Canada Election 2015

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This will likely result in the Conservatives not forming the next government. The exact same thing happened in Alberta in 2012 and support for the Wildrose was decimated. However, the PCs do have a bit longer to clean up the mess between now and the election than the Wildrose did.




Tories dump candidate who touts therapies to turn gay youth straight
'Is it wrong for a homosexual to become a normal person?' Jagdish Grewal wrote in editorial
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-e...idate-jagdish-grewal-gay-youth-1.3259324

I hear there are also therapies to turn Conservatives into Liberals, it's called "waking up and smelling the coffee".
Is it wrong for a conservative to become a normal person?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Architype

I hear there are also therapies to turn Conservatives into Liberals, it's called "waking up and smelling the coffee".
Is it wrong for a conservative to become a normal person?

There's a reason that statistically Conservatives are less educated than progressives.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There's a reason that statistically Conservatives are less educated than progressives.

Because you can't get degrees in Facebook, Twitter, and Fox News.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There's a reason that statistically Conservatives are less educated than progressives.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Most faculties in post secondary education (other than maybe business and economics) have somewhat of a left wing bias.
It could just as easily be that educated people tend to be more progressive because they were taught to think that way.

Without more data you can't really be certain which direction that cause and effect relationship works in.
It could even be a case of selection bias. People who are more left wing leaning to begin with might be more inclined to study a field that has more of a left wing bias, like fine arts or the social sciences, reinforcing their original views.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Most faculties in post secondary education (other than maybe business and economics) have somewhat of a left wing bias.
It could just as easily be that educated people tend to be more progressive because they were taught to think that way.

Without more data you can't really be certain which direction that cause and effect relationship works in.

This has been studied, and it's basically because a part of education is being taught to think for oneself instead of accepting authority as a given. That includes evidence based thought, as in science. For conservatives, it's about finding security in the familiar, such as a religion. That being said, we don't want the kind of divisive and antagonistic split we see south of the border.

[Loco101]

Forum riding polls are showing that a number of CPC held seats in Southern Ontario may be Liberal pickups.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/category/1/national/

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Architype

This has been studied, and it's basically because a part of education is being taught to think for oneself instead of accepting authority as a given. That includes evidence based thought, as in science. For conservatives, it's about finding security in the familiar, such as a religion. That being said, we don't want the kind of divisive and antagonistic split we see south of the border.

Seems like that applies more to whether one holds socially conservative or liberal views. I suppose that makes sense, as most of the particularly heated exchanges between left and right in the States seems to be regarding social rather than economic issues.

As far as economically, it strikes me that going solely on science and evidence would tend towards slightly more conservative views. There certainly aren't a lot of socialists out there with an academic background in economics.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Seems like that applies more to whether one holds socially conservative or liberal views. I suppose that makes sense, as most of the particularly heated exchanges between left and right in the States seems to be regarding social rather than economic issues.

As far as economically, it strikes me that going solely on science and evidence would tend towards slightly more conservative views. There certainly aren't a lot of socialists out there with an academic background in economics.

Since when is economics a science?

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Seems like that applies more to whether one holds socially conservative or liberal views. I suppose that makes sense, as most of the particularly heated exchanges between left and right in the States seems to be regarding social rather than economic issues.

As far as economically, it strikes me that going solely on science and evidence would tend towards slightly more conservative views. There certainly aren't a lot of socialists out there with an academic background in economics.

I think it's the social issues (even the niqab debate) that can determine the outcome of an election. Any elected government will probably make similar economic decisions regardless of ideology.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There's a reason that statistically Conservatives are less educated than progressives.

Can I ask where you got this tidbit of info?

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Architype

Because you can't get degrees in Facebook, Twitter, and Fox News.

What is your level of education?

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Since when is economics a science?

It's a bit of a grey area. It's obviously not a physical science like chemistry or physics, but it's more of a science than most of the social sciences, like sociology or anthropology. I'd almost consider it more of a mathematical/statistical field considering that most work in economics these days involves empirical analysis of endless sets of data.

The main argument against economics being a science is that it relies tremendously on assumptions to simplify the analysis, namely that humans are perfectly rational. This is obviously not the case, but I don't think it necessarily disqualifies economics as a science all together. Physics also relies on a lot of assumptions, and it is certainly a science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

Either way... For a quasi-science, economics certainly involves a lot of math. And for the most part, the simplified models give us a reasonable understanding of how the economy works, and fit the data quite well. They even have a fair bit of predictive power (one of the hallmarks of a science).
The problem arises when we get into the much more complex models. That's when all those assumptions start to cause a problem.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Architype

Because you can't get degrees in Facebook, Twitter, and HuffingtonPost.

Amazing how well the quote changes (and appropriately) with just one institution changed. Simply amazing.

[ssiguy]

In a perfect world I can see why people do not agree with subsidizing the dairy industry.

I too resent having such artificially high dairy prices. Of course you can't have it both ways. The oil sector is VERY heavily subsidized except they don't say subsidy but rather "tax break" but it doesn't matter what you call it it's public money being spent for the benefit of one industry.

This idea of lower prices is farcical. Remember when the dollar was $1.08 against the greenback and all the business people said it would result in lower prices for consumers?........ya so much for that. The dollar soared by 40% in 5 years but I don't recall imports dropping so much as a dime.

The auto sector {or any manufacturing except food} maybe a foreign concept in the West but it and especially the auto sector is crucial for Ontario and as goes Ontario so goes Canada. Economically Ontario is the elephant in the room and you cannot have a prosperous nation without a prosperous Ontario, it simply isn't possible.

Some would say that Canada has done better than most since the recession but that was due strictly because of high commodity prices. Now that commodity prices have tanked other sectors must fill in the gap and that means manufacturing.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In a perfect world I can see why people do not agree with subsidizing the dairy industry.

I too resent having such artificially high dairy prices. Of course you can't have it both ways. The oil sector is VERY heavily subsidized except they don't say subsidy but rather "tax break" but it doesn't matter what you call it it's public money being spent for the benefit of one industry.

This idea of lower prices is farcical. Remember when the dollar was $1.08 against the greenback and all the business people said it would result in lower prices for consumers?........ya so much for that. The dollar soared by 40% in 5 years but I don't recall imports dropping so much as a dime.

The auto sector {or any manufacturing except food} maybe a foreign concept in the West but it and especially the auto sector is crucial for Ontario and as goes Ontario so goes Canada. Economically Ontario is the elephant in the room and you cannot have a prosperous nation without a prosperous Ontario, it simply isn't possible.

Some would say that Canada has done better than most since the recession but that was due strictly because of high commodity prices. Now that commodity prices have tanked other sectors must fill in the gap and that means manufacturing.

Is it true that 85% of all automobiles built in Canada are exported? Thought I heard that earlier today.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The auto sector {or any manufacturing except food} maybe a foreign concept in the West but it and especially the auto sector is crucial for Ontario and as goes Ontario so goes Canada. Economically Ontario is the elephant in the room and you cannot have a prosperous nation without a prosperous Ontario, it simply isn't possible.

Some would say that Canada has done better than most since the recession but that was due strictly because of high commodity prices. Now that commodity prices have tanked other sectors must fill in the gap and that means manufacturing.

Manufacturing is a big part of Canada's history, but it's not the way forward. Every developed country has seen at least some decline in manufacturing. There is a fair degree of variation, but the story is ultimately the same.

The UK saw a near-total collapse of its manufacturing sector during the Thatcher years. Some regions were devastated, but ultimately the economy adapted, new sectors opened up, and the economy boomed. Manufacturing is not a prerequisite for prosperity.

Germany has maintained manufacturing output in some high value added industries, but overall employment has slowly declined as German companies have opened factories in more eastern EU countries. You could argue that East Germany helped prevent the decline in manufacturing as labour costs in that part of Germany are significantly lower.

The US has seen manufacturing employment fall precipitously, yet output has grown. There have been huge productivity gains, but mostly from automation. They also have the southern states with relatively cheap wages.

Canada doesn't really have a region with significantly lower than average wages. That is going to make it harder to compete with the US going forward.

Even if we were to artificially force manufacturing to stay in Ontario, labour costs are just too high. Automation will be the name of the game if manufacturing recovers in Ontario. The jobs associated with manufacturing are never fully coming back. Rather than put our eggs into one basket in a sunset industry, we might as well retool the economy towards the future.

The future is not manufacturing. The future is in high tech, biomedical, etc. We will continue to become more and more of a knowledge based economy as time goes on. It's a natural transition as an economy develops. Resisting this transition is going to hurt growth, not help.

That being said, there is a place for manufacturing in Canada. High value added manufacturing, in fields like aerospace will continue to be important. If the long term trend has energy prices rising, manufacturing will slowly move to areas with lower transportation costs, nearer to markets. As well, as poor countries continually converge with developed countries, the difference in labour costs will become less relevant, and manufacturing will locate to areas with the highest human capital.
In the short term manufacturing will decline. The long term outlook looks a little bit brighter. Government policy can slow the bleeding, not stop it. There is no point wasting taxpayer money prolonging the inevitable.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This idea of lower prices is farcical. Remember when the dollar was $1.08 against the greenback and all the business people said it would result in lower prices for consumers?........ya so much for that. The dollar soared by 40% in 5 years but I don't recall imports dropping so much as a dime.

Lower prices from a strong dollar were masked quite well by the commodities boom which saw prices for goods rise worldwide. Goods aren't going to get cheaper if the inputs get more expensive.
The better way to determine whether prices fell in response to the dollar rising is to look at the price gap between the US and Canada. Back in the day when the dollar was low, vehicles in the States were routinely 10 thousand, sometimes 15 thousand dollars for trucks cheaper than in Canada. At the peak of the dollar, prices had come down, and dealerships were offering significant rebates. At that point the price gap for most cars was only maybe 2 or 3 thousand.

Price drops from exchange rates can be subtle, but price increases since the dollar dropped have not been so subtle. Look at video games. They seem to sell for $20 more per game than they do in the States. A few years ago they were on par. The fact that prices for certain things has gone up so dramatically shows that they had in fact fallen while the dollar was higher.

[wg_flamip]

You know, with all this talk of protecting immigrant women, you almost forget the tens of millions of dollars the Conservatives have cut from programs and agencies that were out there actually helping and protecting immigrant women.

The South Asian Women's Centre here in Toronto, for example, lost its federal funding back in 2010. Among other services (everything from social support for isolated seniors to tax clinics for newcomers), the SAWC provides culturally sensitive counseling for victims of domestic abuse, trafficking and forced marriages in, I believe, about 15-20 languages. The SAWC just barely survived the cuts thanks in part to support from the provincial government. Other organizations that were doing similar work had to shut down entirely.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by Migs

Can I ask where you got this tidbit of info?

Took about ten seconds on the google. There are many more. And before you ask, I have a Ph.D. Not that any of this really matters, but it is a good retort to the typical conservative accusation that progressives are naive or in some way too stupid to understand the basic principles of economics. Might be that we are smart enough to recognize that economics is a tool, not a guiding philosophy for governing. In any case all of this applies to averages and I know from reading the posts here that there are many very intelligent conservatives and ...

Stankov (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability, Intelligence 37 (2009) 294–304.

"Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores
correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political
development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores."

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In a perfect world I can see why people do not agree with subsidizing the dairy industry.

I too resent having such artificially high dairy prices. Of course you can't have it both ways. The oil sector is VERY heavily subsidized except they don't say subsidy but rather "tax break" but it doesn't matter what you call it it's public money being spent for the benefit of one industry.

This idea of lower prices is farcical. Remember when the dollar was $1.08 against the greenback and all the business people said it would result in lower prices for consumers?........ya so much for that. The dollar soared by 40% in 5 years but I don't recall imports dropping so much as a dime.

The auto sector {or any manufacturing except food} maybe a foreign concept in the West but it and especially the auto sector is crucial for Ontario and as goes Ontario so goes Canada. Economically Ontario is the elephant in the room and you cannot have a prosperous nation without a prosperous Ontario, it simply isn't possible.

Some would say that Canada has done better than most since the recession but that was due strictly because of high commodity prices. Now that commodity prices have tanked other sectors must fill in the gap and that means manufacturing.

From Statscan:

"The changing dynamics in Canadian manufacturing highlight the changes the sector is undergoing. In 2007, 10 of 21 manufacturing industries reported improved sales. Benefiting from rising global demand, the petroleum and coal products industry reported sizeable gains, which were boosted by average annual prices that increased by about 65% from 2003 to 2007. With sales of $66.7 billion, petroleum and coal products accounted for 11% of total manufacturing sales in 2007. For the first time, this industry overtook motor vehicle manufacturing, becoming second only to the food industry in total manufacturing sales."

Also, from Statscan:

"The four provinces west of Ontario accounted for 22% of total sales in Canada, up from 19% in 2003. Alberta is enjoying the impact of the petroleum and coal products industry on manufacturing sales: it leads the western provinces in sales growth. Alberta posted manufacturing sales of $65.6 billion in 2007, for its fifth successive annual increase. Alberta accounted for nearly one-half of Western Canada’s manufacturing sales"



So, Western Canada accounted for 22% of total sales from manufacturing in Canada. Edmonton, is the largest manufacturing center west of Toronto, and specializes in petrochemical products, plastics and oil processing related machinery and oil-sands equipment.

So SSIGUY, is it really just food processing? Also, why do you think people in western canada think of the auto manufacturing industry in Ontario is a "foreign concept"? What do you base this supposed public opinion on? Also, its hasn't been proven that "as goes Ontario so goes Canada." I'd argue that a healthy USA economy is more important to the whole of Canada then a healthy auto industry in Ontario. Manufacturing in Ontario has been in a decline for decades, mostly because of outsourcing to NIC and LEDCs in China, Mexico, Thailand etc, and not because of government policy in Canada, or in other MEDC countries who have lost manufactuing jobs to emerging economies. During the past 30 years, since the decline of traditional manufacturing in Canada, has Canada as a whole become poorer, and has the standard of living declined substantially? Has it gone up during this time?

Your arguments, as usual, are full of large holes.