are referring to? I ask you again who determines what is fair? Who shall be the arbiter of these matters?

Minimum wage is simply a minimum standard. I question the wisdom of minimum wage as I don't really feel it serves it's intended purpose. As the supply of money goes up so does the cost of goods, that's called inflation. While I can appreciate the well meaning intention behind minimum wage, I'm not convinced of it's effectiveness in achieving it's goal. If nothing else I suppose it does prevent the abuses we saw early on in the industrial revolution, but little else.

Has it always been this way? Nope. So why is it now? I dunno. Could it be..."direct government management of profit distribution..." such as subsidies and bailouts?

Actually it has always been thus. Those of a certain skill level, will always rise to different heights in a society. Those who can understand the rules of the society they live in, and can use them to their advantage will more often than not do well. If it's a might is right society, then the strong excel and the weak do not.

The government decides what is "fair" or did you miss the minumum wage point above? On top of that then, unions are also fair. Including public sector ones. I am glad we agree on this.

What's your point in admitting you missed my point? That you don't have one? Thought so...

Generally if someone asks you a question you don't respond with a smart ass remark. Perhaps your point isn't as self evident as you think. All you've established is that corporations are different than individuals and therefore the government taxes, and exempts, them differently. Do you have a point beyond this, it is a sincere question.

No, I am not talking about monopolies I am talking about ripping people right off, having the freedom to use 'public' airwaves to convince people they need to fill their houses full of crap and call it a high standard of living and then using all this public infrastructure to transport their garbage and leave it up the publoc sector to clean up their mess. Including the financial messes they get in because their CEO's are greedy or worse.

This is a generalization at best, it implies that all CEO's, and all corporations are ipso facto the same, and managed the same. Do large corporations get themselves into trouble financially due to greed, most definitely, but there are many that do not. The same can be said of individuals that saddle themselves with too much debt due to greed, they get government bailouts in the form of bankruptcy. I'm not certain what you are specifically referring to I suppose. What waste is generated and who cleans it up?

Further are you suggesting that the corporations should not be able to use public infrastructure? Are you further suggesting that individuals do not have equal use of that same infrastructure or do not derive the same benefit?

I don't quite understand this I suppose, could you elaborate? What specific public servants are you referring too? I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you're referring to.

Specifically I take issue with public transit workers, and ironically it is the most disenfranchised in our society that are affected by their greed. My perspective, I pay for these services but I don't require the use of them. That's not to say I cannot avail myself of them, and I understand that is my choice. However, there are many that are dependent on them, and it bothers me a great deal that during labor disputes, they use these people as leverage. Public transit is funded almost entirely by tax dollars. The fair does curtail it a bit, but in a sense it is a tax on it's own and still comes from the public purse. They do make money off of advertising but by far and in large they are working off my dime. What truly burned me was the Ottawa transit strike. It happened at a time when those of us in the private sector had no prospect of a raise due to the looming recession. Therefore, those in Ottawa had to pay more of their hard earned pay check to give someone else a raise when they would not receive one themselves. Then the union actually had the audacity to get upset that they weren't receiving public sympathy/support.

CPCFTW said, "The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else."

He/She is wrong and indicates He/She doesn't know what they are talking about.

Public servants are by far and in large funded by the public, hence the name. This is not to say the services are not required, but they are in fact more of a direct drain than a private sector worker. The government doesn't generate revenue of it's own, so it doesn't have the same constraints that a private corporation does. The private sector, can only pay their employees what they can afford, based on their income. They cannot simply raise their prices and increase their revenue on a whim. By contrast the government need only raise taxes to cover the wage expense short fall. This is a gross inequity between the public and private sectors imnho. Having said that, I think that because essentially it is me that is paying the bill, as a tax payer I should have a say in what is fair compensation. Do I think that 100k a year is fair compensation to drive a bus? No, in fact I do not.

[Dave_ON]

This is all well and good Dave, but the OP is looking at things as if corporations operate in a vacuum operating under the "utopian" ideals of pure capitalism. We know this is simply not true. For example:

"Many do not like to hear this but Supply/Demand does make wages fair."

No, the government makes "wages fair." And you have to ask yourself, why is that? Why does the government have to legislate a base wage rate? What experience informs them to find it necessary to do so?

Heck, I won't even start on subsidies and bail-outs, only to say that these two items are directly related to the public purse.

The government does not set what I'm paid, I'm not a minimum wage worker nor am I a public servant. Therefore, the government has zero say in what I'm paid. I'm paid in direct relation to my skill/training. My raise/bonus are totally dependent, on the revenue generated by my department, division and the company as a whole. If we lose money in a year, we do not get a raise/bonus, if we make money or grow we do, it's that simple.

My annual compensation is based on my skill level and the general availability of those skills in society. Joe off the street could not simply walk in and replace me if I were to up and quit today. The same thing of doctors and lawyers, it takes years of training, and several degrees to become sufficiently qualified for these jobs. That's why Doctors, and many medical professionals are so well paid. Their skills are in high "demand" and low "supply" therefore they can demand a higher compensation package. The government has nothing to do with this in the least.

As explained in my previous post the minimum wage has nothing to do with government making wages fair, they are setting a minimum living standard. I don't know about you, but it would be very difficult to live on minimum wage, and it can barely considered subsistence living.

[Shwa]

The government does not set what I'm paid, I'm not a minimum wage worker nor am I a public servant. Therefore, the government has zero say in what I'm paid. I'm paid in direct relation to my skill/training. My raise/bonus are totally dependent, on the revenue generated by my department, division and the company as a whole. If we lose money in a year, we do not get a raise/bonus, if we make money or grow we do, it's that simple.

But your employer cannot pay you less than the minimum age so the government has a direct say - through law - what you are paid.

My annual compensation is based on my skill level and the general availability of those skills in society. Joe off the street could not simply walk in and replace me if I were to up and quit today. The same thing of doctors and lawyers, it takes years of training, and several degrees to become sufficiently qualified for these jobs. That's why Doctors, and many medical professionals are so well paid. Their skills are in high "demand" and low "supply" therefore they can demand a higher compensation package. The government has nothing to do with this in the least.

Your annual compensation is directly dependent on what your employer believes is fair compensation for your skillset, in accordance with their policies and following minimum wages laws. And, no doubt, in-demand skillsets are regulated in one way or another - either directly or indirectly - through the government. Either through professional requirements or oversight on the work being performed. There are labour laws, for example.

As explained in my previous post the minimum wage has nothing to do with government making wages fair, they are setting a minimum living standard. I don't know about you, but it would be very difficult to live on minimum wage, and it can barely considered subsistence living.

A minimum living standard is a measure of what is "fair" or not. In fact, under minimum wage is

illegal.

As for not being able to "live" with minimum wage is more an example of what you value rather than what you are worth.

[icman]

The problem with this discussion is that it is too limited. The benefits and detriments of free-market economics is bigger than whether or not unionized public servants are a drag on economic growth.

The entire discussion contains...

1) Do we (Canada) want to attempt to ensure that no Canadian is left in squallor if there are Canadians with more riches than they can count, and how do we do that?

2) Do we (Canada) believe that Canada is supreme over its parts, and that we allow companies to work within our borders and earn their profits on the condition that they correspondingly improve the standard of living for Canadians? Or is each individual Canadian more important than the whole of Canada? Is an unencumbered market the end in itself, or is it the best way to serve Canada and the needs of its people?

3) Which products/services are best provided by the public sector and which by the private sector, and why? And what do we use to measure this?

4) Does a government have a mandate to protect the weak from the strong? Or is might always right? (This is in the context of organized investment vs organized labour.)

This is a complex, multi-headed hydra of an issue, and is poorly served by simple discussions sniping at unionized public sector workers. Most of the posters here can't agree to such axioms as what is important in Canada, what does it mean to be Canadian, what is the purpose of business in Canada, or what is the purpose of government in a Canadian context. I think those are the discussions that must be had, and agreed to by most, before anyone moves on to claim that labour unions are evil.

[Dave_ON]

But your employer cannot pay you less than the minimum age so the government has a direct say - through law - what you are paid.

I don't disagree the government sets the minimum that can be paid, they have nothing to do whatsoever of what I'm paid over and above the absolute minimum.

Your annual compensation is directly dependent on what your employer believes is fair compensation for your skillset, in accordance with their policies and following minimum wages laws. And, no doubt, in-demand skillsets are regulated in one way or another - either directly or indirectly - through the government. Either through professional requirements or oversight on the work being performed. There are labour laws, for example.

Agreed there are labor laws but again this does not directly, or even indirectly affect my pay. The exception of course being statutory holidays, and overtime requirements. These, however are still based on my base salary which the government does not directly affect. My specific wage is not governed by anything other than there is a certain skillset that is required, and given the general availability of said skillset, in order to fill the vacancy they must offer a certain minimum level which a savvy job seeker will attempt to negotiate up, and a savvy company will attempt to keep as low as possible.

You are correct though, there are various private trade unions, associations, guilds what have you that can cause artificial inflation of the value of a particular skillset.

A minimum living standard is a measure of what is "fair" or not. In fact, under minimum wage is

As for not being able to "live" with minimum wage is more an example of what you value rather than what you are worth.

I guess I operate under the assumption that generally all people value the same things, basic needs, food, clothing, a safe and healthy place to live. These are not easy to come by on minimum wage.

[WIP]

I agree with you, but the market affords good compensation for actual usefull skill as well.

You have an unfounded faith in the market...that the market is always right, and will reward workers based on the merits and value of their work. Not that I accept this yardstick to begin with, but the point that you and a lot of professionals and skilled workers missed 20 years ago when they bought this line of thinking, was that most work can now be outsourced to cheaper and cheaper locations, driving down everyone's wages and standards of living.

When free trade started, they told us:'don't worry, it's just the low skilled, highly intensive manual labour jobs that are going to go to Mexico.' But, over the last 20 years, there are a lot of people who thought they did not need to cooperate with their fellow workers and bargain collectively with employers, have suddenly found themselves working at Tim Hortons, or similar low-paying service jobs, as more manufacturing, and even the smart jobs in IT and computer software design have moved to India. Say goodbye to what's left of the middle class if Harper uses his new majority to carry out his wish list....which, based on past behaviour, he will likely do!

[bush_cheney2004]

...When free trade started, they told us:'don't worry, it's just the low skilled, highly intensive manual labour jobs that are going to go to Mexico.'

...or American jobs to Canada. The labor market includes more than just North America.

[Shwa]

...or American jobs to Canada. The labor market includes more than just North America.

Or Canadian jobs to America, like the call centres to 'bama y'all.

[blueblood]

You have an unfounded faith in the market...that the market is always right, and will reward workers based on the merits and value of their work. Not that I accept this yardstick to begin with, but the point that you and a lot of professionals and skilled workers missed 20 years ago when they bought this line of thinking, was that most work can now be outsourced to cheaper and cheaper locations, driving down everyone's wages and standards of living.

When free trade started, they told us:'don't worry, it's just the low skilled, highly intensive manual labour jobs that are going to go to Mexico.' But, over the last 20 years, there are a lot of people who thought they did not need to cooperate with their fellow workers and bargain collectively with employers, have suddenly found themselves working at Tim Hortons, or similar low-paying service jobs, as more manufacturing, and even the smart jobs in IT and computer software design have moved to India. Say goodbye to what's left of the middle class if Harper uses his new majority to carry out his wish list....which, based on past behaviour, he will likely do!

The market is always right. It is the fairest system out there. The only reason leftists complain about the free market is because it doesn't always work how they want it to. In the free market its free to succeed and free to fail. The free market can be both kind and cruel. Those who do well in the free market know this and work to make sure that the cruel part of it is minimized. Leftists tend to not understand both sides of the market and as a result their countries tend to fail.

Perhaps if more canadians were educated in how the free market works in high school, we would be more equipped to compete with other countries. Maybe boting cars together isn't that valuable to society in the first place.

[charter.rights]

The market is always right. It is the fairest system out there. The only reason leftists complain about the free market is because it doesn't always work how they want it to. In the free market its free to succeed and free to fail. The free market can be both kind and cruel. Those who do well in the free market know this and work to make sure that the cruel part of it is minimized. Leftists tend to not understand both sides of the market and as a result their countries tend to fail.

Perhaps if more canadians were educated in how the free market works in high school, we would be more equipped to compete with other countries. Maybe boting cars together isn't that valuable to society in the first place.

If that were true then there would have been no need for government / taxpayer bailouts of banks and manufacturers in North America at the beginning of the recession. That fact is that the free market is neither self regulating or self sufficient.

[blueblood]

If that were true then there would have been no need for government / taxpayer bailouts of banks and manufacturers in North America at the beginning of the recession. That fact is that the free market is neither self regulating or self sufficient.

That was a political decision. The need was from the voters to do something, do it fast, and as least painful as possible. Had it been up to market forces, the people of the usa would have been "free to fail" and it would have hurt for quite a while. Now they just taken on more debt and kicked the can down the road. Voters can't handle pain, that's why govt gets bigger all the time.

The free market is self regulating. Look at all those crooks who ended up getting caught with their pyramid schemes. When the tide goes out, that's when crooks get found out. It is definetly self regulating, just not the way you like it. All govt is supposed to do is provide a secure environment for the market to operate in, at election time voters decide what kind of environment that is.

[WWWTT]

The market is always right. It is the fairest system out there. The only reason leftists complain about the free market is because it doesn't always work how they want it to. In the free market its free to succeed and free to fail. The free market can be both kind and cruel. Those who do well in the free market know this and work to make sure that the cruel part of it is minimized. Leftists tend to not understand both sides of the market and as a result their countries tend to fail.

Perhaps if more canadians were educated in how the free market works in high school, we would be more equipped to compete with other countries. Maybe boting cars together isn't that valuable to society in the first place.

In other words if more Canadians were brainwashed into thinking that being greedy and learned how to legaly steal money from people right.

Here are a couple of lefty countries that don't fit your mold China and Vietnem.

Oh by the way within 10 yrs the Chinese economy will eclipse the US.After 30 yrs the Chinese will have an economy double or tripling the G7 combined.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

...Oh by the way within 10 yrs the Chinese economy will eclipse the US.After 30 yrs the Chinese will have an economy double or tripling the G7 combined.

What took them so long...with over 4X the US population?

Edited May 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[blueblood]

In other words if more Canadians were brainwashed into thinking that being greedy and learned how to legaly steal money from people right.

Here are a couple of lefty countries that don't fit your mold China and Vietnem.

Oh by the way within 10 yrs the Chinese economy will eclipse the US.After 30 yrs the Chinese will have an economy double or tripling the G7 combined.

WWWTT

Oh by the way china and vietnam have been copying north america in how to grow an economy. They're communist only in name. They aren't lefty anymore, just authoritarian. Its funny when china and vietnam opened their doors to foreign investment, their economies took off.

There's a reason why china and vietnam didn't copy the soviet union and cuba; they don't want to fail!

How do canadian companies legally steal money? This should be interresting...

[blueblood]

What took them so long...with over 4X the US population?

China is at the tech level the uk was in the industrial revolution. The chinese economy will flatline when the chinese people get to a western style standard of living and all those factories move elsewhere.

Gdp and overall prosperity tends to skyrocket when a country moves from rural peasants to urban factory workers.

[WWWTT]

Oh by the way china and vietnam have been copying north america in how to grow an economy. They're communist only in name. They aren't lefty anymore, just authoritarian. Its funny when china and vietnam opened their doors to foreign investment, their economies took off.

There's a reason why china and vietnam didn't copy the soviet union and cuba; they don't want to fail!

How do canadian companies legally steal money? This should be interresting...

Thats not exactly what I see when I am in China(rip off from the west)and that question is much more involved and its almost 12am so we will continue this later.Heres a hint ask google and yahoo how their Chinese business ventures are going haha!

As far as your last question goes why don't you ask conrad black haha!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

China is at the tech level the uk was in the industrial revolution. The chinese economy will flatline when the chinese people get to a western style standard of living and all those factories move elsewhere.

I went to China in the late 90's for manufacturing technology transfer. They were like sponges....very eager...but short on innovation. They copied everything, even the mistakes.