i think he's sort of on to something, but not really in the way that he means.

he suggests that the neo-liberals [some of them like to call themselves neo-keynesians nowadays; that's what the textbook i learned out of labelled itself] pointed to classical theory as the only scientific approach. but, if you've ever taken a look at these linear arguments with these intersecting curves...they're often naive to the point that they defy basic logic. my background is in logic; i didn't take an introductory course in economics until i got to grad school. i remember trying to tackle these arguments from a purely rational standpoint and coming to the conclusion that the models were either tautologies or useless - the assumptions required to make them hold were essentially equivalent to already knowing the outcome. i concluded that the supposedly beautiful simplicity of classical economics really ought to be a labyrinthine theory of complex suppositions and lengthy chains of confusing corollaries.

but, out of that, i think the more profound conclusion i came to is that the whole concept is really madness and should be abandoned.

humans are not electrons. the whole premise that there might be something like economic laws is rooted in the homo economicus model - which assumes perfect knowledge and perfect clarity. that much has been tackled by the behaviourists, who i think are the economic thinkers of the future, but there's really a more basic problem. it's rooted in the assumption that people even care. that was the part i ended up struggling the hardest with trying to rationalize. do people really care that they get $5 instead of $6? some people do, clearly. i'd suggest that most people probably don't. most people would probably rather spend time with their kids, or maybe have a beer with their friends, then sit around and scheme about the optimal outcome. much has been written on this protestant work ethic. in truth, i think assuming that it exists at all is a rather hefty error. and, if you come to this conclusion that people might not care what the optimal outcomes are (or measure optimal outcomes in entirely different ways) then they become entirely unpredictable - even using behaviouralist models.

if i have a desire to maximize artistic output and you have a desire to maximize financial gain then we're going to behave very differently. i might choose social assistance over a 500,000/yr job because free time is more valuable to me. there's no existing model that can make sense of that; it's total anarchism. yet, the possible motives grow very quickly when you sit down and try and enumerate them; there may be as many motives as there are people.

it breaks the causality in the models. because we're not electrons; we're individuals.

and, what a reasonable economic system needs to base itself on is the realization that you can't really aggregate human desire, and by extension you can't aggregate human behaviour through incentive systems and linear causality. you need to look at things carefully, on a case-by-case basis. you need to consult data. you need to listen to what people are saying.

economics is not a science.

STRONG LIKE BEAR

i want to see an attack ad with tchaikovsky pounding in the background, and comrade harper announcing his new  5-year plan for the economy, with the words "strong like bear" underneath. no party will do this. internet - get this done.

i'm a leftist. certainly further to the left than either of the major competitive parties. but, the liberal party of canada has historically been a pretty good compromise for a leftist living in a capitalist reality. and, i'm sick and tired of hearing them complain that they're being beaten by attack ads. i want to see them take responsibility for their own failures.

the reason these attack ads have been successful is not because they provide a reason to vote for stephen harper. and, the evidence regarding turnout is that they actually have not been successful in convincing people to vote for stephen harper. rather, what they've been successful at is suppressing liberal voters. and, the reason they've been successful is because they've been broadly accurate - they've pointed out valid reasons why liberal voters should have stayed at home over the last few elections.

dion is a bit of an exception. he had a challenging platform that nobody should have expected an easy road to governance on. and, he managed to keep harper to a minority. it's hard to rewrite history. but, on a literal level they were accurate. he was not an alpha leader. he had a consensus style of leadership. chretien and trudeau were, in fact, alpha leaders. now, i do prefer the idea of consensus leadership styles - i'm a leftist. but nobody should argue with the premise. rather, the argument should have been that we live in a democracy. we're not russia. we're not strong like bear, strong like vodka. they dropped the opportunity to make a point about democracy because they didn't understand there was a point to make. the ads didn't kill him - they were correct. he was killed by his strategists, and by himself, for not reacting on his own terms.

but, everything stated about ignatieff was accurate. he got his ass handed to him, and deserved it. he couldn't win his riding. and, he bolted the day after the election, to never be heard from again. but, the ads were just pointing out the obvious. the more important question is how the hell he ended up running for office in the first place. if you'd have told me in 2003 that the liberals would have a leader that supported the war in iraq and argues for the use of torture, i'd have laughed at you. the reform party didn't even argue for torture. pointing these things out to liberals had the effect of seeing themselves in the mirror, and they smashed the mirror in disgust. ignatieff lost because of his writings, not in spite of them.

and, who can argue with a straight face that justin trudeau ought to be running the country? the line of liberal leaders through the years has been full of experience and stability. to get to that position required years of service, work and dedication. every single one of these people had extensive cabinet experience. if you'd have told me the liberals would have a leader that's never held a cabinet position, i'd have laughed just as hard. and, when he gets beaten down, he should not have the audacity to blame it on the attack ads. he really doesn't have the slightest business being where he is. even dubya was governor of texas, first.

the liberal party needs to come to terms with this. they've thrown out bad candidates. they've refused to defend them, when they should. they've defended them when they really shouldn't. you have to acknowledge your errors before you can learn from them. but, you don't get an infinite number of chances. not even in liberal canada...

i've never paid for cable. when i moved out, it was straight to the internet.

that means i don't watch advertisements. in fact, it's almost a culture shock when i do see them. something as simple as a shampoo commercial has become strange and alienating to me.

that means i don't get political advertising thrown at me, either. rather, when i'm curious, i actively search for the information on my own.

if viewing demographics are truly shrinking that widely, that's a dramatic shift in the nature of our democracy.

i again need to point out that this case seems to suggest influence from outside the police force, and that focusing on the police is not truly getting to the root of the problem. of course, the cops should be arresting people that are suggesting they carry out hits rather than carrying them out. but, a proper investigation needs to be conducted with this understanding in mind, with the aim of getting at whomever ordered the murder.

it's kind of...

the supreme court reference did say that you need a clear majority to a clear question. but, it was only a part of the ruling. understanding the ruling is really an excellent exercise in critical legal theory.

it also said that separation was unconstitutional, unless it was done with such a force that required unconstitutional means to suppress. meaning, they can separate if they can separate; and, they can't separate if they can't. it resorted to the blunt realism of projected force. then it covered it up with ruling class language.

the clarity act helps the federal government maintain a facade of control, but it's really a facade. it seems almost extra-legal. but, the supreme court is bluntly accurate - if quebec decides it's going to separate, then it's going to separate. clarity act or not. constitution or not. a federal law saying you need an undefined majority is not going to stop it from happening if it's going to happen. and, on that note, what's more important about the ruling is that it says we can't stop it with force.

but, here's another blunt reality: the americans will have no such qualms and will instantly stop it with force. clinton was a phone call away from invading quebec in 1995. they had fighter jets stacked on the border.

it seems crass. it is - it's empty politics with no real ramification. but the clarity act is as well. this isn't even a serious issue in quebec, it's just abstract political rhetoric. but we'll see what quebeckers decide it is that they want.

because, in the end, it can only be quebeckers that decide what they want.

ipolitics.ca/2015/07/26/ndp-not-just-the-party-of-change-its-throw-the-bums-out/

LoggerheadShrike
I'm not a big fan of the Clarity Act myself, but there are vast problems with this critique. The Clarity Act doesn't regulate a separation at all. It only regulates how a separation referendum - in any province IN Canada, which is the jurisdiction of the federal government - is to be conducted, and whether or not the Canadian government will view it as legitimate. The latter is most certainly a question that Canada gets to decide - as does the rest of the world. Every nation is entitled to a foreign policy, including the power to decide what nations it recognizes.

You seem to feel that it's not necessary to define a legal separation, on the grounds that a separation can also be defacto, and therefore, nothing really matters. "if quebec decides it's going to separate, then it's going to separate. clarity act or not." This is much like saying if X is going to do an illegal act he's going to do an illegal act, law or no law, therefore there is no need for laws! In reality, it's very important whether the separation is seen as legitimate - not only by the people of Quebec, not only by Canada, but internationally. The presence or lack of legitimacy would define almost everything about the new state - its foreign relations, its economy, its domestic stability, pretty much everything.

deathtokoalas
see, the way i see it is that the reference case is a sort of non-ruling. it doesn't really state anything of value, it just runs through the possible outcomes and states them as tautologies. the clarity act does indeed state what you're saying, but it's not an entirely accurate reflection of the reference case.

if you drop the legal abstractions and focus on reality, you're left with a much more stark set of options. canada can decide what it feels is legitimate. but what is more important is if quebec decides whether canada's perception of what is legitimate is legitimate - because quebec is the actor, here. iraq can argue all day that the bombing happened in contravention of the security council resolutions; they still got bombed.

the harsh truth is that if quebec decides it's going to separate whether ottawa likes it or not then canada has two choices:

1) accept it, perhaps grudgingly, and perhaps with economic sanctions.
2) invade.

that seems overly simplified. but, it really is entirely true. if they have enough resolve, then they can only be stopped with force.

so, when the reference case points out that unilateral succession is illegal under the constitution, it's not really ruling on anything that makes any difference in the actual real world. it's really just making a political statement. that's why it's a useful exercise in critical legal theory.

what is more important is that the reference case *also* points out that it would be illegal for canada to suppress a clear democratic intention.

it's less like saying that there's no need for laws. it's more like saying that criminals break the law, whether there's a law or not. but, in this case the moral legitimacy of the law is not clear cut.

if quebec can manage to set up a budget, control a tax base and conduct it's affairs while ignoring the federal government (this is unlikely...), and it declares itself sovereign, de facto, then this may be illegal under canadian law. but that merely demonstrates the irrelevance of canadian law, in the circumstance.

the idea that quebec needs a clear majority to separate is obviously true. tautologically.

and, canada can write a law that states that. and even decide what a clear majority means.

but, at the end of the day it is only quebec that can *actually* decide what a clear majority is.

consider the following scenario.

canada writes a law that says that 60% is a clear majority. quebec passes a resolution that decides that 51% is a clear majority. they win a referendum with 55% and decide to go ahead with separation. who is going to stop them?

see, and this is where the ignored part of the reference case becomes important. because, despite stating that they need a clear majority (which is tautological; they could not succeed without one), it also states that we can't stop them if they go ahead with it.

that's the point i'm making: it ultimately doesn't matter what the feds decide a majority is. they obviously need one, or they can't do it. but, what it means can only ever be their choice.

so, the debate reduces to politics.

i'm actually not opposed to the clarity act. and i don't have any impetus to push for 51% in canadian legislation. in the abstract, i agree with the liberals. but it's just an abstract position - i know it doesn't matter. and it's not going to change how i vote.

and, it's not like my analysis is unprecedented, either.

consider the language laws in quebec. clearly unconstitutional. nobody debates this. but, there's a clause in the constitution that allows them to keep doing it. it's a blatant abuse of power; the clause is not meant for this purpose. but, who is going to stop them?

i'd say the same thing about senate reform, in terms of abstractly agreeing with the liberals, but not seeing it as a vote changer.

in all honesty, i do like the idea of a chamber of "sober second thought". our system of government really doesn't have a lot of checks and balances.

but, if that was ever an accurate description of the senate, it sure isn't an accurate description of it at any point in my lifetime. there is clearly a need to reform the appointment process so that it can accomplish it's stated purpose.

the value of the institution is that it remains unelected - i would certainly oppose an elected senate. and, continuing on with the historical approach of learning from the mistakes made in the american system, i think the gridlock they get down there is reason enough to avoid emulating their system of government.

but, in a practical sense? the ndp can promise to abolish the senate all they want, although they seem to have retreated from that position. they're never going to get the premiers to agree. it's a non-issue in a practical sense.

it's consequently not really rational to take the position of not voting ndp because they want to abolish the senate, because they're never going to succeed in abolishing the senate.