Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
That was not the argument presented.
|
Then the argument failed on the grounds of coherence.
Quote:
|
I can see the major trends. If you take the position that Canadian debt is not on track to consume GDP without some major change in policy, I suggest you do not know what is going on. In addition, like I presented, Canada has a solution in Oil and minerals if the market holds. That is my primary point, is that what you dispute?
|
Canada has been running a deficit throughout the recession. The minority Conservative government has been using stimulus spending to weather the storm and arguably they've been doing a good job (some would argue we would have been okay either way).
Now I want you to watch Canadian economic policy and watch closely. Canadians have just elected a majority Conservative government, which means that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is easily the most powerful politician domestically than anybody in North America. This guy is Chicago School. You'd like him. But let's rewind: since the '90s, we've reduced our debt by nearly 1/6th. We even legislated rules regarding balanced budgets. This recent deficit spending will not be nearly as bad over the next few years because we're heading out of the recession. We're likely to move back to a surplus if the majority Conservatives don't fuck it up. Balanced budgets aren't serendipity in Canada; they're expected.
This will happen despite oil prices. It has happened in the past, before the oil boom. The boom is less than 10 years in the making.
Quote:
|
O.k., you don't see what I see.
|
And I'm right here.
Quote:
|
Labor has a profit motive. If labor is 1/3 of the equation why do you insist it is less important? Why do you not realize that labor can exploit those who hold capital? Again, rhetorical. Perhaps like those Rorschach tests, what I see clearly is not clear to you. I don't know what to add.
|
You aren't listening. I'm not devaluing labour; I'm suggesting a free market would actively do that. Just as capital would be used to exploit land and ideas, it would exploit labour: maximum output, minimum cost. It would strip balanced approaches to how labour would be treated, just as it would strip balanced approaches to using land and ideas (wanton environmental degradation and no such thing as "stealing" ideas, i.e. no copyright, no patents, etc.).
My position is that I value labour and think it deserves rights, power, and privileges that a free market wouldn't necessarily afford it unless it would be more profitable to do so. If government is required to ensure that, then so be it. It's not my desire per se; it's the fault of free-market principles. Again, a society should be governed primarily by people, not supply and demand.
Call me a hopeless social democrat if you will, but at least my ideals are feasible and are currently being applied in the real world. Despite what you may think, social democrats are capable of balancing budgets just as much if not more than conservatives.