Socialist Canada smokes Corporate US in growth, job creation

huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/0 … 40555.html

Redistribution of wealth derived from natural resources (as opposed to created wealth Apple Computer style) is one of the best long-term solutions to America’s economic problems. It would potentially reduce the drag on the wealth creation process and significantly reduce inequities in American society.

Think there are numerous faults with the article. First of all, service jobs are notoriously low paying. Is that something one country should really be bragging about? :whistle:

Secondly, I would say real estate market in Canada is somewhat overpriced and overheated compared with the US, and I wouldn’t use an increase in prices to gage any indication of a healthy construction sector (it is really slow in most parts of the country). We have a house and apartment on the West Coast of Canada that together value nearly $1 million dollars. The same properties in Hawaii or even parts of California outside San Francisco would be significantly less, not to mention much, much lower in hinterland areas. I think prices have risen too much all across the board in Canada (even in hinterland areas) and will correct themselves in the coming years.

Now, let’s deal with the healthy state of the Canadian economy recently vis-a-vis the other G-8 countries. Why exactly is it in a relatively healthy state? Canada had many of the same problems Europe and the US was facing now in the early 90s.

The Liberals under PM Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin co-opted Reform Party policies and cut, cut, and cut. Furthermore, revenues were rising because of the GST, a general sales tax that was instituted under Progressive Conservative PM Mulroney, but one that the Libs soon recognized as being a sound public policy.

The government cuts by Martin, combined with increasing revenues from the GST, and a once in a lifetime tech boom of the late 90s created the conditions where surpluses were the norm in Canada for many years. Could this be replicated in US or Europe at the present time? Not nearly as successfully IMHO.

Even if governments significantly cut spending (and I don’t see this in Socialist Old Europe or amongst Democrats in the US), the growth would have to be pretty significant to match Canada’s achievements in the 90s/00s. I don’t see the technological transformations that happened in the mid to late 90s happening again frankly and the accompanying economic booms of that period.

So, to answer your article, my comments would be it wasn’t Socialist Canada that turned Canada around. A Progressive Conservative instituted tax that boosted government revenue, a ruling Liberal Party and centre-right Finance Minister (despised by some left-wing Forumosans)that co-opted many right-wing populist policies and cut significantly, and tremendous global and US growth brought about by the technological revoluion helped benefit Canada tremendously from a financial point of view.

Given these facts, is it accurate to say Socialist Canada outperformed the US? No. Right wing financial policies, assistance from the US boom, and a Conservative consumption tax have created the conditions for a Canada that today has weathered the storm better than some other countries. But as a country where most provinces rely on the US for 80 percent of their trade, it is still a country that will rise or fall with US trends. Canada won’t fully recover long term until the US sorts things out. And I think that may take some time unless the current ruling party in the US is turfed in the legislative or executive branch.

If real Socialists such as Jack Layton, or the left side of the Liberal Party were in control (politicians such as Dion or even Rae) were running the show, Canada would be in a lot worse condition that it is now. Trudeau’s piss poor economic legacy took almost 3 decades to fix and if real socialists gain control, they could defnitely do similar damage.

It’s probably resource related, Asian economies going great guns…demand is up. Australia and Canada are laughing. I think the US is going down in importance rapidly…unless the US really tanks the economic trends are all being set by Asia. It’s not that the US or Canada had this strategy or that strategy, their strategies are not so different (excepting healthcare which is retarding hiring in the US) after all and their societies are more similar than different. Resources is the major difference along with smaller population to enjoy fruit of said resource boom per head. Even if China slows you’ve still got India with massive resource needs.
There won’t be a double dip worldwide because Asian, resource providers and emerging economies are continuing to robustly trade with each other. As long as Europe and US do nothing worse than flatline grow they are dropping down in their influence stakes.

The US doesn’t have such bountiful natural resource anymore to match it’s large population. It cannot support it’s own resource needs or whatever commodities it does have are not competitively priced compared to Canada/Australia for example. It needs to go back to making things the world wants and that Americans want. It has the tech, the education system and the government structure…but it needs the implementation and it needs the support of society…jobs first!

How about a bit of original content with that link? Thanks, much.

Canadian stereotypes

Canadians are stereotyped by other nationalities as being nice, but rather dull-‘decaffeinated Americans’ being one description, while the definition of a Canadian as ‘an American with healthcare and no gun’ is another. One joke goes ‘How do you get Canadians out of a swimmming pool? You ask them.’ A Canadian politician remarked that Canada was supposed to have British government, French culture and American know-how, but instead ended up with French government, American culture and British know-how. Part of Canadian culture is a self-deprecating awareness of these stereotypes and assorted cultural highlights, for example Canadian French, Canadian English, eh, the RCMP, joual, poutine, winter, the Canadian Arctic, First Nations people and Inuit (to the extent to which the cultures of these groups are mapped onto that of the country as a whole), maple syrup, ice hockey, and beer.

In 2003, the country’s official refusal to get involved in the US invasion of Iraq. The proposed decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of marijuana and the legalization of same sex marriages were noted internationally. As the UK magazine, The Economist, noted Canada has taken the image of a North American culture that is “cool” in that it is taking a socially progressive tone in contrast to the USA.

Better than the US in job creation? I don’t get it. That’s like saying better than Sudan in living standards. Isn’t it common knowledge that the US economy has been in the shitter for the past few years and won’t recover for a few more, at least? That’s certainly been my understanding, which is why I’ve realized over the past couple of years that I probably WILL retire in Taiwan. That used to be a joke with me and my family, but I’ve come to realize there probably aren’t jobs for me in the US, certainly not like the opportunities I’ve got here. I’m sure it’s true for many professions, but as a lawyer I’ve been noticing articles like this:

law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463264613

And, as with many industries I believe, the legal industry has been seriously shaken up in the US over the past few years, with corporate and personal clients no longer willing to hire and pay attorneys with so much trust and so little scrutiny. Customers are stingier than ever with their precious dollars, demanding more than ever from their lawyers, while at the same time bargaining rates down, down, down. Not only are law firms slashing the once bountiful summer intern programs for 3d year law students, and slashing their ranks of new associates, but seasoned veterans with decades of years of experience are being thrown out on the streets after years of comfort and security. It’s a tough new world.

So, perhaps Canada may be creating more jobs than the US presently, but that really doesn’t mean much to me.

[quote=“Chewycorns”]Think there are numerous faults with the article. First of all, service jobs are notoriously low paying. Is that something one country should really be bragging about? :whistle:

Secondly, I would say real estate market in Canada is somewhat overpriced and overheated compared with the US, and I wouldn’t use an increase in prices to gage any indication of a healthy construction sector (it is really slow in most parts of the country). We have a house and apartment on the West Coast of Canada that together value nearly $1 million dollars. The same properties in Hawaii or even parts of California outside San Francisco would be significantly less, not to mention much, much lower in hinterland areas. I think prices have risen too much all across the board in Canada (even in hinterland areas) and will correct themselves in the coming years.

Now, let’s deal with the healthy state of the Canadian economy recently vis-a-vis the other G-8 countries. Why exactly is it in a relatively healthy state? Canada had many of the same problems Europe and the US was facing now in the early 90s.

The Liberals under PM Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin co-opted Reform Party policies and cut, cut, and cut. Furthermore, revenues were rising because of the GST, a general sales tax that was instituted under Progressive Conservative PM Mulroney, but one that the Libs soon recognized as being a sound public policy.

The government cuts by Martin, combined with increasing revenues from the GST, and a once in a lifetime tech boom of the late 90s created the conditions where surpluses were the norm in Canada for many years. Could this be replicated in US or Europe at the present time? Not nearly as successfully IMHO.

Even if governments significantly cut spending (and I don’t see this in Socialist Old Europe or amongst Democrats in the US), the growth would have to be pretty significant to match Canada’s achievements in the 90s/00s. I don’t see the technological transformations that happened in the mid to late 90s happening again frankly and the accompanying economic booms of that period.

So, to answer your article, my comments would be it wasn’t Socialist Canada that turned Canada around. A Progressive Conservative instituted tax that boosted government revenue, a ruling Liberal Party and centre-right Finance Minister (despised by some left-wing Forumosans)that co-opted many right-wing populist policies and cut significantly, and tremendous global and US growth brought about by the technological revoluion helped benefit Canada tremendously from a financial point of view.

Given these facts, is it accurate to say Socialist Canada outperformed the US? No. Right wing financial policies, assistance from the US boom, and a Conservative consumption tax have created the conditions for a Canada that today has weathered the storm better than some other countries. But as a country where most provinces rely on the US for 80 percent of their trade, it is still a country that will rise or fall with US trends. Canada won’t fully recover long term until the US sorts things out. And I think that may take some time unless the current ruling party in the US is turfed in the legislative or executive branch.

If real Socialists such as Jack Layton, or the left side of the Liberal Party were in control (politicians such as Dion or even Rae) were running the show, Canada would be in a lot worse condition that it is now. Trudeau’s piss poor economic legacy took almost 3 decades to fix and if real socialists gain control, they could defnitely do similar damage.[/quote]

Canadian culture cool? I think Celine Dion, curling and degenerate backpackers/English teachers with massive Canadian flags on their bags who inadvertently do everyone the favour of making sure no one will mistake them for American dickheads. To be sure, I have met some cool Canadians, but I’ve also met an incredible number of tossers and generally clueless bastards who are at least as bad as the Americans they have such chips on their shoulders about not being. I don’t know why so many people have such a hard-on for Canadians.

Canadian culture cool? I think Celine Dion, curling and degenerate backpackers/English teachers with massive Canadian flags on their bags who inadvertently do everyone the favour of making sure no one will mistake them for American dickheads. To be sure, I have met some cool Canadians, but I’ve also met an incredible number of tossers and generally clueless bastards who are at least as bad as the Americans they have such chips on their shoulders about not being. I don’t know why so many people have such a hard-on for Canadians.[/quote]

if we could all attain these heights of coolness, just imagine how ‘smashing’ everything would be.

for the record, most Canadians don’t think of themselves as ‘cool’, we’d see that as pretty fucking lame, nor would we ever have a ‘Cool Britannia’ type gov’t sponsored self-fellating campaign.

granted there are a lot of wanky Canadians in TW, but as far as the biggest sacks of Western shit in Asia go, the Brits in Thailand take the cake. According to a TV show I recently watched (Big trouble in tourist Thailand) there were near 100 Britons locked up in Thailand last year.

Well done.

Deuce Dropper: I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you about the Brits in Thailand. As I currently post this from Bangkok, there does seem to be a high correlation between British accents and men walking around shirtless hours from the nearest beach. That said, there does seem to be a fairly high correlation between being a blonde, Swedish woman under the age of 25 and having your tits just about hanging out. However, that’s less problematic, in my opinion. :smiley:

Anyway, the biggest wanker I’ve met on this trip so far was a Canadian guy who waxed poetic about why America and Americans are fucked up, then about how the Canadian government is trying to keep people dumb by not teaching them about the electoral process. As if to show that he was a case in point, he proudly proclaimed that he doesn’t know what the term MP means. When I asked him if he thought it incumbent upon him to perhaps do an internet search or go to his local public library to seek this knowledge out and stop this evil conspiracy, not only did he not detect that I was taking the piss out of him, but he told me that it was the government’s fault that he didn’t know. :doh: Conspiracy accomplished. The truth is, in fact, out there (it’s just that nobody gives a fuck).

I realize it doesn’t take much more than this to refute a Chewycorns argument, but you really must add more original content.
Cheers,
mod.

I realize it doesn’t take much more than this to refute a Chewycorns argument, but you really must add more original content.
Cheers,
mod.[/quote]

The level of BS passed off as thoughtful commentary in that particular post was stomach wrenchingly pathetic. All tripe and innards without one ounce of a quality cut to be found anywhere. It put back messageboards five years.

What does that mean, “assistance from the US boom”? You mean, we made money off the US economy? You make it sound like welfare, ya hoser!

Perhaps the main reason Canada is financially strong right now is that we have a fairly well-regulated financial sector, unlike our redneck cousins to the south.

The second reason is that we have a shit-load of natural resources and comparatively low domestic demand, so our oil, natural gas, timber, gold, aluminum, uranium, diamonds, wheat, and skunk will all be steady money earners for some time.

So, yeah baby! You can be a bit socialist and still make money, ya hosers!

I realize it doesn’t take much more than this to refute a Chewycorns argument, but you really must add more original content.
Cheers,
mod.[/quote]

That’s a really cute comment Jaboney :laughing: Care to add any substance? Didn’t think so. :smiley: You criticize me for juvenile remarks but lately you’re the one making unfunny cheapshots. Frankly, I think you can do better!! Perhaps it’s time for a holiday? :wink:

Deuce, it’s an argument that many intelligent Canadians with real experience (e.g. private sector bankers/chief economists with previous government experience) from all sides of the political spectrum recognize as being fairly accurate. If anything, my previous post is lauding the Martinite Liberals and their fiscal policy in the early to mid 90s. So I am not really sure why you find it so disagreeable.

Fact: Mulroney’s GST increased government revenues, was good public policy, and was not scrapped by the Libs when they came to power in '93. This helped increase government revenue.

Fact: Martin cut federal spending big time after being appointed Finance Minister and co-opted Reform Party financial policies in a bid to keep the fragmented opposition at the time from gaining strength (it worked).

Fact: The global .com and technology boom in the mid to late 90s played an instrumental role in helping Canada go from deficit to surplus.

These three factors were instrumental in moving Canada from record deficits to record surpluses in a matter of years. Let me spell it out for you. Canada’s record in the early 90s for turning itself around has been noted by other countries. My posts are explaining why it happened then and why it won’t happen now for other countries unless they really cut.

I was listening to the Chief Economist at one of the Canadian Banks a few weeks ago, and he was mentioning Canada’s achievements in the 90s, and how Europe and the US would not get out of this slump so easily. He basically said Canada was in poor financial shape in the early 90s, but that good taxation policy, cutting spending and a huge surge in the stock markets and wealth creation significantly helped the country go from poor to solid shape in a matter of years.

He said unless European governments and US government instituted severe austerity measures, it would probably take them longer to turn themselves around because except for emerging countries such as China, Brazil, Russia etc. and their nearly double digit growth, the European countries and the US just aren’t going to see the growth that was seen in the late 90s. Thus, logically, it will take them longer to climb out of deficit spending.

Don’t know what is so controversal about this opinion. It is logical and makes perfect sense. Canada should applaud itself for its actions in the 90s. But what Vorkosigan was saying, applauding Socialist Canada, as was done in the Huffington Post, for these changes is wrong and laughable.

The changes were instigated by the right wing of the Liberal Party and the Conservatives. :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: Real socialists in Canada (NDP types such as Svend Robinson or Jack Layton), whom I’m sure a lot of Canadians on this thread really admire :laughing: :laughing: would turn Canada into Laos if they ever got into power. :smiley: Thankfully they haven’t had the opportunity yet. :bravo: although the left wing of Liberal Party wanted a coalition with them and the Separatist Frenchies in the last election.

This is all ignoring Canada’s vast mineral and resource wealth. Just look at Australia for confirmation. Australia basically makes nothing in terms of goods/services for the outside world yet is sailing merrily along at present.

What does that mean, “assistance from the US boom”? You mean, we made money off the US economy? You make it sound like welfare, ya hoser!

Perhaps the main reason Canada is financially strong right now is that we have a fairly well-regulated financial sector, unlike our redneck cousins to the south.

The second reason is that we have a shit-load of natural resources and comparatively low domestic demand, so our oil, natural gas, timber, gold, aluminum, uranium, diamonds, wheat, and skunk will all be steady money earners for some time.

So, yeah baby! You can be a bit socialist and still make money, ya hosers![/quote]

BigJohn,

First of all, my name isn’t Tainancowboy. If you’re going to try to step up to the plate with me, at least show me that you have the ability to read and get someone’s name correct.

I’m saying that one of the factors behind Canada’s turnaround in the early 90s was a global technology boom that benefited most countries. In the space of a few years, enormous wealth creation and stock market gains were seen on many market bourses, especially in the US and Canada with their highly integrated supply chains. The main driver of this came out of Seattle and Silicon Valley. This global growth, combined with fiscal restraint( cuts), and a consumption tax (GST) were the primary reasons why Canada was able to turn itself around financially in a few years. My point is that this type of economic growth won’t be see again for years if ever, so the countries affected in this downturn, won’t be able to crawl up as quickly as Canada did in the early to mid 90s under optimal conditions. Talk to any venture capitalist…the late 90s were the heyday years.

Regarding your comment on commodities. Yes, Canada is blessed with natural resources. But it also means that the country or should I say certain regions of the country are highly dependent on high prices. When prices go down, these regions usually suffer. I think everyone in Canada thinks diversification is a good thing whether it’s promoting new industries or new markets. So yeah, the country ships out a lot of commodities. Does it really add lots of value added to these products, which would be even more profitable? Fuck no. Why not? Takes innovation and productivity—two areas Canada certainly does not do well. :laughing: So yeah, it’s financial situation is better than a lot of countries, but it still has numerous weaknesses–weaknesses that so many Canadians would rather ignore.

And when you say socialists can make money, I think you really don’t understand how statist policies can harm industry. You subsidize a sector (e.g. dairy) it starts to lose its competitive advantage. Look at New Zealand dairy. It’s a worldwide player exactly because it ended the quota system decades ago.

Subsidizing sectors helps to make uncompetitive companies remain in their longstanding pole position within the country, but they end up hurting the consumer. If anything, it is extremely hypocritical that socialist parties often want to keep these subsidies in place because it often means that consumers have to pay more money.

You’re a family of 4 making 40,000 dollars a year, don’t you want the lowest prices for your milk and cheese? Aren’t quotas that keep prices artifically high and tariffs on foreign products hurting working people? Do you even understand what I’m talking about?

US lagging rest of the world in creating jobs:

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … Collection

I totally agree with Chewy that our massively subsidized corporate sector is wreaking environmental, economic, and political havoc. We should end its tax, regulatory, and direct subsidies, and strive for an efficient market economy in which costs are borne by producers and profits accrue to them.

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]US lagging rest of the world in creating jobs:

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … Collection

I totally agree with Chewy that our massively subsidized corporate sector is wreaking environmental, economic, and political havoc. We should end its tax, regulatory, and direct subsidies, and strive for an efficient market economy in which costs are borne by producers and profits accrue to them.[/quote]

I agree 100 percent. Unfortunately, they’re [the subsidized industries and their spokespeople) are well funded and have political clout in both parties in the US. Look at the opposition from key Democratic and Republican Senators over possible agriculture concessions during TPP negotiations with the US and Asian countries. Kerry and numerous other protectionists were very quick to send a letter to Kirk.

Canada won’t get rid of them [quotas]for some time IMHO The lobby groups are too powerful in supply management and underdeveloped regions such as the maritimes are way, way too dependent on transfer payments that aid local industry. It’s unfortunate because aid doesn’t teach the peasant how to fish, right? It makes them a permanent victim sucking off the federal teet.

I have to compliment you here Vorkosigan. I may disagree with you on numerous if not most issues (although we seem to both be free traders against subsidies), but you are always willing to look at other viewpoints with an open mind and even concede a few points. I’m astonished by the backlash against my mainstream position articulated on this thread by other Canadians. It’s pretty much acknowledged by mainstream people that Canada did a good job in getting it’s financial house in order in the 90s by cutting spending (slashing jobs in many departments) and getting more revenue from the GST. It’s also pretty widely acknowledged that the boom in the 90s sped up Canada’s government surpluses. Anyone who thinks the US or Europe will be able to turn their house around as quickly this time around as Canada did in the 1990s has been taking too many trips to Khaosan Road or sang too many Hess song anthems. :laughing: I’m getting blasted for actually complimenting Canada. :roflmao: :roflmao: But as I’ve mentioned above, we shouldn’t be too smug. We have plenty of weaknesses as well. We rely way too much on commodities with little value added, we protect our industries, we are unproductive, and we have a risk-adverse management class. But Martin did turn around Canada’s finances (including the CPP system). I’ll give him that much.

This thread is as embarrassing. Canadians need to stop talking about Americans, because the really sad fact is that Americans don’t think about Canadians at all and nobody else cares.