In a nutshell, why our economy sucks

Rue · January 22, 2016

Eye you are very harsh on Trudeau. Yes he does live on a trust fund but calling him stinking rich? Tsssk.

On a serious note. I never get simplistic leftist comments like "stinking rich".

If a CEO is able to implement policies that can hire many good for them and no I do not want their stress and having to work the hours they do. Its easy to call them stinking but the stress and pressure some are under....its to be respected ...they handle it and keep people working.

I do not think for a second governments know how to create sustainable economic activities and simply takes tax money from the future t to spend on short sighted schemes to get them re-elected. Real economic policy takes years to implement.

But hey all is well. Trudeau posed for photo ops in Dano with some actors and told everyone Canada is diverse. By his own admission he generated no business.

Photo op giggle politics.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Rue

jacee · January 22, 2016

Remember that we are in a state where progressive taxes mean the lower 50% of the population contributes just 4% of income taxes. What do they care if taxes are high? What do they care about high debt? They'll vote for whichever politician promises them the most stuff. That is generally the Liberals.

There is also a disconnect in the general understanding of what drives the economy - or impedes it. People don't look at a lack of activity, and blame it on obstructionism by government bureaucracy, high taxes, or high power rates due to government incompetence. They don't look at a lack of activity in the resource sector and attribute any of it to the insanely complex web of government regulations surrounding any sort of project. Just look at the multi years long process going on in the Energy East case. All this involves is reversing an existing pipeline, but the environmentalists are fighting tooth and nail against it, and government regulations will allow them to hold it up for years. We are importing oil from Saudi Arabia a $30 a barrel while western Canada is exporting oil to the saturated Midwest US market at $15 a barrel. It's insane!

Energy East isn't about supplying Canadians.

eyeball · January 22, 2016

What happens when you run out of other peoples money to spend?

That's a better question for the 61 to answer.

ReeferMadness · January 22, 2016

61 people control as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity. The income gap grew wider last year.

That's it in a nutshell.

That's not true - you're exaggerating!!

It's 62 people. You missed one.

Bob Macadoo · January 22, 2016

Energy East isn't about supplying Canadians.

It is proposed to cut through 3 refineries for domestic use as well. Just sayin'.

hitops · January 23, 2016

Why don't you guy's just the off the planet if you hate it so much?

Not a sentence.

The political left has removed more people from the planet than any other force in history.

61 people control as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity. The income gap grew wider last year.

That's it in a nutshell.

And a larger percentage of the world's population has better access to food, medicine and better work than ever before. In many countries with dire poverty, these changes are dramatic.

But to the left this is bad if it comes with the rich getting richer. For them, better everyone in the world return to 80's or 90's levels of poverty, so long as the richest are also less rich.

Edited January 23, 2016 by hitops

hitops · January 23, 2016

Remember that we are in a state where progressive taxes mean the lower 50% of the population contributes just 4% of income taxes. What do they care if taxes are high? What do they care about high debt? They'll vote for whichever politician promises them the most stuff. That is generally the Liberals.

There is also a disconnect in the general understanding of what drives the economy - or impedes it. People don't look at a lack of activity, and blame it on obstructionism by government bureaucracy, high taxes, or high power rates due to government incompetence. They don't look at a lack of activity in the resource sector and attribute any of it to the insanely complex web of government regulations surrounding any sort of project. Just look at the multi years long process going on in the Energy East case. All this involves is reversing an existing pipeline, but the environmentalists are fighting tooth and nail against it, and government regulations will allow them to hold it up for years. We are importing oil from Saudi Arabia a $30 a barrel while western Canada is exporting oil to the saturated Midwest US market at $15 a barrel. It's insane!

People who vote left, largely are incapable of seeing the big picture or understanding how wealth is generated in order to provide anyone with anything. They stand against the very things that will increase the capacity of the economy to provide them and others with more opportunities and access to more goods and services.

The left is mostly about being angry at productive people because they have more than others. They want a great, high paying and lifetime stable job, but vote every time for policies most likely to eradicate those jobs and prevent new ones from forming.

In nearly every part of our economy, we have tons of regs with the stated intent of protecting some group or category of jobs, which do the exact opposite in the long run. If we can't learn this lesson from Europe and the countless other examples in history, we are not going to learn it.

Edited January 23, 2016 by hitops

Argus · January 25, 2016

In nearly every part of our economy, we have tons of regs with the stated intent of protecting some group or category of jobs, which do the exact opposite in the long run. If we can't learn this lesson from Europe and the countless other examples in history, we are not going to learn it.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in the Atlantic Provinces, all of whom are heavily subsidized by the rest of the country, with huge government sectors bigger than Greece had before their downfall, and filled with people who don't work much, living most of their lives on pogey. It's certainly no mystery why they all turned to Trudeau, with his promises of continuing to fill their trough. When you add this lot of freeloaders to all the natives sucking on the government teat you begin to get an idea of where our tax dollars are going

The economies of these provinces are public-sector driven and are out of phase with the rest of the developed world. Atlantic region public sectors are larger than in Greece before the financial crisis impacted that country. The sense of entitlement felt by Atlantic Canadians is deeply rooted, as it was in Greece.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/mackinnon-navarro-genie-atlantic-canada-must-be-told-no-or-it-will-continue-to-decline

Edited January 25, 2016 by Argus

hitops · January 26, 2016

Nowhere is that more obvious than in the Atlantic Provinces, all of whom are heavily subsidized by the rest of the country, with huge government sectors bigger than Greece had before their downfall, and filled with people who don't work much, living most of their lives on pogey. It's certainly no mystery why they all turned to Trudeau, with his promises of continuing to fill their trough. When you add this lot of freeloaders to all the natives sucking on the government teat you begin to get an idea of where our tax dollars are going

The economies of these provinces are public-sector driven and are out of phase with the rest of the developed world. Atlantic region public sectors are larger than in Greece before the financial crisis impacted that country. The sense of entitlement felt by Atlantic Canadians is deeply rooted, as it was in Greece.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/mackinnon-navarro-genie-atlantic-canada-must-be-told-no-or-it-will-continue-to-decline

Most humans without any greater purpose or higher set of ethics or personal morality, will normally choose whatever most immediately benefits and gratifies them, regardless of the long term harm done to others or even to themselves. This is basically the choice those groups you mention make again and again.

The thinking is the same as the patient I had who refused to fill his Rx, claiming it was due to cost. Even after we provided him with vouchers for superstore which could be used to cover said cost. "I don't have time, and I can't afford a ride there...." etc etc. Once the social workers informed him that the vouchers could be used for other things (read: smokes), suddenly his objections vanished into thin air, and off he went. What about the cost of transportation? Likewise, suddenly not a problem.

Edited January 26, 2016 by hitops

cannuck · January 26, 2016

People who vote left, largely are incapable of seeing the big picture or understanding how wealth is generated in order to provide anyone with anything. They stand against the very things that will increase the capacity of the economy to provide them and others with more opportunities and access to more goods and services.

The left is mostly about being angry at productive people because they have more than others. They want a great, high paying and lifetime stable job, but vote every time for policies most likely to eradicate those jobs and prevent new ones from forming.

In nearly every part of our economy, we have tons of regs with the stated intent of protecting some group or category of jobs, which do the exact opposite in the long run. If we can't learn this lesson from Europe and the countless other examples in history, we are not going to learn it.

Problem is, the "right" does almost exactly the same thing.

Yes, the left wants all kinds of government programmes in place to re-distribute wealth to their idle kin - but the other side of the spectrum uses the political process to seek privilege to re-distribute wealth into THEIR pockets. Same-same.

What the population has to understand is that wealth is only created by adding value to a resource, or delivering a service in support of same. pretty much everything else we do (and here I will very specifically target speculative transactions and speculative gain - i.e. 99% of Wall Street and Bay Street activity)

When some useless tit on the dole sees some useless tit on the "street" scam millions or even billions of bux without adding a cent of value, what do you expect them to think? Worse yet, the TOTAL function of government has developed into institutionalized methods of granting privilege to these two polarized groups of freeloaders - and the middle ground is left to carry the load for the whole lot.

Argus · January 26, 2016

When some useless tit on the dole sees some useless tit on the "street" scam millions or even billions of bux without adding a cent of value, what do you expect them to think? Worse yet, the TOTAL function of government has developed into institutionalized methods of granting privilege to these two polarized groups of freeloaders - and the middle ground is left to carry the load for the whole lot.

That's why we need to stop subsidizing useless tits and failure. Stop subsidizing business, stop subsidizing people. You want to work three months of the year every year? Then no pogey for you. You can't make a profit in your call centre unless we give you millions? Then close it down. You want your kid to play football or learn your ancestor's language? You pay for it. You want a ballet or opera house? Fine. All you people who enjoy ballet and opera can pay for it.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Argus

cannuck · January 27, 2016

That's why we need to stop subsidizing useless tits and failure. Stop subsidizing business, stop subsidizing people. You want to work three months of the year every year? Then no pogey for you. You can't make a profit in your call centre unless we give you millions? Then close it down. You want your kid to play football or learn your ancestor's language? You pay for it. You want a ballet or opera house? Fine. All you people who enjoy ballet and opera can pay for it.

In matters of policy, I always defer to Sir Roger Douglas, who once answered my question about how he could justify the very conservative policies he had to use to save his country's economy with the fact he was Minister of a Labour government. He replied: "we simply removed privilege". I consider that the blueprint for good policy of any kind. Either EVERYONE is eligible or NOBODY is. We can't completely eliminate some of the things that government gives out money for, but if we are going to do them, the lack of privilege for one to benefit over another should be removed from the equation.

Other than that, I agree very strongly with your post.

hitops · January 28, 2016

Problem is, the "right" does almost exactly the same thing.

Yes, the left wants all kinds of government programmes in place to re-distribute wealth to their idle kin - but the other side of the spectrum uses the political process to seek privilege to re-distribute wealth into THEIR pockets. Same-same.

That's not re-distribution, that's distribution. So no, the right does not redistribute more money into their pockets. Redistributing requires you take it from somebody. Policies of the right, value not taking it from somebody. Yes, people who vote right tend to be more productive and provide more value for others, and thus earn more. The money was not redistributed to them, it was distributed entirely by free will, to them, by the people they provide something to. The reason CEO's can make big bucks, is because you and I want the crap they are selling, and give them huge bux for it. They didn't do a single thing to force us to give them anything. Incidentally, it is the government agencies and public utilities which are the only ones who can actually force you to pay them for anything.

People on the left believe that if somebody gets money by forcible removal from somebody else, that's fine. But, bizarrely, if somebody gets lots of money because another person paid them for their goods or services, that's wrong. It's morally backwards.

What the population has to understand is that wealth is only created by adding value to a resource, or delivering a service in support of same. pretty much everything else we do (and here I will very specifically target speculative transactions and speculative gain - i.e. 99% of Wall Street and Bay Street activity)

We don't have to address that with government policy. Things that don't add value, go away. Not one single person has a gun put to their head, and is forced to trade on exchanges that permit high-frequency trading. Not one. All who do so, do so by choice. And in fact, more and more people avoid trading on exchanges that allow high-frequency trading. That's how it is supposed to work. It may not be overnight, but a free market pushes those things out. Once an exchange is all high-frequency traders, the traders are no longer winning. They only profit because they can trade against human traders.

When some useless tit on the dole sees some useless tit on the "street" scam millions or even billions of bux without adding a cent of value, what do you expect them to think? Worse yet, the TOTAL function of government has developed into institutionalized methods of granting privilege to these two polarized groups of freeloaders - and the middle ground is left to carry the load for the whole lot.

'The dole', is orders upon orders of magnitude larger cost than the costs of all white collar (and every other collar) criminals combined, in economic terms.

But yes, corruption is a problem. However, the more government controls the economy, the more of a problem it is. It is really very simple - the more control and goodies the government has to give out, the more benefit there is to trying to preferentially gain from that. China exercises way more control over their economy than we do, and has faaaaaar more corruption. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that. Furthermore, they do worse on all the stuff a strong central government is supposed to do well at - environment, quality of life, equality, etc.

Edited January 28, 2016 by hitops

eyeball · January 28, 2016

The only thing that needs to be distributed equally is political power. Opportunity and money will more or less follow all on it's own with little to no interference.

Why right wingers are as happy about the concentration of power into as few hands as wealth is their biggest failing and it's driving the world off a cliff.

hitops · January 28, 2016

The only thing that needs to be distributed equally is political power. Opportunity and money will more or less follow all on it's own with little to no interference.

Why right wingers are as happy about the concentration of power into as few hands as wealth is their biggest failing and it's driving the world off a cliff.

Based on what measurements? By all the traditional ones likes access to food, life expectancy, fetal and maternal mortality, income and education, the world overall is doing better than ever. Drastic improvement in all these categories are especially evident in places like China, India, Bangladesh and numerous African countries. Almost none are worse off compared to 50 years ago, with very very few exceptions (normally places with catastrophic conflict). Overall, in particular the world's poor, are doing better.

Life exists outside of Canada and your own personal, immediate concerns. Just because more Canadians than ever feel they are owed a great qualify of life for doing safe, fairly easy, non-stressful office or labor work for 6.5 hours a day M-F, does not mean the rest of the world does.

Edited January 28, 2016 by hitops

eyeball · January 28, 2016

Based on what measurements?

Just one measurement, the expanding income gap in a world with a shrinking resource base.

Thousands of fisheries workers lost their livelihoods on Canada's west coast and a billionaire wound up controlling 40% or more of the catch. There's a good reason some economists regard fishing villages as being like canaries in a coal mine, when canaries die it tells you something's wrong.

Fishing communities around the world are dying but the billionaires keep growing.

hitops · January 28, 2016

Just one measurement, the expanding income gap in a world with a shrinking resource base.

Thousands of fisheries workers lost their livelihoods on Canada's west coast and a billionaire wound up controlling 40% or more of the catch. There's a good reason some economists regard fishing villages as being like canaries in a coal mine, when canaries die it tells you something's wrong.

Fishing communities around the world are dying but the billionaires keep growing.

So then the answer is yes, you are only thinking of your immediate neighborhood/nation.

That doesn't mean the world is getting worse. It just means this one specific group of people you have in mind are. The world overall is getting better, period. A few million Canadians and Americans today feel it is harder to stay in the middle class. Meanwhile tens and more likely hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians have entered the middle class for the first time, over the same period. Other people matter, not just us.

Anyway if what matters to you is wealthy people getting wealthier, and this bad no matter what, then you will obviously not be convinced by arguments of worldwide health and quality of life data.

Expanding income gaps are normal, and exactly what you would expect in a world with more prosperity and global trade for everyone. Obviously when the lower rungs move up, the upper rungs move up to. For hopefully obvious reasons, the sheer scaling of economic structure, this means the gap increase as well.

Edited January 28, 2016 by hitops

eyeball · January 29, 2016

So then the answer is yes, you are only thinking of your immediate neighborhood/nation.

Yes, that's right I only care about thousands of dying fishing communities and hundreds of millions of people around the planet who depend on them for food.

Whatever else you wrote likely has f-all to do with anything I said too so...

WestCoastRunner · January 29, 2016

Yes, that's right I only care about thousands of dying fishing communities and hundreds of millions of people around the planet who depend on them for food.

Whatever else you wrote likely has f-all to do with anything I said too so...

That's a pretty shallow thinking of the previous poster but I find that this is a common thread. If they were to really think about the profound effects of the fisheries in Canada they would realize it is not a local issue but a much more global issue.

What do you think of the land based salmon farms on the island?

On Guard for Thee · January 29, 2016

That's a pretty shallow thinking of the previous poster but I find that this is a common thread. If they were to really think about the profound effects of the fisheries in Canada they would realize it is not a local issue but a much more global issue.

What do you think of the land based salmon farms on the island?

I don't eat it.

WestCoastRunner · January 29, 2016

I don't eat it.

I don't eat farm salmon based in the ocean but what about land based?

eyeball · January 29, 2016

Tanks on land will be better than open pens in the ocean. Farmed fish will soon be fed pellets made from cultured bacteria in a laboratory because the wild fish that pellets are normally made from are all being fished out.

On Guard for Thee · January 29, 2016

I don't eat farm salmon based in the ocean but what about land based?

I'm no expert, but something tells me to just leave the salmon in the ocean until you want to eat one, the way God intended it.

WestCoastRunner · January 29, 2016

Tanks on land will be better than open pens in the ocean. Farmed fish will soon be fed pellets made from cultured bacteria in a laboratory because the wild fish that pellets are normally made from are all being fished out.

Very sad.

WestCoastRunner · January 29, 2016

I'm no expert, but something tells me to just leave the salmon in the ocean until you want to eat one, the way God intended it.

The problem is climate change is seriously disrupting the abundance of salmon and of course fishery policies that another member knows about more than me.

I am deeply concerned about the salmon issues in bc.