Canadian Elections 2004

[Lucas]

But that's what I mean, the Conservatives spend and spend without a care in the world, while the Liberals at least try to make sure they can afford spending before doing it.

again, not really, just capn' brian.

"Sector B" usually being a bureaucratic job where money goes in and nothing productive ever comes out.

and how!

[very popular guitar chord]

No matter what you do, you can't solve the social and economic problems all at once. It's just not possible. The economic cycle won't balance out on its own, and Employment and Inflation have a direct relation to one another. Rise in employment means more people are spending more, therefore people can sell for more, until you reach a state of inflation. After that, employment and prices both plummet, dropping you into a recession or state of stagnation.

Then! Then!

Economics says there are two ways out of this problem;
1. The Monetarist Policy - Government does nothing, economy will self-correct.
Pros:
Does not require government intervention or money
Actually works in times of Stagflation

Cons:
Does not work in instances of extended depression (See: 1930s)
Milton Friedman, founder of Monetarism looks kind of funny.

2. The Keynsian Policy - You *HAVE* to spend money to make money. When the government spends money to create make-work projects (cross-ref: Hoover Dam), this creates jobs for people, who have money to spend on necessities and luxuries, thus creating more jobs. From a relatively small injection into the economy, you gain a exponential growth.
Eg.
Government plans to build new highway, hires workers
Workers are paid and spend money on food
Money from buying food goes into supermarket, and to farmer who grows the food (assuming it's a Canadian Supermarket and Canadian Farmer)
Supermarket can open new stores and hire more employees
Employees are paid and spend money on....

Pros:
Will almost always work

Cons:
Does Not work for Stagflation (Times of low employment, but high inflation).
Cost is directly proportional to circumstances of depression
(Relatively small recession, relatively small injection
Batshit loco Depression, Shitload of money)
John Meynard Keynes wasn't a looker either.

3. Neo-Classical Theory - Does not work for modern economy. Period.

Pros:
None

Cons:
Does not work. Ever.

[AnonCastillo]

Originally Posted by very popular guitar chord

No matter what you do, you can't solve the social and economic problems all at once. It's just not possible. The economic cycle won't balance out on its own, and Employment and Inflation have a direct relation to one another. Rise in employment means more people are spending more, therefore people can sell for more, until you reach a state of inflation. After that, employment and prices both plummet, dropping you into a recession or state of stagnation.

Rise in employment does not mean more people are spending more, it means more people are spending the same amount per person. It means more overall spending, but it doesn't mean that each individual consumer has more money to spend (except the few additional employed people, but they won't have more than people who were previously employed). Prices won't increase because most individual consumers don't have any more to spend simply because of a rise in employment.

Originally Posted by very popular guitar chord

Then! Then!

Economics says there are two ways out of this problem;
1. The Monetarist Policy - Government does nothing, economy will self-correct.
....
Cons:
Does not work in instances of extended depression (See: 1930s)
Milton Friedman, founder of Monetarism looks kind of funny.

The 1930s are hardly a time period of governmental restraint (at least here in the US, dunno about Canada). Considering that FDR's campaign against Hoover consisted entirely of bashing Hoover's meddling in the economy, which was partly responsible for the onset of the Great Depression, only to then expand governmental influence in the economy to levels Hoover hadn't imagined in his wildest dreams, the 30s were hardly an example of free market economics at work. Look at FDR's New Deal, which promised (and mostly delivered on) huge government "public works" projects, welfare, social security, higher taxes, higher spending, more regulations, and redistribution of wealth. The fact that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did is a testament to the failure of controlled market economies.

Originally Posted by very popular guitar chord

2. The Keynsian Policy - You *HAVE* to spend money to make money. When the government spends money to create make-work projects (cross-ref: Hoover Dam), this creates jobs for people, who have money to spend on necessities and luxuries, thus creating more jobs. From a relatively small injection into the economy, you gain a exponential growth.

And in order to pay for public works benefits, you have to either:
1. tax the crap out of people and businesses, in which case businesses can't afford to hire as many people so fewer people have money to spend, and those who do have jobs pay more in taxes and therefore have less to spend on necessities and luxuries, therefore leaving no net benifit (and usually a lot of cost, as public works projects generally spend more on bureaucracy than private sector companies, meaning that less of the money spent on them goes towards actual production);
2. borrow the money, in which case investors' and banks' money is tied up in government loans, which leaves less to loan to entrepreneurs, cutting the source of most economic growth and almost ensuring stagnation;
3. print the money, in which case you get severe inflation from the expansion of the money supply, so all that brand new money that the workers have from their fancy new government jobs doesn't buy anywhere near as much as it used to, and the people who had jobs before now can't afford to buy as much either, so the economy hits the shitter because nobody can afford to pay for luxuries anymore (and some of them have trouble affording the necessities).

Originally Posted by very popular guitar chord

Eg.
Government plans to build new highway, hires workers
Workers are paid and spend money on food
Money from buying food goes into supermarket, and to farmer who grows the food (assuming it's a Canadian Supermarket and Canadian Farmer)
Supermarket can open new stores and hire more employees
Employees are paid and spend money on....

This still leaves no net benifit over a private company building the same thing.

Originally Posted by very popular guitar chord

Cons:
Does Not work for Stagflation (Times of low employment, but high inflation).
Cost is directly proportional to circumstances of depression
(Relatively small recession, relatively small injection
Batshit loco Depression, Shitload of money)
John Meynard Keynes wasn't a looker either.

So, if the depression is worse, you have to take more of what little money remains in the economy to cover government spending in a Keynesian model.... and you're not seeing the problem here?

Originally Posted by very popular guitar chord

3. Neo-Classical Theory - Does not work for modern economy. Period.

Pros:
None

Cons:
Does not work. Ever.

Must be why I haven't heard much about it. If it's got anything to do with Neo-Cons, I'll bet it doesn't work.

[Seo-X]

I'm sick of politics in Canada, I'll just go vote for the Rhino Party(we still have a Rhino candidate unlike most of the country).

[Archbio]

I'm going to vote Bloc... or NDP. Or Bloc.
Lets just say I'm not decided yet.
Problems with the NDP: They're nice, but they really don't seem to have a working plan. I'm all for a planned (or something not so market related) economy, but just keeping the same economic system and increasing government spending only seems to make debt go up.

Problems with the Bloc: Too particular to Quebec when they don't have to be. Why not create a Provincial Bloc, keep the same platform and maybe extend it to push for decentralisation everywhere they're elected? The Bloc also has jerky ads that go: "Because we're different". Doesn't that make other people different too or are they not allowed?

One thing that bothers me regarding military in the campaign is that both the PLC and the Conservatives promise to augment the budget, only to different degrees. I haven't heard them talk about any change in the use of the military in the short term. I think it should at least be recalled for a year, it can't do good much longer in the state it's in. Focusing less on foreign expeditions could also be a good idea.

Last thing that seemed wrong to me: Harper delegating (in a recent TV interview) every social issue to parliamentary processes. That's disregarding the fact that by running as the leader of the Conservative Party, he's promoting the election of the conservative canditates, which will then make up the new parliament if elected. It's not like he's unaware of their position and has nothing to do with the promotion of these. Of course, it's the interviewers fault for acting like it all depended on Harper's personal views (which remained very obscure during that interview), but you can't escape our ADD afflicted media and society to actually ask information about the canditates we're about to elect.

[Fifthfiend]

Waitadamnsecondrighthere.. .Canadian elections?

You guys have elections up there?

How do you keep all the penguins from running off with your ballots?!

...

This has been your Comment From An Ignorant American.
Brought to you by the American Federation for Being Completely Ignorant About Canadans

Blame Canada!

[slightly aboveaverage man]

Well FF, at least we only have to hear about our election for two months, then it's over with.

In America, you have to listen to this campaigning bullshit for an entire year!

(hurrah for snap elections)

[Lucas]

Problems with the Bloc: Too particular to Quebec when they don't have to be. Why not create a Provincial Bloc, keep the same platform and maybe extend it to push for decentralisation everywhere they're elected? The Bloc also has jerky ads that go: "Because we're different". Doesn't that make other people different too or are they not allowed?

quebec IS different. far different than the rest of canada, save for montreal, which is more mainstream canada. the bloc exists for the protection of quebec's interests, and that includes separation of need be. i don't see the defenders of quebec trying to go to alberta and rally up support there.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

And their is a provincial bloc: it is the Parti Quebecois. the PQ was intended as the main party of the Province, while the Bloc was there to provide the (at that point) separatists with Federal Representation. After the 1995 Referendum and the decline in support for Separatism, the Bloc slightly morphed into a role of a special interest group for Quebec, rather than a completely separatist party. I do hope that they lose more seats then they gain though.

In my opinion, out of the 308 seats up for grabs, the best result in my opinion would be:

Liberal Party: 156
Conservative Party: 105
New Democratic Party: 25
Bloc Quebecois Party: 15
Green Party: 5
Independant: 2

The Liberals holding the slimmest of Majorities, but being under emense pressure from the Opposition Conservatives and New Democrats; leaving enough Bloc members to provide an effective voice for Quebec's needs, and a Green presence for a voice for Environmental issues. Martin would be forced to tread lightly and drop his arrogance, while the Opposition parties would still be able to bring new and refreshing ideas to the floor of the House of Commons.

I do not think a Minority siduation would work, simply because of the people in charge. All three of them are so stuffed up with their own egos that they would never be able to get along. Paul Martin is so used to getting his own way, compromise is not really in his vocabulary. Stephen Harper's party is so far Right that it would be unthinkable for him to join forces with the NDP. He has even publicly stated that he does not want to work with Jack Layton. And Jack Layton, he is not one for cooperation. Jack is the whiney guy in the background trying desperatelly to get heard. He is one of those people who does not debate, he forces his opinions on other people... I mean just look at the Leadership Debate.

[Devon Lake]

*sigh* I can't read further in the thread without commenting on this.

In the Soviet Union, when people had to wait for hours in line just to buy groceries (actually, it was waiting for half an hour in one line to get potatoes, half an hour in another to get bread, half an hour in another to get milk, half an hour in another to get meat, and then another half an hour in a line to pay for each of them after you got them (yes, that's a line to pay for each item, not a line to pay for everything), they said it was just an "inconvenience" and they were glad that class wasn't brought into something as basic as food. After all, you wouldn't want to eat more expensive food just because you had a rich daddy.... Well, until they noticed that even poor people in the US ate better and spent less time waiting in line for their food than the USSR. 'Cause, you know, if you have to wait half an hour for bread in the US, you find another supermarket.

*Yawn* Oh, a comparison to the Soviets eh? *Ignores and moves on without dignifying such a ridiculous comparison with a response*

Ditto for hospitals. In Canada, 18% of the population goes without necessary healthcare because there aren't enough doctors to supply their needs. In the US, if your doctor told you you'd have to wait months for an operation you needed tomorrow to stay alive, you'd find another doctor who could perform it right away. Last time I went to the emergency room, you know how long I waited? Less than 5 minutes. Filled out a form, got treated, was out in less time than you spent waiting to see a doctor. It cost a lot less than the difference that Canadians pay in taxes, too, so even though I'm pretty poor (made $15,000 last year, and I'm paying my own way through college with that). In America only about 5% of the population goes without necessary healthcare, even though 15% of the population doesn't have health insurance. Even the poor here have at least some access to healthcare, and can usually get faster and better service than in Canada.

Have any references for that? The only people I’ve ever heard of who couldn’t get treated for whatever ailed them were other transsexuals, and that’s just because no doctors seem to feel like specializing in our area of health. Whatever deficiencies our system has is a matter of piss poor funding rather than a failure to privatize a human right.

I’m sure that they could privatize the police to if they wanted. Think of it, each household could by police insurance form numerous competing departments, and depending on the coverage level they pay, they can count on given levels of protection. If the police must prioritize their response to a few given crimes in progress, they can just quickly look up the membership levels of the given complainants and go after whoever’s got the more prestigious membership. Doesn’t that sound fair? A business tycoon can have an armed police escort everywhere they go and trained officers guarding their property day and night, as they deserve for getting a good job and contributing to society.

So what if a few poor bums who can’t afford to pay for police insurance get mugged, raped or killed with no protection whatsoever from the police force and thus no recourse against the assailants? The lousy bums should have just gotten some damned jobs! With the lower tax rate of not having to fund inefficient government police, anyone should be able to pay; letting those who can’t afford police protection die is just natures way of taking out the trash. Capitalism’s supply and demand nature would ensure that societies policing needs be served far better than some socialist government department, and besides, having such a burgeoning public sector would help boost the economy!

And yet, the notion of my right as a Canadian to security of person and to life itself being enforced only based upon my income and my demand as a consumer is far too revolting for me to ever accept such a thing, no matter how much more “efficient” it may be. It is well worth the price to sacrifice a smidgeon of quality if it means that we are all treated equally human, and thus all equally leant our rights AS humans.

Any government spending is an injection into the economy? Lethal injection, maybe. Keep in mind that any government spending has to be paid for somehow. There are only three ways to pay for government spending:
1. Raise taxes, in which case that government "injection" comes at the cost of government siphoning money out of the economy. This directly hurts businesses, laborers, and consumers.
2. Borrow money, in which case the amount of money banks and investors have to loan to entrepreneurs, who cause the majority of economic growth, is limited by the amount government borrows.
3. Print money, which causes inflation, which, in addition to making everyone's money worth less and being generally bad for people, it destabilizes the money. If you don't even have stable currency, how the hell can you expect to have a stable economy?

*Ahem* THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE MILITARY SPENDING AS MUCH AS IT IS ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!

quebec IS different. far different than the rest of canada, save for montreal, which is more mainstream canada. the bloc exists for the protection of quebec's interests, and that includes separation of need be. i don't see the defenders of quebec trying to go to alberta and rally up support there.

What about Newfoundland? It’s like the Merry Old Land of OZ…