# Harper criticized on the economy.......



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mr. What me worry...



> OTTAWA–Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion seized on the shock waves from North American financial markets yesterday to renew accusations that Stephen Harper's Conservatives have sat back while Canada's once-strong economy has gone into a tailspin.
> 
> "Stephen Harper has allowed what was a booming economy to hit a brick wall," Dion said during a campaign stop in St. John's, Nfld.
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/499876

Too bad Harper can't show a smaller government - instead it's larger gov and slash and burn for programs he doesn't like and corporate welfare for the oil patch.

neo-con nonsense ala Bushenomics....now the universal warning by economists about Harper's GST foolishness is coming home to roost.

•••


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, we shall await the new New Government of Canada, not to be mistaken for the New Government of Canada, which replaced the Government of Canada. After that, it will be the new and improved New Government of Canada. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed on the fact that Harper should have shrunk governemnt. GST cut were a good idea, although I would have preferred income tax cuts.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I believe the pre-election spending promises add up to $19 Billion so far.

Steve thinks it'll be taxpayer money well-spent if it brings him that majority. Then MF will get those tax cuts. ... Well ... he'll get them if he's in a high enough tax bracket, these right-wingers always make sure their first cuts and the bulk of their cuts are for those that bought their election wins fer them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Most of those election promises are just re-purposed old promises--the endless recycling of old funds and old promises into new ones. I think some of that promised money goes back to St. Laurent.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper......." a crash would already have happened."...........and this is the guy supposed to be an economist......












> *Panic grips credit markets*
> 
> By Krishna Guha in Washington, Michael Mackenzie in New York and Gillian Tett in London
> 
> ...


Harper's comment reminds me of Flaherty's "projections" for growth on which he based his "no deficit" budget. Flat out wrong ...
Now about those Federal gov pay cuts starting with the PMO.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lots of irony here...



> *We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have imagined itself doing in its wildest dreams. "*
> Ron Chernow, a leading American financial historian, on the recent U.S. government bailouts of financial companies.





> *Europe and Asia see U.S. as no longer practicing what it preaches*
> By Nelson D. Schwartz
> Published: September 17, 2008
> 
> ...


Europe and Asia see U.S. as no longer practicing what it preaches - International Herald Tribune


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc--please stop vomiting huge articles over the page. Make your point in your own words.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The media is quick to criticize what it can not understand. Harper can not regulate American greed. When you have a system that encourages people to buy a house, paint it, then sell it a month later for a hundred grand more, and allow for mortgage interest rates to be below prime - there is not much that can be done except watch the banks and reinsurers go under.

It's much the same thing when you have millions of people living on flood plains and sand bars all along Hurricane Alley, then wonder why some paltry Category Two hurricane level the place. Or when they allow the construction of stapled together chipboard houses made with the most inferior products possible at the lowest cost possible in order to allow for fat profits for the developers, then wonder why it is destroyed in half a second when a tornado passes three miles away...

The financial disasters of the US affect us - but perhaps because Canadians are a little more prudent with their cash, we can weather things better. But then again, there are people that so absolutely need the new fancy car that they have to remortage their house so they can pay the $500 down payment. Harper can't fix people that are bad with money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree, EvanPitts, MacDoc and the articles he cites make the fundamental error of believing that the the Prime Minister is responsible for somehow "running the economy."


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I agree, EvanPitts, MacDoc and the articles he cites make the fundamental error of believing that the the Prime Minister is responsible for somehow "running the economy."


As do the electorate MF, as do the electorate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> As do the electorate MF, as do the electorate.


It's a fundamental error, regardless of whom assumes it. The economy is far too complex and far too subject to forces oustide of politics to be managed. Makes for a nice fairy tale at election time, though.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's a fundamental error, regardless of whom assumes it. The economy is far too complex and far too subject to forces oustide of politics to be managed. Makes for a nice fairy tale at election time, though.


Indeed.

"All the economists in the world, laid end to end - would not reach a conclusion". (G.B Shaw)

It is also nice to watch each party trying to spin the "fairy tale" or "horror show" as though it was either all their fault, or all the fault of the other bunch who were in power before them.

Or even better - the "would be"s - extrapolating the fairy tail into the future... "elect me or this awful thing will happen" or "elect me so this wonderful thing will happen".

It would be hilarious watching the "invisible hand of the market" giving all of these politicos "the finger" if the rest of us weren't catching that particular salute along with them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman, I agree. I always find it disingenuous when parties in power take credit for whatever great thing occurs two months into their term of office, but blame everything else on the previous admin. As if the economy could respond that quickly to government policy. Or the horror of discovering some great undiscovered mismanagement upon taking office that they had never accounted for in making their initial promises.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Most of those election promises are just re-purposed old promises--the endless recycling of old funds and old promises into new ones. I think some of that promised money goes back to St. Laurent.


Perhaps even as far back as Abbott...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It's a fundamental error, regardless of whom assumes it. The economy is far too complex and far too subject to forces oustide of politics to be managed. Makes for a nice fairy tale at election time, though.


it would be one thing if we had a Prime Minister who actively instigated economic problems, like Trudeau was entirely plagued with. He just couldn't see that the Keynesian solutions just did not fit into a post-Bretton Woods world.

Mulroney, on the other hand, was far more accomplished at economic matters. If he had chosen not to have such a pretentious public face, and had occasionally fired appointed retards before they caused scandals - I think he would have had a much more equitable legacy. If he was able to resist corruption, that would have helped as well.

The current "crisis" stems entirely from the fact that bad loans were floated in the US, and the bubble burst. Now one may think that it could be somewhat limited, but it is currently estimated that the bust has caused a major cash shortage in the world amounting to something like 10 trillion dollars. And that's not Zimbabwe dollars (where a cool $75 Billion will purchase one fresh egg at the market).

Other notable bubbles ruined investments, and perhaps the first one was the South Sea Bubble.

Greed breeds it's own downfall, and even Flintstone never scored on any of his get rich quick schemes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> perhaps the first one was the South Sea Bubble


no - preceded by the Tulip bubble by almost 100 years.












> A tulip, known as "the Viceroy", displayed in a 1637 Dutch catalog. Its bulb cost between 3000 and 4200 florins depending on size. A skilled craftsman at the time earned about 150 florins a year.


Tulip mania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

•••

Still appealing to the invisible hand eh MF?? - maybe you missed Nash's the Nobel for showing Adman Smith was wrong.

Setting up a game space for the economy with rule breakers benders under caution keeps predation at bay while providing a relatively level playing field for innovation and competition.

Mixed economies work and they REQUIRE effective oversight - we can easily SEE the result the of poorly executed and designed oversight in the current crisis. 

If you think China is not actively managing it's growth and curbing predation you are simply ignoring reality.

China is very much a command economy under a technocracy composed of engineers and scientists in the senior leadership.
It shows.

They manage the currency and conditions of ownership and investment in every category and do so within the their view of the best of interests of the nation they head.

Corruption is a problem and in major cases is punishable by death so they take it seriously.

According to your "theory" China's stagnation up to the 80s was accidental as was the astounding progress post 1980 rather than in BOTH cases a managed situation.

Chinese leadership mismanaged their economy for decades up to the 80s, learned their craft and changed management towards a mixed economy and have done so successfully.

THAT is management and mismanagement of a giant economy not the actions of some dumb hand you like to worship. 

Humans are primates and work as individuals AND as groups and establish rules of transaction .....even animals do.
Get used to it....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's see what was Bushy's message to America - "Get out and shop"



> September 19, 2008 at 4:04 PM EDT
> Farham, Que. — Stephen Harper is urging Canadians not to panic in the face of the U.S. financial crisis and continue spending on consumer goods to keep the economy humming.
> 
> “Canadian consumer spending has been a rock that has sustained this economy and we anticipate that this will continue,” Mr. Harper told reporters in this small community in Quebec's eastern townships.
> ...


globeandmail.com: No bailout for banks: Harper

and we all know how Bush's advice turned out.....

Seems to me a small c conservative talks about savings and prudence when an economy is slowing. 

I guess Harper needs the tax income to stay out of a deficit.....no room for a rainy day.

I wonder what the bill will be for Afghanistan.....??


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> The price tag and the cost
> 
> 
> It's all very nice that Harper has "given his blessing" to the release of a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page on the monetary cost of the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan. In fact, Harper was cornered and any objection to its release would have been viewed as an attempt to hide something far worse than his projected "under $8 billion".
> ...


The Galloping Beaver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macdoc:

Now that the TSE went up 700 points as of today, will you give Harper credit for fixing the economy?

Funny how the media and the opposition are quick to blame the current government for world wide fiscal melt downs but never the credit when the markets rebound.:lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What does the bourse have to do with reality???  - I could give a rat's ass what stock markets do.
A plague on strutting over paid predators. 

The original purpose of the stock market was to provide capital to companies wishing to expand.

It's a far cry from that now.



> Stock markets and the purpose they serve
> A Special Correspondent
> 
> THE aberrations that have crept into the capital market system over the last 10-15 years have pulled it further away from the ideal of optimal allocation. Today's corporate decisions are influenced by `yo-yo'ing share prices. They are affected by predictions of analysts whose main concerns are the next quarter share price and bonus targets; made by CEOs who have "become a creature of shareholders and their obsession with short-term performance" (Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski in The Economist). It is impossible to ensure that every marginal buck is invested for the maximum possible return.
> ...


*

The Hindu Business Line : Stock markets and the purpose they serve

exactly this.......

An overwhelming proportion (over 90 per cent) of transactions merely transfer wealth, creating as much wealth as a person picking your pocket. They hardly promise or facilitate wealth creation.

and that's the heart of it.....no wealth creation....just pure speculative nonsense for which they think they deserve ridiculous incomes.*


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> What does the bourse have to do with reality???
> .


Exactly my point...

So why was Dion so eager to blame Harper for the huge losses on Monday-Tuesday? F#$*! opportunist.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Mixed economies work and they REQUIRE effective oversight - we can easily SEE the result the of poorly executed and designed oversight in the current crisis.
> 
> If you think China is not actively managing it's growth and curbing predation you are simply ignoring reality.
> 
> China is very much a command economy under a technocracy composed of engineers and scientists in the senior leadership.


Check out last years return on the Shanghai index.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good one Vandave--MacDoc loves statistics!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Check out last years return on the Shanghai index.


I'm sure this is Harper's fault as well.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Exactly my point...
> 
> So why was Dion so eager to blame Harper for the huge losses on Monday-Tuesday? F#$*! opportunist.


As if they all don't take EVERY opportunity offered to them. You think Harper wouldn't do exactly the same thing in Dion's position? Or Layton? Or, or or...

_We_ all pick sides and raise our flags without realizing _they_ all play for the same team.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> As if they all don't take EVERY opportunity offered to them. You think Harper wouldn't do exactly the same thing in Dion's position? Or Layton? Or, or or...


This one defies any credulity. It's a desperate accusation, even for the likes of politicians.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You really gotta wonder what time warp Harper is in pitching $100 a month as enabling "day care choice" 



> EDITORIAL
> Daycare spaces or $100 cheques?
> 
> Sep 20, 2008 04:30 AM
> ...


TheStar.com | Federal Election | Daycare spaces or $100 cheques?

oh yeah I forgot - let's keep mom at home barefoot and preggers.....she can stretch the pocket change....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> You really gotta wonder what time warp Harper is in pitching $100 a month as enabling "day care choice"


I'm always a little cheered to see your discomfort with such things. If the payment doesn't seem high enough to you, it's probably too high already.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm always a little cheered to see your discomfort with such things. If the payment doesn't seem high enough to you, it's probably too high already.


I'm still waiting for the national diaper program.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I'm still waiting for the national diaper program.


The lobbyists are holding out for a wet-nap supplement.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This one defies any credulity. It's a desperate accusation, even for the likes of politicians.


I guess you don't pay close enough attention. Or perhaps have shuttered yourself from the facts you find distasteful. Which seems to be many.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy: careful, your bias is showing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and he loves the taliban. You forgot that part too.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> mrjimmy: careful, your bias is showing.


Thankfully it's just that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure - everything is just fine.....no problem in Canada.... 

Funny that Flaherty thinks HE is a miracle worker.....nice excuse MF - either you or your fellow traveller is deluded....perhaps both for different reasons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have no idea what you're blithering about, MacDoc. Have a nap and try again.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You wouldn't



> *Ontario just can't afford more of Stephen Harper*
> PAUL LACHINE/NEWSART
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

> That will mean bringing together all levels of government, the private sector, the unions and the best planning brains in the country to figure out where our strengths lie and what portions of domestic and global markets we can carve out for our manufacturers.


Ah, yes, the unions.

Those altruistic, unselfish bastions of objectivity. 

Just the kind of experts I'd like at my round table discussion centering on why "tens of thousands of jobs were lost in the auto industry and in other manufacturing industries" and what can we all do about it.

Notice that "tens of thousands of jobs" have been lost & the unions are still extant?

Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reality sucks eh MF - deregulation...*.FAIL*



> Sarkozy wants overhaul of world finance system
> Updated Thu. Sep. 25 2008 4:43 PM ET
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...


CTV.ca | Sarkozy wants overhaul of world finance system


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Reality sucks eh MF - deregulation.


And a lot of people would say regulation got us here. It's regulators who set the monetary policy that created the fiscal environment for poor lending practices to occur. 

I tend to agree that more regulation is going to be needed, but I think the jury is still out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's hilarious! Sarkozy makes some comment about laissez faire economics being dead and the need for more government oversite--then FIRES 30,000 civil servants.

Pick 'em better Doc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> And a lot of people would say regulation got us here. It's regulators who set the monetary policy that created the fiscal environment for poor lending practices to occur.


I see it that way. The people appointed to rape and pillage two gigantic quasi-government lenders were allowed to actively court the sub-prime market as a matter of policy under legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act. These lenders weren't de-regulated--they were regulated in such a way as to create the scenario for the meltdown.

An interview with Bill Clinton on ABC's Political Radar:

*Chris Cuomo, ABC News:* A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?
*
Bill Clinton:* Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc seems to be relying on some rather sketchy sources from writers that are really groping around for any kind of purported "proof" to assist their case.

Ontario isn't hurting because of Harper - it is hurting because McGuilty broke 250 promises that he made, and sold out to every special interest group possible. So many policies that are needed, and needed quickly, have been entirely ignored or mismanaged with the greatest degree of malfeasance. Harper can't "fix" those things that are McGuilty's baliwick, nor should he. It's high time for Ontario voters to scrape together half a brain and get rid of the bozo at Queen's Park.

The Auto Industry is hurting, not because of "economics" but because the "Big 3" are being punished by the consumer for building crud for the past forty years. Every job lost on the line leads to seven jobs lost at suppliers, and in turn, job losses in the community because of the vapourization of jobs. Giving them subsidies to "save jobs" just makes it worse, since it allows the "Big 3" to continue building their antiquated gas guzzling crud for even longer. Again, nothing that Harper can do can salvage the situation because really, even the smartest automotive engineers imaginable could fix Chrysler.

And Sarkozy? Really, when was the last time France had any kind of smart person for leader? Charlemange? I would not listen to one iota of the garbage that come sout of that fool's mouth, considering that his zipper is even faster than Willy Clinton's. Plus, would anyone with half a brain even bother with France in the first place? Harper can't fix the French prediliction for electing buffoons for their leaders.

As for the economy - it is a "Hecho In US" problem. They were the ones that allowed institutes to engage in easy credit ripoffs, sub prime mortages on little or no down payment, allowed for "investors" to "flip houses" without levying a punative capital gains tax on such transactions, and who knows what other con games were going on. Harper really has no say in whether the market is going to be Bull or Bear, nor do many stock brokers on Wall Street even know who Harper is, or where Canada is. And one has to remember that the market has been rather Bearish, despite the various rallies and trading records, for the past ten years. None of this was a surpise to anyone but the clueless (ie. Bush and Congress).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> GLOBE EDITORIAL
> 
> *This is not leadership
> Canada needs to get real on the economy*
> ...


Indeed


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It's a fundamental error, regardless of whom assumes it. The economy is far too complex and far too subject to forces oustide of politics to be managed. *Makes for a nice fairy tale at election time, though*.


Thus it follows from MF that _Harpo and his Minions_ make that fundamental error....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Thus it follows from MF that Harpo and his Minions make that fundamental error....


They do make that error. The economy can't be managed. It can only be hobbled and distorted by government.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I don't make such an error. The economy can't be managed. It can only be hobbled and distorted by government.


So then it follows that all the rectal leakage we've be subjected to from your good buddy Harpo and his Minions really is just a big pile of sh!t? Is that what you are telling us now, MF?

EDIT. Note that my quote is correct. MF edited his post (directly above) tho' the ehMac system didn't note it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All of the bleatings from all of the politicians vying for the position of Prime Minister are just spouting hogwash abut their "management of the economy."


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray, you're correct. I realized that I responded incorrectly to the question so I altered it. If a post is edited within 60 seconds or so of posting it doesn't register as an edit, but I wont do it if I see that a post has already been made that quotes mine.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The economy can't be managed. It can only be hobbled and distorted by government.


I thought we had agreed a short while ago that taxation and regulation were not only the best, but essentially the only tools governments could use to manipulate the economy such that it served socially desirable objectives.

As an inanimate construct, the economy has no morals and will simply do what the principles of economics dictate. In order for this to be desirable in any way, we must ensure that the beneficial economic activities outcompete the detrimental economic activities. We do this by taxing and policing economic activities. How is this not 'managing' the economy? And how is this not the primary role of government?

Now I'll be the first to agree that the tools available to governments are very crude, and different governments and other powerful economic agents (like large corporations) often work at cross-purposes. Furthermore, our methods of assaying what the economy is 'doing' and predicting what it is likely to do in the immediate future, are equally flawed. So even the best-intended and most expertly implemented attempts at economic engineering often go completely awry and almost never work out exactly as planned. 

Thus all economic management should be approached like we approach ecological management... if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but there are a few obvious general principles that can be widely applied. For example, where products and services that are not immediately essential are concerned, minimal regulation should be required as long as a competitive market exists... so the solution to Canadians being "Rogered" on their cell-phone rates is to open the market to more competition. But in cases where products or services are immediately essential, strict government oversight is necessary to ensure that the desperation of individuals is not exploited by profiteers... so health-care, for example, needs to be very strictly regulated, to an extent that it simply makes more sense for the government to take the role of the provider.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We agreed that taxation and regulation were the only tools that government could use to achieve its objectives. I don't agree that this is "managing the economy." It's like suggesting that a vampire bat is managing a herd of cattle by occasionally swooping down for sustenance. 

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. Government may achieve its goals by taxing and regulating, but it doesn't "manage" the economy, it only slows it down, or promotes one sector at the expense of another.



> ...where products or services are immediately essential, strict government oversight is necessary to ensure that the desperation of individuals is not exploited by profiteers


I would argue that the government would be better off blundering in areas that are not essential, since they will do less harm. In health care, the government has become the profiteer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

not quite. You need to draw in some thugs repossessing the big screen tv.

Then I think you'll have it right.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The end of the American order*
> 
> KEVIN CARMICHAEL
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...


there is more

reportonbusiness.com: The end of the American order

_* lower taxes and deregulation.*_ .....hmm Harper's folly written all over it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> there is more


Thanks for not posting it. What you did post was too much anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed, SINC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

too many words, facts, and figures and such.

Prefer soundbytes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Prefer precis.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

media outlets are all controlled by liiiiberals.

oooh those wascally wiberals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some are, some aren't. It'd be pretty easy to draw a chart.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> media outlets are all controlled by liiiiberals.
> 
> oooh those wascally wiberals.


Not all, but the CBC is among them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> EDITORIAL
> *Harper's attitude fails to reassure*
> 
> Oct 04, 2008 04:30 AM
> ...


TheStar.com - Harper's attitude fails to reassure


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Another post where the poster didn't care enough to add their own comment. POST FAIL!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Is it really Harper's job to hold hands with the corrupt financiers so that people "feel better"? All of the stuff going on on Wall Street these days is simply caused by easy credit rip-off schemes, and nothing more. Maybe the investors will wake up to all of these schemes - but I doubt it, since "get rich quick" holds so much more allure than genuine wealth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Get rich quick" has the most allure when the government stands behind the scheme, as in the U.S. mortgage meltdown. Lots more people would buy lottery tickets if their investment were protected.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Many people that bought into the sub-prime had nothing to loose, since the cost of owning a house was more than likely cheaper than renting some slum tenement. And so they "lose" it, and move back to where they once lived.

I think it is sad when a Government will pay out hundreds of billions of dollars "bailing out" banks - when it consistently refuses to address the very real problems of homelessness and poverty. All of that money would build many, many units of affordable housing. 

I think it is a sad day when a government that is obviously flush with large amounts of cash can't do what former President Carter has managed to do with Habitat For Humanity.

We suffer from the same problems in this country, where the government consistently refuses to provide affordable housing, and refuses to make a business environment conducive to employment - but puts so many people onto the dole, people that generally live their lives addicted to drugs and boozed to the gills.

We pay out millions and millions so that welfraud can be pumped into corrupt landlords that do not even bother to provide the minimum living standards in their slum apartments - while they choose to not spend even a thin dime on housing that is fit for living.

And I think it is sad that we keep importing labour from other countries, and make all kinds of demands - then slam the door on their qualifications and tell them that they are only allowed to live in slums beside industry and work for sub-minimum wage at grubby mushroom farms. We have a doctor's shortage, but foreign trained doctors are not allowed to practice. In the meanwhile, we have doctors that are fully trained here dishing out their death sentences by their malfeasance at any number of grubby and unfit hospitals here.

I think all of this goes far beyond whether Harper or someone else is PM - it is a problem so vast that I doubt that anyone could get a handle on it, at least while the political atmosphere is that of fear of cutting off the leeches and tumourous growths that sap the tax payers money away into the land of graft, corruption, glad handling, free steak dinners and special interest lobbies.

Harper deserves to loose the election simply because he promised special Arts money to Quebec - yet another example of class and race warfare that goes on in this filthy, degenerate nation.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Filthy, degenerate? Wow, that's certainly not in the least over the top. One wonders where in the world you could possibly feel safe, Evan, let alone comfortable.

That characterization deserves some kind of prize. I'm beginning to suspect you are in fact an AI that auto-generates statistically weighted responses geared somewhat approximately toward the content of the posts to which you respond. Come on now - time to come clean, Hal!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> yet another example of class and race warfare that goes on in this filthy, degenerate nation.


Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, dude.

I like Canada. Like any other nation, it's got it's share of problems, and a bunch of parasites pandering to folks who think morality is Black-and-White is one of the biggest.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> filthy, degenerate nation.





bryanc said:


> Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, dude.


Hell, I say let the door give a damn good kick in the ass, and good riddance....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Our nation certainly has its warts, but filthy, degenerate? 

That's just so far off the map it is unworthy of any serious consideration.

It's bullsh!t, pure and simple.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> What about the slums in the downtown East Side of Vancouver?


That's an embarrassment and a shame, without question. But it's not a very representative sample of our nation as a whole.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It makes absolutely zero sense to posit that the distilled essence of Canadian character and quality of life is represented by Van's downtown East Side and that all other Canadian neighbourhoods fail miserably at representing all that this country has to offer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good analysis



> Tories continue to slide: poll
> 
> MICHAEL VALPY
> 
> ...


continues

globeandmail.com: Tories continue to slide: poll

oops.....no room to maneuver....nice call Flaherty...



> *Harper softens tone on deficits*
> 
> Lead over Liberals at 7 points; NDP jumps to 21 per cent support
> Oct 06, 2008 06:36 PM
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Harper softens tone on deficits

Some in the US say 2015 

Maybe he should have listened to the economists the first time on the GST.....stubborn idjit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If it starts to swing back as early as 2010 up here, I am neither surprised nor alarmed. That's merely a year and a bit... chump change, really. That said, I expect it could go slow for three years before things pick up again.

Ride it out and keep cool.

Meantime, I'm amused Harper may well have to modify his aloof stance re: the economy in order to have a decent chance at getting the electorate's attention.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Too perfect :clap:












> Hundreds of Canadian Auto Worker Union members gathered to present Finance Minister Jim Flaherty with thousands of old work boots collected from laid off workers from across Ontario. The CAW left the boots at Flaherty's Whitby-Oshawa riding office Oct. 6.




TheStar.com | Canada | CAW puts the boots to Flaherty


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When is Dalton McGuinty coming to pick the boots up?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Just shows the mentality of the average auto worker. It would have been more useful to dump the boots at GM's door.

What is the Fed supposed to do? Tell me. Dalton has already thrown my money at GM and they are still closing shop. 

If there is any blame it's at GM's feet for failing to produce a car that people want to buy. Plain and simple. 

If the workers were that concerned about their jobs then why didn't they offer a drastic cut in pay?

Seems to me the government is in doodoo no matter what they do. If they bail out big corporations they're bad. If they don't, they're bad. Since the Fed can't win no matter what, I say don't bail them out.

Just last week there was a big job fair with companies from Saskatchewan looking for labour. How many GM workers applied I wonder.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I agree, this has nothing to do with the Feds, the big three have been closing down plants well before the Harper era. If the want to point a finger at anyone it would be GM and themselves. A company can go only so far with no innovation and over paid workers. Otherwise the Toyota workers would be joining suit, but we all know they have jobs because the company had the foresight to innovate for the changing world.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GM saw all this coming and ignored it. Their management and their workforce should have seen it coming and they still ignored it. Now GM won't come back unless the Feds or the provincial govs give them huge bailout packages. The workers are steamed at the Federal Tories but what a waste of energy. Ontario may have been blindsided by all the loss of manufacturing jobs but no one in charge was on watch... the ship sailed on toward the reef when it could have been at least trying to turn around.

This is no way to build cars in this province. Let GM and Ford get out of Canada altogether if it can't get its act together without siphoning tax dollars to bail them out. Hopefully we'll still build a lot of cars here... they'll just be different ones. Built by a leaner and meaner work force, managed by executives who have real incentives to keep the whole show working efficiently.

Time to move on... retool if necessary, but move on and hunker down. The boots are a potent image but they've been dumped at the wrong place.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I agree, this has nothing to do with the Feds, the big three have been closing down plants well before the Harper era. If the want to point a finger at anyone it would be GM and themselves. A company can go only so far with no innovation and *over paid workers*. Otherwise the Toyota workers would be joining suit, but we all know they have jobs because the company had the foresight to innovate for the changing world.


(Ed note emphasis added) How did you know the workers were over paid? How many? On which pay periods did this happen? Have you brought it to anyone's attention in payroll at GM? :yikes:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Have you brought it to anyone's attention in payroll at GM? :yikes:


To be fair, they weren't overpaid. They were paid far more than the market would bear and than would be healthy for the continuation if their employment and the success of the company.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> How are the large automakers doing elsewhere?


Please be more specific. How are U.S. automakers doing elsewhere, where they are not bound by UAW/CAW contracts? How are automakers in other countries doing compared to U.S. automakers?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

BigDL said:


> (Ed note emphasis added) How did you know the workers were over paid? How many? On which pay periods did this happen? Have you brought it to anyone's attention in payroll at GM? :yikes:


I have several family members that worked for GM that would admit they were over paid, and they always asked for too much and that's why they had to take their early retirement buyout.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> To be fair, they weren't overpaid. They were paid far more than the market would bear and than would be healthy for the continuation if their employment and the success of the company.


Interesting! Toyota was mentioned in JJ's original post. Toyota pays production workers well, as I under it, yet no mention of labour costs there. Only Toyota innovation. 

GM did not innovate, a management decision, but people choose to blame the workers for problems brought on by Board of Directors. People choose to blame workers especially if the workers are organised. How much less are the total hourly wages at Honda, Toyota plants vs "the big three plants."

I haven't checked but I am thinking the production worker labour costs are relatively close. If for no other reason than to keep the plants from organising.

So are production worker wages the *real* reason for GM's decline or is it the unseen *right* hand of vengeance?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Yes Toyota pays according to CAW standards, but Toyota can afford to pay them that much, where as the big three are hemoraging losses left, right and center. It's either job losses or pay cuts, neither of which are acceptable to the CAW.

I never said they were the sole reason for their decline, only a part.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> So are production worker wages the *real* reason for GM's decline or is it the unseen *right* hand of vengeance?


It's both. Also, Toyota workers are more flexible in what they will do.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It's both. Also, Toyota workers are more flexible in what they will do.


But it's *not* that GM designed, marketed and *didn't* sell big fuel guzzling vehicles?

Really? Are you saying the Board of Directors look at a collective agreement(s) before making any decision(s) on design, parts, production and market segment they enter? Is it your view all decisions made on what the workers will or won't do?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe that some decisions are based on collective agreements and what workers will or won't do. Toyota didn't establish non-unionized plants as a lark. It makes a competitive difference to them.

But the question will be academic in a few years as the unionized component of auto workers will continue its precipitous decline.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

adagio said:


> Just shows the mentality of the average auto worker. It would have been more useful to dump the boots at GM's door.
> 
> What is the Fed supposed to do? Tell me. Dalton has already thrown my money at GM and they are still closing shop.
> 
> ...


Thank you, adagio, +1.

In response to your last question, I'm willing to bet that many of them are sitting on the couch, bootless, waiting for the unions or the Feds to bail them out.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I believe that some decisions are based on collective agreements and what workers will or won't do. Toyota didn't establish non-unionized plants as a lark. It makes a competitive difference to them.
> 
> But the question will be academic in a few years as the unionized component of auto workers will continue its precipitous decline.


Worldwide or just in the right sphere?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, we'll see more bots making cars. Bots don't unionize... yet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Worldwide or just in the right sphere?


What is the right sphere?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What is the right sphere?


...give me a home where the capitalist roam
And the free market is always at play
Where seldom is heard a socialist word
And the skies are not cloudy all day

this is in the right sphere :yawn:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Max said:


> Well, we'll see more bots making cars. Bots don't unionize... yet.


as Walter Reuther, pointed out to Henry Ford "and bot don't buy your cars either."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Tories woo manufacturing, vow to remake Senate*
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


more...... globeandmail.com: Tories woo manufacturing, vow to remake Senate

So not a bad budget - he's already made his blunders earlier but what in here justified waiting until 4 business days before the election to release his "platform" 

I'd be surprised if momentum shifts this late in the campaign but who knows.

He claims it was not "last minute" - if that is so - why wait??

oh yeah - 22 photos of Harper !!!!! ...spare us


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> oh yeah - 22 photos of Harper !!!!! ...spare us


As opposed to the 22 threads of MacDoc.  Yes spare us please.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee - must be rough - no sweater vest 

Is this the Putin look newly unveiled....


















> *Economic concerns prompt shift from Conservatives, poll finds*
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Economic concerns prompt shift from Conservatives, poll finds


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Honestly, MacDoc, I usually enjoy these separated at birth things, but this one simply doesn't cut it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hmmm... I thought it was rather good. Harper sports a jollier tie, too.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Putin looks much more sinister, as if he was a desk sergeant at the dungeon at Lubyanka ready to go Stalin on some people that forgot to pay their parking tickets.

While Harper looks like he is trying to hide the fact that he passed gas and is looking for some Maalox because he ate too many of those small chicken sandwiches at the Empire Club...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Flaherty et al are trying to claim credit for no banking crisis in Canada

Yet the government website has not been updated since 2002 for the Financial sector overview



> Canada’s Financial Services Sector
> 
> Canada's Banks
> 
> ...


Canada's Banks

and the Bank of Canada which is independent of Parliament HAS been active.



> CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
> 
> Remarks by David Longworth
> Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada
> ...


*Now what exactly did Flaherty and Harper do????*

Perhaps that should be the middle finger vis a vie Ontario










*Seems to me the credit should go to one Right Honourable Paul Martin*



> Statement by the Honourable Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
> 
> *International Financial Architecture Reform:* Completing Bretton Woods


excerpt


> This is not an abstract academic debate.
> 
> It is about real people, real lives, real issues.
> 
> ...


Statement by the Honourable Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations


There was good reason he was highly respected around the world by his peers as finance minister.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> There was good reason he was highly respected around the world by his peers as finance minister.


Except for one thing - he stole those words from Mulroney...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ottawa buying $25-billion in mortgage pools
> 
> SHAWN MCCARTHY
> 
> ...


reportonbusiness.com: Ottawa buying $25-billion in mortgage pools

Now this is proactive management but it begs the question - what is it Jimbo - hands off or hands on.....

Why the action only when forced kicking and screaming to admit it...??

Seems the BofC and big five have a better handle on things.

Some should woo the TD head for Finance Minister....oh yeah he's a Liberal.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

criticized on the economy and just few other things....



> EDITORIAL
> Star's choice: Dion, Liberals
> 
> Oct 11, 2008 04:30 AM
> ...


there's more.......a damning summary

TheStar.com - Star's choice: Dion, Liberals


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, what else would you expect from the Star's editorial, endorsing Dion??? 

I love the sense of furrowed brow and great ceremony with which you transfer pixels from the Toronto Star's web site. Imparting "The Word" to the faithful in a sort of lefty sacrament as the altar boy of the digital age, perhaps?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> MacDoc, what else would you expect from the Star's editorial, endorsing Dion???
> 
> I love the sense of furrowed brow and great ceremony with which you transfer pixels from the Toronto Star's web site. Imparting "The Word" to the faithful in a sort of lefty sacrament as the altar boy of the digital age, perhaps?


I could give a rat's ass whether it's the Star or not - OR about your lap puppy clouded perceptions for that matter as you may have noticed from time to time.
You're the one cozied up to the RR as fellow travellers....you taking pointers now???

The article was a *summary* of the neo-con Bushcentric course Harper has set the country on which is detested by the large majority of Canadians.
Whether you like it or not - the Star has a strong influence especially amongst 905 readers and minorities.

Harper is booted in Quebec for many of the reasons cited in the summary we'll see how ABC plays out elsewhere....because that's what this election is about.....*NOT HARPER.*

and the Star makes it's case. ...after all there is much to choose from including the wide disgust over the ex Harris crowd Harper has surrounded himself with.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The article was a *summary* of the neo-con Bushcentric course Harper has set the country on which is detested by the large majority of Canadians.


Sadly, the Star just doesn't get it.

That "large majority" you refer to does not include enough votes to elect either Dion or Layton. 

Too bad that "large majority" isn't bright enough to know that to switch governments in a time of economic chaos is foolhardy.

The Edmonton Journal gets it:



> *Harper deserves re-election*
> 
> It's decision time. With only three days to go before the polls open, voters and newspapers alike must set aside thoughts of leaders, parties and policies they'd like to have on offer in a perfect world, and choose among available options in the real one.
> 
> ...


Lots more reasons here:

Harper deserves re-election


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sadly, the Star just doesn't get it.
> 
> That "large majority" you refer to does not include enough votes to elect either Dion or Layton.
> 
> ...


As does the Montreal Gazette.



> Conservatives are our best bet in troubled times
> 
> Canada has had a Conservative government for more than two and a half years now, and its record is, on balance, not bad. But making a choice in this election is more complex than it was in 2006, when the Liberals were a scandal-haunted shambles.
> 
> ...


Conservatives are our best bet in troubled times


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Voyager said:


> As does the Montreal Gazette.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are our best bet in troubled times


As will Canadians when they go to the polls on Tuesday.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bush wannabe


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Well, considering that Canada's total expendatures during the entire mission in Kandahar, which includes some much needed upgrades in equipment, as well as an estimate of long term committments roughly equals the amount of cash the Americans lost in currency when they shipped $18 Billion to Baghdad last year which "disappeared" - I'd say Canada has been entirely accountable and fairly efficient with the money.

Harper is definitely no Bush.

And Harper has not cut one red cent from any social programs at all, and in fact, has divvied up the EI surplus to the provinces for targetted retraining programs (of which I am currently reaping the benefit of). It is better off with the provinces, since the provinces do control education, apprenticeships, colleges and universities...

Arts "funding" - yeah, he attempted to cut back on the number of free luncheons the big wigs at the CBC get on any given week. Those that think the CBC = Arts is sadly mistaken.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Expenditures

Commitments

Targeted

_Are_ sadly mistaken.

___________________________________

Arts, indeed.

On the other hand, I suppose congratulations are in order for refraining from using either "fiberals" or "carpetbaggers" in a standard issue EP post. Small mercies!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Back to the Aarts are we? I recall seeing a very funny guide to applying for a television grant in Broken Pencil magazine in 1995. 

Here's their take on the Grant Application Process:


> Now it's time to begin your grant application process. Remember, the audience you really have to worry about pleasing is the staff of Telefilm Canada, the Ontario Film Development Corporation, the National Film Board, the Ontario Arts Council, and the Canada Council. In meeting with these organizations remember they are not the enemy. If things turn out well, you will be sitting on a committee reviewing their grant applications someday. The revolving door gives you a great opportunity to familiarize yourself with the people to know, and it aids in developing a team spirit and bunker mentality.
> 
> And here's where pre-casting comes into play. When the granting committees see the stars you've lined up for your production, dollar signs will appear before their eyes. They know what sells - Jackie Burroughs in a costume drama, for example. But emphasize your strengths - "We've got Luba Goy!", not your weaknesses - "R.H. Thompson still won't return our calls." Audience identification is key - if you use someone who has been in "Street Legal" or "Hangin' In", they will assume your show to be of a similar calibre. And with a little luck, it will be!
> When describing your production philosophy to granting bodies, distinguish yourself from our crass American cousins. Where they would pander to the audience's desire for entertainment, promise the opposite. Where the Yanks would pick a hot star out of an international field, commit yourself to some of our favourites right here in Toronto, south of St. Clair, east of Bathurst and west of Jarvis. And where the ugly Americans would grab some hotshot cinematographer with "compositional ability" and "basic competence", promise to put your money on the guy who shot "ENG".


TV glossary:



> *Glossary*
> 6 half hour shows:	"a season"
> 13 episodes:	"a good run"
> tedious;	"heartwarming"
> ...


broken pencil - the magazine of zine culture and the independent arts


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

*yawn*

Man, you are sooooo yesterday with your smarm-ola take re Canuck tv. I yam embarrassed for ya, I yam. Keep it up if it's what floats yer boat, by all means... say, do you also hoard back issues of _Spy?_

Oh, I bet you do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I stillthink it's darned funny. And Broken Pencil is still around too! _Spy_ was a drag. I kept copies of a few issues of _Film Threat_ that I found particularly appealing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I was saying......

cautionary tale.....



> *Oil money: What do Canadians have to show for it?*
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


a worthwhile read....
globeandmail.com: Oil money: What do Canadians have to show for it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The oil belongs to anyone who digs it out of the ground. Just like anything I find in my backyard belongs to me and not to all Canadians.

Do you know something? The guy with the apple orchard in Milton is growing apples with seeds he never made or designed, using sunlight created by hydrogen explosions on a ball of fire 93 million miles from here and rain that--sniff--belongs to ALL Canadians. 

Free apples for the kiddies?


----------

