Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[wingmaker]

A closer look at Harper's economic record:

http://www.unifor.org/sites/default/...ique_eng_0.pdf

A globe summary of the posted report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25817790/

The gyst of it is that Harper's government placed last or second last amongst all of Canada's post-War governments in 13 of 16 economic indicators, including job creation, employment rate, unemployment rate, etc.

From the study: "Further data confirms that according to appropriate population-adjusted indicators, Canada’s economy has ranked well within the lower half of all OECD countries under the Harper government. Moreover, given the negative growth data recorded so far for 2015, Canada’s standing among industrial countries will slip further this year. Prime Minister Harper’s claim that Canada’s economy is “the envy of the entire world” is sharply at odds with the international data.
In summary, there is no empirical support for the claim that Conservative governments in general – and the Harper government in particular – are the “best economic managers.” To the contrary, Canada’s economy has never performed worse, since the end of World War II, than under the present Conservative government. Alternative policies (emphasizing job creation, real growth, rising incomes, and equality) will be required to put Canada’s economy back onto a more optimistic path."

[Daradon]

Oh also,

Food corporations making a little less money vs global climate catastrophe... well, it should be obvious. Not even the same league.

Besides, people will come around on GMO's and even if they dont, industry will find an even better way. That's what innovation does. It's not wrong to be critical of what you eat, even if you are wrong.

Plus food corporations are not the nicest companies to begin with. They need to clean their act up in many other ways. So I don't feel bad for them

And yes, there needs to be social responsibility on the consumers parts. We expect too much for too little in wealthy nations. In some ways, the buck stops with us and these companies are fulfilling needs.

However, in other ways they grease politicians, block helpful legislation, and generally act like greedy asshats. Harming ecosystems, people, and animals when they really don't need to. Perhaps if they ran their businesses better, people might trust them and their products more.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Daradon

While I feel the fear mongering about GMO health risks is uneducated and wrong, I still have problems with how the large conglomerates do business with respect to their patents and the smaller companies they battle. I think patenting food put too much power at the top of the industry and will lead to huge problems down the road. I'm not saying they shouldn't benefit from their hard work, just that the rules benefit them far too much right now. Like the top of the banking industry, things are getting out of control.

Also remember, while I totally agree that the health concerns of GMO foods are hooey, there is a problem with concentrating the genetic sample of common foods down to that small a pool. That is proven by science. Our banana population was nearly wiped out in the 50's cause we bred too much of the same, not enough diversity. It's cause many fruits and vegetables don't breed naturally anymore, we've made new plants through genetoc selection through splicing. I am worried, and others, that GMO might repeat these mistakes. One resistant bug or mold could wipe out the whole species. Granted, they'd probaby be in a better place to fix the problem, but it's still a concern.

Lastly, while I do think GMO foods are important to an ever growing population, I wouldn't put the problem with those who fight the in the same league of importance as the anti climate crowd for a few reasons. The most important being that the corporations are winning the GMO battle. They are still making a ton of money and their produce is everywhere. So no huge problem. By the same token, the corporations are also winning the climate battle right now. And this is catastrophic. So yes, that problem is far more important.

As well, GMO moves need to be done with economics in mind. If introduction of certain GMO crops causes international markets (particularly the EU and China) to disappear, that's a huge problem. Roundup-ready alfalfa is becoming a huge headache in the US, because China has banned its import in even trace amounts, and the GMO variety seems to get into a lot of other fields via cross-pollination. We can't get too far ahead of our export market consumers when it comes to GMO production.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-hay-...-up-1418598477

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I have heard a lot of cries from the pro-NDP crowd that Harper is anti-science. How do those same people feel about the NDP's anti-GMO stance?

It's dumb.

[PsYcNeT]

The worst I could see from a NDP majority in that stance is more funding for pseudo-science crap, though the Harper government already legitimizes Palmer-school chiropractic and has loosened definitions for organics, so how much worse could it get?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

As well, GMO moves need to be done with economics in mind. If introduction of certain GMO crops causes international markets (particularly the EU and China) to disappear, that's a huge problem. Roundup-ready alfalfa is becoming a huge headache in the US, because China has banned its import in even trace amounts, and the GMO variety seems to get into a lot of other fields via cross-pollination. We can't get too far ahead of our export market consumers when it comes to GMO production.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-hay-...-up-1418598477

Yeah, was kinda moving in that direction but you explained it better than I could have. My post(s) were already long enough.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The worst I could see from a NDP majority in that stance is more funding for pseudo-science crap, though the Harper government already legitimizes Palmer-school chiropractic and has loosened definitions for organics, so how much worse could it get?

Exactly. As far as the anti science goes, the NDP, while not great, is definitely the lesser of two evils.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

A closer look at Harper's economic record:

http://www.unifor.org/sites/default/...ique_eng_0.pdf

A globe summary of the posted report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25817790/

The gyst of it is that Harper's government placed last or second last amongst all of Canada's post-War governments in 13 of 16 economic indicators, including job creation, employment rate, unemployment rate, etc.

From the study: "Further data confirms that according to appropriate population-adjusted indicators, Canada’s economy has ranked well within the lower half of all OECD countries under the Harper government. Moreover, given the negative growth data recorded so far for 2015, Canada’s standing among industrial countries will slip further this year. Prime Minister Harper’s claim that Canada’s economy is “the envy of the entire world” is sharply at odds with the international data.
In summary, there is no empirical support for the claim that Conservative governments in general – and the Harper government in particular – are the “best economic managers.” To the contrary, Canada’s economy has never performed worse, since the end of World War II, than under the present Conservative government. Alternative policies (emphasizing job creation, real growth, rising incomes, and equality) will be required to put Canada’s economy back onto a more optimistic path."

Just to play devils advocate the comparison is unfair because being geographically isolated from all but one country with 10 x the population and a higher wealth per cap. leaves you pretty exposed to their market circumstances. And Harpers government has sat through the worst economic times in the last 80 years for the Americans. I haven't done the research, but I would guess Canada led the G7 (or G8) in more years under Harper than any other government in the history of the group.

Where Harpers economic policies have failed in is increasing long term investment for progressive industries. Science, Tech/Communication, and Manufacturing have taken a back seat to resource production. Hitching our wagon to finite resources is short sighted, and we are only in the past 12 - 18 months really starting to feel the pain of Harpers economy (especially in Alberta), before that we actually reaped allot of benefits from it.

All of that said, I've voted for Harper in 2 past elections. But do not plan on voting for him this time. The Fixed Election dates, the denials of climate change, and attempts at vote buying have left a sour taste in my mouth among other things.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by octothorp

As well, GMO moves need to be done with economics in mind. If introduction of certain GMO crops causes international markets (particularly the EU and China) to disappear, that's a huge problem. Roundup-ready alfalfa is becoming a huge headache in the US, because China has banned its import in even trace amounts, and the GMO variety seems to get into a lot of other fields via cross-pollination. We can't get too far ahead of our export market consumers when it comes to GMO production.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-hay-...-up-1418598477

Science will eventually win out on this, and other countries will accept GMO products.

There are no real dangers to Humans in consuming GMOs. There are 3 real dangers that have come out of GMOs

1) patent laws putting Farmers firmly under the heels of Big Seed.

2) lack of genetic diversity removing natural adaptability to disease or changing environment.

3) over use of pesticides/herbicides, (effectively harming genetic diversity by killing off unadapted/non-GMO plants or harming wildlife/pollinator populations with poisons)

Realistically there is no good reason for China or Europe to worry about Canada having any of those problems, and the actual food they would be buying would be no different.

But for all of the reasons above there is still vary good reason to move against the mass blanket adoption of GMO crops, and I doubt the conservatives would have the will to move in that directions. What would be equally unfortunate would be a government that ignores advances in technology and completely bans something that could help billions people and can improve the fundamental economics of a vital industry.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

A closer look at Harper's economic record:

http://www.unifor.org/sites/default/...ique_eng_0.pdf

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that Unifor puts out. Doing a quick skim they have Trudeau Sr. rated high on a bunch of those graphs and he was an economic disaster.

A slightly more credible source.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spin...e-g7-1.3178235

Fortunately for us, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — just to name a few — have tracked global economic indicators for decades. So let's have a look at how Canada stacks up to its peers since January, 2006 when Harper first took power.
Since that time, Canada has topped the list of G7 performers for annual growth twice.
The first time was in 2008, the second (as mentioned above) in 2009.
Between 2010 and 2014, Canada has been in second or third spot.

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that Unifor puts out. Doing a quick skim they have Trudeau Sr. rated high on a bunch of those graphs and he was an economic disaster.

A slightly more credible source.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spin...e-g7-1.3178235

This report is what it is, a presentation of certain statistical data that supports the authors thesis. You can argue with the thesis but the data is the data. The report includes the statistical data that they derived their charts from in the index. If you want to present statistical data that shows differently, fair enough, but just to dismiss the data because it doesn't support your biases is not relevant to anyone other than yourself.

[Senator Clay Davis]

With such wasteful economic policies as this, it's not particularly surprising why they can't balance a budget. Buy those votes baby!

On the second full day of a campaign already deemed endless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared in Toronto Tuesday to promise help for those who economists say mostly don’t need it.

In the heart of Toronto’s overheated housing market, where the average detached home now sells for more than $1 million, Harper vowed to make life better not for those struggling to enter the market, but for those who already own their own homes.

Speaking at a warehouse in North York — in Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s Eglinton-Lawrence riding — Harper promised to introduce a new, permanent home renovation tax credit if re-elected in October. The plan would be phased in, depending on economic conditions, during the 2016-17 fiscal year. It would cost the government approximately $1.5 billion annually

Economists were quick to trash the idea online. Laval University’s Stephen Gordon called it “yet another God damn boutique tax credit” on Twitter. He added that home renovations “are not a public good. There’s no market failure to fix here.”

Mike Moffatt, an economist and assistant professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business, wrote that if he had $1.5 billion to spend on a tax measure, he’d “eliminate a whole truckload of tariffs and have money left over.”

In an interview, Moffatt, who is not part of the Liberal campaign but has provided economic advice to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, said the earlier home renovation tax credit made some sense. It was a temporary measure designed to stimulate a lagging economy at a time when the construction sector needed a boost.

The plan Harper proposed Tuesday, on the other hand, would be permanent, phased in only if the economy was strong, and aimed at residential real estate, “the one sector of the economy that’s going gang busters,” Moffatt said.

“It seems really strange,” he added. “Normally if this was a form of stimulus, you would wait until the economy was weak and you would target sectors of the economy that are not doing all that well.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...e-is-reelected

[Slava]

I just realised that with the changes to the ridings that I went from having Stephen Harper as my MP to Jason Kenney. I hate being in these "safe seats".

[Regorium]

One day, I'd like to see an exiting pm just go completely "crazy" and eliminate every tax credit there is, while slashing income tax to a revenue neutral amount. Political suicide, but would be remembered as a legend in the decades to follow.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

This report is what it is, a presentation of certain statistical data that supports the authors thesis. You can argue with the thesis but the data is the data. The report includes the statistical data that they derived their charts from in the index. If you want to present statistical data that shows differently, fair enough, but just to dismiss the data because it doesn't support your biases is not relevant to anyone other than yourself.

I only skimmed the Unifor report, which is a great link, this morning as I haven't had enough coffee for heavy thinking, haha.

I will say this - the statistics are interesting in and of themselves. I have no doubt that the second half of the Conservative reign has been during the harshest economic period of my lifetime and the numbers appear to reflect that. I don't know that things would have been particularly better or worse with any other government, but the statistics do seem to reflect reality.

The counterbalance is the analysis (via CBC link) that shows that Canada performed 'Head and shoulders' above rest of the G7.

Sadly, I expect that each side will pick the message that supports their perspective and crank up the biased/useless rhetoric.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

With such wasteful economic policies as this, it's not particularly surprising why they can't balance a budget. Buy those votes baby!





http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...e-is-reelected

I think though this has a rather interesting side benefit these economists are ignoring. Probably the most substantial part of the underground (untaxed) economy exists within the home renovation sector, these tax credits could end up bringing a substantial amount of the under the table deals back on top so they can claim the credit.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just realised that with the changes to the ridings that I went from having Stephen Harper as my MP to Jason Kenney. I hate being in these "safe seats".

So Kenney moved? Who's my MP now?

Or I guess you mean with the additional seats. GUess the borders got redrawn in my riding too. I'll have to take a look if I'm with the old seat, or the new seat.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think though this has a rather interesting side benefit these economists are ignoring. Probably the most substantial part of the underground (untaxed) economy exists within the home renovation sector, these tax credits could end up bringing a substantial amount of the under the table deals back on top so they can claim the credit.

This might be a bit off topic, but I think Dan nailed it. Recently the CRA is focusing more and more on the underground economy and the lost tax revenues from unreported income. The potential there is huge:

In 2012, total underground activity in Canada was estimated at $42.4 billion, which is equivalent to 2.3% of the GDP.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/fctsh...50501-eng.html

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think though this has a rather interesting side benefit these economists are ignoring. Probably the most substantial part of the underground (untaxed) economy exists within the home renovation sector, these tax credits could end up bringing a substantial amount of the under the table deals back on top so they can claim the credit.

I agree there would be a side benefit, but I do question how much of the underground economy the home renovation sector is responsible for. If it is indeed 42.4 billion dollars, then I would be shocked to know that renovations would account for a significant portion of it. I don't know everything that comprises the underground economy (or how they would even get an accurate value of it), but I would expect that the sales of illicit drugs would be the major component.

If I am wrong and this indeed would make a significant difference, then would it also not follow that if it brought a substantial amount of these deals back "onto the table" where they could be taxed, then we could also expect a significant raise in prices for home renovations? I am not saying that we should accept these "underground" deals, but I do think the economic benefits of reducing them through this tax credit are being overestimated.

[GirlySports]

What's the general take on Harper blasting the Alberta-NDPs in Quebec, in French.

Seems cheap.