Trudeau's new taxes

[dre]

No, the Liberal scandal was bigger.

Really master of the obvious, arent ya? Of COURSE it was bigger and it cost the liberals an election.

Edited October 28, 2015 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Really master of the obvious, arent ya? Of COURSE it was bigger and it cost the liberals an election.

Stating certain types of obvious things get people upset.

Like... trade deals are generally good for the economy, humans are causing climate change, and the Liberal scandal was bigger than the Conservative one. Justin Trudeau knows these things, I'm sure.

[dre]

Stating certain types of obvious things get people upset.

Like... trade deals are generally good for the economy, humans are causing climate change, and the Liberal scandal was bigger than the Conservative one. Justin Trudeau knows these things, I'm sure.

The first is not obvious at all. Its more of a religious conviction on your part. The second is at least partially true... humans are definately a factor. The third is at least is obviously true.

1 for 3! Not bad... Thats right on the "Hardner" line

[hitops]

I'm still wondering if anyone can tell me, using the example given at the beginning of this thread about the couple earning $200,000, whether this changes anything if that $200,000 is paid as $100,000 each, totally in dividends?

[Michael Hardner]

The first is not obvious at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade

Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.^{%5B6%5D%5B7%5D} In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."^%5B8%5D

The big lie is that there is controversy around whether free trade is good or not. It is good, and - taking it back to the OP - Trudeau will engage the TPP.

[cybercoma]

No, the Liberal scandal was bigger.

This isn't actually an argument. What's the point you're trying to make?

[drummindiver]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade

The big lie is that there is controversy around whether free trade is good or not. It is good, and - taking it back to the OP - Trudeau will engage the TPP.

Everyone thinks so many big corporations, including auto, are moving to Mexico because of low wages. Partly true. Free trade agreements are the main reason. Canada should get on board with TPP, and then some. We need all the help we can get re manufacturing.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-auto-makers-are-building-new-factories-in-mexico-not-the-u-s-1426645802

Edited October 28, 2015 by drummindiver

[angrypenguin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade

The big lie is that there is controversy around whether free trade is good or not. It is good, and - taking it back to the OP - Trudeau will engage the TPP.

And then he'll take all the credit.

[dre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade

The big lie is that there is controversy around whether free trade is good or not. It is good, and - taking it back to the OP - Trudeau will engage the TPP.

You didnt say its "good" for society. You said its "good for the economy", and I presume you meant in Canada. But in order to show that you would need data... An increase in GDP growth during the free trade era for example... or a decrease in recessions, or milder recessions, or more sustainable growth. You cant show any of that. The economy was just as healthy and grew just as fast before we had free trade agreements. Of course the same could not be said for China or India or the Philipenes. These agreements are a mixed bag that benefit different parts of the world to different degrees. Your faith based statement attempts to apply a boolean value but that doesnt work. Lazy...

Trudeau will engage the TPP.

What does that even mean? That he will sign it no matter what is in it? What if theres elements of the deal that will harm Canadians interests? Thats the problem with your simplistic boolean view of these agreements. They are basically gigantic omnibus bills that contain all kinds of things besides trade and the relaxing of tarrifs, etc. For example the rumor that we might lose control of patent protection length, which could exasterbate our already spiraling out of control health care costs. Or the rumor that we will be accepting changes to our laws regarding the internet.

Edited October 28, 2015 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

An increase in GDP growth during the free trade era for example... or a decrease in recessions, or milder recessions, or more sustainable growth. You cant show any of that. The economy was just as healthy and grew just as fast before we had free trade agreements.

1. The theory of liberalized trade makes sense, generally

2. Economists support liberalized trade

3. Anti-trade information tends to focus on potential losers, but not on potential winners

I support trade agreements, generally, because of these reasons.

If you want to jump into a detailed discussion of whether trade, or the recession or something else impacted the GDP I'm not the person for that discussion.

Of course the same could not be said for China or India or the Philipenes.

Sounds like you believe in the Fixed Pie Fallacy.

[dre]

Sounds like you believe in the Fixed Pie Fallacy.

No I didnt say anything that would even remotely imply that.

[Michael Hardner]

No I didnt say anything that would even remotely imply that.

You seemed to say that China and The Philippines ascending was related to our relative lack of growth.

[overthere]

In today world, if u are single and have a good job, then u are very lucky if not in debt, because, many young people are with student loans and that may stop them from ever owning a house in the future. Once married, it really hard to stay out of debt unless u r making big bucks and are very cautious with money. Always remember, do I WANT it or do I NEED it.

And OF COURSE, taking student loans and entering a field where you come out unemployable is entirely voluntary. And the choice to do so is made by adults. Children are not eligible for student loans. The repayment terms are generous, and like the education itself paid for mostly by taxpayers.

[dre]

You seemed to say that China and The Philippines ascending was related to our relative lack of growth.

No I said they definately saw increased growth... we did not. If anything we have less growth, plus we have accumulated a massive public and private debt, and we have a huge current account deficit indicating capital flight.

That does not mean that trade liberalization has been bad for Canada as a whole... It would be a massive endeavor to research that to the point where you could even answer that question, and polling economists for their personal opinions on trade liberalization isnt going to tell you anything at all.

[hitops]

This isn't actually an argument. What's the point you're trying to make?

Probably the one he specifically and unambiguously made.

And OF COURSE, taking student loans and entering a field where you come out unemployable is entirely voluntary. And the choice to do so is made by adults. Children are not eligible for student loans. The repayment terms are generous, and like the education itself paid for mostly by taxpayers.

This.

Dear person,

We need engineers. I am sorry that math was beyond your attention span and infringing on your social schedule. I do not owe you money just because you decided to spend 7 years getting a double major in political science and gender studies. You are a grown up. That's the condition where you get make decision and then live with them.

Sincerely,

Somebody who made thoughtful vocational decisions based on what other people need in the real world, and put in the effort to match.

Edited October 28, 2015 by hitops

[Michael Hardner]

...and polling economists for their personal opinions on trade liberalization isnt going to tell you anything at all.

On the contrary, it shows that media coverage of such deals is skewed. If and when JT votes to ratify TPP there will be a large political reaction, I think, and that is mostly due to the fact that nobody except for Darth Harper was enthusiastic about the deal.

At one point, Stephen even curled the corners of his mouth upward somehow to make a new shape.

[drummindiver]

On the contrary, it shows that media coverage of such deals is skewed. If and when JT votes to ratify TPP there will be a large political reaction, I think, and that is mostly due to the fact that nobody except for Darth Harper was enthusiastic about the deal.

At one point, Stephen even curled the corners of his mouth upward somehow to make a new shape.

"Darth Harper" ?

Really?

We are not allowed terms like "con", but you are allowed this?

I enjoy debating with you MH, but honestly, you should also be held to the same standard as the other posters here.

Thanks.

[cybercoma]

"Darth Harper" ?

Really?

We are not allowed terms like "con", but you are allowed this?

I enjoy debating with you MH, but honestly, you should also be held to the same standard as the other posters here.

Thanks.

He is. Report his post. Except it's tough to do anything about it now that you've quoted and also written about it. If Charles edits MH's post, he then has to edit yours and it no longer makes sense. Edited October 29, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

"Darth Harper" is a reference to the left-of-centre take on our former PM, not a direct insult. Think about the context here: I'm defending a trade deal that our newly likeable PM will ratify, probably without major changes. The same deal was vilified because it was PM Harper's deal. Do you see now ?

I understand how it could have been misunderstood, though, so I offer to edit the reference if you still want to report it.

[ToadBrother]

"Darth Harper" is a reference to the left-of-centre take on our former PM, not a direct insult.

The Hill Times has a weekly cartoon that shows Harper as Darth Vader.

I bet the Hill Times is going to really miss Stephen Harper.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Darth Harper" is a reference to the left-of-centre take on our former PM, not a direct insult.

I don't think that works very well, considering their more oft references to "Republicans" and "Bush Jr.", also American (of course).

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think that works very well, considering their more oft references to "Republicans" and "Bush Jr.", also American (of course).

James Earl Jones is American. He probably looks like you, even.

Thread drift !

[bush_cheney2004]

James Earl Jones is American. He probably looks like you, even.

Thread drift !

Then bring it back home by proposing the inevitable American reference for Justin Trudeau and his new policies. Or does that only work for the "dark side" (in Canada).

Edited October 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

I'm bringing it back to JT in that the TPP will be ratified as a way to balance out these new taxes.

[drummindiver]

"Darth Harper" is a reference to the left-of-centre take on our former PM, not a direct insult. Think about the context here: I'm defending a trade deal that our newly likeable PM will ratify, probably without major changes. The same deal was vilified because it was PM Harper's deal. Do you see now ?

I understand how it could have been misunderstood, though, so I offer to edit the reference if you still want to report it.

I like Harper.

Makes him seem kind of movie icon cool.

Edited October 29, 2015 by drummindiver