Friday, April 24, 2009

John Manley shares Gary Goodyear’s views on evolution

CON MP Gary Goodyear is of the school of thought known as creationism, which believes man was created by God, rather than being the current iteration of millions of years of evolution and the survival of the fittest, or as I learned in a class on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto where the phenotype that is best able to cope with the environmental stresses, becomes the most favoured genotype as embedded in the next generation.

At its core, evolution is a design process in which “design” success is rewarded and design “failure” is punished. There is nothing premeditated about it, as randomness has as important role to play, as selection itself.

Evolution has its own parallels in the man made world, such as the economy at large and capital markets in particular. Survival of the fittest is essential to maintaining and moving forward Canada’s economy in ways and through means that increase its fitness and survivability. Essential to the process, however is the diversity accross species as well as diversity within species. The income trust tax is an arbitrary and falsely premised means to kill the diversity that is essential to any economy that hopes to grow and be vibrant and to compete and to be “complete”.

It is in this respect that John Manley does not believe in evolution or the concepts that underlie insofar as Canada’s economy is concerned, for he is CLEARLY of the view that the various competing “phenotypes” like income trusts should be arbitrarily restricted through some form of government edict and that only one form of “genotype”, namely corporations, be permitted to make it the next generation, when he stated:

"I don't think you can run an economy where you have different kinds of business vehicles that are taxed totally differently."

I guess John Manley thinks he is God?

This is utter nonsense, and grossly hypocritical given that John Manley works for McCarthy Tetrualt, which is nothing more than “different kinds of business vehicles that are taxed totally differently.", since as a limited partnership McCarthy Tereauly pays zero in taxes and will continue to pay zero in taxes even after the trust tax that he is speaking in favour of will see Canadian’s RRSP’s double taxed at rates of up to 62% and meanwhile pension funds will reserve the right to own income trusts and not pay the 31.5% tax despite the fact that these income trusts held by them are “different kinds of business vehicles that are taxed totally differently."

Some argument John Manley. Hard to believe that you are the product of millions of years of evolution yourself, or maybe you are the product of the strange Canadian culture in which it is something other than cream that rises to the top......much in the manner by which Michael Sabia got the job at the Caisse. The old boys network is the antithesis of evolution....more like devolution.

Meanwhile, John Manley must also believe in creationism, since the only policy justification upon which this income trust tax was “sold” to the public as valid and just in the breaking of Harper’s solemn promise not to raid seniors nest eggs to the tune of $35 billion or to remove essential investment choices, whose only purpose was to that steer more retirement money into the hands of some of McCarthy Tetrault’s best clients, was on the basis that “income trusts cause tax leakage”.

So where’s the proof? There is none? In fact tax leakage has been disproved by everyone under the sun, including HLB Decision Economics, RBC, BMO, PwC, Deloitte and the Department of Finance itself.....which is why they only issued their “proof” in the form of 18 pages of blacked out documents.

So here we have a policy that goes against the very nature of “diversity of choice is good” and forces a$35 billion loss on seniors for a whole host of nefarious reasons and corporate greed and personal gain, and the best that that John Manley can come up with is ZERO proof and some lame, after the fact policy justification, that wasn’t even enunciated in the Ways and Means motion and attempts to retrofit with this line of BS:

"I don't think you can run an economy where you have different kinds of business vehicles that are taxed totally differently."

Go back in your cave, as you aren’t ready for prime time yet, you have at least another million years to spend in the easy bake oven before your arguments are worthy of public consumption.


Dr Mike said...

If Manley`s hypothesis holds true then the process of natural selection in nature would involve one more variable , the interference of one other outside force which tips the balance one way or the other---if your idea of nature does not include the moose because you don`t like moose . then simply kill all the moose.

It makes no difference that moose are better adapted & would thrive on their own in relation to all other creatures because they were the best to do so----no , just get rid of them.

If this holds true all down the line then how sad would that be if all diverse creatures in nature were eliminated leaving only the few that were the "chosen" , the "survival of the chosen" & not necessarily the best.

Maybe we should keep the moose & get rid of the small minded people of the world.

Dr Mike.

uber.liberal said...

I don't think some people like gay marriage so we should close some churches. Some of them just hide Cons in them anyway.