Election 2015

[upandatom]

This is the internet.  Stop inserting thoughtful comment and analysis.


And where are the cute cat pictures?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was thinking of putting this in a "joke" thread, but, apparently, it's true ... reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-hed-be-more-open-to-coalition-with-ndp-if-mulcair-wasnt-leader/article23959663/

Trudeau says he’d be more open to coalition with NDP if Mulcair wasn’t leader

The Canadian Press

Published Tuesday, Apr. 14 2015

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he might be more open to the idea of forming a coalition with the NDP – if Thomas Mulcair was not its leader.

Trudeau tells The Canadian Press in an interview he is not comfortable with Mulcair’s style.

The Liberal leader says Mulcair is a veteran politician who has proven himself but that his “old-style” way of doing politics does not mesh with his.

Trudeau is reiterating six months before the federal election he is ruling out the idea of forming a coalition with the NDP.

Some recent polls have suggested the possibility of a minority government in Ottawa.

That's right, boys and girls, Thomas Mulcair, a proven, veteran politician who is rolling out real policy ideas is "old style." It ALL about style, isn't it M. Trudeau?

                                                                      Style                                                                                                                                          Substance

                                                                      Style                                                                                                                                            Substance

                                                      Prime Minister of Canada?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Who needs cattle when he has such an awesome hat?

 

[Edward Campbell]

M. Trudeau is, clearly, the hands down winner when "likability" or "niceness" are being measured. Neither Prime Minister Harper nor M. Mulcair is overly likeable, neither is, really, a nice person.

It is important, therefore, to take "like" and "nice" off the table. Competence and policies must be made the campaign issues.

Canadians like M. Trudeau because he is, truly, a nice young man, but the questions needs to be: Is he the best person to lead Canada in uncertain times, and do the Liberals have the best policies?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I read the subtext of Trudeau Fils' comments as "I don't want to share the reins with someone smarter than me", but I can go with the above as well  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the subtext is a message to Liberals: "We're doing well, gang; we can beat the NDP and we have a realistic shot at beating the Conservatives, too, and forming a government. We can take power again if you all get out there and work harder and harder, and, mainly, send more money.

 

[a_majoor]

I read the subtext of Trudeau Fils' comments as "I don't want to share the reins with someone smarter than me", but I can go with the above as well  ;D

That's an awesome campaign slogan!

Put it under the Young Dauphin's picture and print it on t-shirts. The LPC shold be paying us for this stuff.....

 

[Kilo_302]

U.S., Saudi firms to buy former Canadian Wheat Board

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-saudi-firms-to-buy-former-canadian-wheat-board/article23966156/

Once again, (in addition to the pathetic attempt to balance the books by selling off the government stake in GM, something every serious economist said was a loss for the Canadian taxpayer) Harper sells off Canadian interests, this time to an unholy alliance of Saudi and US business partners. We're selling away our assets to the same people who are financially supporting the other people we're bombing in Iraq and Syria. Anyone who votes for Harper in the next election is a pylon, pure and simple.

 

[a_majoor]

So, what is your solution?

Follow Tom Mulcaire, nationalize everything and follow Venezuela down the Socialist yellow brick road (try buying toilet paper there, for example).

Follow the Young Dauphin, who has not articulated a plan about anything at all?

Come on, we're all waiting.......

 

[The Bread Guy]

That's an awesome campaign slogan!

Put it under the Young Dauphin's picture and print it on t-shirts. The LPC shold be paying us for this stuff.....

Howziss?

U.S., Saudi firms to buy former Canadian Wheat Board

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-saudi-firms-to-buy-former-canadian-wheat-board/article23966156/

I suppose this may be good for the libertarian base, but opitcally, this won't look very "Canadian".

 

[Kilo_302]

So, what is your solution?

Follow Tom Mulcaire, nationalize everything and follow Venezuela down the Socialist yellow brick road (try buying toilet paper there, for example).

Follow the Young Dauphin, who has not articulated a plan about anything at all?

Come on, we're all waiting.......

You ARE aware that Canadian farmers offered to buy the CWB's assets at fair market value right? They were turned down outright, with no reason being given. In fact the government didn't even review the proposal. Never mind nationalizing, if you believe in the fantasy that is the "free market" (no such thing, private monopolies intervene all the time), why not at least sell it to a CANADIAN company?! $250 million is nothing, so the short term gain is useless compared to the long term tax revenue.  But in answer to your question, you're goddamned right I would nationalize the CWB. You've heard of Statoil? Norway isn't doing too badly in direct comparison to the free-for-all that Alberta became.

But you're right, let's continue selling Canadian assets to foreign owned companies. You do realize that the Chinese firms working in the oil patch and buying up farmland in Saskatchewan (as a result of the dissolution of the CWB in the first place) ARE controlled by the Chinese government?  The Chinese were just itching to have us dissolve the CWB. These guys are laughing at us. While we espouse "free markets" and "private ownership" they're moving in and buying up all the assets because these companies are arms of their own government. The Saudi interest in this deal was created by the Saudi Royal family to ensure that Saudi Arabia can import wheat when the world food system goes to crap. We are selling ourselves down the river in the name of free enterprise, and we are selling to state controlled groups from foreign countries. 

Is Harper paying you? You have to be suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance to think throwing away our assets is in our national interest. And if you believe that strongly in the free market, why even have a military? If nothing is above privatization or foreign ownership, let's just turn the CF and RCMP into security guards for the foreign interests that will inherit Canadian public assets and be done with it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm sure the effort is wasted ... but I have some spare time available.

Nationalization
- potential investors - 1
- potential pool of shareholders - 30,000,000
- potential market - 30,000,000

Commercialization
- potential investors - manifold
- potential pool of shareholders - 7,000,000,000
- potential market - 7,000,000,000

Nationalization results in exclusion from markets - Meet the Dairy and Poultry Marketing Boards and the APEC discussions.

 

[a_majoor]

Howziss?

Looking good. I might have gone for the picture with the cowboy hat, but this is fine.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Is Harper paying you? You have to be suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance to think throwing away our assets is in our national interest.

Watch the personal attacks.

---Staff---

 

[a_majoor]

In addition to a rather poor grasp of economics and opportunity costs, Kilo, you also have a hard time understanding the concept of property and property rights.

Simply saying an asset is "ours" does not make it so; ownership has a very clear meaning, and you and I do not "own" things like the Wheat board any more than we "own" that nice house just down the road from where we live. Since the owner of the property has the unencumbered rights to the property, the owner can choose (as Kirkhill points out) from a manifold of potential buyers, and make a transaction for whatever reason meets the owner's needs.

The one thing I agree with you is that the State is not a good steward of property. There should be some pretty severe limitations in what should actually be "owned" by the State (and therefore the State's portfolio should also be very small and limited in scale and scope).

 

[Kilo_302]

In addition to a rather poor grasp of economics and opportunity costs, Kilo, you also have a hard time understanding the concept of property and property rights.

Simply saying an asset is "ours" does not make it so; ownership has a very clear meaning, and you and I do not "own" things like the Wheat board any more than we "own" that nice house just down the road from where we live. Since the owner of the property has the unencumbered rights to the property, the owner can choose (as Kirkhill points out) from a manifold of potential buyers, and make a transaction for whatever reason meets the owner's needs.

The one thing I agree with you is that the State is not a good steward of property. There should be some pretty severe limitations in what should actually be "owned" by the State (and therefore the State's portfolio should also be very small and limited in scale and scope).

A poor grasp of economics? As someone who seems to be praising the selling of Canadian assets to state-owned foreign interests I would suggest it's you who has a very poor grasp of economics, the actors involved here, and the motiviation behind these ludicrous policies. The amazing thing about this government is at every level they claim an ideological purity (free markets , ISIS is an existential threat, we need to protect Ukraine from evil Russians, the list goes on), and upon elementary examination every policy is undercut by another that achieves the exact opposite. So you have us selling state assets to a country that funds the very people we are fighting in Iraq and Syria. Forget about economic theory, this is INSANE. If you want to contort yourself like a yoga teacher to have all of this fit into your very fragile ideological box, go ahead. But it holds zero water in a real world.

And going theoretical is a clear sign that you are unable to address any of my real world examples. Yes, it is true that when a government owns an asset "we" as in Canadian citizens do not technically own it. This is so obvious I am unsure as to why we are even discussing it.

However, when a government "owns" an asset, and receives revenue based on the ownership of that asset, this is a benefit to the citizenry as the government then uses that money to pay for services, invest in the economy or dare I say it, military spending?. Again, Statoil is a perfect example of a sensible nationalization policy that has paid out billions into a soveriegn wealth fund. The Norwegian government is reinvesting that money wisely and it shows in Norway's quality of life, the future propects of diversification of their economy and so on and so on. Yes, there are numerous examples of government corruption, but there are far more examples of privatization leading to higher costs, lower efficiency, because the benefits are going to corporate leadership and stockholders.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Yes, there are numerous examples of government corruption, but there are far more examples of privatization leading to higher costs, lower efficiency, because the benefits are going to corporate leadership and stockholders.

Simply untrue.  The efficiency of private enterprise outperforms socialized enterprises in all cases.  No need for discussion.  And your Wheat Board example - farmers have done significantly better than ever before since the demise of the Wheat Board - don't know whether axing the Wheat Board caused it but it is food for thought.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In fact, it was the farmers themselves that called for the end of the Wheat Board. They were tired of the artificially low prices the Board was setting and the restrictive, authoritarian way the Board acted. Individual farmers were transporting their own product to the States and receiving a better price on the open market, even after transportation costs, instead of it being stored in silos and sold when the Board decided.

The Government didn't go far enough though. They should have dismantled the egg and dairy monopoly in Ontario and Quebec while they were at it.

The Government can support industry without dictating commerce.

 

[GAP]

The Government didn't go far enough though. They should have dismantled the egg and dairy monopoly in Ontario and Quebec while they were at it.

They will have to to get into the TPP....but after the election....

 

[Retired AF Guy]

M. Trudeau is, clearly, the hands down winner when "likability" or "niceness" are being measured. Neither Prime Minister Harper nor M. Mulcair is overly likeable, neither is, really, a nice person.

It is important, therefore, to take "like" and "nice" off the table. Competence and policies must be made the campaign issues.

Canadians like M. Trudeau because he is, truly, a nice young man, but the questions needs to be: Is he the best person to lead Canada in uncertain times, and do the Liberals have the best policies?

You have a very good point and the first thing that jumped into my mind was this quotation by one of the greatest [realistic] political thinkers of all time:

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince