Post was addressed to tallanvor... if he can cherry pick "freedom of speech" violation as a defining tenet of civilization, I should be able to counter was a few cherry picked assertions of my own. Also---I don't think you grasp the concept of rates per 100000? These correct for population biases such as pop. density. Otherwise, yes, we'd be comparing 300 million Americans to 30 million Canadians---but in this case, per 100000 adjusts it so that we are comparing 100000 Americans to 100000 Canadians.
I didn't give you a "random case study", I gave you a court case, in which a publishing company was being tried for publishing a text speaking out against Islam. That would never happen in America. Even Canada admits they have less freedom of speech than the US. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/free-speech-in-canada/ I don't need to bring you stats, because it is fact that the court case I mentioned would never take place in America (proven by the fact that the book was published in America and a court case indeed did not take place). How people choose to treat those whose opinions they find offensive or wrong directly speaks to those peoples' civility. It is not "arbitrary", it is one gauge of how civilized a group of people are.
---funny, we have less freedom of speech because, well, a publishing company was censored (yet journalistic freedom seems to rank quite high in Canada) and Ann Coulter was "forbidden" to speak because she was reminded that the Canadian application of freedom of speech calls for no incitement to hate speech. anyways, I'm done debating your arbitrary application of what makes a country more civilized since, if we're to be honest, it's a sidetrack of what this topic is about, and more me defending my nation. However, if you want to cut straight to the point, Canada has a much better financial picture than America, while providing more services to her people, and while being "socialist" in nature, actually has a much lower corporate tax rate than America (a difference of around 10% on average, with the gap between the top rate being 25%). in fact, other then the high taxes on individuals, and the sales tax, it's kinda a fiscal conservative's wet dream of balanced budgets or surpluses. Imagine if America could balance her budget by 2015. so yeah, stop attacking Canada
The fact that Canada has much more expansive hate speech laws than the United States, means, right or wrong, that they have more restrictions on freedom of speech. That's not attacking it. It's just stating fact. It's not just a legal issue, though, it's a cultural one. During my time in Canada, it was really common to hear comments like, "I can't believe they allow all of the things people say on US television." By the way, I loved your country, and have been trying to work a way to go back for a while. Its fiscal situation is definitely the best in the West, if not the world. Be proud of that. But, no matter the opinions of you, me, Prime Minister Harper, Queen Elizabeth, or Ann Coulter, Canada does restrict freedom of speech more than the US does.
With the (vain?) idea that we could get back to the original topic, I've summarized the initial cut and paste. It seems very hard to argue the following: (1) Wealth disparity is growing and shows no signs of slowing down (2) Opportunity is shrinking for 99% of the American population. (3) Will to collective action is shrinking (especially dramatically since 2008, with the rise of the "tea party" and the general hate for "government." (4) Taken together, 1, 2, and 3 do not paint a rosy picture for America's future, unless you are in the top 1%. But what we typically get when this topic comes up: (A) A big_texxx (or similar/identical poster) contribution like: "same old tired class warfare, *roll-eyes*" When it's not the same old class warfare. This is the most successful the most elite of the upper-class have been since the 19th century or arguably the most successful they've ever been. This is not your father's or your grandfather's class warfare. Most of us are being annihilated. (B) A diversion to a discussion of something like Canada.
The reason for the increase in wealth disparity is the increase in crony capitalism and thus lobbying. If you want less crony capitalism, than stop regulating markets. If you want less lobbying, than stop giving companies a reason to lobby (again less market regulation). The rich will always use their power to push legislation that benefits them financially. If you stop regulating the markets, than you take away the power of the rich to lobby legislators to push markets in the wealthy's favor. If you don't want to derail a thread, than don't insult other posters.
fine, though I still think it's a weird comparison to throw out there as a measure of "civilization" as tallanvor has done. anyways, to get slightly back to the point---yes, I am quite proud of how Canada has maintained fiscal stability. Yes, one should hesitate to compare apples with oranges (obviously America/Canada are two different scenarios), however, I do think instead of attacking Canada, a fiscal conservative that trumpets the horn of "class welfare" should study a bit more about our country. Somehow, even the most left-wing of our parties (The National Democratic Party) maintains that balanced budgets are a priority. It speaks to a culture of conservatism when it comes to financial matters. How Canada's debt is steadily decreasing has a lot to do with the Canadian notion of conservatism, which is a notion that served Canadian banks quite well through the global recession. True, we don't score spectacular profits, and hell, even our accounting system (GAAP, to be phased out by IFRS, but still relevant for discussion as of now) underreports profits to be on the safe side, but in times of crisis, there is no country I would rather be living in than in safe, boring, and prudent Canada. Like I said, a fiscal conservative's wet dream. Now to tie it into the topic on hand---yes, Canada is "socialist in nature". There are high tax rates on the wealthy, but I do rather think Canada's fiscal situation presents a nice look into the wonders government can perform when they aren't busy accommodating the top 1% of their population.
I'm not really gonna disagree. I'm not sure if you've read my other posts, I've mentioned that some one who believes in the free market principal (call him a conservative if you want) who is self-respecting, vis-a-vis those far right wing nutcases, does not believe in the lack of regulation. Furthermore, I've also already mentioned that I believe in publicly funded health insurance (not health care). Having said that though, as I've mentioned already, the safety net in the US is pretty damn good. It's not in the sense that "it's not absent." It's pretty damn good. Could be better? Certainly. But you need money to pay for it. I would love to own a 300 foot yacht (or I guess that would a ship), but I don't think I can pay for it. The bottom line is, there are many very nice things and many many very noble projects, but you can't pay for them. This is a world without infinite resources. If you've read me from other posts, you know that it's not just the taxation that really gets me, but when people get on the high horses when it's not they (but the rich) that foot the bill. And that anyone that refuses to lie down on the sacrificial slab is called, you name it, despite the economics of it. Heck, I think even if you toss a dog a bone, it may rub itself on your leg (and I hate dogs). So let me ask you, why must the rich routinely handover a significant portion of their wealth to not be burnt at the stake? Does that sound right to you? Yes, I realized you were addressing tallover. I responded because I was the one who brought up Canada. Not as a diversionary tactic, but rather, it was what first came to mind. And the whole point is to disprove that taxation is synonomous with civilization. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. But since it was brought up, I felt compelled to respond. Once again, nothing more, nothing less. Having said that though, I have zero problem with rates per 100, 1000, 10000 or whatever. As a matter of fact, my post replies precisely the per whatever rate. Let's go over it again. If a country one person, it's homocide rate would be zero. It couldn't possibly be anything else. If he commits suicide, it's not homocide, but the suicide rate would be 100%. And that's the whole point. In a country of low population density, it is very often (all else equal) that homocide rate is lower. That's just the fact of it. Less interaction means less of a chance of all sorts of dealings. And heck, homocide rate isn't the only advantage. All else equal, countries with smaller population is also far more likely to have other positive factors, such as HDI, education ranking and of course, near and dear to this post, gasp, more equal Gini coefficients
yes, which is why Somalia is doing so well. seriously did you just pull that out of nowhere? If you could show me research indicating that the size of a country's population correlates with their HDI standing or their Gini coefficients, I would be very impressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality A cursory glance reveals a very high Gini for Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gambia, Haiti, Lesotho, Namibia etc. All things equal---I know you're trying to call ceteris paribus on this, but I just don't see it. I also don't see how a smaller population would naturally create a more equal distribution of income (in fact, I see the opposite, and the data seems to back me up, though without formal regression analysis). What factors are you adjusting for? Though, you bring up a good point in terms of population density---if only it were true. The reality is, that the average Canadian is more likely to be in a city than then the average American, thereby shattering your point. Yes, Eskimo Joe and Eskimo Bob in the Great Frozen North have very few oppurtunites to murder one another---however, out of an average 100000 Canadians, this is simply not true, since the Canadian population is very clustered. http://www.demographia.com/db-intlua-area2000.htm Average Population per Square Mile of Urban Areas 2,900 (USA) 4,000 (Canada) From NationalGeographic.com: The Canadian Shield and rugged western mountains experience subarctic climates, resulting in a near empty north-an estimated 75 percent of Canadians live within 161 kilometers (100 miles) of the U.S. border. One could argue that Canadians have even more oppurtunites to murder people, given how bunched up we all are. No, we do not all live in igloos spread over the tundra at about a 50km distance.
The NDP has always been an opposition party. Opposition parties in every country almost always try to paint the party in power as fiscally irresponsible, and since they're not in power to spend the money they get to hold the hight ground. The NDP has had opportunity to do that to the Conservatives and Labour. (And may have held them both accountable.) And I don't think your taxes on the wealthy are as high as you think, especially at a federal level. During my time there, a story came out about Alberta having the lowest total tax burden in North America. I'm sure that total taxes in Ontario are worse than those in Texas, but I'd be surprised if they are much worse than New York.
True about the NDP, though I just wanted to illustrate that even the most left-wing party in Canada is on board with defecit reduction as a priority. They also had a larger share of responsibility then you think, given that they, the Bloc, and the Liberals, held the balence of power in our recently collapsed minority Harper government. Also, the Liberals, which would be a very left-of-center version of the Dems (hell, sometimes I think even the Conservatives are more left-of-center then the Dems), have always maintained balenced books as a priority, especially when they were in power. It's also an issue that plays dear to Canadians---and they will hold any party accountable if our books fall into disorder. Really, if there's anything I want to tie in from this discussion of Canada, it's to show fiscal conservatives that it is possible to expand gouvernment services responsibly, if one simply runs their ship right when it comes to expanding and collecting revenue. As for tax rates---Alberta is known as a right-wing haven within Canada, and is not very representative of the country. I think the meat of the comparision should be made with Quebec, Ontario, and B.C where most Canadians reside. Those tax rates (especially those of Quebec), should make any red-blooded Tea Partier boil over in rage.
Go back and read my post. Then re-read it. Then re-read it. Then re-read it. Then re-read it again. Specifically, re-read the part where I said "all else equal," which incidently is one of the reasons I chose Canada and the US. But if your definition of "all else equal" with Canada is Somalia, I've nothing more to say. I hope I don't have to explain why. I don't think you all live in iqloos. Actually I know you don't all live in iqloos. Checked the homocide rates in the less populated US states? They are pretty insignificant too. Fact of the matter is, there are only two Canadian metropolitan areas that can compare with the largest ones in the US. Toronto and Montreal. The other fact of the matter is, aside from New York and LA, the US still has Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Detroit, Phily, Houston, etc etc etc. Any given metro areas in Canada IS NOT, poluation wise, denser than any of those areas. The GTA IS NOT more dense than the Northeast corridor. And seriously, I really have to prove to you why "all else equal," the country with smaller population or geographical diversity will have a higher HDI/Gini? It's only been one of the strongest criticisms hurled at those measures. It's pretty simple actually. All else equal, more resources will have to be expended on infrastructure in order to bring the weights in those measures up. Now if you can get those small population to be closely packed to take advantage of economies of scale, you are more likely to raise those even further. So maybe you'll have a guy who actually DOES live in an iqloo in Nunavet who doesn't have access to schools, health care and what not. Except guess what, he'll weigh about NOTHING. And on top of that, let's not kid ourselves, it's not equal. Canadians enjoy quite a bit higher of natural resources per head compared to their counterparts in the US.
I'll concede to losing the battle here. Point being, Canada is more fiscally responsible---YES? Higher taxation on wealthier people is good, YES? It is possible to expand government services responsibly, YES? If you want to make a Canada vs US topic, we can debate on this further, but I don't want to drag out a war on statistical biases and relevance for nothing, especially since we're quibbling over population adjusted crime rates, and the relative application of your Gini/HDI theory---which I really wish you'd bring outside research on, as I am interested---but in another topic.
Why should the working class pay for the excesses of the rich? It just looks terribly wrong when tax cuts for the rich are extended, but collective bargaining rights are being stripped from workers even though they agreed to financial concessions all to "save money". It looks wrong that the first place we look to cut is in low-income housing and education grants. Especially when at least a significant minority of that 1% is the reason why we're in this mess in the first place. The Republicans always claim that sacred tenet that more taxes for the wealthy and business will slow the business cycle---but how about unemployed workers? "So be it." as the Speaker says.
Funnily enough, I was a US resident for 5 years. I think that buys me the right to say "we" in an internet forum.
Hmm, crony capitalism means businesses that depends on close personal relationships. Can you explain how deregulating the markets would solve that? And a point on lobbying, I would argue that regardless of the level of regulation in the markets, firms will ALWAYS have an incentive to lobby. As long as it is profitable to do so in the long run, why SHOULDN'T firms lobby even if you deregulate? You may argue that if you deregulate enough, then firms will stop lobbying, but since when has restraint been a strait of businesses? I would also argue that regulation is exactly what's stopping the rich from even further control of the market. You may argue that the rich can bend the regulations anyway, but that's the point, they are there to impede the progress of the rich. If you take away the regulation, then effectively you are giving the green light for the rich to use their wealth DIRECTLY in the market, not just through influencing politics. Regulation is a barrier. Now, how effective is that barrier in maintaining income equality, that's a different argument altogether, but I don't think deregulation is the answer to income equality.
