Socialist Canada smokes Corporate US in growth, job creation

Sorry about the name thing, Chewy.

As to you message, it’s a lot of blah blah blah. The New Zealand dairy sector? Is that your best example to analyze Canadian economic success? :eh: Canada’s economy is doing well because we use the free-market,but we are not ideological slaves to the notion that liberty means the right of big corporations to do what they want. It’s all about balance.

[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]

Every country does the same thing, even China. This is not the problem. The problem is that the wealth is not trickling down to the consumer base.

I think it’s possible Canada’s policies in the 90s helped to turn it around, don’t know enough about it’s history to make that judgement though. Still…as I have mentioned already…there are probably more similarities between Canada and the US than differences. So it seems obvious difference in resource availability, better regulation of finance, smaller population, much smaller defence budget and the provision of certain national insurance schemes have made most of the difference. It could also be simply better run…which country had George W Bush at the helm for 8 years and launched two hugely costly wars and tax rebates…well it’s not rocket science is it?!?

Or…we could come back in 5 years and see if a cyclical issue.

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
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.
[/quote]

Sorry about the name thing, Chewy.

As to you message, it’s a lot of blah blah blah. The New Zealand dairy sector? Is that your best example to analyze Canadian economic success? :eh: Canada’s economy is doing well because we use the free-market,but we are not ideological slaves to the notion that liberty means the right of big corporations to do what they want. It’s all about balance.[/quote]

Again, you obviously don’t understand these issues so why try to make it look like you do? It’s ok not to know things, just be humble about it and people will be glad to share their knowledge.

My example of the New Zealand Dairy issue is highlighting a Canadian failure of still maintaining quotas for certain industries. They haven’t got rid of this like other developed nations, especially New Zealand, which did away with supply management in the late 1980s. Let me spell it out for you in Grade 1 style:

Grade One Tutorial for BigJohn

Canada in good financial shape because:

  1. When the country was in bad economic shape in early 90s with record deficits, government kept the GST which increased revenue for the government (money the goverment brings in).
  2. Paul Martin as Finance Minister borrowed the playbookfrom Ralph Klein and Preston Manning and cut, cut, and cut. This belt tightening helped significantly reduce spending.
  3. Global tech boom meant substantive stock market and economic growth. Resulted in Canada going from record deficits to surpluses in only a few years.
  4. Other countries in bad shape today almost two decades later, even if they cut and gained more revenue would not be able to relplicate Canada’s sucess. Only emerging countries such as China, Brazil, Russia etc. have growth rates and wealth creation similar to the expansion seen in developing countries in the mid-90s. That was a once in a lifetime event where technological advances revolutionized the way we worked etc. Today, even with cuts and more revenue, the global growth in US and Europe would mean a turn around could take decades instead of a few years.

Canada still has challenges:

  1. Way too much subsidies and protection of local industries.
  2. Low productivity and poor commercialization of innovation (too many professors with their head up their ass IMHO).
  3. Risk adverse management class.
  4. Reliance on certain industries (commodities in the West, Manufacturing in Ontario, Handouts/Equalization payments in the maritimes.
  5. Educating people such as BigJohn. :laughing: :laughing: :wink:

And who says I wouldn’t make a good teacher hahahahhaha. BigJohn you are dismissed for recess. :laughing:

[quote=“headhonchoII”]I think it’s possible Canada’s policies in the 90s helped to turn it around, don’t know enough about it’s history to make that judgement though. Still…as I have mentioned already…there are probably more similarities between Canada and the US than differences. So it seems obvious difference in resource availability, better regulation of finance, smaller population, much smaller defence budget and the provision of certain national insurance schemes have made most of the difference. It could also be simply better run…which country had George W Bush at the helm for 8 years and launched two hugely costly wars and tax rebates…well it’s not rocket science is it?!?

Or…we could come back in 5 years and see if a cyclical issue.[/quote]

I’m just saying in the opinion of one of the Chief Economists of a major bank, it was the three things I mentioned that he saw as responsible for the turnaround in the mid 90s. And this economist was very pessimistic that Europe or the US, even if they implemented such financial austerity measures, could institute such a quick turnaround time. We were very lucky in the mid-90s when global society was undergoing the biggest change since the industrial revolution.

Resource availability. In many sectors, the US is blessed with an abundance of natural resources as well. And lets not forget, Canadas national insurance schemes were in deep trouble in the mid-90s. The CPP would have been depleted within a decade or so, but Martin`s reforms have kept it viable until at least the late 21 Century.

[quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
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.
[/quote]

Sorry about the name thing, Chewy.

As to you message, it’s a lot of blah blah blah. The New Zealand dairy sector? Is that your best example to analyze Canadian economic success? :eh: Canada’s economy is doing well because we use the free-market,but we are not ideological slaves to the notion that liberty means the right of big corporations to do what they want. It’s all about balance.[/quote]

Again, you obviously don’t understand these issues so why try to make it look like you do? It’s ok not to know things, just be humble about it and people will be glad to their knowledge.

My example of the New Zealand Dairy issue is highlighting a Canadian failure of still maintaining quotas for certain industries. They haven’t got rid of this like other developed nations, especially New Zealand, which did away with supply management in the late 1980s. Let me spell it out for you in Grade 1 style:

Grade One Tutorial for BigJim

Canada in good financial shape because:

  1. When the country was in bad economic shape in early 90s with record deficits, government kept the GST which increased revenue for the government (money the goverment brings in).
  2. Paul Martin as Finance Minister borrowed the playbookfrom Ralph Klein and Preston Manning and cut, cut, and cut. This belt tightening helped significantly reduce spending.
  3. Global tech boom mean substantive stock market and economic growth. Resulted in Canada going from record deficits to surpluses in only a few years.
  4. Other countries in bad shape today almost two decades later, even if they cut and gained more revenue would not be able to relplicate Canada’s sucess. Only emerging countries such as China, Brazil, Russia etc. have growth rates and wealth creation similar to the expansion seen in developing countries in the mid-90s. That was a once in a lifetime event where technological advances revolutionized the way we worked etc. Today, even with cuts and more revenue, the global growth in US and Europe would mean a turn around could take decades instead of a few years.

Canada still has challenges:

  1. Way too much subsidies and protection of local industries.
  2. Low productivity and poor commercialization of innovation (too many professors with their head up their ass IMHO).
  3. Risk adverse management class.
  4. Reliance on certain industries (commodities in the West, Manufacturing in Ontario, Handouts/Equalization payments in the maritimes.
  5. Educating people such as BigJim. :laughing: :laughing: :wink:

And who says I wouldn’t make a good teacher hahahahhaha. BigJim, you are dismissed for recess. :laughing:[/quote]

Yes, Canada still has many challenges. Very deep, very wise. Thanks, Yoda.

But, tell me: what’s your point?
You know, “point” - that thing that supposedly relating to the thread title? Mine is that Canada’s economy is doing very well, despite having reasonably generous social programs. This is to a large extent because we were careful about debt / GDP ratios and had stronger financial regulation, plus of course having lots of natural resources.

You got a problem with that? I’m not arguing that Paul Martin didn’t help, or that we don’t have to spend so much on defence.

So: relating to the thread title: what’s your point?

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
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.
[/quote]

Sorry about the name thing, Chewy.

As to you message, it’s a lot of blah blah blah. The New Zealand dairy sector? Is that your best example to analyze Canadian economic success? :eh: Canada’s economy is doing well because we use the free-market,but we are not ideological slaves to the notion that liberty means the right of big corporations to do what they want. It’s all about balance.[/quote]

Again, you obviously don’t understand these issues so why try to make it look like you do? It’s ok not to know things, just be humble about it and people will be glad to their knowledge.

My example of the New Zealand Dairy issue is highlighting a Canadian failure of still maintaining quotas for certain industries. They haven’t got rid of this like other developed nations, especially New Zealand, which did away with supply management in the late 1980s. Let me spell it out for you in Grade 1 style:

Grade One Tutorial for BigJim

Canada in good financial shape because:

  1. When the country was in bad economic shape in early 90s with record deficits, government kept the GST which increased revenue for the government (money the goverment brings in).
  2. Paul Martin as Finance Minister borrowed the playbookfrom Ralph Klein and Preston Manning and cut, cut, and cut. This belt tightening helped significantly reduce spending.
  3. Global tech boom mean substantive stock market and economic growth. Resulted in Canada going from record deficits to surpluses in only a few years.
  4. Other countries in bad shape today almost two decades later, even if they cut and gained more revenue would not be able to relplicate Canada’s sucess. Only emerging countries such as China, Brazil, Russia etc. have growth rates and wealth creation similar to the expansion seen in developing countries in the mid-90s. That was a once in a lifetime event where technological advances revolutionized the way we worked etc. Today, even with cuts and more revenue, the global growth in US and Europe would mean a turn around could take decades instead of a few years.

Canada still has challenges:

  1. Way too much subsidies and protection of local industries.
  2. Low productivity and poor commercialization of innovation (too many professors with their head up their ass IMHO).
  3. Risk adverse management class.
  4. Reliance on certain industries (commodities in the West, Manufacturing in Ontario, Handouts/Equalization payments in the maritimes.
  5. Educating people such as BigJim. :laughing: :laughing: :wink:

And who says I wouldn’t make a good teacher hahahahhaha. BigJim, you are dismissed for recess. :laughing:[/quote]

Yes, Canada still has many challenges. Very deep, very wise. Thanks, Yoda.

But, tell me: what’s your point?
You know, “point” - that thing that supposedly relating to the thread title? Mine is that Canada’s economy is doing very well, despite having reasonably generous social programs. This is to a large extent because we were careful about debt / GDP ratios and had stronger financial regulation, plus of course having lots of natural resources.

You got a problem with that? I’m not arguing that Paul Martin didn’t help, or that we don’t have to spend so much on defence.

So: relating to the thread title: what’s your point?[/quote]
The original point of this thread was that Socialist Canada is outdoing America in growth and job creation. My point all along is that it has been the stewardship of the centre right (something I would classify Martin, Mulroney and Harper as representing). Sure, Canada is a mixed economy and has maintained this growth with a social safety net. But as mentioned in my last thread, Martin’s changes to the CPP in the 90s, for exampe, ensured its long term viability.

Likewise, dickwaving about commodities is pretty short sighted IMHO. Sure, we have a lot of oil, timber, and potash etc., but for a lot of our commodities do we add value added? No, we ship them out and have them changed overseas. Not nearly as much wealth creation in just shipping out the commodity. And when the prices fall, it’s hard times indeed. Diversification and valued added increases would be something to brag about. Hasn’t happened to a great extent yet.

For those who usually take everything Chewie says as absolute nonsense, he has presented a very accurate picture of how Canada turned itself around in the 90s. It wasn’t luck and it wasn’t the cyclical nature of growth and decline. It was sound policies, some of which were rather painful at the time.

None of this was inevitable. Canada was in a terrible mess in the 90s, with double digit unemployment and a massive debt. People talked as if the country was finished. If you ever wondered why so many Canookies came to Taiwan, this is the reason.

The reason so many Canadians come to Taiwan is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqpGiwNtMvY

I disagree with the OPs point the Canada is more socialist that the US currently is.

G.I.T. I could write a few pages worth about the number of Aussie tossers we’ve got working at Whistler :unamused:

Gman: I wouldn’t disagree with you at all.

[quote=“Gman”]I disagree with the OPs point the Canada is more socialist that the US currently is.

G.I.T. I could write a few pages worth about the number of Aussie tossers we’ve got working at Whistler :unamused:[/quote]

Oh really? Care to back that up? (I don’t mean about the Aussie tossers. That’s indisputable.)

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Gman”]I disagree with the OPs point the Canada is more socialist that the US currently is.

G.I.T. I could write a few pages worth about the number of Aussie tossers we’ve got working at Whistler :unamused:[/quote]

Oh really? Care to back that up? (I don’t mean about the Aussie tossers. That’s indisputable.)[/quote]

Let’s start with what the government in the US currently owns:

GM: Government owns 60.8 percent, a $40.7 billion investment.

— Chrysler: Owns 9.9 percent after investing $12.5 billion.

— GMAC: Owns 56.3 percent after investing $17.2 billion.

— Citigroup: Owns 27 percent after investing $25 billion.

— Small banks: $69.1 billion invested in 641 small banks.

— AIG: Owns 79.8 percent in return for $47.5 billion invested. Federal Reserve has lent an additional $63 billion.

— Fannie Mae: Owns 79.9 percent after providing $75 billion.

— Freddie Mac: Owns 79.9 percent after providing $57 billion.

[quote=“Gman”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Gman”]I disagree with the OPs point the Canada is more socialist that the US currently is.

G.I.T. I could write a few pages worth about the number of Aussie tossers we’ve got working at Whistler :unamused:[/quote]

Oh really? Care to back that up? (I don’t mean about the Aussie tossers. That’s indisputable.)[/quote]

Let’s start with what the government in the US currently owns:

GM: Government owns 60.8 percent, a $40.7 billion investment.

— Chrysler: Owns 9.9 percent after investing $12.5 billion.

— GMAC: Owns 56.3 percent after investing $17.2 billion.

— Citigroup: Owns 27 percent after investing $25 billion.

— Small banks: $69.1 billion invested in 641 small banks.

— AIG: Owns 79.8 percent in return for $47.5 billion invested. Federal Reserve has lent an additional $63 billion.

— Fannie Mae: Owns 79.9 percent after providing $75 billion.

— Freddie Mac: Owns 79.9 percent after providing $57 billion.[/quote]

Oh, I see. You mean the bail out. That’s not real socialism or even sincere social democracy though. It’s just a temporary emergency measure because some geniuses on Wall Street fucked up the economy.

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Gman”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Gman”]I disagree with the OPs point the Canada is more socialist that the US currently is.

G.I.T. I could write a few pages worth about the number of Aussie tossers we’ve got working at Whistler :unamused:[/quote]

Oh really? Care to back that up? (I don’t mean about the Aussie tossers. That’s indisputable.)[/quote]

Let’s start with what the government in the US currently owns:

GM: Government owns 60.8 percent, a $40.7 billion investment.

— Chrysler: Owns 9.9 percent after investing $12.5 billion.

— GMAC: Owns 56.3 percent after investing $17.2 billion.

— Citigroup: Owns 27 percent after investing $25 billion.

— Small banks: $69.1 billion invested in 641 small banks.

— AIG: Owns 79.8 percent in return for $47.5 billion invested. Federal Reserve has lent an additional $63 billion.

— Fannie Mae: Owns 79.9 percent after providing $75 billion.

— Freddie Mac: Owns 79.9 percent after providing $57 billion.[/quote]

Oh, I see. You mean the bail out. That’s not real socialism or even sincere social democracy though. It’s just a temporary emergency measure because some geniuses on Wall Street fucked up the economy.[/quote]

No it’s not temporary and it’s not morally or intellectually honest to lay the blame for the recent troubles strictly on Wall street. Without the government medling in the economy the incentives for people and institutions to leverage up would not have been present. Also, Fredie and Fannie were both government backed institutions way before all of the recent troubles went down. GM was is deep siht before subprime. They were making cars that nobody wanted to drive. I completely disagree with your assertion that the bailout isn’t real socialism. It is pure socialisim. One of the core tentants of Capitalism is that the losers go bankrupt. This was prevented from happening. The idea that banks were to big to fail is a complete myth. Look into the expanding role of the government in the US economy. Look at the compensation level for a public service employee in the US versus a private sector employee doing the same job. How about the recently passed medicare law? If you think this was all temporary and that the measures taken my the US and other governments somehow have averted dissaster, you are in for a very big shock in the next view years.

[quote=“Gman”]No it’s not temporary and it’s not morally or intellectually honest to lay the blame for the recent troubles strictly on Wall street. Without the government medling in the economy the incentives for people and institutions to leverage up would not have been present. Also, Fredie and Fannie were both government backed institutions way before all of the recent troubles went down. GM was is deep siht before subprime. They were making cars that nobody wanted to drive. I completely disagree with your assertion that the bailout isn’t real socialism. It is pure socialisim. One of the core tentants of Capitalism is that the losers go bankrupt. This was prevented from happening. The idea that banks were to big to fail is a complete myth. Look into the expanding role of the government in the US economy. Look at the compensation level for a public service employee in the US versus a private sector employee doing the same job. How about the recently passed medicare law? If you think this was all temporary and that the measures taken my the US and other governments somehow have averted dissaster, you are in for a very big shock in the next view years.
[/quote]

Pure socialism? I think not. It is simply government intervention in the markets. There is no socialist agenda here although the mad hatters at the tea party would like us to believe that. And as to the collapse not being due to Wall Street geniuses, I’m sorry but they were greedy dumb-asses when it came to risk. I’m sure most of us would have been extremely happy to see the banks that f***ed go under, except for the fact that that would have been like throwing something overboard that was attached to your own feet. I know some people get a hard-on when they think of the beauty of the free market, but I’m more concerned about peace, order and good government than huge amounts of freedom for corporations. My two cents Canadian.

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Gman”]No it’s not temporary and it’s not morally or intellectually honest to lay the blame for the recent troubles strictly on Wall street. Without the government medling in the economy the incentives for people and institutions to leverage up would not have been present. Also, Fredie and Fannie were both government backed institutions way before all of the recent troubles went down. GM was is deep siht before subprime. They were making cars that nobody wanted to drive. I completely disagree with your assertion that the bailout isn’t real socialism. It is pure socialisim. One of the core tentants of Capitalism is that the losers go bankrupt. This was prevented from happening. The idea that banks were to big to fail is a complete myth. Look into the expanding role of the government in the US economy. Look at the compensation level for a public service employee in the US versus a private sector employee doing the same job. How about the recently passed medicare law? If you think this was all temporary and that the measures taken my the US and other governments somehow have averted dissaster, you are in for a very big shock in the next view years.
[/quote]

And as to the collapse not being due to Wall Street geniuses, I’m sorry but they were greedy dumb-asses when it came to risk. I’m sure most of us would have been extremely happy to see the banks that f***ed go under, except for the fact that that would have been like throwing something overboard that was attached to your own feet. I know some people get a hard-on when they think of the beauty of the free market, but I’m more concerned about peace, order and good government than huge amounts of freedom for corporations. My two cents Canadian.[/quote]

Who were greedy dumb-asses? Just Wall street? So your belief centers around bankers from wall street rounding up people at gunpoint walking them to the nearest bank branch where they were beaten until they agreed to buy a house at astronomical prices with little or no money down? Having accomplished this the bankers then went out and rounded up those who had paid off their mortgages and coerced them into taking out second mortgages to finance lifestyles well beyond what their income could support? That’s your view of what happend? You see no greed amoungst the masses?

Who said any of this was about free markets vs socialisim anyways? My comment was simply that I objected to was the idea that Canada is radically more socialist than the US.

Your analogy about letting the banks go bankrupt being like throwing an anchor tied to your leg over the side of a boat amuses me because the government’s solution is akin to tying a larger anchor to your leg and tossing it over that other side of the boat.

Your concerned about peace order and good government? What does that even mean? Peace for who? Order? Well Mao, Stalin, and Kim were all about order. Good government? What’s is good government? You seem to think good government is providing short term benefits at the expense of the longer term.

[quote=“Gman”]Who were greedy dumb-asses? Just Wall street? So your belief centers around bankers from wall street rounding up people at gunpoint walking them to the nearest bank branch where they were beaten until they agreed to buy a house at astronomical prices with little or no money down? Having accomplished this the bankers then went out and rounded up those who had paid off their mortgages and coerced them into taking out second mortgages to finance lifestyles well beyond what their income could support? That’s your view of what happend? You see no greed amoungst the masses?

Who said any of this was about free markets vs socialisim anyways? My comment was simply that I objected to was the idea that Canada is radically more socialist than the US.

Your analogy about letting the banks go bankrupt being like throwing an anchor tied to your leg over the side of a boat amuses me because the government’s solution is akin to tying a larger anchor to your leg and tossing it over that other side of the boat.

Your concerned about peace order and good government? What does that even mean? Peace for who? Order? Well Mao, Stalin, and Kim were all about order. Good government? What’s is good government? You seem to think good government is providing short term benefits at the expense of the longer term.[/quote]

Why is someone a greedy dumb-ass because they can get - or so they think - a house even though they don’t have a lot of wealth?

Canada is definitely more socialist than the USA in a few key ways: we have socialized health care, education, pensions, welfare and unemployment insurance. We have comprehensive coverage with these things. Thee essentially a human right in Canada. This is a characteristic of a social democracy, which is what Canada is.

Your analogy is amusing, except that we haven’t pulled over the side of the boat yet. There was definitely a huge crisis last year, and it seems to have been averted for now (at a cost), and if we hadn’t had a bail out and stimulus package we’d most probably have been in deep doo-doo.

If the short term benefit is something like keeping my car on the road or dodging a bullet then I think the short and long term benefits can be allied.

But of course you would disagree, on purely ideological grounds: those beautiful, perfect free markets! Hallelujah!

[quote=“BigJohn”]

Canada is definitely more socialist than the USA in a few key ways: we have socialized health care [/quote]

The US has medicare. Both countries have government involvement in health care. It’s a matter of to what degree. I would argue, of course in opposition to most Canadians on Forumosa, that the best health care systems in the world are ones that allow flourishing private and public options.

So the US has no public education system and Canada has no private education? :laughing: Some public universities (e.g. University of California unis) offer high-calibre public education at a reasonable price for in-state students in the US. Canada, for that matter, has a lot of private career schools. I don’t think we can claim this as something that makes us unique.

[quote]
pensions [/quote]
And the US doesn’t have Old Age Security for everyone? Isn’t that similar to Canada’s CPP or OAS? The US doesn’t have a variety of defined public pensions for its government workers or 401Ks for its private sector workers? Virtually identical to the defined pensions in Canada (for public sector), private sector pension plans, and RRSPs offered in Canada. Again, something we can’t claim as making us unique.

Both countries have welfare and unemployment programs that are far too generous. In many respects, as Johnson’s Great Society did, these programs create dependency and create a class of professional poverty managers (bureaucrats). The solution? Many on the left and right have mentioned paying people a guaranteed income and removing the layers and layers of bureaucracy.

If you’re going to use an example of free markets, use a correct one such as Hong Kong. The US under Obama is not free market. Whether it’s government set asides for small business, local subsidies, or huge government bail outs, your contrast of Canada being socialized and the US being free market is incorrect. They’re not as different as you might see them as (despite what CBC TV may have spoonfed you). They’re both basically mixed economies, don’t you think?

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Gman”]Who were greedy dumb-asses? Just Wall street? So your belief centers around bankers from wall street rounding up people at gunpoint walking them to the nearest bank branch where they were beaten until they agreed to buy a house at astronomical prices with little or no money down? Having accomplished this the bankers then went out and rounded up those who had paid off their mortgages and coerced them into taking out second mortgages to finance lifestyles well beyond what their income could support? That’s your view of what happend? You see no greed amoungst the masses?

Who said any of this was about free markets vs socialisim anyways? My comment was simply that I objected to was the idea that Canada is radically more socialist than the US.

Your analogy about letting the banks go bankrupt being like throwing an anchor tied to your leg over the side of a boat amuses me because the government’s solution is akin to tying a larger anchor to your leg and tossing it over that other side of the boat.

Your concerned about peace order and good government? What does that even mean? Peace for who? Order? Well Mao, Stalin, and Kim were all about order. Good government? What’s is good government? You seem to think good government is providing short term benefits at the expense of the longer term.[/quote]

Why is someone a greedy dumb-ass because they can get - or so they think - a house even though they don’t have a lot of wealth? [color=#000080]The ignorance you display in saying this is astounding.[/color]

Canada is definitely more socialist than the USA in a few key ways: we have socialized health care, education, pensions, welfare and unemployment insurance. We have comprehensive coverage with these things. Thee essentially a human right in Canada. This is a characteristic of a social democracy, which is what Canada is. [color=#000080]Chewy has attempted to cure your ingorance on this point. [/color]

Your analogy is amusing, except that we haven’t pulled over the side of the boat yet. There was definitely a huge crisis last year, and it seems to have been averted for now (at a cost), and if we hadn’t had a bail out and stimulus package we’d most probably have been in deep doo-doo. [color=#000080]So by not being in deep doo-doo you mean +9% unemployment (understated by the way), a budget deficit of 1 tillion dollars plus, and national dept of 60+ trillon dollars? I shudder to think what you consider deep doo-doo[/color]

If the short term benefit is something like keeping my car on the road or dodging a bullet then I think the short and long term benefits can be allied.

But of course you would disagree, on purely ideological grounds: those beautiful, perfect free markets! Hallelujah![/quote]

Lucky for you there are examples of governments that have embraced your socialist your utopia. Have fun.