|
Liberals to form Coalition with NDP (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| feelgood |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
The biggest problem OUR economy is facing right now is lowering commodity prices, and neither the CPC or the Coalition can do anything about that. In fact, there is very little that ANY government, ANYWHERE, can do to boost an economy, short of starting another World War. No amount of stimulus can make the general public start to spend their money, in fact more stimulus is more likely to prolong the suffering because it allows the inefficiencies in the system to continue for a longer period of time.
The decisions made by the CPC in the past 2 and a half years have nothing to do with the economy going to . In fact, they've already spent their first mandate preparing for this by lowering taxes, which is a much better way to input 'stimulus' into the economy than propping up inefficient, union-controlled companies and industries like the Liberals and NDP are set to do. |
+1111111 |
|
|
| feelgood |
Where did you get the notion that socialist countries are doing well?
China's economic growth is poised to hit an 18 year low despite a 600 billion resuscitation effort.
Cuba's social and educational services are in shambles, and with so much foreign investment in Cuba, it hardly qualifies as a truly sustainable social state.
Injecting money into an ailing economy equates to collecting water with a sieve.
A 'bailout' for job creation and industry resuscitation is useless. Creating more supply, does not increase demand. Its the other way around. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Paul Martin (former finance minister and PM, John Manley (industry minister and finance minister) Frank McKenna (banker represents atlantic canada), McCallum (Banker) are the three first reasons. Romanow (aged politician, who took extreme fiscal measures to reduce debt burden after the conservatives) and that is just a start.
They have grass roots support of all sides of the economic game, with more specialization among their ranks. Versus the conservatives who only seem to be able to cater to megacorporations. While alienating the common man all the whilst acting as if they are one. |
Ok, some name drops, but no idea what they actually plan to do to fix the economy. You realize that Paul Martin is a fiscal CONSERVATIVE don't you? Do you know ANYTHING about ANYTHING you spew out? If the Liberals had grass-roots support, they wouldn't be in a giant huff over the public funding that Harper wanted to cut. It's the LIBERALS who are in bed with mega-corporations, before Chretien cut off that funding, it was those corporations that propped up the Liberal coffers for 2 decades!
| quote: | | That is lunacy, sudsidization of industries is part of how managing an economy works, as short term needs and effects do not necisarily account for the LONG TERM needs. Altough I personally support crown corps to do this not private industry. I think the government shouldn't just be throwing money away though, putting it to work on government orders would be more prudent. The cons just watching it die though does no one any good. |
No, the subsidization of industries is part of why we're in this mess in the first place. Our manufacturing sectors have been getting bailouts for years while the people in charge of those sectors refused to make changes to their business models. Ford continued to pump out giant, hulking SUV's for instance, when the market was clearly trending towards better fuel-consumption. It was those government subsidies you love so much that ALLOWED Ford and the other of the Big Three auto-makers to continue to dig the hole they're in while Toyota and Honda ate up market share. So ya, a few hundred people in a Ford factory got to keep their job for a few years, but in the long run, it only delayed the inevitable, Ford and the Big Three need to make more fuel-efficient, reliable cars, and they're now playing CATCH-UP with the Japanese.
We have positive growth while the rest of the developed world is already in a recession. A stable decline is much preferred to a sudden crash.
| quote: | | No it isn't. Economies don't just crash all of a suddent for no reason. Either someone has pulled the plug or people are being told things that arn't the truth. Howver my geuss is, if you suddently give all the money to just a few people and they don't do anything with it, some people can be hard done by. The economy is pretty much inifinitte as resources exist. So where is the shortage? There is no shortage. So the economy should not be struggling, it is a game. |
The economy crashed for the same reason it crashed at the start of the Great Depression. Easy credit was given out to people who couldn't afford to pay back they money they owed. This back-log of credit built-up until the point where the companies owed the credit finally had to collect their debts owed, only to realize that the people who owed them the money, didn't actually have that money. Back then it was purchases of furniture and appliances people couldn't afford, this time around, it was the purchasing of houses.
| quote: | | Who is to blame then? Does the prime minister not do anything? I think buying $75000000000 worth of mortgages is doing something. |
Dude, the market crashed because easy credit was given out to low-income families in the United States, and later on in European countries, to purchase mortgages that they couldn't afford. This was all started by a Clinton-Democratic strategy of forcing banks to give out these mortgages to low-income families in the name of "equality". When those low-income families realized they could no longer afford these mortgages, the banks carrying those mortgages got stuck with the bill. This entire "scam" that you speak of was started by your same socialist ideology. YOU are the one that has no idea how the economy works, you just believe that the government should toss money around in your blind belief that it actually WORKS. The history of our country is full of examples of attempted stimulus in our economy that didn't work. In the end, the economy suffers until people begin to spend money again. When we start to spend money, then companies can turn a profit. But companies can not turn a profit until they clear all their bad debt.
| quote: | | I don't agree, but it is a non important point. |
You don't agree? Those are the FACTS. Non-important point? That easy-credit is the REASON we're in this mess!!! LOL You're a whack-job dude. Tell me... What COULD our government have done to stop the Americans and European countries from giving out easy credit to people who couldn't afford it? Tell me what our government could have done, 10 YEARS AGO when Bill Clinton and his Democrats told the banks in America to make it easier for low-income families to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.
| quote: | | You have no idea how the financial system actually works. |
:rolleyes: Well then why don't you explain it to me, and leave your NDP pamphlet on the kitchen table for this one please.
| quote: | | Sounds like a scam to me. |
Sure is, started by a Democratic administration, coming to fruition and starting to clear the system 10 years later. Had the Democrats not ordered banks to start handing out high-risk mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, this entire mess may never have occurred.
| quote: | | Actually it is bieng primarily resource based and non diversified or limited in skilled employees, and having an economy which imports a lot of products. Look at the socialist countries like China, Venezuela and Cuba, they wern't effected by all this financial fallout. |
Dude, you're too much. The Chinese markets have been crashing just as bad, if not worse than our own. If Americans aren't buying things, and the majority of things Americans purchase are made in China... And the majority of good China makes get sent to America. Where do you get off claiming they haven't been effected?
Cuba has never been a model of economic success, and they are struggling worse than any western nation. Venezuela is being hit HARD by the drop in the price of oil. Where the hell are you coming up with this stuff?
| quote: | | I disagree. 1st I don't think the Conservative(CPC) will be effective, but I think that the coalition liberal-ndp government will be effective at working with unions, and employeers to keep the economy well oiled and prevent more strikes poping up than already exist, which can create an exist and loss in market confidence. Market confidence is important, that is why it so unfortunate Harper is stalling when the results are clear, and the dollar is being effected, and business confidence is being effected. The longer the hold out the more damage the canadian economy takes. |
What do unions have to do with the fact that commodity prices are falling, and thus the backbone of OUR, the Canadian economy, is suffering? And besides, unionized sectors are the most inefficient sectors of the economy. When you say 'work with the unions', what do you mean? Unions are inefficient, their members overpaid, and their demands unrealistic at the best of times. The only way to "work with" the unions to the benefit of the economy is to demand more production and lower wages. But when a union is told to give up their wages and work harder, what do they do? STRIKE!
| quote: | | I disagree, you simply don't know what you are talking about. |
:rolleyes: There you go again, telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when you clearly have no understanding of the situation we're in, and no understanding of what a government can ACTUALLY do to help the economy. Since you seem to think YOU know what you're talking about, please, by all means, explain to me what I don't understand. It's not enough to declare that I'm wrong, and then give no information to back up your opinion.
| quote: | | See that is your lack of insight, it isn't up to the general populus it is up to the government based on their tax rates, cost of living and needs and demands. Then there is waste and luxury spending which drags the overall efficiency of the economy down, while glossing living conditions and creating individual class conditioning - although also destabalizing predictability and social stability. Toss up, yes socialist systems are stronger for stability. While carroting can be a drive to increase efficiency by getting people to do more than they would like to, so they can get a reward they can't without doing more. |
Well, one outa three ain't bad. The only effective means the government has to help the economy out of the 3 things you've listed is controlling (see, dropping) tax rates. The government doesn't control the cost of living, and I don't know what you mean by "needs and demands". The rest of your shpiel is a collection of meaningless drivel.
In the end, WE the general public, need to spend our money in order for companies to turn a profit. The government can not force us to do that, short of stealing our money through tax hikes, and giving it to those companies, which doesn't work, because then those companies don't need to change their business models to reflect the reality of the times, and down the road, will be at the government's feet again begging for another bail-out.
| quote: | | I disagree. Money is invisible, it has no value, it is economic psychology, it is all about productivity, everything else is secondary. The money is just a gloss on the real economy. |
No, it's about producing what people will buy, not simply producing for the sake of production. When governments bail out these companies, it allows them to continue to produce the things we aren't purchasing. I used the Ford example earlier on. We've been handing them subsidies for years while their sales have been declining because they refused to create or market a fuel-efficient car, and continued to produce high-power, low fuel-efficient SUVs and the like. Had the government not given them free money to continue this, they would have hit their current predicament 5 years ago, and would have been FORCED to adapt their business model. Instead, they were allowed to continue making horrible decisions that's led to an even bigger decrease in their sales.
| quote: | | I disagree. Any company spending billions of dollars does have an effect on the economy. |
Ok, I said that the decisions the CPC made have nothing to do with the economy going to . And spew out this rhetoric about some COMPANY that's spending billions. I'll say it again, there is NOTHING that the CPC could have done to stop the Democrats, 10 YEARS AGO, from forcing banks to hand out easy credit to people who couldn't afford it, leading to the current crisis that we are now in.
| quote: | | That is not preparing, that is being unprepared as they now face deficits. |
No, that IS preparing. Along with some corporate tax cuts that have helped ALL businesses. That money went directly back to the people, who have been able to spend/save it as they see fit. The fact that more money is in the general public's hands has meant there's been more disposable income, thus companies have been able to turn higher profits than they would have, had the government kept that money and thrown it at some unionized government socialist scheme (see, socialized daycare) then we might already be in a recession. In fact, our government is prepared to post a small surplus this year.
That said, no they face deficits now. The economy tanked, and commodity prices have dropped, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Again, there's NOTHING that could have been done by the Canadian government to stop this from happening. We're feeling the effects of decisions made in America and Europe, we're not in economic trouble because of decisions made within Canada.
| quote: | | No it isn't. The best way is direct spending and employment of the labour force to increase productivity such as the chinese 600 and some odd billion dollar "bail out of their economy" - which went directly to employing people. |
Why do you believe that increasing productivity is all that's required? What good is it if they're being productive if no one is purchasing what they produce? Again, the Chinese economy is hurting even worse than the American economy. So where's your evidence that these bail-outs actually work?
The BEST way to get people employed is for demand to go up, resulting in increased spending, resulting in PROFIT for companies, resulting in the need for more labour to increase production of a product in high demand. Production for the sake of production leads to market crashes like the one we're in now.
| quote: | | I think you need to learn about the real economy, rather that the glossed economy. Because the real economy and jobs and productivity, and sustainable development is what improving the standard of living is all about. |
You can continue to live in your fantasy land and tell me that I don't know that I'm talking about. But you haven't shown ANY understanding of the issue at all. You just complain that there's a scam. Blame the CPC, and demand bail-outs for inefficient sectors of the economy that should have adapted 5 years ago. Your collection of rambling talking-points in paragraph after paragraph make me feel like I'm reading a post by a socialist Sarah Palin. YOU need to lay off the bong for a night and read up on A) the causes of THIS economic crisis, and then B) some basic history lessons from the great depression. You'll find it all comes down to two very simple, realated economic principles:
Don't give out easy credit to poor people.
Don't go into debt you can't afford to pay back. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by djeso
hey ... I don't agree with Jay sometimes but I respect him for always being straight up ... no need to be disrespectfull, it's not polite :) |
I do agree with Jay sometimes, I do respect Jay for speaking up about what he believes it; however, I also shoot straight and have to call a spade a spade. Jay, does not post his own ideas or opinions, he posts the talking points prepared for Conservative supporters or repeats those talking points which he heard on the radio earlier in the day. This is all fine and good; however, to suggest that he has any sort of ability to do anything other then follow instructions within the political sphere is contrary to what he has demonstrated to date. |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
|
|
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
|
I'm guessing that you also in favour of the auto industry getting their bailout.
People need to learn to start looking more for long term growth, rather than an immediate fix!
|
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Paul Martin (former finance minister and PM, John Manley (industry minister and finance minister) Frank McKenna (banker represents atlantic canada), McCallum (Banker) are the three first reasons. Romanow (aged politician, who took extreme fiscal measures to reduce debt burden after the conservatives) and that is just a start.
|
Your "just a start" is off to a pretty bad start considering that McKenna and Manley have both stated that they will not be involved with this "economic team." |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
I'm guessing that you also in favour of the auto industry getting their bailout.
People need to learn to start looking more for long term growth, rather than an immediate fix!
|
As much as I despise the idea of bailing out such poorly managed companies it's pretty difficult to allow the loss of a minimum 14% of the jobs in Ontario on principle. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I do agree with Jay sometimes, I do respect Jay for speaking up about what he believes it; however, I also shoot straight and have to call a spade a spade. Jay, does not post his own ideas or opinions, he posts the talking points prepared for Conservative supporters or repeats those talking points which he heard on the radio earlier in the day. This is all fine and good; however, to suggest that he has any sort of ability to do anything other then follow instructions within the political sphere is contrary to what he has demonstrated to date. |
In fairness, it depends on the discussion. When it's a political discussion, I would tend to agree with you. But when we're talking about his main pet peeves (social control) he's fairly consistent with his opinion that we should be a live and let live society, and be more responsible before deciding to ban everything in sight or make behaviours illegal. And even the CPC doesn't always agree with that mindset. You don't, for instance, see Jay running around declaring that marijuana that should, in fact, remain illegal like his those in the Conservative base would. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Moral Hazard.....although I am biased as he is my brother :D
I agree with many of his political views and I already know some of his plans if he ever was elected PM.
Our country would be a much better place. |
I appreciate your support; however, I imagine that my administration would likely be exceedingly unpopular. I have big vision, the electorate in this country cannot tolerate big visions as big visions cost money and require sacrifice... sure it would be for the long term good but voters don't care about the long term, they care about tax rebates. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
As much as I despise the idea of bailing out such poorly managed companies it's pretty difficult to allow the loss of a minimum 14% of the jobs in Ontario on principle. |
I have no way of fact-checking this, but I've heard anecdotal evidence that says some of the laid-off NA-company workers have already got jobs with Toyota and Honda factories nearby. Notably, Toyota and Honda aren't crying at the government teat begging for a bail-out, at least that I've heard.
A loss isn't always a loss, sometimes those jobs just move. For instance, there's still a huge demand in most physical labour industries... Landscaping, renovation, snow-plowing in the winter... Sometimes people need to accept that the job they know just isn't an option anymore and move on. There are opportunities everywhere, even in the middle of the Great Depression, which it's been said many times, resulted in more millionaires both per capita and in raw numbers than at any other time in America's history.
I often wonder why we prop up these big auto-businesses when they cry that they might go bankrupt. Are you telling me that some savvy entrepreneur (granted, he'd probably have to be rich) wouldn't buy Ford's infrastructure in an INSTANT if the company crashed, and start his own auto-company? I often feel like the reason mega-corporations are able to have so much power is because we allow them suffocate starting businesses that would allow an industry to diversify, and thus have different aspects of that industry flourish under different market situations.
Short term fixes are just that... fixes for the short term. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I appreciate your support; however, I imagine that my administration would likely be exceedingly unpopular. I have big vision, the electorate in this country cannot tolerate big visions as big visions cost money and require sacrifice... sure it would be for the long term good but voters don't care about the long term, they care about tax rebates. |
This is why you would be perfect to lead a coalition group. |
|
|
|
|
