Daoust

So the Federal Gov't claims to have 9 billion extra dollars just kicking around. That's kind of nice, eh?
So what do you think should be done with it?

Put it all toward the national debt, which is in the hundreds of billions, right?
Give it back to the taxpayer?
Put it toward education, tuition fees?
Infrastructure?
Submarines?
More Tim Hortons?

Your two cents is free on TFP Canada thread...

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

cokelvr

If there is a national debt how can there be extra dollars?

Silvy

If I'm not mistaken, take this example:

Say you need 10 dollars for your lunch. That is then your budget.
You have 5 dollars of your own, and you borrow 5 from me. That makes that you have a debt of 5 dollars.

But after lunch you realize you only spent 8 dollars. So you have a surplus of 2 dollars.

Budget = 10
Debt = 5
surplus = 2

You could repay part of the loan, or you can invest those two dollars in something else. Consider the loan long-term, low-interest.

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

Daoust

I suppose I should say what I think...

I'd like it in my pocket. I'm basically living below the poverty line, and I have a wife and a child to support. I need all the money I can get. So I can put gas in my car and get to work.

I'm selfish, I admit it.

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

Charlatan

I like believe paying down the debt is in our long term best interests.

Like Daoust, I could use a few extra bucks in my pocket but would rather I left a stronger economy to my kids and grandkids (when and if they come).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JJRousseau

Hey, haven't we argued over this question in the Alberta thread ?

FYI: (I think) Last year Canada's National Debt was just over $500 Billion dollars. Interest paid on that debt per year is aprox $40 Billion. Each year the Gov't spends aprox $160 Billion, so about 1/4 of all spending goes to interest on our debt a lot of that to foreigners. The debt is an on-going figure (until we pay it off) The surplus (or deficit) is a yearly figure. in other words, last year the gov't took in 9 Billion more than they spent.

What is interesting is that while the Liberal gov't has been running surpluses for a few years AND paying down the debt, they are also spending considerably more than they were only 5 years ago - meaning that they are taking in A LOT more money that they were 5 years ago. (Taxes!)

For me, a reasonable timeline to retire the debt is a priority so we don't dump it on our children like they appear ready to do in the USA. The rest of the surplus should go to reducing taxes.

wolfpack0102

you know how our governemnt got in debt in the first place? too many free trips for the politicans and far too outrageous wages.

Personally I would cut all civil servants wages by 5 per cent or next time their contract is up offer them a 5 per cent cut or get new workers. Why should a friggin secretary get 75000 a year when in the normal world they might get 30 000.

A few years ago Chretien doubled MPs salaries. THere was also the sponsorship scandal.

Our health care dollars can be attained from getting rid of the stupidity that is our politicans. Any one remember something called "Responsible Government"

Suave

Give it to me. I'll find it a good home, reinvest it in the economy, and everything will be good.

Daoust

I agree with everything this poster has written. Bravo!

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

Yakk

1> Lower interest rates made the cost of debt servicing lower.
2> Economic growth has been pretty good over the last few years. Canada has averaged 3.5% since 1995.

Did you make up that 75 000 salary?

Well, actually, they got into debt by spending more money than they got in taxes.

Last I checked, the 'free trips for politicians' category wasn't a huge part of any year's budget. It is part of the propoganda gristmill of various special interests, but more of a symbolic problem than a real one.

In any case, I'd munch up a bunch of debt. We have a huge trade surplus, our economy doesn't need a huge stimulus, and interest rates are low and rising. A good time to clean up your debt. Because if not now, when? If not us, who?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

cocacolafun

Re-invest the money in the society. How hard is it for them to understand. If each person get 10$ more to spend per year, it means we will spend 300millions more per year which mean more jobs. More jobs means more money for the governament (in taxes) and more people spending money in the society. It's a circle!

Summary: the more the governament put in our pockets, more they will get in a long term.

Danger: Inflation.

Cocacolafun

__________________
Have Fun! Cocacolafun!

JJRousseau

Right, But interest rates haven't dropped that much in the past five years and even so, lower debt servicing does not result in an increase in overall spending. Just the opposite. And, that spending has far outpaced economic growth.

Spending in 96/97 was $104 Billion. In 99/00 in was $107 Billion. For 03/04 it was forecast at $178 Billion. Rising in 05/06 to $191 Billion. That is assuming equal or lower debt servicing. THAT is a huge wad of taxation.

If spending followed a 3.5% increase from 99/00 to 05/06, it would be just over $130 Billion. So what are they doing with the other $60 Billion. Fixing health care. No.

Pay down the debt or give me back my money!!!!

wolfpack0102

[/QUOTE]


"Did you make up that 75 000 salary?"

no i did not make this number up. Civil servants are vastly overpaid

"Well, actually, they got into debt by spending more money than they got in taxes."

that would be correct.






In any case, I'd munch up a bunch of debt. We have a huge trade surplus, our economy doesn't need a huge stimulus, and interest rates are low and rising. A good time to clean up your debt. Because if not now, when? If not us, who?

i agree with this but i for one am pissed off that 100 million dollars goes missing and not very much is done about it. That is alot of money unaccounted for that was wasted at our expense. nice to see our hard earned dollars at work!

[/QUOTE]

Yakk

So, you are saying you didn't make it up.

Find me any evidence of a 75 000 dollar secretary that would have 30 000 in the private service. You didn't make it up, so this should be easy for you.

Sponsorship scandal?

177.6 revenue in 2002/2003
133.3 program expenses
37.3 debt charges
7 surplus

123.3 revenue in 1994/1995
118.7 program spending
42.0 debt charges
-37.5 deficit

Growth (in non-real dollars) of spending from 1994 to 2002 is 1.46%. Canadian inflation is about 2.2%, so that's a 0.74% per year shrink in spending.

This is less than inflation.

Revenue has grown at 4.67%. Inflation is about 2.2%, which means the 'real dollar' revenue growth is about 2.47%. GDP Growth over this period has averaged 3.5%.

My data comes from http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/budinfoe.html

Your numbers are way off -- please cite a source. Your old numbers don't include debt servicing, I'm pretty certain, and your new numbers include the surplus and the debt service.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

hiro-acid

No no no, no no, nooooo.. the reason we're in debt is because of the Mulrooney government's American-esque policies of lowering corporate taxes and passing the resulting budget deficits unto us, the citizens.

It's time to stop the corporate welfare state.

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate the government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power [the corporation]." - Noam Chomsky, as quoted in Joel Bakan's The Corporation (pg. 152).

But to stay on topic, Paul Martin's financial policies have left the vital infrastructures of our country in a dangerous state. I'ld put the money back into social welfare programs - medicare, pharmacare (we should have had this program since the 1980s), student aid, welfare, and general infrastructure (roads, water, environmental cleanup).

I certainly agree paying down the debt is important, but not at the cost of our civil society, especially when it comes at costs paid by those least able - the poor (18.4% of all Canadian children live in poverty, according to the 2000 census, a figure I find personally abhorent - what kind of civil society allows this to happen?).

Devin

JJRousseau

Source:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget98/binb/b...tml#highlights

You are correct that I did not mean to include debt servicing. I am only talking the wad of cash they blow on (voluntarily) submarines et al. But yes I did include debt servicing by accident when I went to a second source for the later forecasts. oops. Program Spending is forecast at $156 Billion for 05/06.

Source:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget98/binb/b...tml#highlights

Following at 3.5% increase, I am still missing $25 Billion.

Our numbers seem to be the same until we get to the growth. So explain to me how I get from $104B in 97 to $156B in 06 if I follow the rate of inflation.

james t kirk

1. Trudeau started the whole deficit spending ball rolling. Mulroney made it an art form.

2. The debt is this generation's debt, not the next generation's, not the generation after that. We created, we should fix it.

I agree that there needs to be a balance between debt repayment and spending increases.

However, where we differ vastly is where to spend it.

I have no problem with better medicare, and better infrastructure, but I disagree with spending a dime on welfare and or social services.

As far as I am concerned, welfare should be a stop gap, not a lifestyle. If you have been on welfare for more than 2 years, there's something wrong and IMHO, the gov't should gradually reduce welfare payments to able bodied individuals on welfare for more than 2 years until say after 2 more years they get zip.

I am tired of supporting dead beats.

One of the best thing Mike Harris ever did was cut welfare payments to deadbeats. Never in the history of Ontario have more people gotten up off their asses and got a job than when Mike derailed the gravy train.

Forget pharmacare also. Let the private sector deal with that one. Most people have pharma programs at work and if you are down and out the gov't buys your pills anyway.

Maybe you could have that when they pay off the debt.

Merlocke

Take it to Vegas - and bet it all on black.

-=-

Seriously though. They should put a portion of it towards the debt, and another portion of it to strengthen our own economy and small business within the country.

Give a few grants out to those with entrepreneurial minds to open more jobs in our country - thus creating more jobs, and therefore - more taxpayers which will *hopefully* increase the surplus for the next year to repeat it with.

Give charities that shell out education more power to employ the unemployed who are willing to train and find work so that again - better business, and more taxpayers. We have enough people and talent in our country to rid ourselves of the debt before our children have to. I'd like to see that money invested both in debt, and in economic growth - so that the goals and needs of others can be met.

On a side note - for those of you willing to help in this regard, finding training and jobs for those willing to work - drop me a line and I can show you how to make a difference. I raised 300,000 myself last year for charity - in regards to education and getting people out there work in the tech sector. And while doing so - I helped Canadians redirect their tax dollars to a worthy cause helping out charities, the government, and the country all at the same time. I know - the whole sappy crap about "one person can make a difference" but hey - at least I'm trying.

__________________
-=[ Merlocke ]=-

Yakk

The % 'living in poverty' figure is a misnomer. There is a relative low income line which people call the poverty line.

But, the current poverty line has the problem that, if someone else gets a cheaper house, more people become poor.

Their situation didn't change, but because someone else has more disposable income, they went from not-poor to poor.


In 1994 dollars, there was 118.7 B$ in program spending in 1994/1995 budgeted.
In 2002 dollars, there was 133.3 B$ in program spending in 2002/2003 budgeted.

Two things are going on here. First, the country is richer. About 31% richer.

The second thing is dollars are worth less. At 2% inflation per annum, 1994 dollars are worth 19.5% more than 2002 dollars.

Lets assume similar numbers -- 3.5% annual growth rate, 2% inflation rate.

97 dollars are worth 1.195 2006 dollars, in terms of what they can buy. This makes the 1997 budget 124.28 billion dollars in 2006 dollars.

Now, the 2006 Canadian economy is 36% larger than the 1997 economy.

156 is a 25.5% increase over 124.28.

The economy grows 36% and federal government spending grows 25.5%.

The situation is actually the exact opposite -- the feds are spending less money than they used to, as a portion of the economy.

Another reason why debt should be the #1 priority: we have low interest rates right now, and they will be going up. Ramping up and cutting spending is expensive and wasteful. You can pay off more debt one year and not the next without any such problems.

Spending programs are a multi-year commitment. Paying off debt isn't, it just gives multi-year rewards.

Have some personal responsibility.

Your debts are your choice -- you freely chose to go into debt, knowing you'd have to pay it back. The debts the nation has are imposed on the citizens, even those who don't choose to go into debt.

Your average tax bracket is 42%? Nice! =)

They are paying down the debt. It has shrunk hugely over the Liberal's terms in office.

Alot would depend on the economic outlook.

Anarchy is the most unstable form of government. Someone siezes power, and it changes from Anarchy to (typically) some kind of feudalism.

edit: Seplling.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

Yakk, I have more questions than I can keep in my mind as I hunt and peck but I'll try. (Memory is the first thing to go - or is it tax dollars )

First, who is this Devin you are quoting and where is his post?

Second, how are you quoting me from other threads? And are the quotes relevant?

Third, from who are these other quotes?

Forth, I think we are arguing the same side of this just disagreeing why. That's confusing the hell out of me... I think we agree what should be done. But you think the Liberals are doing it...

I don't dispute your logic, I'm just not sure that growing spending by inflation AND economic growth is a valid. I'll have to mull that one over more... And I'm always wary of quoting politicians quote numbers. As in "Spending has decreased as a portion of the economy. Or the better one that you mention; "Debt has gone down over the Liberal term. Not really, unless you consider it relative to GDP

Our current debt in dollars is about what it was in 1994.

Now comparing Libertarianism to Anarchy. That's weird and a whole new topic. Is anarchy even a form of government?

The only thing I really take issue with is the "personal responsibility" jab. A mortgage is a fact of life for most of us. Simply enough, lower taxes will allow me to pay it off faster.

JJRousseau

Oh yea, and who is JHVH (besides the obvious) and why did he (or she) edit your posting 6000 years ago?

Yakk

Devin is hiro-acid. Sorry, I used his name from his sig, rather than his username.

D'oh -- I was doing manual quoting, maybe I got threads crossed? bah.

I thought I was quoting from a bevy of different posts in this thread.

Ah, there are two threads:
"$9 billion surplus -- wwyd" and "Budget surplus". I got my threads crossed. My bad.

Lets say you have a nation. And it doubles in size, because it has twice as many people.

You'd sort of expect the government to have to take in and spend twice as much money.

Population growth is a good chunk of our economic growth.

Other forms of economic growth have simular costs.

Inflation -- you really do have to take inflation into account. Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges when you use the budget figures of different years.

And lowering the debt as a percent of GDP is the goal. If your debt is going up, as a percent of GDP, in the long term, you are screwed. If it is going down, you aren't screwed.

If your GDP is growing 10% every 3 years, and your debt isn't (other than by inflation), that debt will evaporate to meaninglessness.

A debt:GDP ratio of 75% will, after 30 years, become 28%.

If your before-inflation GDP is growing by 3.5% every year, and inflation is running at 2%, and the dollar-value of the debt isn't changing, after 20 years your debt will be 26% of GDP.

That's victory, not a stalemate.

There are possible problems. If my growth numbers wheren't real growth (ie, garbage numbers), then my math isn't accurate.

And thus, we are winning.

The term 'form of government' seems to be more useful if it encompasses Anarchy.

In a true, pure, libertarian society, the air corperation will be charging people for the right to breathe, at a rate that maximizes shareholder benefits. It should look something like income tax.

(The atmosphere is a non-divisible large important resource. Under libertarian economic thought, it would be best utalized/protected under private ownership. With unrestricted property rights, the air monopoly should use the ideal form of monopoly pricing -- charging what the client can bear, in such a way that their income is maximized -- because people really don't want to do without air. The tax system run by modern democracies may be a decent approximation of this, where each person owns a single non-transferable share.)

It this far-fetched? I never claimed true and pure libertarianism would be stable.

Power abhors a vacuum.

No, a morgage is an option, not a fact of life. It is a useful option, but you can live your life without relying on debt.

You are saying 'other people should carry a debt, so I can pay back my debt' when you are asking for tax cuts before debt repayment.

It is the same lack of personal responsibility that lead to the debt problem in the first case. People decided to spend money, and foist the balancing of the books onto the suckers who came later. Those suckers would be us.

You want to foist it (debt) onto other suckers, rather than deal with your responsibilities. I don't like passing the buck.

What happend on 08-29-4004 BC at 9 PM? (hint: what happened about a week before this date, at the nightfall before 08-23-4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher)

Sorry, just a joke.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

Hmm, as much as I'm enjoying our repartee, I'm not sure how much farther this can go without getting silly.

You are arguing that I am wrong (not taking personal responsibility) for wanting tax cuts over debt repayment. First, that is not my argument, I wholly agree with debt repayment. I am arguing for tax cuts over increased social spending. Second, you, not me, argue that growth will reduce debt to valueless. A valid argument but one which take time. Time that will be transferred to our children. I am arguing that the debt should be paid down in monetary terms not in relative terms. So in fact, my timeline for paying down the debt is probably faster than yours.

Other thoughts: If we agree that shelter is not an option, I can only suggest that if one is financially able, it is prudent to invest through a mortgage rather than rent. Again, only an opinion, although one more easily defended. But the personal debt issue is a red herring. we are really discussing the transfer of assets from one individual to another through taxation - irrespective of their personal debts.

I also understand your reasoning with regard to inflation and growth as indeed many politicians use a similar line. But consider that GDP is a part of inflation. Which is to say, inflation is the increase in money supply above the economic growth. So you are adding two things together of which one is a factor of the other. Know what I mean????????

As for your poke at libertarianism: Any ideal (political, religious or otherwise) becomes ludicrous when taken to extreme. Libertarian thought does not require extremism to create what in my opinion is a positive value.

Ok, so, your saying on the seventh day God edited tfp????

JJRousseau

PS, do you think anyone else is still reading this thread or is it just us?????

Yakk

When you measure GDP growth, and you aren't a fool, you measure 'real GDP growth'. Ie, you factor out inflation.

Otherwise, with 20% year-over-year inflation (see: late 70s/early 80s), you'd have nominal GDP growth rates of 15%-25%, when in reality they are -5% to +5% or so.

While inflation and GDP growth are related (more precicely, it is not always trivial to seperate the measurement of them), they aren't 'part of each other' if you are careful.

I think it was the end of the 6th day, if I did my math right.

And it refers to the universe. For the full joke, you'll have to include the exact date (ie, the universe was created in 4004 BC, on october whatever), and the context (the quote above it, by Douglas Adams).

I have a fucked up sense of humour.

It can be. The tax code makes your primary dwelling capital gains deduction an asset that cannot be used unless you have a primary dwelling that you are purchasing. The other factors depend on your situation, but the capital gains excemption on primary dwellings is a large factor that should distort your choice towards buying a home.

I'm pretty down on consumer debt, but house ownership is one of the rather valid reasons to go into debt.

Agreed.

*nod*, to a certain degree.

There are a few things going on here.

First, there is socialization of risk. If you are in a situation where your business fails, your family will starve, you will be paranoid about making sure your business succeeds. Possibly more than you'd want for a strong economic engine.

Similar effects occur in the labour market. If losing your job is extremely dangerous, labour force flexibility suffers -- quick, unstable, or other kinds of non-career jobs become overly risky for people to take. If the only safety net you can rely on is that of your family and friends, labour force mobility suffers. Moving to get a new job costs you family and friends support, which could be economically disasterous.

Having a low standard of living ratio between the people in an area keeps crime down (last I checked, it was one of the best predictors of murder rates). Living 'next' to someone who is 100 times poorer than you causes social strain and encourages crime.

On the other hand, reduced marginal reward for economic output causes a disincentive to produce economic output*. Social safety nets can encourage people to stay in areas that lack the potential to produce employment. It increases the unemployment rate by making people less desperate to get any job they can get their hands on.

Finally, social security has, or so I've heard, interesting effects on birth rates. The more secure people feel about their old age, the fewer kids they have. Kids are a great way to make sure you are taken care of in your old age.

* note: this is a very big point. Economic Output = Wealth. And Wealth is a good thing. Lack of Wealth is starvation and poverty and death and powerlessness.

Well, just you. I'm an advanced AI designed for message board discussion.

The trick is, I find a similar thread in another forum, correlate your arguements with arguements and responses made there, generate a response, then do some post-processing typos, grammer checks/errors, and the like.

Works pretty well. I kick Eliza's ass.

You did ask.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

Yes a lot of the topics on politics and finance to become repetitive after a while.

OK so now we've agreed on paying down the debt "as quickly as our individual economic philosophies allow". And we agreed up the positive and negative effects of a strong social safety net on the economy, what is left to debate?

Well, I guess we could go around GDP vs CPI one more time but brighter minds than ours have disagreed on macro-economic theory. But let me try this. In year one, Canada produces $100 worth of stuff. In year two, Canada increases production by 3% and so produces $103. Because there are $105 dollars in the economy in year two, that stuff sells for $105. So we say GDP increase by 3% and inflation was 2% (approx) What I am suggesting is that if the gov't required $20 worth of taxes to support the $100 production in year one, it does not follow naturally that that $21 (5% increase) will be required in Year two.

It's still my opinion that I am paying too much tax to a government that is too large. So I guess to look at it your way, I believe that the safety net is larger than it needs to be such that the negatives are outweighing the positives.

Now here's a ringer for you. I don't think over-spending on the safety net and infrastructure is our biggest problem. I think the fundamental problem with our system of government is that it's primary function is to get re-elected. It does that by appearing to be active (moving wealth around). Or for even more cynical thinkers, by giving out to more voters than they take from. (ie. if they tax one person $50 and give 10 people $5, how many votes are they ahead???)

OK that's cynical even for me.

JJRousseau

I had a girlfrind once whose interpersonal skills closely resembled those of Eliza... It didn't last.

Yakk

No way!

Is Jesus Christ in favour or against a purely capitalist econimc model?

(and yes, I'm kidding)

True. All I was aiming at was that not factoring GDP growth and inflation in gives you really destorted results.

If they manage to maintain services while shrinking their cut of the pie, that is a 'good job' -- not perfect, but good.

The really silly part is, you really can't pay attention to the Federal government's budget in Canada. To really understand what the government is doing, you have to add up the federal, provincial and municipal government spending. With all the down/up loading of services, and money moving around, the budget of any one of them isn't sufficient to come to any real conclusions.

The Federal government is mostly a large accounting organization. They tax the people, then shove money off to the provinces. The inter-provincial movement of funds has a larger impact than the inter-class movement of funds: rich provinces get much less out of the coffers than they put in.

The Maritimes, Territories and the central prairie provinces are the benefitiaries of this largess, from what I know. Quebec is about break-even, and BC is a net contributer.

Well, there is a bit of math I did the other week.

Canada as a whole spends 43% of their GDP on health care and other government services.
The USA as a whole spends 43.44% of their GDP on health care and other government services.

There aren't many large nations that don't have a pretty large/powerful government structure.

*nod*. So, the government finds someone for whom 50$ isn't that much money, and gives it to 10 people for whom 5$ is alot of money.

This makes the person you take the money away from less hurt (and hence, less upset), and maximizes the amount the people who recieve the money are happy about it.

And that is the primary point of our system of government.

It's primary goal is to generate the greatest benefit for the greatest number. With the caviet that it isn't allowed to cause extreme harm, other than extremely rarely.

Systems of government with other goals exist. For example, generate the greatest amount of total power: fascism. Prevent private citizens from exploiting each other: communism.

I do come at this from an extremely strange angle to you.

I don't take property as a given. Property, to me, is a societal construct that we use to generate benefit for the society.

You have money in your bank account, you own cars in your driveway, and you own the clothes on your back, because it is a damn good way to run society. We don't have society set up in order to give you ownership of your clothes, car or money.

So, I start with the perspective, there are a bunch of things that people are really really really really cautious about not having. Food, health, shelter, safety.

Those things should be, in effect, rationed. If one person can exert enough power to prevent another from having food, health, shelter or safety, they have the ability to enslave that person.

Everything after that is a bonus. But, the things which people are very risk-adverse about losing should be protected from loss, both for welfare concerns and to encourage risky behaviour.

Canada has enough resources to provide them for every citizen. The next trick is to make society so wealthy that it is nearly impossible to lose them, while at the same time distributing the less-important extra resources in a 'nice' manner.

The government may have pushed the point of social safety net 'too far'. But, the only thing that the government spends large amounts of money on that isn't a direct 'Food, health, shelter, safety' member is education and transportation. Cheap high quality education has serious benefits, and transportation, being an important natural monopoly, is a pretty obvious thing to place in the government sphere.

I suspect you approach the problem from a different angle. To me, the market is a useful tool for generating wealth. Convincing people to solve the difficult 'price' problem (for nearly all goods), in exchange for luxuries, is a good idea. Building a society where the market determines important parts of human welfare is an act of despiration (to me).

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

I dunno about the big guy , but I wonder if I am. Unencumbered flow of capital is one of the sides of libertarianism that I appreciate - to a point.

Well now that is interesting. What were your figures. From the CIA fact book 2003:

Source:http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...s/ca.html#Econ

US GDP 10.9 Trillion
US Expenditures 2.1 Trillion (<20%)
CDN GDP .96 Trillion
CDN Expenditures .34 Trillion (>30%)

Agreed but does that make it moral? If you take this line of reasoning to it's ludicrous end, is it not the question; "Do you kill one person to save 20?" Tho' I understand that if you do not accept the concept of property, the moral question is not as difficult.

Yes but that's not what I mean. You are speaking of the role of a democratic government. I am speaking of the motives of those specific people and the body corporate that makes up the government. THe cynical side of me thinks that they are motivated not to maximize the good of their electorate but simply to get re-elected - as an end to itself. Or more specifically to increase their personal wealth and influence.

Amen! Spoken like a true libertarian.

But your belief about property is interesting. Many libertarians belief that the right to property is itself a hiderance to liberty. However, my first thought to you is: If you don't own property how to you guarantee the ability to benefit from it. Which is to say, if I don't own the car in my driveway, what is to stop someone else from taking it?

Agree with the benefits but not with the word "only" Where do you put olympics, cbc, golf courses, etc. I'm not saying that some of these things don't have value, but that the gov't spends beyond what is necessary.

Not sure I understand that.

Yakk

I added both health care and all levels of government spending (federal, provincial/state and municipal/county).

CIA world factbook just does federal government. This is misleading, because different nations distribute government functions to different levels.

The reason why they add up the same is that the USA uses something like 7.6% of their GDP on private health-care spending, while Canada only spends 2.6%.

I got the numbers from all over the place. Most of Canada's numbers came from statscan.

Here is one set of numbers:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt01b.htm
(government expendatures summed)
I used CIA for GDP's (probably should have used statscan). I forgot where I got the health care numbers -- I think Canada was 10% of GDP total spending, USA was 14% to 15%, then I subtracted the amount of Canadian spending accounted for by statcan, and found the US percentage?

Note that all this is is a percentage of GDP. It ignores the difference in per-capita GDP of Canada and the USA (USA has 20% to 30% higher GDP per capita, I think).

I accept the concept of property. It is a concept that is useful. I am just not willing to consider it to be on the same level as life. It's value to me is derived from the effects of giving property rights, not in and of itself.

Capitalists are not motivated to do service and provide goods for others. They don't have to be -- the system is designed (imprefectly) so that the best way of "benefiting" themselves is "benefiting" others the best.

The two things about economics are
1> Incentives work
2> There is no such thing as a free lunch

If our system provides incentives for those in power to seek the greatest good of the greatest number, even if people in power aren't altruistic, if they "fall" for the incentives they will generate the greatest good for the greatest number. These incentives aren't perfect, so it doesn't always work.

People do go into government because they want to matter. And, anyone who kept playing the economic game after they have a few million clean and clear is either an idiot or isn't playing to increase their standard of living. They are playing the game because they enjoy the game.

You "win" at government by having a name that echos through history. Becoming a millionare via corrupt government dealings -- there isn't all that much point, there are easier ways to get rich (another use for capitalism!)

But really, I don't much care why the PM is doing the greatest good for the greatest. Or why capitalists spend hours and hours and tonnes of effort keeping the economy running. I care that they do it. The falicy of caring unduely why people do things is one of the flaws of communism -- just because capital is managing the economy for it's own benefit, doesn't mean you can't hoodwink them into managing the economy for the benefit of all, even if they don't give a crap.

I believe in the exploitation of capitalists. =)

I don't want to play the high stakes game that libertarians would turn the economy into.

It would reward better economy players, and punish (possibly unto death) people who play the economy poorly. Which is cute and all, but something I'd be tempted to take up arms to oppose. The game of capitalist market economics is a game -- a very real game -- but the rules of it aren't the one holy truth. They raise a tool -- a useful tool, don't get me wrong -- to the status of diety.

I don't deny the concept of property exists. I don't deny it is useful. It might be useful to tell you that you own your car, and set up a system to defend that ownership against other claimants. You will probably be willing to do a hell of alot of work for other people in exchange for 'owning your car', and you'll probably be made happy by 'owning your car'.

If ownership is justified, have ownership.

They fall under the catagory of cheap, small expendatures in some cases.

Canadian government expendatures (all 3 levels, totaled, values rounded randomly (from above link))
Social: 121 bil
Health: 89 bil
Education: 69 bil
Debt: 50 bil
Industry: 19 bil
Culture/Rec: 12 bil
Environ: 11 bil
Foreign: 5 bil
Housing: 4 bil
Labour/Immigration/Employment: 3 bill
Regional: 2 bil
Research: 2 bil
Other: 2 bil

The total of everything in italics is 60 billion. The total of everything in bold is 329 billion. The lower stuff is miscilanious expenses compared to the top stuff.

The price problem?

You are trying to decide if you should make a Bobnut or a Janewutz.

The Bobnut requires 5 Grots, 2 kilos of Futzle and 5 hours of work from Chuck.

The Janewutz requires 13 Shlutz, 5 oz of Reedoo, 3 hours of work from Sally and 2 hours of work from Vinnie.

Which do you do? I mean, I could list the things that Reedoo, Sally, Vinnie, Shlutz, Grots, Chuck and Futzle could do if you didn't use them to make Janewutz's and Bobnut's, and then explain what each of the other things was useful for, etc. The size of this problem would grow and grow, eventually encompassing every decision every person in the world could make, every resource, and every consequence. It is a hard problem to solve perfectly.

But, if you have "prices" for all of the above, you can answer that question. Add up the prices of the input, and compare them to the prices of the output. If price of input < price of output, then it is 'worth' it to do it.

The price problem is assigning a numerical value to every resource, such that simply adding up the numbers of the resources consumed by making a new resource, you can decide if it is worth making the new resource.

The price problem (namely, what is the price of each resource) is an important problem, whose solution (even approximate solutions!) is very valueable. A Free Market is one way of solving this problem.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

That is the rational thought but human beings aren't rational. I can't explain it, but a few million isn't enough for many people once they have achieved it. Haven't you noticed that the person who earns $10,000/year wishes he made $15,000 but the person who makes $100,000 wishes he made $150,000 and so on. Not rational at all.

I spent two years roaming the halls of Ottawa because I wanted to matter - to have a positive effect - but you come to realize that the shit flows with or without you. First term politicians are there with the shield of naivety. The rest of them are there for the martini lunches - and might just fill their pockets on the way by. So, you saddle up to the bar - or get out.

Again, you are too rational...

A truly great saying!

Kurt Russell will be paying you a visit! It's far from a perfect idea. I simply embrace the philosophy of "Don't @@@@ with me, and I won't @@@ with you". It's not the way to run the world, just a consideration to be given when choosing from the range of what is practical.

It's interesting that most libertarians strongly discount Rousseau's Social Contract. I see the "Do unto others..." idea as just another angle of the "Don't do unto me..."

Well I would be, but when it comes to selecting a new family vehicle, I must sacrifice considerable liberty in the name of marital harmony.

Yakk

All of those people are still in the "we consume the majority of our income".

A strange thing happens as you leave the upper midde class -- and I'm including the average doctor+lawyer double-income person in the upper middle class. You start running into people who don't consume the majority of their income.

Instead, they own investments.

To them, money is power. They don't earn money in order to spend money, they earn money in order to up their social status, or exercise power so their opinions are known.

At some point, money goes from being about resources, and becomes about who has more money than someone else. Yes, they want more money, but in a way different than most folk. The difference may or may not be as large as the difference in the desire for money in USA vs the 3rd world (where not having money is a death sentance).

It is still true that Canada is far less corrupt than almost every nation in the world. And the same is true of most first world nations.

Thank you. =) I like to think of it as the motto of Market Socialism.

I missed the reference.

Ah -- all things being equal, the government which governs least governs best?

I just disagree that "all things being equal" is often true.

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."?

=) You still are willing to work rather hard for the (collective) ownership of your car. The interesting part here is, you identify yourself with your family (to a certain extent, more than likely), so your family gaining ownership of your car will motivate you to make sacrafices and do things for other people (like, work).

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

etla

Yah, right. My wife is a federal employee in an admin function and she ain't makin' no 75K a year. I wouldn't doubt there may be one or secretaries out there makin' that but I'd bet they are executive level and could make more in the private sector. Almost all public sector jobs pay less and then even it out with better benifits and vacation time.

As to where to spend the money I'd spend most of it paying off debt but a significant chunk would go to colleges and universities.

__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm

Janey

I read it through. It took a while, but I did it.

from my perspective, mortgages are a necessity merely because they are fiscally efficient. I do realize that it is not an attainable necessity for a lot of people. Too bad there isn't a rent to own kind of programme.

JJRousseau

Totally agree. But most politicians earn less than the average doctor and so are not in that higher group.

I do believe, conspiracies aside, that there is a much higher group of individuals who have the enough money to effect social policy and do so simply do create more money for themselves.


Mr Russell is a well known Libertarian.

That's beautiful. I'm tearing up.

Sadly so.

A perfect world - IF the general will is derived from a community of like-minded Libertarians.: " a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before."

Yes, my family comes first.

Janey, New Avatar???? Someone you know? From my experience "Rent to own" is just loan with a very long term. Like a car lease is actually a ten year car loan.

Janey

Yes JJ, New avatar, in the sense that I finally qualified to have one. And yes, c'est moi, and I like to think that I know myself fairly well, although I think I've been discovering new things as i go along.

My comment wrt to rent to own was in reference to the inability of many people to be able to save up the down payment to qualify for a mortgage. So you have to either live for free (understanding parents) or save down payment $$ while paying rent in order to get the 25 % dp required to get a mortgage. So it may be a long term loan, but at least y oiu would be building equity as you went along. Similar to mortgages, but more time involved.

Yakk

*nod*, to increase their high score. I wonder if the collapse of inflation has caused the high-score craving rich to start manipulating politics in ways that allow their score to keep climbing?

Heh, not by me. The little I quickly read made him sound like a pontificator, I couldn't tell of what flavour.

Oh wow, this guy is on crack. He expects societies of people to govern by consensus? Didn't he pay any attention to the failure of large-scale commune-based government?

Consensus is hard to manage on a single family level -- hell, on a couple level.

My point is, benefits to "my family" can become benefits to "me".

You would be building equity as you save up your down payment while paying rent.

I suspect part of the down payment requirements are there to place some of the real-estate downside risk on the property owner, instead of squarely on the bank's shoulders.

If you bought a house with 0 down payment, and the price of the house dropped by 25% the next day, you could get almost scot free by going bankrupt. If you have folded a huge chunk of change into the house, your expose to real estate downturn risk is larger, which makes the bank feel happy fuzzy joy joy.

But, that's just a guess asto why.

I do know in Canada you can make do with extremely small down payments if your income stream and credit is good enough. There is the annoying extra 'morgage insurance' you have to buy in that case (which is about 1% of house value -- a rather large chunk of change). As low as 5% down.

I have heard that the encumberance of your down payment (ie, getting your down payment by making yet another loan) is less of a problem nowadays than it was in the past.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

Oh man, everyone's got an avatar but me. I'm gonna have to get more loquacious.

I've never read anything written by Mr Russell but I know he's a pilot - which is kinda cool. ANd I think his wife is a Buddhist - which is kinda cool.

As for Mr Rousseau's drug habits, remember, he was trying primarily to develop a moral theory not an economic one.

skier

If I ever used loquacious in a sentence people would ask me where I hid the thesaurus... couldn't you have used chatty, talkative, conversational, or sociable and saved me the trip to dictionary.com?

anyways. Pretty much what i wanted to say on the surplus has been said. Bring down the debt, reinvest in alternate energy sources.

__________________
"Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

JJRousseau

Sorry Dude didn't mean to be abstruse. I just enjoy a little sesquipedalianism from time to time. But actually it means something slightly more. There is an "excessiveness" to loquacious that isn't expressed by those other words.

Judging from the latest press, it doesn't look like tax cuts will be forth coming so let's hope there is some significant debt payment.