New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And according to your logic, if the simpler the system the easier it is to corrupt then how are we faring today? Should corruption and control almost be eliminated by now? We are as complex as ever. And one could argue the same about being controlled.

Believe it or not, we actually live in a pretty awesome country. Is there corruption? Sure. Is there a lot? No, not even close.

Don't be fooled by all the doom and gloom you hear. Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world, and our "problems" are small potatoes compared to 95% of the world.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

The state didn't invent the refrigerator. It didn't come up with pasteurization. It didn't conceive and build the light bulb.

Of course the state didn't invent the refrigerator. The state, however, is a necessary condition for the refrigerator ever being invented. No state, no fridge.

[Makarov]

In fairness to Shawnski, it isn't really clear whether he is advocating statelessness (anarchy) or some other more muted theory of libertarianism that advocates for a small or limited state authority.

[Flash Walken]

The state is a necessary precursor for all forms of economics.

Economic models exist within the structure of a state, they do not supercede that state.

For an applicable model of economics, the first requirement is a body in which to house the rules under which the economics model operates. Without the rules, decreed and defended by the state, it's a pirates life for me.

[lanny9]

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh I get it. The CPC had to deal with a recession, therefore they don't have to worry about balancing the budget or making prudent economic decisions. Let's not forget that the Liberals also faced a recession in power. Canada came out stronger, with a balanced budget and paying down debt. Surely a good fiscal conservative can acknowledge that was a better situation than where we find ourselves today, nearly 6 full years after the recession.

You seem to forget the pressure that the NDP and Liberals put on the minority government in 2008 to spend, spend, spend. Like our neighbours to the south that obviously did the right thing by spending trillions to try to pry them out of the recession.

What seems to be lost on many, including the person who wrote the letter to the editor is that our economy is so very dependent on the U.S. and as such when they boom we boom, when they go down we go down. This was a hard recession that hit the world, most governments spent their way out of it, ours did a middle of the road approach, some spending, but also cutting the size of government etc. Everyone felt a bit of it, but now you have some countries saddled with huge debts that will never be paid off, our debt is very manageable and we came through with a strong economy that is ready to take full advantage once the States gets their act together. Many countries passed us in those rankings he speaks of because they spent their way through the recession, our rank will come back in the coming years as the books get balanced, we pay down some debt and then get to spend more and more on those areas. Meanwhile those countries will have to pay for all that spending through most likely higher taxes which will make their products less attractive on the world markets.

But in the meantime the government has been trying to get new free trade deals done with Asia and Europe. These deals will have a very positive impact on our manufacturing business out east that is still reeling from the recession. It will open up markets for our grain, farm machinery, technology and more, all of which will grow our economy and allow us to spend much more on innovation, technology, education at all levels etc. All these deals that the conservative government have done and are working on will help our economy in the long term unleash from the U.S. Then next time they enter a recession it will not hurt as much but when the good times roll we will have many countries buying our goods.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

In all your examples, you are specifying a single option, not a range of choices. In the case of the labourer, if that person desires to be the owner of a software company they can make choices that, over time, can yield that result. He/she can learn, develop ideas, crowd source funds and ultimately reach his/her goal.

I'm specifying a single option to illustrate how ingenious it is to say we all have, or would have "choices" economically that are entirely free. That one option could be a thousand, all equally implausible, if you like, but that doesn't change the central point of the example. That labourer is unlikely to become a doctor, theologian, nuclear physicist, or human resources manager either. If you want, google "white collar highly paid positions" and just substitute anything you find there for what he is very unlikely to ever work at.

In the specific example I used, how likely is it that he reaches his goal of starting a software company compared to, say, another person of the same age and intelligence whose parents paid for his doctorate in computing science, and who are willing to exert their influence in the various corporate boards of which they are members to smooth his way?

In any system, even the least efficient and most repressive, it is *possible* for people of drive and ambition to succeed. However, equality of possible outcome is not nearly as important as equality of opportunity, which a pure capitalist society is not at all well-suited to provide.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

In our current society, there is no choice in taxes. In one form or another, they touch everything. From labour to goods and services, monies are taken and used for causes of which you have little to no say.

So what? To turn the libertarian argument back on itself, nothing is stopping you, Shawnski, from becoming PM and misusing taxes just as you see fit. Oh, not everyone can become Prime Minister? Well, not everyone can become independent CEO of their own company, either.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And if you are meaning that "comparable outcomes" relates to "similar outcomes", that isn't true at all. Your choice can have radically different outcomes. Not sure what you are getting at with this whole point.

The point is that a forced choice is no choice at all, and that "do not participate" is no less impossible to choose under libertarianism than it is under any other system. The central premise of libertarianism is that free and independent economic units will interact to create the greatest good for all - I tell you there is no such thing as complete economic freedom and there is even more emphatically no such thing as economic independence.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Almost universally unsuccessful? Are you mad?

it is around that time that life expectancy started to climb dramatically. Inventions created in that era have us living like kings now. The health and wealth of society has risen BECAUSE of that era, not in spite of it.

Explain to me which volunteer institutions were instrumental in this general improvement of living conditions. I always thought it was science, corporations and strong political institutions that drove the vast majority of material progress, but I'm sure you'll show it was the Boy Scouts instead.

I don't even know where you are going with the rest of your argument. Nobody is claiming corporations and individuals don't innovate far more than bureaucracies and governments. Innovation, however, is not the end-all and be-all of civilization, nor is the production of wealth its ultimate expression.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by jammies

However, equality of possible outcome is not nearly as important as equality of opportunity, which a pure capitalist society is not at all well-suited to provide.

Always a brilliant concept (unless you're opposed to both and/or Nietzsche).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

As for free daycare, I would much rather see an increase in baby bonuses or some other payment that the parents can spend as they see fit.

... like a new flat screen TV?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

... like a new flat screen TV?

I am not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that the government should be buying baby food for all kids because parents can't be trusted to provide nutritious food and will likely waste their cash on frivolous things?
Or that and government transfer of money to parents is a waste because they don't all need the help?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

... like a new flat screen TV?

"Beer and popcorn" liberalTM

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that the government should be buying baby food for all kids because parents can't be trusted to provide nutritious food and will likely waste their cash on frivolous things?
Or that and government transfer of money to parents is a waste because they don't all need the help?

Both are issues with direct payments.

Wealthier parents do not help children to the extent that programs for children help children.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As I follow the NDP on Facebook, I'm getting more and more disenfranchised with them as they move more towards the centre. The feed is constantly touting more jobs, talking about balancing the budget.

Oh the horror!! More jobs and a balanced budget . . . . what a horrible vision for the future of Canada!!

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that the government should be buying baby food for all kids because parents can't be trusted to provide nutritious food and will likely waste their cash on frivolous things?
Or that and government transfer of money to parents is a waste because they don't all need the help?

Something like free daycare is as much about increasing labour participation as it is as improving the welfare of working parents.

[Tinordi]

APPLE is generally regarded as an embodiment of everything that is best about innovative businesses. It was started in a garage. For years it played a cool David to Microsoft’s lumbering Goliath. Then it disrupted itself, and the entire entertainment industry, by shifting its focus from computers to mobile devices. But there is something missing from this story, argues Mariana Mazzucato of Sussex University in England, in her book, “The Entrepreneurial State”. Steve Jobs was undoubtedly a genius who understood both engineering and design. Apple was undoubtedly a nimble innovator. But Apple’s success would have been impossible without the active role of the state, the unacknowledged enabler of today’s consumer-electronics revolution.

Consider the technologies that put the smart into Apple’s smartphones. The armed forces pioneered the internet, GPS positioning and voice-activated “virtual assistants”. They also provided much of the early funding for Silicon Valley. Academic scientists in publicly funded universities and labs developed the touchscreen and the HTML language. An obscure government body even lent Apple $500,000 before it went public. Ms Mazzucato considers it a travesty of justice that a company that owes so much to public investment devotes so much energy to reducing its tax burden by shifting its money offshore and assigning its intellectual property to low-tax jurisdictions such as Ireland.

Likewise, the research that produced Google’s search algorithm, the fount of its wealth, was financed by a grant from the National Science Foundation. As for pharmaceutical companies, they are even bigger beneficiaries of state research than internet and electronics firms. America’s National Institutes of Health, with an annual budget of more than $30 billion, finances studies that lead to many of the most revolutionary new drugs.

Economists have long recognised that the state has a role in promoting innovation. It can correct market failures by investing directly in public goods such as research, or by using the tax system to nudge businesses towards doing so. But Ms Mazzucato argues that the entrepreneurial state does far more than just make up for the private sector’s shortcomings: through the big bets it makes on new technologies, such as aircraft or the internet, it creates and shapes the markets of the future. At its best the state is nothing less than the ultimate Schumpeterian innovator—generating the gales of creative destruction that provide strong tailwinds for private firms like Apple.

http://www.economist.com/news/busine...ive-businesses

[FlamesAddiction]

You kind of need to have the State giving grants to promote creative innovation. There are already too many brilliant people trying to invent the next iPod or frivolous gadgets because they have a bigger pay day than something not immediately marketable.

In a lot of way, capitalism stifles creativity where it matters.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How does it work in countries that do have free university if the person flunks out or quits? Do they have to pay it back?

I would favour a system that issues loans that are forgivable on a percent based on how in demand the specialty is and how well they actually do in it.

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea!
In most countries that I'm aware of, they do not have to pay it back if they flunk out or quit. Tuition is simply free. You still have to pay to live, accept not working as much, and pay for books and that sort of thing, so a student isn't without "loss" as it were if they quit. They still would've lost quite a bit of money for nothing.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Maybe just 2-free years of post secondary, so it covers those in trades and subsidizes those in other (vital) fields?

This might be an excellent version of the idea, much like the idea above. Having a system that allows free education for trades and less of a burden for those that want to become doctors or nurses or teachers would be beneficial. Those that want other less essential degrees can pay for the last two years themselves.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I have a few problems with free daycare and free university.



If you assume that everyone pays into a pot (taxes) then single income families who chose to have one parent stay home are now paying higher taxes so that another family can put their kid in daycare and have both parents work. I did not consider single parents because I think there are better ways to help them out than to provide everyone with free daycare.



Following the same assumption, a lot of jobs do not require a university education. If you raise taxes to provide free education then you are raising taxes on those without university education, who typically make less money, to provide a benefit to those who will receive a university education and typically make more money.



In both cases, you have a system that benefits those with more money at the expense of those with less money.



For tuition costs, I would much rather see increased financial aid in the form of loans. Possibly linked to your tax rate. Maybe tuition is free, but you have to pay a higher tax rate for ten years.



As for free daycare, I would much rather see an increase in baby bonuses or some other payment that the parents can spend as they see fit.



On the tax front, I am not against higher taxes outright, but I think I would rather see the money go to the lower levels of government. I like the idea of a hike to the HST to provide money for municipalities.

I agree with most everything above. A large problem with free education can be a drop in the quality of that education. Canada has excellent universities, so something closer to forgivable loans or subsidies based on profession might be a lot better.

You could go any way with the free day care personally. It certainly benefits many (but not all). The only problem I have with something like payment that parents can use at discretion is that it can often be misused. Some combination of free daycare and credit to those who stay home (both dependent on household income perhaps?) might benefit more people.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Pretty much what GP Matt said.

Plus, a new tax at a rate of 20-25% is completely asinine, particularly given the reasoning given is basically "because government knows how to spend my money better than I do". As currently worded, Chill, your proposal sees me pay an incredible amount of money for absolutely no benefit.

Certainly neither the current provincial government or national government have shown that they should be trusted with that high of a tax increase, but I still think it has value as a realistic concept.

Personally, I think (in Alberta specifically) the tax rate is criminally low. Even a PST of 5% would be valuable. The amount of cuts that happen in this province of social programs is concerning considering the wealth we have. Part of that is mismanaging the money we have. Another smaller part is the lack of proper taxation I think.

[Flash Walken]

I feel like we've had parts of this conversation before....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that the government should be buying baby food for all kids because parents can't be trusted to provide nutritious food and will likely waste their cash on frivolous things?
Or that and government transfer of money to parents is a waste because they don't all need the help?

Tax credits if you have your kid enrolled in day care would be a far better option.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You kind of need to have the State giving grants to promote creative innovation. There are already too many brilliant people trying to invent the next iPod or frivolous gadgets because they have a bigger pay day than something not immediately marketable.

In a lot of way, capitalism stifles creativity where it matters.

In USSR, we know true meaning of creativity by government decree! Government picks who does research, on what, and that's why we lead world in efficiency and invention!! Zero waste for all comrades!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Azure

Tax credits if you have your kid enrolled in day care would be a far better option.

Why should stay at home parents or family caregivers be punished? Tax credits for children makes much more sense than forcing people to choose day care in order to receive financial rewards.