Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

-1=e^ipi

Members
  • Content Count

    4,649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

-1=e^ipi last won the day on July 5 2018

-1=e^ipi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About -1=e^ipi

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gender: Agender. Gender roles are dumb.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,034 profile views
  1. 'etc' included discouraged workers. This is well known by economists and statcan alike.
  2. Real world example? Gay people are killed for being gay in the real world. That's a real world problem, and free speech is the best mechanism to stop it.
  3. What is going on in Hong Kong is really sad. The so called "People's Republic of China" is not holding up its end of the bargain in the transfer of Hong Kong, the PRC is supposed to respect the democratic independence for 50 years.
  4. You don't need hate speech laws to make fraud, slander, libel, or conspiracy to commit a crime illegal. Those are already illegal without hate speech laws. I'll give you an example where the value of allowing such ideas to be discussed in a free society is more obvious. Take the idea that gay people should be killed. If we allow the gay-hating people to make their arguments, be it that they think its unnatural or that they think that god commands us to kill gay people, then those arguments can be debated and defeated in an open society. Not only does that have the potential to convince people in our country that their positions are wrong, and that they shouldn't kill gay people, but such debates and arguments would be seen globally. This would include countries that kill gay people such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. By allowing such arguments and debates to be heard, we would help to sway public opinion in these countries, which would eventually lead to the end of killing gay people once public opinion gets high enough. By banning such hate speech, we would be doing a disservice to all the gay people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other awful regimes as it would reduce our ability to prevent the future killing of gay people in these countries. "hate" is just too vague. I hate cancer and think it is awful. Does my hate message of hating cancer have no merit? What if I hate nazis? Through argument. If they make false claims, then explain why they are wrong. If they are committing fraud, libel or slander, then that's already illegal, so it's a non-argument in favor of banning whatever the state considers "hate" speech. Just like North Korea, with the government determined "trusted source"... If you want to argue for hate speech laws, then it doesn't make sense to use examples of speech that are already illegal even in the absence of hate speech laws. .....................................................................................................................................................................
  5. You are reversing the burden of proof, you are the one claiming that "a market is like a garden", I'm claiming it's not (at least not in all cases). I could just as easily argue that the government needing to manage all markets, because "a market is like a garden", implies that the government should manage everyone's garden, be it their back yard or a farm, and tell people what to grow, what they can't plant and how to distribute the food. Such central planing has been repeated in many societies and leads to food shortages and famine, most recently in Venezuela. The reason I bring this up, is because I'm trying to use a reducio ad absurdum argument to get you to throw out this analogy and instead try to argue government intervention in the media on its merits. Why don't we throw out the analogy and just discuss whether government intervention is good for a particular market in a case by case bases? I would argue that the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics justifies no government intervention in some cases, but Arthur Pigou's famous 1920 paper "The Economics of Welfare" justified imposing pigouvian taxes and subsidies in some markets to correct for negative and positive externalities. In a free market, bad ideas should be able to compete with good ideas. There are millions of people discussing all sorts of ideas, I don't see how you can say/imply that no good ideas are being discussed anywhere. On the facebook think, it appears that Trudeau is threatening facebook to get them to censor speech he doesn't like. This is very concerning. One of the cases where government intervention can be justified is in the case of lack of competition in a market place. I am very supportive of competition laws, and I would argue that they should apply to large social media companies. Encouraging murder is already conspiracy to commit a crime. That's illegal with out needing to resort to hate speech laws, even in the USA with its first amendment. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
  6. I was responding to Jacee's comment... please understand the context.
  7. The garden analogy is silly and ridiculous, thus my comparison of it to Holomodor. If you can't make an argument without some nonsense garden analogy then maybe that means you don't have a good reason to justify your position. No, what I stated is the classical/standard argument by economists supporting government intervention in some cases. It has nothing to do with your garden analogy. If someone wants to argue that I'm a subterranean non-human lizard person then the best way to deal with that is by letting them make their case, and then refuting it with argument. No. Governments imposing too many restrictions on the free market place of ideas also includes Canada, especially as we do not have constitutionally protected free speech. And you want to move closer to these "gardeners" by having the government ban speech it deems "unacceptable". Putin's Russia recently passed laws that prohibit citizens for spreading "fake news" or making comments that are too "insulting" or "hateful" to the state, politicians, or Russian society. It's being used to crackdown on political dissidents.
  8. But if the goal is redistribution of income, then it would be far more efficient to increase the GST, which has a lower cost to the economy, and use the additional revenues to create a universal basic income.
  9. The analogy of a market being a garden is a bad one. Firstly, why does the tending need to be done by the government, as opposed to individuals? If we go with this analogy, then the government needs to tend to everyone's garden in every house across the country! Sort of like how the Soviets created the mass famine of Holomodor. Secondly, government intervention isn't always justified for all markets. There needs to be an identified market failure, such as externalities, a public or common good, imperfect information, lack of competition, etc. Thirdly, having bad ideas compete with good ideas for the support of the "ignorant people" is far preferable than having a government decide which views it views as in need of weeding out and which views it as the preferable views that the "ignorant people" need to follow. Firstly, we don't have a proper market place of ideas, due to all the restrictions being imposed on it by various governments around the world. Secondly, the market place of ideas works far better and is far less dangerous, than any government controlled environment of speech, be it Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.
  10. They do the same thing, but cap and trade has a higher implementation cost and regulatory burden. CO2 emission taxes create a price wedge between the supply of CO2 emissions and the demand of CO2 emissions, which reduces the quantity of CO2 emissions. A CO2 cap creates a wedge between the price demanded for CO2 emissions and the price supplied for CO2 emissions, which becomes the price of cap and trade. I invite you to consult your nearest economics textbook. Or you could consult this article by the David Suzuki Foundation: https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-tax-cap-trade/ "A carbon tax also has one key advantage: It is easier and quicker for governments to implement. A carbon tax can be very simple."
  11. Where do you get this nonsense from? Cap and trade is more costly than taxing CO2 emissions, that is well accepted by economists, including William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics last year. And yes, the CO2 emission tax should apply to all consumers because broad based taxes reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy.
  12. It doesn't matter. The incentive structure that currently exists, where media organizations have a strong financial incentive to get one party elected over another, is too dangerous and needs to be destroyed. The best way to counter fake news is with counter arguments and facts. One can do this by having a free market of ideas, where multiple media organizations compete with each other. That is far less dangerous than have the government determine what is the "real" news, and what is the "fake" news. No, we need separation of media and state. If the government starts determining, what counts as "real" journalism and then starts subsidizing it, or banning news it views as undesirable, that is far more dangerous for society. Especially if parties in power start viewing news that is favourable to them as the "real" news.
  13. You don't need 40, you just need the main economic powers to agree.
  14. Well you need to deal with the free rider problem, obviously. Although the Paris agreement, an agreement where everyone does whatever they feel like and there are no penalties of not doing anything, will not address this. The green party also has zero plan to deal with the free-rider problem. We need the main emitters & economic powers (USA, China, India, Europe) to agree to a pigouvian tax, and then threaten tariffs on any other country that doesn't agree to also imposing a pigouvian tax. Furthermore, to get the main emitters to agree to a pigouvian tax, countries (like Canada, Europe) shouldn't unilaterally decrease emissions too much, because that gets rid of our leverage over other countries to reduce their emissions. We should threaten not to reduce our emissions unless other countries agree to a global pigouvian tax, sort of like how we threaten to impose trade barriers on countries that impose trade barriers on us. This would increase the incentive for other countries to reduce their emissions and be a much better way to deal with the free-rider problem.
  15. How much clearer do you need them to be? Elizabeth May specifically said runaway global warming and human extinction. The Extinction Rebellion has extinction in its name for a reason. Their claims not only do not align with mainstream climate science, but some of their claims, such as runaway global warming, are unphysical. The green party doesn't understand climate science, but they're not going to get called out on it because the other parties don't understand climate science as well. There are empirically based estimates of the impact of climate change on global GDP, and many of them are summarized by the IPCC's assessment reports. The magnitude of impact is a few % points of GDP, hardly the collapse of the economy. The strong precautionary principle is insane and self-contradictory. If you apply the strong precautionary principle to itself, then it says that you should not follow the strong precautionary principle since there is a risk of significant negative impacts by following it. What you should do instead, is have a pigouvian tax, where the pigouvian tax is estimated while taking risk aversion into account. As William Nordhaus, the winner of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work in Climate Economics, has done.
×
×
  • Create New...