Canada rises to top 5 in economic freedom

[PIK]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/productiveconversations/Canada+rises+five+world+economic+freedom+ranking+plummets+18th/7261109/story.html

Very interesting ,since all we hear is how harper is destroying everything.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/productiveconversations/Canada+rises+five+world+economic+freedom+ranking+plummets+18th/7261109/story.html

Very interesting ,since all we hear is how harper is destroying everything.

Where exactly do you hear that ? You should try to mix it up a little, if that is all you hear.

In the meantime, there's a dialogue happening here on MLW and elsewhere that takes into account economic well-being, the environment, sustainability and long-term prospects. In fact, now may be the best time in years to talk about such things since Canada is doing relatively well.

[Shady]

This illustrates 2 things. Harper's understanding of the economy, and what's best for economic growth, and Obama's economic illiteracy.

Harper and Obama are exact opposites when it comes to the economy. Taking their countries in opposite directions.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Shady

[punked]

What is this eve a measure of?

[Smallc]

It's the Fraser Institute, therefore, I don't care.

[Topaz]

The statement did say "since the mid-1990's" so one has to give credit to the Libs and maybe some to the PC's and the rest of the credit belongs to GW Bush for spending trillions on war that has their total debt in the 200 trillions. It's hard to say the Conservative of today have done much since they have the largest deficit running.

[blueblood]

The statement did say "since the mid-1990's" so one has to give credit to the Libs and maybe some to the PC's and the rest of the credit belongs to GW Bush for spending trillions on war that has their total debt in the 200 trillions. It's hard to say the Conservative of today have done much since they have the largest deficit running.

No you can't because your not taking into account inflation. Harper didn't want to spend, but you guys forced his hand with the coalition. Blaming Harper is like blaming Obama for the compounding debt the USA faces.

If Romney wins, he would be running the largest deficits in USA history unless he cut like Ireland did.

[scribblet]

No you can't because your not taking into account inflation. Harper didn't want to spend, but you guys forced his hand with the coalition. Blaming Harper is like blaming Obama for the compounding debt the USA faces.

If Romney wins, he would be running the largest deficits in USA history unless he cut like Ireland did.

Exactly !!

It doesn't matter where the report came from. Is it accurate or is it wrong, if so prove it.

[Shady]

It's the Fraser Institute, therefore, I don't care.

That doesn't surprise me at all. You'd be forced to admit the huge differences between Harper and Obama. You be forced to come to terms with Obama's failed policies, which you would never do. Because you've still got a crush on Obama.

Face facts. It's impossible to think both Harper and Obama are doing well. It's impossible to hold the opinion that both Harper's economic policies and Obama's economic policies are good for the economy. Because they're completely opposite philosophies, taking their respective countries in completely opposite directions. Keep your head in the sand. It suits you.

[Smallc]

That doesn't surprise me at all. You'd be forced to admit the huge differences between Harper and Obama.

Yes, I, as someone very pro Obama and anti Harper...wait.

You be forced to come to terms with Obama's failed policies, which you would never do. Because you've still got a crush on Obama.

No offence, but, do you remember any of my posts...from...ever?

Face facts.

Facts are one thing. Publications from the Fraser institute are something else entirely.

It's impossible to think both Harper and Obama are doing well.

It's impossible to hold the opinion that both Harper's economic policies and Obama's economic policies are good for the economy. Because they're completely opposite philosophies, taking their respective countries in completely opposite directions. Keep your head in the sand. It suits you.

They're not as different (at least not in what they've done) as you seem to be suggesting. Harper didn't start any of those moves either. They started under Chretien.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Smallc

[The_Squid]

Harper didn't want to spend, but you guys forced his hand with the coalition.

This statement is laughable. Firstly, there was no coalition, otherwise Harper wouldn't have even been in government. Secondly, no on can "force" a government to spend money. Your argument is silly. The Conservatives were in power and held the purse strings, nobody else.

[waldo]

Canada rises to top 5 in economic freedom. America plummets to 18th. Heckuva job Obama. #Obamanomics

This illustrates 2 things. Harper's understanding of the economy, and what's best for economic growth, and Obama's economic illiteracy.

Harper and Obama are exact opposites when it comes to the economy. Taking their countries in opposite directions.

That doesn't surprise me at all. You'd be forced to admit the huge differences between Harper and Obama. You be forced to come to terms with Obama's failed policies, which you would never do. Because you've still got a crush on Obama.

Face facts. It's impossible to think both Harper and Obama are doing well. It's impossible to hold the opinion that both Harper's economic policies and Obama's economic policies are good for the economy. Because they're completely opposite philosophies, taking their respective countries in completely opposite directions. Keep your head in the sand. It suits you.

perfect... who would ever think the Shady would actually look into the report makeup/history!

perspective... anyone... anyone... anyone? Given the report originates from a right-wing "think tank", sponsored by a Koch Industries funded foundation, let's give Koch Industries it's just due:

Koch Industries

: Economic freedom means people are free to make their own economic choices under a beneficial rule of law. Their property is protected and they can lead their lives without undue government interference. They can start a business, sell their property or work for whomever they please with a minimum of government interference.

“Restoring the U.S. economy to the status of a ‘free’ economy,” says this year’s report, “will require significant policy changes to reduce the size of government, overhaul the tax system, and transform costly entitlement programs.

“By boosting growth in the private sector, such freedom-enhancing policies are the best hope for bringing down high unemployment rates and reducing public debt to manageable levels.”

uhhh, Shady, by the by: this 2012 report uses the most recent available 2010 data... now, if one wants to put any actual stock in this report, it would start with a recognition that the U.S. decline in rankings associates with the Bush Admin, ever gradually decreasing from 3rd to 10th spot by the end of the Bush years. Additionally, given the nature of the report makeup, the recession plays heavily into the U.S. rankings... notwithstanding the report factoring ongoing tax policies and regulations that initiated within the Bush admin, notwithstanding the report recognizing a most significant ranking decline influence for the U.S., one associated with a decline in the rule of law and property rights given ramifications of the "Bush wars on terrorism and drugs". So, Shady... you'll need to temper your ODS just a tad - notwithstanding all the most immediate Bush admin influences on the 2009 data, there is an ongoing Bush admin influence that continued into 2010... that continues to this day. But hey, let's give you one full year of data for Obama, to feed your ODS - 2010, hey Shady?

[waldo]

Very interesting ,since all we hear is how harper is destroying everything.

It doesn't matter where the report came from. Is it accurate or is it wrong, if so prove it.

notwithstanding aforementioned report caveats concerning right-wing stink tank origination and Koch Industries sponsorship... that Harper is a freaking genius! Riding the ranking wave throughout his tenure; from 5th in 2006... to 5th in 2012 (2010 data). Of course, going all the way back to 1980, Canada has never been ranked higher than 8th (3 times), 7th (4 times), 6th (5 times), 5th (3 times)

=> (1980/8th, 1985/6th, 1990/5th, 1995/8th, 2000/8th, 2001/7th, 2002/7th, 2003/7th, 2004/6th, 2005/6th, 2006/5th, 2007/7th, 2008/6th, 2009/6th, 2010/5th)

ride the ranking wave, Harper lappers!

[CPCFTW]

notwithstanding aforementioned report caveats concerning right-wing stink tank origination and Koch Industries sponsorship... that Harper is a freaking genius! Riding the ranking wave throughout his tenure; from 5th in 2006... to 5th in 2012 (2010 data). Of course, going all the way back to 1980, Canada has never been ranked higher than 8th (3 times), 7th (4 times), 6th (5 times), 5th (3 times)

=> (1980/8th, 1985/6th, 1990/5th, 1995/8th, 2000/8th, 2001/7th, 2002/7th, 2003/7th, 2004/6th, 2005/6th, 2006/5th, 2007/7th, 2008/6th, 2009/6th, 2010/5th)

ride the ranking wave, Harper lappers!

Yes, obviously Harper had the power to significantly impact the size of government, legal and property rights, international free trade, and the other "economic freedom" factors during his first 11 months as a PM with just 124 seats...

The trend is clearly favourable since Harper assumed office and has had any time to make changes.

Given that the report seems to consider size of government an important factor in economic freedom, the trend is likely to continue since the big government cuts didn't start until recently (thanks for pointing out that the data is from 2010)! Heck maybe we even crack the top 3 just in time for the next federal election... let's hope for a timely news release from the Fraser Institute!

[waldo]

Yes, obviously Harper had the power to significantly impact the size of government, legal and property rights, international free trade, and the other "economic freedom" factors during his first 11 months as a PM with just 124 seats...

The trend is clearly favourable since Harper assumed office and has had any time to make changes.

huh! I guess wise-cracking over minimal ranking changes went right over your head... but always nice to see someone (another Harper lapper) try to ring out a trend within the shortest of time spans! Well done.

[CPCFTW]

huh! I guess wise-cracking over minimal ranking changes went right over your head... but always nice to see someone (another Harper lapper) try to ring out a trend within the shortest of time spans! Well done.

The ranking went from 7th to 5th from 2007 to 2010... ie. the timeframe we could reasonably expect Harper to have any influence on Canada's position within the rankings. Hope that didn't go over your head again!

Edited September 20, 2012 by CPCFTW

[waldo]

The ranking went from 7th to 5th from 2007 to 2010... ie. the timeframe we could reasonably expect Harper to have any influence on Canada's position within the rankings. Hope that didn't go over your head again!

if you really want to get pissy about the rankings... Canada shares 5th spot with Australia - I trust that doesn't negatively influence your short-term trendline! Of course if you actually looked at the report you'd appreciate the rather insignificant numerical level graduations that separate 1st from 5th, 5th from 10th etc. Take solace in your boy doing a bang-up job... go all the way back to that 1980 start that shows just where Canada has generally ranked these last two decades. But hey, if you get all warm and wet over a single rank rise, even a couple of ranks rise...

[CPCFTW]

if you really want to get pissy about the rankings... Canada shares 5th spot with Australia - I trust that doesn't negatively influence your short-term trendline! Of course if you actually looked at the report you'd appreciate the rather insignificant numerical level graduations that separate 1st from 5th, 5th from 10th etc. Take solace in your boy doing a bang-up job... go all the way back to that 1980 start that shows just where Canada has generally ranked these last two decades. But hey, if you get all warm and wet over a single rank rise, even a couple of ranks rise...

I was just pointing out that using 2006 as a starting point in your evaluation was disingenuous.

I actually don't care about our ranking on this report any more than I care about canada's rankings on oecd quality of life reports. Just remember what you said in this thread the next time the chorus of lefty sheeple start chastising Harper if Canada drops a few spots in the OECD report because our gini score was fractionally worse and our literacy rate was 0.001% lower than some utopian nordic country with a 75% top tax bracket.

Edited September 20, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Gu-Lang]

huh! I guess wise-cracking over minimal ranking changes went right over your head... but always nice to see someone (another Harper lapper) try to ring out a trend within the shortest of time spans! Well done.

.....................

[waldo]

I was just pointing out that using 2006 as a starting point in your evaluation was disingenuous.

I actually don't care about our ranking on this report any more than I care about canada's rankings on oecd quality of life reports. Just remember what you said in this thread the next time the chorus of lefty sheeple start chastising Harper if Canada drops a few spots in the OECD report because our gini score was fractionally worse and our literacy rate was 0.001% lower than some utopian nordic country with a 75% top tax bracket.

and I equally could care less about the rankings... other than to highlight 'lappers' pumping the rank, without actually realizing a similar ranking Canada has typically held for decades. (notwithstanding it appears no one actually bothered to look at the report or advise on just what (unique) Harper Conservative policies/actions have contributed to the ranking during their government tenure..... notwithstanding the lack of offered critical review of the report... notwithstanding the caveats I put forward concerning the Fraser Institute/Koch Industries). Niggling over the start year for Harper Conservatives seems an odd pursuit given we're only talking about one or two rank positions... for as much as we both suggest a 'could care less' view about the rank ratings, if you really want to start at 2007, one could suggest that 1st year of Harper Conservative government amounted to a 'significant 2 ranking decline' from the Martin years. Now, that's niggling!

[PIK]

This statement is laughable. Firstly, there was no coalition, otherwise Harper wouldn't have even been in government. Secondly, no on can "force" a government to spend money. Your argument is silly. The Conservatives were in power and held the purse strings, nobody else.

But yet the libs still are getting all the credit for how canada is doing today. But the scary thing is , if obama came to canada and ran for libs or dips, he would win hands down. It seems now the only question out there on how to pick a leader is ''who would you like to have a beer with''

Edited September 20, 2012 by PIK

[Topaz]

But yet the libs still are getting all the credit for how canada is doing today. But the scary thing is , if obama came to canada and ran for libs or dips, he would win hands down. It seems now the only question out there on how to pick a leader is ''who would you like to have a beer with''

The reason Obama is so popular is he is down to earth and can connect with more Americans and he didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his hand OR he has more in common with the average citzen than Ronmey.

[Wild Bill]

This statement is laughable. Firstly, there was no coalition, otherwise Harper wouldn't have even been in government. Secondly, no on can "force" a government to spend money. Your argument is silly. The Conservatives were in power and held the purse strings, nobody else.

I don't follow you here. Of course there was no coalition but there WAS a real threat of a coalition being formed! Harper was given a threat. He took it seriously. Should we now treat his actions as voluntary and blame him for the consequences?

I stand in front of you with a baseball bat and threaten to hit you with it unless you rob a store for me. You get pinched by a cop. You tell the cop about the threat and he says "So what? He didn't actually hit you with the bat. There was no actual use of force."

He gives me a wave and a tip of his hat as he hauls you off to jail.

Laughable indeed.

[guyser]

I stand in front of you with a baseball bat and threaten to hit you with it unless you rob a store for me. You get pinched by a cop. You tell the cop about the threat and he says "So what? He didn't actually hit you with the bat. There was no actual use of force."

He gives me a wave and a tip of his hat as he hauls you off to jail.

Laughable indeed.

A criminal act vs a political action.....really?

[Moonbox]

Waldo, I have to say I agree with some of your points, but I also have to say that your posts are becoming aweful to read. Ignoring the walls of text and your horrible quote-within-quotes of ugly, your vocabulary really needs a serious review.

notwithstanding aforementioned report caveats concerning right-wing stink tank origination and Koch Industries sponsorship

Come on man. Nobody should use "notwithstanding" ever. It's a useless, overbearing word that can be easily replaced with less cumbersome language, and you're not even using it properly. Aforementioned isn't much better, and when you string a paragraph together with such verbosity, it's not only painful to read, it also looks like you're trying to hard. Your whole last post could have been stated as:

I don't give this report much credit. The ranking change is insignificant, there's an obvious right-wing bias, there's no critical review offered and nobody explains what Harper's government has specifically done to improve our ranking.

Instead we got an 11-line wall of notwithstandings.

Your point, I think, has some merit. Much of Harper's success was inherited but you can't argue that he's trying to make Canada more business/corporate friendly and he has taken steps to reduce the public service burden. This report is merely a confirmation that a pro-business think-tank believes that Canada is becoming more pro-business under the Harper government.