Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship - Page 5

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:14

I'm not going to continue arguing this with you, I don't think you see much of anything being said here...

David James · June 3, 2002, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Our GDP per cap is ~20% higher than theirs, IIRC.

From the CIA World Factbook; (PPP $US)

Canada - GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $24,800 (2000 est.)

United Kingdom - GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $22,800 (2000 est.)

so, (24,800-22,800)/22,800 = 8.7% higher

Moreover, this has changed since 2000 - UK's GDP passed France's in 2001, which our adept friends at the CIA haven't updated to yet. Canada's GDP/capita might still be ahead of UK's, but not by much - UK has been gaining on Canada and everyone else this past decade or so.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:18

Quote:

Canada sees employment from it

Should be counted, since money actually goes to Canadians

Quote:

Canada sees investment from it

If that investment is owned by Americans then how is it something which we produce?

Hypothetical situation: we find a rich vein of gold just outside of Toronto, but instead of building a mine there ourselves we sell the rights to it to the Americans for a pittance, and they build a mine there and fly in Americans to extract the gold from it. In the end, we count all the proceeds from the extacted gold as something the Canadian economy has produced?

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by David James

From the CIA World Factbook; (PPP $US)

The World Factbook also reports that the US is bigger than China and that the Liberals won 42% of the popular vote in 2000. I tend not to trust it to be more accurate than 5%.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If that investment is owned by Americans then how is it something which we produce?

Investment into the region.
Like the 4,000 employee oil & gas research building funded by oil companies on the UofC campus.

Like building up our internal infrastructure like roadways and rail, and even air.

The investment is, more often than not, coming directly from the Canadian company. Occasionally the American parent will fork over lots of cash, but I don't see why it matters where the money is coming from. The idea is we're being invested in, and people are obviously benefitting from it a great deal.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't see your point, at all.

Quote:

Hypothetical situation: we find a rich vein of gold just outside of Toronto, but instead of building a mine there ourselves we sell the rights to it to the Americans for a pittance, and they build a mine there and fly in Americans to extract the gold from it. In the end, we count all the proceeds from the extacted gold as something the Canadian economy has produced?

That's not what happens at all.
What, exactly, DO you know about how the Canadian Energy industry works?

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
that the Liberals won 42% of the popular vote in 2000.

What, they didn't?

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:22

It's not what happens, but it demonstrates a real weakness in the counting method. If the proceeds are derived from capital investment by outsiders, then profits shouldn't be counted as part of our own economy.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

What, they didn't?

40.8% = 42%?

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:24

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not what happens, but it demonstrates a real weakness in the counting method. If the proceeds are derived from capital investment by outsiders, then profits shouldn't be counted as part of our own economy.

It's counted in the GDP because Canada sells the oil to Albertans, other Canadians, and the leftovers go to the USA.

Since it's a product made in Canada, and sold away from the possession of Canadian companies, it becomes a part of the GDP.

Why is that a problem?

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:24

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
40.8% = 42%?

Could be, depending on if StatsCan revised their figures after which they've been known to do...

David James · June 3, 2002, 01:27

KH,

Have you ever taken a course in economics, and, if you did, did you actually understand it?

You're busy mixing up GDP and GNP. GDP counts everything produced in a particular jurisdiction. GNP counts everything produced by the citizens of a particular jurisdiction, including any assets they own, anywhere.

Tax cutting isn't a zero-sum game; taxes act as a disincentive to engage in economic activity. As taxes are reduced, economic activity increases. Only at very low levels of taxation could taxes be considered 'worthwhile' - and only then if the revenues are used for law-and-order and contract enforcement type services.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:27

?

Label it what you want, but the excess value of the goods (profit) is produced in assistance by use of capital from outside. Either way, you don't see that money, and neither does anybody else living in this country.

The point is, Asher, that we've all seen what type of countries can get rich off of selling oil rights to US companies. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to do it...

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by David James
KH,

Have you ever taken a course in economics, and, if you did, did you actually understand it?

You're busy mixing up GDP and GNP. GDP counts everything produced in a particular jurisdiction. GNP counts everything produced by the citizens of a particular jurisdiction, including any assets they own, anywhere

I'm not confusing them; I'm pointing out the relative merits of using them as a standard to judge.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:28

Quote:

Label it what you want, but the excess value of the goods (profit) is produced in assistance by use of capital from outside. Either way, you don't see that money, and neither does anybody else living in this country.

So basically are you saying we should look at the GDP from the perspective that we're a closed economy or something?

Canada is an open economy. Deal with it. There is outside investment. Does that bother you or something?

Quote:

The point is, Asher, that we've all seen what type of countries can get rich off of selling oil rights to US companies. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to do it...

Okay, and what is the point of your point?

It's just like saying: The point is, Asher, when you sell things you tend to get money in return.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Okay, and what is the point of your point?

It's just like saying: The point is, Asher, when you sell things you tend to get money in return.

And what I'm saying is that if, in 196?, we'd discovered a giant untapped oil well beneath our province then we'd be rolling in dough too. It has nothing to do with politics.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:31

Quote:

Canada is an open economy. Deal with it. There is outside investment. Does that bother you or something?

Nope, but it annoys me that you feel that profits going somewhere else should be counted as a measure of how good our economic policies are.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And what I'm saying is that if, in 196?, we'd discovered a giant untapped oil well beneath our province then we'd be rolling in dough too. It has nothing to do with politics.

You're a fool if you think it has NOTHING to do with politics.

It's a combination of resource availability and resource management.

With a government mismanaging the resources it leads to disaster.

Reminds me of the National Energy Policy actually.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nope, but it annoys me that you feel that profits going somewhere else should be counted as a measure of how good our economic policies are.

GDP doesn't measure profit.

KrazyHorse, seriously, when was the last economics course that you took?

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:34

It doesn't measure the profit as a distinct thing, but it counts it as part of production. Jesus.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:35

Yes, so again, what is your point? Call me dense but this is all really pointless to me.

Are you saying we shouldn't use GDP as a measure for economic health, because at the end of the day an American may own more cash as a result of our success?

Are you saying Alberta isn't actually a healthy economy because Americans own a lot of the assets here?

Are you saying that Canada should invade the US and call it New Canada?

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:37

Sigh. It's too late at night for this, and you're too Albertan.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:37

And you edit far too often for your own good.

David James · June 3, 2002, 01:38

Anyway guys, wasn't this supposed to be about the big Chretien-Martin dust-up?

Now that Chretien has done in Martin, the votes of all those Ontarians who voted for the Liberals only because Paul Martin was finance minister are now up in the air. Combine that with someone like Harper who knows what he's talking about economically and all those in Ontario who already voted CA and you might be surprised at the results of the next election - definitely more than 2 seats. And that doesn't even take into account the effect of all this Liberal sludge and pork we're now seeing coming out of the woodwork.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:38

I understand that Americans profit from Canada. That's not the point though.

Canada's GDP measures the market value of all products/services produced in Canada (well, virtually all -- black market, etc aren't measured for obvious reasons).

For some reason you're trying to tie into this a bastardized version of GNP to differenciate between Americans and Canadians profiting from it.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by David James
Anyway guys, wasn't this supposed to be about the big Chretien-Martin dust-up?

Now that Chretien has done in Martin, the votes of all those Ontarians who voted for the Liberals only because Paul Martin was finance minister are now up in the air. Combine that with someone like Harper who knows what he's talking about economically and all those in Ontario who already voted CA and you might be surprised at the results of the next election - definitely more than 2 seats. And that doesn't even take into account the effect of all this Liberal sludge and pork we're now seeing coming out of the woodwork.

Well said.

DinoDoc · June 3, 2002, 01:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Are you saying that Canada should invade the US and call it New Canada?

If you tried that, it would give us the perfect excuse to settle old scores by burning Ottawa and Quebec City to the ground.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:49

Yankee go home!

DinoDoc · June 3, 2002, 01:55

You'll be thinking that when American tanks are rolling down the streets of Canada's major cities.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:56

Please save us.

RedFred · June 3, 2002, 01:58

Er... before anyone starts attacking me, yes, I do have a degree in Economics thank-you very much.

But I'd rather get back to talking about our PM. My secret fear is that the Liberals could nominate Howdy Doody as their next leader and still win the next election. Never forget the Liberals secret weapon: Joe Clark.

Regarding some earlier comments about Harper insulting the Maritimes, I seem to remember a statement from Chretien regarding his dislike for working with Westerners.

My feeling is that Harper has a lot more substance to him than Day but it may not help him much. Canada's population is most dense in Ontario. (No, Asher I know what you are thinking and that isn't what I mean!) Ontario voters are much more reluctant to change their traditional voting patterns than the West or Quebec. Many or most Ontario voters will want to elect Libs, Cons or NDP members for at least another election or two.

Libs have had some success in Western Canada, for two main reasons: Paul Martin and new Canadians. The only ridings they hold out here are the urban centres richest in recent immigrants. Like it or not, it is a fact that the Liberals consistently get the vote from new Canadians. It is always a source of deep humiliation for me that I live in Hedy Fry's riding.