Harper Conservatives 'stifling' innovation

[waldo]

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.

more of your bluster! No matter how many times you say it, again, GERD wasn't being discussed in the post... the post where I specifically quoted your false GDP related statements/claims.

Edited January 24, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

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.

and... yet again... why do you purposely isolate the federal government (and its leader), any federal government (and its leader), from having any responsibility/accountability/involvement in sponsoring, facilitating, promoting, supporting, motivating... innovation, within Canada? Is it because you're feverishly attempting to isolate your most favoured Harper Conservative government from Canada's poor innovation standing? Canada's poor innovation standing as detailed by the Science, Technology & Innovation Council... by the Conference Board of Canada... by the World Economic Forum?

from the World Economic Forum "business leaders" you so want to segment Harper Conservatives away from:

"- 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."

Edited January 24, 2014 by waldo

[BubberMiley]

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

Yes, them too. Glad to see you're coming around.

[Accountability Now]

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!

waldo....its been proven time and time again that you are easily confused with too much data. You start mixing numbers up and comparing things to the wrong sets. I purposely kept the two data sets apart in hopes that you could for just this once keep it together however you again failed. My first data set (2008-2011) showed a correlation for which I clearly stated that 2008-2010 showed a stronger correlation. I then presented that second set of data to prove this once I realized that you couldn't grasp it without seeing a chart. This really is a matter of dumbing it down for you. Again....you're welcome.

My point above is proven in your "new data" from the Conference Board of Canada. You present all this data but have yet to show how any of it proves your OP. Perhaps adding a satirical cartoon might help? Or one of your world famous deflections at this point?

[Accountability Now]

more of your bluster! No matter how many times you say it, again, GERD wasn't being discussed in the post... the post where I specifically quoted your false GDP related statements/claims.

Did you or did you not present a chart outlining GDP in PPP and GDP in USD when those two items have NOTHING, NATTA, ZIP to do with GERD INTENSITY. Be honest now.

[Accountability Now]

"- 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."

That is a blanket statement....come...we can all do better kind of thing. Show me how Harper has done less than previous governments to faciitate/support/motivate.

As per your sentence above:

Taxation - Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%

- Haper cut the general corporate tax from 22.12 (2005) to 15% (2012)

- Harper cut the general small business tax from 13.12 (2005) to 11% (2012)

Do you seriously want him to cut more? Wow....you must be a card carrying CPC member. No wait....maybe you're actually from the US and are a part of the Tea party!

[Shady]

That is a blanket statement....come...we can all do better kind of thing. Show me how Harper has done less than previous governments to faciitate/support/motivate.

As per your sentence above:

Taxation - Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%

- Haper cut the general corporate tax from 22.12 (2005) to 15% (2012)

- Harper cut the general small business tax from 13.12 (2005) to 11% (2012)

Do you seriously want him to cut more? Wow....you must be a card carrying CPC member. No wait....maybe you're actually from the US and are a part of the Tea party!

He's a big government statist. He's not happy with private companies conducting their own research and development and innovation. He needs the government to do it through higher taxes. So money can get filtered through mulitiple levels of bureacracy, That way each level can take their cut, and funnel some of it to "green" technology.

[Shady]

Yes, them too. Glad to see you're coming around.

For sure. Nothing better than a government made jet, actually made by Lockeed Martin or Bombardier.

[waldo]

My first data set (2008-2011) showed a correlation for which I clearly stated that 2008-2010 showed a stronger correlation. I then presented that second set of data to prove this once I realized that you couldn't grasp it without seeing a chart. This really is a matter of dumbing it down for you. Again....you're welcome.

no - without even validating your own supplied data, I showed that ~40% of your original data did not align with your claims... more pointedly, there is ~20% of the remaining that is also just marginally meeting those claims. And again, it is a most limited/small data sampling. Apparently, your self-proclaimed business expertise has no problem with small data samples where ~40% of the data doesn't support your claims and another ~20% is marginal, at best. From that example of your "business expertise/prowess", you presume to lay down definitive and absolute claims... all the while ignoring that any of your claims are predicated upon GDP (which, timing dependent, may itself only be at an estimate/projection level) and R&D funding forecasts, estimates, targets, commitments... all of which may or may not result in actual R&D funding being applied. It's absolutely laughable that your whole premise, your definitive and absolute statements are subject to multiple layers of estimation, of projection. Like I said... you're clearly psychic!

[Accountability Now]

He's a big government statist. He's not happy with private companies conducting their own research and development and innovation. He needs the government to do it through higher taxes. So money can get filtered through mulitiple levels of bureacracy, That way each level can take their cut, and funnel some of it to "green" technology.

Yes...I've picked up on that. My thought is that he was actually personally affected by it. Perhaps he worked at a government research facility that had its funding cut and he lost his job...or something like that.

[Shady]

Yes...I've picked up on that. My thought is that he was actually personally affected by it. Perhaps he worked at a government research facility that had its funding cut and he lost his job...or something like that.

Possibly, although that tends to be a poster named Argus, who pretends to be a conservative, but in actuality is also a big government statist, in favour of higher taxes, higher spending, and centralized control.

[waldo]

Did you or did you not present a chart outlining GDP in PPP and GDP in USD when those two items have NOTHING, NATTA, ZIP to do with GERD INTENSITY. Be honest now.

honest! Why are you lying? Again, I specifically quoted your GDP related comments that had nothing to do with GERD/GERD Intensity. I responded to those comments with GDP specific data. Again, your desperation reeks.

[Shady]

your desperation reeks.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

[waldo]

and... yet again... why do you purposely isolate the federal government (and its leader), any federal government (and its leader), from having any responsibility/accountability/involvement in sponsoring, facilitating, promoting, supporting, motivating... innovation, within Canada? Is it because you're feverishly attempting to isolate your most favoured Harper Conservative government from Canada's poor innovation standing? Canada's poor innovation standing as detailed by the Science, Technology & Innovation Council... by the Conference Board of Canada... by the World Economic Forum?

from the World Economic Forum "business leaders" you so want to segment Harper Conservatives away from:

"- 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."

That is a blanket statement

[waldo]

Please refrain from personal attacks.

no personal attack was made - your desperation reeks!

[waldo]

from the World Economic Forum "business leaders":

"- 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."

see above summation comment from business leaders of your referenced 'private companies'... just taxation, lil' buddy?

He's a big government statist. He's not happy with private companies conducting their own research and development and innovation. He needs the government to do it through higher taxes. So money can get filtered through mulitiple levels of bureacracy, That way each level can take their cut, and funnel some of it to "green" technology.

[waldo]

Possibly, although that tends to be a poster named Argus, who pretends to be a conservative, but in actuality is also a big government statist, in favour of higher taxes, higher spending, and centralized control.

your purposeful misrepresentation of MLW member 'Argus' is noted

Please refrain from personal attacks.

[waldo]

from Michael Geist, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa... commenting on the recent STIC report critical of Canada's innovation standing and performance:

So what can be done about Canada’s middling innovation record?

The government has expressed disappointment with the reluctance of business to invest in research and development, but its policies have thus far failed to generate much change. Ottawa has invested heavily in supporting business research and development, but the bulk of that support has come through indirect mechanisms such as tax credits.

Many other countries invest more heavily in direct funding, including loans and guarantees, competitive grants, consulting services and innovation vouchers. Canada ranks among the lowest of all economies examined by the STIC for these direct funding models. The Canadian government has been reluctant to adopt direct funding measures, but the data suggests that its current strategy is not working and should be revisited.
.
.
The Canadian venture capital shortcoming is a long-standing frustration as emerging businesses have often been forced to look to foreign investors for support... private investors account for 81 per cent of venture capital funding in the U.S., but domestic private investors are responsible for only 25 per cent in Canada.

Canadian businesses rely more heavily on government venture capital as it comprises 12 per cent of total funding. With the government already putting its own money (or taxpayer dollars) into venture capital, the solution likely does not lie in cutting a larger taxpayer cheque but rather in identifying any remaining investment barriers and potential tools to encourage greater entrepreneurial risk-taking.
.
.
The emphasis on licensing has not sparked much commercialization and the track record suggests that it is unlikely to do so. Rather than focusing on locking down publicly funded research through licensing programs, the government should consider embracing open models of innovation... open models foster collaboration, reduce costs and increase the speed of knowledge development, all areas in desperate need of improvement.

[waldo]

note: in the spirit of moving this thread away from the purposeful distraction and avoidance of the actual STIC report findings, I have provided recent posts that also speak to review and critical assessment on Canada's innovation performance/standing... posts relative to the Conference Board of Canada, to the World Economic Forum and a personal assessment from the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.

[Accountability Now]

no - without even validating your own supplied data, I showed that ~40% of your original data did not align with your claims... more pointedly, there is ~20% of the remaining that is also just marginally meeting those claims. And again, it is a most limited/small data sampling. Apparently, your self-proclaimed business expertise has no problem with small data samples where ~40% of the data doesn't support your claims and another ~20% is marginal, at best.

So 60% of my 2008-2011 data aligns.93% of my 2008-2010 data aligns. That is correlation.

From that example of your "business expertise/prowess", you presume to lay down definitive and absolute claims... all the while ignoring that any of your claims are predicated upon GDP (which, timing dependent, may itself only be at an estimate/projection level) and R&D funding forecasts, estimates, targets, commitments... all of which may or may not result in actual R&D funding being applied. It's absolutely laughable that your whole premise, your definitive and absolute statements are subject to multiple layers of estimation, of projection. Like I said... you're clearly psychic!

I have specifically used the word correlation...not causation. Perhaps you don't know the difference between the two? Perhaps you weren't a university grad after all? Maybe you are just pissed at everything in life?

I'll actually take your insight seriously when you figure out the GERD intensity formula.

[Accountability Now]

Did you or did you not present a chart outlining GDP in PPP and GDP in USD when those two items have NOTHING, NATTA, ZIP to do with GERD INTENSITY. Be honest now.

honest! Why are you lying? Again, I specifically quoted your GDP related comments that had nothing to do with GERD/GERD Intensity. I responded to those comments with GDP specific data. Again, your desperation reeks.

You didn't answer my question. Why the deflection? Did you or did you not post two GDP charts when they have NOTHING to do with anything we are talking about. Be honest.....

[Accountability Now]

waldo, on 24 Jan 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

and... yet again... why do you purposely isolate the federal government (and its leader), any federal government (and its leader), from having any responsibility/accountability/involvement in sponsoring, facilitating, promoting, supporting, motivating... innovation, within Canada? Is it because you're feverishly attempting to isolate your most favoured Harper Conservative government from Canada's poor innovation standing? Canada's poor innovation standing as detailed by the Science, Technology & Innovation Council... by the Conference Board of Canada... by the World Economic Forum?

from the World Economic Forum "business leaders" you so want to segment Harper Conservatives away from:

"- 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."

Accountability Now, on 24 Jan 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

That is a blanket statement

No response whatsoever about the lowering of taxes? Another HILARIOUS FAIL on your part.

waldo: We need to motivate by lowering taxes

AN: Harper did lower taxes

waldo: Uhhhhhhh......look a smiley face.

[waldo]

note: in the spirit of moving this thread away from the purposeful distraction and avoidance of the actual STIC report findings, I have provided recent posts that also speak to review and critical assessment on Canada's innovation performance/standing... posts relative to the Conference Board of Canada, to the World Economic Forum and a personal assessment from the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.

[Accountability Now]

note: in the spirit of moving this thread away from the purposeful distraction and avoidance of the actual STIC report findings, I have provided recent posts that also speak to review and critical assessment on Canada's innovation performance/standing... posts relative to the Conference Board of Canada, to the World Economic Forum and a personal assessment from the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.

Sure change it up but first change up the title fo the thread.

[waldo]

Sure change it up but first change up the title fo the thread.

as I recall, the only thing you've had to say about what Harper Conservatives have actually done relates to tax credits... a credit I believe you claim to have exercised with your, uhhh.... "multi-national company"! Sucking at the teet, hey?

the critical reports/findings are there for you to continue to ignore: STIC, Conference Board of Canada, World Economic Forum, Canada Research Chair... keep ignoring while you suckle!