Shining a little light on the Fraser Institute plus the Manning Centre

[Holly Stick]

DeSmogBlog lists the FI members who are involved with the oil industry: http://www.desmogblog.com/fraser-institute-oil-industry
 
And they refer to this blog Northern Insights, which has a September 2009 post listing members of FI:
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2009/09/fraser-institute-who-are-they-anyway.html
 
The blogger, Norman Farrell, has done several posts about the Fraser Institute, which can be found here:
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/search/label/Fraser%20Institute
 
The Tyee in Sept 2009 about the FI: http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/09/25/FraserInstitute/
 
  :


[ETA April 2013: Manning Centre is in the news and needs watching too]

[Berlynn]

I started swearing at the radio today when a CBC Radio 2 newscaster quoted the effing FI about the tax burden.  The only reason we've got a heavier tax burden is because the governments have done what the effing FI wanted them to do which was to shift taxes away from the corporate sector.  :

[Debra]

The only reason we've got a heavier tax burden is because the  governments have done what the effing FI wanted them to do which was to  shift taxes away from the corporate sector.  

Now how do we get people, so many of whom say, Oh politics doesn't interest me, to get that? :

[arborman]

I read the other day that, by the numbers, our 'tax burden' is roughly the same as it was in 1960 or so.  FI also uses CPP contributions and resource royalties in its calculations - both wrong for different reasons.

[Croghan27]

I read the other day that, by the numbers, our 'tax burden' is roughly the same as it was in 1960 or so. FI also uses CPP contributions and resource royalties in its calculations - both wrong for different reasons.

Boom Boom - I have a pfd file that I sent myself that relates the tax burdens in all the OECD country from 1975 until 2007. Our taxes, as a percentage of income in 1975 was about 32% - by 2007 it had jumped a whopping 1.3%, to 33.3%.
 
Given the added benefits that come from the govenment - that is quite a bargan.
 
(The US went from 25.6% to 26.3%.)
 
If I find a way to transfer it from the email I sent myself I will post it here.

[Croghan27]

for interest and as an addendum to that post about the OECD taxes ...
 
In 1975 corporatin paid 4.3% as a percentage of income in taxes - by 2007 that was down to 3.7%

[Holly Stick]

By the way, I guess we can start referring to the Fraser Institute as a foreign organization:
 
http://twitter.com/FraserInstitute/status/23926761949

[sparqui]

Nice catch, Holly!

[Croghan27]

By the way, I guess we can start referring to the Fraser Institute as a foreign organization:
 
http://twitter.com/FraserInstitute/status/23926761949

How can you say that when we all know that the Frazer Fraser Institute is as Canadian as maple syrup apple pie and hockey baseball. Keep that up and the next thing you know people will stop being awed by The Vimy Memorial sunken war ships in Pearl Harbour Harbor, or supporting Medicare a bloated military.

Hell, they may even start singing God Save The Queen  My Country T'is Of Thee.

[Berlynn]

By the way, I guess we can start referring to the Fraser Institute as a foreign organization:
 
http://twitter.com/FraserInstitute/status/23926761949

Holy fuck!

ETA:  Just the headlines in this PDF make my blood boil!

[Antonia]

WHOA!

Isn't the FI a charitable org in Canada?
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/support-us/overview.aspx

How do they apportion the $$$?

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Fraser_Institute

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/basicsearchresult-eng.action?s=registered&k=Fraser+Institute&p=1&b=true

And thanks Holly. I would applaud you but I did in another thread so I am unable to do so.

[Berlynn]

WHOA!

And thanks Holly. I would applaud you but I did in another thread so I am unable to do so.

Psst.  A. 

I applauded her for you.

Ciao.

[Holly Stick]

Their Canadian and American websites are very similar in look.  Differences in the About Us/Who We Are/History:
 

History  A reputation for quality
 
The Fraser Institute has had a tremendous impact since our beginnings in 1974. We’ve been changing the way people think about government and the role of markets for more than 35 years. When the Institute was first founded, many Canadians believed that government should be the principal source of growth and development in the economy.
 
We have had a number of notable successes changing the climate of public opinion. For example, it is now understood that wage and price controls are no longer considered effective, and deficit spending is no longer endorsed by Canadian politicians.

 
From our Beginnings
You'll find a comprehensive and engaging account of the Institute’s history and background in these publications:
           

• 35th Anniversary - 35 Big Ideas
• 30th Anniversary Retrospective
• Challenging Perceptions: Twenty-five years of Influential Ideas

   

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/
 

History

A reputation for quality

The Fraser Institute has had a tremendous impact on public policy since our founding in 1974. We’ve been changing the way people think about government and the role of markets for more than 35 years. In fact, when the Institute was first founded, many people believed that government was the principal source of economic growth and development, that wage and price controls were effective, that deficit spending was an inescapable reality of modern fiscal policy. None of that holds true today, and we proudly take some of the credit for this welcome change.
From our beginnings
You'll find a comprehensive and engaging account of the Institute’s history and background in these publications:
 

• 35th Anniversary - 35 Big Ideas   
• 30th Anniversary Retrospective

 

http://www.fraseramerica.org/aboutus/whoweare/history.htm
 
Edited to get rid of some formatting weirdness.

[Croghan27]

What are they called ... ."strawmen"? (An informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.)

In fact, when the Institute was first founded, many people believed that   government was the principal source of economic growth and development,   that wage and price controls were effective, that deficit spending was   an inescapable reality of modern fiscal policy.

Being involved in unions and unionism about the time that FI was founded (congealed is the word I prefer) - I wonder who they are speaking about here. Certainly not us 'lefties' in organized labour.

In fact I recall losing a day's pay while participating in a Saint John Trades and Labour Council march against Mr. Trudeau's wage and price controls.

I wonder if any of the great minds at the Institute managed to put their pay on the line.

By-the-by ... Many of the learned folks that produce the glurge the institute does, are ... (get ready for it) employed by state supported and financed universities. Nice to see they acknowledge they are superfluous to the economic functioning of Canada.

Back-in-the-day, say around 1969 crogh worked for a construction company that built the social service building at the University of Alberta (Calgary Campus) --- now University of Calgary.

Good to see that I contributed more to the economy with my summer employment than they do with all their 'intellectual productions' paid for by the government.

[sparqui]

Interesting how both sites "about us" are almost identical.

In fact, when the Institute was first founded, many people believed  that   government was the principal source of economic growth and  development,   that wage and price controls were effective, that  deficit spending was   an inescapable reality of modern fiscal policy.

I found this statement interesting given the US did not need to transform itself from a mixed economy to a market driven economy. But I guess the statement is vague enough to fly.

The "staff" are all the same Canadians except for Alan Dowd who is only a Senior Fellow on the Canadian site. Maybe it's a make work project for Mr. Dowd.