Jim Stanford: Embarrassment To REAL Economists

[Anonymous]

1. His favourite politico of 2014 is failed Manitoba NDP premier Greg Selinger.



The statistics don't lie. Under an NDP government, Manitoba has done poorly on so many fronts. The province has the highest rate of child poverty in the country and food bank use is at an all-time high. Manitoba's average weekly wages are the lowest in Canada west of Quebec. And the province's GDP per capita — the most frequently used indicator to compare income and the standard of living between economies — is well below the national average and ranks sixth among the provinces.



The Selinger government's economic policies have not done well, which is why Manitoba is still a "have-not" province that relies on $1.7 billion a year in equalization payments from Ottawa. It's also why Manitoba has lost a net 17,481 people to other provinces in the past five years alone, including 4,465 people in 2013, the highest inter-provincial migration loss since 2006.



How can a government claim to have a successful education policy, for example, when our Grade 8 students finish dead last in national testing in math, sciences and reading? The NDP government has dumped record amounts of tax dollars into our bureaucratic-heavy public schools system, yet our students score the worst in the country.



Selinger has gutted balanced budget legislation, increased deficits/debt and gotten a downgrading from Moody's. On top of all this Manitoba has the highest income taxes West of Quebec and very high corporate taxes. It's little wonder his own party had enough when he broke an election promise and raised the PST.



2. Stanford claims Quebec's failed daycare model has increased the GDP by putting more women in the workforce.



Quebec is the biggest recipient by far of equalization payments, but they have increased their GDP?? Let's get one thing straight here, Quebec's daycare has produced three things only, high costs, little choice and mediocre quality.



Families with relatively high incomes (over $60,000) benefit most from the system. Not surprisingly, they also make the greatest use of it. In 2000, more than 58% of children in subsidized child-care centres came from families with incomes above $60,000, although they represented a minority of children aged zero to four in Quebec.



Meanwhile, those with incomes between $25,000 and $40,000 are actually worse off financially than they would be using nonsubsidized child care at, say, $26 per day, given the overall effect of the government's program on their taxable incomes. So much for universality and accessibility. Kudos though to premier Couillard for at least tinkering with the $2.7 billion dollar program by bringing in means testing.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=5a5e1555-093f-4959-9395-028c36daadc7&p=2">http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... daadc7&p=2">http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=5a5e1555-093f-4959-9395-028c36daadc7&p=2



This is in addition to his opposition to large scale resource developments that as a rep of Unifor would benefit his own paid members not to mention pay for the type of transfers he wants to see.



Stick to shilling for OPEC/TIDES groups and leave tax policy to people like Jack Mintz that actually understand and care about the economy. Oh yeah and care about Canada too. Fuck off scumbag!! ac_beating

[Obvious Li]

he even looks like a greasy union asshole....how he ever got a degree is a fucking mystery for the ages.....listening to some union slug explain economic theory is alice in wonderland shit.... ac_dance .

[Anonymous]

he even looks like a greasy union asshole....how he ever got a degree is a fucking mystery for the ages.....listening to some union slug explain economic theory is alice in wonderland shit.... ac_dance .

He has economist credentials, but like too many Westerners he has sold out ideology's deep pockets. Anything he says needs to be taken with buckets of fucking salt nearby. That and an endless supply of mojitos.