Foxer

Well in that case you should have no problem telling us what's wrong with the article specifically and where it went wrong.

And honestly I respect that. Conservatives have destroyed their parties provincially in federally when they perceived that the party had become corrupt or morally bankrupt. And the NDP has done the same and your statement is an expression of that. The willingness to destroy the political party because of bad behavior is an absolute requirement for good democracy

But the liberal supporters do not have that track record. Even when they punish their party it's mild and temporary and most often they don't. And that creates a problem. How long will others watch that before they decide they should behave the same way then the political parties know they can get away with anything

If you genuinely thought a Bloomberg/Brookfield international banker with a history of renovictions and exploitation of slave-like labor whose primary job was to hide the wealth of the 1% was better than Poilievre then I think you need to seriously reconsider your judgments.

The damage being done to the economy currently is going to be generational and the people that will face and feel it the most are going to be the poor and disadvantaged that nDP voters normally care about. With Poilievre you would have gotten some of the same things, such as an oil pipeline, but you would have also gotten a healthy economy that wouldn't been able to pay the needs of the week in the future

Instead an entire generation and probably too are going to grow up with a substandard life quality as a direct result of the liberal rule including Carney's over the last 11 years.

I strongly encourage you to sit back and think about your choices. Watch what happens over the next few years and watch what happens as we attempt to recover for that in the years to follow and watch who suffers.

Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.

For some reason you can't say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way

The kind of people who make lists are not the kind of people who care about doing good things. They're the kind of people that prefer to pigeonhole people that they believe based on their own ideology is unacceptable. You didn't see Hitler making a list of "good" jews . Maybe you shouldn't be making lists?

I have never said anything remotely close to "The wages are the only component" If you have to be dishonest about what I've said in order to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point. What I have said is that the wages are 100% included in the calculation. So if $50 is paid in wages then GDP goes up by $50 and that is absolutely true

And you fundamentally misunderstand the point I'm making. I never said anything about wages being the only cost. What I said originally was that the entirety of their wages are included in the value of the GDP and nothing about the fact that other costs are also included changes that fact. Which demonstrates that your original claim is false considering all wages are included with regards to those calculations in those sectors

I'm feeling like perhaps this is a little bit beyond your grasp. The original claim is that gDP minus income means something and my counterpoint which you are not getting is that gDP actually includes income for a significant portion of the sector therefore your statement is wrong. It doesn't have to be the only input for that to be true

You can say anything is a distribution of profit. Wages are in distribution of profit, the company makes money and uses a portion of it to pay its employees. The company pays the shareholders in exchange for the money that the shareholders have paid to own a portion of the company. An employee transfers money from the company account to his personal account. This is absolutely a cost of doing business. Just like repaying a loan is a cost of doing business

Sorry but there's a big difference between occasionally stupid and dementia. If you had a family member that had dementia you wouldn't make those kind of statements. Trump does not have dementia and lying about it just makes those who have legitimate criticisms of trump look bad

Well it's worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there's no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn't believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.

None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn't really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force

I don't know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.

Misunderstanding there I think, I was referring to Hoekstra, the reply is meant to be a reply directly to him about wanting American booze back on Canadian shelves not you. Sorry for the confusion, my bad

In the case of a public utility or not for profit exactly what I said is true.

"Because public services like healthcare, national defense, and education are rarely sold at a market price, Statistics Canada measures their output by calculating the cost to produce them. Therefore, the value of government output is deemed to be exactly equal to the total cost of the wages paid to public servants plus the cost of intermediate inputs."

So wages in such cases directly increase the GDP. If you pay a nurse or a police officer $50 per hour then for that hour the GDP goes up by $50

In the case where a corporation distributes profits it absolutely is relevant. You made the statement that the corporation is retaining the profits and that's not accurate. Dividends are akin to repayment of a loan. They are cost of doing business.

My statement in the original post could only be true if all costs are derived from labor.

Sure. In such a case GDP and income would be equal pre-tax.

Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind