See, that's interesting - because I find it dishonest how you will try to bring in strawmen or irrelevant data and insist that therefore all evidence arrayed against you is moot.
Except that you define such data as anything that does not support your position. You know for a fact that the economy is not just fiscal policy. But you keep citing a study that explicitly states that all other data is ignored. That is stupid and you know it. But you refuse to own up to it. Hence why you are dishonest. You know better but you refuse to do so.
I will usually praise advancement - people who are working, being productive and living better lives are situated superior to those who are living as drains on their fellow man, doing little to nothing, and experiencing a lower standard of living.
But here you are praising going nowhere. Therefore you are a liar.
funny how you are so quick to give it credit for Canadian economic success, and so quick to insist that we shouldn't try to experience any of that economic growth ourselves.
Come again? I didn't say we shouldn't do it at all. Which again makes you a liar. I said we should wait until we can get the most bang for the buck. Oh wait. That makes you a liar again. Your inability to debate in the recent weeks without
blatant lying is getting annoying.
given that you are the one always worried about short-term demand, you would think you would recognize the immediate-term benefits of massive investment and higher-than-average paying jobs. or is it only public sector investment and employment that you care for?
Wrong. Getting oil out of tar sands is costly and slow. We'd be lucky to get it out in 10 years to market. It's not the same thing as natural gas (but I doubt you'd understand why). So there wouldn't be any real immediate benefit from expansion. Canada put in the capital investment for Alberta Tar Sands in 90s. Anyone who thinks we can get a quick boost from this is
stupid and does not understand the process of capital investment to getting products to global markets in the tar sand industry. Hell, that applies to virtually all oil that we can drill in America. We do not have the kind of oil sources that simply bubble to the surface in large amounts like the Saudis do. It costs them $2 to pump a gallon of oil. We are not in the same situation. To think so is to admit you are an idiot.
yet another great reason to allow it access to our full reserves so that it can compete and beat them.
No, not really. The cost of extraction will be high, and global prices aren't peaking. And the expertise and knowledge hasn't become ubiquitous to make it cheap. You won't respond to that. Watch. You won't.
I'm surprised you don't recognize the Economic Freedom Index.
I don't buy any graph until I can link it back to its source. It may look like it from there, but until it's linked, it means nothing.
I see how you just completely ignored how more regulation in Canada actually prevented a major recession. But you can't be bothered with facts that hurt your ideology now can you?
:shrug: well if you want to broaden the definition into that old standard of economics "the allocation of scarce resources that have alternate uses", you could make the argument that economics is "rationing" of a form - but you would still be incorrect here with regards to whether or not the solution is to allow individuals to allocate their resources, or to allow the state to seize those resources and then reallocate them as it sees fit.
You as usually, fail to see the middle ground. Seriously, what is with you a binary choices? States can set up healthcare systems which force providers to compete to reduce the costs to individuals who then make a choice. A single payer system can produce this.
