Foxer

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

Well then I guess you better find a way to do a deal with Canada and maybe stop acting like such a jackass

The most effective system in history by far (and it's not even close) Is capitalism. One of the primary tenants of capitalism is that in order for it to work for every dollar paid a dollar of value must be created. That system can sustain a certain level of inefficiency and donation and charity but only a little before it begins to drag the entire system to a halt.

You've created some sort of weird closed loop where money is spent and then taxed again into infinity and that's just not a viable thing. There's nothing in that loop that creates the wealth in the first place. Well doesn't exist unless it is constantly created and not only would your system not be able to function for any length of time, it would basically guarantee that poorer people would never have a chance of getting ahead I would be stuck in a perpetual cycle dependent on the government and unable to move out of their class

I think you're fundamentally Misunderstanding what GDP is and what GDP capita is. GDP is the value of goods or services created. But in many cases those services represent the value. So what winds up being included is just the wage. For example the wage of a government worker, which represents 25% of all jobs in Canada, is included in the GDP. The wages for many other sectors are also included in the GDP.

In addition you're not taking into account corporate disbursement such as dividends. Dividends are not retained by the corporation, and are very frequently paid to pension funds and workers directly if they happen to own shares in the company. Many companies also have Various forms of profit sharing along those lines and that would be after corporate earnings. Many middle class people own stocks as part of their retirement portfolios or rrsps. They would also benefit from those dividends and the corporation would not

So it wouldn't be accurate to say that at all. I guess you could sort of say there's a sort of a kind of relationship but not really.

The major pipeline companies have made it clear that they are not interested in any pipelines in Canada under the current mark carney regulation framework. Which is short for they don't trust his magic declaration of important projects legislation it don't trust him. That's probably something we should be paying close attention to I'm thinking about.

At which point he will claim it was too late anyway and there's no point worrying about it