the vlog for february 16th is ready to go. not tonight but tomorrow night, at 12:00. so, in 26 hours.
the vlogs will carry forward on a normal schedule from there. surely, three months is enough time that i shouldn't get backed up again.
in case you missed it, the way this is going to work is that it's staggered by one season. so, it's calibrated in such a way that the march 21st vlog will be published on june 21st. this will usually be about three months. it's just weird right now due to february.
i'm going to try to have a longer day today, and continuing forwards on this, at least until the end of season 13, is what i'll be doing with it.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
people that are concerned that canada is benefiting from a lower dollar are not understanding our economy very well. a lower dollar is beneficial to our manufacturing sector, which is located largely in the east of the country. but, the political and social power of the country, nowadays, is in the oil sector, which is in the west of the country.
our dollar is de facto pegged to the price of oil. it is low right now because oil is low. the way to get the dollar up is to increase the price of oil. and, raising the canadian currency is certainly one input factor that would help american manufacturers compete against canadian ones.
but, increasing the price of oil also hurts the competitiveness of some american manufacturers.
worse is that, if you're out to get canada, you're misunderstanding it's interests: our political elite from all three parties would gleefully throw the manufacturing sector back under the bus to get a slice of higher oil profits. if oil gets high enough, the liberals may even balance the budget. we also have wealth distribution systems that transfer wealth from the oil industry to manufacturing regions, so the people in these areas will not be hit hard, so much as they'll shift back to social assistance.
some punishment.
if the americans are serious about addressing currency manipulation, what they need to do is write stricter regulations around currency trading, and crack down on short-term bond yield differentials. but, these are minor inputs.
we're an independent country in a complicated global economy, and unless trump wants to invade us, he's going to have to learn to deal with the reality of things.
our dollar is de facto pegged to the price of oil. it is low right now because oil is low. the way to get the dollar up is to increase the price of oil. and, raising the canadian currency is certainly one input factor that would help american manufacturers compete against canadian ones.
but, increasing the price of oil also hurts the competitiveness of some american manufacturers.
worse is that, if you're out to get canada, you're misunderstanding it's interests: our political elite from all three parties would gleefully throw the manufacturing sector back under the bus to get a slice of higher oil profits. if oil gets high enough, the liberals may even balance the budget. we also have wealth distribution systems that transfer wealth from the oil industry to manufacturing regions, so the people in these areas will not be hit hard, so much as they'll shift back to social assistance.
some punishment.
if the americans are serious about addressing currency manipulation, what they need to do is write stricter regulations around currency trading, and crack down on short-term bond yield differentials. but, these are minor inputs.
we're an independent country in a complicated global economy, and unless trump wants to invade us, he's going to have to learn to deal with the reality of things.
at
16:51
this is a non-starter and, frankly, a dumb idea.
what would happen, instantly, is that everybody would sell all of their canadian dollars for us dollars, thereby crashing the currency. we'd just all end up using american money. that's not going to help american manufacturers, either, as they'd lose their advantages in economies of scale.
do you know what policy would actually succeed in getting what donald trump wants? he'd have to invade and occupy mexico and canada. nothing else is going to get him what he wants.
don't tell him that, though.
it's becoming increasingly clear that canada is best off ripping up the deal and waiting for the next president to renegotiate. let's not forget that this is an option: we could always just sit still and wait for him to die.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3458565/nafta-trade-deal-currency-clause/
what would happen, instantly, is that everybody would sell all of their canadian dollars for us dollars, thereby crashing the currency. we'd just all end up using american money. that's not going to help american manufacturers, either, as they'd lose their advantages in economies of scale.
do you know what policy would actually succeed in getting what donald trump wants? he'd have to invade and occupy mexico and canada. nothing else is going to get him what he wants.
don't tell him that, though.
it's becoming increasingly clear that canada is best off ripping up the deal and waiting for the next president to renegotiate. let's not forget that this is an option: we could always just sit still and wait for him to die.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3458565/nafta-trade-deal-currency-clause/
at
15:26
what is a "currency clause"?
do they want to go back to bretton-woods?
given where trump gets his information from, i bet he probably thinks the gold standard is a good idea. ugh.
do they want to go back to bretton-woods?
given where trump gets his information from, i bet he probably thinks the gold standard is a good idea. ugh.
at
12:14
the short story on the infrastructure bank...
after the second world war, canada, like the other allies, found itself with an unemployment problem. one of the things that it did to fix the unemployment problem was that it invested heavily in roads. and, how did it pay for that? louis st. laurent used to brag that he balanced the budget, so it couldn't have been with too much bank debt.
in fact, money for infrastructure in canada - as well as in most places in the western world - was merely generated out of thin air, by the bank of canada. you need to be careful with the claims of people like paul hellyer and ellen brown as much of it is exaggerated, but it is legitimately true that the bank of canada printed almost all of the money it used for infrastructure.
this did not create meaningful debt because the money wasn't borrowed. it just came into being with the wave of a wand.
this changed in the early 70s, when an international agreement came into force that insisted that this kind of money generation was the cause of the inflation that countries in the west were experiencing.
today, we know that the theory of monetarism is false. it's questionable whether anybody should have ever taken it seriously, as the inflation was obviously tied to the opec embargo and the nixon shock. that is, there's a good argument that the banks pulled one over on us in getting people to accept the idea of monetarism in the first place - as they did with trickle down ten years later. but, canada was not able to push back against both nixon and heath at the same time and relented to a pledge to shift funding for government projects from public to private financing.
this was supposed to reduce inflation. but, canadians know that inflation increased in the 70s, and that debt ballooned in the 80s. trudeau figured out that the cause of the inflation was not public borrowing but the oil crisis, and created a national energy program to adjust to it. but, under international pressure to hold to monetarism, he never returned to public borrowing, and we today have a large national debt as a consequence of this.
in the 90s, we had to restructure dramatically to deal with the consequences of this debt, as the imf was threatening us with sanctions. and, in the 00s we faced a war of attrition by a government that wanted to destroy the country through the weapon of international finance.
i'm not here to rant about the debt. i don't have conservative values. i don't see the value in saving, or fiscal conservatism, in general. rather, i'll point out that the status quo debt/gdp ratio is manageable - so long as we don't have the need for any large scale spending, like we did in the 50s.
today, we do need this kind of large scale spending on infrastructure to adjust to the effects of the changing climate in front of us. and, given that the theory that led us to private financing is thoroughly debunked, we should be seriously contemplating the value of a return to public financing in order to do it.
after the second world war, canada, like the other allies, found itself with an unemployment problem. one of the things that it did to fix the unemployment problem was that it invested heavily in roads. and, how did it pay for that? louis st. laurent used to brag that he balanced the budget, so it couldn't have been with too much bank debt.
in fact, money for infrastructure in canada - as well as in most places in the western world - was merely generated out of thin air, by the bank of canada. you need to be careful with the claims of people like paul hellyer and ellen brown as much of it is exaggerated, but it is legitimately true that the bank of canada printed almost all of the money it used for infrastructure.
this did not create meaningful debt because the money wasn't borrowed. it just came into being with the wave of a wand.
this changed in the early 70s, when an international agreement came into force that insisted that this kind of money generation was the cause of the inflation that countries in the west were experiencing.
today, we know that the theory of monetarism is false. it's questionable whether anybody should have ever taken it seriously, as the inflation was obviously tied to the opec embargo and the nixon shock. that is, there's a good argument that the banks pulled one over on us in getting people to accept the idea of monetarism in the first place - as they did with trickle down ten years later. but, canada was not able to push back against both nixon and heath at the same time and relented to a pledge to shift funding for government projects from public to private financing.
this was supposed to reduce inflation. but, canadians know that inflation increased in the 70s, and that debt ballooned in the 80s. trudeau figured out that the cause of the inflation was not public borrowing but the oil crisis, and created a national energy program to adjust to it. but, under international pressure to hold to monetarism, he never returned to public borrowing, and we today have a large national debt as a consequence of this.
in the 90s, we had to restructure dramatically to deal with the consequences of this debt, as the imf was threatening us with sanctions. and, in the 00s we faced a war of attrition by a government that wanted to destroy the country through the weapon of international finance.
i'm not here to rant about the debt. i don't have conservative values. i don't see the value in saving, or fiscal conservatism, in general. rather, i'll point out that the status quo debt/gdp ratio is manageable - so long as we don't have the need for any large scale spending, like we did in the 50s.
today, we do need this kind of large scale spending on infrastructure to adjust to the effects of the changing climate in front of us. and, given that the theory that led us to private financing is thoroughly debunked, we should be seriously contemplating the value of a return to public financing in order to do it.
at
10:13
based on the pictures i've seen of that church, you have to wonder if the city shouldn't even tear it down for safety reasons.
at
09:33
this is kind of more what i was hoping for, but it's not what he's going to be doing....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlrCPMQ23k8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlrCPMQ23k8
at
08:15
yeah.
i had second thoughts. could i scrounge together some cash?
but, it's a greatest hits set....which is not really what i was thinking....or something i'd really get into...
i mean, it's being promoted as the "power trio". i thought that meant the focus would be on his more recent fusion-y instrumental work.
i'd even be stoked if it was just all crimson covers, but this is kind of a shitty setlist. he has this ego problem; he just can't let go of the fact that he's not a pop star.
so, i'm not going. decided.
http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/adrian-belew-power-trio/2017/virgin-mobile-mod-club-toronto-on-canada-63e7fafb.html
i had second thoughts. could i scrounge together some cash?
but, it's a greatest hits set....which is not really what i was thinking....or something i'd really get into...
i mean, it's being promoted as the "power trio". i thought that meant the focus would be on his more recent fusion-y instrumental work.
i'd even be stoked if it was just all crimson covers, but this is kind of a shitty setlist. he has this ego problem; he just can't let go of the fact that he's not a pop star.
so, i'm not going. decided.
http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/adrian-belew-power-trio/2017/virgin-mobile-mod-club-toronto-on-canada-63e7fafb.html
at
08:03
actually, i think that what this demonstrates is how inefficient that graveyards are. again: this is often prime real estate, in the middle of the city. people could be living on this land.
do the world a favour and get yourself cremated so you're not blocking progress in three hundred years. the needs of the living are important; the needs of the dead are simply not. they're dead.
we should tear every graveyard in the province up and build social housing on the land, instead.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/11/18/vaughan-church-grieves-for-bones-unearthed-to-build-pool.html
do the world a favour and get yourself cremated so you're not blocking progress in three hundred years. the needs of the living are important; the needs of the dead are simply not. they're dead.
we should tear every graveyard in the province up and build social housing on the land, instead.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/11/18/vaughan-church-grieves-for-bones-unearthed-to-build-pool.html
at
06:53
i've never understood this weird tendency of leftists to align with conservatives on issues of "cultural heritage". i'm in favour of tearing it all down and rebuilding without the baggage of the past...
the city would be better off with a property owner in this space that pays taxes. i mean, it's prime real estate. why would anybody want an eyesore of a 150 year-old church there?
i might consequently suggest that the mall should fight the court case with the intent of bankrupting the church and forcing them to sell - perhaps even to the mall, itself, who could convert it into a parking lot.
https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/05/16/church-of-the-holy-trinity-files-claim-against-toronto-eaton-centre-over-cracked-walls.html
the city would be better off with a property owner in this space that pays taxes. i mean, it's prime real estate. why would anybody want an eyesore of a 150 year-old church there?
i might consequently suggest that the mall should fight the court case with the intent of bankrupting the church and forcing them to sell - perhaps even to the mall, itself, who could convert it into a parking lot.
https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/05/16/church-of-the-holy-trinity-files-claim-against-toronto-eaton-centre-over-cracked-walls.html
at
06:40
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)