Canada v. US

That's the same tired argument that capitalists always advance, that they can't afford to do business as it is. It's bullshit, and you know it. They wouldn't have the same fat profits, but profits they would have.

I did not make the statement you attribute to me. I have stated that corporate R & D is a fraction of promotion and advertising. Once again, retired employees of the pharma companies have testified to that effect, unchallenged, in the House. You made my statement out to be the exact opposite of what it was.

0 Replies

Then you are playing semantical games. I have explicitly referred to the costs for development, testing, and certifying new drugs. If you use the term "R & D" to refer exclusively to basic scientific research, you may have a point. However your point is then not the response to my earlier asssertion that you claimed it to be when you used it.

The development, testing and certifying costs are indeed real and they are much larger than the promotional costs. Without this effort there would be no beneficial applications of the basic research done by universities, government or pharmaceutical companies. And unlike government functionaries or university researchers, the owners of the pharma corporations are risking their own money.

You make frequent use of the phrase "..you capitalists..". I don't know exactly what implications you intend with the phrase, but do you have a better system in mind?

0 Replies

Hey Georgeob1

Did you read my response to detano inipo? I thought I did rather well, if I do say so myself Smile

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=69898&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=130

As to the "profiteering" and "abuses" claimed of some drug companies, I suggest that in a free market, if enough of the drug companies become too ineffectual, others will come in to supplant them, given strong Antitrust.

I argue the lack of strong Antitrust is the major stumbling block in the US (and elsewhere) for a level and fair playing field. Weak Antirust enforcement spells seriously diminished consumer price protections and choice protections.

0 Replies

Chumly, you have the right to feel great about the US financial situation. It is fascinating to see someone spin a disaster into a positive miracle.
I read somewhere that Clinton left Bush a whopping surplus, which has been replaced by a huge deficit. Is that true?

We in Canada had scandals and problems, so we elected another party. The scandal-ridden Liberals left a whopping surplus and a smaller debt.
There is no comparison between our problems and yours.
I admire your faith in an administration that stumbles from one mistake to the next. Good luck to you and all the other spin meisters. You'll need it.
...............................
* Canada was the only G-7 country to record a surplus in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

* The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects that Canada will be the only G-7 country to record a surplus in both 2005 and 2006.

* Canada has had the largest improvement in its budgetary situation among the G-7 countries since 1992, including the sharpest decline in the debt burden.

* Canada's total government sector debt burden declined to an estimated 31 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2004, and has been the lowest in the G-7 since 2003.

Looking at the fiscal positions of the federal government in Canada and the United States:

* The federal government in Canada posted a surplus of C$9.1 billion or 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2003-04, while the U.S. on-budget federal balance fell further into deficit in 2003-04, to US$567 billion or 4.9 per cent of GDP.

* For 2004-05 the federal government in Canada is forecasting a surplus of C$3 billion, while a deficit of US$589 billion is projected for the United States.

* As a result of continued surpluses in Canada and the deterioration in the U.S., the federal market debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada fell below the U.S. figure in 2003-04 for the first time since 1977-78, with the gap expected to widen further in 2004-05.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpa2e.htm

0 Replies

detano :
i'm sure you know the saying :

"don't confuse me with the facts".

and here is another one (translated from the german) :
"do not trust any statistical information that you have not falsified personally".

(today it was announced that the 4th quarter of 2005, canada had the greatest trade surplus in any quarter .
but as i said earlier , we better not confuse the other folks with the facts. won't be appreciated . sure hope that our new government doesn't start spending like a drunken sailor - we've been through it before). hbg

0 Replies

Quote:

(today it was announced that the 4th quarter of 2005, canada had the greatest trade surplus .

Is this compared to the rest of the world,or just with the US?

0 Replies

strictly speaking of caaanada only , farmerman. hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

.
but as i said earlier , we better not confuse the other folks with the facts. won't be appreciated . sure hope that our new government doesn't start spending like a drunken sailor - we've been through it before). hbg

Is this your way of saying that those who don't accept your propositions have misstated relevant facts? If so would you kindly be more specific?

detano inipo wrote:

I read somewhere that Clinton left Bush a whopping surplus, which has been replaced by a huge deficit. Is that true?

It is true. He also bequeathed Bush a collapsing stock market bubble and an economy that had already drifted into recession. The shift from current year budget surplus to deficit was roughly one-third the result of tax cuts designed to stimulate the economy and two-thirds the result of the shrinking stock market and reduced economic growth. Since then economic growth has returned and both the current year deficit and public debt as a % of GDP are shrinking, despite the costs of anb expensive war..

0 Replies

"detano inipo" first point, I live in Canada, I was born in Canada.

detano inipo wrote:

Chumly, you have the right to feel great about the US financial situation.

You are confused here as did not say nor imply "I feel great about US financial situation".

detano inipo wrote:

It is fascinating to see someone spin a disaster into a positive miracle.

What disaster I are you referring to, Katrina? I have no idea what you are referring to here.

detano inipo wrote:

I read somewhere that Clinton left Bush a whopping surplus, which has been replaced by a huge deficit. Is that true?

It must be true if you "read" it "somewhere" Smile

But seriously I do not know how the total debt considerations have changed relative to specific administrations. I will point out though that it is a mistake of the most grievous kind to associate a political party with economic wellbeing in the US or in Canada. Wall Street Week did a super long in-depth in review of the Republicans versus the Democrats using the stock market as a barometer and the market did fractionally better under the Democrats. A statistical insignificance.

It would be much more accurate to say that the popular media and the politicians themselves try very hard to align themselves as being in control of the economy when the actual facts dictate that such a view is nonsense. If you wish the rationale as to why the stock market is an apt barometer for a country's debt etc. just ask.

detano inipo wrote:

We in Canada had scandals and problems, so we elected another party. The scandal-ridden Liberals left a whopping surplus and a smaller debt.

Again I will point out that it is a mistake of the most grievous kind to associate a political party and economic well being. Again it would be much more accurate to say that the popular media and the politicians themselves try very hard to align themselves as being in control of the economy when the actual facts dictate that such a view is nonsense.

detano inipo wrote:

There is no comparison between our problems and yours.

What are you talking about I am CANADIAN, I was born in CANADA, my parents were born in CANADA!

detano inipo wrote:

I admire your faith in an administration that stumbles from one mistake to the next.

What are you talking about here? I AM CANADIAN plus I have no idea where you got the notion I have "faith in an administration" You are confused, I did not say nor imply any "faith" in any "administration".

detano inipo wrote:

Good luck to you and all the other spin meisters. You'll need it.

It is you who appear to have the belief in so-called "spin meisters". Why? Because so far all the references you have provided have not been of your own sourcing, and/or are based on the false presumption as amplified by the popular media that one political party will garner consequentially better economic progress and hence lesser debt than another.

That is not to say however, that politics does not play a part in Canada's economic health, but the political parties balance each other out in such a fashion, that for all intents and purposes it matters not which one is in power.

As to your other 'facts' again I see nothing of your own views in them but only regurgitated 'information'. Where are yours? And again I see your copy pasted 'facts' rife with short term assessments and so-called "predictions" which I have demolished in my major points and of which you do not respond. In fact the copy and pasted 'information' that you have provided support my claims that such short term improvements are mere volatility and that the so-called "predictions" have no reliability.

Is there some reason you cannot or will not converse with me directly and succinctly and on point and insist on copy pasting and relying on political rhetoric and claims about me on a personal level?

I should point that political rhetoric in general and claims about me on a personal level seriously diminish your arguments.

Again I see that you have completely ignored my questions and points, so I will for the sake of expediency put them to you in the hopes that you will respond in a like fashion from one CANADIAN to another CANADIAN eh!

detano inipo wrote:

Surpluses both achieved and anticipated

Bogus political rhetoric by combining "achieved and anticipated", how very peculiar! Do you expect me to assess this as quantifiable and qualifyable, if so how? Further do you expect me to believe the Government (or anyone for that matter) can predict surpluses, if so how?

detano inipo wrote:

As a result, the cost of paying interest on the debt has dropped from a high of 33 cents of every dollar of revenue collected by the federal government in 1995/96 to 19 cents in 2001/02.

Again entirely irrelative to the bigger picture, again look at the last 50 years. Again you are looking at short term volatility only.

detano inipo wrote:

Though still high by historical and international standards, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen from 69% in 1995/1996 to 46% in 2001/02.

My point "still high by historical and international standards", again look at the last 50 years, not the last few years, you will not see the debt decrease in terms of quantifiable and qualifyable real buying power decreases. Do you know what real buying power from a net position over time means?

I get the feeling you did not read my post very closely and/or have not done your own assessments vis-a-vis my suggestions. Am I correct on this that you are simply regurgitating pre-digested snippets as passed to you from sources you approve of?

You have in fact not responded directly to any of my assessments "on point" but instead have chosen a time span of little relevance to my assessments at hand, from a source not of your own confirmation. Please address my assessments in your own words and on point.

Since Burger copy & pasted an overly large piece of text I'll present them again here for your convenience.

Chumly wrote:

detano inipo wrote:
The fact is that an operation like that in the US would have cost me my condo instead of $15.
If so, that is certainly not all the so-called "facts" as you could have US health insurance, let alone the lower taxes, lower interest rates, higher US dollar, higher purchasing power, lower taxes, lower governmental debts, that you would benefit from.
detano inipo wrote:
Chumly, you are painting a frightening picture of Canadian conditions based on opinions.
No I am assessing a given contrast.
detano inipo wrote:
We are slowly paying down our debt.
Completely and entirely false. That is short term government supplied rhetoric. The truth is, from a long term perspective of the last 50 years, the amount of debt in absolute and relative terms in any quantifiable measure has massively increased and there is no indications from governments or otherwise that such increasing debts are reversing irrelative of any short term assessments or claims over some few years.
detano inipo wrote:
We are enjoying a surplus for several years now.
A short term irrelevancy against a long term historical trending increase. Look at the long term big picture of 50 years. The short term variations you refer to have nothing whatsoever to do with the historical increases, what you refer to is called volatility and in no way expresses what has happened over the last 50 years.
detano inipo wrote:
Our taxes are going down as well.
Are they really? By exactly how much in real buying power relative to 20 years ago? Please let me know!
-Ever heard of tax creep?
-Ever heard of the $100,000 life time capital gains exemption being revoked?
-Ever heard of the % capital gains rate going up?
-Ever heard of the massive tightening of business deductions?
-Ever heard of being forced to withdraw pension funds earlier?
-Ever heard of OAC claw-back?
-The list of tax increases has been huge over the last 20 years!
detano inipo wrote:
We have more freedom than our neighbors.
Do we? How do you intend to show this vis-à-vis health care, given one cannot opt out of our socialized system?
detano inipo wrote:
Our Canadian dollar is rising and predictions are that our dollar will supass the US dollar in 2010.
That is the most incorrect. It is correct to say that the Canadian dollar has *risen* not that it is so-called "rising", it's not like watching bread.

It is also much more correct to say our dollar has bounced back from extreme lows due to decreased fears of Quebec separation and increasing commodity prices of which our economy is very reliant on.

Further it is 100% speculation to predict what the exchange rates will be in 2010, no one can do such a thing! Just as no one can predict what inflation will be, nor what the stock market will do; specifically the stock market in the short to mid term i.e. less than 15 - 20 years.
detano inipo wrote:
Your finances are in bad shape.
I do not know what you are referring to here but your comment appears out of context, please edify.
detano inipo wrote:
Perhaps you should direct your criticism at your government
I do not know what you are referring to here but your comment appears out of context, please edify.

I am not suggesting with certainty that you "detano inipo" read the Globe & Mail newspaper and/or other popular Canadian media sources but those sources would tend to provide views parallel to yours. But that does not make them correct.

It is rather easy to exempt oneself from poplar political and media rhetoric and do your own research. I would suggest that if you have not done this you start with the Bank of Canada's web site and the US's Federal Reserve web site.

0 Replies

Chumly Kicks Ass!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

"
I get the feeling you did not read my post very closely and/or have not done your own assessments vis-a-vis my suggestions. Am I correct on this that you are simply regurgitating pre-digested snippets as passed to you from sources you approve of?

You have in fact not responded directly to any of my assessments "on point" but instead have chosen a time span of little relevance to my assessments at hand, from a source not of your own confirmation. Please address my assessments in your own words and on point.

I think this is the heart of the matter.

On a broader perspective = I don't think the relative differences in the debt or even trade balances of Canada and the U.S. are particularly relevant to this discussion. Over the past decade or so Canada has reduced its public debt from very high levels relative to GDP to much more manbageable ones. That is commendable. Relative to our GDP, the U.S, debt is of the same order of magnitude. Both countries are well-developed and prosperous, and the up and down cycles of our economies don't generally move in phase with each other.

I have no desire to see any misfortune befall Canada and no wish to comment on the internal policies or condition of your country except as it relates to the subject at hand -- namely what is it that Canadians here have against the USA. So far the U.S. has been criticized for its foreign policy, its "unenlightened health care system, and its supposed financial condition relative to that of Canada. On the first issue we can disagree and argue, but the historical results are not yet in. On the second, I don't think this is a fit subject for moral judgements by Canadians moreover there are some clear enough tradeoffs between your and ours.; and on the third, I believe the facts and arguments offered are seriously deficient and flawed - as Chumley has already pointefd out.

Doesn't look like much to me. So why all the irritation?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

detano inipo wrote:

We are slowly paying down our debt. We are enjoying a surplus for several years now. Our taxes are going down as well. We have more freedom than our neighbors. Our Canadian dollar is rising and predictions are that our dollar will supass the US dollar in 2010.

Your finances are in bad shape. Perhaps you should direct your criticism at your govenment.

I think your description of the relevant facts is a bit distorted.

At $41,800 the U.S. GDP (ppp) per capita is 27% higher than that in Canada which is $32,800. That pays for a good deal in any category.

Our taxes have been reduced significantly as well. And our public debt as a % of GDP is both in the normal range and also falling.

The Canadian dollar is rising relative to ours solely because of your very favorable balance of trade with us. This is in part a result of NAFTA. We find it a bit odd that in these favorable conditions, Canadians whine so much about both NAFTA and the odd issue that doesn't go their way, such as the soft wood and live cattle matters. This invites retaliation.

I don't know what is meant or behind the assertion that Canadians have more freedom than their neighbors.. Freedom in what areas? Posession of small quantities of marijuana - yes. Freedom to choose whatever medical treatment and provider you may choose and be willing to pay for - no.

georgeob1,

Canadians CAN choose whatever medical treatment and provider they want. Canadians can go anywhere in Canada, except Quebec, for medical care. It is a reciprocal deal; the province you reside in pays the bill to the province you choose for the medical treatment. I know this for a fact, but if you want proof, call the Medical Services Plan.

We also have freedom from fear. We don't live in constant fear of phantom attacks, amber alerts, orange alerts, etc etc. Kids going as far back as the 1950's grew up with fear of a bomb attack in the States and had regular bomb shelter drills at school. Canadian kids did not.

I tell you, it's a different world here in Canada, and I much prefer it over your hyper frenetic world down south. But that is just my opinion.

0 Replies

Canada is doing just fine. It has slipped a bit on the list of best countries, but is still better than the US.

I wish the US all the luck in the world. If they go down, we go down with them.

0 Replies

We have more bald eagles... I'm kidding.

0 Replies

It seems to me the real difference here is that many Canadians, either through real dislike or perhaps a neurotic mix of feelings of inferiority & insecurity (or something like that) feel compelled to express rather strong criticisms and occasionally moral judgements about the United States in areas that really don't affect them much at all. Americans, on the other hand (not me particularly though) seem in these discussions more willing to acknowledge our own faults and see the occasional advantages in the Canadian side of the differences between us.

The rather lengthy discussions of our health care systems is a case in point. It started here precisely because several Canadian posters briought it up as an example of the "unenlightened" character of American society - an illustration of why Canadians disapprove of us. This was done without acknowledging any of the very real tradeoffs involved between your system and ours, and the fact that, despite the multiplicity of views in this country on the subject, we have chosen ours through a process as democratic as the one by which you chose yours. I have tried to point out the significance to us of these tradeoffs and the likely reasons why we have chosen our system. The response, instead of simply acknowledging these facts, is a bunch of snide remarks about busloads of Americans coming to Canada to find cheaper prescription drugs -- As though this is yet another indicator of Canadian moral and social superiority, when in fact it is an obvious example of government directed and unfair manipulation of a free market by Canada , and one that directly penalizes American consumers.

On other issues including softwood lumber and live cattle Canadians exhibit an extraordinary sensitivity when it is their ox that appears to be gored, but perplexing indifference when the issue goes the other way. Indeed the cattle question is a further illustration of my point. When the case of BSE was discovered here in a cow imported from Canada two things happened almost immediately. All inporters of live and processed beef immediately banned further imports from both countries, and we banned further imports of live cattle from Canada. These are normal measures for quaranteen, and the injury to both U.S. and Canadian exports was immense. However the howls from Canada suggested an odd degree of self-centeredness and ignorance of the injury done to others, by a problem that originated in Canada, and, as well, an unreasoning belief that we were somehow the cause of the damage to Canada's trade and that they were the only victim. Rather amazing when you think about it.

I detect a degree of what psychologists call projection here as some Canadians uninhibitedly pass judgements on American politics, culture, and economic performance, and in the next breath accuse Americans of being overbearing and arrogant. I'm quite sure these views do not characterize most Canadians, whom I have generally found to be a very polite and genial people. However for those to whom they do apply, you should recognize that it indicates ignorance, childishness, and hypocrisy.

0 Replies

georgebob,

The AMA (American Medical Assoc) has a very strong lobby in the US. That is why Americans pay dearly for medical care. Therefore your statement that

'we have chosen ours through a process as democratic as the one by which you chose yours' is false.

Socialized medicine is viewed suspiciously by Americans. Why?

The very word 'socialized medicine' seems to send a shiver down the spines of Americans; they apparently equate it with communism.

If America wants to take on the role of big brother to the planet, then they are responsible for the chaos that they create when they irresponsibly make and break laws to suit themselves.

They are not above the law. But the fact that America acts as if they are is what annoys most of the planet, Canada included.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Indeed the cattle question is a further illustration of my point. When the case of BSE was discovered here in a cow imported from Canada two things happened almost immediately. All inporters of live and processed beef immediately banned further imports from both countries, and we banned further imports of live cattle from Canada. These are normal measures for quaranteen, and the injury to both U.S. and Canadian exports was immense. However the howls from Canada suggested an odd degree of self-centeredness and ignorance of the injury done to others, by a problem that originated in Canada, and, as well, an unreasoning belief that we were somehow the cause of the damage to Canada's trade and that they were the only victim. Rather amazing when you think about it.

I don't want to pick, but growing up in cattle country, I can't just let this slide. Smile

1) Many farmers strongly believe that BSE actually originated in the US first, and unfair measures were taken. There is belief that the US did not take the proper measures to contain their own cattle, while Canadians were meticulous in the few cows that showed sign of disease. There is strong enthusiasm on this point in my part of the world. Put simply, the farmers felt screwed. Yeah, what's new right?!
But they do have many legit. reasons to be angry. Many lost their homes and businesses. There were not the available abbatoirs for slaughtering. Certain cows were allowed inside the borders, others not. It took a long time before they were able to resume trade; too long for many, and perhaps not for reasons officially stated. It seemed rather arbrituary and more of a political move than a genuine health crisis.

I don't take a stand one way or the other, because quite frankly, I do not know enough to make a proper case with all the information.

But, there are many layers to an onion. !

Smile

0 Replies

Pachelbel. I agree with you 100%.

The Mercer study was based on 39 key quality of life factors, including the political and social environment, the economy, health, education, public services, transport, recreation, housing, consumer goods and the natural environment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/16/norway.best/

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know