I've been in Edmonton for going on a month straight now, and a topic of conversation that has come up a couple times in lunch/dinner conversation is the entire issue of "socialism" in America.
One thing we could not really figure out though, is given the presumed stark difference between the Canadian Social-Welfare state, and the US Capitalist State...what is actually different in an actual practical sense?
The biggy, of course, is state funded health care. And that is a VERY big difference.
But other than that...what is actually different in any meaningful sense?
None of us could really come up with anything that is really fundamental to the US - I mean some parts of the US might have terrible public schools, but other parts of the US have excellent, well funded schools. So that to me is just a difference based on the size - the US is ten times larges, so has a lot more spread.
But can anyone tell me what about Canada makes them more socialist than the US, outside of healthcare?
Maybe the US should have a lot more low-fat spread. Just a thought.
Healthcare.
Tone.
Hysteria.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2014, 05:42:24 AM
Healthcare.
Tone.
Hysteria.
This could be a new three point lifestyle plan for the metropolitan chattering classes.
It certainly describes my thoughts and feelings in the gym.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2014, 05:25:44 AM
None of us could really come up with anything that is really fundamental to the US - I mean some parts of the US might have terrible public schools, but other parts of the US have excellent, well funded schools. So that to me is just a difference based on the size - the US is ten times larges, so has a lot more spread.
But can anyone tell me what about Canada makes them more socialist than the US, outside of healthcare?
That's a very good question. I like your theory of spread tho.
Do take account that you are in the most un-socialist of Canadian provinces.
I'll tell you what we have and we can go from there. Most of this are Provincial spheres and will vary provinces to provinces. Some are Federal, like Health care.
~50 weeks Maternity leave, in Quebec it's paid at 70/55 or 75% of original salary. I understand it's different in other Provinces.
~5/3 weeks Paternity leave, same rates as the Mothers.
Employment Insurance from Fed Government
State founded Post-High School education. University Tuitions for inprovince students here is 1800$ a session. The government offers loan (no interest for quite a while, no need to repay until done with school) and scholarships. You usually get a mix of the 2.
Private schools do exist but most of them are also subsidize by the Provincial government. I don't know for whose benefits tho. I figure the schools.
Both the federal & provincial gov will give you subsidies for Childcare. 1200$/year from Feds(that is taxable) Plus another amount based on family income(non taxable) per children. Quebec has one per children (non taxable)
State funded Childcare services. 7$/day None funded services do exist. Their are subsidies available for those too. Depending on income, will get cost to about 10$/day. The Federal government also offers a tax break on those. Personally it gets my costs to about 5.5$/day per child.
Investissement Quebec, is an arm of the Quebec government that help funds companies. A kind of Venture Capital but Government own.
Hydro-Quebec, sole producer, one of only 2 distributor of Électricity in Quebec. Quebec Rates are regulated by an independent board(not doing a good job at it). HQ is a crown corp.
There probably is more not related to families, can't recall them.
Quote~50 weeks Maternity leave,
:bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2014, 07:07:47 AM
It certainly describes my thoughts and feelings in the gym.
:lol: Perfect joke on the half volley. I hereby award you the second Turtleship Point ever.
On topic: more subsidized higher education.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2014, 07:29:25 AM
Quote~50 weeks Maternity leave,
:bleeding:
Why do 50 when you can do: 100.
Do 1000. The place of a woman is in the home.
There is nothing "fundamental", it is just a matter of emphasis. Canadians (in general) want somewhat more services from their government, and accept somewhat more in the way of government restrictions and interference in return. Particularly in matters of healthcare, education and the like.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2014, 07:07:47 AM
It certainly describes my thoughts and feelings in the gym.
:lol:
Also 15-25 days of paid vacation required by law in Canada vs. 0 in the U.S.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2014, 11:14:41 AM
Also 15-25 days of paid vacation required by law in Canada vs. 0 in the U.S.
I thought paid-vacation-type laws would be provincial, not national.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2014, 11:20:44 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2014, 11:14:41 AM
Also 15-25 days of paid vacation required by law in Canada vs. 0 in the U.S.
I thought paid-vacation-type laws would be provincial, not national.
In reality, we have both.
Some workplaces are Federal, like Banks. Others are provincial.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2014, 11:20:44 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2014, 11:14:41 AM
Also 15-25 days of paid vacation required by law in Canada vs. 0 in the U.S.
I thought paid-vacation-type laws would be provincial, not national.
They are, which is why it varies between 15 and 25 days. There's no statutory requirement for paid vacation anywhere in the US, though.
Education. Though it's not free (as it should be), post secondary education is far cheaper in Canada.
GF touched upon a lot of labour stuff, unemployment insurance, paid maternity leave, paid vacation, etc, which are pretty important.
Does the US have anything similar to the Canada Pension Plan?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2014, 11:25:29 AM
They are, which is why it varies between 15 and 25 days. There's no statutory requirement for paid vacation anywhere in the US, though.
So the difference is that the US doesn't have a national policy requiring paid vacation, and Canada does. The number of days is actually not relevant and varies anyways.
Quote from: Josephus on May 08, 2014, 11:39:37 AM
Does the US have anything similar to the Canada Pension Plan?
Yes. It is referred to as Social Security in the US.
Berk, the problem is the term "socialism" really doesn't apply to either country. Nobody in Ottawa or Washington believes in state ownership over the means of production - not even the NDP.
What is practiced in Canada and the US is a form of social democracy. The perceived difference between the countries is I think more imagined than real, but it does have some historical basis. If you go back to the 60s-70s and Trudeau, you did have the state much more involved in the economy then you see now. We had a state-owned railroad (CN Rail), a state-owned airline (Air Canada), and a state-owned oil company (PetroCanada).
Beyond direct government ownership, the Canadian government was much more involved in the economy in a number of other means - the National Energy Program of course, which mandated that oil producers sell their oil within Canada at below-market rates is a notorious example. But there was also the Wheat Board, which mandated that western wheat farmers sell their wheat to a single agency, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency which attempted to restrict foreign takeovers of Canadian companies.
But that is all history now.
If you want to compare the US and Canada now, there are areas where one government is more involved than the other of course. I was reminded of your surprise that you couldn't buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store - our liquor sales regime is much stricter than in the US. But of course, you can buy at age 18.
Berkut, one of the reasons the people you are with are having trouble coming up with the differences is, as already stated, you sitting in the region of Canada that is most like the US in mentality.
The other problem is the premise of your question as it relates to "socialism". Both countries have capitalist economic systems. Neither is Socialist.
But that aside, off the top of my head, here are some signficant differences between our two countries as related to social policy writ large:
1) labour laws - there is no such thing as at will employment in this country which means that all employees are entitled to severance payments for termination without cause and which are far more generous than in non at will States. Our laws protecting the rights of unions to bargain collectively are much stronger (including our laws regarding strikes). Our minimum employment standards are much more generous (everything from vaction pay, maternity leave, overtime pay, etc etc etc.).
2) Our medical system. You only mention one aspect which is significantly different and that is it is government funded. But that isnt the big difference. Your system is largely governement funded too. In fact your government spends more per capita then we do. There are a number of differences between our system which come down to the Tone Sheilbh mentioned. We have no concern about having a single payor health care system because most Canadians fundamentally believe that all Canadians should have the same basic level of health care and we are prepared to pay the taxes required to fund such a system. In US our system is condemned as "socialized medicine". That may be all you have to know about what separates our two countries in terms of mentality and "tone".
But there is more to it than that. Our governments (Provincial and Federal) actively cooperate with the medical profession to train doctors, nurses and technicians in programs that are highly subsidized from the time the student begins the undergraduate degree, on to medical school and through to the completion of resident training. As a result our doctors, nurses and technicians graduate with significantly less debt burden.
3) Regulatory laws. Again this is a matter of tone. Our finincial sector is more heavily regulated than yours. Part of this difference is historical. In Canada we have historically had few banks while in the US I am not sure anyone kept an accurate count. The practical result is that when our Federal government introduces new regulations to this sector we dont have a fire storm of "omg socialism!" in response. There is some debate whether our regulatory controls allowed us to avoid the mess the US went through. I think there is some merit to the argument.
4) Our Parliamentary form of government is designed to actually get things done. The US form of government is designed to prevent the executive from doing as it wishes. In our country if the Prime Minister thinks there should be stronger gun laws we get stronger gun laws. And by the way we would never think we dont need strong gun laws. In the US when the President says the country needs stronger gun laws nothing happens. A lot of people in the US like it that the government can't do what it wants. That is perhaps the other major difference.
I am sure the list could get a lot longer if I spent more time but that is it for now.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2014, 11:56:35 AM
Berk, the problem is the term "socialism" really doesn't apply to either country. Nobody in Ottawa or Washington believes in state ownership over the means of production - not even the NDP.
What is practiced in Canada and the US is a form of social democracy. The perceived difference between the countries is I think more imagined than real, but it does have some historical basis. If you go back to the 60s-70s and Trudeau, you did have the state much more involved in the economy then you see now. We had a state-owned railroad (CN Rail), a state-owned airline (Air Canada), and a state-owned oil company (PetroCanada).
Beyond direct government ownership, the Canadian government was much more involved in the economy in a number of other means - the National Energy Program of course, which mandated that oil producers sell their oil within Canada at below-market rates is a notorious example. But there was also the Wheat Board, which mandated that western wheat farmers sell their wheat to a single agency, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency which attempted to restrict foreign takeovers of Canadian companies.
But that is all history now.
If you want to compare the US and Canada now, there are areas where one government is more involved than the other of course. I was reminded of your surprise that you couldn't buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store - our liquor sales regime is much stricter than in the US. But of course, you can buy at age 18.
I think that you have hit a very important nail here. The two countries are, in many ways, very similar. Their differences have allowed each to experiment with policies that the other wouldn't touch, but the similarities make the lessons of those experiments valuable across the border. That, to me, is the real virtue of having such neighbors.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2014, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2014, 11:25:29 AM
They are, which is why it varies between 15 and 25 days. There's no statutory requirement for paid vacation anywhere in the US, though.
So the difference is that the US doesn't have a national policy requiring paid vacation, and Canada does. The number of days is actually not relevant and varies anyways.
Just saying that one country has such a policy and the other doesn't is less illustrative than using numbers.
I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure. Is this correct?
Yeah, I agree that the term "socialism" is somewhat misleading in that it is mostly used as a nebulous short-hand for a number or interrelated concepts which have varied across time and place.
That caveat out of the way...
One area where the US is more socialist than Canada in my view is in the involvement of the state in the defence industry. There is much more of it, and the government is much more directly involved as I understand it. The reasons for this is pretty obvious, given the US position in global politics compared to Canada's.
What others have said about healthcare and general legislative climate towards worker rights and protections seem accurate to me. I think in general there is a bit more support on parental and childcare issues, though it varies from province to province and from state to state; but as a trend I think Canada is a bit more generous.
We do have a number of Crown Corporations which could be viewed as somewhat "socialist" in spite of being notionally derived from "monarch". They are non-profit institutions focused on providing some sort of perceived public good, owned by the state but operating at arms length from the government. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the CBC) is probably the most well known, but there's a whole list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada
I expect that some of those functions are similarly served by semi-autonomous government agencies in the US, so I can't say with confidence that the Crown Corporations make Canada more socialist; but there may be some differences beyond the existence of the CBC.
I think on education, Canada is basically equivalent to the various US state based university systems, lacking a tier of private and expensive at the top end of the prestige rankings making the system seem more egalitarian and socialized as well.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure. Is this correct?
It does seem that way to me.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure. Is this correct?
No. Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example. Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! :D
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2014, 12:50:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure. Is this correct?
No. Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example. Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! :D
Really? Are highways provincial or federal? Because the highways I've driven in BC have been great.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 12:58:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2014, 12:50:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure. Is this correct?
No. Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example. Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! :D
Really? Are highways provincial or federal? Because the highways I've driven in BC have been great.
Highways are provincial, though the Feds fund the #1 to a certain extent.
And that's probably the difference. The US Interstates are federally funded and regulated, which means they have a very good network of highways. We just leave every jurisdiction to its own.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2014, 12:50:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure. Is this correct?
No. Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example. Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! :D
I think that is a function of where you have lived most of your life. Highways in BC are far superior to those in Washington State. Its a relief when you cross the border as the road surface improves significantly. The best highways are in the maritimes where buying votes is a venerable tradition.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:44:40 AM
Do 1000. The place of a woman is in the home.
:yes:
So while there are some differences of course, it really does seem like they are differences of degree, and not that much at all.
I remain convinced that both the US and Canada are pretty much the same in the broad strokes - they are both market capitalist economies on a social welfare state, with the primary differences simply being around the margins largely, and mostly in perception.
The biggest difference that I can tell is that Canada is not afraid of simply calling it like it is, while the US pretends like we are not really doing socialist-like things, but actually do in fact do those very things.
A good example is the mentioned state subsidizing of higher education. Canadians are quite proud of this, and Americans we do the exact same thing, but call it "loans" and "grants" and such, even while both the states and the federal government in many cases provide direct funding to public universities. There is no difference - if you want to go to most state schools in the US, you can do so at very reasonable rates, I suspect largely similar in the end to what a student pays in Canada for a public education.
On a scale of 1-10, Canada might be a 6.5 on the "How welfare state are you" and the US is a 6, but we pretend like we are a 4.
That seems pretty accurate to me Berkut.
Just checked the "Economic Freedom Index" over at Heritage (yeah, I know), and Canada and the US have extremely similar tax burden and public spending as % of GNP figures.
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables
I'll also say that the same applies to US and Western Europe - the differences are just of degree, but I was shocked when I lived in the US to find so many people thinking we didn't have fundamentally the same economic system.
There are three big socialist policies, imho:
- Government-sponsored health care
- Government-sponsored pensions/social security
- Government-sponsored education
The US has all three, even if not to the level of other western nations. Other stuff like unemployment insurance, public transportation, poverty relief... the US has it too.
As Berkut says, it's just a difference of degree, and not that huge a degree when you start thinking about it.
Quote from: celedhring on May 09, 2014, 04:21:52 AM
Just checked the "Economic Freedom Index" over at Heritage (yeah, I know), and Canada and the US have extremely similar tax burden and public spending as % of GNP figures.
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables
I'll also say that the same applies to US and Western Europe - the differences are just of degree, but I was shocked when I lived in the US to find so many people thinking we didn't have fundamentally the same economic system.
There are three big socialist policies, imho:
- Government-sponsored health care
- Government-sponsored pensions/social security
- Government-sponsored education
The US has all three, even if not to the level of other western nations. Other stuff like unemployment insurance, public transportation, poverty relief... the US has it too.
As Berkut says, it's just a difference of degree, and not that huge a degree when you start thinking about it.
Thanks Obama.
or, you know, Nixon.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2014, 05:25:44 AM
But can anyone tell me what about Canada makes them more socialist than the US, outside of healthcare?
Americans are more individualistic, taking care of their own affairs, there's a general feeling that everything is your responsibility, from health care to justice, hence the lax gun control laws and the high crime rate.
In Canada, there's a general feeling that government or collectivity should take care of things, even from the right wing Conservative party (closer to the Democrat's ideas of government than the Tea Party) instead of the individual. Hence, the state funded healthcare, the youth programs past&present (Katimavik, being an example), and the relative strenght of Canadian law enforcements agencies compared to the multitude of segmented US law enforcement agencies.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2014, 09:49:12 PM
A good example is the mentioned state subsidizing of higher education. Canadians are quite proud of this, and Americans we do the exact same thing, but call it "loans" and "grants" and such, even while both the states and the federal government in many cases provide direct funding to public universities. There is no difference - if you want to go to most state schools in the US, you can do so at very reasonable rates, I suspect largely similar in the end to what a student pays in Canada for a public education.
Tuition rates are more equalized than in the US, in any given province, you'd pay about the same for tuition fees, instead of having a 'free' state funded university in Massachussetts and Harvard at 30 000$ per term. Although there are of course some exceptions, but generally very limited in scope (say, one specific MBA program in one university would be 20k$ while all other programes would be 1700$).
I believe all provinces also have student loans and grants, on top of government financing (both Federal and Provincial funding).
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2014, 11:51:56 AM
So the difference is that the US doesn't have a national policy requiring paid vacation, and Canada does. The number of days is actually not relevant and varies anyways.
It's provincial responsibility, not federal. Each province have their own labour code. The only thing Federal is the requirement to at least pay union fees when there is a union present in your workplace (joining the union is your choice, but paying your union dues is mandatory wether you join or not).
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
The only thing Federal is the requirement to at least pay union fees when there is a union present in your workplace (joining the union is your choice, but paying your union dues is mandatory wether you join or not).
:bleeding: How the fuck is this legal?
Would you prefer free-riding?
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
The only thing Federal is the requirement to at least pay union fees when there is a union present in your workplace (joining the union is your choice, but paying your union dues is mandatory wether you join or not).
:bleeding: How the fuck is this legal?
Because Lobby.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
The only thing Federal is the requirement to at least pay union fees when there is a union present in your workplace (joining the union is your choice, but paying your union dues is mandatory wether you join or not).
:bleeding: How the fuck is this legal?
A judge decided it a long time ago, so it's legal.
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:49:19 AM
Tuition rates are more equalized than in the US, in any given province, you'd pay about the same for tuition fees, instead of having a 'free' state funded university in Massachussetts and Harvard at 30 000$ per term. Although there are of course some exceptions, but generally very limited in scope (say, one specific MBA program in one university would be 20k$ while all other programes would be 1700$).
Harvard is a private university. No public university in the US charges $30,000 per term, even for out-of-state tuition (though some charge half that). I don't think that there is even a private school that charges so much.
How much is it for Harvard?
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
The only thing Federal is the requirement to at least pay union fees when there is a union present in your workplace (joining the union is your choice, but paying your union dues is mandatory wether you join or not).
:bleeding: How the fuck is this legal?
You only pay the administrative portion of the union fees. This gives you the benefits of enjoying the union's negotiates wages and benefits, but you don't get to vote in union elections.
It is legal because that's the law... the same way most legal stuff is legal.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 10:35:02 AM
How much is it for Harvard?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition)
:hmm:
Stanford looks to have only gone up like $15k a year since I went. :wacko:
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 10:39:59 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
The only thing Federal is the requirement to at least pay union fees when there is a union present in your workplace (joining the union is your choice, but paying your union dues is mandatory wether you join or not).
:bleeding: How the fuck is this legal?
You only pay the administrative portion of the union fees. This gives you the benefits of enjoying the union's negotiates wages and benefits, but you don't get to vote in union elections.
Why would you let the union negotiate for you?
Quote
It is legal because that's the law... the same way most legal stuff is legal.
I don't know what I'd do without you.
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 10:42:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 10:35:02 AM
How much is it for Harvard?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition)
38k, so both, you and Viper are correct.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 12:43:30 PM
I think Canada is a bit more generous.
This is an bit of phrasing, as if forcing someone else to pay more to a worker than they would otherwise is a function of your generosity.
I might have asked this before, but does Canada hand out any walking around money just for being poor?
In the US we have unemployment insurance, which you must have worked previously to qualify for, and TANF, which AFAICT is impossible to qualify for and gives you nothing. Then there's food stamps and Section 8 housing, but those don't give you walking around money.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 10:55:13 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 10:42:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 10:35:02 AM
How much is it for Harvard?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition)
38k, so both, you and Viper are correct.
That's for a year, not a term.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 11:14:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 10:55:13 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 10:42:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 10:35:02 AM
How much is it for Harvard?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harvard+tuition)
38k, so both, you and Viper are correct.
That's for a year, not a term.
:hmm:
Term would usually mean a semester (half a year) or a trimester (a third of a year).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2014, 11:12:08 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 12:43:30 PM
I think Canada is a bit more generous.
I might have asked this before, but does Canada hand out any walking around money just for being poor?
Yes, provinces handle last resort aid.
Base amount is 604$/month in Quebec for 1 adult.
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 10:32:52 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 08:49:19 AM
Tuition rates are more equalized than in the US, in any given province, you'd pay about the same for tuition fees, instead of having a 'free' state funded university in Massachussetts and Harvard at 30 000$ per term. Although there are of course some exceptions, but generally very limited in scope (say, one specific MBA program in one university would be 20k$ while all other programes would be 1700$).
Harvard is a private university. No public university in the US charges $30,000 per term, even for out-of-state tuition (though some charge half that). I don't think that there is even a private school that charges so much.
But there's no such thing as "private university" in Canada, afaik. All universities receive government funding.
There are private technical colleges though.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 11:22:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2014, 11:12:08 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 12:43:30 PM
I think Canada is a bit more generous.
I might have asked this before, but does Canada hand out any walking around money just for being poor?
Yes, provinces handle last resort aid.
Base amount is 604$/month in Quebec for 1 adult.
+free taxi +free dentist +free optometrist + lots of free stuff.
Free taxi?
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 11:30:46 AM
But there's no such thing as "private university" in Canada, afaik. All universities receive government funding.
There are private technical colleges though.
Define "receive government funding". Nearly every reputable university in the US receives Federal grant money, either for specific programs and research or Pell grants for individual students.
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2014, 11:22:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2014, 11:12:08 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 12:43:30 PM
I think Canada is a bit more generous.
I might have asked this before, but does Canada hand out any walking around money just for being poor?
Yes, provinces handle last resort aid.
Base amount is 604$/month in Quebec for 1 adult.
+free taxi +free dentist +free optometrist + lots of free stuff.
+ not having more than 2k in assets, +monthly reviews
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 09, 2014, 11:46:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 11:30:46 AM
But there's no such thing as "private university" in Canada, afaik. All universities receive government funding.
There are private technical colleges though.
Define "receive government funding". Nearly every reputable university in the US receives Federal grant money, either for specific programs and research or Pell grants for individual students.
Once again, this's a provincial matter.
Quebec gives almost 5 billions a year to fund our Universities. That amount is mostly based on region & absolute number of students. UdM, our biggest single University gets ~1 billion.*
Figures are from here : http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/contenu/documents_soutien/Ens_Sup/Universite/PersUniv/ReglesBudgControlesFinan/CalculsDefinitifsSubventionsFonctUniv2012-2013.pdf In French only, because we're assholes.
So basically, no private University akin to Harvard or the likes.
@Viper I understand this right, right? Subvention général et subvention de fonctionnement sont distincte?
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 10:47:55 AM
Why would you let the union negotiate for you?
Because you want the job. If you don't want the job, you don't have to pay the dues.
I'm not sure what the argument is that is being supported by bringing up the fact that Canada lacks private universities. I would assume that Canada lacks private universities because the market for private universities is met by the US supply of private universities. I don't think that Canada's lack of private universities and colleges and the US's possession of them is because of a significant difference in views on socialism.
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 10:47:55 AM
Why would you let the union negotiate for you?
Because you want the job. If you don't want the job, you don't have to pay the dues.
That's completely retarded. North America truly is a Socialist hellhole.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2014, 10:47:55 AM
Why would you let the union negotiate for you?
Because you want the job. If you don't want the job, you don't have to pay the dues.
That's completely retarded. -> North America truly is a Socialist hellhole.
FYP
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2014, 12:54:07 PM
I'm not sure what the argument is that is being supported by bringing up the fact that Canada lacks private universities. I would assume that Canada lacks private universities because the market for private universities is met by the US supply of private universities. I don't think that Canada's lack of private universities and colleges and the US's possession of them is because of a significant difference in views on socialism.
:hmm:
Yes.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 09, 2014, 11:46:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 11:30:46 AM
But there's no such thing as "private university" in Canada, afaik. All universities receive government funding.
There are private technical colleges though.
Define "receive government funding". Nearly every reputable university in the US receives Federal grant money, either for specific programs and research or Pell grants for individual students.
And that is exactly what I meant by using that as an example.
We don't generally just do something like "Hey, the government should fund <whatever> directly!". Instead, we claim to be anti-socialist, no government intervention while the feds funnel massive dollars into programs via a thousand other avenues that amount to largely the same thing...absent any actual efficiency, since we are desperately trying to pretend we aren't subsidizing anything.
We have Canada level practical government spending on social programs, but do it badly since we don't want to admit it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2014, 02:22:23 PM
And that is exactly what I meant by using that as an example.
We don't generally just do something like "Hey, the government should fund <whatever> directly!". Instead, we claim to be anti-socialist, no government intervention while the feds funnel massive dollars into programs via a thousand other avenues that amount to largely the same thing...absent any actual efficiency, since we are desperately trying to pretend we aren't subsidizing anything.
I think you are doing it wrong.
I thought the Conservative attack was that we need to roll back spending - not that we don't do it. :hmm:
I agree that Socialism is poor word here. I think what is really being described is "Social Democracy". I am not a socialist, though I do believe in social democratic measures to a capitalistic economy.
Splitter!
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2014, 02:22:23 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 09, 2014, 11:46:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2014, 11:30:46 AM
But there's no such thing as "private university" in Canada, afaik. All universities receive government funding.
There are private technical colleges though.
Define "receive government funding". Nearly every reputable university in the US receives Federal grant money, either for specific programs and research or Pell grants for individual students.
And that is exactly what I meant by using that as an example.
We don't generally just do something like "Hey, the government should fund <whatever> directly!". Instead, we claim to be anti-socialist, no government intervention while the feds funnel massive dollars into programs via a thousand other avenues that amount to largely the same thing...absent any actual efficiency, since we are desperately trying to pretend we aren't subsidizing anything.
We have Canada level practical government spending on social programs, but do it badly since we don't want to admit it.
Agreed. That is probably pretty much what medicare/medicaid (and whatever else there is) amount to, and is probably not as effective as the Canadian system in terms of either cost control or medical coverage.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 02:27:49 PM
I thought the Conservative attack was that we need to roll back spending - not that we don't do it. :hmm:
I'm not sure if that was directed at Berkut, but if it was it doesn't really fit--he's not a conservative.
But I am, and speaking as a conservative, yeah, I'm not going to complain about us not spending money.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2014, 08:03:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 02:27:49 PM
I thought the Conservative attack was that we need to roll back spending - not that we don't do it. :hmm:
I'm not sure if that was directed at Berkut, but if it was it doesn't really fit--he's not a conservative.
But I am, and speaking as a conservative, yeah, I'm not going to complain about us not spending money.
Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 08:11:03 PM
Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.
There's two different attacks. One is that we need to roll back spending, the other is that "we can't do it like Canada/UK/Europe does it, that's socialism!" I think the second is the one that Berkut is talking about.
Quote from: frunk on May 09, 2014, 08:30:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 08:11:03 PM
Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.
There's two different attacks. One is that we need to roll back spending, the other is that "we can't do it like Canada/UK/Europe does it, that's socialism!" I think the second is the one that Berkut is talking about.
But again I don't think that stems from a lack of awareness that money is being spent.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 08:38:45 PM
Quote from: frunk on May 09, 2014, 08:30:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 08:11:03 PM
Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.
There's two different attacks. One is that we need to roll back spending, the other is that "we can't do it like Canada/UK/Europe does it, that's socialism!" I think the second is the one that Berkut is talking about.
But again I don't think that stems from a lack of awareness that money is being spent.
I think most voters* in this country, no matter how much they claim to care, are completely clueless** regarding the vast majority of the issues they claim to care about, especially when it comes to national financial matters.
I think there are a very large number of voters who would do all sorts of borderline unethical things to get government money to send their kid to school based on the current system, but would freak out if that exact amount of money was given directly to the school from the government to "subsidize" tuition costs.
*I assume you realize that this board is very unrepresentative of the general population.
**A very close split between those that are truly clueless and those that refuse to see things based on ideology.
Quote from: sbr on May 09, 2014, 11:39:16 PM
I think there are a very large number of voters who would do all sorts of borderline unethical things to get government money to send their kid to school based on the current system, but would freak out if that exact amount of money was given directly to the school from the government to "subsidize" tuition costs.
That's just looking out for Number One, though, and doesn't really have anything to do with ideology.
But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.
Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money.
The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2014, 08:38:45 PM
But again I don't think that stems from a lack of awareness that money is being spent.
I'm not so sure. At the least it's a lack of awareness that our supposed non-socialist system is spending significantly more than those it is being compared against and/or there's a presumption that it is well spent because it is for some reason not categorized as socialist.
Quote from: sbr on May 10, 2014, 01:25:24 AM
But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.
Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money.
The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1
Really? You honestly believe that the American public is unaware that governments in the US directly fund schools?
I think that this entire line of argument is completely ideologically-driven, and silly. One could make the argument that third parties make government spending on health care less efficient than it could be, but to extend that to include all government spending, including education, infrastructure, defense, social security, etc is completely unwarranted.
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2014, 08:15:35 AM
Quote from: sbr on May 10, 2014, 01:25:24 AM
But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.
Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money.
The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1
Really? You honestly believe that the American public is unaware that governments in the US directly fund schools?
I think that this entire line of argument is completely ideologically-driven, and silly. One could make the argument that third parties make government spending on health care less efficient than it could be, but to extend that to include all government spending, including education, infrastructure, defense, social security, etc is completely unwarranted.
:yes:
Our friends in Quebec have made a few factual blunders.
There are private universities in Canada. They are not well known for two reasons. First, as Grumbler suggested, the main market demand for private universities in North American is filled by the Universities in the US. Second, the endowments for the Canadian private universities are dwarved by those in the US - which leads again to the point Grumbler made.
Funding of Universities in Canada is not exclusively done by the Province. Operational funding is partly provided by the provinces. The rest is made up by tuition fees, donations and endowments. Where our friends in Quebec went badly off track is that, much like the US, a lot of direct research funding comes from the Federal government.
a more minor point is that Viper got the Federal/Provincial jurisdiction regarding unions wrong. All Federal Undertakings are governed by Federal labour laws and all the rest - ie everything regulated under Provincial authority, are governed under Provincial labour law. Therefore he was wrong that there was a Federal law governing who must pay what to unions. Where I think he got confused is that both the Feds and Provinces have adopted the same rule within their own jurisdictions. But there is nothing preventing any Province from adopting another rule within their jurisdiction.
Quote from: sbr on May 10, 2014, 01:25:24 AM
But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.
Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money.
The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1
On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately. As for the bang for the buck argument, I am not sure about that. The quality of university education in the US is excellent.
There is an issue regarding cost. But I think that is a different issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately. As for the bang for the buck argument, I am not sure about that. The quality of university education in the US is excellent.
There is an issue regarding cost. But I think that is a different issue.
A quick-and-dirty survey says that the top-end (i.e. in the top 100) public universities in the US charge and spend about $17,000 per year per undergrad student, exclusive of course of room and board and books. I'd be interested to see what the equivalent is for Canadian universities. I'd be willing to bet its right in the same ballpark. I don't think that there's any question that the product is very equivalent.
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2014, 10:59:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately. As for the bang for the buck argument, I am not sure about that. The quality of university education in the US is excellent.
There is an issue regarding cost. But I think that is a different issue.
A quick-and-dirty survey says that the top-end (i.e. in the top 100) public universities in the US charge and spend about $17,000 per year per undergrad student, exclusive of course of room and board and books. I'd be interested to see what the equivalent is for Canadian universities. I'd be willing to bet its right in the same ballpark. I don't think that there's any question that the product is very equivalent.
I don't know. Is McGill on par with Berkeley?
Berkeley? If you don't mind getting a hot poker inserted where hot pokers don't fit I guess it's allright.
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2014, 10:59:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately. As for the bang for the buck argument, I am not sure about that. The quality of university education in the US is excellent.
There is an issue regarding cost. But I think that is a different issue.
A quick-and-dirty survey says that the top-end (i.e. in the top 100) public universities in the US charge and spend about $17,000 per year per undergrad student, exclusive of course of room and board and books. I'd be interested to see what the equivalent is for Canadian universities. I'd be willing to bet its right in the same ballpark. I don't think that there's any question that the product is very equivalent.
Yes, the numbers related to the amount spent per student are very similar. Although costs vary by progam with some being more heavily subsidized than others, at UBC the average annual cost per student is about $23,000. The student, on average pays $5000 in tuition.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: sbr on May 10, 2014, 01:25:24 AM
But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.
Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money.
The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1
On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately. As for the bang for the buck argument, I am not sure about that. The quality of university education in the US is excellent.
There is an issue regarding cost. But I think that is a different issue.
I think that's open for debate. On the top end, of course US colleges are better than Canada's. They're better than any other country's in the world. However, the median quality is more questionable.
I am not going to sit here and listen to these unjustified attacks on Northwest Missouri State University.
Speaking of Universties my Circuits of DOOOOM final is in seven hours. May the slaughter begin!
Quote from: DGuller on May 10, 2014, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: sbr on May 10, 2014, 01:25:24 AM
But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.
Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money.
The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1
On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately. As for the bang for the buck argument, I am not sure about that. The quality of university education in the US is excellent.
There is an issue regarding cost. But I think that is a different issue.
I think that's open for debate. On the top end, of course US colleges are better than Canada's.
That is the end of the debate then. If you are to compare apples to apples you need to compare Canadian universities with their competition in the US. Canadian Universities have to compete with the top end of US universities since those are the institutions Canadians would leave Canada to attend.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2014, 11:04:52 AM
I don't know. Is McGill on par with Berkeley?
I don't know. Are those the only top-end public schools in each country? If not, what does it matter?
The equivalent of the top 100 universities in the US would be the top ten schools in Canada (in each case, roughly 1/8 the total). I'd argue that the median Canadian school on its list would be the equivalent of the median US school on its list. feel free to debate this, but outliers don't make for good evidence.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2014, 12:19:46 PM
Speaking of Universties my Circuits of DOOOOM final is in seven hours. May the slaughter begin!
In boca al lupo!
Hope it turned out okay.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 01:08:28 PM
That is the end of the debate then. If you are to compare apples to apples you need to compare Canadian universities with their competition in the US. Canadian Universities have to compete with the top end of US universities since those are the institutions Canadians would leave Canada to attend.
I don't get this point. :huh: Tertiary education is not a tournament were being at the top is the only thing that matters. How well you're educating people on average also matters a great deal, since at the end of the day, most people go to average colleges rather than top colleges.
What's good for Harvard is good for America. That's why it's a legitimate target.
Average people. Ugh.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
Average people. Ugh.
I suppose this is a hit against the top schools, you went to one and ended up strictly average.
garb graduated on the Dean's Fabulous List.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 10, 2014, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
Average people. Ugh.
I suppose this is a hit against the top schools, you went to one and ended up strictly average.
Oh, darling, you'll have to do better than that. :hug:
If you were more interesting, I would have more to work with. You are the man in the pink flannel suit.
Ghastly. I would never!
I know, that would actually be interesting.
Pink flannel seems like it'd be more of your brother's scene.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 10, 2014, 08:26:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2014, 12:19:46 PM
Speaking of Universties my Circuits of DOOOOM final is in seven hours. May the slaughter begin!
In boca al lupo!
Hope it turned out okay.
Well I answered every question and felt pretty good about it. Which probably means it was entirely wrong :P
I knew he loves to do diodes in parallel with capacitors and then make you graph the output voltage. I was ready!
Now on to Power Systems.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2014, 11:36:40 AM
Free taxi?
They used to. Nowadays, they take the ambulance, have them drop off at the hospital... in front of 3 shopping centers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 10:31:27 AM
There are private universities in Canada. They are not well known for two reasons. First, as Grumbler suggested, the main market demand for private universities in North American is filled by the Universities in the US. Second, the endowments for the Canadian private universities are dwarved by those in the US - which leads again to the point Grumbler made.
Well, my mistake then. I wasn't aware there were any such things.
Quote
Funding of Universities in Canada is not exclusively done by the Province. Operational funding is partly provided by the provinces. The rest is made up by tuition fees, donations and endowments. Where our friends in Quebec went badly off track is that, much like the US, a lot of direct research funding comes from the Federal government.
Well, technically, there are Federal transfers, Provincial fundings, then tuition fees, going from about 1700$/term to 5500$/term or so.
Quote
a more minor point is that Viper got the Federal/Provincial jurisdiction regarding unions wrong. All Federal Undertakings are governed by Federal labour laws and all the rest - ie everything regulated under Provincial authority, are governed under Provincial labour law. Therefore he was wrong that there was a Federal law governing who must pay what to unions. Where I think he got confused is that both the Feds and Provinces have adopted the same rule within their own jurisdictions. But there is nothing preventing any Province from adopting another rule within their jurisdiction.
Not a law, a judgement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
Even though provinces aren't technically binded by this judgement, whenever you raise the issue in court, it comes as jurisprudence and references, like this case here:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1910/index.do
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2014, 10:59:06 AM
A quick-and-dirty survey says that the top-end (i.e. in the top 100) public universities in the US charge and spend about $17,000 per year per undergrad student, exclusive of course of room and board and books. I'd be interested to see what the equivalent is for Canadian universities. I'd be willing to bet its right in the same ballpark. I don't think that there's any question that the product is very equivalent.
It varies from province to province, and I think elsewere in Canada it also varies by discipline.
After a quick check, in Quebec, tuition costs are set at 2168$, Canada on average is over 5000$ per semester. Universities may charge other smaller fees on top on that.
Anyhow, here's a graph on OCDE tuition costs:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F48%2FDroits_de_scolarit%25C3%25A9_universitaires_dans_les_pays_de_l%2527OCDE.jpg&hash=60ac413fa5e38b1d00da834300ee8d4cd5b30b31)
McGill and the HEC both have a special MBA program for people already working, for wich they charge somewhere around 20 000$ per semester, to compete with US universities and recruit highly sought teachers&researchers. But this is an exception, and it ain't for regular students.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2014, 01:25:06 AM
It varies from province to province, and I think elsewere in Canada it also varies by discipline.
After a quick check, in Quebec, tuition costs are set at 2168$, Canada on average is over 5000$ per semester. Universities may charge other smaller fees on top on that.
Anyhow, here's a graph on OCDE tuition costs:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F48%2FDroits_de_scolarit%25C3%25A9_universitaires_dans_les_pays_de_l%2527OCDE.jpg&hash=60ac413fa5e38b1d00da834300ee8d4cd5b30b31)
McGill and the HEC both have a special MBA program for people already working, for wich they charge somewhere around 20 000$ per semester, to compete with US universities and recruit highly sought teachers&researchers. But this is an exception, and it ain't for regular students.
Your figures are just tuition, though. I'm looking for tuition plus government subsidies per undergrad student, if such figures are available.
The numbers I gave were for combined tuition and government subsidies for the US schools, rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.
Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.
I find this discussion simply silly.
Only a commie would say that.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2014, 06:07:24 AM
Your figures are just tuition, though. I'm looking for tuition plus government subsidies per undergrad student, if such figures are available.
Maybe not exactly what you are looking for, but here are lots of numbers on spending on education (in chapter B, p. 162 onwards):
http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20(eng)--FINAL%2020%20June%202013.pdf
Quote from: Norgy on May 11, 2014, 07:03:49 AM
I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.
Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.
I find this discussion simply silly.
You have me confused. You say "The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism.' Okay. So the scale is based on the role of the market. You also argue that "I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning," which must mean that the market is the only mechanism they possess for distributing goods and services. But then you say that "most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism" which is to say that they can be judged on the same scale which defines socialism, but can't be judged on a scale which defines socialism. I know that's not what you meant.
if the scale is total market -> total command, with socialism being the latter, then surely degree of socialism and degree of market are just the inverse of one another on the same scale.
Quote from: DGuller on May 10, 2014, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2014, 01:08:28 PM
That is the end of the debate then. If you are to compare apples to apples you need to compare Canadian universities with their competition in the US. Canadian Universities have to compete with the top end of US universities since those are the institutions Canadians would leave Canada to attend.
I don't get this point. :huh: Tertiary education is not a tournament were being at the top is the only thing that matters. How well you're educating people on average also matters a great deal, since at the end of the day, most people go to average colleges rather than top colleges.
You right, you missed the point. We dont have "tertiary" government funded universities (well except the UofM but it hurts BB's feelings to always make that point). Therefore if you are going to compare apples to apples you need to compare our government funded universities to the top government funded universities in the US.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2014, 01:18:17 AM
Well, technically, there are Federal transfers, Provincial fundings, then tuition fees, going from about 1700$/term to 5500$/term or so.
You are only thinking about operating funds. The Federal government contributes significant funds in direct research funding. Go back and read my quote and you will see that was my point. :)
Quote
Not a law, a judgement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
Even though provinces aren't technically binded by this judgement, whenever you raise the issue in court, it comes as jurisprudence and references, like this case here:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1910/index.do
Exactly. You are talking about the Rand formula. The case arose out of an arbitration dealing with the Canada Labour Code. If the provinces had not also incorporated the Rand forumula into Provincial legislation it would only have applied to the Canada Labour Code.
But they did. That is where your confusion lies. It is not federal law intruding on the jurisdiction of the Provinces to enact their own labour laws. Everyone saw that the Rand formula made good sense and so it has been universally adopted in Canada through provincial legislation. If you go back to my original post responding to Berkut I made the point that Canada has stronger labour labours regarding union rights. The Rand formula - and its universal acceptance - is a good example of that.
On another note your characterization of Provincal rights in the area of labour law makes me wonder how much disinformation is circulated in the Province of Quebec to support the separatist cause. The feds most certainly do not dicatate to the Provinces. But I can see how it would serve the separatist cause to say it does.
Does Canada not have a community college system?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2014, 09:45:15 AM
Does Canada not have a community college system?
Yes, but we are talking about universities. Under our system colleges are not universities. Another difference with the US where the terms are interchangeable.
Again, we should compare apples to apples.
If you want to compare community colleges in our two countries go ahead.
US Community Colleges are definitely not interchangeable with Universities although you're right in the sense that "going to college" can mean "going to university" here.
Quote from: Maximus on May 11, 2014, 09:50:36 AM
US Community Colleges are definitely not interchangeable with Universities although you're right in the sense that "going to college" can mean "going to university" here.
Yes, thanks for clarifying. I didnt mean to suggest that community colleges are equivalent to State universities.
... if we are talking community colleges, we should probably compare community colleges in both countries. We have community colleges in Canada too.
And some universities have colleges attached to them, e.g., the University of Blah Blah's College of Hey What Now, like the way they have the School of Something or Other.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2014, 09:34:42 AM
You right, you missed the point. We dont have "tertiary" government funded universities (well except the UofM but it hurts BB's feelings to always make that point). Therefore if you are going to compare apples to apples you need to compare our government funded universities to the top government funded universities in the US.
You just repeated what you said last time, again without explaining why we only need to compare top universities.
Quote from: Maximus on May 11, 2014, 09:50:36 AM
US Community Colleges are definitely not interchangeable with Universities although you're right in the sense that "going to college" can mean "going to university" here.
Universities are collections of colleges (also referred to frequently as "Schools" though the latter term is, strictly speaking, for graduate studies, not undergrad). Thus, my degree is from the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts at the University of Michigan. Michigan also has an Engineering College (usually referred to as the "School of Engineering"), etc.
Community colleges are a separate thing in the US from college
per se. My understanding is that this is not the case in Canada.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2014, 10:45:00 AM
And some universities have colleges attached to them, e.g., the University of Blah Blah's College of Hey What Now, like the way they have the School of Something or Other.
And some bigger colleges could be said to have reached the size/prestige level of a "university".
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 11, 2014, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2014, 10:45:00 AM
And some universities have colleges attached to them, e.g., the University of Blah Blah's College of Hey What Now, like the way they have the School of Something or Other.
And some bigger colleges could be said to have reached the size/prestige level of a "university".
many of them are, in fact, universities (that is, they incorporate multiple colleges and grant advanced degrees). Savannah College of Art and Design is really a university.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2014, 10:45:00 AM
And some universities have colleges attached to them, e.g., the University of Blah Blah's College of Hey What Now, like the way they have the School of Something or Other.
Sounds incredibly generic.
My school's dad can beat up your school's dad.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2014, 10:51:45 AMUniversities are collections of colleges (also referred to frequently as "Schools" though the latter term is, strictly speaking, for graduate studies, not undergrad). Thus, my degree is from the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts at the University of Michigan. Michigan also has an Engineering College (usually referred to as the "School of Engineering"), etc.
Interesting.
I wonder if that's an adaptation of the collegiate system from Oxbridge? I know in the UK that still seemed to be the model even in the 19th century even though now UCL, ICL, KCL, Queens College (as it was) Belfast are nowhere near like that.
What does Faculty refer to in the US? I got my degree, for example, from the Faculty of Arts which by the sounds of it would be a College in the US.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
Interesting.
I wonder if that's an adaptation of the collegiate system from Oxbridge? I know in the UK that still seemed to be the model even in the 19th century even though now UCL, ICL, KCL, Queens College (as it was) Belfast are nowhere near like that.
What does Faculty refer to in the US? I got my degree, for example, from the Faculty of Arts which by the sounds of it would be a College in the US.
Faculty in the US refers to the teachers collectively. The faculty senate, for instance, is their elected representatives.
What you're referring to sounds like what we'd call a department.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2014, 07:37:29 PM
What you're referring to sounds like what we'd call a department.
Faculty of Arts-School of Humanities-Department of English Literature, say.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2014, 07:41:11 PM
Faculty of Arts-School of Humanities-Department of English Literature, say.
We dispensed with this type of frumpery for the most part.
I'm amazed academics would willingly abolish a chance for office politics :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
Interesting.
I wonder if that's an adaptation of the collegiate system from Oxbridge? I know in the UK that still seemed to be the model even in the 19th century even though now UCL, ICL, KCL, Queens College (as it was) Belfast are nowhere near like that.
What does Faculty refer to in the US? I got my degree, for example, from the Faculty of Arts which by the sounds of it would be a College in the US.
Faculty in the US refers to the teachers collectively. The faculty senate, for instance, is their elected representatives.
Yes, faculty refers to professors generally but it is also has other meanings.
In most universities in both the US and Canada "Faculty" refers to the department of study. For example the Faculty of Law, Faculty of medicine etc. The Senate is something which exists in bicameral universities where there is a division of function between a Board of govenors which generally has decision making power over the operation of the University and the Senate which generally have decision making authority over academic decisions. There is generally overlap. So for example, in most universities, the Board must consult with the Senate before making decisions regarding academic programs which might be offered by the university.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2014, 10:51:45 AM
Community colleges are a separate thing in the US from college per se. My understanding is that this is not the case in Canada.
I can't speak too much to American community colleges, but we have community colleges in Canada as well. Here are two in the Vancouver area:
http://www.douglascollege.ca
http://www.vcc.ca
They focus on things like high school upgrades, ESL, practical certificates (food industry training), some forms of training in health sciences, IT etc; generally the less prestigious but hands-on required training, I believe.
We used to have some other colleges which did things like nursing program, granting two-year certificates, and provide university accredited courses for students aiming to get into university; but a few years ago they got upgraded to University Colleges or something like that, and can now grant bachelor degrees. They don't, however, have graduate programs or (I believe) any research programs or fancy things like that.
http://www.langara.bc.ca
... I don't know how that compares to what you guys have in mind when you say "community college", but I think VCC and Douglas are the same thing... while Langara is roughly equivalent to a smaller (non-community) college?
As an aside, my old art school got upgraded from an "institute" to a "university" recently, and I think the main thing was the expansion of their graduate degree program.
Re: Faculty - a quick google shows that Harvard has seven faculties. The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences is the largest and has "some thirty departments and programs," as well as an endowment of $32.3 Billion as of February 2014.
(All this from Wikipedia)
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2014, 09:53:09 PM
We used to have some other colleges which did things like nursing program, granting two-year certificates, and provide university accredited courses for students aiming to get into university; but a few years ago they got upgraded to University Colleges or something like that, and can now grant bachelor degrees. They don't, however, have graduate programs or (I believe) any research programs or fancy things like that.
those are essentially still community colleges. The main thing that changed was their name - they are now known as special purpose universities.
It was political sleight of hand because the government of the day promised to increase university seats in the province. But rather than increase funding at the universities they changed the name of the community colleges and presto - more "university" seats.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2014, 10:03:39 PM
those are essentially still community colleges. The main thing that changed was their name - they are now known as special purpose universities.
To my mind, they were (and are) in a different tier than the community colleges that have "community" in their name (like VCC and Douglas). I've taken courses at UBC, Langara, and VCC and from an undergrad perspective I'd group UBC and Langara much closer to one another than Langara and VCC. Of course when it comes to professional schools and graduate programs it's a different story.
"Special purpose universities" sounds about right. Seems reasonable that they should be able to grant bachelor degrees in their signature programs where the quality is comparable to (or sometimes better) than equivalent university programs.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2014, 10:12:00 PM
"Special purpose universities" sounds about right. Seems reasonable that they should be able to grant bachelor degrees in their signature programs where the quality is comparable to (or sometimes better) than equivalent university programs.
"Special purpose universities" are different from normal universities. They do the same thing they did when they were community colleges. Their roles are mandated by statute to do things like specialized technical teaching, adult education and the like.
When the name change was proposed I argued that it would confuse people into thinking that these institutions were providing degrees equivalent to universities. It seems I was correct. ;)
Jacob, in case you are interested, here is the legislative direction of what a special purpose university does.
QuoteA special purpose, teaching university must do all of the following:
(a) in the case of a special purpose, teaching university that serves a geographic area or region of the province, provide adult basic education, career, technical, trade and academic programs leading to certificates, diplomas and baccalaureate and masters degrees, subject to and in accordance with regulations under section 71 (3) (c) (i);
(b) in the case of a special purpose, teaching university that serves the whole province, provide applied and professional programs leading to baccalaureate and masters degrees, subject to and in accordance with regulations under section 71 (3) (c) (ii);
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2014, 10:22:14 PM
When the name change was proposed I argued that it would confuse people into thinking that these institutions were providing degrees equivalent to universities. It seems I was correct. ;)
Are you saying that the Bachelor of Science (Nursing) from Langara is not equivalent to a Bachelor of Science (Nursing) from UBC?
If that's the case, that is indeed pretty confusing.
I looked it up... Langara is not a special purpose university, but a college (I was confused there; Emily Carr got upgraded not Langara). But Langara still grants bachelor degrees in certain applied sciences (like nursing).
Emily Carr is a "special purpose university". You are not suggesting that the BFA and MFA degrees they offer are of lesser worth than the ones UBC do, are you?
If people think the special purpose universities offer the same breadth of degree programs as regular universities, that would be confusing; but I think that where they offer degrees in their specialty they are equivalent to (and I've heard it argued, better than) the same degree from a regular university, so if that's what people think then they are not confused :)
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2014, 11:33:12 PM
IIf people think the special purpose universities offer the same breadth of degree programs as regular universities, that would be confusing; but I think that where they offer degrees in their specialty they are equivalent to (and I've heard it argued, better than) the same degree from a regular university, so if that's what people think then they are not confused :)
Its not just breadth. Emily Carr is a perfect example. That program is much more hands on then the more academic program at UBC or another university. One way to prove that beyond doubt - one could never obtain a PhD at a special purpose university. Why? Because they were never intended to be true universities.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes here... I'm trying to suss out if you are talking shit about Emily Carr's BFA (or indeed MFA) compared to UBC's and alleging that one is confused if one somehow thinks they are equivalent. I thought you sort of did, but I'm not sure...
There is no risk of confusing the value of Emily Carr's PhD with that of UBC's because (as you so rightly said) Emily Carr doesn't offer one; and UBC doesn't offer one in applied art either, only art history. It seems you have to leave BC if you want a PhD in someone related to making art.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2014, 09:53:09 PM
I can't speak too much to American community colleges, but we have community colleges in Canada as well. Here are two in the Vancouver area:
http://www.douglascollege.ca
http://www.vcc.ca
They focus on things like high school upgrades, ESL, practical certificates (food industry training), some forms of training in health sciences, IT etc; generally the less prestigious but hands-on required training, I believe.
We used to have some other colleges which did things like nursing program, granting two-year certificates, and provide university accredited courses for students aiming to get into university; but a few years ago they got upgraded to University Colleges or something like that, and can now grant bachelor degrees. They don't, however, have graduate programs or (I believe) any research programs or fancy things like that.
http://www.langara.bc.ca
... I don't know how that compares to what you guys have in mind when you say "community college", but I think VCC and Douglas are the same thing... while Langara is roughly equivalent to a smaller (non-community) college?
As an aside, my old art school got upgraded from an "institute" to a "university" recently, and I think the main thing was the expansion of their graduate degree program.
Community colleges in the US cannot grant bachelor's degrees (anywhere, I believe). They only grant associate's degrees. They are otherwise similar to what you describe in Canada.
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 12:03:09 AM
There is no risk of confusing the value of Emily Carr's PhD with that of UBC's because (as you so rightly said) Emily Carr doesn't offer one; and UBC doesn't offer one in applied art either, only art history. It seems you have to leave BC if you want a PhD in someone related to making art.
That is the point Jacob, Special purpose universities offer specialized applied training. Whether you want to get in a knot over that being lesser or better is up to you.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2014, 09:16:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2014, 09:53:09 PM
I can't speak too much to American community colleges, but we have community colleges in Canada as well. Here are two in the Vancouver area:
http://www.douglascollege.ca
http://www.vcc.ca
They focus on things like high school upgrades, ESL, practical certificates (food industry training), some forms of training in health sciences, IT etc; generally the less prestigious but hands-on required training, I believe.
We used to have some other colleges which did things like nursing program, granting two-year certificates, and provide university accredited courses for students aiming to get into university; but a few years ago they got upgraded to University Colleges or something like that, and can now grant bachelor degrees. They don't, however, have graduate programs or (I believe) any research programs or fancy things like that.
http://www.langara.bc.ca
... I don't know how that compares to what you guys have in mind when you say "community college", but I think VCC and Douglas are the same thing... while Langara is roughly equivalent to a smaller (non-community) college?
As an aside, my old art school got upgraded from an "institute" to a "university" recently, and I think the main thing was the expansion of their graduate degree program.
Community colleges in the US cannot grant bachelor's degrees (anywhere, I believe). They only grant associate's degrees. They are otherwise similar to what you describe in Canada.
Community colleges dont grant degrees here either. The point I made to Jacob is that converting a number of community colleges to special university status was really just political sleight of hand so the government could say they had increased the number of university seats in the Province without actually increasing the funding to universities to create those seats.
So we end up with a wierd hybrid in this Province.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 11:33:24 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 12:03:09 AM
There is no risk of confusing the value of Emily Carr's PhD with that of UBC's because (as you so rightly said) Emily Carr doesn't offer one; and UBC doesn't offer one in applied art either, only art history. It seems you have to leave BC if you want a PhD in someone related to making art.
That is the point Jacob, Special purpose universities offer specialized applied training. Whether you want to get in a knot over that being lesser or better is up to you.
No knots on that end. I think I just read too much into a throwaway line in your post. It's all good :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2014, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: Norgy on May 11, 2014, 07:03:49 AM
I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.
Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.
I find this discussion simply silly.
Not very well-worded, am I? I read my post again, and was rather confused as to what I was trying to say.
The issue I tried to some degree to address is government money in a market economy as opposed to state ownership. I don't see the former as socialism. And I don't think the education/university sector is a good example of socialism or lack thereof. Of all the things our taxes are spent on, surely education is the best one. Or at least I hope so.
You have me confused. You say "The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism.' Okay. So the scale is based on the role of the market. You also argue that "I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning," which must mean that the market is the only mechanism they possess for distributing goods and services. But then you say that "most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism" which is to say that they can be judged on the same scale which defines socialism, but can't be judged on a scale which defines socialism. I know that's not what you meant.
if the scale is total market -> total command, with socialism being the latter, then surely degree of socialism and degree of market are just the inverse of one another on the same scale.
Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2014, 11:48:48 AM
Not very well-worded, am I? I read my post again, and was rather confused as to what I was trying to say.
The issue I tried to some degree to address is government money in a market economy as opposed to state ownership. I don't see the former as socialism. And I don't think the education/university sector is a good example of socialism or lack thereof. Of all the things our taxes are spent on, surely education is the best one. Or at least I hope so.
Agreed. Even Adam Smith thought the government had a role to play in education (and many other areas), and no one thinks of him as a socialist.
Adam Smith was a follower. Anders Chydenius was the shit.
Quote from: Norgy on May 11, 2014, 07:03:49 AM
I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.
Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.
I find this discussion simply silly.
Canada has a certain amount of "socialism" in that sense - the government at various levels has large investments in "Crown corporations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada
To give an example, in Ontario if one wants to buy booze outside of a restaurant, one must* buy it from a chain of stores owned and operated directly by the province of Ontario - the so-called "LCBO" stores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario
*subject to a bunch of exceptions.
This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 11, 2014, 07:03:49 AM
I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.
Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.
I find this discussion simply silly.
Canada has a certain amount of "socialism" in that sense - the government at various levels has large investments in "Crown corporations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada
To give an example, in Ontario if one wants to buy booze outside of a restaurant, one must* buy it from a chain of stores owned and operated directly by the province of Ontario - the so-called "LCBO" stores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario
*subject to a bunch of exceptions.
This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.
Regional differences in America.
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario
*subject to a bunch of exceptions.
This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.
Not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_stores
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
To give an example, in Ontario if one wants to buy booze outside of a restaurant, one must* buy it from a chain of stores owned and operated directly by the province of Ontario - the so-called "LCBO" stores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario
*subject to a bunch of exceptions.
This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.
Malthus, I've lived in this country my entire life, and the existence of government owned and operated liquor stores in all jurisdictions save Alberta still startles and amazes me.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 03:46:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario
*subject to a bunch of exceptions.
This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.
Not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_stores
Heh, I was wrong. I had no idea some states in the US did the same thing!
Pennsylvania does. Massachusetts doesn't (GAWTA GO TO DA PACKIE STOAH) and neither does Kentucky (GOTTA GIT DOWN TO THE LICKER BARN)
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2014, 03:47:01 PM
Malthus, I've lived in this country my entire life, and the existence of government owned and operated liquor stores in all jurisdictions save Alberta still startles and amazes me.
When I was a young kid I had to go with my mom to one of West Virginia's state ABC stores on the rare occasion she was buying liquor for a recipe or gift. Even though I hadn't developed my political views yet the existence of such stores vexed me because it seemed really odd for the state of West Virginia to own a business. Plus, why would the state want to sell something to people that will make them drunk?
Quote from: Caliga on May 12, 2014, 03:58:50 PM
Pennsylvania does. Massachusetts doesn't (GAWTA GO TO DA PACKIE STOAH) and neither does Kentucky (GOTTA GIT DOWN TO THE LICKER BARN)
I don't bother buying liquor in Ohio. Always buy it in Kentucky where it's cheaper, has a better selection, and with fewer restrictions.
I havent bought liquor at a government store for years. They still exist. I just dont know why people continue to shop there.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 04:18:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2014, 03:47:01 PM
Malthus, I've lived in this country my entire life, and the existence of government owned and operated liquor stores in all jurisdictions save Alberta still startles and amazes me.
When I was a young kid I had to go with my mom to one of West Virginia's state ABC stores on the rare occasion she was buying liquor for a recipe or gift. Even though I hadn't developed my political views yet the existence of such stores vexed me because it seemed really odd for the state of West Virginia to own a business. Plus, why would the state want to sell something to people that will make them drunk?
Yeah, they've got those in NC, too. WV at least privitized their liquor stores somewhile back, IIRC.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I havent bought liquor at a government store for years. They still exist. I just dont know why people continue to shop there.
The odd thing about the LCBO stores here in Ontario is that they are usually pretty good. Not at all what I'd have expected from a government-run org.
There is one near my house, and it has a great selection.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I havent bought liquor at a government store for years. They still exist. I just dont know why people continue to shop there.
In Yukon they had quite the scam going. There was a government liquor store in each town. But of course one of those towns was Whitehorse, which had over 75% of the entire territory's population. It had very reasonable prices, but terrible hours (closed at 6).
If you wanted booze after 6 you had to go to a hotel (and only a hotel) to buy "off-sales", which were invariably ~30% more expensive. And, of course, most of the governing MLAs were in the hotel industry.
<_<
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I havent bought liquor at a government store for years. They still exist. I just dont know why people continue to shop there.
The odd thing about the LCBO stores here in Ontario is that they are usually pretty good. Not at all what I'd have expected from a government-run org.
There is one near my house, and it has a great selection.
I dont like their wine selections here. They tend to buy from bulk producers. :yucky: We have a number of private options that have very good product.
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I havent bought liquor at a government store for years. They still exist. I just dont know why people continue to shop there.
The odd thing about the LCBO stores here in Ontario is that they are usually pretty good. Not at all what I'd have expected from a government-run org.
There is one near my house, and it has a great selection.
The market doesn't always work the way you think it would work.
When they privatized liquor stores in Alberta a whole bunch of liquor stores opened up. But instead of sticking with a "one size fits all" approach like the government, the market segmented. You have lots of stores with high prices and crappy selection, but they're open till 1 or 2 am. You have some high end stores with high quality product (and expensive prices). Loblaws has opened a chain of Real Canadian Liquorstores that have cheap prices and a warehouse feel.
Washington used to have the state liquor stores too, until a few years ago. Costco lobbied hard to get the rights to sell booze in massive bulk.
Oregon is one of those states with guberment run liquor stores. They are starting relax the rules a bit, but it is still pretty crazy how draconian the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) is.