Canadian Politics

[WildPath]

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

any big increase in wages will get passed on to the consumers

Yes! As a business owner I'd like my customers to have more money in their pockets. If businesses are relying on employees to work below the poverty line, that indicates a problem.

Trickle down economics has been thoroughly disproven and we are realizing that a race to the bottom only helps the very few at the top. Recent policy by international agreements to raise the minimum corporate income tax demonstrates this. 

The London School of Economics, along with a number of studies have destroyed any credibility of trickle down economics. I'd provide links, but really, it will obviously be cast aside as academic hogwash. I'm sure your personal experience is much more valid than the opinion of distinguished economists. Justinflation, right?

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Getting some responsible government during an inflationary crisis might help but that's not what this particular forum wants to hear.

The issue with this is not that member on this forum are biased against your opinion, the issue is that you disregard highly credible information in favour of biased sources and personal anecdotes. It is hard to persuade someone when you disregard evidence and only offer personal experience and biased sources to back up your arguments.

[GCn20]

35 minutes ago, WildPath said:

Yes! As a business owner I'd like my customers to have more money in their pockets. If businesses are relying on employees to work below the poverty line, that indicates a problem.

Trickle down economics has been thoroughly disproven and we are realizing that a race to the bottom only helps the very few at the top. Recent policy by international agreements to raise the minimum corporate income tax demonstrates this. 

The London School of Economics, along with a number of studies have destroyed any credibility of trickle down economics. I'd provide links, but really, it will obviously be cast aside as academic hogwash. I'm sure your personal experience is much more valid than the opinion of distinguished economists. Justinflation, right?

The issue with this is not that member on this forum are biased against your opinion, the issue is that you disregard highly credible information in favour of biased sources and personal anecdotes. It is hard to persuade someone when you disregard evidence and only offer personal experience and biased sources to back up your arguments.

Sorry man but it is my belief that if it is not personal experience then it can ONLY be anecdotal. Evidence is not theoretical, it is real life experience. I am shocked by how many of you disregard that. For every piece of evidence you provide I can provide an equally compelling piece of evidence by an equally credible source. The problem with that is you will call it biased when it doesn't fit your narrative. Therefore, I will stick to my personal experience gained over 30 years of being a business owner in this province and from the network of colleagues who, by the way, agree entirely with what I'm saying. Have you ever ran a business yourself? Was your experience different? These are the only things that are credible to me, not university professors pontificating over sets of values that are unrealistic and set up with parameters that quite frankly rarely exist in the real world. Anyone can spin their study to say anything they want it to say by whoever is paying for them to do the study. That's the difference between academia and the real world and why I hold very little respect of the opinions of such studies. That being said I could probably provide a thousand links from academics that will counter your point but again, it will mean little, because these studies are produced to promote the viewpoints of those that sponsor them.

The problem with the studies you promote, and academia really loves to produce, is that the economists assume businesses can survive the disruption created before the stabilization and that is idiotic because most small businesses do not have this kind of war chest to fall back on.

Edited May 31, 2022 by GCn20

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Sorry man but it is my belief that if it is not personal experience then it can ONLY be anecdotal. Evidence is not theoretical, it is real life experience. I am shocked by how many of you disregard that. For every piece of evidence you provide I can provide an equally compelling piece of evidence by an equally credible source. The problem with that is you will call it biased when it doesn't fit your narrative. Therefore, I will stick to my personal experience gained over 30 years of being a business owner in this province and from the network of colleagues who, by the way, agree entirely with what I'm saying. Have you ever ran a business yourself? Was your experience different? These are the only things that are credible to me, not university professors pontificating over sets of values that are unrealistic and set up with parameters that quite frankly rarely exist in the real world. Anyone can spin their study to say anything they want it to say by whoever is paying for them to do the study. That's the difference between academia and the real world and why I hold very little respect of the opinions of such studies. That being said I could probably provide a thousand links from academics that will counter your point but again, it will mean little, because these studies are produced to promote the viewpoints of those that sponsor them.

You don't understand academia. Your evidence is n=1.  

You don't want to hear anything that disagrees with your opinion. 

Please link a peer-reviewed academic article that supports your opinion that low wages are good. 

But, you won't be able to, so you'll attack real evidence and just believe whatever you want. 

All data is collected from the "real world". 

[blue_gold_84]

5 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

The problem with that is you will call it biased when it doesn't fit your narrative. 

The irony and lack of self-awareness in the above statement are staggering.

To the rest of your absurd reply:

[MOBomberFan]

2 hours ago, Tracker said:

Not the proper context. Ronnie Raygun was given this adage so as to justify making the rich richer on the assumption that there would be the infamous "Trickle Down Theory" which was instantly rephrased to "Tinkle Down Theory"- a very apt description of the Reagan era. Under his administration, the S&L debacle and the Enron catastrophe happened.

JFK used the expression long before Reaganomics was a thing, unless of course Wikipedia has once again betrayed me

[GCn20]

17 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

The irony and lack of self-awareness in the above statement are staggering.

To the rest of your absurd reply:

There is nothing personal or anecdotal about how small businesses in the real world react to wage increases. Every business lobby has been screaming it from the rooftops to the socialists that would offload governmental responsibility to the business sector. Keep on dragging up absurd comparisons, they do not make your case any more compelling.

 

[JCon]

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

There is nothing personal or anecdotal about how small businesses in the real world react to wage increases. Every business lobby has been screaming it from the rooftops to the socialists that would offload governmental responsibility to the business sector. Keep on dragging up absurd comparisons, they do not make your case any more compelling.

 

This is just a lie you tell yourself. 

[GCn20]

21 minutes ago, JCon said:

You don't understand academia. Your evidence is n=1.  

You don't want to hear anything that disagrees with your opinion. 

Please link a peer-reviewed academic article that supports your opinion that low wages are good. 

But, you won't be able to, so you'll attack real evidence and just believe whatever you want. 

All data is collected from the "real world". 

I understand academia quite well. I just strongly believe that academia is out to lunch. But just for shits and giggles here is one from the Fraser Institute citing several studies that counter your argument. You will no doubt miss that point though, and claim the Fraser Institute is a biased right wing think tank even though they have cited credible sources to their opinion.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wages-dont-help-poor

[blue_gold_84]

The Fraser Institute...

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I understand academia quite well. I just strongly believe that academia is out to lunch. But just for shits and giggles here is one from the Fraser Institute citing several studies that counter your argument. You will no doubt miss that point though, and claim the Fraser Institute is a biased right wing think tank even though they have cited credible sources to their opinion.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wages-dont-help-poor

That's an opinion. Not peer-reviewed academia. 

You don't understand anything. 

I'm done. 

[WildPath]

50 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Have you ever ran a business yourself? Was your experience different?

I have and I do. I also have many friends who are small business owners and they agree the minimum wage should be raised. If I only relied on personal experience this would tell me all small business owners want to minimum wage to be raised.

Like JCon, I'm done. It is clear that fact and legitimate research won't sway your opinion. No point in continuing.

[Tracker]

25 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

There is nothing personal or anecdotal about how small businesses in the real world react to wage increases. Every business lobby has been screaming it from the rooftops to the socialists that would offload governmental responsibility to the business sector. Keep on dragging up absurd comparisons, they do not make your case any more compelling.

 

And yet, the healthiest economies along with the lowest violent crime rates and the highest public satisfaction (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland etc have thr highest corporate and personal income taxes and tightly regulated industries are....gasp... socialist.

2 minutes ago, WildPath said:

I have and I do. I also have many friends who are small business owners and they agree the minimum wage should be raised. If I only relied on personal experience this would tell me all small business owners want to minimum wage to be raised.

Like JCon, I'm done. It is clear that fact and legitimate research won't sway your opinion. No point in continuing.

Every time the minimum wage or wages in general rise, there are dire predictions of economic doom. And yet, they never seem to come to pass.

[17to85]

49 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I understand academia quite well. I just strongly believe that academia is out to lunch. But just for shits and giggles here is one from the Fraser Institute citing several studies that counter your argument. You will no doubt miss that point though, and claim the Fraser Institute is a biased right wing think tank even though they have cited credible sources to their opinion.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wages-dont-help-poor

Opinion piece from the national post =/= peer reviewed study. Just because a study done by academia disagrees with your preconceived ideas doesn't mean academia is out to lunch. The whole idea behind peer reviewed is that the thing is looked at by other experts and torn to pieces if possible. That's how academia works. It's not the Fraser institute cherry picking things that they like.

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Opinion piece from the national post =/= peer reviewed study. Just because a study done by academia disagrees with your preconceived ideas doesn't mean academia is out to lunch. The whole idea behind peer reviewed is that the thing is looked at by other experts and torn to pieces if possible. That's how academia works. It's not the Fraser institute cherry picking things that they like.

And its not as if the Fraser Institute has ever parroted the right-wing agenda.

[Bigblue204]

22 hours ago, GCn20 said:

The problem with the studies you promote, and academia really loves to produce, is that the economists assume businesses can survive the disruption created before the stabilization and that is idiotic because most small businesses do not have this kind of war chest to fall back on.

Congratulations on making our point. IF your business can not pay a livable wage it 100% should fail.

I've not run my own business, but I've worked for small businesses. I've also been in positions where I had to let people go because we couldn't afford to pay them a livable wage.
 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Bigblue204

[Fatty Liver]

Bravo, hopefully they can shut down handgun and semi-auto sales for good, keep pushing until all loopholes are eliminated.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/handguns-liberal-bill-1.6470554

 

 

[WildPath]

9 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

Bravo, hopefully they can shut down handgun and semi-auto sales for good, keep pushing until all loopholes are eliminated.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/handguns-liberal-bill-1.6470554

 

 

Even as a gun owner, I like this legislation. Not really sure why anyone would need handguns or assault-style weapons. I support shooting centres having these guns available for people to try and use in a safely, controlled environment if they would like. From what I understand, most research points to 'guns for self-defense' as unhelpful or even harmful, not to mention the likelihood of accidents happening in situations outside of self-defence. - Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault - PMC (nih.gov)

Of course any opposition to this will say that they are targeting legal gun owners and doing nothing about illegal guns in Canada, but I'm not sure why both can't be done at the same time. I frequently see law enforcement taking illegal guns off the street and I haven't seen any people opposed to legislation like this propose any better ways to target illegal firearms.

[Fatty Liver]

26 minutes ago, WildPath said:

Even as a gun owner, I like this legislation. Not really sure why anyone would need handguns or assault-style weapons. I support shooting centres having these guns available for people to try and use in a safely, controlled environment if they would like. From what I understand, most research points to 'guns for self-defense' as unhelpful or even harmful, not to mention the likelihood of accidents happening in situations outside of self-defence. - Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault - PMC (nih.gov)

Of course any opposition to this will say that they are targeting legal gun owners and doing nothing about illegal guns in Canada, but I'm not sure why both can't be done at the same time. I frequently see law enforcement taking illegal guns off the street and I haven't seen any people opposed to legislation like this propose any better ways to target illegal firearms.

The main selling point is that we're swiftly moving in the opposite direction of the US gun policy, while we still can.  There is a small but loud percentage of our population that will complain and fight these measures, but for the most part it is what the vast majority of Canadians want.  I don't mind saying, I want to see this group of regressive nuts squished out like a bug, after the embarrassing "Freedum March" my patience with their stupidity wore out.

[Tracker]

23 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

The main selling point is that we're swiftly moving in the opposite direction of the US gun policy, while we still can.  There is a small but loud percentage of our population that will complain and fight these measures, but for the most part it is what the vast majority of Canadians want.  I don't mind saying, I want to see this group of regressive nuts squished out like a bug, after the embarrassing "Freedum March" my patience with their stupidity wore out.

This small minority is not just loud- they are agitated to the point of being nearly ready to commit violent acts against any government or individuals who they see as willing to take away their God-given right to own and brandish people-killing firearms, And some already have. 

[Fatty Liver]

1 minute ago, Tracker said:

This small minority is not just loud- they are agitated to the point of being nearly ready to commit violent acts against any government or individuals who they see as willing to take away their God-given right to own and brandish people-killing firearms, And some already have. 

They are currently in a buying frenzy to purchase every handgun and semi-auto available on store shelves before the ban comes into effect, one is never enough, they're often purchasing 2-3 at a time.

The following forum is a glimpse into their deranged world view.

https://www.snowandmud.com/threads/gun-control-its-coming.123023/page-57

[JCon]

36 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

The main selling point is that we're swiftly moving in the opposite direction of the US gun policy, while we still can.  There is a small but loud percentage of our population that will complain and fight these measures, but for the most part it is what the vast majority of Canadians want.  I don't mind saying, I want to see this group of regressive nuts squished out like a bug, after the embarrassing "Freedum March" my patience with their stupidity wore out.

Complain? They actively want to shoot the PM and, according to someone on the right, gun control is the only thing that matters to the rural population. They don't care about education or healthcare. 

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, JCon said:

Complain? They actively want to shoot the PM and, according to someone on the right, gun control is the only thing that matters to the rural population. They don't care about education or healthcare. 

In other words, they are American wannabees.

 

[bustamente]

Women should and do how high positions in politics and business but this one couldn't manage a public toilet and her health minister is dangerously ill equipped to hold her position

 

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

19 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Women should and do how high positions in politics and business but this one couldn't manage a public toilet and her health minister is dangerously ill equipped to hold her position

 

 

Spiro Agnew approves this message.

[WildPath]

13 hours ago, bustamente said:

Women should and do how high positions in politics and business but this one couldn't manage a public toilet and her health minister is dangerously ill equipped to hold her position

 

 

I don't think many critiques of her or her party are based on gender, but this party royally stinks. A lot of significant roles in the party are filled by horrid politicians. This government seems like a satire:

• Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations immediately comes to the defense of residential schools upon his appointment.
• Former Health Minster Friesen attacking doctors saying they are attempting to create chaos by warning that measures should be taken to prevent waves of Covid.
• Former Education Minister (Goertzen) participates in webinar advocating for home school while education minister "Education isn't simply a state activity — maybe shouldn't even be primarily a state activity,"
• Current health minister belongs to a church that has routinely publicly disobeyed public health orders, sued the government over health orders and Audrey Gordon herself was caught numerous times in violation of health orders.

It almost feels like they are intentionally mocking Manitobans sometimes. At the very least don't put people in charge of the very roles they obviously are completely unsuited for. This includes the current premier who was abysmal as the health minister during the worst wave of Covid and failed her way up to leader of the province.

Edited June 2, 2022 by WildPath
Must proof read....