babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Hold the Line on Minimum Wages

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hold the Line on Minimum Wages
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 03:36 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
The idea that high minimum wages are a form of income redistribution is simply incorrect.

In BC, the period from 1992 to the present has been characterized by a concerted policy of increasing the minimum wage. During that period, six increases have been implemented moving the wage from $5.00/hour to $7.60/hour — a 52 percent increase. Those increases have moved BC's minimum wage to the highest in Canada. Moreover, those increases have taken place within an economy in which growth has been relatively in a spiral from a National recession to an Asian crisis.

Provincial Minimum wages across the country:

Last updated April 2001

Alberta--$5.90--October 1, 1999
British Columbia--$7.60--
($8.00--November 1, 2001)
Manitoba--$6.25--April 1, 2001
New Brunswick--$5.90--July 1, 2001
Newfoundland--$5.50--October 1, 1999
Northwest Territories--$7.00--April 1, 1991
Nova Scotia--$5.80--October 1, 2001
Nunavut--$7.00--April 1, 1999
Ontario--$6.85--January 1, 1995
Prince Edward Island--$6.00--January 1, 2002
Quebec--$7.00--February 1, 2001
Saskatchewan--$6.00--January 1, 1999
Yukon Territory--$7.20--October 1, 1998

National Average: $6.46

National Minimum Wage Rates

International evidence shows that most low-paid workers are not in low-income families. Hence, increases in the minimum wage are unlikely to “trickle down” to low-income households. The benefits of higher minimum wages accrue largely to teenagers and young workers living in relatively affluent households. Furthermore, to the extent that higher minimum wages raise the price of goods that poorer families tend to consume, increases in the minimum wage have perverse impacts on the distribution of real incomes across households.

Congratulations should go to the British Columbia New Democratic Party for this scenario. Not only have they allowed unions to raise adult wages of the affluent, they have given their children raises as well. The poor go on welfare and the province goes in debt, then guess what, those same children will be faced with paying that debt on the shoulders of the poor by cutting programmes geared for them!

The socialist philosophy of income redistribution is a fallacy. Socialists only look out for those who champion their philosophy thus creating a hierarchy of thugs!

The British Columbia Government MUST claw back the minimum wage to at least a National average of $6.45, or at most back to April 1998 levels of $7.00. Or at BARE MINIMUM, STOP FUTURE INCREASES UNTIL THE NATION CATCHES UP WITH THEIR RATE!

John I. Fleming

quote:
"The more a subject is understood, the more briefly it may be explained,"
Thomas Jefferson, 1816

From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 28 November 2001 12:59 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Flemming, you forgot to add that unemployment is beneficial for business. In times where there are more workers than jobs, wages tend to go up because workers can pick and choose, while in times where there are more jobs than workers, wages tend to go down because people or competing for jobs. Thus, the ideal state for business is when there is higher unemployment.

Secondly, it is beneficial to business if governments keep welfare rates down, since the lower the welfare rate the lower a wage that a person will agree to work for. Thus, higher unemployment is only beneficial for business if it encourages people to accept lower wages than they would otherwise and to work under circumstances and conditions that they otherwise would not tolerate.

If minimum wage and welfare rates are fairly equal, people are going to be a little bit more picky over what type of work they will or will not accept. This would put businesses in a position of competing for workers - meaning higher wages and/or better working conditions. Thus, the minimum wage and the welfare rate are not independent entities.

Just something my dad told me as a child.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2001 01:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"International evidence", Mr Fleming says.

How about just some good old domestic information on the composition of the labor force earning minimum wage? Keep in mind that a rise in the minwage causes a ratchet effect as other wages above it rise. In that respect it is an imperfect but necessary adjustment for inflation.

(Also please remember that Vancouver is an expensive place to live.)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 28 November 2001 05:10 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just cross referencing threads.
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 28 November 2001 05:37 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, vaudree
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 28 November 2001 09:38 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Socialists only look out for those who champion their philosophy thus creating a hierarchy of thugs!

I'll give you the opportunity to use your search engine and find out what the word thug is in refference to.

Then you'll have an opportunity to correct your mistake, or remain an damned liar.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 10:51 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Tommy_Paine wrote:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialists only look out for those who champion their philosophy thus creating a hierarchy of thugs!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll give you the opportunity to use your search engine and find out what the word thug is in refference to.

Then you'll have an opportunity to correct your mistake, or remain an damned liar.


You show me the Conservative and most Liberals for that matter, who assault police and their horses they ride, burn buildings, smash windows, assault civilians attending political party functions, riot in the streets over the economy and welfare cheques or in their case, high taxes!

You show me where the right of centre uses the thug tactics synomyous to that of the mob (maffia).

Back before there were labour laws and in the dirty 30's there were horrific tactics used by the right of centtre. There isn't today!

I will never ever, ever, ever retract the statement that "Socialists only look out for those who champion their philosophy thus creating a hierarchy of thugs!", because it is true! and I hate to break it to you, it wont be tolerated much longer.

Do you realize that when rioters bust-up a McDonalds they are not affecting McDonalds what-so-ever? The person that franchized, the small and medium sized business owner, is the one you hurt! The insurance company is hurt as well.

John I. Fleming

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 28 November 2001 11:11 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You show me the Conservative and most Liberals for that matter, who assault police and their horses they ride, burn buildings, smash windows, assault civilians attending political party functions, riot in the streets over the economy and welfare cheques or in their case, high taxes!

Mr. Fleming forgets his history, specifically the burning of the Parliament buildings in Montreal, in 1849, by the elite of the day, more or less equivalent to Conservatives -- supporters of the so-called Chateau Clique, and bitter opponents of the new democracy being birthed by Baldwin and Lafontaine.

An aide to Governor Carleton told him "Sir, they're only a rabble." Carleton replied, rightly, "Well, they look like a very well-dressed rabble to me." No left-wing crowd in Canada has ever accomplished so much in one demonstration.

And now, Mr. Fleming, I suggest you do a google search on

*plonk*

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 11:22 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
What part of my post didn't you understand Lance? Try reading this part again:

quote:
"Back before there were labour laws and in the dirty 30's there were horrific tactics used by the right of centre. There isn't today!"

These tactics ended a long time ago, which I pointed out. Yet you picked an incident that happed even before my example?

Oh yeah, I forgot, *plonk*!

John I. Fleming

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 28 November 2001 11:23 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You accuse Socialists of being ritual murderers. And since we are a talking about Canadian policy, by inference I don't think it's unfair to say you claim Canadian Socialists in particular.

Instead of attempting to provide extraodinary evidence to support your exrtaodinary claim, or recant the offending word, you launch on yet another diatribe.

You sir, are a damned liar and have squandered any credibitly you might have had.

Good day.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sherpafish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1568

posted 28 November 2001 11:30 PM      Profile for sherpafish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Most of the socialist-leaning people I know aren't rioting for wage increace, is this a new development, or an invention? Most people I talk to are more interested in raising the taxes imposed on corporations and lowering the tax imposed on low-income earners.
Am I living in a strange, polite realm of social sanity?

From: intra-crainial razor dust | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 11:39 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
A thug: A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum. ....thief... brigand, freebooter, bandit, pirate, corsair,...

The English language has many meanings for many words. If you want to associate the word with murderer, that is your prerogative. In my opinion only human beings are murderers.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 28 November 2001 11:45 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have a question, Mr. Fleming, since you seem to be present here:
Do you just receive email updates to threads you posted, or do you actually browse the board?

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 28 November 2001 11:54 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Audra. Guess the 1919 strike is too early to count, but it seems little different than the APEC SUMMIT a few years back. I find the double standard where breaking a few window is horrendous but actually killing people is considered OK. There are lots of legal ways to kill guilable people. And half the time I think the window breakers are plants (but that`s another thread).

I thought we were talking about minimum wage, and how the waitress has to reimburse the restraunt owner if the customer takes off without paying or pays with a check from a closed account. I thought we were talking about 40 year old dishwashers who have to take painkillers for their bad backs, and cook`s lung ect... I thought we were talking about single men and single mothers trying to suport themselves and their families on minimum wage. I thought we were talking about how many minimum wage jobs have inconsistant hours where you may work 3 days one week and 7 the next.

Let`s play a math game $6.85 X 40 = What?
Rent (including heat, electricity cable) = what?
Phone = What?
How much is left for food and everything else?


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2001 11:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(Enter conservative mode)

Well then you just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move into a cheap hovel with 10 roommates, that's what you do! And no complaining about the crappy digs even though you can't save a dime because, well, you CHOSE to live there and work on that wage!

(End conservative mode)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 29 November 2001 12:57 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do recall some cheesed-off landlords painting a hammer-and-sickle on the front entrance to the Ontario Legislature when the NDP temporarily froze rent increases. Also, a few years back in Montreal a large crowd of small businesspeople smashed in the doors of City Hall and occupied the place for a few hours protesting a property tax increase.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 29 November 2001 01:38 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can`t resist. The definition of Tory. Is it
quote:
A thug: A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum. ....thief... brigand, freebooter, bandit, pirate, corsair,...
Actually it meant to pursue or pursued man - an Irish theif.

From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 29 November 2001 03:24 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
International evidence shows that most low-paid workers are not in low-income families.

???????????????They are in rich families? Or low-income families have high incomes?

I quit reading at this point. If someone leads with a statement this wrong, what can follow?


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 03:47 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
In the last few posts I really didn't see a question posed. There was the one asking if I received responses via e-mail and the answer is no. I have many windows open and I am logged on the internet many hours during the day. I just relaod the page and I will repond if there is something that interests me.

I would like to point out that when I started this thread, I started the Rand Formula just prior (or visa-versa). The philosophy of the two goes hand in hand.

Anyway, I am taking a hiatus for a few days and in no way does this mean I will not respond to questions or actively participate in a debate.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 04:03 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Answer #1: done! Thank you.
Other Answers: [editted to: okay, you posted before me on the other thread, so insert straight faced slimey here]
quote:
I just reload the page and I will respond if there is something that interests me.

How am I to interpret this? Does this mean if you don’t respond, you don’t concede that you are wrong? Or you do? Or do you leave it hanging so you can claim no one has challenged you on the basis of fact? (Q1)
I don’t want to see you making statements of claim based on a non-response from yourself (and you can hold me to that standard as well).
Anyway, to repeat the questions you missed:
Q2:
quote:
Why have we had a hundred and whatever tax cuts yet over however many years when it seems to me that it was obvious that at least some of that cash was needed to fund our health care system?

Q3:
quote:
That is a claim about taxation and it’s effects on the economy. Now I understand multiplier effects and what not, but when your posting these claims, I want a real reference.

The last quote can be translated to: I want something, anything (unbiased that is), equating taxation rates to growth rates. In other words, prove it.

quote:
Anyway, I am taking a hiatus for a few days and in no way does this mean I will not respond to questions or actively participate in a debate.

Fair enough. I await your return and your responses... for all these questions (there are three now).

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 04:23 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Clockwork wrote:

quote:
Q2:
Why have we had a hundred and whatever tax cuts yet over however many years when it seems to me that it was obvious that at least some of that cash was needed to fund our health care system?

I'll address that here.

Beginning in 1994 and ending in 1998, the federal liberals cut health care transfers from $0.18 on every dollar to $0.11 on every dollar. The deal that was signed in 2000 allocated $23.3 billion more to the provinces over the next ten years. This amounted adds up to another $0.03 on every dollar. That only brings the federal committment up to $0.14 on every dollar.

The Canada Health Act clearly stipulates that the federal, provincial and territorial government(s) must fund health care equally. The federal government is breaching the Canada Health Act.

Why was the $23.3 billion dollar deal signed and why are the provinces wanting more? At the time the government(s) signed this deal, the federal government was gearing up for the 2000 election and they were handing out happy money. Although, the figures show that they still owe us $0.36 on every dollar. Some of that is made up through different deferrals and tax credit(s) to the provinces and territories, but the fact of the matter is, they aren't funding fully their fair share.

The provinces are back to the table because the federal government once again will have an almost $10 to $17 billion surplus this fiscal year. Some of that money belongs to the provinces.

The surplusses a government obtains should be used for what the Canadian people want. Currently the four top issues with Canadians are: security, public health care, tax cuts and debt repayment. Therefore, fund it from the surplus tax dollars they have collected. It is not the federal government's money to spend on pet projects when the provinces aren't being treated fairly through the Canada Health Act. Just give us the money they owe us is all we ask!

The provincial government is paying more than their fair share for health care. We are paying $23.7 billion in health care in Ontario. Of that the Canada Health Act stipulates that the federal government must pay $11.85 billion (or tell us to bring the budget down). They do not pay $11.85 billion, in fact they only pay $6.3 billion. That leaves $5.35 billion they are shortchanging us. The Premiers know this and so does Alan Rock because as of the day before yesterday he called for a truce saying he would look into the funding allocations.

Scenario:

If you and I were to purchase a rental property (Canada and the Provinces) and we both collected the equal amouts of rent (taxes). In our contract with one another (The Canada Health Act) we agreed to pay our fair share of the morgage, utilities, hydro, municipal taxes, etc. (health care). You have now found out that I stopped paying my half of the bills and in fact I am only paying half of my responsibility. Would it not be wise for you to rip up our contract (Canada Health Act) and disolve our membership in rental property (health care)?

John I. Fleming

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 04:50 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
from the other post Clockwork wrote:

quote:
" To restate the question, and admittedly expand on it, why is all this wonderful new spending initiatives being done now instead of before, when we were not yet in a “crisis”. Why have we had a hundred and whatever tax cuts yet over however many years when it seems to me that it was obvious that at least some of that cash was needed to fund our health care system?"

The answer to this can actually be found in my previous post here. The federal governments cuts to health care over 4 1/2 years took it's toll!

If I am wrong, then 13 Premiers in this country is wrong and the federal government gave $23.3 billion in 2000 for nothing. Furthermore, Alan Rock wouldn't be asking for a truce and he would look into it.

We must realize that not only did the provinces continually increase their respective health care budget(s), they added on the shortfall the federal government cut!

What would happen if the provincial government(s) were to bring in an auditor and ask them how much over-all would it cost to fund health care and then only fund half that amount? That is the way the Canada Health Act stipulates!

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 05:37 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Clockwork wrote:

quote:
"That is a claim about taxation and it’s effects on the economy. Now I understand multiplier effects and what not, but when your posting these claims, I want a real reference."

The largest across the board tax cut in the history of the United States was The Kennedy-Johnson Tax Cut of 1964. It had such a shocking effect on the economy it is being herolded by Conservatives ever since.

Before I leave for my hiatus, I will leave you with a paper from Queen's University:

"If asked to cite the clearest example of successful fiscal policy in the United States, most economists would point to the period 1961-1965, during which a succession of expansionary measures that culminated in the major tax reduction of 1964 brought the economy out of the doldrums of stagnation and back on the track of fast growth and high employment. The conditions for success were favorable. The economy was far below its potential, inflation had been wrung out of the economy by the conservative policies of President Eisenhower, and the budget at the outset was clearly restrictive as measured by the full-employment surplus. In this environment President Kennedy was able to develop a consensus about the direction in which fiscal policy should move. Since there was ample slack in the economy, there was little danger of overshooting into inflation. (Dernburg, 1985, p. 442)"


The Kennedy-Johnson Tax Cut: A Revisionist History

John I. Fleming

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 07:56 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Q2:
Now, help me here cause I’m dumb:
quote:
The Canada Health Act clearly stipulates that the federal, provincial and territorial government(s) must fund health care equally. The federal government is breaching the Canada Health Act.

Where? Its not so clear to me. The CHST is contingent on compliance with the Canada Health Act, but I don’t see where the Federal Government requires the CHST to be used to fund health care specifically. Nor does the Canada Health Act state that federal/provincial funding must be equal (in my non-legalese reading).
In fact:
quote:
The CHST gives provinces and territories the flexibility to allocate payments among social programs according to their priorities, while upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act and the condition that there be no period of minimum residency with respect to social assistance.

I interpret flexibilty to mean that the federal government does not have to match provincial expenditures. I interpret it to mean the provinces can spend the CHST transfer on social priorities as they see fit. Am I wrong?
My understanding is that before the Established Program Financing thingy of 1977, the federal government did have to spilt the costs 50/50. But after the EPF came into effect, block transfers were used that were independent of medical costs and could, if wanted, be allocated to other social programs. This is also my reading of the CHST which supplanted the EPF.

quote:
Beginning in 1994 and ending in 1998, the federal liberals cut health care transfers from $0.18 on every dollar to $0.11 on every dollar.

Explain this then:
quote:
Why the 11 cents is wrong…
The claim that the federal share is 11 per cent is wrong. It fails to take into account:
  • the CHST cash supplements ($3.5 billion in Budget 1999 and $2.5 billion in Budget 2000);
  • the CHST tax transfer ($15.3 billion in 2000-01);
  • direct federal spending ($3.2 billion in 2000-01); and
  • Equalization ($9.5 billion in 2000-01) available for health care in less prosperous provinces.
It also fails to recognize that the full amount of the CHST is available to spend on health care, should provincial governments wish to do so.
Simply put, there is no single number to capture the federal contribution.

So if this is right, and
quote:
The surpluses a government obtains should be used for what the Canadian people want. Currently the four top issues with Canadians are: security, public health care, tax cuts and debt repayment.
this statement is true, than it is completely irresponsible to blame the federal government for our health care woes now, because Harris has consistently favoured tax cuts over spending increases. He can’t cut taxes than blame the federal government for not funding health care. Nor can he continue to blame the federal government when it is increasing transfers and still take credit for increased health care spending.

And what were the polls 4 years ago? Three years ago, etc?

And since I don’t see where the federal government requires a 50/50 funding split,

quote:
The provincial government is paying more than their fair share for health care. We are paying $23.7 billion in health care in Ontario. Of that the Canada Health Act stipulates that the federal government must pay $11.85 billion (or tell us to bring the budget down). They do not pay $11.85 billion, in fact they only pay $6.3 billion. That leaves $5.35 billion they are shortchanging us. The Premiers know this and so does Alan Rock because as of the day before yesterday he called for a truce saying he would look into the funding allocations

this doesn’t wash. If we want health care spending as a priority, it is irresponsible to cut taxes and shift the blame. Health care is a provincial responsibility, they got to ensure it is funded. If it was, then I’d have no problem blaming the federal government for high taxes as a result.

That is my understanding, anyway. And from this conclusion, I have to ask for a better answer to Q2 (admittedly, some of this thinking could be flawed, but):
Why have we had a hundred and whatever tax cuts yet over however many years when it seems to me that it was obvious that at least some of that cash was needed to fund our health care system?

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 29 November 2001 08:32 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You show me the Conservative and most Liberals for that matter, who assault police and
their horses they ride, burn buildings, smash windows, assault civilians attending political
party functions, riot in the streets over the economy and welfare cheques or in their
case, high taxes!

Why would a Conservative or a Liberal do that? Don't they use the "legal" way of manipulating the oxymoron which is "Canadian Democracy & representation"? If I'm not mistaken, they do this by going to the governing party, giving them a heap of money and saying "there- now if you don't do what I asked, I'll take it back!".

We all have different ways of trying to have an influence.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 29 November 2001 09:37 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
they do this by going to the governing party, giving them a heap of
money and saying "there- now if you don't do what I asked, I'll take it back!".

Bingo! And this works like a charm. So if this in practice works on many levels, and the concept that politicians can and will say anything to get elected, why hasn't the left adopted it to gain power and once done, change the rules of the game?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 29 November 2001 10:42 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1) we'd be outbid
2) it's morally questionable, some may say WRONG!
3) most leftists don't consider "The ends justifies the means" to be a valid argument.

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 29 November 2001 11:10 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
3) most leftists don't consider "The ends justifies the means" to be a valid argument.

Explain "direct action" then.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sherpafish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1568

posted 29 November 2001 02:21 PM      Profile for sherpafish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Explain "direct action" then.

The media has told you that all direct action is violent, and you have swallowed that falsehood.
Q: How do I explain effective direct action?

A: Non-violent, and extreemly disruptive.

(I promiced on another thread a list on non-violent actions. It is lengthy, I will post it tonight.)


From: intra-crainial razor dust | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Minerva
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 521

posted 29 November 2001 06:12 PM      Profile for Minerva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Fleming wrote:
quote:

You show me where the right of centre uses the thug tactics synomyous to that of the mob (maffia).

Threats, beatings, bombings, anthrax mailings, and assasinations of abortion providers, family planning clinics, and women who by necessity and/or conviction, exercise their rights over their own bodies.

Using your arguments, YOU and all right of centre people are fundamentally implicated in this violence.


From: Lotusland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2001 08:44 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(edited: Clockwork jumped the gun on me Oh well.. good reading! )

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 30 November 2001 09:24 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I’d also like to point out, Mr. Fleming, that it seems a bit hypocritical for the Mike Harris to be complaining about the federal government cutting transfers when he has turned around and dumped a lot of costs on the municipalities.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 30 November 2001 09:33 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To go back to the main topic, I figure we should hold the line on minimum wage when somebody holds the line on executive compensation.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 01 December 2001 02:03 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To side track the conversation again with another long post:
Q3
I have a question, Mr. Fleming (yeah, another one, I know). Do you actually read the references you post? You seem to miss some of the key points in your links:
quote:
This book can be considered to be revisionist history. It is more critical of the performance of the members of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Kennedy-Johnson administrations than has been the case in the past. This re-assessment is perhaps inevitable since Walter Heller set an overly confident and self-congratulatory tone in the Godkin Lectures that he gave at Harvard University in 1966, before the dust had settled on the fiscal-policy experiment. It is supremely ironical that Heller would have better served his long-term goal of more active fiscal policy had he taken a more skeptical approach when these lectures were published in his book, New Dimensions of Political Economy. Contrary to his claim (1967, p.72) that this was a "textbook tax cut" and that "Careful appraisal of the tax cut's impact on GNP shows a remarkably close fit of results to expectations," it will become obvious that Heller's presentation of textbook macroeconomic theory was deliberately fuzzy and that it is virtually impossible to connect the numerical predictions made in 1963 with the outcomes in 1964-65. Moreover the success of the "new economics" cannot be claimed on the basis of the elimination of the output gap by 1965. The story continued without interruption into 1968, with the last three years characterized by escalating Vietnam war expenses, rising inflation and an inability to legislate a timely tax increase. As John Kenneth Galbraith warned President Kennedy in 1962 (B2), "Tax reduction is highly irreversible." This lack of symmetry in fiscal policy in the 1960s is an important element in the subsequent demise of countercyclical stabilization initiatives by the time we reach the 1980s.

If governments are to move total aggregate demand to equal potential output, the tax rate is the clumsiest and least reliable instrument that can be used for this purpose. It would be more sensible to depend on variations in direct government demand for goods and services than to manipulate private disposable income to achieve the same result. There are two reasons why taxes on income are the wrong instrument: (1) the connection between taxes and aggregate demand is not strong or contemporaneous and (2) tax changes have too much political baggage attached to them.

There are still too many economists who continue to believe that good economics makes for better politics. In the early years of academic economists as policy advisers - John Maynard Keynes was probably the first prominent example - economics may have held the upper hand. Since then that power has been eroded as economic policies must now achieve popularity, not efficiency. The scientific and practical progress made in opinion polling has had a much more pronounced effect on policy decisions than all the economic models of Pareto efficiency put together. Even in the Kennedy-Johnson era the advice rendered by the CEA was deeply colored by political imperatives, as the record now clearly shows, but this should not really come as a surprise to anyone who truly understands the dictum: "No one is immune to incentives." Because they control the purse strings of the burgeoning public sector, politicians and bureaucrats set the rules by which the game will be played and economists, who have lots of ideas but precious little power, must accept these rules if they are to be policy advisers. The political arena is expressly designed as a place for adversarial confrontation. In order to win, each side needs economic experts, not as advisers, but as propagandists. Given the enormous stakes involved in these battles, the productivity of policy advisers is much more likely to be measured in terms of their ability to "sell" a program to the electorate than on their economic analysis of its benefits and costs. In the fullness of time this incentive system will lead economists to tell their political masters only what they want to hear instead of what they need to know and I, for one, cannot suggest a way of reversing this disturbing trend.


My reading of these two chapters tells me that the author it being hyper-critical about what went on then, inlcuding the tax cuts. Not a very ringing endorsement, Mr. Fleming.

Anyway, some fun stuff from non-authorities:

quote:
Maybe this doesn't prove anything. Nonetheless, the historical record of the past 44 years shows that when the Oval Office is occupied by a Republican, the deficit widens, and when it is occupied by a Democrat, the deficit shrinks or the surplus widens.
http://www.industryweek.com/Columns/ASP/columns.asp?ColumnId=518

quote:
''Most economists believe there could be a long-run spur in growth after a major tax cut, but not anything you're going to see in two or three years,'' says Gilbert Metcalf, a Tufts University economist.

Still, that view is not universally held. Some economists say tax cuts shocked the economy to life during the Kennedy and Reagan administrations and can do so again.

''I think the Kennedy tax cut worked, and the Reagan tax cut ended a recession,'' says Laura D'Andrea Tyson, former head of Clinton's National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers. ''It's a question of timing.''

Tax-cut advocates look to history as a testament to their faith. In 1996, a commission on tax policy chaired by ardent tax cutter Jack Kemp credited tax cuts for triggering growth during the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s.

But a 1996 study of tax policy and economic growth by Dartmouth's Skinner and Federal Reserve economist Eric Engen challenges the Kemp panel's conclusions. Engen and Skinner noted that the strongest period of growth came during World War II, when average tax rates grew from 3.6% to 25%.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/bush203.htm

quote:
And supply-siders are careful to note that Reagan's was the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. In truth, the Kennedy-Johnson expansion was longer: 106 months compared to Reagan's 92.1 Of course, there was a war in Vietnam, which gives supply-siders an excuse to dismiss it because wars are beneficial to the economy. But they are beneficial because governments engage in Keynesian borrowing and spending during them (which could be directed to social services as well as war). Unfortunately for supply-siders, it was really Keynesianism that produced the longest economic boom since World War II.
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/6Economy.htm

quote:
The Kennedy tax cuts are another favorite supply-side myth; many claim that once the tax cuts went into effect in 1964, income tax collections grew. But as you can see from the chart below, growth in income tax collections sharply dropped off:
Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect 1965 154,475 - 1.5
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
(the above chart, of course, is meaningless becuase it doesn't extend, but, hey, it's all fun, right?)

I’d also post taxation rates and growth rates for other countries too, like Germany and such… but, why take up more space.

To conclude: it would seem to me the Harris’ cuts are in line with (albeit on a much smaller scale) with the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts. Inflation tamed, followed by a period of growth, followed by tax-cuts, followed by a recession. Of all this reading, I think government spending and monetary policy are much more important to the economy than a tax-cut.

Anyway, since your answer falls short, yet again, I ask:

quote:
That is a claim about taxation and it’s effects on the economy. Now I understand multiplier effects and what not, but when your posting these claims, I want a real reference.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 02 December 2001 01:27 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
economic double-speak aside, the early sixties were a period of exponential expansion in brand new technology, -electronics. the US military-industrial complex was also working on a race to control space, establish a beachhead on the moon, exploit offshore resources virtually unhindered by environmental or social oversight and domestic capital was still invested nationally.Internationally, third world slavery, political manipulation and free-booter economic terrorism allowed for the export of poverty, and resultant increased productivity.
not inconsequentially, union density in most of the industries concerned was thirty to fifty per cent higher than it is now.
racism and gender inequity allowed industry to overtly capitalize on marginalized workers to support a minimum wage which actually represented an adequate entry level income.
unfortunately mr.fleming is correct. the left, through attempting to eliminate the oppression of minorities, women, child labor and the inclusion of social and health benefits on a universal basis has undermined the artificial under-pinning which supported what was once called a minimum wage.
only the continued and expanded imposition of non-sustainable living conditions, preferrably off-shore, will allow the business environment to support an increased minimum wage.
Thugs in blue suits, driving a Lexus. oh for the good old days friend fleming when a right-winger could fart and point at some immigrant, right?

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca