Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, cougar said:

You can't  reason with people who's abilities to reason and understand are limited or who have a special agenda to deflect, deny, minimize or put the discussion on a tangent when they've lost all credibility.

Do you want to explain or ...

[cougar]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you want to explain or ?

You first explain this that I asked you to explain earlier:

"3. GDP has grown, though.  Wage distribution is about how wealth is distributed.  The country overall is wealthier."

How are we wealthier?  (refer to Myata's concerns above too)

Then I will answer your question.

[cougar]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you want to explain or ...

" You can't  reason with people who's abilities to reason and understand are limited or who have a special agenda to deflect, deny, minimize or put the discussion on a tangent when they've lost all credibility."

 

My line above shouldn't need any explanation.  

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

You first explain this that I asked you to explain earlier:

"3. GDP has grown, though.  Wage distribution is about how wealth is distributed.  The country overall is wealthier."

How are we wealthier?  (refer to Myata's concerns above too)

Then I will answer your question.

Now I'm strictly talking but economics here, not holistic happiness or anything else: our GDP has grown a huge amount and constant terms.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

My line above shouldn't need any explanation.  

More context than explanation. Economics is tinged with politics, but there are some facts at the heart of it and probably more so than in most politics and morality.

[cougar]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Now I'm strictly talking but economics here, not holistic happiness or anything else: our GDP has grown a huge amount and constant terms.

Let's talk economics then.  What is the purpose of economics?  The country's economics have to translate into the family economics somehow.  If the two do not go the same way, I will call the country's economics "bullshit economics".

Nobody was talking about holistic happiness.  I know I can be 100 times happier than a guy with 10 billion dollars, but that is another subject for discussion.

Edited June 29, 2021 by cougar

[cougar]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

More context than explanation. Economics is tinged with politics, but there are some facts that the heart of it and probably more so than in most politics and morality.

Mike,  I think you need to add a bit more substance to your points and arguments.    I like to work with basic models minimizing the amount of general blah, blah, but when you want to defend a point or even make a point you need a bit more than a one line response.  It is not leading to a meaningful discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, cougar said:

1. If the two do not go the same way, I will call the country's economics "bullshit economics".

2.Nobody was talking about holistic happiness.  I know I can be 100 times happier than a guy with 10 billion dollars, but that is another subject for discussion.

1. Ok, you want to talk about... What is economics mean for the average person? That makes sense.  Not my kind of discussion though.

 

I will say it's hard to find conclusive metrics that say Canadians are worse off than 50 years ago, and I've looked at them.

 

2. Agreed

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, cougar said:

Mike,  I think you need to add a bit more substance to your points and arguments.    I like to work with basic models minimizing the amount of general blah, blah, but when you want to defend a point or even make a point you need a bit more than a one line response.  It is not leading to a meaningful discussion.

Substance? That's strange. I was talking about CPI and GDP with someone who was cherry picking individual costs and you came in with "Just as I thought you have zero clue what you are talking about."

 

Do you want me to put a GDP graph up here? Is that what you mean?

[cougar]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, you want to talk about... What is economics mean for the average person? That makes sense.  Not my kind of discussion though.

I will say it's hard to find conclusive metrics that say Canadians are worse off than 50 years ago, and I've looked at them.

Not your kind of discussion?  Why are you posting under this thread for HOMELESS and IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE then?  Go find yourself a macro economics thread to post under.  Another fail for you!

And what "hard to find conclusive metrics" are you talking about after Myata's post, that I also find totally correct?

Edited June 29, 2021 by cougar

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, cougar said:

1. Not your kind of discussion?  Why are you posting under this thread for HOMELESS and IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE then? 

2. Go find yourself a macro economics thread to post under.  Another fail for you!

3. And what "hard to find conclusive metrics" are you talking about after Myata's post, that I also find totally correct?

1. Because I'm interested in economics?  In case you didn't know, it's based on numbers.

2. Tsk tsk.  So toxic. No, Coog, I won't let you cancel me.  Sorry.

3.  Well if YOU FIND IT CORRECT THEN WHAT AM I DOING PAYING ATTENTION TO OECD AND STATSCAN REPORTS THEN ??? ?

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry Coog, if you like I will provide some anecdotal information of my own ok?

[myata]

45 minutes ago, cougar said:

How are we wealthier?  (refer to Myata's concerns above too)

 

Then I will answer your question.

It might have meant that someone in the country got wealthier. Public CEO got $2M golden parachute for failed leadership. Failed GG got lifetime expenses and an obscene pension. MPs aren't complaining at all. There you go, always sunny times.

Edited June 29, 2021 by myata

[myata]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You seem to

I don't care and can't respond to anything that someone sees, ophthalmologist may be able to help with that. There's no accountability where bureaucracy appoints and rewards itself in complete detachment from the reality and without any checks. Very clearly no market works like this and it's got nothing to do with the market. Either you don't understand most basic matters, or being deliberately slow. In either case, not much point in further discussion of the same.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Either you don't understand most basic matters, or being deliberately slow. 

1. I don't think I said anything about that. I just find your anecdotal data to be suspicious. I don't even disagree with you really, I just want a better discussion from you.

[myata]

Basic economy. So there are two types of consumer for $17 glass of juice. The first is a private millionaire. She or he made gazzillion of lalabies sold them at fair market price, paid workers, paid all expenses paid taxes and for the profit, the juice. All is fair - juice exchanged for lalabies at the market freely and voluntarily. Want more juice, make and sell more lalabies and no other way.

The second type is GG, public CEO and MP. CEO got a golden parachute, GG got lifetime expenses and MP, basic salary plus allowances. They haven't made lalabies or anybies; they didn't pay market costs or anything. They can buy $17 juices simply because there's a convenient magic well called "public budget" that exudes whatever is asked and no questions asked. Not to everybody though, need those letters. See, the difference? Who measures the contribution GG made to the economy? Who decided that it costs no less than lifetime expenses?

And that's one of the reasons why there are more super-expensive juices sold. And the price of juice for a regular Joe goes from two bucks to five. With same salary. Hurray, look we have GDP growth here! now make it per capita, see Joe numbers don't lie: same salary $5 juice from two you just got even wealthier!

[cougar]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry Coog, if you like I will provide some anecdotal information of my own ok?

Unfortunately, I am done with you.

As Myata has observed "Either you don't understand most basic matters, or being deliberately slow. "

Kind of what I posted earlier an dyou still wanted me to explain it.  Yes, I had you in mind when I posted my comment. 

Bye,  Bye

[dialamah]

6 hours ago, cougar said:

How are we wealthier?  (refer to Myata's concerns above too)

Then I will answer your question.

Overall standard of living has increased in Western countries.  We have the majority of world's wealth, which includes things like energy, abundant and fresh food and luxuries.  This doesn't include natural resources, as MH has already acknowledged.  

We may have started, or be about to start, on a downhill from here, I dunno.  But complaining about how "poor" Canada is because bus fare has increased and property taxes have gone up seems a pretty "first world" problem to me.

Aggregate data, tracked over years, gives a much clearer picture of Canada's wealth now vs. 1970 or 1990, or vs. other countries.  

Same for natural resources, to which more attention ought to be paid.  That is what will cost us the most, ultimately, in health and money.  

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by dialamah

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, cougar said:

Unfortunately, I am done with you.

As Myata has observed "Either you don't understand most basic matters, or being deliberately slow. "

Kind of what I posted earlier an dyou still wanted me to explain it.  Yes, I had you in mind when I posted my comment. 

Bye,  Bye

So weird.  I have no idea why you would simultaneously dismiss my criticisms and yet not want to even begin to discuss them.

"I believe the economy is terrible, and it's not a matter of numbers, no, but rather something very personal so we cannot talk about it.  Also, you don't have a clue"

?

[myata]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Overall standard of living has increased in Western countries.  We have the majority of world's wealth, which includes things like energy, abundant and fresh food and luxuries.  This doesn't include natural resources, as MH has already acknowledged. 

Double cost of education, more than double rent, double taxes, public transit, public healthcare in crisis, food prices up 50%, license sticker 60% everything up xyz%. House tax up 2-5% annually, on the clock. Municipal service, same.

Same position, same salary trifle more or less, depending on the specifics. MP salary up 50%. GG all expenses paid, who cares.

No-no Joe, you got it all wrong! Look here, see these letters "G-D-P" the numbers can't lie! Just have to take a different look on the reality. Here, put on these "hurray we are all wealthier!" glasses and all be OK... at least till the next budget crisis.

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Double cost of education, more than double rent, double taxes, public transit, public healthcare in crisis, food prices up 50%, license sticker 60% everything up xyz%. House tax up 2-5% annually, on the clock. Municipal service, same.

2. Joe, you got it all wrong! Look here, see these letters "G-D-P" the numbers can't lie!  

1. "Income in Canada 2009 published by Statistics Canada." showed a 17% real gain in income over 40+ plus years.  So your cherry-picked evidence doesn't measure up.

2. I changed from GDP to real income rise for my evidence.  Maybe that will help convince you to not use anecdotal evidence.
 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Income in Canada 2009 published by Statistics Canada." showed a 17% real gain in income over 40+ plus years.  So your cherry-picked evidence doesn't measure up.

You obviously do not understand the matter or actively avoid attempts at understanding and it's getting tiresome. We are not comparing my income 40 years ago and now. We are comparing me 20 years back with someone entering workforce in the same position now. Apples to apples, not GDP with $17 minister juice to oranges. Isolation in the ivory tower under self-engineered spells of beautiful prosperity has been in the root of countless social problems. I have very few doubts that it will happen again (and as long as such isolation is allowed).

Edited June 30, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

1. You obviously do not understand the matter or actively avoid attempts at understanding and it's getting tiresome.

2. We are not comparing my income 40 years ago and now. We are comparing me 20 years back with someone entering workforce in the same position now.  

1. Because I compose a well-researched composite produced by an official institution ?  Vs. you posting 7 random things including "license stickers" ?  Ok then.

2. Produce a cite, then.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Double cost of education, more than double rent, double taxes, public transit, public healthcare in crisis, food prices up 50%, license sticker 60% everything up xyz%. House tax up 2-5% annually, on the clock. Municipal service, same.

Same position, same salary trifle more or less, depending on the specifics. MP salary up 50%. GG all expenses paid, who cares.

No-no Joe, you got it all wrong! Look here, see these letters "G-D-P" the numbers can't lie! Just have to take a different look on the reality. Here, put on these "hurray we are all wealthier!" glasses and all be OK... at least till the next budget crisis.

Maybe it's you who've got it all wrong as you base your conclusions on personal and subjective experience instead of objective data.   Cost of living has certainly increased, but so has income - a fact which you consistently fail to acknowledge in your posts.  So lets look at some data.

By objective measurement - aka GDP - Canada is wealthier than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.  Here's a graph showing that our GDP has steadily increased since the 1960s.  There's a slight dip between 2015 and 2016, but even those years are significantly higher than previous decades and from 2017 on trend to exceed previous highs.

Average hourly wages for Canadians have increased from 2000 to 2020.  Here's a graph showing the fluctuation of the Canadian Consumer Price Index from 2000 to 2020; interestingly, the highest CPI was in 2002, at over 4.5%.   The inflation rate in Canada is shown in this graph - note that the highest rate of inflation was achieved in 1994.

If you insist on relying on subjective data for your "proof", here's a survey from Pew in which people around the world were asked if they thought life was better now or 50 years ago.  In Canada, 24% of people agree with you, while 55% do not.  

Many news stories make the claim that Canadians are not as well off now as they were in previous decades, once their wages and cost of living are compared; perhaps that's true.  If that's your claim, you should be able to find data to back it up rather than insisting that your anecdotal evidence trumps aggregate data tracked over decades.

[myata]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Many news stories make the claim that Canadians are not as well off now as they were in previous decades, once their wages and cost of living are compared; perhaps that's true.  If that's your claim, you should be able to find data to back it up rather than insisting that your anecdotal evidence trumps aggregate data tracked over decades.

OMG factual data is now called "anecdotal". OK. Trump calls it "alternative facts". There you go, the difference. Yawn.