« In which I say something nice about the NDP | Main | Do we need a bubble? »



It's curious that they don't even invite their own MPs to speak at this event. Party members, let alone the general public, are not invited to attend either...

Listening to high levels of management jargon can be very taxing - ultimately borne by the attendees and reporters/bloggers. The conference organizers never seem to pay the price. :)

www.can150.ca everyone is invited to attend. A lot of areas are having local viewings of the event. I know my city is…

What could have saved Nortel: getting rid of any and all policies that supported bad management.

history will look back and say the same thing

Are you saying history is a person? :)

"I still don't know what Roger Martin means by an innovation policy. "

My guess it means giving lots of money to business schools. I'm not against this - my car payments aren't going to make themselves. :)

Do our tax policies support innovation?

If we have a low capital tax rate that doesn't actually translate in to lower taxes for businesses that operate in our country since they pay the difference when they repatriate profits.
Coupled with
A government that is promoting a reduction its current account in favour of foreign direct investment

Doesn't that in itself provide a disincentive for the money in the system (this flow foreign direct investment) to support innovation since new business as well as businesses that reinvest their earnings in technology to produce innovation will pay lower dividends and are inherently more risky?

If I'm money and my job is to maximize my growth while minimizing risk, wouldn't I search the secondary market for companies that are reducing expenditures and increasing profits since those companies are increasing stock prices and paying larger dividends rather than take a chance on a company that may or may not be successful in developing "something" that will increase profits and dividends in the long run?

I don't know if that's true, but I would like some criticism on it though if it is worth the time....

But if it is true wouldn't it be then up to the government to put policies in place that provide incentive to investing in longer term projects, or reduce the dividends paid directly.....

What if their were a hard cap on profits (dividends) after which, unless there is a specified portion that goes to "innovative" projects, there is a tax. The tax wouldn't go to general government revenue, but to specified research funds (defined by business sector for instance) that are run out of Universities who make all findings and useful innovations public without patent; thus providing a mild disincentive to investing in non innovative businesses. The information produced by the universities could then be analyzed and provide necessary market information to investors and reduce the risk associated in investing in technology blindly; thus provide incentive for foreign investment to be used to stimulate innovation.... which is supposed to be the point anyway.

And we may get the added bonus of providing decent research jobs that encourage students to do scientific research without the understanding that their diploma gets them a ticket to wait in the unemployment line and our Universities might become useful....?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad