EXgeMMy
Active Member
Here's the link to the CBC special
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2229772604
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2229772604
Here's the link to the CBC special
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2229772604
I get the impression it's more from tax reduction and tax deferral strategies than from beating the market index. Anyone can match the market index simply by using an index ETF fund, but most of us don't necessarily know the ins-and-outs of tax laws and estate planning, etc. Unfortunately, I suspect most financial planners don't either, but the good ones should.3) Planners supposedly do make more money for their clients than people without planners. Don't know who assembles that data (though I suspect it is the financial industry) but I think it would be fatally flawed anyhow since the people who use planners already likely 1) have more money than those who don't and 2) are more educated and concerned about their wealth and therefore more informed...in other words a skewed population group.
I dislike Amanda Lang greatly. She's even worse than most of the CNBC hacks in that she is generally incapable of objective economic analysis. Her economic worldview is colored with an extremely political disposition. A decidedly social democratic one. Based on watching her blather for the last few years I can deduce that:
1. She supports nationalistic economic protectionism, with very little in the way of economic argument to back up her views other than romantic notions of Canadianism;
2. She views all of our economic problems today as largely the fault of supposed capitalism run amok due to a lack fo regulation;
3. She thinks highly or regulators and central bankers.
Essentially she's a statist, corporatist run-of-the-mill left-wing populist commentator who happens to report on business. Yay!
I don't know, but I'm guessing she thinks highly of Paul Krugman from the things she says. And I don't think highly of people who think highly of Paul Krugman.
I dislike Amanda Lang greatly. She's even worse than most of the CNBC hacks in that she is generally incapable of objective economic analysis. Her economic worldview is colored with an extremely political disposition. A decidedly social democratic one.
If you think Amanda Lang is representative of social democratic worldview you're just an incapable of objective analysis as you claim she is!
She clearly is not to an objective observer that understands social democractic principles.
Social democracy supports legal entitlements in social rights for citizens. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: workers' compensation, universal health care and universal education, and other services such as child care and care for the elderly
Something tells me I'm more educated in political philosophy and political history than yourself.
You may be making the mistake of limiting the definition of social democracy to a political movement in Canada known as the NDP, but in political science, one would be hard pressed to argue with me, here.
When people talk about Harper dismantling the "progressive state" with cutbacks in CBC and such, they are really speaking to a social democratic political disposition. This is inescapable.
It may be discomforting to you that I could put Jack Layton and Stephane Dion in the same bucket and call them both social democrats. But they are, technically speaking. The difference between the two isn't who is the social democrat, it is where they draw lines between public and private life. The differences are in matters of degree.
It's interesting how many assumptions you need to make throughout your posts on this thread. My education and understanding of the political spectrum is not clouded by my own personal views (which are decidedly not social democratic, according to either an objective definition or yours), and I watch a lot of CBC. Espousing the views that she has, and being the foil for Kevin O'Leary, does not make one a social democrat, by any degree.
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings and for polluting this thread, neither of which were my intent when posting.