|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Apr 24, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You've totally got it wrong. Ultimately, you should be able to fully support Mr. Campbell and feel comfortable with him running the show in order to vote for his party. If you can't respect the leader, you'll have trouble doing it to their party. To a lot of people in BC, he IS the provincial liberals. 
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah it's always been that way though. People who aren't in tune, or just don't give a damn, will make quick decisions based on, juicy info.
- Gordon drinking and driving - Glen with the casino liscense thing - NDP and the fast ferries - Liberals stealing $100 million in sponorship scandal Personally I feel that if your in government in a high office (prime minister, premier etc) and you go make a name for yourself by doing something bad...you must step down IMMEDIATELY. It will show the true party supporters that, the party won't stand up for it corruption or crime...and all the those voters who vote on a personal basis, will have to find another reason to vote...maybe just maybe they will vote on the platform. - Mike, and Glen of the NDP stood down, after they went to the dark side. However this was a one, two KO for their party. - Gordon Campbell got arrested driving drunk, he never stood down...now he's mugshots are up everywhere, even on campaign signs. "Book him Dano" - Paul Martin, was finance minister during the sponsorship scandal. He must step down! This is going to ruin the Liberals more than anything...people do understand that a Finance Minister deals with money...and for him to say he didn't know anything about the $100 million...seals his fate. The people will vote against him and his party. Now if he steps down, and Liberals elect a new Federal Liberal leader...people will see that the Liberals mean business. The people voters will again be left with nothing but the platforms.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well he isn't the ENTIRE Party. He is still Human (not that I'm defending what he did or him himself just Devils Advocate as I'm more of a Conservative) and should be forgiven for one screw up. Look at the other options... Green Party? Straight lol's... NDP? Like anyone wants that to happen again... Ujjal Dosanjh? Hell even he crossed the floor to distance himself from that Party... or maybe it was to hide. Either way, he's fucked himself.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You took my point and ran off with some tangent that is not really related to my point, which was simply, the leader to the public IS the entire party.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
mapleleaf4ever: I guess it's easy to balance the books if you sell every thing thing to friends, it looks good for 1 or 2 terms but it bites you in the ass later down the road.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, before I continue i'd like to apologize for my simplification. The core CPI (consumer price index) rises 2-3% per year. This inflation measure is fairly flawed though. Any economist will tell you that. The reason for its flaw is that the central bank basically uses hedonics to make it easier for it to meet its 2-3% obligation and deny the size of the 'inflation tax'. The average core CPI may be 2-3%. But the non-core CPI might be 4-5%. The PPI higher still. Again there is more to inflation than simply the increase in money supply but it is the principal driver. Although I havn't checked recently, the money supply in Canada probably grows around 5-7% per year. This is certainly true during the late 1970s and monetary growth cycles have changed over time - some years fairly low - some years fairly high. Moreover, foreign exchange is a complicating factor clouding the money supply. ie) if Canada's economy booms, it's money supply is divided amongst more goods produced thus reducing inflation. Now: In a given year one asset may deflate while another inflates. A perfect example of this is when the economy colapses. When this occurs university tuition skyrockets (because lots of people lose their jobs and need retraining). At the same time, prices of say vacations plunge (as people can't afford them). The net effect of all the prices changed can be measured by different inflation gauges core CPI, non-core CPI, PPI, GDP deflator and money supply. So, suppose the money supply rises by 5-7% on average over a 10 year period. Assuming that the velocity of money and the GDP growth essentially cancels each other out, we are left with the following. inflation rate: 5% = (1.05)^10 = 63% = total price increase over 10 year period inflation rate: 6% = (1.06)^10 = 80% = total price increase over 10 year period inflation rate: 7% = (1.07)^10 = 97% = total price increase over 10 year period All of which are pretty close to 100%. Depending on the exact increase in monetary supply market forces surely makes up the difference. So, I maintain that in the future the tuition prices to rise much less quickly than their recent adjustments. Probably somewhere between 2-7% a year based primarily on the increase in money supply as well as other factors including supply/demand and cost inflations based on energy and the like. Quote:
It has nothing to do with the province and as far as i'm concerned Campbell was faced with a debt crisis and had to employ fiscal policies which have essentially saved British Columbia from: a) a further slide into "have not" province status b) a debt spiral which would create a greater need to increase taxes to simply pay interest on debt in the future and related to this-- c) a further increase in ROR demanded by debt holders due to increasing default risk caused by this debt. Quote:
You have to see the economy as a dimmer switch. If you increase taxes, create loads of regulations etc.., it becomes more difficult for some companies to get a ROI. If they can't get an ROI here, they will up and leave and go to Alberta. In otherwords, part of the dimmer switch has been the macro-economic environment (global interest rates and commodity prices) but part of it is better government policy towards business. Do I think Campbell deserves a gold medal? -- Certainly not! That being said: Do I think Clark should be hung for believing that wealth is created by a welfare cheque and not an employment cheque, employing policies of waste, bankrupting the province, creating a brain drain/mass exodus of talent to Alberta and the U.S. -- YES. Last edited by The_acidhouse; Apr 24, 05 at 06:09 PM.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Do any of you get it that the BC Liberals are not in any way liberal? They are neo cons advancing a privatization agenda that is right in step with the Fraser Institute's policies.
For anyone that thinks the US has such a great system than move there and enjoy it for yourself. I've spent time down in the US and would never take a tax break to live the way they do.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think the main reason why the US is unable to fund more programs is because it funds the military + a variety of secret agencies. Moreover, the US government spends more GDP per capita on healthcare than Canada. The reason why their system fails is because of tort law. If you sue Doctors everytime they sneeze you create a wealth transfer. This makes it such that the doctor has to charge more to cover insurance. So, this process does not create wealth - it impedes it. Health insurance could be alot cheaper if doctors bills were lowered (mainly due to tort reform). This reform would allow the government to fund more lower income health insurance. When it's extremely easy to sue, lawyers and insurance companies become parasitic.
|
|
Apr 24, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rent seeking activities (what lawyers, criminals etc.. do): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
Cost of war (compare the cost of iraq war with various social spending initiatives): http://www.costofwar.com
|
|
Apr 25, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The US spends more per capita than Canada on health care (in fact more than any country in the World) but that is largely due to it's unhealthy poulation. Also that money is by and large private funds. Also to clarify I have spent quite a bit of time down in the US and would be hapier any day of the week paying higher taxes and living in Canada. Last edited by Senior; Apr 25, 05 at 09:05 PM. Reason: to add more content
|
|
Apr 26, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Consider this: A recent Gallup Organization poll found that the majority of Americans recognize that there is a medical liability insurance problem and support tort reform. According to the poll: • 72% favor a limit on what patients can be awarded for pain and suffering. • 57% say patients bring too many lawsuits against doctors. • 64% say the issue of medical liability insurance is a crisis or major problem. Quote:
When the size of government rises it is clear to me that at some point the cost of the additional government becomes greater than the benefit of this additional government. The more government you have the more red tape, lobbying and programs of waste you have. It becomes clear that the answer isn't more taxation. The answer is approaching problems more efficiently. Stop pretending that government can (for example) build a 'fast ferry' faster/better/cheaper than private enterprise can. This sort of mindset is no different than that of the Soviet system which collapsed specifically because of the failure to recognize that because the scarcity of resources is a problem no matter what, you may as well design a system which is focused on efficiency. In life, the scarcity of resources, be it time or money, is a perpetual problem. In our economy, market forces are like the tides or the changing seasons. Ignoring these facts or denying them is simply an exercise in futility.
|
|
Apr 27, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good post (^) and do agree with what you're saying in some ways. However the whole attitude that private interests are always better suited to run a business just isn't true. Governments are certainly capable of mismanagement of but don't pretend that private enterprise isn't either (Bre X, Enron, Arron Mortgage and so on). In certain instances like utilities I'd like you to show me any evidence that private enterprise can deliver water or electricity better than a public utility. While there may be some good examples of how this can be done the most common experiences have been very negative (Atlanta GA, and all over the 3rd World spring to mind with water utilities). I think at the end of the day market forces and private enterprise become inefficient when a commodity is a necessity such as health care or water. If the price of bread goes up I'll eat more potato's but if the price of a heart surgery or say insulin goes up I'll just be forced to pay it. Also remember that keeping something like BC Hydro public puts millions back in our pockets. I think the hard part is finding the right balance between these two perspectives.
|
|
Apr 28, 05
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Approximate % of governments involved in waste involving millions of dollars? My guess is 100% Approximate % of businesses involved in serious corruption involving millions of dollars? My guess is under 5% Approximate % of businesses involved in waste involving millions of dollars? My guess is under 5% Do we really need to discuss this one further? Quote:
When looking at the 'water privatization' issue, there are four states of the world: a) A very poor infrastructure water system (basically no system or little system). It should be noted that part of the way to finance the construction of this system is privatization. At which point it might fall into the next three categories. b) A government owned and run utility. The natural monopoly is owned and operated by the government. c) A government regulated utility. The natural monopoly is privatized and regulated by the government. d) An unregulated utility. The natural monopoly is privatized and left unregulated by the government. Now, to properly explain my point I must shift gears since I know that many of you do not have a background in economics. A utility is what is called a natural monopoly. A monopoly is an entity (namely a company) which produces excess profits due to the fact that it can produce more for a higher price. A natural monopoly is monopoly where competition is usually impossible. For example: it is typically impossible (and inefficient) to have two dams never mind two damn companies on a single river. For this reason there must be a single monopoly called a natural monopoly. Monopolies and natural monopolies create a social inefficiency caused by the fact that these companies can charge higher prices by lowering quantity (or vice-versa). Consider what Adam Smith wrote about monopolies: This first example refers to monopoly through price collusion. Quote:
Quote:
Observe the graph below  Under perfect competition: Here we have a supply curve demonstrated by the "marginal cost" and we have a demand curve. Where these curves are equal (where they cross) you have the quantity of consumption of 90 at a price of 2. The total producer surplus is zero. The total consumer surplus is the triangle entire area under the demand curve but above the supply curve (marginal cost curve). Under monopolist: Here we have a supply curve demonstrated by the "marginal cost" and the demand curve turns into the "marginal revenue" curve. Where these curves are equal (where they cross) you have the quantity of consumption of 45 at a price of 5. In other words, the price rises and less people can afford it. The total consumer surplus is altered and is now the entire area above the price of 5 and below the demand curve. At the same time the producer surplus is square area between a price 2 and 5 on the y axis and 0 and 45 on the x axis. This producer surplus is basically a form of excess profits to the producer because it is able to "steal" consumer surplus. The result of this monopoly is an inefficiency called "deadweight loss". To understand the concept of deadweight loss, think of it as what is lost because the system is inefficient. This inefficiency is a form of market failure. The concept of market failure is when the natural functions of the market are unable to provide a socially optimal outcome. With our new found knowledge, let's review our states of the world: a) A very poor infrastructure water system (basically no system or little system). b) A government owned and run utility. The natural monopoly is owned and operated by the government. c) A government regulated utility. The natural monopoly is privatized and regulated by the government. d) An unregulated utility. The natural monopoly is privatized and left unregulated by the government. In these preceding cases, only option b or c are optimal. This is because the government interferes with the monopoly and legislates 'fair' returns. That is, it lowers the price and increases the quantity that the monopoly will create. The goal of this regulation is to reduce the size of the deadweight loss by attempting to turn the monopoly equilibrium into a perfect competition equilibrium. That being said, option c goes one step further than option b. Because option c involves a private enterprise which negotiates with the government to determine the 'fair return' it must constantly strive to reduce costs in order to maximize the very little amount of producer surplus it can. So, as I have demonstrated the theory behind privatization is ok provided that the government regulates the monopoly. Note: even in the case of normal monopolies, no respectable government would allow for non-competitive behaviour to occur without at least attempting to stop it through legal action. What is more is that economists have been advocating the reduction of monopolistic market failure since Adam Smith. So what happens in real life? In most cases governments sell natural monopolies. The secret however is regulation to reduce deadweight loss. If there is evidence that the liberal government has privatized and will play no part in regulation, this flies in the face of any economics text I’ve ever read. The only way I could see them doing this is if they have very specific economic reasons that will result in a competitive advantage in international trade and/or in the unlikely case where the utility required a great degree of new investment at which some shares might be offered extra producer surplus to mobilize capital. However, this is unlikely and typically this would be a bond (debt), not equity (ownership). So, now the ball is in your court. Prove to me that the liberals have a) privatized a monopoly b) while deregulating allowing for excess profits c) without any very specific economic justification. If you can do this, i'll spoil my ballot or vote for another party. Quote:
Each case is different. In many cases, corruption of the regulation process is what lead to high prices which were a "conspiracy against the public". That being said, I don't think health care should be privatized. However, it's clear to me that paying someone $20 an hour to wash sheets in a hospital causes someone else to have to pay more for their medical bills (in Canada's case through taxation). The process creates waste because the government is like a really leaky pipe which pours out tonnes of tax dollars since it does things so totally inefficiently. This excess wage is deceiving. While it helps a select few, the process also contributes to inflation, creates additional unemployment and prolongs recessions through a phenomenon called "wage stickiness". Quote:
Contrary to dire predictions of free-trade nay-Sayers, NAFTA hasn't resulted in Canada being owned by the United States. The shift in trade flows from surplus to deficit and back to surplus over and over with the United States is a perfect example of the tides in the economy shifting due to relative strengths. Our crown corporations are not at danger of being swallowed by evil American decepticon corp #253b. It is in fact most likely sold to shareholders which easily include numerous Canadian investors. The idea that a clear inefficiency "puts millions back in our pockets" to me is quite preposterous but I can see how it may appear not to be the case. And, although it may be true on a cellular level, it is clear that it is untrue for the overall health of the Canadian economy. Last edited by The_acidhouse; Apr 28, 05 at 05:49 AM.
|
