Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
BTW how could it be explained that public spendings account for nearly 50% of the GDP, while total government revenues are at 12.9%? Doesn't the federal spend 20 to 25% of public money anyway?

Same site, different page. GoC revenue as percent of GDP was 15.3% in 2003-04.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2004/frt04_1e.html#Table4

Public program spending does not account for 50% of GDP. Total government program expenditures as a percentage of GDP were a little over 30% in 2001. Debt servicing cost are on top of that.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/bp/bpa4e.htm

Total public debt is less than 50% of GDP. It was about 75% in 1995. It is down to under 40% by 2003.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/bp/bpa3e.htm

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

Squirm all you want, you mentioned specifically a course in formal logic (when taking a crack at my understanding of it, no less) and then mis-used it right after.

Yes, and I did admit my bad.

Your entire post is pseudo-intellectual bull****, and a great attempt at what the common man would reduce to "smoke and mirrors" and move on. The "intellectual", on the other hand, will embrace this study, call it "Philosophy", and pretend it's important.

It may be useless but it does make some people who've actually got good arguments when it comes to talking about things such as "what should be our rights".

I knew you would say that, and you know you're wrong. Since you seemed pretty intent on harassing me on terminology, I decided to make my post as precise as possible.

In other words, I just took lengths to explain you the following, that when someone says **** you just take the same **** but replace the words to show him that the logic is wrong.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Total Net public debt is less than 50% of GDP. It was about 75% in 1995. It is down to under 40% by 2003.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/bp/bpa3e.htm

Gross debt is 75.6% as of 2003.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2004/frt04_9e.html

[Fake Boris]

BTW, mandatory unions are not unfair, because when a worker is hired he will benefit from the efforts of the union,

The 'Rand formula' was instituted for this precise reason that workers were actually benefitting from work conventions with owners without actually wanting to pay for them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's an enviromental organization doing pushing for a higher wage?

Why of course, to drive employers out of the United States.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
BTW, mandatory unions are not unfair, because when a worker is hired he will benefit from the efforts of the union,

The 'Rand formula' was instituted for this precise reason that workers were actually benefitting from work conventions with owners without actually wanting to pay for them.

Even if nonunion workers benifet those workers should not have to join and pay dues to an organization if they don't want to. Especially since so much of union dues end up being spent on political contributions. No one should be forced to help political parties they don't want to help.