Middle East Crisis
After taking a few days to listen carefully to all sides of the Middle East Crisis, I thought I would give my views on the conflict. I am not an expert in foreign policy and after making the mistake of initially supporting the Iraq war, which I now regret, I thought I would wait until I had enough information before commenting.
First I would like to start off by sending my condolences to all innocent civilians needless killed in the crossfire. My position is similiar to Scott Brison and Joe Volpe . I fully support the right of Israel to defend itself therefore I support the use of limited military action against Lebanon provided all attacks are limited to Hezbollah targets only. However, I believe Harper should have said that Israel has the right to defend itself rather than saying it used a measured response, since it is possible the conflict could escalate beyond its current status in which the response would no longer be measured. Some have suggested we send a UN peacekeeping force in and call for a ceasefire, but I don't believe this is realistic. I support Canada working with the Lebanese government to root out Hezbollah, but I do not support negotiating with either Hezbollah and Hamas. Both groups are groups who advocate terrorism and both advocate the destruction of the state of Israel. While I believe in Canada playing a role as a mediator in general, there are certain principles we must stand squarely against including those who advocating wiping any nation of the map. I instead believe Canada should work with both moderate Israelis and moderate Arabs who want peace and a two-state solution. The fundamentalists from both groups are ones who we cannot reason with.
Now some may say I am being too pro-Israel in my bias, but I do not blindly support Israel. I support Israel withdrawing from occupied territories and dismantling its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, I unequovically support the right of Israel to exist and this is something that I see as non-negotiotable. I should also note Israel allows Arabs to vote and even has some Arab members of government whereas most Arab countries grant Jews few rights and some don't even allow them to enter. Therefore, in my view Israel is anything but a racist state as some on the left accuse it of being.
Some may ask why I don't support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. My reason is this is totally different than either of the two conflicts. I am not against the Americans attacking Afghanistan since they were attacked on 9/11, however I oppose Canadian participation since we were not attacked just as I don't think Canada should participate in Israel's attack on Hezbollah even if I support Israel's actions. In the case of Iraq, the war was totally unprovoked whereas Israel's attack on Hezbollah was in response to being attacked first, not a pre-emptive strike. Also Israel faces a much different situation than the United States. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations such as Syria and Iran who advocate its complete destruction and faces suicide bombings on a regular basis, whereas the United States has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11 and none of its neighbours advocate its destruction.
Finally I should say I am glad to hear that Jim Karygiannis is no longer Joe Volpe's campaign manager. Apparently, the two disagreed strongly on the Middle East Crisis. Karygiannis' departure is a good thing for us Liberals since he is a complete slimeball and is all about hijacking riding associations. Indeed he is responsible for delivering the large number of instant members for Volpe. With him gone, those members likely won't show up to the DSMs so hopefully whoever wins won't have to turn to Volpe for support, which before it looked like they would have.
First I would like to start off by sending my condolences to all innocent civilians needless killed in the crossfire. My position is similiar to Scott Brison and Joe Volpe . I fully support the right of Israel to defend itself therefore I support the use of limited military action against Lebanon provided all attacks are limited to Hezbollah targets only. However, I believe Harper should have said that Israel has the right to defend itself rather than saying it used a measured response, since it is possible the conflict could escalate beyond its current status in which the response would no longer be measured. Some have suggested we send a UN peacekeeping force in and call for a ceasefire, but I don't believe this is realistic. I support Canada working with the Lebanese government to root out Hezbollah, but I do not support negotiating with either Hezbollah and Hamas. Both groups are groups who advocate terrorism and both advocate the destruction of the state of Israel. While I believe in Canada playing a role as a mediator in general, there are certain principles we must stand squarely against including those who advocating wiping any nation of the map. I instead believe Canada should work with both moderate Israelis and moderate Arabs who want peace and a two-state solution. The fundamentalists from both groups are ones who we cannot reason with.
Now some may say I am being too pro-Israel in my bias, but I do not blindly support Israel. I support Israel withdrawing from occupied territories and dismantling its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, I unequovically support the right of Israel to exist and this is something that I see as non-negotiotable. I should also note Israel allows Arabs to vote and even has some Arab members of government whereas most Arab countries grant Jews few rights and some don't even allow them to enter. Therefore, in my view Israel is anything but a racist state as some on the left accuse it of being.
Some may ask why I don't support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. My reason is this is totally different than either of the two conflicts. I am not against the Americans attacking Afghanistan since they were attacked on 9/11, however I oppose Canadian participation since we were not attacked just as I don't think Canada should participate in Israel's attack on Hezbollah even if I support Israel's actions. In the case of Iraq, the war was totally unprovoked whereas Israel's attack on Hezbollah was in response to being attacked first, not a pre-emptive strike. Also Israel faces a much different situation than the United States. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations such as Syria and Iran who advocate its complete destruction and faces suicide bombings on a regular basis, whereas the United States has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11 and none of its neighbours advocate its destruction.
Finally I should say I am glad to hear that Jim Karygiannis is no longer Joe Volpe's campaign manager. Apparently, the two disagreed strongly on the Middle East Crisis. Karygiannis' departure is a good thing for us Liberals since he is a complete slimeball and is all about hijacking riding associations. Indeed he is responsible for delivering the large number of instant members for Volpe. With him gone, those members likely won't show up to the DSMs so hopefully whoever wins won't have to turn to Volpe for support, which before it looked like they would have.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 8:10 PM
82 Comments:
I couldn't agree more, Miles. The fact of the matter is this- the origin of this battle is based on the fact that Israel is fighting for its own right to exist, something no nation in history has had to fight so long or hard for.
People discuss unprovoked attacks, and try and equate this to the Israelis, but the reality is this- Israel's attacks are provoked. Firstly, they are fighting for their right to exist. Secondly, history shows they have complied with all the deamnds sent to them vis-a-vis evacuations. This meant Israeli civlians had to leave Gaza and Lebanon- they had to literally leave their homes, and find somewhere else to live. If this isn't compliance, at least to some extent, I don't know what could be classified as such.
As far as the prisoner situation goes, Hezbollah is calling for a prisoner trade, something I have seen many pro-Lebanse/Palestine people support. What, howeve,r must be considered about this is that the Israeli prisoners were taken hostage as retaliation for said Palestinian civilians being taken hostage. Anti-Israel people have said that Israel did wrong initially by jailing civilians. What they won't say, however, is that said civilians were trying to do harm to Israeli civilians. Thus, incarcerating them would be a logical course of action, would it not?
Essentially, the point I am trying to make is that I do not blindly support Israel. But I do support its right to exist. Furthermore, unlike what anti-Israel forces say, Israel has been rather compliant with the deamnds given to them. I would also like to see the two Israeli soldiers freed, but NOT THE PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS. This is simply because the former were taken in retalation, whereas the latter truly presented a threat.
Granted, what I know about the Middle East could barely fill an entire sock drawer, but, regardless, I thought it necessary to present my opinion given what I have seen over the past week.
I generally agree here. While Israel hasn't been fully compliant, I think they have generally been far better at keeping within the spirit of the UN Charter. The reality is a large number of the anti-Israel UN resolutions have been brought forward by countries that are committed to Israel's destruction. I don't blindly support Israel, but I generally support them. That being said I totally oppose the settlers on occupied land who much like the suicide bombers follow a radical form of Judaism just as the terrorists follow a radical form of Islam. In fact I oppose religious fundamentalists of any religion as I believe in tolerance of all faiths and don't tolerate those who promote hatred towards other faiths or cultures.
Karygiannis' departure is a good thing for us Liberals since he is a complete slimeball and is all about hijacking riding associations. Indeed he is responsible for delivering the large number of instant members for Volpe.
So now you admit it. Better late then never I guess.
If only you could bring yourself to admit the same about guys like Mark Marissen and the rest of the Martinista crew.
But I know your undying soft spot for Martin will never allow you to do that.
there are certain principles we must stand squarely against including those who advocating wiping any nation of the map.
Hezbollah and Hamas aren't evil (and yes, I did mean to say "evil") simply because of their raison d'etre.
Yes, the fact that they want to destroy Israel is abhorrent. But putting that aside, the tactics they employ are abhorrent as well.
That's why I feel there is little distinction to be made between Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers or the IRA for that matter.
The end can never justify the means employed by terrorists.
If only you could bring yourself to admit the same about guys like Mark Marissen and the rest of the Martinista crew.
But I know your undying soft spot for Martin will never allow you to do that.
Not going to happen. I've met Mark Marissen I thought he was a decent guy. He is also the husband of Christy Clark who was an excellent education minister and excellent MLA. And yes I do have a soft spot for Paul Martin. But I have also met the guy and he is not like what he appears to be in front of the camera. In fact he is a soft spoken and very nice man. He also worked with my Dad 30 years ago so I do have family connections here and when I introduced myself he know right away who I was as soon as I said my last name. He also recognized my father when he saw one time at an airport and they even sat down and talked (although not about politcs, but their lives).
Yes, the fact that they want to destroy Israel is abhorrent. But putting that aside, the tactics they employ are abhorrent as well.
That's why I feel there is little distinction to be made between Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers or the IRA for that matter.
The end can never justify the means employed by terrorists.
I agree here. I abhor the IRA who BTW the Liberals did ban and I also abhor the Tamil Tigers. I should note not all Liberals are against banning them, many are for banning them. However, as a strong believer in freedom of association I believe all bans should be done with caution and only when all the facts are known, not rushed.
So you do not believe Canada should help in the war in Afghanistan because Canada was not directly attacked? So by that logic, if Canada were attacked then you would not expect other countries (namely the U.S.) to help out? Quite a perilous line of thinking seeing as Canada has virtually no ability to defend herself.
Yet another non-sensical and not very well thought out rant by Mr. Lunn...
Indy - If Canada were attacked it would be up to the United States to decide whether to help out or not. We are a sovereign nation so no country should be obliged to help out. Likewise we should not be obliged to come to the aid of anyone. It is ultimately up to us based on our national interests. In World War II we were right to help out while in Afghanistan it does not serve our natioanl interests to help out. In addition by not attacking others and creating enemies, the chances of us being attacked are quite low. Unlike you, I don't share your love affair with the United States. I don't blindly oppose everything the United States does, but I generally disagree with them on foreign policy and would like us to keep as much distance between ourselves and them as possible. I don't believe it serves our national interests to closely align our foreign policy with the United States. Now that doesn't mean we must blindly oppose them, but I do believe that more often than not we should disagree than agree on foreign policy.
"but I do believe that more often than not we should disagree than agree on foreign policy."
That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog (which says a lot). Would you care to rephrase that?
Furthermore, you seem to base the question on whether we help out or not based strictly upon populism. This is the part where you insert the statistic telling me the percent of Canadians which oppose going into Afghanistan. Here's a stat for you: 100% of Canadians would be in favor of a policy wherby helicopters would drop hundred dollar bills from the sky. Fortunately we elect representatives so that populism is not required on every issue (now if we could just get our representatives to vote their constituency rather than the party line).
Unfortunately your head is lodged so far up your rear-end that you think Canada can align itself economically with the U.S. yet be diametrically opposed on a foreign affairs basis, which if you ask me is either a result of your young age (or lack of experience in the real world), or lack of intelligence.
Christy Clark who was an excellent education minister
I thought she was a disastrous education minister. She led the stripping of a legally binding contract (how do your principles feel about that) and then maintained a poisonous relationship with the education professionals she had so succesfully demoralized. She was totally lacking respect for the people she was supposed to work with. This eventually preciptated the teacher walkout, the longest such work stoppage in B.C. history. Her record as education minister was awful, and is the worst education minister I can remember. What exactly did she do for education that was so excellent?
I am not against the Americans attacking Afghanistan since they were attacked on 9/11, however I oppose Canadian participation since we were not attacked
The U.S. would come to our aid if we were attacked (NATO), why wouldn't we come to theirs? Despite our two countries' recent diferences we're the closest of allies. I'm disturbed by the Canadian casualites in Afghanistan (we had better not be enforcing some dumb poppy policy), but I'm proud that we're there.
P.S. twenty-four Canadians were killed when the Afghan-trained terrorists attacked on 9/11.
That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog (which says a lot). Would you care to rephrase that?
My point is here Canada and the United States are very different countries in terms of their geo-political positions. The United States is the World's only superpower, while Canada is a small middle power, so due to our different interests, it should be expected that we disagree more often than agree. Now we shouldn't blindly disagree with the Americans and we should be respectful when we disagree, not showboat or rub it in their faces.
Furthermore, you seem to base the question on whether we help out or not based strictly upon populism. This is the part where you insert the statistic telling me the percent of Canadians which oppose going into Afghanistan. Here's a stat for you: 100% of Canadians would be in favor of a policy wherby helicopters would drop hundred dollar bills from the sky. Fortunately we elect representatives so that populism is not required on every issue (now if we could just get our representatives to vote their constituency rather than the party line).
Canadians are 50/50 split on Afghanistan. Besides I don't support populism either. I believe we should make decisions based on principle not popularity and opposing the Iraq War, BMD, and abstaining from Afghanistan are principled positions regardless of what most Canadians think.
Unfortunately your head is lodged so far up your rear-end that you think Canada can align itself economically with the U.S. yet be diametrically opposed on a foreign affairs basis, which if you ask me is either a result of your young age (or lack of experience in the real world), or lack of intelligence.
Actually I've called for Canada to diversify its trade. I support free trade with the United States, but I support free trade with every country since free trade allows for greater specialization meaning higher quality products and services at lower prices as well as it creates a more competitive environment which also allows for higher quality products at lower prices. I do not however support greater economic integration with the United States. I am opposed to a customs union, economic union, or common market similiar to what they have in Europe. We should maintain the ability to independently decide our economic decisions. I am for a free trade zone, but not a single market.
Also on foreign policy, we are a sovereign nation and the ability to decide on one's foreign policy independently is fundamental to being a sovereign nation. We should never allow any foreign nation or international organization to set our foreign policy. Besides the European Union, which is far more integrated economically than NAFTA still was not able to agree on Iraq. France and Britain took diametrically opposed positions on Iraq despite both being EU members. And besides even if the EU did have a common foreign policy, it would be based on a consensus amongst nations not one nation deciding for another as it would be if Canada and the United States had a common foreign policy.
Unlike you Indy, I respect the Americans and believe in having friendly relations with them. But I also recognize we are an independent nation and as an independent nation we must have an independent foreign policy, which means neither blindly following nor blindly opposing the Americans, but deciding on case by case basis.
I thought she was a disastrous education minister. She led the stripping of a legally binding contract (how do your principles feel about that) and then maintained a poisonous relationship with the education professionals she had so succesfully demoralized. She was totally lacking respect for the people she was supposed to work with. This eventually preciptated the teacher walkout, the longest such work stoppage in B.C. history. Her record as education minister was awful, and is the worst education minister I can remember. What exactly did she do for education that was so excellent?
Perhaps excellent was too generous a term, but I would said good, which I am sure you would disagree with. But a few facts to keep in mind is we faced a major deficit when the BC Liberals took power and despite that she still gave them a 7.5% raise while the NDP only gave them 2% over 3 years. Had we given them the 24% they asked for, we would still be in deficit. Also despite enrolment declining due to an aging population, funding for education was increased not cut as some claim. Finally David Chudnovsky who was BCTF president then is amongst the most left wing members within the BC NDP caucus. According to Keith Baldry he lies well to the left of Carole James. Considering how much of an ideologue he was, I am not surprised the relationship was somewhat poisonous regretfully. And lets remember the BC Liberals are the only party to settle with the BCTF since province wide bargaining was instituted, something the BC NDP never managed to do.
The U.S. would come to our aid if we were attacked (NATO), why wouldn't we come to theirs? Despite our two countries' recent diferences we're the closest of allies. I'm disturbed by the Canadian casualites in Afghanistan (we had better not be enforcing some dumb poppy policy), but I'm proud that we're there.
Whether the US comes to our aid if attacked or not is ultimately up to their discretion. If they were attacked by a conventional army or occupied by a foreign country, then I would argue we should send troops, but this was a terrorist attack by a non-state actor, something that remains a grey area under NATO. As for our recent differences, it remains to be seen whether this was a blip on the radar or a permanent shift. I think it may be a permanent shift since in the past the Northeast was where the population was the largest and they have a lot more in common with Canada than the Sun Belt states where most of the population growth is occurring.
P.S. twenty-four Canadians were killed when the Afghan-trained terrorists attacked on 9/11.
Whenever a Canada lives or travels abroad there is a certain risk factor and I don't believe we should attack another nation everytime a Canadian abroad is killed. Using this logic we would join Lebanon in attacking Israel since some Canadians were killed in Lebanon. Now it is true Lebanon is a much higher risk country to travel to than the United States.
P.S. twenty-four Canadians were killed when the Afghan-trained terrorists attacked on 9/11.
How about that! I actually agree with Brian on something!
Behold!
I hereby give you South Park Miles!
Well I guess that means there is at least one issue where Brian is to the right of me. However, the reality is I don't blindly follow any particular ideology, but I am left wing on some issues and right wing on others. Part of the reason I am a Liberal is they are on the only party that is not firmly planted on either the left or right side of the spectrum, but rather is on both sides even if in different areas than myself.
Nice Cartoon Brandon I must add. And yes I do still like Paul Martin. I kind of feel sorry for the guy as I think he was a good man who got caught in a bad situation that he didn't know how to deal with. Off course I know you are happy he is gone. But I suspect if you actually sat down with the man for coffee you might realize he is not that bad a person. In fact you might even like him. I have yet to meet anyone who knows Paul Martin and doesn't have anything but good things to say about him. On the other hand I've heard of people who have not so good things to say about Stephen Harper who have known him personally.
"I do not however support greater economic integration with the United States."
How can you support free trade yet not economic integration? They are virtually one and the same. You are reading from a text book yet have little understanding of what you are actually reading.
How can you support free trade yet not economic integration? They are virtually one and the same. You are reading from a text book yet have little understanding of what you are actually reading.
No they are not the same. Free trade means the right for capital to move across borders freely, while economic integration means harmonizing economic regulations. I support free trade with every country, not just the United States. However, I unlike you Indy want Canada to maintain its sovereignty. This is not about being anti-American, its about wanting to maintain our ability to make our decisions independently.
"while economic integration means harmonizing economic regulations"
No, true free trade means getting rid of all economic regulations.
And enough with the strawman arguments (look it up if you don't know what that means), nowhere did I say I did not wish for Canada to maintain its sovereignty. I want what's best for Canada whether it means agreeing or disagreeing with a U.S. policy. Since we live next to the most powerful and largest economy in the world, it would make sense to take advantage of that.
You and your crowd support the supression of media rights, protectionism, etc so that Canada can maintain a distinctive culture from the U.S., you give Canadians and Canadian culture far too little credit by assuming that we need protection from U.S. cultural forces. You seem to imply that Bush himself comes to Canada with a loaded gun to force the opening of McDonalds and other "U.S. Integration". No 2 countries in the world are more alike than Canada and the U.S. (aside from the obvious lack of any Canadian backbone), however since you seem to ignore any REAL positive qualities about Canada, you instead only grasp to perceived differences to the United States at all costs. I pity you for such a narrow mind.
No, true free trade means getting rid of all economic regulations.
Whoa, do you realize what you just said. Getting rid of ALL regulations includes ones that prevent pollution, child labour, minimum wage laws. I support fewer regulations, but I do believe certain regulations such as environmental laws are necessary, however I don't support ones such as prohibiting the sale of insurance in bank branches.
Since we live next to the most powerful and largest economy in the world, it would make sense to take advantage of that.
Since we are a multicultural and globally oriented country we should take advantages of all opportunities globally and this is achieved by not getting too close to any one country, but maintain friendly relations with as many countries as possible.
You and your crowd support the supression of media rights, protectionism, etc so that Canada can maintain a distinctive culture from the U.S., you give Canadians and Canadian culture far too little credit by assuming that we need protection from U.S. cultural forces.
Actually I was talking about not going to a single market similiar to what they have in Europe where they have a common currency, no border controls, a common passport, and harmonized regulations as well as a common external tariff. I didn't say anytning in regards to cultural protectionism. But while on the topic, I should note even Conservatives such as Brian Mulroney here in Canada, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, or John Howard in Australia left alone and in the case of Brian Mulroney strongly supported policies to protect their culture. I do feel the current CRTC rules are overly restrictive, but I feel it is essential that Canadians have a medium to express their viewpoints and if this means some government regulation so be it. I would prefer we could rely on the market, but I am not willing to see our television and airwaves entirely American. This is not about being anti-American, this is about ensuring Canadian voices have a place to be heard.
No 2 countries in the world are more alike than Canada and the U.S.
Thats debatable. On issues such as Same-sex marriage, death penalty, universal health care, our social safety net, Kyoto Protocol, ICC, multilateralism and a host of other issues, we seem to have more in common with most European countries than the United States. I would argue we are quite a bit different, however that is just my opinion.
since you seem to ignore any REAL positive qualities about Canada, you instead only grasp to perceived differences to the United States at all costs. I pity you for such a narrow mind
I think Canada has many strengths I am proud of. However, I also believe that a strong Canada means being an independent one and a united one. That is why I oppose both regionalism and continentalism.
"That is why I oppose both regionalism"
I'm assuming you mean "federalism"? As in the federalism that is outlined in the constitution? You ever wonder why Canada is constantly bogged down by seperatist outcries (from both the east and west) and yet you never hear this in the U.S.? Its because they are smart enough to realize how a large and diverse nation cannot be governed centrally. Canada's forefathers were smart enough to realize this as well, unfortunately the power hungry politicans (from all parties, but especially those on the left, most of whom are socialists if not communists in disguise) piss all over the constitution and make matters that are designated provincially into federal issues.
I'm assuming you mean "federalism"? As in the federalism that is outlined in the constitution? You ever wonder why Canada is constantly bogged down by seperatist outcries (from both the east and west) and yet you never hear this in the U.S.? Its because they are smart enough to realize how a large and diverse nation cannot be governed centrally. Canada's forefathers were smart enough to realize this as well, unfortunately the power hungry politicans (from all parties, but especially those on the left, most of whom are socialists if not communists in disguise) piss all over the constitution and make matters that are designated provincially into federal issues
Actually today, the United States is probably more centralized than Canada. However, in a globalized economy devolving a lot of power to the provinces makes no sense. More importantly we are a nation and it is important that are common standards from coast to coast. I believe the federal government needs to stop pitting region against region, but I am all for having power transferred from the provinces to the federal government. Due to economies of scale, they can do things cheaper. Also have you ever heard the divide and conquer. The more power we grant to the provinces the more difficult it is for us to maintain our sovereignty globally. I unlike you oppose both devolving more power to the provinces and giving more power to international organizations. Finally part of the reason I support more a strong independent nation is I don't identify myself as a British Columbian despite living my whole life here nor do I identify myself as a North American, I consider myself a Canadian and believe that we as Canadian people do share common interests from coast to coast.
"Actually today, the United States is probably more centralized than Canada."
You just lost most of your credibility. An absurd claim.
"More importantly we are a nation and it is important that are common standards from coast to coast"
Someone in Toronto has more in common with someone from New York City than he does with someone in B.C.
"The more power we grant to the provinces the more difficult it is for us to maintain our sovereignty globally"
Really? Ask the U.S. about that, havent heard any seperatist talks since Texas WAY back when they joined the Union.
It seems most of your ideas come straight from OpEds and text books, with little real world experience and an even smaller regard for history.
Thanks for playing...
"Actually today, the United States is probably more centralized than Canada."
Miles is actually right on that score. Provincial premiers exercise far more power than US state governors do.
I would argue we are quite a bit different, however that is just my opinion.
Canada and the US have a shared language (excluding Quebec), a shared colonial origin and intertwined history, a similar culture, a roughly equivilant per capita economic status and daily lifestyle, and both are liberal democracies.
Countless North American families have ties to both sides of the border, and together the two countries have built the largest and most prosperous trading relationship in human history.
There are differences of course, and few would deny that Canada (at least in the last 40 or so years) has tended to tilt further left than the US.
But to say that we have closer ties to, and more in common with continental Europe? I'm sorry, but that's nothing more than a leftist fantasy.
It seems most of your ideas come straight from OpEds and text books, with little real world experience and an even smaller regard for history.
Thanks for playing...
You're condescending. Miles presents thought through arguments.
Indy is right on the centralization card from a historical perspective, but not today. At the time of confederation the US gave more power to the states in their constitution than Canada gave to its provinces, but today the provinces have more power than state governors. They have a common securities regulator, whereas we don't, they have a federal education department, which we don't, and also all internal trade barriers are prohibited, whereas they still exist in Canada. In addition states cannot opt out of social security and set up their own equivalent plans, whereas they can here.
Someone in Toronto has more in common with someone from New York City than he does with someone in B.C.
I would disagree with that. While Toronto and New York City are similiar in terms of being large cosmpolitan cities with a large ethnic community and the financial centres, I would say Torontonians are far closer to Vancouverites than New Yorkers. I've been to both cities and I can tell you Toronto is far more like Vancouver than New York.
But to say that we have closer ties to, and more in common with continental Europe? I'm sorry, but that's nothing more than a leftist fantasy.
I was talking in terms of values, as opposed to culture. Like Europe we've abolished the death penalty while the US hasn't, like Europe we have universal health care whereas the US doesn't, on gay marriage the majority in most EU countries and Canada support it while most Americans don't, we ratified the Kyoto Protocol, landmines treaty, and ICC like the Europeans whereas the Americans didn't. I would argue Canada is in terms of its attitude towards the welfare state more in line with Europe (although not quite as left wing) than it is with the United States. The same could be said for foreign policy since we tend to be more multilateralists while the US is more unilateralists.
Now part of the reason for these big differences is Quebec has had a very strong pull on Canada and has played a large role in pulling Canada to the left like Europe and while Alberta is more conservative it hasn't counterbalanced Quebec's leftward pull. On the other hand, the political centre of gravity in the United States has shifted from the Northeast, to the South and Southwest which is quite a bit more conservative than Canada so this has pulled the US to the right. In fact I've seen polling data of Canadians, Americans, and Europeans and on most although not all, issues, Canadian numbers are more in line with the European numbers than American. In fact I would argue Britain is slightly more conservative than Canada post Thatcher although not nearly as conservative as the US.
With regards to the steady rightward march of the U.S. and Canada since ~1970, I think it would be enlightening to read this.
Seems like the ideas presented way back in 1971 have been put into action with great success.
This was the cover article on the Georgia Straight earlier this month. Worth reading - Miles: I think it will confirm many of your suspicions regarding Harper.
"You're condescending. Miles presents thought through arguments."
That was never in dispute, what I am disputing is where he gets his opinions from; which I suspect to be the Toronto Star and NY Times.
"I would say Torontonians are far closer to Vancouverites than New Yorkers (blather deleted)"
I would expect you to say this since it is unlikely that you have ever lived in the United States or spent significant time outside of your own province. To go even further, someone from Sarnia has more in common with someone from Michigan than he does someone from Toronto. Trust me on this, I have seen it with my own eyes. To go one step beyond that, someone from Haliburton shares more values with someone from Oklahoma than he does someone from Toronto. To a large degree, borders are nothing but imaginary lines in the sand, just look at Europe.
Brian - Two interesting reads, although my views are a bit different than yours. I really have no problem with economic conservatism, it is more social conservatism that scares me. The reality is our spending was getting out of control by the early 90s, so major spending cuts were needed to turn our finances around. Likewise taxing the corporations want work in a globalized economy, where capital is highly mobile. We need enough taxes to fund important programs, but our tax rates must be competitive. In the case of regulation, that is an additional cost to businesses that is usually passed on to the consumers so while I support common sense regulations such as environmental laws and minimum wages, I think we have more regulation than needed. I also generally support privatization wherever the private sector can offer a similiar service since all too often crown corporations are highly politicized both in their appointments and how they are run. At the very least crown corporations should be at arms length from the government whereby political hacks are not appointed as heads and decisions are made independently, not to try and win votes around elections. I find the Fraser Institute goes a bit far in their views and I feel they often draw their conclusions before doing their research rather than doing it the other way, but I do support their premise of free markets.
Now here is where I do find Harper scary. I absolutely abhor social conservatism and feel the government has no business in runing people's personal lives. In fact I don't see how libertarians and social conservatives can exist under one tent considering how divergent their views are. They may have an equal hatred for the Liberals and Socialists, but thats about all that unites them. A party cannot exist merely to oppose another, it must stand for something.
I also strongly oppose deeper integration with the United States. Whether one is right wing or left wing, decisions ought to be made by the Canadian people. Many on the right favour greater integration with the United States in the hopes of pushing Canada further to the right. I believe that if the right wingers want to move Canada to the right they should convince Canadians of its merits not subvert democracy.
Finally I oppose Harper's radical decentralization. We are already amongst the most decentralized federations in the World, so further decentralization will only weaken our nation further.
Those are the three main reasons I find Harper scary and want him out of office soon.
That was never in dispute, what I am disputing is where he gets his opinions from; which I suspect to be the Toronto Star and NY Times.
Actually I don't read the New York Times, but I do read the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post so I can get the left, right, and centrist perspective. In fact I would encourage you Indy to stop only relying on the neo-con propaganda and start looking at a variety of sources.
I would expect you to say this since it is unlikely that you have ever lived in the United States or spent significant time outside of your own province
Actually most of my family lives in Alberta and yes I have spent a fair bit of time in the United States and know many people who have lived there. I can tell you, I noticed a big difference and all those I've talked to who lived there were shocked at how some viewpoints be it on gun control, race relations, gay rights, war and peace, and health care that are seen as far right in Canada are very mainstream there. The difference is not so much in day to day culture, which is similiar, but in terms of values. Perhaps you should read Michael Adams' Fire and Ice, the Myth of Converging Values, which exposes these differences. Finally do you honestly believe that a leader could run on a platform as far right as Bush and get 51% of the popular vote or even close to that. Or do you believe that a party that ran a platform as left wing as the Liberals could get 64% in the US (Liberals + BQ + NDP + Green Party all ran on platforms that would result in getting clobbered in the US yet together got 64% of the popular vote).
To go even further, someone from Sarnia has more in common with someone from Michigan than he does someone from Toronto. Trust me on this, I have seen it with my own eyes. To go one step beyond that, someone from Haliburton shares more values with someone from Oklahoma than he does someone from Toronto
I haven't been to any of those places, but I can tell you a person in White Rock has more in common with a person in Calgary or in Oshawa than a person in Blaine, which is just across the border.
To a large degree, borders are nothing but imaginary lines in the sand, just look at Europe.
I disagree here. It is true the physical borders between countries in Europe are gone, but that doesn't mean cultural differences don't still exist. Likewise the border between Canada and the United States may have been an artificial line 200 years ago, but over time the two countries have developed their unique and distinct cultures. If Canada and the United States were so similiar, Canadians wouldn't object to deeper integration, yet poll after poll shows Canadians want less not more integration with the United States.
Brian:
1) If the Fraser Institute is meant to propagate right-wing policies, then what is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for?
2)The Miles I know is a hardcore economic libertarian, the almost quintessential Fraser Institute kind of guy.
His economic views are almost certainly to the right of mine, for example.
If he attacks Harper on this, he'll attack him on anything.
3)It's kind of odd to suggest that Harper is beholden to some corporate agenda when he's in the process of completely banning corporate donations to political parties.
Like the move or hate it, the inescapable reality of it is that weakens the influence of big business over our politics, quite the opposite what this article suggests.
The real darling of the corporate elite was this guy.
If the Fraser Institute is meant to propagate right-wing policies, then what is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for?
I fully agree here. In fact even Ed Broadbent who disagrees with the Fraser Institute on pretty much every issue argued that it is a good thing they exist since they contribute to the debate.
The Miles I know is a hardcore economic libertarian, the almost quintessential Fraser Institute kind of guy.
His economic views are almost certainly to the right of mine, for example.
If he attacks Harper on this, he'll attack him on anything.
I wouldn't call myself a hard-core Libertarian, at least not when compared to some of the pure Libertarians in the US Libertarian party such as Harry Browne, but I certainly have strong libertarian leanings. I agree with the Fraser Institute on some issues such as Harris-Manning Report advocating a parallel private health system similiar to most European countries, but I disagree with their study that advocated privatizing jails (note Brandon, even private prisons are funded through taxpayer dollars).
It's kind of odd to suggest that Harper is beholden to some corporate agenda when he's in the process of completely banning corporate donations to political parties.
Like the move or hate it, the inescapable reality of it is that weakens the influence of big business over our politics, quite the opposite what this article suggests.
I would say he has strong sympathies for the oil patch. Now I don't agree with the NDP and to a lesser extent the Liberal's hostility to the oil industry. If anything we should work with them to lead the way in greener technologies. As for the corporate donations ban, this is simply to make it more difficult for the Liberals to raise money. In fact the National Citizen's Coalition where he formerly worked opposes the accountability act. And I happen to agree with them as I think $5,400 is already too strict for personal donations and I do believe corporate and union donations should be allowed.
"If anything we should work with them to lead the way in greener technologies."
There is only one thing that will lead to oil alternatives and that is a sustainably high oil price. The free market will determine this and any attempt of government to "lead the way" would be a waste of time and money. As soon as the price of oil drops (and it will, with the world economy starting to slow) all of this talk about alternative energy nonsense will fade into the sunset until the next oil spike, just like it did after the last oil spike. To suggest otherwise would indicate a lack of knowledge as to how the economy works, a lack of knowledge of the history of energy prices, pure fantasy speculation, or all of the above.
Likewise taxing the corporations want work in a globalized economy, where capital is highly mobile
People don't seem to be starving in the Netherlands or Japan, where their tax structure is much more "progressive." Did you know that Alberta only taxes corporations 1% for oil extracted from the tar sands? Ridiculous.
I agree with the Fraser Institute on some issues such as Harris-Manning Report advocating a parallel private health system.
This to me is a very bad idea. A private system takes not only patients but also resources (doctors) away from the public system. Doctors would likely earn more in the private system (as it would be patronized by the wealthy elite), and so that system would be able to pick and choose the "best" and most experienced doctors leaving the public system with a lower standard of care. Do you, Miles, deserve lesser care than "Jimmy" in West Van because Jimmy inherited a boatload of money?
Besides, if any Canadian insists on private care then the U.S. is right next door.
As for economic conservatism in general (cut social programs, cut corporate tax, cut the higher income tax brackets, cut taxes that effect those with large amounts of money like capital gains taxes and luxury boat taxes, cut funding to areas such as parks, raise user fees, raise flat taxes), one has to wonder who is really benefiting. The economy is booming, but how much has the average inflation adjusted income changed in the last 20 years? Very, very little. How much has the wealth of the wealthiest 10% of Canadians increased in the last 20 years? A great, great deal.
As our economic policies have moved right the wealth of the middle class has stagnated and the wealth of the uber-rich has skyrocketed... do you disagree?
I fully agree here. In fact even Ed Broadbent who disagrees with the Fraser Institute on pretty much every issue argued that it is a good thing they exist since they contribute to the debate.
What is bad is when news services like those owned by CanWest (i.e. any media outlet who's website is on canada.com such as bctv and the sun/province) give the Fraser's reports undue exposure with little or no critical analysis because the Fraser's views are aligned with CanWest's business interests. It's effectively a large corporation pushing the corporate agenda and presenting it as "news". This is not right.
Brian said:
What is bad is when news services like those owned by CanWest (i.e. any media outlet who's website is on canada.com such as bctv and the sun/province) give the Fraser's reports undue exposure with little or no critical analysis because the Fraser's views are aligned with CanWest's business interests. It's effectively a large corporation pushing the corporate agenda and presenting it as "news". This is not right.
Brandon said:
1) If the Fraser Institute is meant to propagate right-wing policies, then what is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for?
I fully agree with Brian. Countless times I have seen a Fraser Institute recommendation on the cover of the Sun or the Province procaiming it as news. i.e. "Lower Corporate Taxes Needed" or "Private Health Delivery Beneficial" or something to that effect.
Brandon, the whole nature of the right/left spectrum puts the left at a disadvantage in terms of economic influence. What is your point in mentioning the CCPA?
Why do you suppose that many poor people could be considered left wing and many rich people could be considered right wing? You could say that the poor people see their lot improving the most with leftist policies and the rich are happy with the status quo, but I think it is deeper than this. I think those with inherently right wing values are the ones that are more likely to become rich because you don't really become rich caring about the common good and welfare.
Considering the wealth involved in politics, the media, creating studies, etc., wouldn't you say that the right (i.e. the Fraser Institute) already has an inherent advantage? They don't need to be given more freebies by our government as an underhanded way to increase their support.
3)It's kind of odd to suggest that Harper is beholden to some corporate agenda when he's in the process of completely banning corporate donations to political parties.
He won't need large campaign budgets if he can manipulate charity laws, etc (It's absurd to me that the Fraser Institute is considered a charity, as if the rich need more help) in order to funnel huge amounts of taxpayer money into his proxy cheerleaders.
Indy - There is already a strong wind industry in Alberta and yes governments can use policies to encourage green technologies without raising taxes. For example, here in BC, there is no PST on green cars, so policies like that should be considered. Your attitude that we should do nothing about the environment and just continue to pollute is the wrong way to go. Also while when oil prices drop there may be less demand for green technologies, has it ever occurred to you that people actually care about the environment. If consumers want greener products, even under the free market, they will be produced. Change in the environment cannot just come from the government, it must also involve individuals making conscious changes in their lifestyles.
People don't seem to be starving in the Netherlands or Japan, where their tax structure is much more "progressive." Did you know that Alberta only taxes corporations 1% for oil extracted from the tar sands? Ridiculous.
I am all for progressive taxes, but progressive taxes is the difference in percentage those with higher incomes pay versus those with lower incomes, I doesn't have anything to do with levels of taxation. In terms of corporations only paying 1% tax on oil extracted, it doesn't seem to be little when you consider how much revenue the Alberta government is overflowing with. They are debt free, have the lowest taxes in Canada, and the highest per capita social spending.
This to me is a very bad idea. A private system takes not only patients but also resources (doctors) away from the public system. Doctors would likely earn more in the private system (as it would be patronized by the wealthy elite), and so that system would be able to pick and choose the "best" and most experienced doctors leaving the public system with a lower standard of care. Do you, Miles, deserve lesser care than "Jimmy" in West Van because Jimmy inherited a boatload of money?
While you have a good point here, I would encourage you to read up on the systems in Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. All of those countries are generally to the left of Canada, have better health care systems and yes allow people to pay for health care although they use various mechanisms such as banning doctors in the private sector from charging more than in the public sector in Sweden and the Netherlands and others such as requiring patients to go either entirely private for everything or entirely public for everything in terms of payments in Germany and the Netherlands. As for a wealthier person getting better care, I don't like the idea, but it is already happening. Here in BC we have 6 private MRI clinics and there are places where a person with money can get a hip replacement in two weeks rather than 9 months. And never mind a person injured on the job gets faster service (through the WCB) than a person injured in their home. Ultimately by having a parallel private system this would mean fewer people using the public system thus reducing the queue for everyone. They could also like Quebec set maximum waiting times and send those who cannot afford to go to private clinics to them and have the government pay.
Besides, if any Canadian insists on private care then the U.S. is right next door.
Wouldn't it be better to keep them in Canada where the money would stay here and contribute to our economy instead of theirs. Also if patients are going South for faster treatment, wouldn't it reason allowing a parallel private system might discourage some doctors from heading South.
As for economic conservatism in general (cut social programs, cut corporate tax, cut the higher income tax brackets, cut taxes that effect those with large amounts of money like capital gains taxes and luxury boat taxes, cut funding to areas such as parks, raise user fees, raise flat taxes)
Economic conservatism is about less government for everyone, not just helping the rich, that is neo-conservatism. I support tax cuts for all incomes, but with preference given to those of lower incomes. I support spending cuts in programs that aren't needed or where duplication is occurring, but I don't support cutting funding to health care and education unless it involves cutting bureaucracy and waste and running the program more efficiently. I oppose corporate subsidies, handing out money to every special interest group that comes begging for money, and funding pet projects to win votes.
As our economic policies have moved right the wealth of the middle class has stagnated and the wealth of the uber-rich has skyrocketed... do you disagree?
What I care about is that no one falls below a certain income and that everyone is better off. I don't get so caught up in this gap between the rich and the poor so long as the poor have a decent standard of living. This only becomes an issue when the poor don't. The reality is if we didn't have people making a lot of money, there would be no incentive to innovate or take risks. Much of what rely on today wouldn't exist if people didn't take risks. Most multi-national corporations including ones like Starbucks and McDonald's originally started out as small businesses and single operations and expanded due to their success. Most businesses fail so if there is a high risk, shouldn't there be a high reward for those that do succeed.
What is bad is when news services like those owned by CanWest (i.e. any media outlet who's website is on canada.com such as bctv and the sun/province) give the Fraser's reports undue exposure with little or no critical analysis because the Fraser's views are aligned with CanWest's business interests. It's effectively a large corporation pushing the corporate agenda and presenting it as "news". This is not right
And what about papers like the Toronto Star who are very critical of the Fraser Institute. The reality is the media is not all right wing or left wing, but a mixture. There will be some who will cheer on the Fraser Institute, but others who are quite critical.
Brandon, the whole nature of the right/left spectrum puts the left at a disadvantage in terms of economic influence. What is your point in mentioning the CCPA?
Actually Mike that is not totally true. The rich may have more money, but there are fewer of them. Also left wing groups like CUPE and CAW have just as much power as the Fraser Institute. Every time they hold a major protest or rally this gets a lot of public attention and surely plays a role in shaping public opinion. In fact unlike the United States where the right has disproportionate power, here both the left and the right are relatively balanced in the power they have. Off course each side claims the media is sympathetic towards the other side. In fact almost everyone says the media is biased against the other side, whereas I have found they generally like to focus on bad news or controversial ideas regardless of which side of the spectrum they come from.
I think those with inherently right wing values are the ones that are more likely to become rich because you don't really become rich caring about the common good and welfare.
That is actually not totally true. They are many people who have been quite successful and treat their employees quite well. In fact in the long-run ethical firms generally perform better than unethical ones. And not all rich are right wing or all poor are left wing. Of the 10 wealthiest ridings in Canada, 8 of them went Liberal while only 2 went Conservative. Likewise some of the poorest ridings in Canada (mostly rural ones I might add) went Conservative. I myself hope to be rich one day and don't see the rich as inherently evil. In fact the wealthiest man in the world Bill Gates has given quite a bit to charity. Also companies that treat their employees well will attract higher quality employees and are generally more productive than those who treat them poorly.
Considering the wealth involved in politics, the media, creating studies, etc., wouldn't you say that the right (i.e. the Fraser Institute) already has an inherent advantage? They don't need to be given more freebies by our government as an underhanded way to increase their support
Not necessarily. When you consider how much money some unions put into elections, the left is still quite powerful. Also I think Canadians generally get turned off by parties that are funded by special interest groups be they left wing or right wing. If anything pandering to the Fraser Institute would probably hurt the Conservatives more than help them and likewise the NDP or Liberals pandering to the CCPA would probably be hurt more than helped. In fact the Conservatives close ties with some religious right groups was one of the major reasons I didn't vote for them.
He won't need large campaign budgets if he can manipulate charity laws, etc (It's absurd to me that the Fraser Institute is considered a charity, as if the rich need more help) in order to funnel huge amounts of taxpayer money into his proxy cheerleaders.
I would agree to this as long as you apply it to left wing groups like the CCPA as well.
I am all for progressive taxes, but progressive taxes is the difference in percentage those with higher incomes pay versus those with lower incomes, I doesn't have anything to do with levels of taxation. In terms of corporations only paying 1% tax on oil extracted, it doesn't seem to be little when you consider how much revenue the Alberta government is overflowing with. They are debt free, have the lowest taxes in Canada, and the highest per capita social spending.
I was going to point this out myself, but Miles beat me to it.
It hardly seem ridiculous when Alberta has the highest health care spending, the highest education spending, and likely the highest spending on other social programs as well, while still managing to remain debt free, have among the lowest income taxes, and no sales tax.
Who exactly in Alberta is hurting from all of that?
The sad thing is Brian seems to be coming from the perspective that it's more important to get corporations and the rich in general to pay more in tax than to promote mutual prosperity.
Yes, not everyone's economic interests are precisely the same, but it's not a zero-sum game either. You can't distribute wealth if you don't first foster its creation in the first place.
Class war ideology unfortunately blinds most leftists to that reality.
What I care about is that no one falls below a certain income and that everyone is better off. I don't get so caught up in this gap between the rich and the poor so long as the poor have a decent standard of living.
I agree with Miles here too.
I think what we want to avoid is a situation where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in absolute, rather than relative terms.
What we should aim for is a society in which everyone is ultimately better off, even if a side effect of that is the growth in wealth among the segments of that society being disproportionate in relative terms.
For example, if Miles gains by $10 and I only gain by $5, what ultimately matters is that we are both gaining.
Brandon, the whole nature of the right/left spectrum puts the left at a disadvantage in terms of economic influence. What is your point in mentioning the CCPA?
I mentioned it because it is essentially the left-wing equivilent of the Fraser Institute.
Put aside for a moment that the Left has little trouble raising money for its causes. Are you aware that the Left dominates academia?
Believe me, as a political science student myself, I've seen it directly with my own eyes.
That professor mentioned in that Georgia Straight for example, Alexander Moens. He's probably only one of two right leaning professors in his entire department. The rest are almost all firmly on the left. And alas, a lot of them are involved with (you guessed it) the CCPA.
If anything, argument could be made that the Fraser Institute helps level the academic playing field.
Why do you suppose that many poor people could be considered left wing and many rich people could be considered right wing? You could say that the poor people see their lot improving the most with leftist policies and the rich are happy with the status quo, but I think it is deeper than this. I think those with inherently right wing values are the ones that are more likely to become rich because you don't really become rich caring about the common good and welfare.
That's nonsense. I don't think values are tied exclusively to socio-economic status, by any means.
To make my point, I'll tell you something about me that you probably don't know.
I grew up in a single parent household, and I have a physical disability. As that disability limits the kind of work I can do, I am subsisting on disability assistance until I complete my education.
I've been relatively poor all my life, with the exception of the brief time when we still lived with my father, who is a longshoreman, devoted union man, and almost certainly an NDPer.
None of that has kept me from developing conservative political views. I frankly resent the idea that my socio-economic status in life means I automatically have to be a leftist of some sort.
If I agreed with your perspective, I'd be a left-winger too. But I don't. As far as I see it, no one benefits from socialism, with the possible sole exception being public sector workers.
And just look at the voting data for example, and you'll realize that the Conservatives derive most of their support from the middle class. The people at the very top of the income scale actually tend to support the Liberal Party.
I think class had a big impact on voting patterns in 19th century England where you hand the owners of production versus the workers, but Canada today is a lot different than 19th century England. In fact voting patterns, at least federally, tend to be more along regional lines as opposed to income levels. In fact the best correlation is the more densely populated an area is, the more left wing it is and the less densely populated it is the more conservative it is. In fact within my family there are a variety of political views and their economic wealth has little correlation with their political beliefs. Those from Alberta tend to be more conservative than those from BC regardless of their annual income.
In fact here in BC, the wealthiest riding is Vancouver-Quadra, which went Liberal. Now it is true some wealthy ridings such as Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Halton, and Burlington did go Conservative, however the majority went Liberal. Likewise the poorest riding in Canada (Winnipeg Centre) went NDP, but in fact of the ten poorest, all four parties won at least one of them.
In terms of corporations only paying 1% tax on oil extracted, it doesn't seem to be little when you consider how much revenue the Alberta government is overflowing with.
They are overflowing with cash because they tax normal oil extraction at 40%. The stuff that comes from tar, which is now becoming more prevelant (and extremely profitable), is at 1%. There is worry in the Alberta government that they could face huge funding problems as the tar sands become the normal way of extracting oil as the traditional wells start to run dry (which is apparently going to happening already)
As for looking at absolute gains rather than total gains between varying income levels, I believe that everyone should benefit from a growing economy, not just 10% of the population. Besides, the middle class, which is shrinking, has gained ever so slightly while the top 10% has gained staggeringly large amounts of wealth.
There's a lot more here that I'd like to discuss further; sadly no time.
They are overflowing with cash because they tax normal oil extraction at 40%. The stuff that comes from tar, which is now becoming more prevelant (and extremely profitable), is at 1%. There is worry in the Alberta government that they could face huge funding problems as the tar sands become the normal way of extracting oil as the traditional wells start to run dry (which is apparently going to happening already)
I am not an expert on the royalties charged in Alberta, but certainly they should be enough to keep its economy strong while at the same time not so high they drive business away.
As for looking at absolute gains rather than total gains between varying income levels, I believe that everyone should benefit from a growing economy, not just 10% of the population. Besides, the middle class, which is shrinking, has gained ever so slightly while the top 10% has gained staggeringly large amounts of wealth.
I too believe everyone should benefit and the reality is most usually do benefit. The rich don't live in isolation, they have to make their money somehow. When the economy is strong they need to hire more people. Since there are more jobs available they have to pay higher as well since people have more options than when the economy is in a recession. In Alberta very few jobs are paying under $12/hour and some are even offering free trips to Mexico if you work one year just to attract people. Also a strong economy means a larger tax base so there is more money for more social programs and to compound things, there are fewer people requiring social assistance during a boom than a recession. Now it is true in some third world countries, especially in Latin America and the Middle East, the average person hasn't benefitted from their economic growth and the gap between the rich and the poor is huge. However, here in Canada while the gap is widening, the standard of living is rising for everyone, not just the rich.
"... I believe that everyone should benefit from a growing economy, not just 10% of the population... (rest of blather deleted)"
How about those that create the economic growth getting to keep the spoils from it? You seem to think that economic growth is some random event that the rich automatically get to keep all for themselves. What do you think economic growth is exactly, and who do you think creates it?
And what about papers like the Toronto Star who are very critical of the Fraser Institute. The reality is the media is not all right wing or left wing, but a mixture. There will be some who will cheer on the Fraser Institute, but others who are quite critical.
You show me a mainstream newspaper that questions the need for humanity to live under a capitalist economic system or proposes an alternative or even hints that this could be possible and I'll agree with you that the newspapers are not baised to the right. Debating streams of a narrow spectrum does not constitute a balanced playing field.
Yes, not everyone's economic interests are precisely the same, but it's not a zero-sum game either. You can't distribute wealth if you don't first foster its creation in the first place.
It would surprise me to hear you say that it is not a zero-sum game, Brandon. Is this what is being taught in school these days? Wealth is not "created", it may be trasformed, or perhaps even borrowed, but surely not created. The oil that is being extracted from the ground will bear a heavy price to pay, both in a lack of future energy from that source, as well as the problems it is creating for our planet. When people labour, they are not "creating wealth", they are giving valuable parts of their life to use their own energy and time to transform a substance into a product.
For example, if Miles gains by $10 and I only gain by $5, what ultimately matters is that we are both gaining.
Money is only as valuable as the amount that it can purchase. While your example seems quite benign, this is not exactly how things work. A family in the 60's could get by quite comfortably on one income, but today, a family with two incomes, which would probably mean an increase of more than your $5, is often worse off.
None of that has kept me from developing conservative political views. I frankly resent the idea that my socio-economic status in life means I automatically have to be a leftist of some sort.
I think you've missed my point, Brandon. Obviously generalizations do not apply to everyone, but what I am saying is that a person like yourself who develops conservative political views, and more precisely, conservative economical views, is much more likely to be more wealthy in the long-run than someone with strong left-leaning views. For example, Brandon, how many bankers do you suppose have strong left viewpoints? I would guess not very many. This would not be because banking makes you into a conservative, but more that those with previous conservative viewpoints are more likely to become bankers. If more people with conservative viewpoints are going to be put in a position later on of making more money (money connotes power in our society, more or less), this has a large potential for the conservative viewpoint to be epoused much more than the left viewpoint. I'm not sure what kind of work you're wanting to go into, but I know that some of your acquaintances in the financial industry with right-leaning views are more than likely going to be making more money than I ever will be, putting them at an advantage should they ever choose to support a political cause. I'm not saying that your background makes you be one way or another. I'm saying that your current beliefs will affect how much potential influence you may have.
And just look at the voting data for example, and you'll realize that the Conservatives derive most of their support from the middle class. The people at the very top of the income scale actually tend to support the Liberal Party.
I don't think that what you've said really disagrees with what I've said. With politicians, people also look at the social side of things. While the Liberals are much more socially liberal than the Conservatives, I would say that at least Martin's Liberals were extremely fiscally conservative (with the exception of the capitulation to the NDP to try and hold onto power). The Fraser Insititute, in my view, is primarily a vessel of fiscal values, not overly concerned with social direction. The Fraser Institute and the Martin Liberals don't seem at odds to me. I think Harper just scares people on his social values and this is primarily why people who steer clear of him do (other than the left-leaners who I'm sure don't want to see any of his policies implemented).
However, here in Canada while the gap is widening, the standard of living is rising for everyone, not just the rich.
Can I see some documentation of this statement?
How about those that create the economic growth getting to keep the spoils from it? You seem to think that economic growth is some random event that the rich automatically get to keep all for themselves. What do you think economic growth is exactly, and who do you think creates it?
That seems to be an advocation of a return to the 19th century model of economic development / society.
You're very angry in your writing and come across as narrow-minded and pompous. I don't enjoy discussions with such people, and won't be engaging in any with you as long as you continue project an immature attitude.
That seems to be an advocation of a return to the 19th century model of economic development / society.
And that seems to be a strawman argument stemming from your inability to comprehend all things economic, because I never advocated any such thing. I am not telling you how things should be, I am telling you how they are.
You're very angry in your writing and come across as narrow-minded and pompous.
Not angry at all, in fact this blog amuses me to no end which is why I continue to read it. By narrow minded if you mean that I am resolute in my beliefs which are backed up with both history and theory, then I am guilty as charged. Heck, I'm in such a good mood that I'll concede pompous as well.
I don't enjoy discussions with such people, and won't be engaging in any with you as long as you continue project an immature attitude.
Your attitude is understandable, I posed a question for which you did not and do not have an answer so you move to faux outrage in order to dodge it. I'll ask again, and if I still do not receive an answer I will assume that you do not know: How do you think wealth is created? Do you think it is simply a statistic that pops up from StatsCan every once in a while? Those who create wealth get to keep the largest share of the wealth,without that property the creation of wealth would be impossible.
How do you think wealth is created? Do you think it is simply a statistic that pops up from StatsCan every once in a while? Those who create wealth get to keep the largest share of the wealth,without that property the creation of wealth would be impossible.
Much of the world's wealth is "created" off the backs of those who are held down with the barrel of a gun. I highly doubt that you would be saying that this was just "natural" and that you didn't deserve any better if you were held to working 16 hour days with 2 bathroom breaks and if you complained or tried to talk to anyone else about it, you might end up dead.
Your attitude sounds like someone who is economically privileged and has not spent much time thinking about what that privilege has been built upon. There are many alternatives to the methods you are claiming are the only way.
Your condescending statements do not make you appear to be well-read.
Much of the world's wealth is "created" off the backs of those who are held down with the barrel of a gun. I highly doubt that you would be saying that this was just "natural" and that you didn't deserve any better if you were held to working 16 hour days with 2 bathroom breaks and if you complained or tried to talk to anyone else about it, you might end up dead.
So the 4% growth in the North American economy over the past 12 months was created this way? You are a left-wing KOOK.
Your attitude sounds like someone who is economically privileged and has not spent much time thinking about what that privilege has been built upon.
You would be incorrect, I grew up in a very middle class family, my parents both grew up in very poor families. My only privelage is that I was born on a continent where (for the most part)people believe in rewarding those who work hard and create wealth,after all, the economy of this whole continent was built from scratch. Such a system has allowed me to work hard and provide a good living for my family.
Your condescending statements do not make you appear to be well-read.
How does condescension relate to being well-read in any way? You are a socialist, left-wing nutcase, and I am thankful that there aren't enough of you around to make any real difference
Okay it looks like we are drifting a little off topic. However, my views lie somewhere in between that of Indy and Mike. I believe in hard work and enterprise and believe success should be rewarded, but I also believe those employed should be compensated fairly. I am not in the financial sector because I am greedy and lack compassion, rather I have chosen to pursue a career where my strengths and interests lie. And besides only the executives in the financial sector are very rich. An average professor who tends to be left wing makes more than your average person in the financial sector who makes around $50,000 - $60,000 while an average prof makes around $80,000 - $100,000. Now I am not disagreeing with the pay here, I am simply pointing out one being right wing doesn't cause them to become wealthier.
My only privelage is that I was born on a continent where (for the most part)people believe in rewarding those who work hard and create wealth,after all, the economy of this whole continent was built from scratch.
The prosperity of the Europeans on the continent has been a history of genocide and slavery. The indigenous population was all but wiped out and then the next few hundred years were occupied by the "creation of wealth" through slavery.
If that means nothing to you or is what you consider "from scratch", that speaks volumes about your sense of ethics.
How does condescension relate to being well-read in any way?
Condescension in itself does not relate to being well-read, but your style of name-calling without presenting much of a coherent argument leads me to this belief.
And besides only the executives in the financial sector are very rich.
You have clearly never been on Bay St. I work there, and trust me when I tell you nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe in hard work and enterprise and believe success should be rewarded, but I also believe those employed should be compensated fairly.
The operative word in this sentence is 'fairly'.
I also believe that hard work and enterprise need to be rewarded. I believe that people ought to have the opportunity to make large sums of money.
Miles you've said before that you agree with minimum wage, as do I. I think a minimum wage is important because the government has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable in our society from wages that can only be seen as a form of exploitation. An argument I had with one of my friends a while ago centered around where a low wage crossed the line from 'fair' to exploitive.
I believe that if you are an individual who was born with a below-average IQ but are a good worker and contribute to "society" to the best of your ability by working day in and day out, you ought to earn a fair wage. I define the minimum fair wage as one where one person's wage should be enough to house, clothe and properly feed themselves and their child. If you have a married couple, both earning a minimum wage, then they should be able to raise two children. Anything less and you're essentially saying that "poor people shouldn't have children", and I think that having children is a fundamental human right.
Can you do this in the lower mainland on $8/hour? I highly doubt it. That's why Campbell's policies are wrong: he cut income tax (which benefits those who earn more more than those who earn less), and raised flat taxes like MSP, driver's license renewal fees, gas taxes, fees for parking at provincial parks, tuition fees, etc., etc, shifting the tax burden from the most affluent in our society to those who can least afford it. The hard working, enterprising and affluent person may now afford more luxuries, whereas the hard working and dedicated individual who clears trays at the local mall's food court has even less money to feed their child a decent meal that night.
How do you define a “fair” minimum wage?
It would surprise me to hear you say that it is not a zero-sum game, Brandon. Is this what is being taught in school these days? Wealth is not "created", it may be trasformed, or perhaps even borrowed, but surely not created. The oil that is being extracted from the ground will bear a heavy price to pay, both in a lack of future energy from that source, as well as the problems it is creating for our planet. When people labour, they are not "creating wealth", they are giving valuable parts of their life to use their own energy and time to transform a substance into a product
I understand your point that humans have to work with the resources available to them, but I think the point is largely a semantic one.
Yes, ultimately the supply of natural resources is out of our hands, but the extraction of those resources is something we do control.
Those resources don't naturally transform themselves into the items we want or need. Entrepreneurs (one of the four factors of production) bring the other three factors of production (land, labour and capital) to transform those resources into finished goods and services. In essence, you could call the bringing of those factors together to produce things "creating wealth"
So how do you spur entreprenuership on to initiate that process?
In a socialist, command economic system, you simply try to plan ahead and tell the managers to produce so much of Y and so much of X and so on.
In a market economy, the entreprenuers largely act on their own initiative, taking risks to realize a return on investment. And to realize that investment, they are ultimately forced to produce only that which there is a demand for. Otherwise they will lose their investment and go out of business.
As an example, I remember our econ prof talking about a trip he took to Moscow before the fall of Communism. He was in a department store, and there was a massive over supply of leather shoes that weren't being sold, and yet a massive waiting line for ice cream.
The point is that the system ultimately failed to adjust accordingly. Rather than slaughtering so many cows to make shoes, they should have kept them alive and used their milk to make ice cream.
In a free market economy, the system would have naturally adjusted to equilibrium on its own. The reason being that whoever was making the shoes would ultimately go out of business and the market would shift to the more profitable activity, producing ice cream.
Essentially, the motivation to make profit causes entrepreneurs to inadvertantly produce most of what a society wants and needs. That's what Adam Smith was reffering to when he reffered to the "invisible hand."
There are exceptions of course, particular "public goods" that have spillover benefits and are usually indivisible (e.g. you can't parcel out sections of road, etc. to individuals). In such cases, the state has to step in to produce such goods. But in most cases, the market works on its own.
And in such a system, it hardly makes sense to punish entrepreneurs for such productive activities. Yes, the state will have to extract taxes to fund the public goods mentioned, but if you take away the incentive (i.e. profit) for entrepreneurs to make this activity happen, it simply won't happen.
To produce the most prosperous society possible, you do what you can to encourage that activity, not discourage it.
A perfect example of what I'm talking about is the "corporate capital tax" that the NDP brought in when they were in power here in BC.
Instead of simply taxing corporate profit, it was literally taxing the financial capital corporations were accumulating to produce their products. And thus, it literally punished them for expanding and creating jobs.
Now, one could understand the "Robin Hood-esque" socialist logic behind the tax: to redistribute wealth by taxing the corporations.
But in the end, nobody benefitted. People lost jobs, and the government in turn lost revenue.
That ultimately is the difference between socialism on paper and socialism in practice.
Of course, in a perfectly fair and utopian world, no one would be rich or poor, and we would all live equally rich and prosperous lives.
But the world unfortunately doesn't work that way, and it never will.
The market system is hardly utopian, and an unfortunate side effect of it is that it will always produce inequality of wealth and power. But in the real world we live in, it happens to the best system available to us.
And, as for the use of resources, anyone with a basic understanding of economics will know that the factor that drives economic growth more than any other is productivity.
The more productive a society is, the more it can produce with the resources it has. And a market system rewards productivity in that a firm that uses the least resources to produce its products will most often realize the greatest profits.
You're right that oil is a finite resource that is going to run out sooner or later. But the point is that as it continues to dry up, the incentive to turn to alternative forms of energy will ultimately become greater and greater.
That's the thing about the market. It adjusts.
And as one last point, I'm sure you'll mention all the environmental degradation that the market economy produces, but don't assume in turn that a socialist economic system would be any better in that regard.
Quite the contrary.
Just look at the kind of horrific environmental damage that was caused in the Soviet Union and its satellite states during the communist era and you'll see precisely what I mean.
The point is that the socialist system has no mechanism like the market system does to promote the efficient use of resources. And thus, less is produced with more, not the other way around.
Money is only as valuable as the amount that it can purchase. While your example seems quite benign, this is not exactly how things work. A family in the 60's could get by quite comfortably on one income, but today, a family with two incomes, which would probably mean an increase of more than your $5, is often worse off.
I see you're point, but the fact is that inflation has been rather steady over the last couple decades compared to the 1970's, when purchasing power really was drastically eroded. In fact I remember reading that in 1995 for example, the consumer price index actually declined, signalling net deflation.
The point remains that is the 5 and 10 additional dollars I referred to can only erode purchasing power if the economy (the value of all goods and services produced) grew by less than the $15 created.
It's the gap that results in that case that produces inflation, and that's precisely why institutions like the Bank of Canada strictly control the supply of money in the system.
If there is no such gap, both Miles and I ultimately do benefit in that example.
I'm not saying that your background makes you be one way or another. I'm saying that your current beliefs will affect how much potential influence you may have.
I understand your point. As for what field I want to go into, my objective is to get into law, a profession that actually tends to tilt left.
If and when I have money to invest, I'll have to turn to guys like Miles to help me do it.
As one last point, although I know you've taken exception to the way indy has articulated his points, the fact is that those points still stand.
I have little doubt that if everyone had to acquire a basic understanding of economics before graduating from high school, most of the support for socialism would fade away.
As admirable as socialism's objectives are, the fact is that the methods it prescribes simply do not work in the real world.
I have little doubt that if everyone had to acquire a basic understanding of economics before graduating from high school, most of the support for socialism would fade away.
As admirable as socialism's objectives are, the fact is that the methods it prescribes simply do not work in the real world.
Capitalism as taught in school has not ever worked or been applied and many of its premises are just as false as those of socialism.
I would not ever advocate for Soviet-style government. While I believe that government policy that reduces the unfair concentration of wealth, my idea of utopia would of course involve human behavior that seems impossible at this time, but would be much more anarchist than state-controlled.
There is so much government support keeping the wealth gap in place, I would say that the government is "the invisible hand".
Brian - What is a fair wage is obviously a subjective thing, since one could argue a teenager still living at home could live on less than $8/hour just as someone married to a person making a six figure salary. Considering $8/hour is the highest minimum wage in Canada, I don't think it is unreasonable. Minimum wage is the absolute minimum a firm must pay, but in reality 96% of all Canadians employed earn more than minimum wage and in fact here in BC the average wage is $17/hour, which isn't a lot, but a lot better than $8/hour. The problem with raising minimum wage is most paid minimum wage are only worth that amount in terms of how much they contribute so if you raise it, they will likely be laid off rather than receive the wage. Minimum wage is to stop abuse, which can occur.
Indy - Brian is right that you are condescending and insulting. And know you don't know all the facts. In fact your arrogant type attitude is one of the things I don't like about neo-cons who see everything in black and white and you are either with us or against us. This is a successful strategy the Republicans have used in the US and I don't wish to see adopted here. I don't agree with Mike and Brian's economic views, but I don't believe they are stupid and I will defend the right of them to hold the views they do.
Brandon - Couldn't have said it better. We may disagree on many issues, but at least on basic economics we still seem to be on the same wavelength.
Mike - Anarcho-Socialism may sound nice in theory, but all you will get is anarchy. If anything you will end up with anarcho-capitalism as those who are greedy will take advantage of lack of government. Socialism can only function if it involves heavy government involvement and as Brandon eloquently explained, that causes far more problems than it solves. I support some government intervention in areas the market fails, but I certainly don't support things like price controls, state ownership of industries the private sector can run, and trying to micro-manage the economy. Socialist countries have on average performed worse than more free market ones.
I don't agree with Mike and Brian's economic views, but I don't believe they are stupid and I will defend the right of them to hold the views they do.
Show me where I called them stupid?
They are certainly entitled to their opinions no matter how utopian and comical they might be.
And for the record, I'm a capitalist, not a neo-con. You also have a severely misplaced idea about what a neo-con actually is.
An example of the product of our economic march to the right:
Why won't they leave?
"Between 1981 and 2001, the proportion of adults still living with their parents doubled to 24 per cent from 12 per cent for those aged 25 to 29, and to 11 per cent from 5 per cent for those aged 30 to 34."
"The authors of the study agree, listing an economic shift as a major factor leading to the trend. Wages have declined for today's young workers, and well-paying unionized jobs are not as plentiful, making it more difficult for young people to attain financial independence."
Notice the dates - 1981-2001. More young people can't afford as much as they used to because wages have not kept up with prices - i.e. overall purchasing power has declined. If the economy has been growing and becoming more efficient, why isn't that reflected in their wages? Who has been benefiting from their lower wages (someone has)?
Yes, there are obviously multiple factors at work, but I think that the way the economy and tax system are now structured has benefited few at the expense of many.
"[In 2003,] when we look at family income at the halfway point ... it came in at around $55,000," Doug Norris of Statistics Canada told CTV's Canada AM on Tuesday. "Interestingly enough, that was the same place it was back in 1990."
Link
"Between 1984 and 1999, the poorest 40 percent of family units saw little or no increase in their wealth, while the richest 20 percent of family units enjoyed increases in the order of 39 percent."
Link
I'm sure there's plenty more articles like this out there, including many on the situation in the U.S. which is even more extreme than Canada.
I've always found it funny how when a right-wing government announces a new economic policy that they claim will somehow benefit all of society at some point in the future, inevitably the economic policy also benefits the richest members of society immediately and often substantially.
I've learned with statistics you can always slant them to suit your view. I think people moving away later is due to many factors. People are usually taking more than four years to graduate, people aren't getting married as young as they use to. 40 years ago people got married in their early 20s so it was possible to move out if you have two incomes versus one. Also this is trend not just in right wing nations, but even left wing ones. In fact in Europe, which is generally more socialistic, living at home when one is 30 is even more prevalent than in Canada. It is true the standard of living for the poor hasn't increased as much as I would like, but even under left wing governments their standard of living hasn't improved either. The poor in Alberta, which is right wing are generally better off than in Saskatchewan which has an NDP government. Likewise in Europe, Ireland, whose government embraces free enterprise has less poverty than France which has one the most interventionist governments anywhere in the developed world.
40 years ago people got married in their early 20s so it was possible to move out if you have two incomes versus one.
Miles, most families did not need to be double income 40 years ago, marriage or not.
Also this is trend not just in right wing nations, but even left wing ones. In fact in Europe, which is generally more socialistic, living at home when one is 30 is even more prevalent than in Canada.
The poor in Alberta, which is right wing are generally better off than in Saskatchewan which has an NDP government. Likewise in Europe, Ireland, whose government embraces free enterprise has less poverty than France which has one the most interventionist governments anywhere in the developed world.
Yes, there are many factors at work, but our move towards globalization has allowed companies to pit governments against each other.
I think it's obvious why Alberta might be doing better financially than Saskatchewan, and likewise Ireland offers free university tuition to its citizens, a very progressive program that I imagine is not unrelated to its prosperity.
I've learned with statistics you can always slant them to suit your view.
Likely true.
Likewise in Europe, Ireland, whose government embraces free enterprise has less poverty than France which has one the most interventionist governments anywhere in the developed world.
Probably doesn't hurt either that Ireland, a "free enterprise" nation of ~4 million, received 1.6 billion euros (2003) as part of the EU transfer payment system. The left-leaning France, despite its pockets of poverty (which I see more as a social ill rather than economic), gave 1.8 billion euros.
We could keep arguing forever, but I think that we can both agree that a further concentration of wealth into the top 10% of society (a la latin america) is bad. Hopefully our economic policies can halt this slide while allowing us to remain competitive with our southern neighbour (who is drowning in massive debt - their current tax rates are not sustainable and at some point they will change either by choice or by some highly disruptive market correction).
We could keep arguing forever, but I think that we can both agree that a further concentration of wealth into the top 10% of society (a la latin america) is bad.
As you alluded to, I think the thing to keep in mind that when it comes to economic policy, we (meaning you, me, Miles and probably Mike as well) all want similar if not identical outcomes. What we disagree on is what works to achieve those outcomes.
If I believed socialism was capable of achieving what it is intended to do (i.e. producing a mutually prosperous society with a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth) I would probably agree with you.
But I can't help but look at the evidence and conclude that it simply doesn't work.
As you alluded to, I think the thing to keep in mind that when it comes to economic policy, we (meaning you, me, Miles and probably Mike as well) all want similar if not identical outcomes. What we disagree on is what works to achieve those outcomes.
If I believed socialism was capable of achieving what it is intended to do (i.e. producing a mutually prosperous society with a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth) I would probably agree with you.
Excellent - I'm glad to hear that's your goal.
But I can't help but look at the evidence and conclude that it simply doesn't work.
I agree that an overly socialistic society doesn't work. I also think that an overly laissez-faire, 100% free-enterprise unionless market-based economy leads to extreme disparities in wealth. I fear that the right-wing parties that exist today (bc liberals, reform=>consrvatives) are slowly but surely edging us towards Ronald Regan's vision of the world.
I agree with Brandon for the most part here. I oppose socialism since it hasn't worked wherever it has been tried.
Mike - Ireland's free tuition is no doubt a good thing, but as Brian also alluded to I doubt they would do this if they didn't get the handsome transfers they do from the EU, and that may not last very long as with the admission of several Eastern European countries, I suspect the transfers will be going to those ones instead of Ireland.
Brian - I think France's economic system has not helped. As for the United States, their per capita spending is actually higher than ours, they just spend it in different areas. Never mind spending under Bush has grown at 13% per year, even more than Jack Layton advocated (8% per year under the NDP platform) so he is anything but a fiscal conservative. In fact he is very much a supporter of big government, just one that benefits the priveledged rather than the less priviledged. As for Campbell, I think the most right wing policies from him were introduced in his first term, so if anything he is moving towards the centre. With Stephen Harper that is off course a different story, but if the polls are to believed, I think there is a very good chance he will lose the next election. And BTW it is his foreign policy, radical decentralization, and social conservatism that scare me the most as opposed to his economic policies which are really only Liberal policies that go further and faster, as he once said, Paul Martin in a hurry.
I think the most right wing policies from him were introduced in his first term, so if anything he is moving towards the centre. With Stephen Harper that is off course a different story, but if the polls are to believed, I think there is a very good chance he will lose the next election.
Give me a break on this Miles. You know full well that Gordon Campbell went a lot harder to the right in his first term than Harper has so far in his.
Campbell had to of course, I'm just pointing out that you have a habit of accusing Harper of being extreme right no matter what the guy does. It's almost as if the guy can't do anything right in your eyes.
Gordon Campbell may have made bigger cuts, but I think you could then argue Chretien went further to the right in his first term since he made some pretty big cuts. However, foreign policy is not an issue provincially, while socially Campbell was never a social conservative. Campbell leans to the right, but he isn't a hard core ideologue like Harper. He can at least work with federal Liberals, whereas Harper cannot. I can assure you if Harper gets a majority, he will be far more right wing than any political leader at any level Canada has ever seen and I am not talking only about economics, where I am generally right wing.
their current tax rates are not sustainable and at some point they will change either by choice or by some highly disruptive market correction
Your socialist ignorance is startling. The U.S. tax rates have always been lower than most industrialized nations, that is why they have stronger economic growth than most nations (including Canada).
If anything, disruptive market forces would cause them to cut taxes more in order to bolster the economy (such as the Bush cuts after the Tech bubble burst).
Let me give you all a lesson in economics: The more progressive the tax code, the more it will appear that a tax cut will help the "rich" (hopefully none of you need me to explain this to you, else you should go back to grade 10 math).
If every time you cut taxes you benefit the lower income earners most, and every time you raise taxes you hurt the rich most, before long you have full-blown socialism.
If you like stagnant economic growth and unemployment rates in the teens, than by all means move out to France or Germany, but don't ruin Canada in the process.
Furthermore, the top 10% of American earners paid almost 50% of all federal taxes in 2004 and 66% of individual income taxes, while their share of income was 37%! If that's not progressive, then I don't know what is...go check it out, its on the CBO site.
Indy - I don't think in the long-run the US needs to raise taxes, however they do need to balance their budget which will involve major spending cuts as well as possible temporary tax raises, which would be repealed once the budget is balanced. I have a degree in economics and I can tell you a deficit financed tax cut doesn't work since all it does is defer payment to a later date. If you are going to cut taxes, you also need to cut spending too, which Bush hasn't done. I am all for using the surplus for tax cuts and even in cases where our taxes are out of whack with other jurisdictions cutting taxes coupled with spending cuts.
Finally Indy I don't agree with Brian's views, but he is just as Canadian as anyone else. Telling him to give live in France and Germany is highly insulting. I would be like me telling you to go live in the United States since we are more left wing than you seem to like.
I have a degree in economics and I can tell you a deficit financed tax cut doesn't work since all it does is defer payment to a later date.
It seemed to have worked pretty well in BC's case.
Gordon Campbell didn't wait for a balanced budget to cut taxes; he did it on Day 1.
If you are going to cut taxes, you also need to cut spending too, which Bush hasn't done.
Finally something we can agree on.
Telling him to give live in France and Germany is highly insulting
Please, enough with the faux outrage. I was speaking colloquially, not actually suggesting he should move.
Furthermore, you missed my point, which was that the American tax regime is far more progressive than everyone here cares to acknowledge (just look at the stats).
If you are as economically astute as you claim to be (of which I am skeptical due to some of the strange comments you have posted) you would also know that just because a country has debt does not mean they are "in debt". You can't measure debt vs something like GDP because one is a stock and one is a flow. It would be like comparing a comany's debt to its income rather than its assets. By this measure the US is in extraordinary good shape. But Bush does need to get his spending under control, something that most Canadians would likely not agree with.
By that standards why not advocate that Canadians get more of their surplus back? Something no party seems to take seriously.
It seemed to have worked pretty well in BC's case.
He also stumbled into massive commodity price increases and a massive increase in federal transfer payments. Not to mention all the taxes and fees he increased a short time later...
Gordon Campbell didn't wait for a balanced budget to cut taxes; he did it on Day 1.
Which, regardless of what you credit for BC's current boom, I think even you would agree is reckless behaviour. Campbell had long accused the previous government of creating cryptic financial books, but he, "mr. business", didn't even take the time to assess the situation before he started slashing the gov't's revenue stream. Are those the actions of a sound fiscal manager?
Finally we agree on something Indy. Yes the Debt to GDP is not bad in the United States yet, but it is going in the wrong direction, while Canada it is moving in the right direction. I happen to agree with Campbell's decision to cut taxes immediately upon entering power since for every rule, there is always an exception. The US tax rates are very competitive globally, whereas BC's tax rates when Campbell was elected were way out of whack with other provinces especially Ontario and Alberta. This was causing many businesses to pack up and move elsewhere so he needed to do them to attract the investment necessary to balance the budget. In the United States Bush inherited a balanced budget and a competitive tax rate.
In the United States Bush inherited a balanced budget and a competitive tax rate.
You do realize that Clinton raised taxes, right?
The fact is that it wasn't Bush's tax cuts that pushed the US into deficit. The generated more than enough revenue to pay for themselves in the end, It was the higher spending that did it.
Clinton raised taxes in order to balanced the budget to clean up the mess left behind by past administrations, both Democrat and Republican alike. The Tax cuts to the best of my knowledge already put the US perilously close to deficit and with the out of control spending, this guaranteed an out of control deficit. My point is while lower taxes in the United States would be good, it is not as urgent to cut them as say in France, Sweden, Netherlands, or Germany where their tax rates are quite a bit higher. Relative to its competitors, US tax rates are competitive. And this is important since if your tax rates are out of whack with your competitors, capital will move elsewhere, but if lower than your competitors, even if still high, this will attract foreign investment.
The fact is that it wasn't Bush's tax cuts that pushed the US into deficit. The generated more than enough revenue to pay for themselves in the end, It was the higher spending that did it.
It seemed to me that after Reagan's economic policies, it was shown that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
However, for this go around, here's a couple links: One from the Wall Street Journal and one from the Washington Monthly, both describing a report out July 25 from the US Treasury outlining how Bush's cuts are not going to pay for themselves.
However, for this go around, here's a couple links: One from the Wall Street Journal and one from the Washington Monthly, both describing a report out July 25 from the US Treasury outlining how Bush's cuts are not going to pay for themselves.
Mike 1, Brandon 0.
Finally we agree on something Indy. Yes the Debt to GDP is not bad in the United States yet, but it is going in the wrong direction
No, you have got it wrong, the debt-to-GDP in the US DOES look bad, but it is the wrong statistic to use. GDP is like income (a flow) and Debt is a stock measure, you can't compare the two (as they will teach you in any accounting or economics class, which is why it is so troubling to see so many economists talk about it). When you compare it to assets its much better. And Canada's may be going in the right direction, but it has harmed growth. Rather than balancing the budget (which was admirable but was done at the cost of ruining the military thus making Canada a third or fourth rate world power) and racking up huge surpluses, they should have balanced the budget and then massively cut taxes to restore them to levels more comparable to the US. This would have led to phenomenal growth, stemmed the tide of the brain drain, and perhaps started to reverse the decades old trend of US economic growth outperforming Canada (Miles don't even try to tell me that its not true, I'm looking at 50 years of Canadian data straight from StatsCan, its my job, failure to admit this will result in a complete loss in credibility).
But instead of cutting taxes to more reasonable levels, both parties listened to left-wing kOOks whine about "US style tax cuts". Please give me some of those "U.S. style tax cuts" and maybe they can come in a happy meal with US style growth and U.S. style low unemployment.
Those in my business who have bet ona calamity in the United States economy have gone broke for the last 70 years.
From the New York Times, no less:
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.
Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves that their tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends, would spur the economy and ultimately increase revenues.
And to demonstrate the track of revenue to the BC Gov't since the Campbell tax cuts, just look at this. You can see it all in more detail here.
And for a visual demonstration of the NDP approach vs. the first term BCLP approach, click here. That's from this rather enlightening StatsCan report.
What's the score now?
Brandon,
Those arguments seem beside the point, I will investigate your sources in the near future, but as brian has stated, the BC Liberals were handed a large gift in the form of commodity price increases.
Also, I'm not interested in keeping score, only respectfully arguing points of view, which has been going on for the most part.
Also, I'm not interested in keeping score, only respectfully arguing points of view, which has been going on for the most part.
You're right. Brian's comment just got my competitive nature going.
Oh, and I should mention that the BCLP got hit with 9/11, forest fires, floods, BSE, and SARS.
Not to mention the fact that the NDP also benefitted from strong commodity prices earlier in their term.
I think Campbell and Bush faced totally different situations. Spending has grown astronomically under Bush whereas it didn't under Campbell. Also while the rich got larger tax cuts in absolute dollars, the lower income British Columbians got a larger tax cut percentage wise, whereas with Bush the rich got a larger tax cut in both absolute numbers and percentage wise. The fact is Bush ran everyone of his Dad's companies in the ground.
Indy - You are right the US has generally had better growth than Canada, but under Bush, Canada has grown faster in 4 out of the 6 years never mind our unemployment has dropped since 2000, while their's has gone up. I agree Trudeau was an economic disaster, but he was really a Dipper at heart, not a Liberal like Chretien and Martin.
Post a Comment
<< Home