The left going more left, and the right going more right.

[angrypenguin]

It seems apparent to me that now, more than ever, at least in the province of Ontario, and I could and will make the same argument that in the United States, there seems to be a shift to the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Ontario: I'm not saying I know why this is happening, but you do see the left going more "let's call it Extreme" left with the vote to the NDP being strong as balls right now. I'm also seeing, after Brown was ousted, that the right seems to be going more to the extreme right. I, for one, am not for carbon taxes and that was a key position in Brown's plan, but I was more than happy with the rest of his platform. That said, Ford abandoned it and is essentially going "far" right when it comes to alleged fiscal conservatism, BUT he is also going far "right" when it comes to spending and lack of apparent fiscal restraint. To me, this is "far" right because of what the US Republicans are doing. In the US, if you're a democrat, the general consensus is you believe in higher taxes and higher spend. If you're a Republican, you generally believe in higher spend and lower taxes. You're basically screwed if you're a fiscal Conservative in the US, and to me, this high spend/low tax mantra is "farther" right than center right, and I'm seeing this in Ontario now.

Sorry for the rant. I guess it just dawned on me that if you're center right, you're screwed. You're not allowed to be a blue Liberal nor are you allowed to be a red Tory if you're a member of the Liberals/Conservatives. There doesn't seem to be any moderation with these two parties.

I hate the NDP and what they stand for, but at the very least they don't hide it. High tax/high spend, it seems they have their identity sorted out but it sure as hell doesn't seem like the Tories/Grits have figured out what it is they stand for.

On a federal level, I'd say the Tories still are center right, but I'm sure someone will challenge me there. I would have argued and I did believe that the Liberals were center left, but they also seem to be skewing farther and farther to the left these days.

Edited May 31, 2018 by angrypenguin

[Michael Hardner]

The NDP of 20 years ago wanted to abolish private auto insurance.  40 years ago they wanted to nationalize manufacturing and banking.  The Conservative government of the 1980s had to operate a government oil company, airline and hotel chain.

Still think we are going left ?

i will concede that we are marching to the left socially.  I think that's fine, of course, but I worry about the backlash if our publics become too divisive.

[angrypenguin]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The NDP of 20 years ago wanted to abolish private auto insurance.  40 years ago they wanted to nationalize manufacturing and banking.  The Conservative government of the 1980s had to operate a government oil company, airline and hotel chain.

Still think we are going left ?

i will concede that we are marching to the left socially.  I think that's fine, of course, but I worry about the backlash if our publics become too divisive.

Cool - thank you. I wasn't aware of basically anything you posted, which is very interesting and good to note. Do you have any more info regarding the Conservatives and the 80s? That was most shocking to me.

Edited May 31, 2018 by angrypenguin

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, angrypenguin said:

Cool - thank you. I wasn't aware of basically anything you posted, which is very interesting and good to note. Do you have any more info regarding the Conservatives and the 80s? That was most shocking to me.

The Mulroney government inherited a large number of government Crown Corporations including:
CN Hotels
CN Trucks
Air Canada
Petro Canada

Canada was emerging from the era of economic nationalism and Mulroney correctly saw liberalized trade as the way of the future.  His legacy was to pursue liberalized trade and to shed the taxpayer of these corporations as much as possible.  He mostly accomplished this during his tenure.  Years later the Liberal government were held to the fire by the emergent Reform party with regards to deficit spending and the Paul Martin administration moved to balance budgets.

[angrypenguin]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Mulroney government inherited a large number of government Crown Corporations including:
CN Hotels
CN Trucks
Air Canada
Petro Canada

Canada was emerging from the era of economic nationalism and Mulroney correctly saw liberalized trade as the way of the future.  His legacy was to pursue liberalized trade and to shed the taxpayer of these corporations as much as possible.  He mostly accomplished this during his tenure.  Years later the Liberal government were held to the fire by the emergent Reform party with regards to deficit spending and the Paul Martin administration moved to balance budgets.

 

Thanks, so I know very little about the companies you have posted with one exception which is Air Canada as I lived on their planes for number of years. AC was privatized in 1988. Based on the 1988 election, I believe Mulroney was in power then (or the PCs anyways). I believe AC was sold under a Conservative government, and not sure about the other 3 orgs. What happened in that timeframe? Did the PCs end up selling all of those companies or were they "for them"? Because when I read your post, I believe you are suggesting that Mulroney was hell bent on selling those crown corps, which is in line with Conservative ideology, no?

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, angrypenguin said:

I believe you are suggesting that Mulroney was hell bent on selling those crown corps, which is in line with Conservative ideology, no?

Yes I am... however I am trying to show that 'left' and 'right' viewpoints don't apply well outside of a certain timeframe.  Lincoln, the great emancipator, did not in any way believe in racial equality.

[H10]

4 hours ago, angrypenguin said:

It seems apparent to me that now, more than ever, at least in the province of Ontario, and I could and will make the same argument that in the United States, there seems to be a shift to the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Ontario: I'm not saying I know why this is happening, but you do see the left going more "let's call it Extreme" left with the vote to the NDP being strong as balls right now. I'm also seeing, after Brown was ousted, that the right seems to be going more to the extreme right. I, for one, am not for carbon taxes and that was a key position in Brown's plan, but I was more than happy with the rest of his platform. That said, Ford abandoned it and is essentially going "far" right when it comes to alleged fiscal conservatism, BUT he is also going far "right" when it comes to spending and lack of apparent fiscal restraint. To me, this is "far" right because of what the US Republicans are doing. In the US, if you're a democrat, the general consensus is you believe in higher taxes and higher spend. If you're a Republican, you generally believe in higher spend and lower taxes. You're basically screwed if you're a fiscal Conservative in the US, and to me, this high spend/low tax mantra is "farther" right than center right, and I'm seeing this in Ontario now.

 

There is no far right, there is no party which seeks small and limited government, they are all big government parties and Ford would increase the deficit more than Wynne and NDP according to projections because he has a $7 billion dollar hole which is unfunded.  The US does not have a far right, what they have is a group of guys paid off by major companies to cut the taxes of the rich and elite and screw the rest of society.  This is why people are becoming increasingly left wing in their votes because labor rights have been removed from the workplace largely.  Thus the only way to get anything now is to make it law.  Before your union use to negotiate sick days for you.  Now, your employer won't give you any sick days unless government steps in and forces it.

 

I do not believe there ever was fiscal conservativism, it was just a myth pitched to the voters, I've never seen a fiscal conservative government who cut spending except Bill Clinton.

 

 

Quote

Sorry for the rant. I guess it just dawned on me that if you're center right, you're screwed. You're not allowed to be a blue Liberal nor are you allowed to be a red Tory if you're a member of the Liberals/Conservatives. There doesn't seem to be any moderation with these two parties.

I hate the NDP and what they stand for, but at the very least they don't hide it. High tax/high spend, it seems they have their identity sorted out but it sure as hell doesn't seem like the Tories/Grits have figured out what it is they stand for.

On a federal level, I'd say the Tories still are center right, but I'm sure someone will challenge me there. I would have argued and I did believe that the Liberals were center left, but they also seem to be skewing farther and farther to the left these days.

The NDP favor taxing the people who can most afford it, and since society has changed to the point where almost all of the income gains are being made by the top 1-2% of earnings, there is no one else to tax except the rich.  Society is moving to the left, this is what fascism leads to.  When you erode workers rights, and drive wages into the gorund and make it hard to get a job for people who want to work, what did you expect?

[angrypenguin]

16 minutes ago, H10 said:

 

There is no far right, there is no party which seeks small and limited government, they are all big government parties and Ford would increase the deficit more than Wynne and NDP according to projections because he has a $7 billion dollar hole which is unfunded.  The US does not have a far right, what they have is a group of guys paid off by major companies to cut the taxes of the rich and elite and screw the rest of society.  This is why people are becoming increasingly left wing in their votes because labor rights have been removed from the workplace largely.  Thus the only way to get anything now is to make it law.  Before your union use to negotiate sick days for you.  Now, your employer won't give you any sick days unless government steps in and forces it.

 

I do not believe there ever was fiscal conservativism, it was just a myth pitched to the voters, I've never seen a fiscal conservative government who cut spending except Bill Clinton.

 

 

The NDP favor taxing the people who can most afford it, and since society has changed to the point where almost all of the income gains are being made by the top 1-2% of earnings, there is no one else to tax except the rich.  Society is moving to the left, this is what fascism leads to.  When you erode workers rights, and drive wages into the gorund and make it hard to get a job for people who want to work, what did you expect?

 

1) There is indeed a fiscal far right in the US that believes in lowering taxes and small government, as well as lowering spend, and I believe it's called the Libertarian party. I do not believe this exists in Canada, but the federal Conservatives have definitely championed it. Under the Harper government, the number of government employees and spend on public servants was the lowest it had ever been. Yes, they had to spend to get out of the recession, but that was only due to the opposition forcing them to. If it weren't for the 2008 recession, the Federal Conservatives would have certainly demonstrated what we want them to.

2) As far as the NDP goes, they would be taxing people like me. I've already discussed this in another thread which is why I'm in the process of moving to the US. You want to keep on taxing the so called rich, fine, we're gone, and now what are you left with? Take a look at the UK - it's scary, to me, how poor the poor keep on getting, and how the rich just keep on leaving. When you erode the so called alleged "right" for the rich to keep their money, you lose them, and thus you not only lose your so called benefits, you lose your job. Like I have said a thousand times, I'm for progressive taxation, but my limit is 50% top marginal tax bracket. It seems obscene to me that you or people who support your beliefs that despite you want us to give up more than half of our $ at that tax bracket, especially since those who collectively make >$50K a year pay 88.4% of all income taxes in Ontario. I don't mean to be "inciteful" here, but bear with me here. In your opinion, the straw that breaks your back is that you see the rich keep on getting richer, and you're tired of people like me apparently raking it in. And in my opinion, the straw that breaks my back is that you keep on asking me to pay more and more tax and yet I get little to nothing out of it, so once you push me too far, I'm gone.

 

As I have said several times, going too far left or too far right is wrong. Pure capitalism or pure socialism is wrong - history has demonstrated this. Moderation is key, and IMHO we've gone too far left, and since the left tells me often "leave, or shut up and pay your taxes". Well, ta da, gonzo. #sorrynotsorry

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, angrypenguin said:

It seems apparent to me that now, more than ever, at least in the province of Ontario, and I could and will make the same argument that in the United States, there seems to be a shift to the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.

 

No, Canada is not the United States, and drawing such political equivalencies is not consistent with the history (or future) of both nations.

The only shift has been the medium of communication, as political content has been democratized for many disparate groups with unlimited bandwidth.

Provincial politics in Canada is not driven by what happens in the United States, and American politics cares not what happens in Ontario.

[H10]

On 5/31/2018 at 2:29 PM, angrypenguin said:

 

1) There is indeed a fiscal far right in the US that believes in lowering taxes and small government, as well as lowering spend, and I believe it's called the Libertarian party. I do not believe this exists in Canada, but the federal Conservatives have definitely championed it. Under the Harper government, the number of government employees and spend on public servants was the lowest it had ever been. Yes, they had to spend to get out of the recession, but that was only due to the opposition forcing them to. If it weren't for the 2008 recession, the Federal Conservatives would have certainly demonstrated what we want them to.

Harper raised taxes, increased spending, tried to expand the millitary spending dramatically but failed and took largest surplus into a very large deficit, how is that for "fiscal far right"?  I've never seen a right wing government except in Kansas somewhere or Nebraska and it failed so badly that they are looking at electing democrats in the next election.

 

On 5/31/2018 at 2:29 PM, angrypenguin said:

2) As far as the NDP goes, they would be taxing people like me. I've already discussed this in another thread which is why I'm in the process of moving to the US. You want to keep on taxing the so called rich, fine, we're gone, and now what are you left with? Take a look at the UK - it's scary, to me, how poor the poor keep on getting, and how the rich just keep on leaving. When you erode the so called alleged "right" for the rich to keep their money, you lose them, and thus you not only lose your so called benefits, you lose your job. Like I have said a thousand times, I'm for progressive taxation, but my limit is 50% top marginal tax bracket. It seems obscene to me that you or people who support your beliefs that despite you want us to give up more than half of our $ at that tax bracket, especially since those who collectively make >$50K a year pay 88.4% of all income taxes in Ontario. I don't mean to be "inciteful" here, but bear with me here. In your opinion, the straw that breaks your back is that you see the rich keep on getting richer, and you're tired of people like me apparently raking it in. And in my opinion, the straw that breaks my back is that you keep on asking me to pay more and more tax and yet I get little to nothing out of it, so once you push me too far, I'm gone.

 

As I have said several times, going too far left or too far right is wrong. Pure capitalism or pure socialism is wrong - history has demonstrated this. Moderation is key, and IMHO we've gone too far left, and since the left tells me often "leave, or shut up and pay your taxes". Well, ta da, gonzo. #sorrynotsorry

We will be left with rich people who aren't running away from taxes, enjoy  your "Right wing eutopia" in America. Uk was built of colonial exploitation, they have been collapsing since the end of ww2 when nations declared independence.   Corporations pay 13% taxes in Canada, much lower when you count deductions.  The only reason you are paying 50% is because the large companies and medium businesses pay no taxes.  Go, someone will take your job, your skills and income are not irreplacable.

 

 

[angrypenguin]

26 minutes ago, H10 said:

Harper raised taxes, increased spending, tried to expand the millitary spending dramatically but failed and took largest surplus into a very large deficit, how is that for "fiscal far right"?  I've never seen a right wing government except in Kansas somewhere or Nebraska and it failed so badly that they are looking at electing democrats in the next election.

 

Le big sigh. What is it with people like you completely missing the fact that the ONLY reason he took Canada into a deficit was because the Left called for this, and also because after the G7 (or 8) summit all of the countries agreed to spend big on infrastructure as you know, we were in the biggest financial meltdown of our lives?

When people like you miss such big facts it's almost pointless to go into said debate with you.

Edited June 1, 2018 by angrypenguin

[angrypenguin]

26 minutes ago, H10 said:

We will be left with rich people who aren't running away from taxes, enjoy  your "Right wing eutopia" in America. Uk was built of colonial exploitation, they have been collapsing since the end of ww2 when nations declared independence.   Corporations pay 13% taxes in Canada, much lower when you count deductions.  The only reason you are paying 50% is because the large companies and medium businesses pay no taxes.  Go, someone will take your job, your skills and income are not irreplacable.

 

 

BAHAHAHAH! You do realize that the brain drain has been alive and well and has actually gotten worse in the last 10 years? Problem with socialism is you run out of other people's money at one point. And with respect to large/medium businesses in Canada that pay no taxes? Please, if you're going to spit shit there's no point in having a discussion. You and I full well know what the tax rates are for both businesses in Canada and in the US. Stop spinning shit - you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[Centerpiece]

There\s a lot of BS being spewed about "far" Right (Nationalist/Authoritarian) and far Left (Communism and worse). There is no evidence of either in Canada. Russian President Putin comes close on the Right and Fidel Castro was on the Left. Canada has never drifted much from the traditional center. Any reference to the "far" Left or Right has no relevance whatsoever in Canada - other than passing references to anarchists and eco-nuts. 

[H10]

9 hours ago, angrypenguin said:

Le big sigh. What is it with people like you completely missing the fact that the ONLY reason he took Canada into a deficit was because the Left called for this, and also because after the G7 (or 8) summit all of the countries agreed to spend big on infrastructure as you know, we were in the biggest financial meltdown of our lives?

When people like you miss such big facts it's almost pointless to go into said debate with you.

LOL, so he ran deficits in a majority government because the left made him?  By that logic, we should never vote right wing, because they will roll over to the left anyways.

[H10]

9 hours ago, angrypenguin said:

BAHAHAHAH! You do realize that the brain drain has been alive and well and has actually gotten worse in the last 10 years? Problem with socialism is you run out of other people's money at one point. And with respect to large/medium businesses in Canada that pay no taxes? Please, if you're going to spit shit there's no point in having a discussion. You and I full well know what the tax rates are for both businesses in Canada and in the US. Stop spinning shit - you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Let them leavve, this isn't facist bulgaria.  Norway has not ran out of money, but ironically, right wing states like Italy are getting downgraded to junk status and right wing greece is bankrupt.

[angrypenguin]

6 hours ago, H10 said:

LOL, so he ran deficits in a majority government because the left made him?  By that logic, we should never vote right wing, because they will roll over to the left anyways.

Go read up on historical events.

[angrypenguin]

6 hours ago, H10 said:

Let them leavve, this isn't facist bulgaria.  Norway has not ran out of money, but ironically, right wing states like Italy are getting downgraded to junk status and right wing greece is bankrupt.

Italy and Greece is HARDLY fiscally responsible, and is hardly "so called" "right wing".

[H10]

5 hours ago, angrypenguin said:

Italy and Greece is HARDLY fiscally responsible, and is hardly "so called" "right wing".

Ran by right wing governments, but as I said, the right wing runs the largest deficits, cuts corporate taxes, then when they predictable crash the economy because there are not enough taxes coming in and deregulation goes too far, the base claims they were just somehow not really right wing.  Frankly, right wingers are in the same bed with communist on this one, they communist are always saying o well russia, cuba, chin, just not real communism, but real communism would have worked.  Take a look at Kansas,  Tea party heartland destroyed by Republican right wing ideology.  Never mind, look at Alberta destroyed by the same policies so much so they elected the NDP to sav the province from the con made disaster.

[angrypenguin]

7 hours ago, H10 said:

Ran by right wing governments, but as I said, the right wing runs the largest deficits, cuts corporate taxes, then when they predictable crash the economy because there are not enough taxes coming in and deregulation goes too far, the base claims they were just somehow not really right wing.  Frankly, right wingers are in the same bed with communist on this one, they communist are always saying o well russia, cuba, chin, just not real communism, but real communism would have worked.  Take a look at Kansas,  Tea party heartland destroyed by Republican right wing ideology.  Never mind, look at Alberta destroyed by the same policies so much so they elected the NDP to sav the province from the con made disaster.

How's that working for Alberta?

PS IMHO I would be fine with a center right party that is NOT for tax cuts, but is for cutting social services or spending. Something has got to give.

[Bonam]

On 6/1/2018 at 11:23 PM, H10 said:

Norway has not ran out of money, 

I just came back from traveling to Norway. Norway certainly does have tax rates and plentiful social programs. Everything is also very expensive, and people make higher salaries. Part of the reason Norway is able to do what it does is the wealth generated from oil. But a bigger reason is that it has a culture of good management of their national resources and money. They pay attention to the details and the numbers and don't let things get out of hand. It's a very different culture from what you have in Canada or America, where budgeting is done based on emotions and 3 second talking points, and the only time anyone cares about the deficit is when they can use it as a smear against the other party. High taxes and high services like in Norway can work, if you actually have the discipline and competence and culture to manage it well (this situation doesn't come close to existing anywhere outside Scandinavia and maybe Germany). The US has $21 trillion debt ($66k/person), Canada has a $1.4 trillion debt ($40k/person), but Norway has an accumulated government fund of $1 trillion rather than a debt, which works out to $200k/person. Pull that kind of money management off in Canada or the US and we can start talking about entrusting the government with more of people's money to provide better services. But even in a country as well managed as Norway, where "socialism" can work, it still comes at the price of sacrificing innovation and entrepreneurship compared to much messier places like America. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Bonam

[taxme]

22 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I just came back from traveling to Norway. Norway certainly does have tax rates and plentiful social programs. Everything is also very expensive, and people make higher salaries. Part of the reason Norway is able to do what it does is the wealth generated from oil. But a bigger reason is that it has a culture of good management of their national resources and money. They pay attention to the details and the numbers and don't let things get out of hand. It's a very different culture from what you have in Canada or America, where budgeting is done based on emotions and 3 second talking points, and the only time anyone cares about the deficit is when they can use it as a smear against the other party. High taxes and high services like in Norway can work, if you actually have the discipline and competence and culture to manage it well (this situation doesn't come close to existing anywhere outside Scandinavia and maybe Germany). The US has $21 trillion debt ($66k/person), Canada has a $1.4 trillion debt ($40k/person), but Norway has an accumulated government fund of $1 trillion rather than a debt, which works out to $200k/person. Pull that kind of money management off in Canada or the US and we can start talking about entrusting the government with more of people's money to provide better services. But even in a country as well managed as Norway, where "socialism" can work, it still comes at the price of sacrificing innovation and entrepreneurship compared to much messier places like America. 

With Canada being in a $1.4 trillion debt is incredible indeed for a small population country like Canada is deplorable. It is the politicians who appear to have no clue as to what they are doing with our tax dollars and have created this huge debt to help make the richer richer and giving special interest groups all the money they need to screw this country up even more. Canada could get that debt down but it would mean that some people or groups are going to have to pay for it thru losses of our money that in most cases were stolen and given to those mentioned above. But it all comes down to we the stunned people who allow it to continue. 

[H10]

8 hours ago, Bonam said:

I just came back from traveling to Norway. Norway certainly does have tax rates and plentiful social programs. Everything is also very expensive, and people make higher salaries. Part of the reason Norway is able to do what it does is the wealth generated from oil. But a bigger reason is that it has a culture of good management of their national resources and money. They pay attention to the details and the numbers and don't let things get out of hand. It's a very different culture from what you have in Canada or America, where budgeting is done based on emotions and 3 second talking points, and the only time anyone cares about the deficit is when they can use it as a smear against the other party. High taxes and high services like in Norway can work, if you actually have the discipline and competence and culture to manage it well (this situation doesn't come close to existing anywhere outside Scandinavia and maybe Germany). The US has $21 trillion debt ($66k/person), Canada has a $1.4 trillion debt ($40k/person), but Norway has an accumulated government fund of $1 trillion rather than a debt, which works out to $200k/person. Pull that kind of money management off in Canada or the US and we can start talking about entrusting the government with more of people's money to provide better services. But even in a country as well managed as Norway, where "socialism" can work, it still comes at the price of sacrificing innovation and entrepreneurship compared to much messier places like America. 

Canada has oil, particularly Alberta, it was and is one of the largest oil exporters for as long if not longer than Norway!

Alberta under the conservatives has a poor history of management, the cons screwed up by giving too much tax cuts and too low royalty rates and they should have copied Norway's SOCIALIST model.

 

Please explain to me how innovation and entrepreneurship is sacrificed in Norway when you can get a loan from a bank with just 20% down for most businesses?  

[Bonam]

39 minutes ago, H10 said:

Canada has oil, particularly Alberta, it was and is one of the largest oil exporters for as long if not longer than Norway!

Alberta under the conservatives has a poor history of management

Exactly! Canada has oil too, and yet has failed to manage the money for the benefit of Canada and Canadians in the way that Norway has. Sure you can blame Alberta's conservative governments, but Norway did things on a federal level and so too could have Canada. No party in Canada is a particularly prudent manager of the public purse. So why trust them with significantly more money? In Norway, prudent management of money by the government leads to increased trust in government and increased willingness to pay more taxes to receive more/better services from the government. In the US and Canada, government incompetence and corruption breeds contempt and distrust, and an unwillingness to pay more taxes that will end up misused and mismanaged. 

Quote

Please explain to me how innovation and entrepreneurship is sacrificed in Norway when you can get a loan from a bank with just 20% down for most businesses?  

Well, the hypothesis on why innovation/entrepreneurship is sacrificed would presumably be because the potential rewards are reduced (if you do become wildly successful after years of very hard work, you will be taxed very heavily), because labor laws are tougher so you don't have the same flexibility (regarding things like overtime, off days, hiring people and then letting them go if they don't work out, etc) as a startup would in places like the US, and because the culture of having a strong social safety net means people are less "hungry" for financial success through entrepreneurship when there are so many other ways to have a very comfortable life.

But those are all just the "standard" capitalist hypotheses, which you probably don't put much stock in. So what you have to look at is results. How many of the top innovative companies originated in Norway? Zero. Norway's top companies are various state owned/controlled utilities, resource companies, shipping companies, and telecoms. And unless you've specifically looked into it, you've probably never heard of a single one of them. Norway has some of the world's best infrastructure and education and yet has produced none of the new technologies that have reshaped our world. This is not to say anything bad about Norway, it's a beautiful country with a great culture and it seems like a fantastic place to live. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bonam

[H10]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Exactly! Canada has oil too, and yet has failed to manage the money for the benefit of Canada and Canadians in the way that Norway has. Sure you can blame Alberta's conservative governments, but Norway did things on a federal level and so too could have Canada. No party in Canada is a particularly prudent manager of the public purse. So why trust them with significantly more money? In Norway, prudent management of money by the government leads to increased trust in government and increased willingness to pay more taxes to receive more/better services from the government. In the US and Canada, government incompetence and corruption breeds contempt and distrust, and an unwillingness to pay more taxes that will end up misused and mismanaged. 

Alberta's con government raised hell about federal management of their resource, they demanded to control their own oil, so it was never possible to be a federal policy, however, nothing was stopping them from keeping the oil royalties and starting a large fund like in Norway, NOTHING!  Norway does not have as large as pension funds as Canada does in general, Canada does have world class money managers, the problem is there is incompetence of the Albertan government to enrich the private sector at the public expense!

 

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Well, the hypothesis on why innovation/entrepreneurship is sacrificed would presumably be because the potential rewards are reduced (if you do become wildly successful after years of very hard work, you will be taxed very heavily), because labor laws are tougher so you don't have the same flexibility (regarding things like overtime, off days, hiring people and then letting them go if they don't work out, etc) as a startup would in places like the US, and because the culture of having a strong social safety net means people are less "hungry" for financial success through entrepreneurship when there are so many other ways to have a very comfortable life.

Well this is the neo-con position.  It is not true.  In Norway, people hardly do much work, yet the businesses are very profitable because of the high prices.  Sure you pay alot of tax, but you make more money and are taken care of.  Having a strong safety net means people can take more risk, beccause if you fail, you won't end up dead in a ditch with no healthcare like in the USA.  Worse case scenario, you end up broke and on welfare, with a decent income.  How many Canadian entrepreneurs have to waste years working in jobs that don't matter to self fund and self finance to try to cover all expenses?

 

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

But those are all just the "standard" capitalist hypotheses, which you probably don't put much stock in. So what you have to look at is results. How many of the top innovative companies originated in Norway? Zero. Norway's top companies are various state owned/controlled utilities, resource companies, shipping companies, and telecoms. And unless you've specifically looked into it, you've probably never heard of a single one of them. Norway has some of the world's best infrastructure and education and yet has produced none of the new technologies that have reshaped our world. This is not to say anything bad about Norway, it's a beautiful country with a great culture and it seems like a fantastic place to live. 

Are you kidding me?  You might want to pull your head out of your buttocks. Norway has some of the top world class companies on the planet and on top of that they are much more global than their Canadian counterpart.  Obviously you did not spend very long in Norway, if you did, you'd have a clue of how major and international their businesses are.  Norway has more billionaires per capita than the USA and Canada is not even in the top 15.

Norway's large companies like statoil are partially owned by the state, this is true, but this is PROOF that socialism WORKS.  I lived in Norway, so actually I have heard of them, only you have not because you do not look at facts.

 

As for your claim that Norway has no major innovations

http://www.uio.no/english/about/facts/how-uio-changed-norway/eide-birkeland.html

https://theforeigner.no/pages/news/ways-norway-changed-the-world/

Seems important to me.

 

[cannuck]

I think what is missing from this discussion is "what is left and what is right".

To address H10's argument that "socialism works" as proven by Norway, well, not exactly true.  If you want a primer, read the Regina Manifesto and see what a genuine socialist party believes (the NDP took it down from their website a few years back, but it is easily available ( http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CCF/ReginaManifesto.htm ).  Now, to be fair, there are VERY few genuine "socialist" states as defined by the RM and its Marxist philosophies.   I have struggled with these definitions for decades, and come to the conclusion that a "communist" state differs from a "socialist" state in that Marxism is interpreted in a truly communist state as something run by the ruling party and/or its dictatorial leadership, whereas we transition into "socialism" when there is supposedly some involvement by the people determining how things are run.  In either case, the ideal is that the state owns and controls the means of production and distribution as well as ALL of the resources.  And, it ALL cases, it does not work for long.  Best examples:   Russia until 1992, Mao's China and watch how Venezuela crashed and burned when the Bolivarian Revolution got into full swing.  They fail because people are intrinsically corrupt and greedy.

Capitalism is NOT a political ideology, it is a method of how an economy handles capital.   ALL "successful" socialist countries are genuinely capitalistic - as they use capital investment to manage their economy.  So, successful socialist places such as Norway (and now Russia) are still very much from the political "left", but have their economy based completely on capitalistic philosophies and policy.   I saved the BIG ONE for last in this situation:  China.  While still a communist country, run by the communist party with virtually NO input from the proletariat, it is by far the most successful economy on the planet.  As you can see, it takes a "mixed" economy to be a successful socialist state.   In fact:  I can not think of ANY successful government that does not have some social policies and programmes.

The "right" on the other hand can not be defined only as being "capitalistic", but by some other things that really DO constitute what in my years of deliberation define the "right".   Those things (again IMHO) are precedence of personal rights and freedoms over those of the state or collective.   Obviously, you would need capitalism as a mechanism to accomodate these fundamental freedoms and rights.

BUT: what about corporatism and globalism?  Well, they depend not on the political philosphies used, but far more by how the economic policies and laws accomodate what I believe to be the #1 problem of the world - how wealth is distributed.  What the left calls the right is not politically from the right at all, but the business of government dispensing privilege to special interests - which of course is completely opposite of what personal rights and freedoms are about - since the state has granted special privilege.   That, when it comes to most modern economies and particularly defined by the US - I refer to as "Casino Capitalism" as capital is not generally dedicated to creation of wealth by investing it in productive activities, but it is used to redistribute wealth without the bother of adding any value by basing economies on speculative gain rather than value added.   You will notice that it doesn't matter WHAT the political ideology is, almost every country has been led down this garden path - and it also does not work (for the long term) - but it sure as hell results in some very lopsided distribution of wealth = a broken economy.

Edited June 9, 2018 by cannuck