cybercoma Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Either way...always best to blame somebody else's economy for problems in Canada! I know. Pretty stupid when you consider how isolated America is economically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 I know. Pretty stupid when you consider how isolated America is economically. No sense in looking at the lack of investment and lower productivity in Canada. Vote Union YES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 The best, most effective way to stimulate the economy is to put money into the hands of those that will demand products and services from companies, so they can choose themselves what companies deserve their 'stimulus' funding. Ya but what about moral conservatives who go nuts at the thought of just putting money into people's hands without it being earned? Actually the best way I can think of right off the top of my head is to give credit for acts of charity or my favourite, environmental restoration. Of course that would cause fiscal conservative's heads to explode so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Oh ok then I'll tell all the people that I write cheques to every week " Sorry guys I can't pay any of these bills cause of Greece" Think about it Shady then get back to me! WWWTT I have no idea what you're talking about. But do whatever you want. I'm just explaining to you why a lot of businesses are hoarding cash. They're very uncertain about the future. About that American economy, Shady... You keep blaming socialist governments in Europe for the problems. How then do you explain the problems in that bastion of free markets, the US, especially considering the market issues began there? Even the American economy is hardly a bastion of free markets. It was government intervention in the housing market that messed things up in the first place. Or do you think that banks wanted to lend money to people that they knew couldn't pay them back? Markets are often distorted by government's so-called good intentions. What's most appalling is that these same government officials, that distorted the market in the first place, then turn around and blame the market for the problem. It's orwellian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Actually the best way I can think of right off the top of my head is to give credit for acts of charity or my favourite, environmental restoration. You may as well just burn the money then. Because the Canadian economy won't be sufficiently stimulated by acts of charity or environmental restoration. Stimulus is suppose to be targeted for meximum effect, not for leftwing pet projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 You may as well just burn the money then. Because the Canadian economy won't be sufficiently stimulated by acts of charity or environmental restoration. Stimulus is suppose to be targeted for meximum effect, not for leftwing pet projects. I know, the thought of a Kumbiya economy just makes you want to barf doesn't it? In the meantime, you can have an ecosystem without an economy but not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I know, the thought of a Kumbiya economy just makes you want to barf doesn't it? I don't care if an economy is Kumbiya (whatever that means) or not. I also don't care an economy is green, purple, black, brown or red. I care if the economy is strong and growing. Charity and environmental restoration might be nice, but they aren't good economic stimulus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) I don't care if an economy is Kumbiya (whatever that means) or not. I also don't care an economy is green, purple, black, brown or red. I care if the economy is strong and growing. Charity and environmental restoration might be nice, but they aren't good economic stimulus. Charity builds social capital and environmental restoration builds natural capital and personally I can't think of anything that would stimulate our economy and society more or faster than paying people who do so. You are dreaming if you think any economy can be sustained for long never mind grow without these things. Edited July 5, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 What a freekin load buddy! What about the property taxes I pay?!?! What about the gas I have to put into the car that I paid for?!?!? My clothes,my food,my hydro bill,cable bill,gas bill?!?!?! My tools,the material I bought for the renovations,how about the furniture and all the other things I have had to buy around the house buddy?!?!?! You do not have a clue how our economy works???? But somehow you now know how to fix it now???? Good luck!!! WWWTT I don't know what you do for a living, but presumably you pay for all that stuff by being employed. If you're employed in the private sector then the wages private enterprise pays you pays for those things. If you are employed by the public sector, then the taxes paid by private enterprise and private sector employees pays you for your labour to pay for all that. If you are self-employed then you pay for it all yourself, but you are in the minority. Pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Isn't the US the most pro-business environment in the G8 ? And it's still not pro-business enough ? The other thing I have to say about this thread is that there are a lot of absolutes being argued, like "lowering taxes is good for business" vs "government spending is good for the economy" regardless of facts such as the size of the tax cut, the current tax rate, government spending or other factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Isn't the US the most pro-business environment in the G8 ? And it's still not pro-business enough ? What about having the highest corporate tax rate makes a country the most pro-business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 What about having the highest corporate tax rate makes a country the most pro-business? As a country that has set the global standard in cutting corporate tax rates, that allows for so much corporate contribution to the political process, that is home to so many multinationals, that has much more of a pro-business culture when it comes to labour than other G8 countries, I would say that it's the most pro-business. I concede the point, though, that many nations have now out-cut the US in corporate rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) do you think that banks wanted to lend money to people that they knew couldn't pay them back? That's exactly what I think happened because they worked out a scheme where they could make a killing selling off the debts. No offense, but you sound like you don't really know what happened in 2008. The only government 'intervention' that spurred on this crisis was government deregulation. The reason Canada is in such strong standing is the regulation of our banking industry.My question to you and my criticism of your stance is that you blame Europe's problems on socialism and social safety nets. Yet, the United States, if nothing else, is one of the least socialist nations on the planet. They take pride in it. I have a problem reconciling how you blame socialism on one hand, while acknowledging the terrible economic position that the US finds itself in. Edited July 5, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 You may as well just burn the money then. Because the Canadian economy won't be sufficiently stimulated by acts of charity or environmental restoration. Stimulus is suppose to be targeted for meximum effect, not for leftwing pet projects. Then you must concede that stimulating the economy by giving corporate tax breaks is not having the maximum effect because it does nothing to create demand for those businesses products and services. If you're interested in maximum effect, then you must be highly critical of these stimulus plans that do nothing but bury the money in the coffers of the corporate class, rather than encourage investment and expansion. The only way to do that is to encourage demand. In order to do that, you need to put money in the hands of the people that buy shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 The other thing I have to say about this thread is that there are a lot of absolutes being argued, like "lowering taxes is good for business" vs "government spending is good for the economy" regardless of facts such as the size of the tax cut, the current tax rate, government spending or other factors. Obviously it's a complicated issue. It's not as simple as I've been arguing, but I'm not arguing absolutes. We should absolutely have a tax rate for business that's competitive with the United States. However, given that companies don't have to spend as much on health care benefits here as they do in the US because we have a universal single-payer system, we can afford to tax businesses slightly higher because of those savings. Moreover, we have a far better education system in Canada than they do in the US, by the OECD numbers, so that too is a benefit that corporations ought to pay for. Nevertheless, the tax rate can't be absurdly out of whack with what competitor nations are charging. Likewise, the government can't just indulge in profligate spending, hoping to boost the economy only to cripple any recovery by needing to pay back its debts. There's a balance that needs to be struck, but in recent years the neoconservatives (neoliberals in European terms) have been pushing hard for completely imbalanced system. The moves they have made are now coming home to roost and we can see that it's doing little more than concentrating wealth at the top of the pyramid. There's a delay in realizing how bad the situation is, since people are turning more and more towards living in debt to keep up with the Joneses. If nothing else, a balance needs to be struck here and it needs to be struck sooner rather than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 many nations have now out-cut the US in corporate rates.What needs to be considered is what the businesses get for that money. The US can afford to have a higher tax rate, if they generally have a more educated and healthier workforce. American universities and entrepreneurship is undoubtedly the greatest in the world. As well as many of their laws for protecting corporate interests (corporations are people). These things cost money and if companies want those benefits, they'll pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Obviously it's a complicated issue. It's not as simple as I've been arguing... If nothing else, a balance needs to be struck here and it needs to be struck sooner rather than later. The Conservative government is, I would opine, more interested in creating a (ahem) sustainable taxation level than just cutting, as evidenced by their closing the door on trusts awhile back. Of course, their interests are more with business so they will try to create an environment that is favourable to them. The setting of taxation levels is somewhat analogous to setting pricing for products. What is the "Canada" price, ie. the price to locate here ? There is always a fair amount of subjective valuation in such things. Oh, and I would never consider you to be one who simplifies such things, rather I look to you for nuanced explanations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 What needs to be considered is what the businesses get for that money. The US can afford to have a higher tax rate, if they generally have a more educated and healthier workforce. American universities and entrepreneurship is undoubtedly the greatest in the world. As well as many of their laws for protecting corporate interests (corporations are people). These things cost money and if companies want those benefits, they'll pay for them. The clarity that you bring to such discussions is lacking in the Byzantine haggle-sphere and glad-handing circus that actually sets these things. The wealthiest of the wealthy appear in shabby clothes, crying poor and promising to create jobs and walk away with great favours. Favoured industries continue to be favoured and the unconnected are passed over. We need a tripartite discussion between business, government, and labour on these items - accountable to the public but not to the "press". Canada's political environment would be good for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 What needs to be considered is what the businesses get for that money. The US can afford to have a higher tax rate, if they generally have a more educated and healthier workforce. They don't. We're better educated and healthier. What the US has is a much more effective management culture: more willing to take risks, more willing to innovate, and more competitive. I guess more willing to grind workers wages down too. As Drummond points out, many Canadian companies are content to remain small, even tho small companies are less productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 They don't. We're better educated and healthier. What the US has is a much more effective management culture: more willing to take risks, more willing to innovate, and more competitive. I guess more willing to grind workers wages down too. As Drummond points out, many Canadian companies are content to remain small, even tho small companies are less productive. This is true...Canada may lead the U.S. in OECD rankings for the assumed positive precursors of primary education, universal health care, and sound banking system, but they have not translated into competitive advantage where it counts. Indeed, it was the Americans and other multinationals that exported capital and subsidiaries to Canada, not domestic capital or risk taking. The provinces could only offer tax breaks to sweeten the pot, not superior post-secondary education, innovation, market size, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I look to you for nuanced explanations. Don't start any rumours. You're going to give me a bad reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 We need a tripartite discussion between business, government, and labour on these items - accountable to the public but not to the "press". Canada's political environment would be good for that.The problem with the tripartite model is that government has always sided with industry. Look at what has happened with the tripartite situations with Air Canada and Canada Post. Moreover, you have politicians like Hudak in Ontario that completely disregard the historical facts of labour groups. While I wish a tripartite model would be an effective way of solving problems and moving things forward with all sides considered and coming to balanced resolutions, I'm pretty cynical given the historical relationship between industry and the government. By the bye, EI is managed by a tripartite board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 They don't. We're better educated and healthier. I know this. Just to be clear, I wasn't talking in comparison to Canada. What I meant is in comparison to other more developing nations, where the cost of labour is much cheaper. However, you end up with an unhealthy and uneducated workforce with very little stability and legal protections for your corporate interests. What the US has is a much more effective management culture: more willing to take risks, more willing to innovate, and more competitive. I guess more willing to grind workers wages down too. As Drummond points out, many Canadian companies are content to remain small, even tho small companies are less productive. I agree with all of this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I have no idea what you're talking about. But do whatever you want. I'm just explaining to you why a lot of businesses are hoarding cash. They're very uncertain about the future. I can see thinking is not one of your strong points Shady! Keep thinking (at least try) then get back to me. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I don't know what you do for a living, but presumably you pay for all that stuff by being employed. If you're employed in the private sector then the wages private enterprise pays you pays for those things. If you are employed by the public sector, then the taxes paid by private enterprise and private sector employees pays you for your labour to pay for all that. If you are self-employed then you pay for it all yourself, but you are in the minority. Pretty simple. Man that is so freekin wrong! I have money because I work!I provide services in exchange for money! What do you not understand buddy! You know what,forget it!Its my fault responding to you! Good luck buddy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.