Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by -1=e^ipi

  1. I think it's more likely that the politicians have 0 understanding of economics. So they naively believe in the propaganda of the first lobbiest that gets to them (such as the dairy cartel).
  2. In any case, I am not a conservative, have never voted conservative, and will never vote for parties that want to conserve bad ideas like a dairy cartel.
  3. Anyway, keep trying the harperite strategy of supporting the cartel, not advocating for anything, and shutting out discussion and debate in society. I'm sure if you keep trying the losing strategy of harper/scheer it will eventually work... *sarcasm* Edit, also ensure you have no policy differences with the so called 'liberal' party, which ensures that people will vote against the party with the leader that hates gay marriage and is against abortion rights. Clearly that is a 100% winning strategy.
  4. Because it's bad policy and we shouldn't vote for parties with bad policy.
  5. No, stupid policies exist contrary to popular opinion of the people because they are never challenged in an election.The continued existence of tax payer funded catholic schools in Ontario despite opinion polls showing most people are against them is an example. The fact is many countries around the world have political parties that get elected despite being against an awful cartel that makes food unnecessarily expensive for poor people. It's almost like people don't want unnecessarily expensive food.
  6. He loses more votes to people who oppose the cartel.
  7. Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that parties in countries around the world (Australia, New Zealand) consistently win elections while opposing supply management.
  8. ... And here i was under the impression that Scheer supports the socialist dairy cartel...
  9. Canada should recognize Taiwan (The Republic of China) as a country and pursue closer ties and free trade with Taiwan. The Republic of China is a wonderful freedom loving country where gay people are even allowed to get married. Better yet, kick gay-killing Brunei out of the TPP and replace it with Taiwan. Tsai Ing-Wen is a wonderful president and it's a shame that we continue the Trudeau-Senior policy of ignoring the Republic of China and pretend they don't exist.
  10. Je suis suprisé que tu pense cela. Le grande majorité des canadiens anglais ne le pense pas. Même les canadiens qui soutiennent le monarchie donnent une autre justification comme "c'est la tradition" où "c'est un bonne institution." Par exemple, en Australie il'y avait beaucoup de référendums proche de la monarchie et aussi beaucoup de premiers ministres républicains.
  11. I don't know. If we accept that people should not be able to discriminate in their workplace services based on race or sexual orientation, then why not gender identity? Or should people be able to deny employment, housing, and services to black people on the basis of race? If we take the position that some discrimination in the case of black people and housing should be illegal, but discrimination of services in the case of Yaniv should be legal, where are we drawing the line and how do we justify that?
  12. To be fair, there is a lot of sexism against men when it comes to hiring babysitters.
  13. 'etc' included discouraged workers. This is well known by economists and statcan alike.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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. .....................................................................................................................................................................
  17. 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. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
  18. I was responding to Jacee's comment... please understand the context.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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."
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. You don't need 40, you just need the main economic powers to agree.
  • Create New...