I dont 100 % agree with this as I applaud Indigenous Business grants and loans as this is a group of people that truly experience systemic racism all across Canada . Canada overall is a very diverse country and as a whole I feel is way less racist than the USA. If I was an East Indian CDN or Chinese CDN do I feel slighted. This will benefit black CDN's in the Toronto/ Montreal regions were Trudeau needs to shore up voters

Its like the whole defund the police movement that CDN mayors are quick to jump on the bandwagon . We do not have the same problems the Americans have and no amount of Small business financing eliminates systemic racism as the racist would not frequent their business as it is.

Bottom line its 51 million bucks a small drop in the bucket compared to what Justin is going to be spending in 2021

Frankly, I don't blame only the establishment left. I think the establishment right is equally to blame, because they advocate for the same sort of tax and spend policies of the liberals and ndp. But yes, absolutely, cutting or eliminating taxes like the income tax and dramatically reducing government spending would help the poor. You hit the nail on the head when you said that these people suffer from a lack of income. So what we really need is radical reform.

Eliminating the income tax and sales tax would be the best start. Obviously we would need drastic reductions in government spending across the board as well. You would have to start closing down entire Ministries, and auctioning off public assets like crown land and government buildings. If government spending was reduced from say 350 billion a year or 30 billion a year, along with an aggressive program of deregulation, you would have a massive amount more money in the private sector, which would lead to more jobs, more investment in capital, and higher wages. We would also be very attractive to foreign investment, which in turn would mean more higher paying jobs. Eliminating the minimum wage would also lead to full employment, at least of those who want to be employed. And of course without substantial deductions on people's paychecks people would be taking home more money. The higher production caused by this additional investment would mean lower prices on goods.

Finally, if we eliminate the Bank of Canada and adopt a gold standard and/or freely competing currency including Bitcoin, we would have a stable monetary system, absent the boom bust business cycle and instead of constant inflation erroding the value of our savings we would actually experience healthy deflation, so prices would be going down, not up.

oooooh you're one of THOSE people.

Ok, glhf

Throughout the history of economic thought, most of the people who have dealt with the topic of money have been what can be termed "monetary cranks". Their argument is that you can create wealth by printing money. The problem is that the only way to ultimately refute monetary cranks is to adopt the hard money position which says that there is no need to create new money, which historically people have been reluctant to do. The reality is that there is no need to create new money, any amount of money supply is enough, and that creating new money (inflation) has pernicious effects, like eroding the value of savings and transferring wealth from creditors to debtors. Furthermore, not everyone gets the new money at the same time; those who get it first can spend it at its old pre-inflation levels, whereas those who get it last are stuck holding the bag. It is not exactly a coincidence that the largest debtor in our society, the state, is also the driving force behind inflation.

Presumably, what uke_master means is that my opinions are not within the narrow bound of permissible thought, and hence unworthy of acknowledgement or refutation. My ideas are simply to be dismissed or scoffed at. But the beauty of the internet is that it is impossible for the establishment to dictate the narrative, unlike in more conventional forms of media.

No, your presumption is incorrect. That particular thread of libertarian ideology was somewhat interesting to me (it was rather popular with the undergrads back in my day). It takes some significant reading and economic sophistication to really understand the arguments and be able to speak to them meaningfully. Ultimately it's a worldview I rejected. And I was somewhat happy to go into detail that for a while - lord knows I've put in my time having those debates in the past - but I kept finding that the adherents of that position were mostly just cloning a counter-culture ideology of their own and typically didn't have much depth or sophistication in their views. I have no idea if you fit that mold or not (but your confused position about racism isn't encouraging), but regardless I'm just not really interested in debating that. So as I say, good luck have fun.

Yes, well good luck to you as well, hopefully your sycophancy towards the power elite is well rewarded.

Ho boy I think the work for this is way too long.....
first off , no need to get rid of minimum wages because before covid, Canada lacked workers already .....
How the he’ll would you find more workers by paying them less ???

Second, how can you say deflation is a good thing ?
If prices goes down , corporations gains less money , how Than can you pay good salary to workers ?

Private sectors usually are more efficient than government because they pay their workers less to be able to give cheaper services or good , so how are u arriving that the private sectors would gives better salary by selling cheaper services and goods ?

btw , when government gives social services , everyone benefit from it , how can a poor person would be able to pay forcthe services he need from private sectors when he has to pay while for now , he gets it free because people with better income pays more taxes for him to have those services ?

The trickledown economy isn’t working for decades ....,
And corporation In general don’t save money to give better pay to workers but to invest in in offshore account or to create jobs oversees ....
That’s why the poor and midddle class suffer , it’s because corporations pays way less tax than 30/40 years ago and strangely , income for middle class and lower has increase much while the top earners of the country wins over 200 the worth of a middle class workers .

You check and see the data instead of rehearsing old economic ideology .

Ps: if the majority of the private sector would pay good wages in general , the minimum wages wouldn’t exist .

BC is ranked least affordable province to live in, it also has 3 of the top 5 least affordable cities to live in, it also has the 3rd highest poverty rate. Is that the model your privileged self broadly supports?

I think you are the one that has gotten yourself quite confused.

I disagree as this is like a Conservative tax credit for the rich but a liberal style one. Middle class and lower class families can not afford an electric car. Personally it seems Tesla and the luxury car manufacturers are doing a good job at it. I think your better off subsidizing other green technologies. The rich person that wants a Tesla is going to buy one either way



Pretty much everything here I agree with other than government costs more to administer because of the Public Sector Unions, more middle management and benefits

As someone who has mortgage in one of those 3 of the top 5 least affordable cities, indeed real estate is a huge challenge. That is the dominant factor why everything is unaffordable. But the housing markets have very little to do with the carbon tax, so don't you just feel a little stupid now? The point of mentioning the carbon tax is because you seemed VERY confused about how one could implement a system that was progressive. You seemed deluded that it worked to entrench privilege, but of course it entirely depends on how you tax and what you spend it on.

I again appreciate the BC model where the incentives to buy a new EV don't apply after a cap. My dad got a new tesla and didn't get incentives. It's definitely true this is a decidedly middle class advantage, and I think that is a reasonable thing given that EVs are still a pretty darned small proportion of the force, but yes it has to be part of a much more comprehensive package.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Montreal Corp.


I do not believe that eliminating the minimum wage would lead to lower wages. After all, the majority of workers already make more than the minimum wage. I'm sure their employers would like to pay them less if they could, but they realize the workers wouldn't work for a lower wage because they can find higher paying employment else where. Ultimately, a workers wage is determined by their marginal revenue product (how much they contribute by the productive process) and the competitiveness of the market place. So while eliminating the minimum wage wouldn't lower the wages of people who are presently employed, it will allow those who are priced out of the market place by the minimum wage to re-enter the work force. Not only will working jobs help these individuals sharpen their skills and increase the wage that they can command, the rest of the work force will no longer have to support them through welfare.

Deflation is good because it incentives people to save. Savings is foundational to a healthy economy because that money is channeled via investment into new capital. The increased pool of loanable funds will also make it easier for entrepreneurs to secure capital. The lower prices that will result will make it easier and easier to get by, instead of harder and harder. We can still secure higher wages for workers, despite the deflation, through capital accumulation. More capital makes workers more productive (think of a farmer trying to plough his field by hand and contrast that with using a tractor) and makes their labour more renumerative.

The reality is, when the government taxes you and spends that money on your behalf, you are necessarily worse off than if you had spent that money yourself. The government bureaucrat has no understanding of your value scales, and even if it he did it is doubtful that it would be a priority to him. So there is a massive loss in utility when the government taxes the population and then spends that money for them, as opposed to if the public were allowed to keep their money and spend it themselves. A lot of the actions of the state benefit no one. When politicians take expensive trips overseas, nobody but the politician benefits, but the taxpayer foots the bill none the less. A lot of the time the efforts of the state are actually counter productive, for example during the Great Depression farmers were paid to kill their pigs. It doesn't take a genius to understand we would be much better off if the government hadn't done that in the first place, let alone that we were forced to pay for it. Even when you have so called social services that should benefit the public, most of that money goes to salary of bureaucrats and to the machinery of the state itself. Very little gets back to the public. Pennies on the dollar. Does the working class benefit from the welfare office? Does anyone benefit from the enforcement of poaching laws on hunters? And of course a lot tax dollars goes to special interests, powerful backers of politicians who fund their political campaigns and in return receive government contracts, like with the recent WE charity scandal which caused Trudeau to dissolve parliament out of fear he had to answer any more questions about it.

The concept of a trickle down policy ignores a basic fact, which is that wealth is not simply distributed, it is created. So why should those who create wealth have their wealth redistributed to those who played no part in its creation? How is that just? But here there is an important distinction, between the wealthy who obtain their wealth through the economic means, through productive and exchange, and those who obtain their wealth through the political means, through conquest, plunder, and force. Because the market economy is peaceful social cooperation. It is mutually beneficial trade between individuals. But with the state one can only enrich themselves at the expense of another. So if a man creates a great deal of wealth, like Bill Gates, or Jeff Besos, by improving the lives of billions of people, by changing the way that society operates, by enabling individuals like me to communicate on this device that I am typing, then that is a great thing. They improve the lives of everyone they trade with, and every trade they facilitate, in the case of Besos. And they deserve their fortune. But those who get rich simply by taking what others have, politicians and bureaucrats, they are the true enemies of a free society because they live parasitically off others. So you see it is not a case of simply deciding where wealth should go, because that wealth is already where it is supposed to be, in the hands of the people who created it. But it is a question of whether you can justify taking what people have created, in order to give to those who did not create, and in using the threat of force to do so.

The problem isn't that corporations are undertaxed, it is that they are taxed at all. Corporations interact with individuals on a voluntary, mutually beneficial basis. If you don't want to deal with a company, you don't have to. But the state interacts with you on a non consensual basis, through coercion. The taxman says "give me your money, or I will hurt you". But this immoral. It is a basic moral principle that one should not use violence or coercion, the threat of violence, in order to take the property of another. And another basic moral principle is universality. That for one to act, is to give permission for all to act. So if it is wrong for me to threaten you with violence in order to get your money, then so it is wrong for the state to threaten the taxpayer with violence in order to get their money. In fact we should eliminate taxes on corporations, in order to encourage multinational companies to move here, to trade with our citizens and offer us employment. Companies are benign, but the state is a criminal conspiracy on a grand scale to rob the public.

A sad day for the future of Canadian health care with the B.C. Supreme Court decision over the Cambie matter.

You probably think the American Heath care system is great And should be adopted here right ?

After the long text you write it’s clear you think only 1 solution is good in economic , regardless of its problem .
Having a deflation with the level of debts the world has would be terrible ...

Why you think the fed is ready to do anything in it’s power to prevent deflation ?

Because the United States government is the largest debtor in the world.

Basically. I'm certainly in favor of having a free market in health care and opposed to socialized health insurance, which is the system in place in Canada. I certainly wouldn't duplicate the system exactly.

No it was the correct ruling but provinces could do a better job at health care

• Everyone that makes a minimum income of $50,000 should pay something. (used to be $44 for a single person in Alberta)
• Should include prescriptions and dental
• Premiums should be also subject to additional costs for smoking , obesity, excessive drinking
• More education on healthy life styles
• More Zoom style doctor consults
• Surgeries that have a waiting list longer than 6 months allow the individual to travel to get it done if they can afford it and give a tax credit. Shortens up waiting lists
• More subsidies for medical students that graduate and work in rural, and reservations. 6 years for free school

See as a builder I put in 240V electric plugs ready in the garages for clients and I feel things like that should also be subsidized as well as charging stations at retail and biz . Baffles me that a Tesla is exempt and I assume a chevy volt is not? I know that Tesla no longer receives any subsidies in the USA as they have been to successful

Well imo, in a develop and rich country, letting money decide the health of its citizen is totally inhuman .

But I guess people who think money is the sole reason of living for a human, yeah I guess it makes sense to let money decide the futur health of its constituents.

Fwiw , just letting free markets in every aspect of human life is just eradicate intelligence to promote the jungle law of domination from the strongest to the weakest.

You can wish to live in a world where dominance is the sole accepted value in a world to live in with all its danger that come from it ( extreme poverty increase criminality) or you can accept a minimum standard of living should be adopt for a better social cohesion .

Im on the latter side because I think human are smart enough do more than just to be at the mercy of the jungle law.

The world is more gray than black or white .

It is not accurate to describe the market economy as the "law of the jungle". Markets are peaceful social cooperation, where individuals make mutually beneficial exchanges, building each other up. It is state action that more accurately could be described as the "law of the jungle", where the strong take from the weak. In the market economy, a man can only get rich to the degree that he serves his fellow man, but when the state enters the picture, a man can get rich by plundering his fellow man.

The market economy does not lead to poverty. In fact, under laissez-faire, standards of living for the poorest of the poor (and everyone else) increase faster than under any other system. Capitalism is the greatest engine of wealth creation the world has ever known. The market economy produces superior results to socialism, which is why I advocate for a health care market. We wouldn't trust the state to provide housing or food for the citizens, we leave these all important tasks to the market. And yet, virtually everyone has a roof over there head, and eats three square meals a day. In fact, obesity is a much more common problem than hunger. But can you imagine what a disaster it would be if the state were in charge of housing and food? The soviet union tried that. It did not work out well. North Korea does that presently. It's not going great. So why then should we adopt socialized medicine, if socialism itself is so terrible?

Because the opoid crisis isn't bad enough right, let's give junkies their fix at the taxpayer's expense.

WoW ....
Ok prove it !
Gives me some number on pure capitalist is the ideal for humanity .....
Just in the US , which is one of the lowest socialist in develop contries , they have the greatest Wealth gap , that means the economy instead of working for everyone in a peaceful manner like you say , instead just push more forward a concentration of wealth that benefits only to a minority group at the expense of the majority .

Just look at hard data , over 50% of the population live pay check by pay check in the US , having the worst medical system in all develop countries at twice the price !
And I’m not even talking about the debts that rises up to 1.5 trillions for students which is ridiculous due to way over expensive education system because a free market aim at profits first .
And saying everyone as a roof and eat 3 meals a day , which country you live in ??
It certainly not a country with almost 0 social intervention by the government, I guarantee it ....
The US are a prime example !

The real answer is capitalist is good in general but only when it is support/control by some social necessity ( like social politics of education and health care system to permit any citizen to have an equal/minimum chance of Opportunity.) .

when You let go any system in its purest form , wether being socialism or capitalist , than huge problems happens .
They both need each other at some degree.

You condemn something by trying to generalize a problem that is a very tiny one to prevent the majority to have huge gains ....

Fwiw , Free market wouldn’t prevent junkies Either , look at the situation in the US again ...

Bad outcome always happens no matter what system you chose.
what’s important is if the loss is acceptable to the gain you made.
For an avid libertarian economy advocate ( like u seem to be ) , you should know that .

Certainly. Here is one such number. $25,591. That is the average gross salary of Botswana, in American dollars. Why Botswana? Well, if you care about alleviating poverty for the poorest of the poor, and I do, then it is worthwhile to consider a case study where poverty was alleviating for the poorest of the poor. Botswana is an economic miracle, and typically averages 5%-7% growth rates, making it the fastest growing economy in the world over the last fifty years. They also have the highest level of economic freedom in the region. Indeed, this society is more unequal than the rest of sub-saharan Africa, but the results for everyone, including the poor, are vastly superior to elsewhere in the region.

Uhh, you realise that Botswana's growth has been fundamentally rooted in government spending right? The combination of having probably the most stable government in Africa, valuable natural resources, and significant government investment in infrastructure, particularly healthcare, and welfare systems is what has created the opportunity for growth.

It is true that it is a relatively free market (certainly compared to the rest of Africa) but it is nothing like the small government, entirely laissez faire economy you seem to be arguing for. On the contrary it is actually a very good case study demonstrating the benefits of consistent government spending on long-term economic growth.