Harper Conservatives 'stifling' innovation

[Accountability Now]

For such a sharp business guy, as you claim, I'm surprised your (claimed) multi-national company (you claim to own) stays afloat with such a rigid, fixed and unaltering "equation"! Speaking of multi-national... I'm also quite surprised your "equation" appears to be national centric! My understanding has all those multi-national business bigwigs (like you!), factoring in global economies to help shape business decisions/forecasts, targets, commitments, funding - go figure, hey!

You would have no idea about national centric as I doubt you have ever made it out of this country. But with that being said, after all your ramblings, I think I have you figured out.

I assume you are a university grad from some science program that took the safe and easy route to working as a lab rat within one of your coveted government institutions. When the funding to those government institutions got transferred to private industry or higher education, they needed to make cuts. You lost your job and are now working shift work at the local grocery store all the while preaching of your extreme weather tales to your teenage coworkers. I can see it now....is that why you hate Harper so much?

Again...this is just my take. I have no idea of who you really are or aren't since you can't find the courage to stand behind anything. Perhaps you actually work for an oil company? Hmmm. Perhaps you are a card carrying CPC member that is out on forums purposely looking like a baffoon as a form of reverse psychology. Maybe. This might actually be it.

[waldo]

which just highlights the weakness of your analysis and the stupidity of your definitive and absolute claims! Again, using your data and the data table graphic you supplied:

- 5 countries:

- Norway, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy have positive GDP change... with positive (not negative) GERD intensity change

- Spain has negative GDP change... with negative (not positive) GERD intensity change

clearly, you only see what you want to see! And again, the overall data sample is small... which clearly doesn't impede your bluster, self-serving fabrication and definitive/absolute claims! You chose to exclude China leaving you only 13 records in your data summation/presentation. Of those 13, 5 countries are exceptions => ~ 40% And, as I keep highlighting, you make these broad assumptions on the level of a country's GDP "shaping" the R&D expenditure in follow-up years! Clearly... you're psychic and nothing will affect ultimate funding in relation to forecasts, targets, commitments!

and again, does any of your bluster (weak analysis and failed summation), change anything within the STIC report and findings... on Canada's performance within that report... on Canada's relative country placement in the comparative country review positioning? Well... does it?

Of course, why do you focus only on the 2008-2011 data and don't touch the 2008-2010 data? Are you scared of the 2008-2010 data as well?

nice! Just more of your standard fabrication/deceit... your making shit up on the fly act/routine! I addressed the data you put up to the point of my reply... you know, the 2008-2011 data (as below) that you so failed on. Now all of a sudden, after I punt your weak analysis and failed claims, you go for... yet... another do-over!

I won't even bother looking at "your latest" BS. Whatever you claim, you don't get to selectively apply your nonsense to select years. Again, I responded to your data, the data table you put up... this table:

[waldo]

The examples you sought out, that you alone presented were GERD examples!!!! Lol. I read the post again....and again. You first tried to claim that GDP-PPP should be used. WRONG! You scurried back to saying that you also provided GDP-USD and that was... WRONG! You then tried to show examples using GERD to show that PPP can be used but I of course showed its NOT used in the GERD intensity formula which we are using. SO....WRONG AGAIN!! Just fess up already. It will make is so much easier on yourself.

more of your fabrication... I've addressed this BS of yours multiple times now. Again, in the context of replying to your GDP related claims... nothing to do with GERD. I provided two categories of GDP data that refuted your isolated GDP related claims... the GDP related claims of yours that I quoted in the same reply that I provided the GDP data samples. Quit making shit up - your desperation reeks!

[waldo]

I have clearly shown the government's involvement has not changed in fact its overall funding has increased. A fact that you continue to stumble on.

no - strictly on your incessant and belabored focus on funding (only), you were shown this not to be the case:

- per my previous post, you are wrong with respect to Harper Conservative funding for basic research... a post you wouldn't touch!

- per my previous post, you are wrong with respect to the most recent past years for R&D funding: (note: 2013 is a projection data figure based on data supplied by... by... you!)

- as the performing sector, Harper Conservative funding down for 2008-2012 & 2010-2012/2013

- as the funding sector, Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012 & down for 2010-2012/2013

The total amount of GERD funding increased.

and once again you avoid anything to do with basic research. You said, as quoted, nothing had changed with respect to the Harper Conservative government's "involvement"... you said, "funding has increased". Again, as I showed you, basic research funding under Harper Conservatives is down. Again, as I showed you, GERD funding from 2010-2012/2013 (with 2013 being a StatCan projection) was down. I guess only in your reality does... down equate to, "involvement has not changed and funding has increased"!

[waldo]

although, for the first time ever, it is certainly a positive step to have you finally link/quote actual IPCC statements, take it to an appropriate thread... make sure to put whatever you want to say/quote in proper context, clearly identifying what you believe I have stated/implied... clearly identifying what you believe your linked IPCC statements offer to counter my statements (or any inferences you have drawn)

You mean the thread that you personally created called Increasing weather/climate extremes? The one where you carried on purpoting false statements about such increases in extreme weather due to climate change. That one? Oh the embarrassment you must feel right now. I have 'low-confidence' in anything you say anymore. LOL!!!

if you believe you have a point to make, I've offered you suggestion on how to proceed..... per my quote, above. Please proceed Governor! Don't be shy.

[Accountability Now]

nice! Just more of your standard fabrication/deceit... your making shit up on the fly act/routine! I addressed the data you put up to the point of my reply... you know, the 2008-2011 data (as below) that you so failed on. Now all of a sudden, after I punt your weak analysis and failed claims, you go for... yet... another do-over!

I won't even bother looking at "your latest" BS. Whatever you claim, you don't get to selectively apply your nonsense to select years. Again, I responded to your data, the data table you put up... this table:

You see waldo...here is your problem once again. This is a written forum and you can't BS this stuff as its very easy to go back and show exactly what was said and not said. You posted the table that I put up but you CONVENIENTLY left out what I said IMMEDIATELY AFTER. Here....I reposted it for you to read it and weep. Please focus on the red bold writing.

GDP info can be found at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CN

GERD Ratios (Intensity) can be found at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/gross-domestic-expenditure-on-r-d_2075843x-table1

In this table, I have sorted the data in descending order based on % GDP change (2008-2011)....with 2008 and 2011 being used as the milestones. As you will see, I have highlighted Australia, Singapore, Luxembourg and Canada as all four of these countries had double digit increases in GDP from 2008-2011. These four countries also showed significant drops in their GERD Intensity. The actual GERD Intensity numbers weren't available from the OECD library, but the previous Figure 3-2 allows one to eyeball that a signifcant drop occurred.

As I have been saying, the change in GDP can't be discounted from the equation. You see it in the 2008 to 2011 numbers but its even more prevalent in the 2008-2010 numbers.

So what was that again about a do over? I would have presented this chart earlier but I was very certain that it would have made your head spin and you wouldn't keep up. I see that delaying the info didn't help anyway.

[Accountability Now]

Again, in the context of replying to your GDP related claims... nothing to do with GERD except for the fact that I tried to use GERD to prove PPP can be used although it has zero bearing on calculating GDP within the GERD intensity formula. I provided two COMPLETELY INCORRECT AND NOTHING TO DO WITH GERD categories of GDP data that refuted were of no use at all and completely unrelated to your isolated and properly used GDP related claims... the GDP related claims of yours that I quoted in the same reply that I provided the GDP data samples. Quit making shit up confusing the issue with facts - your my desperation reeks!

For the sake of keeping this forum honest, I took the liberty of correcting your above post to what you really should have said based on the factual content of what was said in past posts. Your welcome.

[Accountability Now]

and once again you avoid anything to do with basic research. You said, as quoted, nothing had changed with respect to the Harper Conservative government's "involvement"... you said, "funding has increased". Again, as I showed you, basic research funding under Harper Conservatives is down. Again, as I showed you, GERD funding from 2010-2012/2013 (with 2013 being a StatCan projection) was down. I guess only in your reality does... down equate to, "involvement has not changed and funding has increased"!

So my quote showing that GERD has increased which was of course taken over the 2008-2011 as it aligned with the whining and belly aching of your so important milestones. And now you feel its ok to just move the targets to 2010-2013 and cherry pick from the data so that it serves your needs? Interesting! Of course my statement of GERD increasing over the 2008-2011 period is correct. Would you like to know another correct statement? Sure you do. Since Harper took office in 2006 until the projected value in 2013, GERD is up 15%. Let me be very clear about this SINCE HARPER TOOK OFFICE, GERD IS UP 15%. This of course while going through the largest recession since the Great Depression and of coure with wildly changing GDP markers.

Of course we can just stick to the milestone dates that we've been discussing...only if you want. Because its like you said four posts above:

Whatever you claim, you don't get to selectively apply your nonsense to select years.

Ouch....that one came back to bite you...hey? Keep trying waldo. Or should I say....keep stumbling.

[waldo]

So what was that again about a do over? I would have presented this chart earlier but I was very certain that it would have made your head spin and you wouldn't keep up. I see that delaying the info didn't help anyway.

yes, another of your do-overs! As I said, I responded directly to your original data supplied. Apparently, with your latest data table, you have no qualms in eliminating your original 2008-2011 data! You just decided to remove it! As I said, you don't get to selectively apply your BS analysis... away from years (using your own data) that don't correlate with your claims.

[waldo]

For the sake of keeping this forum honest, I took the liberty of correcting your above post to what you really should have said based on the factual content of what was said in past posts. Your welcome.

more of your outright deceit and fabrication. Again, the original post quotes your GDP specific statements... nothing to do with GERD. You were shown, with 2 separate categories of GDP data, that your GDP specific claims were false. You know... false... to the point you reached for a complete do-over and went to another data source! You know... false... in regards you pathetically claiming that you were "deceived" by your original source's data presentation format! Quit trying to cover up yet another of your do-overs by your frantic deceit/fabrication.

[waldo]

Ouch....that one came back to bite you...hey? Keep trying waldo. Or should I say....keep stumbling.

you were provided 2 graphics that punted your claims that "funding was up". Again, funding for basic research... down under Harper Conservative governance. How is it you continually bypass and reference to this? Again, funding for R&D... down from 2010-2013 (2013, based on StatCan projection). Again, only in your selective, self-serving reality is down... "an increase"!

all of which, of course, has you continually focused on nothing but funding... your grand distraction. You won't touch the actual findings, criticisms and recommendations of the STIC! Of course not.

Conference Board of Canada: "Canada ranks second-to-last among its peers in venture capital investment and business R&D spending, according to The Conference Board of Canada’s ranking of innovation among the world’s leading economies. And the rest of the report card doesn’t get much better, as Canada ranks 13th in the 16-country How Canada Performs benchmarking.

Canada performs poorly on most of the 21 indicators in this year’s revamped Innovation report card. By grade, Canada gets 13 “D”s, two “C”s, six “B”s, and no “A”s."

[GostHacked]

Innovation comes from the private sector. Not climate scientists sucking from the government tit.

Talking about scientific advancements by Canadians on the whole compared to the world stage.

[Accountability Now]

yes, another of your do-overs! As I said, I responded directly to your original data supplied. Apparently, with your latest data table, you have no qualms in eliminating your original 2008-2011 data! You just decided to remove it! As I said, you don't get to selectively apply your BS analysis... away from years (using your own data) that don't correlate with your claims.

Removed what? That data is still there. Go back and check. Never went anywhere. Two data sets. 2008-2011 shows a correlation. 2008-2010 is even more prevalent. Good ol' post 37! Keep on stumbling....

[Accountability Now]

more of your outright deceit and fabrication. Again, the original post quotes your GDP specific statements... nothing to do with GERD. You were shown, with 2 separate categories of GDP data, that your GDP specific claims were false. You know... false... to the point you reached for a complete do-over and went to another data source! You know... false... in regards you pathetically claiming that you were "deceived" by your original source's data presentation format! Quit trying to cover up yet another of your do-overs by your frantic deceit/fabrication.

GDP by PPP....what a hoot. Your don't let the boys in produce know that you messed that one up

[Accountability Now]

you were provided 2 graphics that punted your claims that "funding was up". Again, funding for basic research... down under Harper Conservative governance. How is it you continually bypass and reference to this? Again, funding for R&D... down from 2010-2013 (2013, based on StatCan projection). Again, only in your selective, self-serving reality is down... "an increase"!

all of which, of course, has you continually focused on nothing but funding... your grand distraction. You won't touch the actual findings, criticisms and recommendations of the STIC! Of course not.

Conference Board of Canada: "Canada ranks second-to-last among its peers in venture capital investment and business R&D spending, according to The Conference Board of Canada’s ranking of innovation among the world’s leading economies. And the rest of the report card doesn’t get much better, as Canada ranks 13th in the 16-country How Canada Performs benchmarking.

Canada performs poorly on most of the 21 indicators in this year’s revamped Innovation report card. By grade, Canada gets 13 “D”s, two “C”s, six “B”s, and no “A”s."

Adding NEW data are we? But I thought we weren't allowed to do that. Is this a do over waldo? Oh my.

That's ok...I'll let it slide because this new gem of yours does nothing for your OP as Venture Captilaism and Business R&D have nothing to do with Harper. Keep trying.....

[waldo]

Removed what? That data is still there. Go back and check. Never went anywhere. Two data sets. 2008-2011 shows a correlation. 2008-2010 is even more prevalent. Good ol' post 37! Keep on stumbling....

post 72 - your latest. All of a sudden, your earlier failed data is gone... walk-about! How convenient for you!

[waldo]

GDP by PPP....what a hoot. Your don't let the boys in produce know that you messed that one up

yes, that's right. That was one of 2 categories of GDP data (PPP and current) that showed your GDP specific claims were false... hence your scramble do-over to find another data source... since you claimed to be so deceived by the format of your original source (aka, just another of your do-overs)

[waldo]

Adding NEW data are we? But I thought we weren't allowed to do that. Is this a do over waldo? Oh my.

That's ok...I'll let it slide because this new gem of yours does nothing for your OP as Venture Captilaism and Business R&D have nothing to do with Harper. Keep trying.....

that's but one of the indicators! But, of course, as has been your consistent way from the onset... you see no role for the federal government, any federal government, to facilitate/support/motivate innovation in Canada.

[Shady]

Except for, among other things, the space program, the military, and this Internet we're talking on.

You mean the private companies the space program, military, etc contract.

[waldo]

Conference Board of Canada: "Canada ranks second-to-last among its peers in venture capital investment and business R&D spending, according to The Conference Board of Canada’s ranking of innovation among the world’s leading economies. And the rest of the report card doesn’t get much better, as Canada ranks 13th in the 16-country How Canada Performs benchmarking.

Canada performs poorly on most of the 21 indicators in this year’s revamped Innovation report card. By grade, Canada gets 13 “D”s, two “C”s, six “B”s, and no “A”s."

World Economic Forum: Business Leaders’ Perspectives: Canada’s Competitiveness and Innovation Doldrums

Canada ranks 14th overall for the second consecutive year in the World Economic Forum’s 2013–14 Global Competitiveness Report.

However, poor innovation performance and a lack of business sophistication continue to hamper Canada’s competitiveness. Canada fell four places this year in factors related to innovation and business sophistication. This is a real concern, as Canada’s economic competitiveness is largely innovation-driven.

Clearly, interest in innovation and commercialization is strong in Canada. However, results still lag far behind potential.

- More needs to be done within firms to broaden competitive horizons to include rapidly expanding international markets, in order to make the most of Canada’s latent competitiveness potential.

- More needs to be done by governments of all levels, through policy, regulation, taxation, and procurement, to stimulate the innovation that is at the heart of future productivity gains.

- Partnerships with Canada’s post-secondary education institutions are a key to unlocking the potential.

Only through shared purpose and collaboration, can Canada’s businesses, governments, and educational institutions achieve the competitiveness gains our future prosperity requires.

Edited January 24, 2014 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

post 72 - your latest. All of a sudden, your earlier failed data is gone... walk-about! How convenient for you!

My data is still on post 37. Never removed it. Are you suggesting that I need to repost EVERY chart and graph every time that I make a post. I trust the moderators of this forum won't appreciate your lack of consideration for their server space.

Of course I see you have no problem with adding new data....

[Accountability Now]

yes, that's right. That was one of 2 categories of GDP data (PPP and current) that showed your GDP specific claims were false... hence your scramble do-over to find another data source... since you claimed to be so deceived by the format of your original source (aka, just another of your do-overs)

I actually thought you were just side stepping with your normal baffonery.....but you honestly don't get it. Wow!

GERD Intensity = GERD Funding for that year / GDP (Current Prices, Local Currency)

Where in that equation do you see PPP or USD? You may as well talk about the goats in China as they are just as relevant.

I am actually getting dumber just listening to you.

[Accountability Now]

that's but one of the indicators! But, of course, as has been your consistent way from the onset... you see no role for the federal government, any federal government, to facilitate/support/motivate innovation in Canada.

Indicators for Canada....not for Harper.

As mentioned....I have first hand experience in seeing the factilation/support/motivation of Harper's government for innvoation. I don't need your unreliable opinion to tell me its not true.

[Accountability Now]

World Economic Forum: Business Leaders’ Perspectives: Canada’s Competitiveness and Innovation Doldrums

Ah...business again. Really helps your OP....NOT.

Have you figured out the GERD Intensity formula yet?

[waldo]

My data is still on post 37. Never removed it. Are you suggesting that I need to repost EVERY chart and graph every time that I make a post. I trust the moderators of this forum won't appreciate your lack of consideration for their server space.

Of course I see you have no problem with adding new data....

nice try. You could have easily left those 2 columns in your latest BS update. Of course, once the waldo showed your claims to be false/nonsense based on your initial data, you suddenly leave it out! Of course you do. And again, since I refuse to engage your idiocy further, you don't get to selectively apply your nonsense, your definitive/absolute claims, only to years you find convenient!

the "new data" you speak to... additional information from the Conference Board of Canada and the World Economic Forum. Ignore and avoid it all you want - clearly, with your mega distraction around the STIC report, you want nothing to do with such inconveniences as, performance indicator/evaluation, findings, criticisms, recommendations... of course you don't!