This ought to spark some interesting discussion. This author, publishing on the Cato Institute website, believes that Canada is now more economically to the right than the US, in spite of the common perception that Canada = socialist:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10208
Motherfucking Harper!
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2009, 12:02:03 PM
Motherfucking Harper!
Actually, looking at the data, it'd be more like 'Motherfucking Chretien/Martin'.
Then again, it's probably why Canada is so succesful these days.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2009, 12:02:03 PM
Motherfucking Harper!
Those trend lines are a bad thing? :huh:
He's cherry picking some numbers. Most notablly look at the chart for federal debt as a % of GDP. The line for Canada ends in 2008, but the US line goes to 2010.
The general note though is correct. Our finances are generally in very good shape (although I worry about what Harper's "stimulus" package that was insisted by the Libs/NDP will do).
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2009, 12:06:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2009, 12:02:03 PM
Motherfucking Harper!
Actually, looking at the data, it'd be more like 'Motherfucking Chretien/Martin'.
Then again, it's probably why Canada is so succesful these days.
run to the left, rule from the right.
if Obamarama has done his homework, I suspect the numbers will change.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 25, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2009, 12:06:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2009, 12:02:03 PM
Motherfucking Harper!
Actually, looking at the data, it'd be more like 'Motherfucking Chretien/Martin'.
Then again, it's probably why Canada is so succesful these days.
run to the left, rule from the right.
if Obamarama has done his homework, I suspect the numbers will change.
I find it unlikely that Obama thinks he needs anything other than his own divine power to run the nation.
Obama = Cartagia.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 25, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
if Obamarama has done his homework, I suspect the numbers will change.
I don't think even Obama can change the way the Canadian government governs. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 25, 2009, 01:02:51 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 25, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
if Obamarama has done his homework, I suspect the numbers will change.
I don't think even Obama can change the way the Canadian government governs. :P
Still, expenses are to some extent fixed. Obama can devastate Canadian GDP, and will no doubt try.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 25, 2009, 01:02:51 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 25, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
if Obamarama has done his homework, I suspect the numbers will change.
I don't think even Obama can change the way the Canadian government governs. :P
why not? he's already writing policy. see: Cap & Trade.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 25, 2009, 01:11:29 PM
why not? he's already writing policy. see: Cap & Trade.
Not sure what is happening there. But you have a point that Canadian politicians of all stripes are eager to keep in line with Obama wave of popularity.
Cato institute=Epic Fail.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 01:33:39 PM
Cato institute=Epic Fail.
Isn't that the very definition of an ad hom attack?
While I noticed a couple points of cherry picking data to support his thesis, it is broadly correct: Canada's finances over the last decade have been dramatically better than the US.
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 01:33:39 PM
Cato institute=Epic Fail.
Isn't that the very definition of an ad hom attack?
While I noticed a couple points of cherry picking data to support his thesis, it is broadly correct: Canada's finances over the last decade have been dramatically better than the US.
That doesn't mean Canada is more right wing.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 01:39:21 PM
That doesn't mean Canada is more right wing.
The key qualifier here is "economically". Canada is certainly to the left of the US on many social policies.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 01:39:21 PM
That doesn't mean Canada is more right wing.
The article never claims that. Beyond using the title "Great Right North" it only makes the observation that "Perhaps we have something to learn from those "socialists" to the north."
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 25, 2009, 01:27:21 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 25, 2009, 01:11:29 PM
why not? he's already writing policy. see: Cap & Trade.
Not sure what is happening there. But you have a point that Canadian politicians of all stripes are eager to keep in line with Obama wave of popularity.
that (obamamania rub offs) and trying to maintain market access. of course, some industries are more integrated than others.
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 01:39:21 PM
That doesn't mean Canada is more right wing.
The article never claims that. Beyond using the title "Great Right North" it only makes the observation that "Perhaps we have something to learn from those "socialists" to the north."
True, but only the Cato Institute still has the balls to claim that lowering deficits, cutting spending and being fiscally responsible in general has anything to do with the "right" anymore.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 25, 2009, 03:22:37 PM
True, but only the Cato Institute still has the balls to claim that lowering deficits, cutting spending and being fiscally responsible in general has anything to do with the "right" anymore.
There are probably more right-wing parties with that philosophy than left-wing ones, by far.
US political trends do not create universal truths, they are just US political trends.
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 01:46:55 PM
The article never claims that. Beyond using the title "Great Right North" it only makes the observation that "Perhaps we have something to learn from those "socialists" to the north."
Yup. Sloppy characterization Malthus.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2009, 03:25:16 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 25, 2009, 03:22:37 PM
True, but only the Cato Institute still has the balls to claim that lowering deficits, cutting spending and being fiscally responsible in general has anything to do with the "right" anymore.
There are probably more right-wing parties with that philosophy than left-wing ones, by far.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 03:46:00 PM
How did you come to this conclusion?
By following world events.
The Economist is especially helpful in this regard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 03:40:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 01:46:55 PM
The article never claims that. Beyond using the title "Great Right North" it only makes the observation that "Perhaps we have something to learn from those "socialists" to the north."
Yup. Sloppy characterization Malthus.
Excuse me? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2009, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 03:46:00 PM
How did you come to this conclusion?
By following world events. The Economist is especially helpful in this regard.
Oh. I was hoping it something to do with facts.
Quote from: Malthus on May 25, 2009, 04:33:36 PM
Excuse me? :huh:
You said the Cato Institute considers Canada more economically right than the US. That doesn't follow from this article, and I sincerely doubt you'd find anybody at Cato who would sign off on that claim.
I'm not going to touch this one.
Well, except to say, why does this surprise anyone?
Canada's been, generally, following a right-wing trend since Mulroney. The Liberal years were marked by a definite shift to the right by the Party. (Deficits =Bad; Surplus = Good).
In fact if I were going to write a thesis, I would argue that Canada's political parties are only separated by a hair's breaDth and that...oh...why bother...
Quote from: Josephus on May 25, 2009, 05:36:55 PM
Well, except to say, why does this surprise anyone?
The only part I was remotely surprised by was the smallness of the Canadian federal debt. Of course that leaves out provincial debt, which is not tiny, is it? That the US debt has increased as a result of a stimulus bill that was 1/12 of GDP and a mammoth financial bailout is not exactly a shocker.
It's common knowledge that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.
It's common knowledge that the highest tax bracket is in the same ball park as other developed countries--what that leaves out of course is that most other countries have a stupendous VAT.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:27:16 PM
It's common knowledge that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.
But one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:27:16 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 25, 2009, 05:36:55 PM
Well, except to say, why does this surprise anyone?
The only part I was remotely surprised by was the smallness of the Canadian federal debt. Of course that leaves out provincial debt, which is not tiny, is it?
I did think it was funny when the author pointed out the comparitively small size of the Canadian federal spending as compared to the US, but didn't adress that would necessarily give Canada an edge in comparing national debt.
That being said balanced budgets have been quite popular across Canada. I believe until last year almost all provinces were in surplus (pretty sure Quebec, as always, was an exception).
Quote from: ulmont on May 25, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
But one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates...
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 06:38:07 PM
That being said balanced budgets have been quite popular across Canada. I believe until last year almost all provinces were in surplus (pretty sure Quebec, as always, was an exception).
Québec has had a «zero deficit» law since 1998.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2009, 06:45:39 PM
Québec has had a «zero deficit» law since 1998.
Hijack in progess.
Americans do this thing where they hold up the index and middle finger on both hands and flap them up and down to symbolize quotation marks. Usually used to convey irony or sarcasm.
Presumably Frenchies can't do the same thing because you have different quotation marks. Do you have a different hand gesture that means the same thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:54:40 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2009, 06:45:39 PM
Québec has had a «zero deficit» law since 1998.
Hijack in progess.
Americans do this thing where they hold up the index and middle finger on both hands and flap them up and down to symbolize quotation marks. Usually used to convey irony or sarcasm.
Presumably Frenchies can't do the same thing because you have different quotation marks. Do you have a different hand gesture that means the same thing?
Damn that was random
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:27:16 PM
The only part I was remotely surprised by was the smallness of the Canadian federal debt.
Really, looking at the graph, it looks like the US started to run off course in late 2001. The current figures look worse than they are because the Canadian line stops at 2008, while the US line projects forward, to where the stimulus bill is devastating the solvency of the government. It's doubtful that the Canadian bill will be so damaging, but I'm sure there will be increases, and probably deficits.
QuoteOf course that leaves out provincial debt, which is not tiny, is it?
Well, it's tiny for some provinces. But then again, the US figues leave out debt held by the 50 states as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2009, 04:48:13 PM
Oh. I was hoping it something to do with facts.
:huh:
The Economist doesn't have "something to do with facts?" :huh:
Are you off your meds again?
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2009, 07:05:23 PM
Well, it's tiny for some provinces. But then again, the US figues leave out debt held by the 50 states as well.
The states are required by law to balance their budgets annually.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:54:40 PM
Presumably Frenchies can't do the same thing because you have different quotation marks. Do you have a different hand gesture that means the same thing?
Do the same gesture with a slight curve and voilà. But that's mostly something borrowed from your fiction (sit-coms, etc.).
That being said, we do have the "quote" symbol, as it is used when we have a quote within a quote:
«Horace dit "Ne vous querellez jamais"», ajouta-t-il.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2009, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 06:38:07 PM
That being said balanced budgets have been quite popular across Canada. I believe until last year almost all provinces were in surplus (pretty sure Quebec, as always, was an exception).
Québec has had a «zero deficit» law since 1998.
That's disgusting. Zero deficit laws are annoying as hell. Why take such a useful weapon out of your arsenal?
Of course, deficit-busting has probably been the most important political trend in Canada over the last 15 years. It made Paul Martin seem prime-ministerial, it allowed Ralph Klein to run roughshod over anyone who opposed him, it got Mike Harris in in Ontario, and it did enormous damage to many provincial NDP parties, as well as the federal party. It seems like that's faded away a bit, now that the huge deficits are gone, but some of the legacy remains.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 07:10:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2009, 07:05:23 PM
Well, it's tiny for some provinces. But then again, the US figues leave out debt held by the 50 states as well.
The states are required by law to balance their budgets annually.
All of them?
No wonder your country is in trouble.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2009, 07:09:11 PM
Are you off your meds again?
What if there were no meds to begin with?
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2009, 07:13:33 PM
That's disgusting. Zero deficit laws are annoying as hell. Why take such a useful weapon out of your arsenal?
My guess is it comes from the same «common-sense» fallacy that equates a State's budget with a household budget.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2009, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2009, 06:38:07 PM
That being said balanced budgets have been quite popular across Canada. I believe until last year almost all provinces were in surplus (pretty sure Quebec, as always, was an exception).
Québec has had a «zero deficit» law since 1998.
I stand cheerfully corrected.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:40:14 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 25, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
But one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates...
Please elaborate.
The 35% corporate tax rate has a sufficient amount of credits that corporations end up paying more like 25%, and 2/3 of US corporations paid no income tax between 1998 and 2005. At the end of the day, most of the Western governments get more corporate taxes as a share of revenue than the US.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102324.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653707274922763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/08/12/no-corporate-taxes/
Quote from: ulmont on May 25, 2009, 08:42:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 06:40:14 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 25, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
But one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates...
Please elaborate.
The 35% corporate tax rate has a sufficient amount of credits that corporations end up paying more like 25%, and 2/3 of US corporations paid no income tax between 1998 and 2005. At the end of the day, most of the Western governments get more corporate taxes as a share of revenue than the US.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102324.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653707274922763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/08/12/no-corporate-taxes/
That is misleading. There are different types of corporations in the US: S Corps (generally small businesses) don't pay taxes at all, and since these are probably a majority of US corporations, I'm not surprised that most don't pay taxes.
For C Corps, there is a top rate of 35%, but the rate is graduated somewhat and there have been a number of tax breaks with phase outs that effect smaller corporations.
For large C Corps, which are most of our publicly traded companies, the effective tax rate tends to be between 35-40% (state taxes are not included in the 35% number that is often quoted). The exception being that some companies can strategically locate their production activities in low tax jurisdictions. Pharma companies have much lower effective tax rates, usually under 20%, because they put much of their production in places like Ireland. (does anyone want to guess what those tax dodgers at Exxon pay?)
So it is true that on a total basis we don't necessarily tax our corporations that hard compared to foreign countries. But that doesn't help our multinationals, that must pay almost the highest taxes in the world and are taxed by the US on their worldwide income.
Fredo, take a look at the WSJ link and tell me what you think about that table on corporate tax revenue as a % of GDP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 09:22:58 PM
Fredo, take a look at the WSJ link and tell me what you think about that table on corporate tax revenue as a % of GDP.
I don't see a table in the link.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2009, 09:10:24 PM
For large C Corps, which are most of our publicly traded companies, the effective tax rate tends to be between 35-40% (state taxes are not included in the 35% number that is often quoted).
Cite please, I went ahead and provided links and everything.
Quote from: ulmont on May 25, 2009, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2009, 09:10:24 PM
For large C Corps, which are most of our publicly traded companies, the effective tax rate tends to be between 35-40% (state taxes are not included in the 35% number that is often quoted).
Cite please, I went ahead and provided links and everything.
Professional knowledge (you also cut off my qualifying comment).
Pick 5 publicly traded companies at random and I'll look the rate up real quick and you can judge for yourself.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2009, 09:33:17 PM
I don't see a table in the link.
Oops. It's in the 3rd link.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 09:22:58 PM
Fredo, take a look at the WSJ link and tell me what you think about that table on corporate tax revenue as a % of GDP.
It seems fair, for the reasons I mentioned above. We don't tax many small corporations at all, and we have popular business structures that aren't corporations but achieve many of the benefits (LLCs, LLPs).
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2009, 10:37:01 PMWe don't tax many small corporations at all
Because their income goes through to the owner and is then taxed as regular income tax. So the effective tax rate of the corporation is whatever rate the owner happens to fall in.
Because I have too much time, I looked up the rates for the top 10 in the fortune 500 (for those under 35% I investigated why):
Exxon: 45%
Wall Mart: 34.2% (1.66% reduction due to foreign operations)
Chevron: 42%
ConocoPhillips: 58% (they didn't quantify, but said foreign operations were the primary reason it is so much over 35%)
GE: 5.5% (26.9% reduction due to foreign operations)
GM: N/A
Ford: N/A
AT&T: 36.1%
Hewlett Packard: 20.5% (16.9% due to foreign operations)
Valero: over 100% due to a wacky one time charge, in the prior two years was 32.1% and 33.1%, but over 35% when foreign operations are included.
So there are 8 companies, and with the exception of GE with an effective tax rate of 32.4% in the US, all are over 35% in the US. Obviously the companies that have flexibility to locate in lower tax jurisdictions are doing so, but GE Capital and Hewlett Packard have more flexibility than most.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 25, 2009, 10:45:09 PMBecause their income goes through to the owner and is then taxed as regular income tax. So the effective tax rate of the corporation is whatever rate the owner happens to fall in.
How much tax do you have to pay on dividends in America? Your normal income tax or less to compensate that the company has already paid considerable taxes?
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 26, 2009, 04:39:55 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 25, 2009, 10:45:09 PMBecause their income goes through to the owner and is then taxed as regular income tax. So the effective tax rate of the corporation is whatever rate the owner happens to fall in.
How much tax do you have to pay on dividends in America? Your normal income tax or less to compensate that the company has already paid considerable taxes?
At the federal level, the rate is 15%. Previously it was your normal rate, but the lowering was part of the Bush tax cuts. Repealing that is on the table now though. At the state level, the rate ranges from about 0-10%.
The rule on foreign taxation is that you must pay the difference between 35% and what you paid locally when you repatriate the funds (which you usually have to do to pay dividends). For example, if all my profits are in the UK with a 28% tax rate, I will show a 28% effective tax rate as long as I don't bring the money back to the US. But once I do (either for investment or to pay dividends), I'll owe an additional 7% to the US government.
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2009, 05:21:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 25, 2009, 04:33:36 PM
Excuse me? :huh:
You said the Cato Institute considers Canada more economically right than the US. That doesn't follow from this article, and I sincerely doubt you'd find anybody at Cato who would sign off on that claim.
What an odd thing to say about an article entitled "Great Right North". :huh:
Coupla notes:
(1) this was a WaPo Op-Ed piece, not a Cato Institute study. It was just repeated on the CI website. Only one of the three authors works for the Cato Institute.
(2) The point of the piece was not to show that "Canada is now more economically to the right than the US," but to show that
QuoteReports last week that the recession is draining Social Security and Medicare funds were just one more reminder that the United States needs to fix its finances. For inspiration, why not look to Canada? Long derided by American conservatives as "socialist" and praised by the left for its generous government spending, Canada is casting off those stereotypes. Over the past few years, while U.S. politicians presided over huge increases in spending and debt, the Canadian government tightened its belt, slashed tax rates and balanced budgets...
(snip)
Too often in the United States, Democrats reject cuts in taxes and spending because they consider them Republican causes. Yet in Canada, center-left governments implemented many of the reforms that made these impressive numbers possible. Perhaps we have something to learn from those "socialists" to the north.
The authors' thesis is that if a center-left-run country praised and derided as "socialist" like Canada's can cut spending and balance budgets, so can the US. This is a rather unsurprising note. The Clinton administration did much the same.
Now, it is true that these authors are cherry-picking their facts (and they acknowledge that, citing their facts only as "trends" to be "considered"). It is, nonetheless, an interesting observation, though hardly controversial. It ignores the fact that the US has spent over a trillion dollars fighting a war in Iraq, of course. That was not very discretionary after the war was started, and so doesn't support the implied contention of the authors that the US won't cut spending because the democrats think cutting spending is a Republican stance.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 08:41:19 AM
Coupla notes:
(1) this was a WaPo Op-Ed piece, not a Cato Institute study. It was just repeated on the CI website. Only one of the three authors works for the Cato Institute.
(2) The point of the piece was not to show that "Canada is now more economically to the right than the US," but to show that
QuoteReports last week that the recession is draining Social Security and Medicare funds were just one more reminder that the United States needs to fix its finances. For inspiration, why not look to Canada? Long derided by American conservatives as "socialist" and praised by the left for its generous government spending, Canada is casting off those stereotypes. Over the past few years, while U.S. politicians presided over huge increases in spending and debt, the Canadian government tightened its belt, slashed tax rates and balanced budgets...
(snip)
Too often in the United States, Democrats reject cuts in taxes and spending because they consider them Republican causes. Yet in Canada, center-left governments implemented many of the reforms that made these impressive numbers possible. Perhaps we have something to learn from those "socialists" to the north.
The authors' thesis is that if a center-left-run country praised and derided as "socialist" like Canada's can cut spending and balance budgets, so can the US. This is a rather unsurprising note. The Clinton administration did much the same.
Now, it is true that these authors are cherry-picking their facts (and they acknowledge that, citing their facts only as "trends" to be "considered"). It is, nonetheless, an interesting observation, though hardly controversial. It ignores the fact that the US has spent over a trillion dollars fighting a war in Iraq, of course. That was not very discretionary after the war was started, and so doesn't support the implied contention of the authors that the US won't cut spending because the democrats think cutting spending is a Republican stance.
In your opinion, is "economic freedom" as defined by the Cato Instute a fair description of being "economically to the right", according to them?
You (and Yi) may find this interesting:
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=news&id=159
QuoteThe U.S. has slipped markedly in economic freedom since the year 2000
Bush's tenure has had a clear negative effect on economic freedom ratings
WASHINGTON -- Economic freedom around the world remains on the rise but it has declined notably in the U.S. since the year 2000, according to an authoritative study released today by the Cato Institute and Canada's Fraser Institute.
In 2000 the U.S. was the second-freest economy listed in Economic Freedom of the World, an annual report written by James Gwartney from Florida State University and Robert Lawson from Auburn University. This year the U.S. has fallen to 8th place, behind Hong Kong (ranked in first place), Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and Canada.
More significant than the U.S.'s drop in the rankings is its fall in the freedom ratings: on a scale of 0-10, the U.S. fell from 8.55 in 2000 to 8.04, according to the Economic Freedom of the World Report: 2008 Annual Report. Only five countries have experienced a greater decline over the same time period: Zimbabwe, Argentina, Niger, Venezuela, and Guyana.
"The rule of law, government spending, and regulation are the areas where the United States saw the most troubling declines in its ratings this decade," observes Ian Vasquez, director of Cato's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
Economic Freedom of the World ranks 141 countries on a range of factors in five broad areas: 1) size of government; 2) legal structure and security of property rights; 3) access to sound money; 4) freedom to trade internationally; and 5) regulation of credit, labor and business.
[Emphasis added]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/
The Cato Institute - in its official study, not an op-ed - finds as a matter of fact that Canada is now more "economically free". I would be curious to know what "ecomomically right" means, if not this:
QuoteThe foundations of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, and open markets. As Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek have stressed, freedom of exchange and market coordination provide the fuel for economic progress. Without exchange and entrepreneurial activity coordinated through markets, modern living standards would be impossible.
Potentially advantageous exchanges do not always occur. Their realization is dependent on the presence of sound money, rule of law, and security of property rights, among other factors. Economic Freedom of the World seeks to measure the consistency of the institutions and policies of various countries with voluntary exchange and the other dimensions of economic freedom.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
the cons could hammer Iggy on being a supporter of torture. however, that's probably not where they want to go. ;)
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
He's the MP in my riding, and the perception here is that he was "parachuted" in - leaves a bit of a bad taste.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 26, 2009, 09:09:06 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
the cons could hammer Iggy on being a supporter of torture. however, that's probably not where they want to go. ;)
I would imagine it's not much of an issue. Most Canadians are soft and cowardly, and they weep crocodile tears at all the appropriate times. Fortunately, Canada doesn't have to deal with the issue.
Still, the fact that he's Belinda Stronach Mk. II and that he'll go away and leave the country after he flubs his first election is kind of annoying to me.
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
He's the MP in my riding, and the perception here is that he was "parachuted" in - leaves a bit of a bad taste.
See, and I have the perception that he 'parachuted' into the country to become prime minister, and that once a roadblock shows up, he'll go back to where he came from.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
:yes: Especially when one factors in his dreadfully insulting counter-attack ads.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2009, 09:39:48 PM
Pick 5 publicly traded companies at random and I'll look the rate up real quick and you can judge for yourself.
MSFT, MRK, MCD, AA, and DIS.
You guys really care on why he came back?
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 08:45:56 AM
In your opinion, is "economic freedom" as defined by the Cato Instute a fair description of being "economically to the right", according to them?
I have no opinion on this. I have never seriously considered Cato's "economic freedom" and have no clear idea of what you mean by "economically to the right."
QuoteYou (and Yi) may find this interesting: (snip)
Not really. I find people who categorize the things they like as "freedoms" to be lacking the intellectual honesty and impartiality that I find persuasive.
QuoteThe Cato Institute - in its official study, not an op-ed - finds as a matter of fact that Canada is now more "economically free". I would be curious to know what "ecomomically right" means, if not this:
How amusingly circular. Canada is "economically right" because it is "economically more free" and you are now defining "economically more free" to be "economically to the right."
So long as you simply maintain that this is your contention, and not the authors', I have no problem with such an assertion. Both terms are pretty much meaningless, as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 26, 2009, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
While we're on the subject of Canada, I find that the anti-Ignatieff ads have traction with me.
:yes: Especially when one factors in his dreadfully insulting counter-attack ads.
I haven't seen them. The federal Liberals don't bother buying TV time in Alberta.
I haven't done some grand study on this and don't know all the details, but I think the following are my impressions when comparing the US and Canada:
a) Government spending as a percent of GDP is equalizing
b) We finance more of our spending with debt
c) Our taxation system is more progressive (at least in terms of rates)
d) The business environment is more explicitly regulated in Canada
e) The legal environment is more harsh in the US
f) I think the Canadian government tends to give Canadians better bang for their tax dollar
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 08:45:56 AM
In your opinion, is "economic freedom" as defined by the Cato Instute a fair description of being "economically to the right", according to them?
I have no opinion on this. I have never seriously considered Cato's "economic freedom" and have no clear idea of what you mean by "economically to the right."
QuoteYou (and Yi) may find this interesting: (snip)
Not really. I find people who categorize the things they like as "freedoms" to be lacking the intellectual honesty and impartiality that I find persuasive.
QuoteThe Cato Institute - in its official study, not an op-ed - finds as a matter of fact that Canada is now more "economically free". I would be curious to know what "ecomomically right" means, if not this:
How amusingly circular. Canada is "economically right" because it is "economically more free" and you are now defining "economically more free" to be "economically to the right."
So long as you simply maintain that this is your contention, and not the authors', I have no problem with such an assertion. Both terms are pretty much meaningless, as far as I am concerned.
I don't generally put any stock in lists that rate countries for stuff like quality of life or economic freedom. I merely take issue with Yi's contention that I have mis-characterized the Cato Institute's position on the issue, that is all.
I do not see any "circularity" here. The Cato institute claims to rank countries in order of how well they measure up to a list of factors that they contend demonstrate adherence to the principles of successful economic life as stated by Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek - in short, "economic freedom". To hold that adherence to these principles is a good in of itself is, I would say, pretty much an "economically right" perspective - I welcome any disagreement on this, of course.
And according to the Cato Institute, Canada ranks ahead of the US.
If you find all of this "meaningless", well, that's your prerogative: I am simply remarking on what the Cato Institute has stated.
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 11:05:05 AM
I don't generally put any stock in lists that rate countries for stuff like quality of life or economic freedom. I merely take issue with Yi's contention that I have mis-characterized the Cato Institute's position on the issue, that is all.
No, Yi was talking about what the article said. The article is not the Cato Institute - now was it written for, or published by, the Cato Institute.
QuoteI do not see any "circularity" here. The Cato institute claims to rank countries in order of how well they measure up to a list of factors that they contend demonstrate adherence to the principles of successful economic life as stated by Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek - in short, "economic freedom". To hold that adherence to these principles is a good in of itself is, I would say, pretty much an "economically right" perspective - I welcome any disagreement on this, of course.
And according to the Cato Institute, Canada ranks ahead of the US.
If you find all of this "meaningless", well, that's your prerogative: I am simply remarking on what the Cato Institute has stated.
What the Cato institute has said is, perhaps, interesting and entertaining to you, but isn't relevant to the discussion of what the article itself was saying. The article doesn't discuss "economic freedoms" or the "economic right." Those are terms you have introduced to the discussion. I don't find either of them particularly illuminating on the point raised by the actual Op-Ed piece in question, which is that even "center-left" governments can find government cost-cutting virtuous, so the (Democratic) US Congress should not be so afraid to embrace it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 11:37:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 11:05:05 AM
I don't generally put any stock in lists that rate countries for stuff like quality of life or economic freedom. I merely take issue with Yi's contention that I have mis-characterized the Cato Institute's position on the issue, that is all.
No, Yi was talking about what the article said. The article is not the Cato Institute - now was it written for, or published by, the Cato Institute.
What the Cato institute has said is, perhaps, interesting and entertaining to you, but isn't relevant to the discussion of what the article itself was saying. The article doesn't discuss "economic freedoms" or the "economic right." Those are terms you have introduced to the discussion. I don't find either of them particularly illuminating on the point raised by the actual Op-Ed piece in question, which is that even "center-left" governments can find government cost-cutting virtuous, so the (Democratic) US Congress should not be so afraid to embrace it.
The fact that the Cato Institute just happens to hold the opinion I described in its
official report, that the article was republished on the Cato Institute website, that one of the authors is a member of the Cato institute and that the piece was entitled "Great
Right North" ... makes no difference to you?
Okay, that makes perfect sense, if one assumes that the authors were entirely ignorant of the Cato Institute's reports in spite of one being a member, and chose his article title at random.
Seems an awful mountain you have constructed over the mole-hill of the commonplace and I would have thought uncontroversial remark that the article referenced the (to me startling) fact that the Cato Institute appears to have found that Canada has moved to the economic right of the US (which again it strains credulity to assume that the authors were unaware); Yi's comment was merely made in ignorance of this, when he said:
QuoteYou said the Cato Institute considers Canada more economically right than the US. That doesn't follow from this article, and I sincerely doubt you'd find anybody at Cato who would sign off on that claim.
The fact is that the Cato Institute
does consider Canada to be economically to the right of the US, quibbling about whether "right" means "free" aside. You disputed that initially by pointing out this was an op-ed piece (true) - and then I pointed to the actual official Cato report ...
Interesting info Malthus. Accusation withdrawn.