Canadian election poll!

[Uccmal]

The final really bothersome thing for me is Harper's willingness to stop parliament twice due to issues being on the table that he wanted to block.

 

In a normal situation like this you would work with your opponents through committees, etc. to resolve things.  Harper prorogues parliament instead which is an avoidance tactic, and a bullying tactic all at the same time.

 

I truly think that the only reason he got elected the last two times is due to disarray in the liberal party.  I also think that his personality is going to be his undoing now that he has a majority.  The undoing is going to come from within, not without, and he refuses to recognize the skills and abilites of his own party.  Last time around we ended up with the Bloc.  Who knows what the outcome this time will be. 

 

I am not anti-conservative, but I have noted that neo-cons such as Bush, Reagan, and Mulrooney, and perhaps Harper are terribly tough on national budgets.  Bizarre, but true.

[SouthernYankee]

"Woman's rights:  I wish my wife were home to type this.  First there is his treatment of women in his own party:  Rona Ambrose, Helena Geurgis, Bev Oda et al.  Why do his male MPs never get strung out to dry like the women?  Then there is the whole stance on Universal daycare, childcare etc.  They have been reversing years of progress to help women into the workforce.  My wife tells me that specifically the Harper government has attacked programs aimed at improving the lot of women.  The guy believes that women belong in the home.  I believe that he personally detests women."

 

Can someone explain this to me? A woman gets pregnant but still wants to have a job, so tax-payers have to pick the tab up for child to go to day-care? That is called progress? Why doesn't her husband stay home and watch the kid? By getting rid of these programs, it is up to the "adult" to make choices in his/her life, and that is called reversing progress? As a tax-payer, am I allowed to tell the family which receives benefits how to spend their money? Do they have cable? I don't have cable? Do they buy new cars? Both my cars are used, and the only reason why we have 2 cars is because my in-laws passed at a young age and it was a 10 year old car in good shape!!

 

Now I know these questions are more suited to a political website, but it astounds me that people who are rational, value-oriented investors, who look for bargains instead of the next hot stock, can't see the fallacy of government being a good steward of tax-payer dollars!!

[Myth465]

"Woman's rights:  I wish my wife were home to type this.  First there is his treatment of women in his own party:  Rona Ambrose, Helena Geurgis, Bev Oda et al.  Why do his male MPs never get strung out to dry like the women?  Then there is the whole stance on Universal daycare, childcare etc.  They have been reversing years of progress to help women into the workforce.  My wife tells me that specifically the Harper government has attacked programs aimed at improving the lot of women.  The guy believes that women belong in the home.  I believe that he personally detests women."

 

Can someone explain this to me? A woman gets pregnant but still wants to have a job, so tax-payers have to pick the tab up for child to go to day-care? That is called progress? Why doesn't her husband stay home and watch the kid? By getting rid of these programs, it is up to the "adult" to make choices in his/her life, and that is called reversing progress? As a tax-payer, am I allowed to tell the family which receives benefits how to spend their money? Do they have cable? I don't have cable? Do they buy new cars? Both my cars are used, and the only reason why we have 2 cars is because my in-laws passed at a young age and it was a 10 year old car in good shape!!

 

Now I know these questions are more suited to a political website, but it astounds me that people who are rational, value-oriented investors, who look for bargains instead of the next hot stock, can't see the fallacy of government being a good steward of tax-payer dollars!!

 

Sounds great in theory but it just cripples your economy one way or the other. Either smart working women stop having babies due to opportunity cost and your population declines or is diluted by immigration (Northern Europe / Japan), or you lose half your talent pool via one parent staying at home. I dont plan on having kids, so its cheaper for me not to have schools, colleges, day cares, or to subsidize any of those things but it would suck for the economy / society long term. I mean the best and the brightest wouldnt have many kids or wouldnt work as much. That leaves the rift raft to populate the country.

 

This is my major issue with Libertarianism (I used to call myself one). Its all about me, they want their person freedoms even if it imposes tyranny in externalities on everyone else (example no roads, police force, or fire force, because taxation is stealing and impeding on freedom). These things can go too far either way, but thats where common sense comes into play. Asia is using common sense. I feel like the West (mainly the US not sure about the others) is wedded to Dogma.

 

Southern that last rant wasnt directed at you, I thought it was a good and legit question.

[Smazz]

So, I believe we are left with the option of choosing the least bad leader.

 

That basically sums it up right there.

If not more evident than what happened in Quebec.

 

"The Bloc is dead - LONG LIVE CANADA!" ;D

[Uccmal]

Southern Yankee, You could apply the same rationale to anything the government spends money on.  Why should my tax dollars subsidize you when you have a heart attack because you drank one too many cokes, or smoke, but it does.  Fair is fair... Either subsidize both or neither.  As per Myth, doing neither is the libertarian view.  Are well educated and looked after children beneficial to society, or is spending money subsidizing nursing homes more worthwhile?

 

We spend substantially more on health care in Canada than on childcare and education.  The long (rational) view says take money from health care and apply it to child care and education.

[Guest broxburnboy]

 

That basically sums it up right there.

If not more evident than what happened in Quebec.

 

"The Bloc is dead - LONG LIVE CANADA!" ;D

 

The bloc may be down, but the sentiment behind the bloc is still there.  This is not the first time Quebecers have strategically moved party loyalties en masse. Duceppe himself says that the flirtation with the Federal NDP is Canada's last chance to decentralize federal powers to Quebec.

This was an anti-Harper vote ... his vision of Canada does not jive with what Quebecers want which is a democratic socialist society along the lines of the European democracies.

As Harper shoves his neo-con agenda down Quebec's throat, the flames of separatism will be stoked.

[EdWatchesBoxing]

The final really bothersome thing for me is Harper's willingness to stop parliament twice due to issues being on the table that he wanted to block.

 

In a normal situation like this you would work with your opponents through committees, etc. to resolve things.  Harper prorogues parliament instead which is an avoidance tactic, and a bullying tactic all at the same time.

 

I truly think that the only reason he got elected the last two times is due to disarray in the liberal party.  I also think that his personality is going to be his undoing now that he has a majority.  The undoing is going to come from within, not without, and he refuses to recognize the skills and abilites of his own party.  Last time around we ended up with the Bloc.  Who knows what the outcome this time will be. 

 

I am not anti-conservative, but I have noted that neo-cons such as Bush, Reagan, and Mulrooney, and perhaps Harper are terribly tough on national budgets.  Bizarre, but true.

 

This sums up how I feel about Harper. He sounds like a person who only wants to surround himself with "yes" men and women. Otherwise, his attitude is a quiet "f**k you" as Al mentioned.

 

Now that the election is over. I think that the conservatives will be fully blamed for the housing correction that will occur soon enough. I suspect that housing will correct painfully over the duration of the majority gov't. The net positive having the conservatives in power is the TFSA limit increase  ;D I imagine this benefits every Canadian on this board.

[Smazz]

 

That basically sums it up right there.

If not more evident than what happened in Quebec.

 

"The Bloc is dead - LONG LIVE CANADA!" ;D

 

The bloc may be down, but the sentiment behind the bloc is still there.  This is not the first time Quebecers have strategically moved party loyalties en masse. Duceppe himself says that the flirtation with the Federal NDP is Canada's last chance to decentralize federal powers to Quebec.

This was an anti-Harper vote ... his vision of Canada does not jive with what Quebecers want which is a democratic socialist society along the lines of the European democracies.

As Harper shoves his neo-con agenda down Quebec's throat, the flames of separatism will be stoked.

I remember Harper saying back when that it makes sense for Quebec to be separate.

We shall see what transpires here. Whatever it is we wont have to wait long if there is another movement though. IMO  i dont think Quebecors are naiive enough to think they can have socialism and at the same time be a fairly equal part of Canada. Its one or the other.

 

[tyska]

 

 

Just wondering if someone on the Left can tell me what neo-con means. All neo means is new or modern and oddly it only seems to be used by the lefties with the implicit effect of causing a sinister shudder to go over the reader. Can a person get a special decoder ring when you buy a Che Guevara t-shirt along with instructions for a secret hand shake so it can't fall into the enemies hands. Cause it obviously has to have another meaning or else wouldn't there be a neo-lib. Or haven't they had a new or modern thought in decades. And would Jack be a neo-commie. ;D

 

[finetrader]

I live in Quebec province and a radio personality(Paul Arcand)  had it right this morning.  He said that he feels like we have been partying all night and Jack was in the house and then...  you wake up!..  and you start thinking about the fun you've had but also at the studip things that you have done while high on dope,, and then you start thinking..  what the hell have i done?

 

I mean I think there is 4 NDP deputies from quebec that are students, an another don't even speak french or hardly..

As a Quebecer, I don't think I will be well represented in Ottawa..

 

[Myth465]

Coined / Embraced by the Great / Infamous  Irving Kristol, who is the father of Bill Kristol a very prominent Neo Conservative. It has a sinister ring to it, but that ring is well desvered though lol.

 

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy, where it proposes to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and freedom to other countries.[1] The movement emerged in the 1970s among Democrats who were angry at the party's move to the left especially in foreign policy, and played a major role in recent Republican presidential elections. It is notable for its support for Israel and its deep interest in the Middle East.

 

----

 

The first major intellectual to embrace the term, Irving Kristol is often called the founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[2] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[9] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[10][11] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

 

----

 

n January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":[43]

 

"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms

low tolerance for diplomacy

readiness to use military force

emphasis on US unilateral action

disdain for multilateral organizations

focus on the Middle East

an us versus them mentality".

 

----

 

From what I can see, the term fits to a T, its not a bad word per say..

 

[Guest broxburnboy]

 

 

Just wondering if someone on the Left can tell me what neo-con means. All neo means is new or modern and oddly it only seems to be used by the lefties with the implicit effect of causing a sinister shudder to go over the reader. Can a person get a special decoder ring when you buy a Che Guevara t-shirt along with instructions for a secret hand shake so it can't fall into the enemies hands. Cause it obviously has to have another meaning or else wouldn't there be a neo-lib. Or haven't they had a new or modern thought in decades. And would Jack be a neo-commie. ;D

 

 

neo-con = New Conservative as opposed to old conservative.

Neo-cons differ mostly from traditional conservatives in the belief that taxes are bad, deficits don't matter, war is good for the economy, public services should be privatized and only the very rich are worthy off receiving direct government handouts.

Frankly they are monetary cranks, claiming that low interest rates and monetary inflation are the solution to price instability instead of its cause. They want prices on their own products to rise and wages to fall. They are particularly resistant to creative thought, even in the face of the obvious bankruptcy of their economic theories. They disbelieve climate change, Peak Oil, the decline of empire and feel justified in invading sovereign states to seize their resources. They're not big on personal freedoms for anyone other than themselves.

They find alternate lifestyles, languages, skin tones, manner of dress and religions highly discomforting.

They expect their debased dollar to increase in purchasing power over time and haven't noticed that economic growth has shifted elsewhere.

 

Pray tell what is a leftie?

[augustabound]

The net positive having the conservatives in power is the TFSA limit increase  ;D I imagine this benefits every Canadian on this board.

 

I'm all for that, but that will only happen if/when they balance the budget, sometime after 2015 according to them. 

By then, most Canadians will have forgotten about that promise anyway.

[Uccmal]

I live in Quebec province and a radio personality(Paul Arcand)  had it right this morning.  He said that he feels like we have been partying all night and Jack was in the house and then...  you wake up!..  and you start thinking about the fun you've had but also at the studip things that you have done while high on dope,, and then you start thinking..  what the hell have i done?

 

I mean I think there is 4 NDP deputies from quebec that are students, an another don't even speak french or hardly..

As a Quebecer, I don't think I will be well represented in Ottawa..

 

 

FT, unfortunate but you are probably right.  Lets just hope that the new/old leadership tries to be more inclusive rather than exclusive, going forward.

 

I can guarantee one thing.  The provincial liberals in Ontario basically have the fall election sewn up now.  McGuinty couldn't have looked more thrilled in a press conference.  Good/or bad, the PQ will win as well.

[tyska]

 

 

n January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":[43]

 

"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms

low tolerance for diplomacy

readiness to use military force

emphasis on US unilateral action

disdain for multilateral organizations

focus on the Middle East

an us versus them mentality".

 

----

 

From what I can see, the term fits to a T, its not a bad word per say..

 

 

A lot of generalizations, nay I would say mind reading has to take place to fit someone into the "neo-con" term from the descriptions I received. But to put specific policies to the litmus test of above, lets put Obomas' recent actions against the checklist above.

a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms

Just about every Hollywood movie for the last century. But like the movies Oboma felt the end justified the means of entering a sovereign country without permission to assassinate an unarmed man that was viewed as evil. There is probably enough in that statement to cover point two-five and seven. Especially throwing in authorizing the killing of Somali pirates and the bombing of Libya, although you can take unilateral out on that.

focus on the Middle East

I'm sure if you pulled Hillarys' travel itinerary  since the present administration has taken office, no other area would come close.

But then I've agreed with all these decisions of Oboma so I guess I would fit in whatever term is used to describe his actions.

And just in case it was missed, my last post was written in satire, for when broad generalizations are used and not specific policies put forward, not much else can be done.

But I do love the one about low interest rates and monetary inflation, that policy has sure changed.

[Myth465]

Its just a word man lol. Most neocons call themselves neocons. Its not an evil thing just another ideology like Liberal (which has been turned into a dirty word lol) or Libertarian.

 

Did someone call you a Neo con last week. I think it rubbed you the wrong way.

 

Most of the professional left (think Nadar) would say this is simply a kindler gentler Bush Administration (I tend to agree, except for healthcare). He doesnt fall into the Neo Con label because of the way Libya was handled. Contrast Obama vs. what McCain wanted and vs. McCain's criticism.

 

---

 

After watching a few news updates, it appears that it was an Historic night for you guys. Congrats Canadian members.

[EdWatchesBoxing]

I'm all for that, but that will only happen if/when they balance the budget, sometime after 2015 according to them. 

By then, most Canadians will have forgotten about that promise anyway.

 

In that case, disregard my comment, haha. Well, then the corporate tax cuts may be one immediate benefit.

[Smazz]

I can guarantee one thing.  The provincial liberals in Ontario basically have the fall election sewn up now.  McGuinty couldn't have looked more thrilled in a press conference.  Good/or bad, the PQ will win as well.

Im not sure about that Al.

From what Im hearing it seems like alot of the same talk that was going on in the Toronto Civics. I voted for this guy before but damn, his constant taxation of everything that moves is too much for alot of people. Having said that, the alternatives are just as shitty!

 

I dont know - going to be another interesting time.

[oec2000]

Uccmal & Broxburnboy,

 

Is it possible that you are allowing your ideological differences with Harper to cloud your judgement of his record and intentions? I always hesitate when I hear views expressed with absolute certainty.

 

In her excellent book (which I strongly recommend), Being Wrong, author Kathryn Schulz describes how most people form their opinions of politicians based on quick first impressions and that their later explanations for why they like/dislike them are purely rationalizations to justify a view that was decided long ago. Confirmation bias - looking for evidence to support already formed views - aggravates this problem. The best recent example of this phenomenon is Sarah Palin.

 

These are mistakes that most of us on this board know how to avoid in investing. We know that we should look for flaws in our views/arguments; that decisions are always probabilistic; that it is ridiculous to label stocks as either growth or value. Yet, it seems that people make exactly these mistakes in choosing our politicians - applying labels to them, and using the labels that we have subjectively slapped on them to make judgements with absolute certainty.

 

In investing, we get indisputable feedback from our mistakes but in politics, our mistakes are cannot be so clearly or painfully identified so we continue to make them.

 

Let me try to point out alternative interpretations of some of the points you made.

 

Al,

 

Harper's opposition to daycare/childcare benefits - this seems consistent with conservatives' general aversion to entitlement spending. Is it not possible that he prefers a markets-based solution to the problem? While it is certainly possible that your wife is right and his policy is driven by a hatred of women, there are many other plausible explanations. Maybe he feels that those who want the benefit of an extra income to bear the extra costs that are associated with it? (To give a somewhat ridiculous analogy, if I want a higher paying job that requires me to wear expensive suits, would you like to pay for my suits?) Without other evidence, it seems too much of a leap to conclude that this policy results from an anti-women view. This is no different from concluding that someone who is ideologically opposed to social safety nets is a people hater.

 

(As an aside, this approach may not cripple economies contrary to what Myth suggests; the most successful Asian economies do not provide the social supports he favours; this is Asian common sense at work! The fact of the matter is that in Asia, many younger women do work and they cope by arranging childcare privately.)

 

Women ministers - if he really hates women, why appoint so many female ministers in the first place? (I don't seem to remember Chretien having as many women in his cabinets). It would have saved him a lot of trouble and criticism firing them later. Whether we agree with his reasons is another issue, but most of the firings of the women ministers did appear to have some basis.

 

Vision - imo is overrated. If we look back at the history of US and Canada, how many leaders stand out as being great visionaries? They are a minority and yet this did not prevent our nations from becoming great. Neither should we ignore the visionaries who were misguided (Trudeau, if you consider him one, or LBJ?) and caused more harm than good. In any case, in this election the choice wasn't between Harper and a visionary - maybe your vision is better than mine but I could certainly see no other visionary.

 

Brox,

 

Ruinous wars in the Middle East. It was the Liberals who got us into Afghanistan. Chretien was also ready to follow the US into Iraq if there had been a UN resolution. The evidence simply does not support your assertion that there has been a 180 degree turn in policy. Is the Libyan operation a ground invasion as you put it or a peacekeeping one? Most people would not paint it as black and white as you do.

 

Balanced budgets - Harper/Flaherty maintained surpluses until the financial crisis (when the opposition, including the Liberals, complained they were not spending enough) and have committed to bringing the budget back to surplus, now likely ahead of their original timetable. Based on their track record, there is no reason to doubt their commitment. You may disagree with how they plan to do this but surely you cannot question their intention to do so. Don't forget their decision on income trusts which was certainly not corporation-friendly - a decision for which they took a lot of flak; it was a tough but right decision that the Liberals were too fearful to take after going 90% of the way.

 

Neocons - it is easy to slap a neocon label on Harper and then lump all their worst traits on him. But, is this really an objective way to assess a person? Harper may share some of the neocon views but I don't think he comes even close to meeting your own definition of a neocon (deficits don't matter, monetary inflation, weak currency, invading countries for resources, racism and religious bigotry, etc). Do I live in a different Cnada from you? Is there a country called South Canada that you live in that we all haven't heard of?

 

Why, oh why do people not spend as much time objectively researching our election decisions as we do our refrigerator (and in the case of this board, our stock) buying decisions? As far as I can make out, the Conservatives and the Liberals are very close in ideology and I suspect that if we could perform blind tests on their decisions and pronouncements, many Canadians would be hard pressed to identify who made it. Yet, people seem to view the parties as though they were divided by a huge chasm.

[Myth465]

oec2000, I agree with your comments in regards to the general public, but dont think they apply to most of the members of this board. Most people seem to call it how they see it, and appear to be well informed with regard to politics, economics, and investing. The differences seem to come down to world view / personal experiences as far as I can see it.

 

Also we use labels to summarize, and deal with massive amounts of data. People, animals, things, hobbies, always tend to be grouped. We here are a group of Value Investors. Though it doesnt mean we hate growth, or any of the common stereotypes. Its just a way to synthesis info. A neocon has few things that they tend to do, as does an American, or a rabbit - but I dont think people expect no deviations from the basic traits for these labels.

 

I dont think Ucc's wife actually believes Harper hates women literally, just that his policies are very anti women. I dont think Republicans literally hate the working man, I just dont think the policies really help out the working man. (Also I was referring to the developed world in my example, I think it works well enough until you reach a certain wealth, many of the developed countries feature a negative growth rate.)

 

[Packer16]

oec,

 

Very good observations.  I need to do more of looking at actions and less at marketing.  As value investors we should be good at cutting through the balony.  When I look at Obama's foreign policies associated with terrorism and the wars, I see very little substantive difference than Bush's based upon actions.  I could see Bush doing the same actions.  However, the marketing spin is totally different.  What has changed is my assessment of how much of this we have to do given that we are borrowing so much from foreigners to do this.  Is the money spent on smart bombs for Libya well spent money?  Will it make that much of a difference?

 

I think catagoirzation can be useful but I need to be careful not to mis attribute some views to folks that do not have them.  It is alot like cognitive bias in investing, we think we know the answer by the pattern we have seen before but need to be sure it is the case before jumping to conclusions. 

 

Packer 

[Guest broxburnboy]

Uccmal & Broxburnboy,

Brox,

 

Ruinous wars in the Middle East. It was the Liberals who got us into Afghanistan. Chretien was also ready to follow the US into Iraq if there had been a UN resolution. The evidence simply does not support your assertion that there has been a 180 degree turn in policy. Is the Libyan operation a ground invasion as you put it or a peacekeeping one? Most people would not paint it as black and white as you do.

 

Balanced budgets - Harper/Flaherty maintained surpluses until the financial crisis (when the opposition, including the Liberals, complained they were not spending enough) and have committed to bringing the budget back to surplus, now likely ahead of their original timetable. Based on their track record, there is no reason to doubt their commitment. You may disagree with how they plan to do this but surely you cannot question their intention to do so. Don't forget their decision on income trusts which was certainly not corporation-friendly - a decision for which they took a lot of flak; it was a tough but right decision that the Liberals were too fearful to take after going 90% of the way.

 

Neocons - it is easy to slap a neocon label on Harper and then lump all their worst traits on him. But, is this really an objective way to assess a person? Harper may share some of the neocon views but I don't think he comes even close to meeting your own definition of a neocon (deficits don't matter, monetary inflation, weak currency, invading countries for resources, racism and religious bigotry, etc). Do I live in a different Cnada from you? Is there a country called South Canada that you live in that we all haven't heard of?

 

Why, oh why do people not spend as much time objectively researching our election decisions as we do our refrigerator (and in the case of this board, our stock) buying decisions? As far as I can make out, the Conservatives and the Liberals are very close in ideology and I suspect that if we could perform blind tests on their decisions and pronouncements, many Canadians would be hard pressed to identify who made it. Yet, people seem to view the parties as though they were divided by a huge chasm.

 

I think you need to rework your opinion of Harper's intentions after reading some of his own views. He is a neo-con through and through and takes particular pride in annexing the Progressive Conservative party and dropping "progressive" from its name. His disdain for any sustainable energy and environment policy has resulted in the formation of the Canadian Green party who are the "progressives" in the former

PC party.

 

http://unseatharper.ca/harper-quotes.php

 

Cheers

[oec2000]

 

I think you need to rework your opinion of Harper's intentions after reading some of his own views. He is a neo-con through and through and takes particular pride in annexing the Progressive Conservative party and dropping "progressive" from its name. His disdain for any sustainable energy and environment policy has resulted in the formation of the Canadian Green party who are the "progressives" in the former

PC party.

 

http://unseatharper.ca/harper-quotes.php

 

Cheers

 

I still can't get to how you conclude that "neocon" Harper "believes that deficits don't matter, favours a weak currency and monetary inflation, is anti-immigration (i.e. racist), practices religious bigotry" and which country has he invaded for resources? These are not present in his election platform or past policies.