Yup. His bio speaks of his devotion to Milton Freidman, a driving force behind neoliberal economics, and PP calls him a "seminal influence" in his life and politics.
And the hatchet jobs begin. CBC: Convoy donors gave more than $460K to CPC leadership race — and many were first-time federal donors
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
It is on the table, according to the left wing extremists. They want it on the table. Just don't want to put it on the table themselves.
AS you must have noticed by now, when ever a lefty claims something that is obviously false, they are looking in the mirror while typing.
Ok - well, go ahead then. I'm always open to learning. But - we're talking fiscal policy. Friedman wasn't an enviroinmentalist.
Sure they have. Last i looked until you get to trudeau's recent foibles with inflation wages have been above inflation by about 1 percent and change for the last 20 years. And not just overall, but if you break it down by industry.
That only works if you cherry pick the years. The mid to late 70's was a period of very unusually high wages which would go on to fuel the massive inflation and interest rates of the early 80.'s
But when you look at the statcan :
Canada Average Weekly Earnings YoY
Wages in Canada increased 4.50 percent in July of 2024 over the same month in the previous year. This page provides - Canada Average Weekly Earnings YoY- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.
tradingeconomics.com
And you look at the average inflation:
Canada - Inflation rate 1987-2029 | Statista
The statistic shows the average inflation rate in Canada from 1987 to 2023, with projections up until 2029.
www.statista.com
You can see that in fact wages have been gaining.
And the tax burden is actually lower as well. So people keep more of their wages.
So sure you could cherry pick ONE year to compare but that's not real. An examination over time shows that indeed wages have been doing just fine specifically in the 90's/2000'
In any case, i'm not seeing where the changes are or are not a result of friedman's economics.
Sorry but the idea of 'wealth distribution' isn't a real thing. It's what socialists use to explain things but it suggests that there's a finite amount of wealth that must be distributed. Which is not true in the slightest.
We do have some serious issues dragging on the middle class at the moment but it's not a 'wealth distribution' issue. Inflation is killing it, and there are a number of tax and claw back issues which really prevent people from getting ahead into the middlle class. But that's not because they can't EARN wealth.
But regradless - your claim was this all was a result of following Milton's works. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
Um - from your own source:
But isn’t the average Canadian better off today?
Yes, the average Canadian is better off than she or he was a generation ago. In 1976, average income was $51,100; by 2009, it was $59,700—an increase of 17 per cent over 33 years. These figures are in real dollars—which means converting the 1976 income figure into 2009 dollars by adjusting for inflation.
It then goes on to try to explain how that doesn't REALLY matter because ... er.... reasons. However as i said if you dig into the industrial averages and down to some pretty granular levels everybody's been doing better. Either a little better, or a lot better, but better.
So when you say people are worse off that's not accurate. BUT - for fun, lets say for a moment it was. Where are you showing that's a 'friedman' issue?
Aside from being a little untrue - it's utterly irrelevant to freidmans' work in the slightest.
Well that's not 'neo-liberal' -that's just liberal. They always spend now and worry about consequences later. THat's how we got into trouble in the early 80's and we're getting into the same trouble now. Liberals don't give a crap about what happens after the next election cycle.
But again.... that would have zero to do with anything Friedman would have said.
I'm afraid you failed even once to support your claim. First off you're in error that wages and wealth haven't increased for the middle class in 40 years. They did. Cherry picking a high just before a massive crash (which was caused by the high) is not a valid statistical tool.
But far more importantly NONE of ANYTHING you posted even began to TRY To explain how it tied into Freidman's works specifically. LIke - at all.
No offense but your examples are the kind that we occasionally see kicking around more 'socially' oriented left wing sites (usually just before demanding GBI) and they sound good but they don't stand up to deep scruitiny.
IN the last few years the challenges facing the middle class have gone up, there's no doubt. But it's got nothing to do with outsourcing jobs in the slightest, and it's got nothing to do with freidman.
Would you drive an Olds 88 in a modern Formula One race?
Those antiquated methods don't fit in the Global schemes. Conservatives are aware that the youth is shifting gears and leaning right across all spectrums. They don't want to throw the poor under the bus and they aren't happy seeing their future being controlled and dictated. It's their future at stake, not mine. They don't wanted to be scraping by like their Gen X parents.
I’m seeing a lot of comparing apples with bananas in all of these links. Wage growth is largely irrelevant to how much better off we are if taxes have increased more. And that has to include taxes by all levels of government , plus hidden taxes that have been upped or new ones included. BC tax increases alone have increased more than my pension has gone up, so from that perspective, extreme left governments are lowering our standard of living.Ok - well, go ahead then. I'm always open to learning. But - we're talking fiscal policy. Friedman wasn't an enviroinmentalist.
Sure they have. Last i looked until you get to trudeau's recent foibles with inflation wages have been above inflation by about 1 percent and change for the last 20 years. And not just overall, but if you break it down by industry.
That only works if you cherry pick the years. The mid to late 70's was a period of very unusually high wages which would go on to fuel the massive inflation and interest rates of the early 80.'s
But when you look at the statcan :
Canada Average Weekly Earnings YoY
Wages in Canada increased 4.50 percent in July of 2024 over the same month in the previous year. This page provides - Canada Average Weekly Earnings YoY- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.
And you look at the average inflation:
Canada - Inflation rate 1987-2029 | Statista
The statistic shows the average inflation rate in Canada from 1987 to 2023, with projections up until 2029.
You can see that in fact wages have been gaining.
And the tax burden is actually lower as well. So people keep more of their wages.
So sure you could cherry pick ONE year to compare but that's not real. An examination over time shows that indeed wages have been doing just fine specifically in the 90's/2000'
In any case, i'm not seeing where the changes are or are not a result of friedman's economics.
Sorry but the idea of 'wealth distribution' isn't a real thing. It's what socialists use to explain things but it suggests that there's a finite amount of wealth that must be distributed. Which is not true in the slightest.
We do have some serious issues dragging on the middle class at the moment but it's not a 'wealth distribution' issue. Inflation is killing it, and there are a number of tax and claw back issues which really prevent people from getting ahead into the middlle class. But that's not because they can't EARN wealth.
But regradless - your claim was this all was a result of following Milton's works. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
Um - from your own source:
But isn’t the average Canadian better off today?
Yes, the average Canadian is better off than she or he was a generation ago. In 1976, average income was $51,100; by 2009, it was $59,700—an increase of 17 per cent over 33 years. These figures are in real dollars—which means converting the 1976 income figure into 2009 dollars by adjusting for inflation.
It then goes on to try to explain how that doesn't REALLY matter because ... er.... reasons. However as i said if you dig into the industrial averages and down to some pretty granular levels everybody's been doing better. Either a little better, or a lot better, but better.
So when you say people are worse off that's not accurate. BUT - for fun, lets say for a moment it was. Where are you showing that's a 'friedman' issue?
Aside from being a little untrue - it's utterly irrelevant to freidmans' work in the slightest.
Well that's not 'neo-liberal' -that's just liberal. They always spend now and worry about consequences later. THat's how we got into trouble in the early 80's and we're getting into the same trouble now. Liberals don't give a crap about what happens after the next election cycle.
But again.... that would have zero to do with anything Friedman would have said.
I'm afraid you failed even once to support your claim. First off you're in error that wages and wealth haven't increased for the middle class in 40 years. They did. Cherry picking a high just before a massive crash (which was caused by the high) is not a valid statistical tool.
But far more importantly NONE of ANYTHING you posted even began to TRY To explain how it tied into Freidman's works specifically. LIke - at all.
No offense but your examples are the kind that we occasionally see kicking around more 'socially' oriented left wing sites (usually just before demanding GBI) and they sound good but they don't stand up to deep scruitiny.
IN the last few years the challenges facing the middle class have gone up, there's no doubt. But it's got nothing to do with outsourcing jobs in the slightest, and it's got nothing to do with freidman.
Well obviously true, there's no arguing with that. They attempt to address that with inflation to a degree but as you say that doesn't account for taxes, which may very well be unique to any given province (or even municipality to a degree). I pay about 15 -20 cents less in fuel than people who live just 40 mins away just based on regional taxes.
And these days it gets even weirder because of other variables - i just mentioned gas but really i burn very little as i work from home, whereas someone else may be finding the higher gas prices and taxes are taking a severe bite out of their income. So industries where people are now working from home part or all of the time are facing a different situation than those who must drive every day.
It can be almost impossible to calculate - consider the GST for example, people might say 'well that wasn't around in teh 70's", but forget that it replaced higher taxes that WERE around but you never saw because they were charged to the manufacturer.
But if we're looking at the "generally speaking over all" for the working people on the whole things have been generally getting better i think.