Sit back and enjoy as I explain the best answers to liberal arguments on taxation, oil and immigration.
Also available on iTunes and Stitcher.
5 Replies to “The best answers to liberal arguments – Podcast”
Common sense,the Truth are the words Liberals fear the most
C’mon Brian, the Conservatives have embraced legal immigration from countries who hate us and our culture. Stating that we won’t accept violent, barbaric practices doesn’t change the fact that we are bringing in people who harbour those views and wish to modify our culture to make them mainstream. They ignore our laws in favour of Sharia and are given a pass in Nenshi’s Calgary where cowardly muslim “men” beat up Jewish women and children.
They attack Jews, Gays, Christians and others on the streets of our cities. And for this I am supposed to be happy with our immigration policies. Ooh, they use better wording so all is well?
Of course it would be worse with the progholes running the show but let’s be honest, our Government is bringing in murderous, hateful, vile, barbarians with open arms. This is nothing to be proud of.
Brian is an admitted second gen economic refugee from socialist economics, I can only wonder what he hears the first gen in his family say about the current level of “commie creep” in our North American economy (Keynesianism on crack)and in government social legislating/adjudicating. The US is poised at the brink of collapse by socialist governments using extreme Keynesian economics by using printing presses to expand government largess to Wall Street. Economic “expansion” in the US is now a matter of currency inflation.
As for oil sands haters, these are easy to deflate, tell them to lead by example by purging their lifestyle of oil based products and carbon- creating technology or STFU. Carbon commies are only fit as targets for rotten tomatoes and other foul projectiles until they lead by example. Just call them deluded hypocrites and throw stuff at the dummies it’s all their bogus piety is worth.
I’m glad Brian is starting to expose the unseemly underbelly of CPS – it is an organization =rife with corruption and in some cases it has ben proven to be a recruitment and kidnapping function for pedophile networks.
Brian, too wordy. The best and only real answer to Liberals is a Glasgow Kiss followed by a stern admonition. I’ve found “F- OFF!!!” works well.
Brian Lilley makes reference to “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty. “Capital” has been referred to as the best selling, least read, economics book of the 21st century. It’s a tough read for sure and I’m convinced it was written by two people – Thomas the Academic and Piketty the Socialist.
At the very start Thomas the Academic warns you cannot write a book about economics without data (page 2). “Intellectual and political debate about the distribution of wealth has long been based on an abundance of prejudice and a paucity of fact”.
But by page 39 Piketty the Socialist is explaining how on August 16th 2012, South African police intervened in a labor dispute between Lonmin miners and the owners of the Marikana platinum mine. Thirty-four miners were killed over a wage dispute. Despite Thomas the Academic having no data on South Africa (the book rarely references that country) and despite his book being mostly about Britain and France, the event in South Africa is seen as best framing the issue of wage inequality in the Western World. Piketty the Socialist goes on to muse if such events will become “an integral part of 21st century history”.
Thomas the Academic makes an interesting comment on page 97 (with graph). The years 1950-1970 “were exceptional” and that such growth in the future cannot be expected. The normal historical growth rate of an economy is 1-2% (i.e. we are now in a normal growth rate).
Thomas the Academic discusses National Capital (page 115-120) and shows two graphs comparing capitalist Britain (Fig. 3.1) with socialist France (Fig. 3.2) over a 300 year period. The graphs are nearly identical. It does not matter what type of government you have (in the Western World) because it will not improve the capital to income ratio.
On page 124 Thomas the Academic defines “Public Wealth” explaining that “if the governments of both countries [Britain and France] decided to sell off all their assets in order to pay off their debts, nothing would be left”. There are virtually no NET Public Assets in any of the Western World countries.
On page 196 Piketty the Socialist discusses the value of private capital as a percentage of national income (Figure 5.8). By 2010 this value had barely returned to the level it was in 1870 (about 450%) and has never reached the peak of 500% set in 1910. But the graph doesn’t stop in 2010. It continues all the way to the year 2100 where private capital has reached an astonishing 650% of national income. The graph is totally made up – it is a projection with no data and yet it is the central point of his argument. Remember the Thomas the Academic line that “the debate about wealth distribution has long been based on a paucity of fact”.
My conclusion from Thomas the Academic is that the world economy is only now slowly returning to its natural state (1770-1910), one that was interrupted by WWI (1914-1918), the Great Depression (1929-1939), WW2 (1939-1945) and a brief over-heating from 1950-1970. It doesn’t matter whether you have a socialist or capitalist government in power, neither government will add to the country’s NET wealth – they borrow the maximum amount their Public Assets allow always leaving their country with a NET value of zero. Net National Wealth is almost entirely derived from Private Wealth. You cannot increase Public Wealth in order to make the poor more wealthy. You can only reduce Private Wealth and make the rich less rich. The Income Inequality Ratio is a mathematical failure. It seems bad only because the denominator (total capital) is increasing faster than the numerator (labour capital only). Income equality is a limit placed on the overall wealth of a nation.
My conclusion from Piketty the Socialist is very different. The ratio of Private to Total Capital is returning to the same worrisome rates seen over 100 years ago when labor unrest was much higher and the inequality between labor income and capital income was unacceptably high. The government must find a way of taking money away from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. Because if we don’t reduce inequality in Britain and France, several more miners in South Africa could die, fighting for higher wages.
There are 1,300 billionaires in the world today. Over two thirds of them are self made.
Common sense,the Truth are the words Liberals fear the most
C’mon Brian, the Conservatives have embraced legal immigration from countries who hate us and our culture. Stating that we won’t accept violent, barbaric practices doesn’t change the fact that we are bringing in people who harbour those views and wish to modify our culture to make them mainstream. They ignore our laws in favour of Sharia and are given a pass in Nenshi’s Calgary where cowardly muslim “men” beat up Jewish women and children.
They attack Jews, Gays, Christians and others on the streets of our cities. And for this I am supposed to be happy with our immigration policies. Ooh, they use better wording so all is well?
Of course it would be worse with the progholes running the show but let’s be honest, our Government is bringing in murderous, hateful, vile, barbarians with open arms. This is nothing to be proud of.
Brian is an admitted second gen economic refugee from socialist economics, I can only wonder what he hears the first gen in his family say about the current level of “commie creep” in our North American economy (Keynesianism on crack)and in government social legislating/adjudicating. The US is poised at the brink of collapse by socialist governments using extreme Keynesian economics by using printing presses to expand government largess to Wall Street. Economic “expansion” in the US is now a matter of currency inflation.
As for oil sands haters, these are easy to deflate, tell them to lead by example by purging their lifestyle of oil based products and carbon- creating technology or STFU. Carbon commies are only fit as targets for rotten tomatoes and other foul projectiles until they lead by example. Just call them deluded hypocrites and throw stuff at the dummies it’s all their bogus piety is worth.
I’m glad Brian is starting to expose the unseemly underbelly of CPS – it is an organization =rife with corruption and in some cases it has ben proven to be a recruitment and kidnapping function for pedophile networks.
Brian, too wordy. The best and only real answer to Liberals is a Glasgow Kiss followed by a stern admonition. I’ve found “F- OFF!!!” works well.
Brian Lilley makes reference to “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty. “Capital” has been referred to as the best selling, least read, economics book of the 21st century. It’s a tough read for sure and I’m convinced it was written by two people – Thomas the Academic and Piketty the Socialist.
At the very start Thomas the Academic warns you cannot write a book about economics without data (page 2). “Intellectual and political debate about the distribution of wealth has long been based on an abundance of prejudice and a paucity of fact”.
But by page 39 Piketty the Socialist is explaining how on August 16th 2012, South African police intervened in a labor dispute between Lonmin miners and the owners of the Marikana platinum mine. Thirty-four miners were killed over a wage dispute. Despite Thomas the Academic having no data on South Africa (the book rarely references that country) and despite his book being mostly about Britain and France, the event in South Africa is seen as best framing the issue of wage inequality in the Western World. Piketty the Socialist goes on to muse if such events will become “an integral part of 21st century history”.
Thomas the Academic makes an interesting comment on page 97 (with graph). The years 1950-1970 “were exceptional” and that such growth in the future cannot be expected. The normal historical growth rate of an economy is 1-2% (i.e. we are now in a normal growth rate).
Thomas the Academic discusses National Capital (page 115-120) and shows two graphs comparing capitalist Britain (Fig. 3.1) with socialist France (Fig. 3.2) over a 300 year period. The graphs are nearly identical. It does not matter what type of government you have (in the Western World) because it will not improve the capital to income ratio.
On page 124 Thomas the Academic defines “Public Wealth” explaining that “if the governments of both countries [Britain and France] decided to sell off all their assets in order to pay off their debts, nothing would be left”. There are virtually no NET Public Assets in any of the Western World countries.
On page 196 Piketty the Socialist discusses the value of private capital as a percentage of national income (Figure 5.8). By 2010 this value had barely returned to the level it was in 1870 (about 450%) and has never reached the peak of 500% set in 1910. But the graph doesn’t stop in 2010. It continues all the way to the year 2100 where private capital has reached an astonishing 650% of national income. The graph is totally made up – it is a projection with no data and yet it is the central point of his argument. Remember the Thomas the Academic line that “the debate about wealth distribution has long been based on a paucity of fact”.
My conclusion from Thomas the Academic is that the world economy is only now slowly returning to its natural state (1770-1910), one that was interrupted by WWI (1914-1918), the Great Depression (1929-1939), WW2 (1939-1945) and a brief over-heating from 1950-1970. It doesn’t matter whether you have a socialist or capitalist government in power, neither government will add to the country’s NET wealth – they borrow the maximum amount their Public Assets allow always leaving their country with a NET value of zero. Net National Wealth is almost entirely derived from Private Wealth. You cannot increase Public Wealth in order to make the poor more wealthy. You can only reduce Private Wealth and make the rich less rich. The Income Inequality Ratio is a mathematical failure. It seems bad only because the denominator (total capital) is increasing faster than the numerator (labour capital only). Income equality is a limit placed on the overall wealth of a nation.
My conclusion from Piketty the Socialist is very different. The ratio of Private to Total Capital is returning to the same worrisome rates seen over 100 years ago when labor unrest was much higher and the inequality between labor income and capital income was unacceptably high. The government must find a way of taking money away from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. Because if we don’t reduce inequality in Britain and France, several more miners in South Africa could die, fighting for higher wages.
There are 1,300 billionaires in the world today. Over two thirds of them are self made.