05.16.2012 04:42 PM

Canada Live, May 16: Mulcair is dumb, Oreos aren’t, and Ont. PC sexism

I try and get Rageaholic Tom to calm down. Doesn’t work.

31 Comments

  1. bigcitylib says:

    Fair enough. But I’m pretty sure I’ve heard you suggest that a good line against the CPoC was that they tilted pro-West and anti-Central Canada. So square the circle. Can Mulcair run the same argument less abrasively?

    • Kevin T. says:

      That’s the thing, we need a leader who can be quite the dick to stand up to the dick, who is a dick.

  2. Tiger says:

    I figured the CPC was getting ready to fight a campaign of ideas against Mulcair, knowing he believed in (and would campaign on) stuff like this.

    But we’ll see.

  3. dstm says:

    Warren
    I want to listen to what you are saying, cause it’s the only time I watch Sun BUT can’t help wondering if/ when the host(ess) (what’s her name) is going to present a Sharon Stone moment. Really. She seems to be an informed, intelligent and articulate interviewer. You address her as an intelligent/pundit equal. Can you explain to me why Sun ,presumably, makes he dress this way?

  4. Bongo Drums says:

    So I’ve been reading your website for years and years and years but this was the first time that I clicked through to see one of your Sun News clips. And… yikes… Warren… you shouldn’t embaras yourself by doing that sort of spot. The woman interviewing you is just cringe-worthy. It’s tough to listen to her. They put THAT on TV? Warren, you’re better than that.

  5. Geoffrey Laxton says:

    Looks like the Harpercons are screwing up BIG TIME with this stupid policy Warren. An enemy of Canada would come up with shit like this.

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Budget+cuts+losing+Canada+friends+allies+around+world+academics/6633429/story.html

  6. Kelly says:

    Why should foreign oil compomanies get government help to pollute our air and rivers while harming manufacturing exports right across the country?

    When Chretien left office 80% of our exports were finished goods and unemployment was a full point lower than today. Now 60% of exports are raw materials. In less than a decade Harper has set our industrial policy back 50 years. More and more capital is pooling in dumb industries rather than smart industries. Its one reason bright Chineseand Indians are going BACK to China and India — there’s more opportunity there.

    The cons literally have nothing else to offer — other than a finance minister who wants us all driving cabs.

  7. Nic Coivert says:

    But we are experiencing Dutch Disease, this has become a Petro-State, the oil industry is on corporate welfare. And what of the recent alteration of offshore labour rules? It is now legal to pay offshore labourers 15% less than what a Canadian citizen would be payed for same. And these workers are destined for the tar-sands, they’re gearing up to build the pipeline with foreign workers.

  8. JamesHalifax says:

    “Dutch Disease”

    drink some more Kool Aid.

    Anyone who believes Mulcairs theory is probably from the same crowd that actually believes that socialism will actually work. Of course, it has done wonders for coutries like:
    Cuba
    North Korea
    Venezuala
    Zimbabwe…

    Yeah….great economic model ya got there Tommy boy!!!

    • Philip says:

      I’m not sure why Mulcair pointing out the blindingly obvious bothers Conservatives so much. Canada’s growth is coming from resource extraction, primarily in the Alberta oil sands. Canada is a petrol state, our dollar is buoyed by high oil prices. Why not make efforts at the federal level to widen and deepen our economic foundations now, as a hedge against the day when resource prices drop. It’s called planning ahead.

      Instead we have a government only concerned with tax breaks, creating 2nd class labour and massive social engineering projects all for their oil company buddies.

    • Jason King says:

      Did you get the coles notes version of the talking points today James?

  9. JamesHalifax says:

    Phillip, Mulcairs argument is based on a false premise, as evidenced by various reports that came out in the last two days that debunked his “Dutch Disease” myth.

    Being blindingly obvious is not what bother’s a Conservative. People who are economic illiterates (such as yourself) do.

    The manufacturing sectors have been harmed in the US as well, and they don’t have a petro dollar. It’s the RECESSION and lack of demand that took out the manufacturing sector, the high dollar had far less impact that Mulcair is proclaiming. If Canadian manufacturers want to stay in business, they need to increase productivity. In fact, with a high Canadian dollar, they should be spending like crazy to update their machinery and infrastructure. If they don’t, then they will fall by the wayside. If you can’t compete….get out of the way.

    In fact, I’m sure Mulcair himself may be aware of this. He has simply realized that folks in Ontario and Quebec are where his bread is buttered…..and he’s pitting East against west. It’s a completely ridiculous economic theory he is proposing…..and he’s counting on those folks without any economic intelligence to believe him.

    Congrats phillip…….apparently with you…..he’s found his first dupe.

    • Philip says:

      We’re in recession? Really? Not according to Wee Jimmy and Finance we’re not.

      Why is OK for Wee Jimmy Flaherty to denigrate the Ontario economy, using his ministerial position as a bully pulpit, pitting Ontario against the rest of Canada? It’s because he is a Conservative, isn’t it? That must make it all OK.

      “If you can’t compete…. get out of the way” Far and away the best chuckle of your bit. I guess that’s why GM and Chrysler Canada got their government bailout money. They were both so compeitive that they desperately needed an infusion of taxpayer cash. I’m also certain that’s why Air Canada keeps getting the Conservative government to try and solve their labour problems for them. Same thing for Suncor, Keystone and Syncrude. It’s cheaper than actually doing the job themselves. All I see are corporations using political connections so they can privatize profit and spread their liabilities to the taxpayers. I’m not impressed by that form of economic theory.

      I did appreciate the congrats though. But I can’t say that your grasp on economics is any better than that guy who constantly mumbles to himself on the Islington Subway platform.

  10. JamesHalifax says:

    By the way phillip…….if you like, I can explain to you the economics behind tax breaks and how they help.

  11. JamesHalifax says:

    Ahem…..How tax reductions spur growth.

    a quick scenario:

    Phillip is working at the local McDonalds flipping burgers. He earns about $11.25 per hour and works about 40hrs a week. After income taxes, EI, and CPP is removed, he finds his take home pay is about $315.34 per week, or about $1261.72 per month. After paying his mother $400 per month rent for the basement suite, and spending a little on entertainment, phillip realizes he has very little money to save for his retirment. He focuses his mind and becomes determined to become the MANAGER at his place of employment and increase his savings.
    One day, Phillip is cleaning the grease from the trap under the deep fat fryer and is pleasantly surprised to hear that people in his position will now see a reduction in the income tax rate, followed shortly thereafter by a further reduction of 2% in the GST. This may not sound like much, but given his earnings it is rather substantial. Phillip will see his take home pay increase by about $21.26 per week, and the GST reduction will add more to his spending ability.
    With his new found wealth, phillip decides to lighten up his place in mom’s basement. He thinks a new coat of bright yellow paint would really liven the place up. After getting mom’s permission, phillip heads to the hardware store and picks up two cans of bright yellow paint and spends $76.23 including taxes. He also picks up a small brush and a couple of rollers. (End of Phillips story)

    The stock boy at the local home hardware store notices that the paint shelf is lacking two cans of paint (the two cans phillip bought) so he heads out to the warehouse and grabs two more cans to fill the shelves. The warehouse manager then notices that there has been a run on yellow paint, and places an order with the factory to replenish his stock. (end of this part of the story)

    The paint manufacturer notices a sudden spike in paint sales, requiring the company to add an extra shift to keep up with the increased demand. This means that 6 new people will need to be hired to work the plant and create the new paint. This means 6 people who are currently unemployed are now off welfare or EI and instead are earning a wage and paying taxes, EI, and CPP themselves.

    The supplier to the paint company notices that additional minerals, pigments, and solvents are required to prodoce more paint and decides it too may need to hire a few more people to dig in the earth, or drive trucks.

    See what I’m getting at Phillip? It’s not rocket science. The trick is to find the right balance which may be the issue you are concerned with.

    Now…take that burger flipper and multiply him by a few million taxpaying Canadians. It starts to add up.

    Tomorrow’s lesson……The failure of Keynesian economics and the “Multiplier effect”

    • Philip says:

      What a wonderful fantasy, James. It has no basis in reality but a really wonderful fantasy.

      Let’s take that from when Philip (or philip, if you prefer) decides to splash out for the two pots of cheery yellow paint to brighten up his basement dwelling. After taking the bus to WalMart, Philip purchases his two pots of paint and returns home to begin his project. (end of Philip’s story)

      The stock boy notices that the yellow paint looks a little shopped but with most of the 8 facing are still full, so he keeps on walking on. A week later, the yellow paint is restocked from one of the 3 full pallets in the warehouse. (end of the stock boy’s story) The regular load of 3 skids of the cheery yellow paint shows up at this WalMart’s warehouse. (end of this part of the story)

      The Chinese paint manufacturer doesn’t notice two extra pots of cheery yellow paint in their monthly production run of 200,000 pots. The profit from those two pots of paint goes back into the company’s general revenue. No extra people are hired.

      See what I’m getting at James? It’s not rocket science.

      Keep up the “economics” lessons James, I wouldn’t miss them for the world.

    • Michael says:

      But what if Phillip decides to save his new found money? How does that help the economy?

      Another fly in your ointment, $1 in government spending has the same net effect on GDP as $1 of Phillip spending. 😉

      $1 collect in tax can not be taken out of the economy, it has to be spent by the government. Whereas a $1 tax reduction could be saved, stashed under the mattress or spent on an imported good, it could be argued that the $1 tax could have a potentially greater positive effect on GDP than a $1 tax cut.

      • Philip says:

        Actually the $1 of government spending would have more of an impact than the $1 Philip saved through tax cuts. I fear he prone to riotous living would spend his $1 on drugs or hookers. Possibly both.

    • Nic Coivert says:

      If you don’t think that’s a load, try squeezing dimes out of nickels.

  12. JamesHalifax says:

    Phillip, clearly, the lesson I laid out is too complex for you. Continue reading the Communist Manifesto if it makes you feel better.

    Michael, you are another obvious NDP type. Here’s a hint. The $1 the Government spends….is taken from people who work and pay taxes, it is NOT earned money. The $1 phillip spends, is money he has earned and has PAID taxes on already. Phillip can determine the best use for that $1 far better than any level of Government. That’s how the market works efficiently. People will inherently do what is in their best interest. (invisible hand).

    And frankly MIchael, based upon your apparent grasp of basic economics it is clear that you will no doubt face some form of financial difficulty in the future if you ever find yourself in the position of having to earn your own money.

    But let’s just test something you believe. You wrote, “it could be argued that the $1 tax could have a potentially greater positive effect on GDP than a $1 tax cut.”

    Well, I suppose it could be argued….but it would still be wrong. And those who would argue that ridiculous belief no doubt are not amongst those who earn their own living.
    If you truly belive that Michael, then I expect you are 100% behind the Harper Government spending the $1Billion for the summit. After all, you clearly believe that the Government spending money is far superior than an individual doing what he wishes with his money. After all…what would the people who actually paid for the summit do with that $1Billion? (I know you are not included in this category) They would probably just waste it on food, services, personal goods..etc..etc…

    Almost forgot this gem. “Whereas a $1 tax reduction could be saved, stashed under the mattress or spent on an imported good”

    Couple of points about this Mikey.
    1. $1 may be saved.
    True. Someone may SAVE their own money. That would provide them with a few things. It would provide them some security as they grow older and retire. It will provide them with a return on their savings in the form of interest payments through their investments.

    2. The $1 provides the bank the ability to lend money to folks with an entrepreneurial bent. These folks could start their own business, make home improvements, hire people, spend money on the economy, and provide interest payments BACK to the bank.

    3. The sharefholders of the bank would see a return on their investment through dividends, or increased values of bank stock. This in turn would provide shareholders with a more secure retirement. This would also help the banks earn more money, to lend to more people, thus repeating the cycle.

    So you see, Mikey, there is more to the economy then “the government will take care of it” because the truth of the matter is that Governments for the most part don’t know how to spend money any more wisely than the people who earned it. In fact, the opposite is true as the people who EARNED their own money tend to be more careful with it.

    Frankly, Mikey…..the sad truth is that Universities are full of people who are just as ignorant about economics as you and Phillip apparently seem to be. These are the folks who take “arts” degrees, or gender studies…otherwise known as “No math please” Degrees.

    • Jon Adams says:

      Ya know, for someone who is Foghorn Leghorning his patronizing, overweening, condescending asshole way through this website and noisily browbeating anyone who disagrees with him, you’d think JamesHalifax would have had sense enough to have figured out what that link at the bottom of each comment that says “REPLY” does.

      I’d point that out, but then he’d write me into a story problem involving fast food, huffing and puffing and wagging his enormous cranium at me, so on the other hand: forget it. Chacun à son goût.

    • Philip says:

      No, I clearly did understand your lesson, James. I simply sent Philip (or philip) to WalMart instead your small town, main street hardware store. My example works perfectly in the real world of modern retail and global supply chain management, not some abstract, ivory tower exercise. Perhaps, that is what confused you?

  13. JamesHalifax says:

    Jon Adams,

    If I simply hit the “reply” button, I would only be responding to one comment. By posting anew each time…all share in my knowledge. As for your comments about browbeating…sorry, I only enlighten. It’s not my failing that basic economics is beyond your grasp, or the grasp of Phillip (or Philip if you prefer).
    As for WalMart….if you don’t like the store, don’t shop there. There is a choice. The problem, however, is that people don’t want to pay $100 bucks for some union produced item that can be purchased for $25 from China. Instead of complaining about foreign made goods, perhaps consumers should find a way to produce them cheaper here in Canada.
    Better yet, if people were allowed to keep more of their own money, they wouldn’t be so price sensitive and shop at WalMart.

    Personally, I do have one area of common concern with Philip. I don’t shop at Walmart if I can help it, because every time we buy something that originates in China, we are basically supporting the Chinese military build-up. But here’s the dilemma……every time a Canadian company grows large enough to compete with China, all of the usual (NDP and Union) suspects take to the streets and decry the “Capitalist” elite and Corporate Canada. It seems, if you are a socialist you have no recourse.

    Which of course….explains clearly why most NDP’er types and other assorted marxists are always angry about one thing or another. Shop at Walmart and you’re an anti-Labour stooge who is destroying the Canadian economy. Shop at a Large Canadian firm…and you’re a stooge to big corporations.

    Here’s a hint Phil. It is corporations and business that creates wealth and employment. They pay the taxes that allow for public programs, they pay the wages to employees, who in turn pay taxes for social programs. According to you philip, money is somehow created out of nothing, and the Government of the day is responsible to make sure everyone gets their fair share.

    Sorry phil, that philosophy has a 100% failure rate…but fill your boots if that allows you to stand atop your soapbox and spout your morally superior economic model. But please note…….soap boxes are created by corporations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*