Socialist Canada smokes Corporate US in growth, job creation

Politics International Politics
41

[quote=“Chewycorns”][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]

Chewy, I said our programs were comprehensive. I know about the US programs and you could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

And the current situation with the US gov taking over more of the pie is an emergency measure. Oh wait! I fell for it! That non-US born UN terrorist is trying to Stalinize us, and I fell for it! Ma! Git my gun!

42

But isn’t Social Security in the US more comprehensive than the Canadian model? :laughing: :laughing: Let me use my parents as an example. Both earned public-sector salaries for their entire careers (defined pension) spanning more than 40 years. One still works, but my father has recently retired and now qualifies for his defined pension (annually about half of what his top earning year salary was and payable until death when it is paid as a lump sum to a survivor), CPP, and the Old Age Pension. Let’s forget about his defined pension as this benefit is for people that have had professional public sector careers and does not apply to all Canadians. Let’s use the universal programs that every Canadian is eligible for hehehehehheheh.

Dad’s payments from the government for CPP (started getting paid at 60) and OAS (started getting paid at 65) are about $1600/month. He paid the maximum contribution every year for CPP for all of his working life and gets a little more than $1000/month for that. The OAS is not tied to how much you worked and the current benefit is about 600 dollars a month starting at 65. Not that generous. However, with a gold-plated defined pension (through professional public sector job) and prudent RRSP investing (private government-backed investment accounts that every Canadian can put money into to pay less tax each year) definitely a cushion in retirement.

Now let’s compare the CPP and OAS with the American system of Social Security. About 800 dollars less. :noway: Those damn socialist Americans. :laughing: :smiley:

[quote]
The maximum benefit depends on the age at which a worker chooses to retire. For a worker retiring at age 66 in 2010, the amount is $2,346. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21. [/quote]
ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5

What about education spending? Doesn’t the US spend much more comprehensively than Canada on secondary education on a per capita basis? Those damn socialist Americans. :laughing: :whistle:

nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/pdf/38_2010.pdf

Do I need to go on? :wink: :bow: Again, don’t get me wrong, Canada has a lot of things going for it, but trying to portray it as truly socialist is laughable. In many respects, as I’ve demonstrated, the US is more socialist in terms of the money it spends on retirement and education spending. However, I don’t think it’s truly socialist rather just a richer country in many respects–well at least until Obama became president. :smiley:

Don’t believe everything your Canadian teachers and statist television told you about the evil US. Now those (teachers and television) are true bonafide socialist sectors and constituencies in Canada :roflmao:

43

Most likely the main difference is indeed that Canada is richer per head and the money is coming down to the lower levels more. How that is acheived is debatable of course. But you know there are things we cannot understand and miss and it could be something else we just don’t know about!

44

Because, as Dirty Harry said, “A man’s gotta know his limitations”. If people didn’t look at the repayments schedule – particularly after any honeymoon interest rate period ended – then they either were greedy or a dumb-ass in exactly the same way as people screwing about with debt on Wall street, or (as you’ll learn if you follow my link below) as governments do at their own peril.

It’s really long, but I suggest you check out this talk by Niall Ferguson.

http://www.piie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=152&Media

Whilst the bailout may have been necessary at the time (I can’t remember if he says so in that talk, but I know he has said so in others), as he notes, there is only one historical example he could find (Britain in the 19th Century) of a nation that could survive (as in not default) the kind of debt levels many developed nations are currently approaching or already at. As you’ll also note, the U.S. and the U.K. are actually heading for a much worse level of debt (and inability to pay it) than the so-called PIIGS in Europe.

All of that said, he kind of likes Canada’s economic prospects.

45

Because, as Dirty Harry said, “A man’s gotta know his limitations”. If people didn’t look at the repayments schedule – particularly after any honeymoon interest rate period ended – then they either were greedy or a dumb-ass in exactly the same way as people screwing about with debt on Wall street, or (as you’ll learn if you follow my link below) as governments do at their own peril.

It’s really long, but I suggest you check out this talk by Niall Ferguson.

http://www.piie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=152&Media

Whilst the bailout may have been necessary at the time (I can’t remember if he says so in that talk, but I know he has said so in others), as he notes, there is only one historical example he could find (Britain in the 19th Century) of a nation that could survive (as in not default) the kind of debt levels many developed nations are currently approaching or already at. As you’ll also note, the U.S. and the U.K. are actually heading for a much worse level of debt (and inability to pay it) than the so-called PIIGS in Europe.

All of that said, he kind of likes Canada’s economic prospects.[/quote]

That’s fascinating. A guy trying to get somewhere in life for his family should have the same financial smarts as a top Wall Street money manager. A fascinating assertion. I think someone else is a dumb ass!

Anyway, the point here is not about social democracy. It’s about carrying debt and securitized re-packaged up the yin yang debt. In Canada we didn’t do so much of the first, and we didn’t do so much of the latter, so our economy is healthier. The trick was a balance between free markets and wise regulation. Not about going too far in either direction.

Anyway, I am no socialist. I believe in a wise balance. Perhaps we got it right in Canada partially through luck. American military spending under the Bush Gang was obviously an issue.

American public health care was and still is less comprehensive than that in Canada. You may remember some discussion of this Congress last year.

46

BigJohn,

Any comments on the US having more comprehensive education spending and pension programs?

47

[quote=“Chewycorns”]BigJohn,

Any comments on the US having more comprehensive education spending and pension programs?[/quote]

Well, if they do, that must be due to Sesame Street, which was a secret Canadian psyops coup!

Anyway, yes the Federal system throws money around in the US. But the overall attitude in Canada is much more consistent with the social democracies of Europe. Having a little socialist soul on the side after the big busness is taken care of is very Canadian. It’s part of “Peace, order and good government.” And the health care thing is a big issue that follows from that. BTW the CPP is very comprehenisive. Ya think the US system is more so?

Anyway, we’re not right wing nutbars. And we have a healthy economy. There’s a lesson there for right wing nutbars. That’s my point. Not that Canada is perfect yet, or that the US is a fascist Ayn Rand state. OK?

48

[quote="BigJohnAnyway, we’re not right wing nutbars. And we have a healthy economy. There’s a lesson there for right wing nutbars. That’s my point. Not that Canada is perfect yet, or that the US is a fascist Ayn Rand state. OK?[/quote]

So our healthly economy has nothing to do with our vast natural resource wealth? Your point is that Canada are not right wing nutbars? Who here has made that argument? If you’ve been paying attention the arguments being put forth are that THE U.S. IS MORE SOCIALIST THAN MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK.

Oh and by the way Canada does have it’s share of right wing nutbars. Living in Vancouver I had a front row seat to this one;

encyclopediadramatica.com/Rachel_Marsden

49

So our healthly economy has nothing to do with our vast natural resource wealth? Your point is that Canada are not right wing nutbars? Who here has made that argument? If you’ve been paying attention the arguments being put forth are that THE U.S. IS MORE SOCIALIST THAN MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK.

Oh and by the way Canada does have it’s share of right wing nutbars. Living in Vancouver I had a front row seat to this one;

encyclopediadramatica.com/Rachel_Marsden[/quote]

If you look at the thread, it’s about Canada’s economy doing well. The arguments being forth are various, some worthy and others unworthy, but I overall the US is not more socialist than people think. It’s less socialist than you think, because you are adding on the bailout stuff to serve your purposes. I have already mentioned resources, and I mean that overall Canadians are not right-wing nutbars, not that we don’t have any. Sheesh! Straw man, anybody?

50

Да (“Da”) Comradsky…is truth!
American capitalism gone with a whimper

51

So our healthly economy has nothing to do with our vast natural resource wealth? Your point is that Canada are not right wing nutbars? Who here has made that argument? If you’ve been paying attention the arguments being put forth are that THE U.S. IS MORE SOCIALIST THAN MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK.

Oh and by the way Canada does have it’s share of right wing nutbars. Living in Vancouver I had a front row seat to this one;

encyclopediadramatica.com/Rachel_Marsden[/quote]

If you look at the thread, it’s about Canada’s economy doing well. The arguments being forth are various, some worthy and others unworthy, but I overall the US is not more socialist than people think. It’s less socialist than you think, because you are adding on the bailout stuff to serve your purposes. I have already mentioned resources, and I mean that overall Canadians are not right-wing nutbars, not that we don’t have any. Sheesh! Straw man, anybody?[/quote]

You have been focused on the bailouts with the idea that this is somehow a recent and/or temporary phenomenon in the US. What about the bailout of Long term capital management in 1998 or the S&L bailout in 1989. There would appear to be ample safety nets in place in the US. Also, I’ve only talked about the bailout because Chewy has done a good job highlighting the social programs in the US and how they parallel those in Canada. Also your understanding of the facts that led to the financial crises in the US is woefull.

The Rachel_Marsden thing was more for humor purpoes than anything else. It should be taken no more or less seriously than your point that overall Canadians are not right-wing nutbars, as if Americans are.

52

The problem with America is not American capitalism it is that America’s capitalists went global and didn’t care about the American bit anymore. So ultimately it’s a lack of patriotism and solidarity with citizens of their own country! The other part is that the financial/investor class got too powerful in the US and everything became about quarterly results and CEOS just play to that quarter instead of the general well being of the company and it’s employees.

I think the difference is clear when you take a country like Germany for example. I’m sure they could have shipped a lot more factories/production overseas but they didn’t. And I believe one of the major reasons is that they wanted to support their own country.

53

BigJohn: Care to actually address the figures and arguments Chewy provided?

headhoncho: As I’ve written elsewhere though, it’s not just business that has become unpatriotic, it’s consumers also. There are at least two sides to every transaction. If consumers revolted over the idea of buying from abroad (leaving aside other implications of that momentarily), then big businesses would have to provide locally-produced goods. It’s that simple, but most people want to have their cake (jobs in America) and eat it too (dirt cheap consumer goods).

Also, for what it’s worth, not every business focusses on quarterly results. In practically every letter Warren Buffett writes, he emphasises that his company does not operate that way. Again, whether as shareholders or consumers, Americans could choose to support such companies, but evidently they don’t (or not enough do) in your estimation.

54

[quote=“headhonchoII”]The problem with America is not American capitalism it is that America’s capitalists went global and didn’t care about the American bit anymore. So ultimately it’s a lack of patriotism and solidarity with citizens of their own country! The other part is that the financial/investor class got too powerful in the US and everything became about quarterly results and CEOS just play to that quarter instead of the general well being of the company and it’s employees.

I think the difference is clear when you take a country like Germany for example. I’m sure they could have shipped a lot more factories/production overseas but they didn’t. And I believe one of the major reasons is that they wanted to support their own country.[/quote]

American business had to go global or they would have been priced out of their own market.

for US business, it was either go global or start a trade war.

they did the right thing IMVHO, and if they didn’t 90% of this board would be back in their home countries.

as long as America continues to innovate, they will be fine.

and BTW the German economy is hardly a model to aspire to.

55

Using Buffett as an example is misleading, he is not representative of corporate America. That’s one of the reasons he is so famous!

Sure Americans got some things cheaper, but I’m not sure that’s the case for certain goods. Look at Nike for example, have they got any cheaper since shipping all their manufacturing off to Taiwan first and then China and Vietnam? Did the iPad get cheaper because it was made in China for 200 USD but sold in America for 500 USD?

The whole innovation argument is horsesh$t. You need a production capability and experience to innovate. Look at what happened to the LCD TV industry in America, doesn’t exist because the old manufacturers all closed down or shipped out. Nothing to do with ‘innovation’ per se, you just lost the whole manufacturing base of that industry and can’t get it back. How will you innovate ahead of the Samsungs and Sony’s when they have the patents and the knowhow and industrial base? Same with digital cameras…You think you can mysteriously innovate from thin air and make things a success while you are competing with world-class companies that are already moving a mile a minute? Not only that innovation means almost nothing if the actual production takes place overseas.

Most industries have incremental innovation, some have almost no need for innovation, there’s not a huge amount you can innovate in furniture constructon for example.

‘The German economy is hardly a model to aspire to’- wow that’s an ignorant statement.

BTW, the irrational fear of a trade war is a weakness…sometimes if you don’t act (even with fear of repercussions) you get cooked slowly, that’s what happened to America’s economy…cooking slowly in the pot for decades. I’ve no doubt that if things continue the way they are America will bankrupt within 5-10 years.

Fnally I have no doubt that the current policy was beneficial to most of the world, but it hasn’t been beneficial to average Americans beyond a certain point.

Face it DD, my logic is sound, yours is just ideological dead ends. You need to take your brain out of that box you’ve put it into and have a look at the way the world really operates.

56

headhoncho: That Buffett is unusual is precisely my point, likewise with your other points. Americans (as both investors and consumers) have, for whatever reasons, chosen to look at the short term, quite probably to their own detriment. I’m not letting corporate America off the hook, but putting American society at large on the hook. They’ve made their bed, but now they want to complain about lying in it. Likewise, when their gross living beyond their means really comes and hits them in a decade or so, then they will complain about that too.

57

Yes, there’s two parts to it as you’ve rightly pointed out.

58

headhoncho: I guess I just shrug my shoulders at it. Partly, it’s because I’m not an American (although I do for various reasons, have somewhat of a vested interest in seeing that country prosper), but mainly because I figure that if it were possible to really explain people’s roles in their own demise to them, then they probably wouldn’t be in such a situation in the first place.

59

[quote=“headhonchoII”]Using Buffett as an example is misleading, he is not representative of corporate America. That’s one of the reasons he is so famous!

Sure Americans got some things cheaper, but I’m not sure that’s the case for certain goods. Look at Nike for example, have they got any cheaper since shipping all their manufacturing off to Taiwan first and then China and Vietnam? Did the iPad get cheaper because it was made in China for 200 USD but sold in America for 500 USD?

The whole innovation argument is horsesh$t. You need a production capability and experience to innovate. Look at what happened to the LCD TV industry in America, doesn’t exist because the old manufacturers all closed down or shipped out. Nothing to do with ‘innovation’ per se, you just lost the whole manufacturing base of that industry and can’t get it back. How will you innovate ahead of the Samsungs and Sony’s when they have the patents and the knowhow and industrial base? Same with digital cameras…You think you can mysteriously innovate from thin air and make things a success while you are competing with world-class companies that are already moving a mile a minute? Not only that innovation means almost nothing if the actual production takes place overseas.

Most industries have incremental innovation, some have almost no need for innovation, there’s not a huge amount you can innovate in furniture constructon for example.

‘The German economy is hardly a model to aspire to’- wow that’s an ignorant statement.

BTW, the irrational fear of a trade war is a weakness…sometimes if you don’t act (even with fear of repercussions) you get cooked slowly, that’s what happened to America’s economy…cooking slowly in the pot for decades. I’ve no doubt that if things continue the way they are America will bankrupt within 5-10 years.

Fnally I have no doubt that the current policy was beneficial to most of the world, but it hasn’t been beneficial to average Americans beyond a certain point.

Face it DD, my logic is sound, yours is just ideological dead ends. You need to take your brain out of that box you’ve put it into and have a look at the way the world really operates.[/quote]

OK, I have ideological dead ends? Sorry, I basically reflected how the world is.

What are some of the most innovative companies of the past few decades?

Google
Amazon
Microsoft
EBay
Apple

where are they all from?

how much profit has their stock generated for the average American and the US economy, how many white collar and specialized jobs have they created. A fuck of a lot more than if they gave a few average Joes union gigs in a few cities in the rust belt.

They have basically created entire multi-billion dollar industries out of thin air.

how did they do it?
innovation

who did it first?
the US

this is the innovation I refer to. and it is not going to change, as long as every countries top students flee to the US for education, and as long as the US attracts the top earners, this trend will continue.

you are stuck on manufacturing as if it is the be all and end all, you are also saying Samsung and Sony are dominating things such as TVs and cameras. What about IBM, HP, Dell, Kingston, Juniper etc… and their utter dominance of PCs and servers which BTW there are a hell of a lot more of on this planet.

Bitching and moaning about a lack of manufacturing jobs is passe, this ain’t the 60s, shit’s done changed, and be happy that the world’s largest economy has realized that.

60

I love the examples you put up…Dell…Dell doesn’t manufacture anything, it assembles. Apple pretty much the same. The jobs are all concentrated overseas.

Google and Facebook are phenonemonally successful companies, the pity is that, again, they don’t employ that many people in the US, for all their worth and recognition.

For every manufacturing job there is a spin off factor of 4-5 jobs. America needs jobs. Those jobs that are neccessary to turn the US economy around can only come from manufacturing. It’s not which company dominates, but rather WHERE they actually make the product, a point that you don’t seem to understand.

You talk about manufacturing being ‘rust belt jobs’. Take a look out your window in Taiwan. See any rust belts around here? I can look out my window at Taichung Science Park , guess what, the companies are hiring 10,000-20,000 more workers this year. They mostly make LCD panels, mainly for export to US and China. Corning has a facility employing 1000s here too. The American LCD TV market is worth 27 billion USD a year. How many TVs does America make…practically zilch. LCD TVs are high tech pieces of IT equipment, not bargain basement stuff.

For America to abandon manufacturing is to cause it to have a long-term unemployment problem and increasing deficit, as it’s balance of payments continue to be negative every year.

Sure innovation is important, but to argue that innovation will solve America’s problems is really foolish. DD you’re losing the argument…simply look at the US unemployment rate to know that!