i've been leading up to this for a while, so it should be of little surprise. the force of which i'm doing so may, however, take some people off guard.
with careful consideration and much dismay, i need to endorse the liberal party. actively. and almost - i said almost - enthusiastically.
it's largely a reflection on the ndp, which i'm seeing in a very poor light over this election. the ndp leadership under mulcair has systematically eliminated any reason i had previously seen them as superior to the liberals. the few traditionally left-leaning things that are left, like child care, are of rather low importance and largely infeasible, anyways.
there's a number of things that i like about the liberals better if you line them up, but the reason i'm almost - i said almost - enthusiastic is the shift to sustainable manufacturing, which the ndp do not seem to have any interest in.
a few days ago, naomi klein & maude barlow set up a press conference where they put together a 15-point declaration that they expected the next government to adopt. now, my politics are certainly closer to those of naomi klein or maude barlow - without question. but, if you read the list the obvious conclusion is that it's a summary of the green platform, in an attempt to galvanize left-leaning ndp voters that are understandably drifting elsewhere. i understand why they felt the need to do this, and they're absolutely right that they needed to do this - but it's far too little and far too late. the media made the obvious maoist connotation and wrote them off as distracting from the ndp's centralizing messaging; mulcair said something like "they don't speak for the party", and in the process essentially disowned them. the media was almost solely interested in costing a vague 15-point plan that by nature cannot be costed.
it is clear that the ndp leadership will not act as anything better than a hurdle in adopting the points in the manifesto. but, voting for the greens isn't going to accomplish anything, either.
shortly afterwards, the ndp released a "budgetary framework" document with oil at $67. this of course stays within the ndp's existing narrative of obsession with fiscal conservatism. worse, it tips it's hat on the importance of oil revenue to the government. everything that the ndp has been promising has been constructed with the intent to maximize oil revenue. this just cements the irrelevance of the klein/barlow clique in the new ndp. the new ndp wants to encourage dirty industry, tax it and redistribute the proceeds. in some sense, this is traditional socialism - but it's best before date was about 30 years ago. well, it's a party run by people on the brink of retirement.
this isn't the first time in the history of the world where liberals seem like a better choice than nominal socialists, however liberal or however nominal - and in canada the liberals are very liberal, and the ndp's socialism is very nominal (if that, they denounced it). but it's still always difficult for a leftist to come to terms with this when it's in front of them. and, today, it's in front of us.
the crux of what the liberals are pushing is in setting up a new environmental infrastructure bank as an arm of the bank of canada that funds itself via floating "green bonds". this is an update on the infrastructure tactic we used after world war two, which allowed us to build most of what we see around us. i get the impression that this is meant to be a very large scale project. the reason klein et al suggest tobin and carbon taxes is that it's seen as more feasible than floating bonds; the liberals are quietly presenting an even better funding tactic. if there's a party that's going to move towards the manifesto issued by klein & barlow, it's crystal clear at this point that it's going to be the liberals and not the ndp.
and, we're left with the hard truth that we're seeing a confluence of platform positions on the left in canada - but that it's under the liberal party. what's emerging is a reality where elizabeth may, maude barlow, naomi klein and the rest are seeing their visions most likely accomplished by the liberals - and only the liberals, because the ndp are moving in the opposite direction in planning everything around profit made from dirty oil.
it's not what i want to be saying. there's some things about the liberals i don't like, but i think they're mostly reduced to issues that *must* be largely worked out in court. however, the reality is that they are the only major party that is serious about putting the proper steps in motion that we need to have set in motion to move into a post-carbon future, even as they're refusing to turn the taps off any time soon.
pragmatic and realistic leftists need to see things as they really are and vote accordingly.
Friday, September 18, 2015
every time i take one of these polls, i'm at the very edge of the libertarian socialist quadrant; i just pulled one up, and it said that i'm more of a libertarian than the dalai lama, and more of a communist than nelson mandela - who were the only people listed in the quadrant.
and, yet i tend to vote liberal. funny that.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3234556
and, yet i tend to vote liberal. funny that.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3234556
mulcair certainly knows what he's talking about, but is wrong about almost all of it.
trudeau doesn't appear to really know what he's talking about, but is mostly right and pretty much across the board.
and harper neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he correct on most issues.
it took me weeks to forget about how truly awful trudeau was in the first debate, and while he was not much better here the difference is that mulcair was a lot less effective without having may to play off of.
trudeau: C-
mulcair: D-
harper: F
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3234556
trudeau doesn't appear to really know what he's talking about, but is mostly right and pretty much across the board.
and harper neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he correct on most issues.
it took me weeks to forget about how truly awful trudeau was in the first debate, and while he was not much better here the difference is that mulcair was a lot less effective without having may to play off of.
trudeau: C-
mulcair: D-
harper: F
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3234556
so, did fiorina really win this debate?
in a word: no. i wouldn't say anybody really won. then again, it's like trying to pick who is best at an alien mating ritual. i really haven't a clue what republicans voters want.
but, you can see from the start that she was supposed to win - from the first question. and, it's not hard to figure it out.
when women candidates run against male candidates, they automatically get a roughly 5% bump. that's not to say clinton will necessarily win, but sanders doesn't have the demographic advantage that obama had in getting....i think it was 98% of the black vote? correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's actually true.
clinton will not get 98% of the female vote. but, if she runs against a dude - any dude - she's guaranteed at least half of it. american elections are perpetually won on the margins, in these kinds of identity dominance plays.
if clinton is the nominee, the republicans essentially have no choice but to run a female candidate. and, as far as i can see, she's the only one running. further, if you flip the situation around, it's fiorina that gets the female bump over sanders.
it's a statistical fact. hopefully, it disappears in a generation or two. for now, it's the reality on the ground.
what you're seeing in the coverage is that fiorina has now been chosen as the establishment candidate. and, they have a pretty good track record of fabricating reality. we'll have to see if they can pull this off or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WwzXkJd8aY
they hate clinton. this seems to be the tactic i was waiting for.
also: the correct answer is eleanor roosevelt, but you won't get that from these turkeys.
in a word: no. i wouldn't say anybody really won. then again, it's like trying to pick who is best at an alien mating ritual. i really haven't a clue what republicans voters want.
but, you can see from the start that she was supposed to win - from the first question. and, it's not hard to figure it out.
when women candidates run against male candidates, they automatically get a roughly 5% bump. that's not to say clinton will necessarily win, but sanders doesn't have the demographic advantage that obama had in getting....i think it was 98% of the black vote? correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's actually true.
clinton will not get 98% of the female vote. but, if she runs against a dude - any dude - she's guaranteed at least half of it. american elections are perpetually won on the margins, in these kinds of identity dominance plays.
if clinton is the nominee, the republicans essentially have no choice but to run a female candidate. and, as far as i can see, she's the only one running. further, if you flip the situation around, it's fiorina that gets the female bump over sanders.
it's a statistical fact. hopefully, it disappears in a generation or two. for now, it's the reality on the ground.
what you're seeing in the coverage is that fiorina has now been chosen as the establishment candidate. and, they have a pretty good track record of fabricating reality. we'll have to see if they can pull this off or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WwzXkJd8aY
they hate clinton. this seems to be the tactic i was waiting for.
also: the correct answer is eleanor roosevelt, but you won't get that from these turkeys.
the debate was depressing.
mulcair certainly knows what he's talking about, but is wrong about almost all of it.
trudeau doesn't appear to really know what he's talking about, but is mostly right and pretty much across the board.
and harper neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he correct on most issues.
it took me weeks to forget about how truly awful trudeau was in the first debate, and while he was not much better here, the difference is that mulcair was a lot less effective without having may to play off of.
trudeau: C-
mulcair: D-
harper: F
the choices are throwing the calculus that they've spent the last 20 years constructing into the trash heap.
correlations will melt away into the sea, exposing no causal factors.
it will be back to the drawing board, as the archetype says.
mulcair certainly knows what he's talking about, but is wrong about almost all of it.
trudeau doesn't appear to really know what he's talking about, but is mostly right and pretty much across the board.
and harper neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he correct on most issues.
it took me weeks to forget about how truly awful trudeau was in the first debate, and while he was not much better here, the difference is that mulcair was a lot less effective without having may to play off of.
trudeau: C-
mulcair: D-
harper: F
the choices are throwing the calculus that they've spent the last 20 years constructing into the trash heap.
correlations will melt away into the sea, exposing no causal factors.
it will be back to the drawing board, as the archetype says.
wayne did always need that winger on his right to bounce the puck off.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gretzky-harper-1.3234136
kurri. robitaille.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gretzky-harper-1.3234136
kurri. robitaille.
i think the numbers we've been seeing in quebec suggest that it's more likely that mulcair's seat is an open question.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-papineau-sep18-1.3233577
John Gee
LOL !
see if you can place a bet in Vegas on that,
Ha Ha Ha,
What a kook !
Jessica Murray
the liberals seem to be running close to 30% in quebec, which means they're probably running close to or above 50% on the island. when the liberals are doing well in quebec, they are likely to win outremont.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-papineau-sep18-1.3233577
John Gee
LOL !
see if you can place a bet in Vegas on that,
Ha Ha Ha,
What a kook !
Jessica Murray
the liberals seem to be running close to 30% in quebec, which means they're probably running close to or above 50% on the island. when the liberals are doing well in quebec, they are likely to win outremont.
the finance minister has ultimate legal authority to set interest rates, not the governor.
something else i'd like to know is whether that proposed infrastructure bank is meant to be printing money from the bank of canada. if so, that's a big difference in terms of what rates are, and opens up the ability for the government to raise rates without putting themselves in too much debt.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-debate-central-bank-1.3232927
IKEA Monkey
The Gov't of Canada has never interfered with the Bank of Canada's monetary policy in it's entire history.
Jessica Murray
that's ambiguous. there were some issues in the 60s.
my understanding is that there's a consultation process that has, up to this point, broadly resulted in consensus decision making.
but, legally, the finance minister has the authority. it's not independent like it is in the united states - or designed to be, either.
something else i'd like to know is whether that proposed infrastructure bank is meant to be printing money from the bank of canada. if so, that's a big difference in terms of what rates are, and opens up the ability for the government to raise rates without putting themselves in too much debt.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-debate-central-bank-1.3232927
IKEA Monkey
The Gov't of Canada has never interfered with the Bank of Canada's monetary policy in it's entire history.
Jessica Murray
that's ambiguous. there were some issues in the 60s.
my understanding is that there's a consultation process that has, up to this point, broadly resulted in consensus decision making.
but, legally, the finance minister has the authority. it's not independent like it is in the united states - or designed to be, either.
Gerry F
CBC WHY do you put all the Twitter stuff in every article? It's painfully difficult to read.
If I wanted to read Twitter stuff I would log on to it and read the news there.
Jessica Murray
i avoid twitter for the precise reason that the level of discourse on the site is painful. and it's active avoidance, rather than just a passive lack of participation; distinct rejection, rather than mere disinterest. if i was walking down the street and twitter start walking towards me, i would start walking in the other direction..
i'm an old internet nerd, from back in the days when people went on to the internet to avoid the inane idiocy of the culture around them. twitter is wholly representative of that cultural idiocy that the internet was once an escape from. it's consequently the actual, literal death of the internet.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/canada-election-2015-globe-debate-weird-moments-1.3233233
CBC WHY do you put all the Twitter stuff in every article? It's painfully difficult to read.
If I wanted to read Twitter stuff I would log on to it and read the news there.
Jessica Murray
i avoid twitter for the precise reason that the level of discourse on the site is painful. and it's active avoidance, rather than just a passive lack of participation; distinct rejection, rather than mere disinterest. if i was walking down the street and twitter start walking towards me, i would start walking in the other direction..
i'm an old internet nerd, from back in the days when people went on to the internet to avoid the inane idiocy of the culture around them. twitter is wholly representative of that cultural idiocy that the internet was once an escape from. it's consequently the actual, literal death of the internet.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/canada-election-2015-globe-debate-weird-moments-1.3233233
Thursday, September 17, 2015
so, after caving into various self-rationalizations over the first
half of september, i've been de-nicing the last few days and have every
intention to stick with it this time. i've said that for a long time.
but, i've got my income stable for the next five years, i'm no longer in
a hurry to do much of anything and i'm very much intent on getting over
this. i had a little heatstroke when i got back on tuesday night and
have been sleeping that off as well, but i think i'm alert enough now to
at least try and get the machine back up.
i turned it off tuesday morning right before the script runs. i'm going to want to make sure i can get the firewire drivers correctly working before i run the script.
i didn't get my forms on tuesday. it turns out that the psychiatrist has to fill them out, and i'll have to wait until monday. nor does it seem as though the nurse practitioner is going to carry through with my prescriptions. he claims he'll work as a go between if i can find an endocrinologist, but he won't work with the guy from london because he claims he's unprofessional, which i think is a cop out - i think it's a religious thing, again. he said he put out a referral, but i'm kind of sketchy on it. i'm not convinced it's even a real person. but we'll find out. if i don't have an answer by monday, i'm going to have to get in contact with the guy in london.
i can't think of any reason why i should need to actually go to london and physically speak with him. i'm just asking for a refill of something i've been on for years and will be on for the rest of my life. it should be a five minute conversation, and it's not really necessary. and, if he insists on a blood test or something, i don't see any reason why i can't just get the blood test here and have the results sent to him.
the ideal remains trying to get the guy in windsor to see me because then i can indulge whatever silliness he wants at essentially no cost to me.
i'll find out these things in a few days.
and i think i should have the machine up in a few hours, even if i need to spend a few more days sleeping to finish the detox.
i turned it off tuesday morning right before the script runs. i'm going to want to make sure i can get the firewire drivers correctly working before i run the script.
i didn't get my forms on tuesday. it turns out that the psychiatrist has to fill them out, and i'll have to wait until monday. nor does it seem as though the nurse practitioner is going to carry through with my prescriptions. he claims he'll work as a go between if i can find an endocrinologist, but he won't work with the guy from london because he claims he's unprofessional, which i think is a cop out - i think it's a religious thing, again. he said he put out a referral, but i'm kind of sketchy on it. i'm not convinced it's even a real person. but we'll find out. if i don't have an answer by monday, i'm going to have to get in contact with the guy in london.
i can't think of any reason why i should need to actually go to london and physically speak with him. i'm just asking for a refill of something i've been on for years and will be on for the rest of my life. it should be a five minute conversation, and it's not really necessary. and, if he insists on a blood test or something, i don't see any reason why i can't just get the blood test here and have the results sent to him.
the ideal remains trying to get the guy in windsor to see me because then i can indulge whatever silliness he wants at essentially no cost to me.
i'll find out these things in a few days.
and i think i should have the machine up in a few hours, even if i need to spend a few more days sleeping to finish the detox.
corporate tax cuts have absolutely no effect on jobs, whatsoever. lowering taxes will not create jobs. raising them will not eliminate jobs.
rather, jobs are created when demand increases, and eliminated when demand decreases. that means that consumption tax cuts could conceivably create jobs, but only if implemented at what are almost impossible levels.
as the issue is not actually tax increases or decreases but the elimination and creation of rebates, a theoretical rebate shift that transfers tax rebates for corporations into tax breaks for consumers would actually be likely to have the effect of increasing demand, and thereby create jobs, if it is large enough. unfortunately, those new jobs will be in asia, not in canada.
the general idea if you want to create jobs is that you want to redistribute wealth from corporations [that just sit on it] to consumers [who will spend it]. but, that logic relies on a country producing things.
in a predominantly service sector economy like canada's, tax policy will have absolutely no effect on job creation. nor will it have any effect on job creation in an extractive economy. it may be news to some that canada is a primarily service sector economy. i guess that happened when you weren't paying attention.
there's lots of things we can try and do to change the nature of the economy. but, as it is, this discussion is entirely propaganda.
there isn't even a hidden, kernel of truth stacked away in there. it's just utterly foolish nonsense.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-corporate-tax-rate-1.3232490
rather, jobs are created when demand increases, and eliminated when demand decreases. that means that consumption tax cuts could conceivably create jobs, but only if implemented at what are almost impossible levels.
as the issue is not actually tax increases or decreases but the elimination and creation of rebates, a theoretical rebate shift that transfers tax rebates for corporations into tax breaks for consumers would actually be likely to have the effect of increasing demand, and thereby create jobs, if it is large enough. unfortunately, those new jobs will be in asia, not in canada.
the general idea if you want to create jobs is that you want to redistribute wealth from corporations [that just sit on it] to consumers [who will spend it]. but, that logic relies on a country producing things.
in a predominantly service sector economy like canada's, tax policy will have absolutely no effect on job creation. nor will it have any effect on job creation in an extractive economy. it may be news to some that canada is a primarily service sector economy. i guess that happened when you weren't paying attention.
there's lots of things we can try and do to change the nature of the economy. but, as it is, this discussion is entirely propaganda.
there isn't even a hidden, kernel of truth stacked away in there. it's just utterly foolish nonsense.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-corporate-tax-rate-1.3232490
they're pretty much all the same on the very limited set of policies that journalists refer to as "the economy". i know voters continually pick this out, and i was pointing out a few weeks ago that it wasn't at all clear what they meant. and, part of the reason is that if the economy is the dominant voting issue then the 60% turnout rates become justified.
tax rates don't affect the economy. nor do budget deficits, in a strict and literal sense.
i'm *not* going to vote on the economy, but, if i were to do so, i would identify the following priorities:
1) canada benefits from a relatively low dollar. i would want to hear the party leaders come out and state their interest rate policies: do they agree with this and how active will they be to maintain a low dollar? this is really the only lever that the government has over the economy. and, there's no need to pretend the bank is or ought to be independent, either.
2) unfortunately, all three of the major parties support existing trade agreements and they all seek to expand them. what i would like to hear is an acknowledgement that the economy has changed for the worse and ideas on how to adjust to these negative changes, should they continue to support the agreements moving forwards. it would also be nice to hear an explanation that isn't transparently false.
3) i would like to hear one of the parties commit to exploring the idea of a guaranteed annual income. i believe that this is one of the biggest changes that is necessary to adjust to the new world order of "free trade" agreements.
4) although it may mean working against the trade agreements, what steps is the government willing to take to stimulate local production for local consumption and thereby reduce the effects of inflation?
it's not tax rates and budget deficits. nobody cares about these things. nor do they have anything to do with the economy, really.
it's unemployment, wage stagnation, inflation, outsourcing, mechanization, food security, reducing the reliance on imports, the technicalities in the trade agreements...
i suppose i should clarify: i would vote based on all or some of this if there existed some kind of option that deviated from the status quo.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-leaders-debate-economy-1.3231343
tax rates don't affect the economy. nor do budget deficits, in a strict and literal sense.
i'm *not* going to vote on the economy, but, if i were to do so, i would identify the following priorities:
1) canada benefits from a relatively low dollar. i would want to hear the party leaders come out and state their interest rate policies: do they agree with this and how active will they be to maintain a low dollar? this is really the only lever that the government has over the economy. and, there's no need to pretend the bank is or ought to be independent, either.
2) unfortunately, all three of the major parties support existing trade agreements and they all seek to expand them. what i would like to hear is an acknowledgement that the economy has changed for the worse and ideas on how to adjust to these negative changes, should they continue to support the agreements moving forwards. it would also be nice to hear an explanation that isn't transparently false.
3) i would like to hear one of the parties commit to exploring the idea of a guaranteed annual income. i believe that this is one of the biggest changes that is necessary to adjust to the new world order of "free trade" agreements.
4) although it may mean working against the trade agreements, what steps is the government willing to take to stimulate local production for local consumption and thereby reduce the effects of inflation?
it's not tax rates and budget deficits. nobody cares about these things. nor do they have anything to do with the economy, really.
it's unemployment, wage stagnation, inflation, outsourcing, mechanization, food security, reducing the reliance on imports, the technicalities in the trade agreements...
i suppose i should clarify: i would vote based on all or some of this if there existed some kind of option that deviated from the status quo.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-leaders-debate-economy-1.3231343
in literal terms, this is of absolutely no importance to me. i don't think ordering them to remove the scarf is particularly oppressive. but, i can't think of any good reason why they should be so insistent on it, either. i mean, they don't force you take off your baseball cap, do they?
where do the fashion police fall in the division of powers?
what's more concerning to me is why it's of such apparent interest to the government. what's driving this? it can't be some kind of weird tory nationalism, it's too out to lunch - none of these people are insane quite like that. some of them may be a little unstable, sure, but not in the king and country sense. so, what is it about? surveillance? race baiting to rev up their base? just base authoritarianism?
i don't have a good answer. but, i'd recommend we all be extra special careful to hide our uncool nieces from the self-imposed fashion critics in the pmo.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ruling-appeal-1.3230288
PaleBlueDot
Agreed. A government that can dictate what you *can't* wear is a government that can dictate what you *can* wear.
Jessica Murray
i really think it's entirely a surveillance issue. they want the opportunity to get some good shots in, so they can file them away in a face-recognition database.
CeeDeeEnn
Im curious, if you escaped your "old" country, for a number of big reasons (emigrating is a major undertaking) why would you insist on bringing your "old" attitudes, opinions, etc with you and then insist on imposing them on the new country? Not a fresh start really.
It's not in the Koran, as the koran says both women AND men must dress modestly, yet "men" Imams, have managed to either force and/or brainwash women into thinking only they must hide their personality and faces
Jessica Murray
i just don't think this is a debate. i don't care what people's fashion decisions are. i'm not about to spend the slightest amount of time thinking about it, or trying to figure out why some people prefer scarfs and some other people like green socks or whatever other triviality.
and, as mentioned, i don't think that's really the issue. i think the government is looking for an opportunity to use it's facial-recognition software. they may be appealing to some base racist rhetoric to get the argument to the court, because they can hardly make the argument they'd like to, but what it's actually about is surveillance.
where do the fashion police fall in the division of powers?
what's more concerning to me is why it's of such apparent interest to the government. what's driving this? it can't be some kind of weird tory nationalism, it's too out to lunch - none of these people are insane quite like that. some of them may be a little unstable, sure, but not in the king and country sense. so, what is it about? surveillance? race baiting to rev up their base? just base authoritarianism?
i don't have a good answer. but, i'd recommend we all be extra special careful to hide our uncool nieces from the self-imposed fashion critics in the pmo.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ruling-appeal-1.3230288
PaleBlueDot
Agreed. A government that can dictate what you *can't* wear is a government that can dictate what you *can* wear.
Jessica Murray
i really think it's entirely a surveillance issue. they want the opportunity to get some good shots in, so they can file them away in a face-recognition database.
CeeDeeEnn
Im curious, if you escaped your "old" country, for a number of big reasons (emigrating is a major undertaking) why would you insist on bringing your "old" attitudes, opinions, etc with you and then insist on imposing them on the new country? Not a fresh start really.
It's not in the Koran, as the koran says both women AND men must dress modestly, yet "men" Imams, have managed to either force and/or brainwash women into thinking only they must hide their personality and faces
Jessica Murray
i just don't think this is a debate. i don't care what people's fashion decisions are. i'm not about to spend the slightest amount of time thinking about it, or trying to figure out why some people prefer scarfs and some other people like green socks or whatever other triviality.
and, as mentioned, i don't think that's really the issue. i think the government is looking for an opportunity to use it's facial-recognition software. they may be appealing to some base racist rhetoric to get the argument to the court, because they can hardly make the argument they'd like to, but what it's actually about is surveillance.
the riding changes should help. the way this was set up to split the cities in four was ridiculous.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-how-did-your-neighbours-vote-in-the-2011-federal-election-1.3231066
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-how-did-your-neighbours-vote-in-the-2011-federal-election-1.3231066
i think the way "no seats east of winnipeg" sounds.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-atlantic-sept15-1.3229237
rather, i think i need some coffee when i wake up, before i post on the internet.
i like the way "no seats east of winnipeg" sounds.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-atlantic-sept15-1.3229237
rather, i think i need some coffee when i wake up, before i post on the internet.
i like the way "no seats east of winnipeg" sounds.
see, this is plausible and everything, and i don't want to reject it completely. but, i suspect there's something else going on, related to facial recognition software. i agree it would be very hard to push the voting thing. but, there's no cameras at the voting booth either and should definitely not be any. are there cameras at a citizenship ceremony?
being born here, i'll admit to never having been to a citizenship ceremony, or even knowing much about them. but, even if this is a veiled lob at the base, it's just completely random. why target citizenship ceremonies and not some other random thing?
but, if the ceremony gives the state an opportunity to get people's faces into some kind of a system, it all of a sudden makes sense.
there's a little bit of consistency, too. rather than compare it to the voting thing, let's compare it to something that is maybe a bit more contextual: this government has also made it illegal to protest with a face mask. again, that seems completely random and pointless. until you stop for a moment and realize that they're probably filming the protesters, and the masks interfere with the software.
i'm just speculating, of course. this is actually a job for a real life, investigative journalist. it's maybe a wikileaks upload, if it's not a simple request for information. but, i think i'm on to something...
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/16/veiled-threats-the-conservatives-dog-whistle-pitch-for-the-anti-muslim-vote/
thecrucible
If they want a drivers licence, they have to show their full face for a picture. If they want an identification card, they have to show their full face for the picture. The list goes on.
All these situations result in a full face photo on file somewhere. Of everyone, not just new citizens. It doesn't make sense for them to use photos at citizenship ceremonies only.
No, this is purely a political "wedge issue". An attempt to get certain people to focus on one single issue, and get their vote based on that single issue alone. In this case, they are looking for the bigot vote with an appeal to the people afraid of their own shadows as well.
I abhor this kind of politics. I have seen normally thoughtful people get caught up in it. They become so focused on that single issue, they give up thinking about anything else. These same people would once dismiss the Green party supporters because of being "solely focused on the environment", but now they are doing exactly the same. It is psychological manipulation of the worst sort. It is modern day, marketing techniques driven, politics. It is designed to stop people from thinking, and turn them into an emotion driven mob. Wedge politics turns people into single issue voters.
deathtokoalas
but, there's various reasons why using the database for driver's licenses to build a new database of "people of concern" is a problem - there's the legalities of it, to begin with, and also the sheer size of such a thing, and the difficulty of really pulling what you want out of it.
getting people on film at a citizenship ceremony would be a faster, and at least not explicitly illegal, way to build that kind of system. and, as mentioned, there is precedent in it with the face mask law against protesters.
being born here, i'll admit to never having been to a citizenship ceremony, or even knowing much about them. but, even if this is a veiled lob at the base, it's just completely random. why target citizenship ceremonies and not some other random thing?
but, if the ceremony gives the state an opportunity to get people's faces into some kind of a system, it all of a sudden makes sense.
there's a little bit of consistency, too. rather than compare it to the voting thing, let's compare it to something that is maybe a bit more contextual: this government has also made it illegal to protest with a face mask. again, that seems completely random and pointless. until you stop for a moment and realize that they're probably filming the protesters, and the masks interfere with the software.
i'm just speculating, of course. this is actually a job for a real life, investigative journalist. it's maybe a wikileaks upload, if it's not a simple request for information. but, i think i'm on to something...
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/16/veiled-threats-the-conservatives-dog-whistle-pitch-for-the-anti-muslim-vote/
thecrucible
If they want a drivers licence, they have to show their full face for a picture. If they want an identification card, they have to show their full face for the picture. The list goes on.
All these situations result in a full face photo on file somewhere. Of everyone, not just new citizens. It doesn't make sense for them to use photos at citizenship ceremonies only.
No, this is purely a political "wedge issue". An attempt to get certain people to focus on one single issue, and get their vote based on that single issue alone. In this case, they are looking for the bigot vote with an appeal to the people afraid of their own shadows as well.
I abhor this kind of politics. I have seen normally thoughtful people get caught up in it. They become so focused on that single issue, they give up thinking about anything else. These same people would once dismiss the Green party supporters because of being "solely focused on the environment", but now they are doing exactly the same. It is psychological manipulation of the worst sort. It is modern day, marketing techniques driven, politics. It is designed to stop people from thinking, and turn them into an emotion driven mob. Wedge politics turns people into single issue voters.
deathtokoalas
but, there's various reasons why using the database for driver's licenses to build a new database of "people of concern" is a problem - there's the legalities of it, to begin with, and also the sheer size of such a thing, and the difficulty of really pulling what you want out of it.
getting people on film at a citizenship ceremony would be a faster, and at least not explicitly illegal, way to build that kind of system. and, as mentioned, there is precedent in it with the face mask law against protesters.
let's not jump to conclusions on the ads. just look at the facts:
1) one has been prime minister for ten years
2) one was a cabinet minister in one of the most important provinces in the country
3) one was a high school drama teacher
you don't need to be brainwashed by obnoxious ads to conclude that trudeau has the least experience, you just need to be informed of the reality of the situation.
but, nobody would have said harper had more experience than martin, either - that would have been foolish. in the end, this is simply not a vote driver. if it were, there would never be any changes of government.
rather, changes of government happen when voters decide that a change of direction is more important than experience and competence. it's always a conscious, calculated risk.
and, it's actually aligning in a consistent arc that has put trudeau in an increasingly better position than mulcair day over day for several weeks, now. mulcair is purposefully trying to campaign as the safe choice in an election where voters have made it clear that they want to roll the dice.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/voters-in-favour-of-liberals-economic-plan-but-unsure-on-trudeau-poll/article26389432/
1) one has been prime minister for ten years
2) one was a cabinet minister in one of the most important provinces in the country
3) one was a high school drama teacher
you don't need to be brainwashed by obnoxious ads to conclude that trudeau has the least experience, you just need to be informed of the reality of the situation.
but, nobody would have said harper had more experience than martin, either - that would have been foolish. in the end, this is simply not a vote driver. if it were, there would never be any changes of government.
rather, changes of government happen when voters decide that a change of direction is more important than experience and competence. it's always a conscious, calculated risk.
and, it's actually aligning in a consistent arc that has put trudeau in an increasingly better position than mulcair day over day for several weeks, now. mulcair is purposefully trying to campaign as the safe choice in an election where voters have made it clear that they want to roll the dice.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/voters-in-favour-of-liberals-economic-plan-but-unsure-on-trudeau-poll/article26389432/
nobody cares, except the journalists in the anachronism that is the tory media party.
all i hear when they say "balanced budgets" is "cuts in services".
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/09/16/this-isnt-the-red-book-its-a-back-page-of-the-red-book-says-h%C3%A9bert-on-ndp-platform/43423
all i hear when they say "balanced budgets" is "cuts in services".
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/09/16/this-isnt-the-red-book-its-a-back-page-of-the-red-book-says-h%C3%A9bert-on-ndp-platform/43423
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
i can't stand the hellman's stuff - it has this strange bitter after taste you get out of, like, british food, or something. or miracle whip; it tastes too synthetic. but i go through a container or two of the no name brand mayonnaise a month, here.
it's not for blts or fries though, it's for straight up tomato bagelwiches - sliced open and loaded up with tomatoes, mayo, hot sauce, salt & pepper to the point that one requires a fork and knife. i'll argue that this is actually a very healthy lunch, given that the mayo is the only discernible fat content in it.
i think that a lot of people have been brainwashed by a lot of years of poor science that suggests that mayonnaise is somehow unhealthy; they're really passing on an urban myth that was likely taught to them by their mothers.
it's not for blts or fries though, it's for straight up tomato bagelwiches - sliced open and loaded up with tomatoes, mayo, hot sauce, salt & pepper to the point that one requires a fork and knife. i'll argue that this is actually a very healthy lunch, given that the mayo is the only discernible fat content in it.
i think that a lot of people have been brainwashed by a lot of years of poor science that suggests that mayonnaise is somehow unhealthy; they're really passing on an urban myth that was likely taught to them by their mothers.
it's an interesting question, actually.
are christians more likely to tolerate a surveillance state, because they're being watched anyways?
don't snicker too hard. i have long been convinced - through both anecdotal and survey evidence - that the reason so much of the united states rejects climate change has nothing to do with economic logic, fox news brainwashing or any of the usually defined culprits. it's just because god made a covenant with noah that there will be no more floods, so climate change is therefore impossible.
that's why we have rainbows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkxgrrHbKG0
i'm actually streaming this after it's deleted. hooray for ram.
we only have an incomplete understanding of what the sophisticated, hellenistic culture thought of christianity at the time. we know they were generally hostile to it - using language not far distanced from "illiterate goat herders" - but the exact extent of their hostility has, unfortunately, been erased from history via book burnings and organized character assassinations.
the best we have are these allusions. we can construct that a text called against the christians, written by porphyry, must have been extremely popular, widely read and deeply influential. but, we can't read it ourselves.
are christians more likely to tolerate a surveillance state, because they're being watched anyways?
don't snicker too hard. i have long been convinced - through both anecdotal and survey evidence - that the reason so much of the united states rejects climate change has nothing to do with economic logic, fox news brainwashing or any of the usually defined culprits. it's just because god made a covenant with noah that there will be no more floods, so climate change is therefore impossible.
that's why we have rainbows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkxgrrHbKG0
i'm actually streaming this after it's deleted. hooray for ram.
we only have an incomplete understanding of what the sophisticated, hellenistic culture thought of christianity at the time. we know they were generally hostile to it - using language not far distanced from "illiterate goat herders" - but the exact extent of their hostility has, unfortunately, been erased from history via book burnings and organized character assassinations.
the best we have are these allusions. we can construct that a text called against the christians, written by porphyry, must have been extremely popular, widely read and deeply influential. but, we can't read it ourselves.
i'm going to post a bit of a public service announcement about polling in the election, because i can. i never specialized in statistics, in fact i hated stats, but i've taken a bit more of an appreciation for the approach of measuring uncertainty since then. i am literate in this topic, and the media that most people get their information from is not. i also worked on the phone for years when i was in school, which is important experience if you can contextualize it properly.
the reputation of polling has taken a big hit over the last few years. how could the polls be so wrong? well, what you're referencing weren't polls to begin with. and the actual polls really weren't that wrong at all - so long as you understand what a margin of error is.
so, this is what we saw happen: the media consults an array of "internet panels" for research, these panels are nowhere close and then the media blames the inaccuracy on "low response rates" or "bias in the data". the entire narrative is completely ridiculous. rather, the actual correct conclusion is as obvious as can be: internet polling is not random, and because it is not random there is no way to determine it's accuracy. they don't even have margins of error. it's consequently not even accurate to suggest that the internet polling was wrong; you can't define what "right" or "wrong" means when you can't calculate the error. the actual accurate analysis is that what the media refers to as "internet polling" is not actually polling. you should not try and analyze it - it can't be analyzed. it's only utility is as propaganda. you should simply completely ignore it.
which brings up the other problem. consider the ontario election in 2014, which had the following results:
liberals: 38.65
conservatives: 31.25
democrats: 23.75
greens: 4.84
the result was a liberal majority. yet, the polls also seemed to suggest a minority. were they wrong?
well, the margin of error was generally around 3%. in order for them to be "wrong" with a 3% margin of error, they would have to have fallen outside the following ranges:
liberals: (35.65, 41.65)
conservatives: (28.25, 34.25)
ndp: (20.75, 26.75)
greens: (1.84, 7.84)
in fact, most of the telephone polls a few days ahead of the election did fall in these ranges (or in a larger range, with a larger margin of error). the online polling was all over the place and completely inaccurate, but if we ignore it like we should then we see the polls were almost spot on. a poll that had the liberals at 36 and the conservatives at 34 with a 3% moe might have seemed to hint at a minority, but it would not have been "wrong". rather, the widespread forecast of minority results were a consequence of the media reading the polling incorrectly. not bad polling. poor mathematical literacy in the media. so, don't blame the pollsters for doing it wrong. rather, blame the media for not understanding how to read the polls.
there's not a lot of good polling being done right now. i know. i've surveyed it. you've basically got two options if you want to understand what is going on.
the first is the nightly tracking by nanos, which is here:
http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp
on the one hand, he's doing everything right: sufficiently large sample sizes, telephone polling so it's actually random, proper weighting, etc. his results, nationally, will be accurate, within the margin of error. they always have been before. and, that 1/20 bit is a statistical caveat that never actually happens.
on the other hand, his polling is functionally useless because the election is going to turn on regional differences, and his sample sizes are too small. it's a 5.5% margin of error in ontario, which is far too large to tell us anything at all useful about what's happening there.
so, nanos is accurate nationally and useless regionally.
the forum polling is using phones, but it's always wrong and i don't know why. they just have a very bad track record at every level. they're obviously doing something wrong at a basic level. they're the only firm putting the ndp anywhere close to a majority and it's having a disproportionate effect on the coverage. but, there's little reason to think it's actually accurate, given that they're always wrong.
besides nanos, the other two you need to take seriously are ekos and mainstreet. phones. big sample sizes. but mainstreet does not do regular polling.
which whittles the list down to a single reputable polling firm: ekos.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/
unfortunately, the numbers are not as good as any of us would like them to be.
1. conservatives (29.9, 33.7)
2. ndp (27.7, 31.5)
3. liberals (25, 28.8)
but, the actual thing that matters is ontario - a province where the ndp do not appear to be competitive.
the media is continuing to tell us that the ndp are ahead. if nothing changes, that narrative will likely remain static. we will then ask how the polls were so wrong, when they end up tied for second.
the reality is that the legitimate, reliable, actual polling continues to place the conservatives at the front of a close pack and that a sober analysis of the results in front of us would suggest any outcome other than a conservative minority remains highly unlikely - unless the conservatives collapse in ontario.
the polling will not be wrong. the analysis is wrong.
the reputation of polling has taken a big hit over the last few years. how could the polls be so wrong? well, what you're referencing weren't polls to begin with. and the actual polls really weren't that wrong at all - so long as you understand what a margin of error is.
so, this is what we saw happen: the media consults an array of "internet panels" for research, these panels are nowhere close and then the media blames the inaccuracy on "low response rates" or "bias in the data". the entire narrative is completely ridiculous. rather, the actual correct conclusion is as obvious as can be: internet polling is not random, and because it is not random there is no way to determine it's accuracy. they don't even have margins of error. it's consequently not even accurate to suggest that the internet polling was wrong; you can't define what "right" or "wrong" means when you can't calculate the error. the actual accurate analysis is that what the media refers to as "internet polling" is not actually polling. you should not try and analyze it - it can't be analyzed. it's only utility is as propaganda. you should simply completely ignore it.
which brings up the other problem. consider the ontario election in 2014, which had the following results:
liberals: 38.65
conservatives: 31.25
democrats: 23.75
greens: 4.84
the result was a liberal majority. yet, the polls also seemed to suggest a minority. were they wrong?
well, the margin of error was generally around 3%. in order for them to be "wrong" with a 3% margin of error, they would have to have fallen outside the following ranges:
liberals: (35.65, 41.65)
conservatives: (28.25, 34.25)
ndp: (20.75, 26.75)
greens: (1.84, 7.84)
in fact, most of the telephone polls a few days ahead of the election did fall in these ranges (or in a larger range, with a larger margin of error). the online polling was all over the place and completely inaccurate, but if we ignore it like we should then we see the polls were almost spot on. a poll that had the liberals at 36 and the conservatives at 34 with a 3% moe might have seemed to hint at a minority, but it would not have been "wrong". rather, the widespread forecast of minority results were a consequence of the media reading the polling incorrectly. not bad polling. poor mathematical literacy in the media. so, don't blame the pollsters for doing it wrong. rather, blame the media for not understanding how to read the polls.
there's not a lot of good polling being done right now. i know. i've surveyed it. you've basically got two options if you want to understand what is going on.
the first is the nightly tracking by nanos, which is here:
http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp
on the one hand, he's doing everything right: sufficiently large sample sizes, telephone polling so it's actually random, proper weighting, etc. his results, nationally, will be accurate, within the margin of error. they always have been before. and, that 1/20 bit is a statistical caveat that never actually happens.
on the other hand, his polling is functionally useless because the election is going to turn on regional differences, and his sample sizes are too small. it's a 5.5% margin of error in ontario, which is far too large to tell us anything at all useful about what's happening there.
so, nanos is accurate nationally and useless regionally.
the forum polling is using phones, but it's always wrong and i don't know why. they just have a very bad track record at every level. they're obviously doing something wrong at a basic level. they're the only firm putting the ndp anywhere close to a majority and it's having a disproportionate effect on the coverage. but, there's little reason to think it's actually accurate, given that they're always wrong.
besides nanos, the other two you need to take seriously are ekos and mainstreet. phones. big sample sizes. but mainstreet does not do regular polling.
which whittles the list down to a single reputable polling firm: ekos.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/
unfortunately, the numbers are not as good as any of us would like them to be.
1. conservatives (29.9, 33.7)
2. ndp (27.7, 31.5)
3. liberals (25, 28.8)
but, the actual thing that matters is ontario - a province where the ndp do not appear to be competitive.
the media is continuing to tell us that the ndp are ahead. if nothing changes, that narrative will likely remain static. we will then ask how the polls were so wrong, when they end up tied for second.
the reality is that the legitimate, reliable, actual polling continues to place the conservatives at the front of a close pack and that a sober analysis of the results in front of us would suggest any outcome other than a conservative minority remains highly unlikely - unless the conservatives collapse in ontario.
the polling will not be wrong. the analysis is wrong.
it's important that traditional ndp supporters realize that they need leverage if they are to force the ndp to take these things seriously. judging by their platform, they'll be worse than the liberals ever were. that leverage needs to come in the threat of lost votes via the existence of a party to their left.
it's not going to be enough to campaign. they need to be threatened with some kind of actual harm.
the crazy thing is that such a party exists - the green party. mulcair and the rest of the party leadership needs to be sent the message that he cannot take votes for granted, that failure to act will lead to shifts in voting intentions.
it's also worth pointing out that there's not really anything in here that wasn't in the green shift.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/leap-manifesto-ellen-gabriel-naomi-klein-1.3230162
it's not going to be enough to campaign. they need to be threatened with some kind of actual harm.
the crazy thing is that such a party exists - the green party. mulcair and the rest of the party leadership needs to be sent the message that he cannot take votes for granted, that failure to act will lead to shifts in voting intentions.
it's also worth pointing out that there's not really anything in here that wasn't in the green shift.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/leap-manifesto-ellen-gabriel-naomi-klein-1.3230162
as far as i can tell, this is a two-page pamphlet with a lot of flowery language and essentially no substance. i'd rather vote for the greens, thanks.
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/09/leap-manifesto-calls-radical-changes-to-canadas-extractive-economy
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/09/leap-manifesto-calls-radical-changes-to-canadas-extractive-economy
it is on the ballot, naomi. it's the green party platform.
rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2015/09/features/watch-live-tuesday-prominent-canadians-launch-manifesto-outl
rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2015/09/features/watch-live-tuesday-prominent-canadians-launch-manifesto-outl
it's nowhere near where the ndp is. not far from the greens, though.
more hyperpartisanism and flat out ignorance from the media party.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/15/manifesto-backed-by-prominent-ndpers-calls-for-overhaul-of-capitalist-economy_n_8139602.html
more hyperpartisanism and flat out ignorance from the media party.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/15/manifesto-backed-by-prominent-ndpers-calls-for-overhaul-of-capitalist-economy_n_8139602.html
it's 35% in the united states. that ought to be the bare minimum level being discussed.
there is no competitive advantage in offering lower corporate tax rates than the united states, so where they stick theirs ought to be considered our minimum floor.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-fiscal-plan-1.3230097
j54445
It is 38% in Canada....
Jessica Murray
yeah, but there's all kinds of rebates and stuff on top of it; the functional rate is currently at 15%, which is just...it's stupid, really. there's not another way to describe it. in return for giving them back more than half of their taxes, harper has shifted billions of dollars of what should have been tax revenue into interest-bearing debt for the banks.
if there was any logic in this in the first place, it has been thoroughly debunked. it's a policy that has to be viewed, at this point, as sheer folly. just utter idiocy.
Don't complain
........ You can't compare U.S. with Canadian. Unemployment is far higher in the U.S., minimum wages are far lower and they basically don't want investment in American industry. They have no where to grow, we have extensive room to grow and prosper.
Jessica Murray
that's not the point. the government should be attempting to extract as much tax from industry as possible, by the mandate of the people that demand wealth redistribution. the only relevant downward force is the threat of relocation. and the only economic place to relocate is the united states. so long as it is not higher drastically here than there, there is no reason to relocate. it follows that the policy of the government of canada should be to raise corporate taxes to just higher than that in the united states.
shaftturner
why do people always forget about provincial corporate income tax?
again.....pull your head out of your a.. and learn about provincial corporate income tax before yourant and sound silly.
Jessica Murray
because there are not state taxes in the united states? you have to compare apples to apples. it's not the responsibility of the federal government to concern itself with provincial tax policy.
j54445
Utter idiocy? Just like I am reading from you. Did you not see that tax revenues continue to increase while Harper cuts our tax rates? Is that utter idiocy? The US does not pay an average of 35% as a corporate tax rate because there are abatements and reductions for that as well. Also, I would not try and imitate the Obama administration on economic policy considering their deficit is over half a trillion dollars.
Jessica Murray
tax rates have no effect on the economy. this is the basis of the policy being idiotic. politicians will say that they want to keep tax rates low on the belief it has something to do with jobs. that is empirically false. it has been proven without any question of a doubt that tax rates have no effect on jobs. to continue to hold to this kind of religious thinking is absolute delusion, utter folly - and total idiocy.
all of the parties are delusional on this point, even the greens.
shaftturner
are you even old enough to vote?
Jessica Murray
that picture is about three years old now, but, even so, i'm much older than i look. i actual identify as gen x - which puts me two generations older than the youth vote. it's trudeau's generation.
i'm actually presenting the educated view on the topic. what's depressing is how far it deviates from the conservative media narrative.
seeitmyway
you are wrong, the 155 rate is the small business rate, you need to search the combined rates for Canada, typically in the 30% range.
Jessica Murray
i'm not interested in the combined rates or the small business rate. the corporate tax rate in canada is set to 38%, but decades of rebates have reduced it to 15%. that is all rebates.
what the article should say is that the ndp is promising to reduce corporate welfare by a piddling amount. they're not raising taxes. they're reversing rebates.
38% is about right. if it were my platform, i'd throw every single giveaway and handout in the trash.
seeitmyway
As someone who owns a corp that pays it you are wrong. Period.
you are obviously young and so great at Goggling LOL. rather than believe me or anyone else on here, do some investigation for yourself.
Read and understand how corporate taxes are paid and then the dividend distributed to the investor/owner. see what taxes are then paid on the dividend. Learn what companies do with their retained earnings. I hope you will see that Corporations are not the bad guy, gov't waste is the real bad guy here and no amount of additional spending will fix that. What is needed is a real focus on eliminating waste, that will upset a lot of people especially the very powerful public unions. A simple example of waste is in your neighbourhood, I bet you have both a school library and a public one, Why?
Jessica Murray
i'm in my mid 30s. i was 32 in that picture. that's not young - unless you're very old. and, i've always identified with older people. i would consider myself mentally middle-aged, and expect my voting patterns to align with people in their mid 40s and early 50s. at a dinner party, i would tend to ignore people my own age, be very rude to people younger than me and gravitate towards the oldest people in the room, in hopes of learning something from them.
i'm not interested in what you're saying. but, i think it's clear that you're working for somebody. and you have to understand that i am neither young, nor representative of young people. i hate young people. and they hate me.
there is no competitive advantage in offering lower corporate tax rates than the united states, so where they stick theirs ought to be considered our minimum floor.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-fiscal-plan-1.3230097
j54445
It is 38% in Canada....
Jessica Murray
yeah, but there's all kinds of rebates and stuff on top of it; the functional rate is currently at 15%, which is just...it's stupid, really. there's not another way to describe it. in return for giving them back more than half of their taxes, harper has shifted billions of dollars of what should have been tax revenue into interest-bearing debt for the banks.
if there was any logic in this in the first place, it has been thoroughly debunked. it's a policy that has to be viewed, at this point, as sheer folly. just utter idiocy.
Don't complain
........ You can't compare U.S. with Canadian. Unemployment is far higher in the U.S., minimum wages are far lower and they basically don't want investment in American industry. They have no where to grow, we have extensive room to grow and prosper.
Jessica Murray
that's not the point. the government should be attempting to extract as much tax from industry as possible, by the mandate of the people that demand wealth redistribution. the only relevant downward force is the threat of relocation. and the only economic place to relocate is the united states. so long as it is not higher drastically here than there, there is no reason to relocate. it follows that the policy of the government of canada should be to raise corporate taxes to just higher than that in the united states.
shaftturner
why do people always forget about provincial corporate income tax?
again.....pull your head out of your a.. and learn about provincial corporate income tax before yourant and sound silly.
Jessica Murray
because there are not state taxes in the united states? you have to compare apples to apples. it's not the responsibility of the federal government to concern itself with provincial tax policy.
j54445
Utter idiocy? Just like I am reading from you. Did you not see that tax revenues continue to increase while Harper cuts our tax rates? Is that utter idiocy? The US does not pay an average of 35% as a corporate tax rate because there are abatements and reductions for that as well. Also, I would not try and imitate the Obama administration on economic policy considering their deficit is over half a trillion dollars.
Jessica Murray
tax rates have no effect on the economy. this is the basis of the policy being idiotic. politicians will say that they want to keep tax rates low on the belief it has something to do with jobs. that is empirically false. it has been proven without any question of a doubt that tax rates have no effect on jobs. to continue to hold to this kind of religious thinking is absolute delusion, utter folly - and total idiocy.
all of the parties are delusional on this point, even the greens.
shaftturner
are you even old enough to vote?
Jessica Murray
that picture is about three years old now, but, even so, i'm much older than i look. i actual identify as gen x - which puts me two generations older than the youth vote. it's trudeau's generation.
i'm actually presenting the educated view on the topic. what's depressing is how far it deviates from the conservative media narrative.
seeitmyway
you are wrong, the 155 rate is the small business rate, you need to search the combined rates for Canada, typically in the 30% range.
Jessica Murray
i'm not interested in the combined rates or the small business rate. the corporate tax rate in canada is set to 38%, but decades of rebates have reduced it to 15%. that is all rebates.
what the article should say is that the ndp is promising to reduce corporate welfare by a piddling amount. they're not raising taxes. they're reversing rebates.
38% is about right. if it were my platform, i'd throw every single giveaway and handout in the trash.
seeitmyway
As someone who owns a corp that pays it you are wrong. Period.
you are obviously young and so great at Goggling LOL. rather than believe me or anyone else on here, do some investigation for yourself.
Read and understand how corporate taxes are paid and then the dividend distributed to the investor/owner. see what taxes are then paid on the dividend. Learn what companies do with their retained earnings. I hope you will see that Corporations are not the bad guy, gov't waste is the real bad guy here and no amount of additional spending will fix that. What is needed is a real focus on eliminating waste, that will upset a lot of people especially the very powerful public unions. A simple example of waste is in your neighbourhood, I bet you have both a school library and a public one, Why?
Jessica Murray
i'm in my mid 30s. i was 32 in that picture. that's not young - unless you're very old. and, i've always identified with older people. i would consider myself mentally middle-aged, and expect my voting patterns to align with people in their mid 40s and early 50s. at a dinner party, i would tend to ignore people my own age, be very rude to people younger than me and gravitate towards the oldest people in the room, in hopes of learning something from them.
i'm not interested in what you're saying. but, i think it's clear that you're working for somebody. and you have to understand that i am neither young, nor representative of young people. i hate young people. and they hate me.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
that's how it's always been. the court party and the country party.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/how-did-your-manitoba-neighbours-vote-in-the-last-federal-election-1.3228094
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/how-did-your-manitoba-neighbours-vote-in-the-last-federal-election-1.3228094
a couple of years ago, i moved out of ottawa to windsor. i'm frankly shocked at the bus service in detroit. on the one hand, it's cheap. but huge amounts of the city have no discernible coverage and most routes end at 10 pm. if i want to hit a concert in detroit, and it's not within walking distance of the tunnel, i'm usually stuck waiting for service to start up again in the morning.
we all likely to complain about things, because things are never perfect. but, don't take your transportation system for granted, ottawa. it's won awards for a reason.
but, isn't it obvious that the deficit is due to construction costs on the tunnel downtown? building stuff costs money. you wait this out.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oc-transpo-projects-11-5m-deficit-for-2015-1.3227114
we all likely to complain about things, because things are never perfect. but, don't take your transportation system for granted, ottawa. it's won awards for a reason.
but, isn't it obvious that the deficit is due to construction costs on the tunnel downtown? building stuff costs money. you wait this out.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oc-transpo-projects-11-5m-deficit-for-2015-1.3227114
i think this is a kind of a misunderstood dynamic that i've been trying to draw attention to a little bit. thanks for the article.
i don't know how competitive the conservatives are going to be much of anywhere in quebec (and the few seats they manage to win will likely be very close), but the liberals are clearly up over the 2011 election in every single poll - often by more than twice and sometimes pushing three times where they were. and, a couple of polls seems to indicate that it's mostly coming from the ndp. this is being masked by the fact that the bloc are running at half what they were, on the back of further bleeding from the ndp. and, it's about the only thing that makes sense. i mean, the naive, literal view of the polling is that the liberals have picked up 10-15 points from the bloc, but that doesn't make sense; more likely is that the ndp have picked up that 10-15 points, and the liberals have picked up 10-15 points from the ndp. and these would be traditionally liberal voters in the first place.
whatever the factors that drove bloc voters to the ndp in the last election, there were also clearly factors that drove liberal voters to the ndp, as well. not only have these maybe receded, but there's a new dynamic at play. in 2011, the ndp were clearly a federalist party. that's not as clear anymore. i suppose, in theory, a liberal voting for the ndp could have sat down and carefully analyzed the candidates over the whole province and come to the obvious conclusion, but who would have really done that? today, it's a lot more obvious.
that puts a lot more ridings in play than the models are suggesting. in races that have been between the bloc and the liberals over the last several elections, that actually puts the ndp at a disadvantage because now they're actually splitting the vote.
consider a riding that was 40% bloc, 35% liberal, 20% conservative and 5% ndp in 2008. you have to remember that the ndp came out of nowhere in a lot of places. that could end up 35% ndp, 35% liberal, 20% conservative, 10% bloc. rough numbers out of my posterior, but you get the point.
of course, the ndp are still eating a little into the liberal vote, too.
but, that puts almost all of montreal in play, and all of the west in play, too.
i think what we're going to see at the conclusion of this election is that the ndp is the dominant party in *rural* quebec, and a lot of unpredictable splits in the urban areas.
this also depends on the polling you believe, too. the liberals need to be running at at least 20%, and pushing closer to 25%, for what i'm saying to make sense. some of the polls have them at 17 or 18, and if that pans out then i'm wrong. but, if they are really running in the mid to high 20s then the high ndp numbers province wide are likely very much an illusion.
(that is, an illusion as to potential seat counts. it would likely suggest they're going to win a lot of rural areas in landslides, and lose a lot of close races in the cities)
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/conservatives-and-liberals-hope-to-beat-orange-wave-in-west-quebec-1.3227976
i don't know how competitive the conservatives are going to be much of anywhere in quebec (and the few seats they manage to win will likely be very close), but the liberals are clearly up over the 2011 election in every single poll - often by more than twice and sometimes pushing three times where they were. and, a couple of polls seems to indicate that it's mostly coming from the ndp. this is being masked by the fact that the bloc are running at half what they were, on the back of further bleeding from the ndp. and, it's about the only thing that makes sense. i mean, the naive, literal view of the polling is that the liberals have picked up 10-15 points from the bloc, but that doesn't make sense; more likely is that the ndp have picked up that 10-15 points, and the liberals have picked up 10-15 points from the ndp. and these would be traditionally liberal voters in the first place.
whatever the factors that drove bloc voters to the ndp in the last election, there were also clearly factors that drove liberal voters to the ndp, as well. not only have these maybe receded, but there's a new dynamic at play. in 2011, the ndp were clearly a federalist party. that's not as clear anymore. i suppose, in theory, a liberal voting for the ndp could have sat down and carefully analyzed the candidates over the whole province and come to the obvious conclusion, but who would have really done that? today, it's a lot more obvious.
that puts a lot more ridings in play than the models are suggesting. in races that have been between the bloc and the liberals over the last several elections, that actually puts the ndp at a disadvantage because now they're actually splitting the vote.
consider a riding that was 40% bloc, 35% liberal, 20% conservative and 5% ndp in 2008. you have to remember that the ndp came out of nowhere in a lot of places. that could end up 35% ndp, 35% liberal, 20% conservative, 10% bloc. rough numbers out of my posterior, but you get the point.
of course, the ndp are still eating a little into the liberal vote, too.
but, that puts almost all of montreal in play, and all of the west in play, too.
i think what we're going to see at the conclusion of this election is that the ndp is the dominant party in *rural* quebec, and a lot of unpredictable splits in the urban areas.
this also depends on the polling you believe, too. the liberals need to be running at at least 20%, and pushing closer to 25%, for what i'm saying to make sense. some of the polls have them at 17 or 18, and if that pans out then i'm wrong. but, if they are really running in the mid to high 20s then the high ndp numbers province wide are likely very much an illusion.
(that is, an illusion as to potential seat counts. it would likely suggest they're going to win a lot of rural areas in landslides, and lose a lot of close races in the cities)
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/conservatives-and-liberals-hope-to-beat-orange-wave-in-west-quebec-1.3227976
ok, so it's the transmission lines that they're privatizing, not the generation or the board. i'm not convinced that will change rates. i'm more concerned about the logistics of operating the thing.
let's say a tree falls on a line on your property. if it's government owned, the government fixes it with taxes. if it's privately owned, does the company fix it? do they send you a bill?
this just isn't the kind of thing that really makes a lot of sense to separate from public ownership, because it's so massively collectivist by nature. but, wait - does it need to be? see, there's a caveat, here. is it even a smart buy for investors?
if we're moving into a future where people are powering their homes with solar panels, and there's a private entity in charge of the grid, what are the chances that people are going to connect to that grid? might it even act as an incentive for people to move more quickly towards energy self-reliance? and, if you starve the system of funds, will it be able to deliver electricity to those who can't afford to make the switch at prices they can afford?
there's deeper issues here than rates.
this has been a relatively progressive government from the start, but this is really not thought through well. in the end, it's going to cost them huge sums in lost revenue and could quite possibly even break the grid itself. i don't see any way around it: if they sell this, we're going to have to eventually buy it back. and, no doubt at a huge loss.
i mean, imagine selling the entire road system as a monopoly on the stock market. it's insane.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wynne-firm-on-hydro-one-plans-despite-strong-public-opposition/article26363290/
let's say a tree falls on a line on your property. if it's government owned, the government fixes it with taxes. if it's privately owned, does the company fix it? do they send you a bill?
this just isn't the kind of thing that really makes a lot of sense to separate from public ownership, because it's so massively collectivist by nature. but, wait - does it need to be? see, there's a caveat, here. is it even a smart buy for investors?
if we're moving into a future where people are powering their homes with solar panels, and there's a private entity in charge of the grid, what are the chances that people are going to connect to that grid? might it even act as an incentive for people to move more quickly towards energy self-reliance? and, if you starve the system of funds, will it be able to deliver electricity to those who can't afford to make the switch at prices they can afford?
there's deeper issues here than rates.
this has been a relatively progressive government from the start, but this is really not thought through well. in the end, it's going to cost them huge sums in lost revenue and could quite possibly even break the grid itself. i don't see any way around it: if they sell this, we're going to have to eventually buy it back. and, no doubt at a huge loss.
i mean, imagine selling the entire road system as a monopoly on the stock market. it's insane.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wynne-firm-on-hydro-one-plans-despite-strong-public-opposition/article26363290/
Monday, September 14, 2015
more media party tory nonsense.
stanford is right. most canadians know it. and nobody cares about the deficit.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-federal-surplus-stephen-harper-tom-mulcair-1.3227724
stanford is right. most canadians know it. and nobody cares about the deficit.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-federal-surplus-stephen-harper-tom-mulcair-1.3227724
if we have a surplus, it means we're not spending enough.
no. seriously. he's failed to properly allocate state expenditures. i demand that this money be spent, or be mailed out in the form of dividends.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/fiscal-year-ottawa-surplus-1.3226969
MyView
You should be running for the NDP... You'd fit right into that group.
Jessica Murray
the ndp will be quick to point out that they are the most fiscally conservative of the major parties. which is the major reason i don't vote for them.
SASCZ2
Portion of every surplus should go to pay off national debt. You know what I am talking about, right? The National Debt.
Jessica Murray
yeah, that's a great idea. and, why don't we just create a banker's sales tax while we're at it? you'll see it on the receipt...
PST
GST
BST
victorbasil
Look around and see how your fellow Canadians have suffered to balance the budget. If we have a budget it's meant a great deal of negative consequences.
Jessica Murray
well, i see people suffer to touch their nose to their tongue, too - it doesn't mean much to me. i don't want to laugh too hard at them, though. it's a failure in prerogatives.
i mean, if you're going out of your way to choose to suffer to balance the federal budget, you're really a special kind of stupid. it's a meaningless accounting abstraction. but, i guess it strengthens the point that balanced budgets are an ideology, right? i'm not even sure exactly what that means. voluntary donations to the bank? we haven't really implemented austerity in canada, and if we were going to it would be at the provincial level.
the reality is that we had a deficit in the first place because the government cut taxes too much. the only thing that's really changed over the last ten years is that the economy has caught up. harper has really just grown himself out of deficit, regardless of what he says. but there wouldn't have been a deficit in the first place if it weren't for his fiscal incompetency in his decision to slash taxes.
i have a hard time with this, because the entire discussion is in the realm of fantasy. y'all are horribly brainwashed.
no. seriously. he's failed to properly allocate state expenditures. i demand that this money be spent, or be mailed out in the form of dividends.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/fiscal-year-ottawa-surplus-1.3226969
MyView
You should be running for the NDP... You'd fit right into that group.
Jessica Murray
the ndp will be quick to point out that they are the most fiscally conservative of the major parties. which is the major reason i don't vote for them.
SASCZ2
Portion of every surplus should go to pay off national debt. You know what I am talking about, right? The National Debt.
Jessica Murray
yeah, that's a great idea. and, why don't we just create a banker's sales tax while we're at it? you'll see it on the receipt...
PST
GST
BST
victorbasil
Look around and see how your fellow Canadians have suffered to balance the budget. If we have a budget it's meant a great deal of negative consequences.
Jessica Murray
well, i see people suffer to touch their nose to their tongue, too - it doesn't mean much to me. i don't want to laugh too hard at them, though. it's a failure in prerogatives.
i mean, if you're going out of your way to choose to suffer to balance the federal budget, you're really a special kind of stupid. it's a meaningless accounting abstraction. but, i guess it strengthens the point that balanced budgets are an ideology, right? i'm not even sure exactly what that means. voluntary donations to the bank? we haven't really implemented austerity in canada, and if we were going to it would be at the provincial level.
the reality is that we had a deficit in the first place because the government cut taxes too much. the only thing that's really changed over the last ten years is that the economy has caught up. harper has really just grown himself out of deficit, regardless of what he says. but there wouldn't have been a deficit in the first place if it weren't for his fiscal incompetency in his decision to slash taxes.
i have a hard time with this, because the entire discussion is in the realm of fantasy. y'all are horribly brainwashed.
it's not a problem because the system has been designed this way. it's the new feudalism.
but, it's not hard to see, james, that that gap between housing and incomes needs a correction. that downward movement will ultimately be a redistribution of wealth from older people to younger people; far from being catastrophic, this is really long overdue.
and very necessary.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-skyrocketing-household-debt-1.3226359
but, it's not hard to see, james, that that gap between housing and incomes needs a correction. that downward movement will ultimately be a redistribution of wealth from older people to younger people; far from being catastrophic, this is really long overdue.
and very necessary.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-skyrocketing-household-debt-1.3226359
it's not the number that's important, it's the context. if you've read the ruling, it's...it's really not a good ruling, at all. it's an excellent exercise in critical legal study. but, it does bring up two extremely valid points:
1) setting an absolute number is perilous, as it ignores turnout.
2) a clear majority must exist throughout the entire province.
it doesn't word it exactly like that, but that's what it's getting across.
so, you could consider a situation where they get 51% on 70% turnout. is that a clear majority? i think it's a clear minority, actually - it's only 36%. and, one would actually expect mulcair to be sensitive to that argument, given that it's the same as his argument for electoral reform.
you could also consider a situation where the vote is split in half across the province. suppose support for separation is 80% in the east and north, but 30% in the west and south, and it balances out to 50 + 1. are you going to force montreal and ottawa and the aboriginal areas up north to separate with the east, when they clearly don't want to?
you can legislate the first part fairly easily - you need 50% of eligible voters, not 50% of cast votes. easy enough.
the second part is a headache, because it opens up a discussion on the divisibility of quebec. but, you can't make the changes mulcair want to make, otherwise. it's an absurd abrogation of responsibility to tell the west and south that they're at the whim of the east, whether they like it or not.
THAT is what the language of the clarity act was written to avoid - this discussion of partitioning quebec.
and, based on the discussion, i'm left with the conclusion that basically nobody understands this- not trudeau, not mulcair and not the pundits.
that's the article the media needs to write.
i know that the so-called conventional wisdom is that sovereignty took a hit in quebec starting around 2010 and this is a lot of talk about nothing. i think that's misreading the situation.
what i think is that the racist charter being pushed by the pq to try and hold adq support experienced a large backlash. quebeckers may not have seen eye to eye with the elder trudeau, but they prefer his charter.
it's still laying dormant. it's more of a left-right split in the sovereigntist camp that's got things in disarray. should that resolve itself, the issue will come up again.
and, i think the feds should be pre-emptive about it.
one option is to think about spinning the north of the province off to local indigenous sovereignty. my understanding is that some ground work for this has already been set; such a theoretical province or territory would be called nunavik.
another is to get out in front in splitting the rest of quebec in half, along the known fraction point. plebiscites could be held to determine whether the people want to form a new province or not.
i'm not suggesting that this start right away. it does seem like they're in disarray, and hopefully it sticks. but, if it comes up again, i'd like to see the feds get aggressive in redefining the question and changing the narrative. let's get a referendum on the division of quebec BEFORE a referendum on sovereignty can happen.
obgii
Jessica, as always, enjoy your posts. Substance and analysis. I would still contend that to demonstrate clear intention and eliminate the vagaries of chance for such an important issue, not one that is reversible in the next election cycle, that 50%+1 is not adequate. A value of 65% in which twice as many vote for a position versus against does show clear intent, and will dispense with circumstances of chance like a missed spoiled ballot or the person who had a family/medical emergency and could cast the alternate vote that would have made the difference at a single instance in time. True intent should be just a valid next week as it is today, independent of chance. Also, the argument that "the other guy did it", as in the Scotland referendum, is specious and irrelevant. This is Canada's rules, not somebody else's. Do they also accept that argument in other political contexts? I'd say not.
Jessica Murray
oh, i'm sorry if i misconstrued myself - i'm not in favour of putting a number down. i'm just irritated that the subtleties of the supreme court decision and subsequent legislation are being completely misunderstood by virtually everybody. i was more making a hand-tying argument: that if a number needs to be placed in the legislation, it ought to be determined relative to eligible voters rather than actual voters. in raw numbers, that would place the threshold in the 1995 election at 54% and the threshold in the 1980 election at 59%. but, the argument serves to demonstrate the point that an absolute number is a foolish way to approach the issue, rather than to seriously suggest it should be legislated.
as mentioned, what the clarity act is actually about is not what the minimum threshold is or ought to be but what the circumstances for partition are. and, i consequently feel that it is imperative that any replacement legislation that hard codes a number has a partition plan in place to deal with the inevitable necessity of partitioning the province. but, this is also a hand-tying argument: i couldn't for a moment conceive of how anybody would think it politically viable to do such a thing, nor do i think it would be good governance.
if that is still ambiguous, i'll state clearly that i am not in favour of modifying the clarity act. at all.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-chrétien-campaign-hamilton-1.3226216
1) setting an absolute number is perilous, as it ignores turnout.
2) a clear majority must exist throughout the entire province.
it doesn't word it exactly like that, but that's what it's getting across.
so, you could consider a situation where they get 51% on 70% turnout. is that a clear majority? i think it's a clear minority, actually - it's only 36%. and, one would actually expect mulcair to be sensitive to that argument, given that it's the same as his argument for electoral reform.
you could also consider a situation where the vote is split in half across the province. suppose support for separation is 80% in the east and north, but 30% in the west and south, and it balances out to 50 + 1. are you going to force montreal and ottawa and the aboriginal areas up north to separate with the east, when they clearly don't want to?
you can legislate the first part fairly easily - you need 50% of eligible voters, not 50% of cast votes. easy enough.
the second part is a headache, because it opens up a discussion on the divisibility of quebec. but, you can't make the changes mulcair want to make, otherwise. it's an absurd abrogation of responsibility to tell the west and south that they're at the whim of the east, whether they like it or not.
THAT is what the language of the clarity act was written to avoid - this discussion of partitioning quebec.
and, based on the discussion, i'm left with the conclusion that basically nobody understands this- not trudeau, not mulcair and not the pundits.
that's the article the media needs to write.
i know that the so-called conventional wisdom is that sovereignty took a hit in quebec starting around 2010 and this is a lot of talk about nothing. i think that's misreading the situation.
what i think is that the racist charter being pushed by the pq to try and hold adq support experienced a large backlash. quebeckers may not have seen eye to eye with the elder trudeau, but they prefer his charter.
it's still laying dormant. it's more of a left-right split in the sovereigntist camp that's got things in disarray. should that resolve itself, the issue will come up again.
and, i think the feds should be pre-emptive about it.
one option is to think about spinning the north of the province off to local indigenous sovereignty. my understanding is that some ground work for this has already been set; such a theoretical province or territory would be called nunavik.
another is to get out in front in splitting the rest of quebec in half, along the known fraction point. plebiscites could be held to determine whether the people want to form a new province or not.
i'm not suggesting that this start right away. it does seem like they're in disarray, and hopefully it sticks. but, if it comes up again, i'd like to see the feds get aggressive in redefining the question and changing the narrative. let's get a referendum on the division of quebec BEFORE a referendum on sovereignty can happen.
obgii
Jessica, as always, enjoy your posts. Substance and analysis. I would still contend that to demonstrate clear intention and eliminate the vagaries of chance for such an important issue, not one that is reversible in the next election cycle, that 50%+1 is not adequate. A value of 65% in which twice as many vote for a position versus against does show clear intent, and will dispense with circumstances of chance like a missed spoiled ballot or the person who had a family/medical emergency and could cast the alternate vote that would have made the difference at a single instance in time. True intent should be just a valid next week as it is today, independent of chance. Also, the argument that "the other guy did it", as in the Scotland referendum, is specious and irrelevant. This is Canada's rules, not somebody else's. Do they also accept that argument in other political contexts? I'd say not.
Jessica Murray
oh, i'm sorry if i misconstrued myself - i'm not in favour of putting a number down. i'm just irritated that the subtleties of the supreme court decision and subsequent legislation are being completely misunderstood by virtually everybody. i was more making a hand-tying argument: that if a number needs to be placed in the legislation, it ought to be determined relative to eligible voters rather than actual voters. in raw numbers, that would place the threshold in the 1995 election at 54% and the threshold in the 1980 election at 59%. but, the argument serves to demonstrate the point that an absolute number is a foolish way to approach the issue, rather than to seriously suggest it should be legislated.
as mentioned, what the clarity act is actually about is not what the minimum threshold is or ought to be but what the circumstances for partition are. and, i consequently feel that it is imperative that any replacement legislation that hard codes a number has a partition plan in place to deal with the inevitable necessity of partitioning the province. but, this is also a hand-tying argument: i couldn't for a moment conceive of how anybody would think it politically viable to do such a thing, nor do i think it would be good governance.
if that is still ambiguous, i'll state clearly that i am not in favour of modifying the clarity act. at all.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-chrétien-campaign-hamilton-1.3226216
i think i've sorely missed chretien's style of outraged indignation. the fiery, populist rhetoric. just don't ask him to prove what he's saying.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-chrétien-campaign-hamilton-1.3226216
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-chrétien-campaign-hamilton-1.3226216
so, if you have a 55% vote for separation and 73% turnout, is that a clear majority?
if you get 60% - but only 40% in montreal and 30% in ottawa - is that a clear majority?
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/13/trudeau-enlists-chretiens-support-to-attack-mulcair-on-unity-question/
if you get 60% - but only 40% in montreal and 30% in ottawa - is that a clear majority?
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/13/trudeau-enlists-chretiens-support-to-attack-mulcair-on-unity-question/
34:33 "did she just say honester?"
why aren't there any memes of dawkins, anyways? internet, you failed on that one.
the question at the start may come off as probing and deep or whatever, but it's actually rather circular because you would have had to have been told there was meaning in the first place to think that there is. you wouldn't just intuitively conclude that a god exists and there's a meaning to life and all the rest of the nonsense. i'd rather take a position of being critical of putting lies into children's brains than being skeptical about the perceptive effects of rationality.
and, speaking from experience, i was raised as an atheist. i was never told that a god exists. i was never told i'm a part of some plan. and, i consequently never experienced the shattering moment being eluded to.
i was told santa claus exists. it didn't take me long to figure out he didn't. but, that was a lot harder to deal with.
and, speaking from experience, i was raised as an atheist. i was never told that a god exists. i was never told i'm a part of some plan. and, i consequently never experienced the shattering moment being eluded to.
i was told santa claus exists. it didn't take me long to figure out he didn't. but, that was a lot harder to deal with.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
i'm agnostic on 9/11 so i'm just going to skip over it.
but, what you have to realize is that the russian-american proxy conflicts that are starting to get very hot are not an externality to the conflicts. this is a russian containment strategy, as was laid out in the pnac. it was this idea that america had to strike hard while russia was weak, because the collapse of the soviets was not an end of anything but merely a pause in a broad struggle. and, if you understand it properly, that struggle didn't begin in 1917 or 1945, either - it was a consequence of the napoleonic wars, which split europe into spheres of interest that were dominated by england and russia. there's a consistent strain of thought that the reason us industry funded hitler so generously is that it was hoping they would invade russia. if you look at the issue in ukraine closely, it's essentially an updated and modernized version of the same tactic.
the countries that they've been taking out are all old russian proxies. it's a process of plucking these areas out of the russian sphere and integrating them into the anglo-american sphere.
what has changed since libya is that the russians have made a decision to stop being naive. and, that is what the russians were: naive. they were convinced that whomever replaced bush would be more moderate, and that it was just a process of waiting the neo-cons out. but, they've realized that this was an error and have adjusted.
it's not a new war. and, if it's world war three, then world war three started a long time ago. it's the same war that's been raging for decades, and in fact centuries. and, it will neither end nor recede at any time in the near future.
history may not blame america. it may argue that any other state would have done the same thing under the same calculation that russia would not remain weak forever. however, it will certainly point to a missed opportunity by the clinton administration to push peace and co-operation rather than imperial dominance and self-interest.
but, what you have to realize is that the russian-american proxy conflicts that are starting to get very hot are not an externality to the conflicts. this is a russian containment strategy, as was laid out in the pnac. it was this idea that america had to strike hard while russia was weak, because the collapse of the soviets was not an end of anything but merely a pause in a broad struggle. and, if you understand it properly, that struggle didn't begin in 1917 or 1945, either - it was a consequence of the napoleonic wars, which split europe into spheres of interest that were dominated by england and russia. there's a consistent strain of thought that the reason us industry funded hitler so generously is that it was hoping they would invade russia. if you look at the issue in ukraine closely, it's essentially an updated and modernized version of the same tactic.
the countries that they've been taking out are all old russian proxies. it's a process of plucking these areas out of the russian sphere and integrating them into the anglo-american sphere.
what has changed since libya is that the russians have made a decision to stop being naive. and, that is what the russians were: naive. they were convinced that whomever replaced bush would be more moderate, and that it was just a process of waiting the neo-cons out. but, they've realized that this was an error and have adjusted.
it's not a new war. and, if it's world war three, then world war three started a long time ago. it's the same war that's been raging for decades, and in fact centuries. and, it will neither end nor recede at any time in the near future.
history may not blame america. it may argue that any other state would have done the same thing under the same calculation that russia would not remain weak forever. however, it will certainly point to a missed opportunity by the clinton administration to push peace and co-operation rather than imperial dominance and self-interest.
if i were roman, i'd never forget this. it would play over in my head over and over. and, while the relationship may last a little longer, it would end at this moment.
i wouldn't be able to get over the plausibility (and i think, really, the likelihood) that the "prank" is a way to cover-up for the fact that she had to take a shower. see, otherwise, he's going to get home and wonder why she just took a shower while buddy was there.
as an aside, i don't like this fousey guy. at all.
i would quietly check the laundry for evidence. and, if the laundry is running before i got there, i would interpret it as incriminating.
you'll notice at the beginning her hair was dry, and then it's edited, and then it's wet, and she looks conflicted.
i'm not passing judgement. i'm just saying, that if i was roman? i couldn't deal with this. it's not something you play with.
it's partially the public nature of it. if you consider the possibility (and, again, i think the likelihood) that it's actually a cover up to hide the fact that a shower was necessary before roman came home, think about what posting it on a popular youtube channel - in this way - does to the guy.
i mean, it seems as though she did take a shower.
Nick Bean
+deathtokoalas You're thinking way to much into this. yeah it looks bad. but Roman is a good sport and knows this would never happen.
deathtokoalas
i don't know if you've been in a situation where you've had a partner that has not just cheated on you but lied about it, but, if you have, it's not something you get over quickly. it sticks with you. and, it affects your ability to trust people. a prank like this isn't harmless.
Nick Bean
+deathtokoalas I have, and I know what it feels like. Roman has been cheated on by his ex wife, so he already knows how that feels. Of course a lot of raging emotions came through. You could see the anger. But once you found out it was just a prank he was relieved.
deathtokoalas
+Nick Bean what i'm saying is that even if it is a prank, it's hard to know it is, for sure. and, that uncertainty is something that can never really be dealt with. it's this toxic thing that just balloons, until it explodes and takes the whole thing down with it.
Nick Bean
It's obvious you've been cheated on before. But not everyone is like that. A harmless prank is all this was.
deathtokoalas
+Nick Bean well, we'll see. i don't know...anything...about these people. but, don't be surprised if this festers and lingers and is ultimately toxic. based on what i've seen in this video, if i was in his shoes, i would have a hard time suppressing the thought that i was being played in just about the most disgusting way possible, and would be both searching everywhere for evidence (evidence to prove it wrong, mind you - i'd be trying to prove it didn't happen) and have a heightened level of caution about things i maybe hadn't thought of before.
i wouldn't be able to get over the plausibility (and i think, really, the likelihood) that the "prank" is a way to cover-up for the fact that she had to take a shower. see, otherwise, he's going to get home and wonder why she just took a shower while buddy was there.
as an aside, i don't like this fousey guy. at all.
i would quietly check the laundry for evidence. and, if the laundry is running before i got there, i would interpret it as incriminating.
you'll notice at the beginning her hair was dry, and then it's edited, and then it's wet, and she looks conflicted.
i'm not passing judgement. i'm just saying, that if i was roman? i couldn't deal with this. it's not something you play with.
it's partially the public nature of it. if you consider the possibility (and, again, i think the likelihood) that it's actually a cover up to hide the fact that a shower was necessary before roman came home, think about what posting it on a popular youtube channel - in this way - does to the guy.
i mean, it seems as though she did take a shower.
Nick Bean
+deathtokoalas You're thinking way to much into this. yeah it looks bad. but Roman is a good sport and knows this would never happen.
deathtokoalas
i don't know if you've been in a situation where you've had a partner that has not just cheated on you but lied about it, but, if you have, it's not something you get over quickly. it sticks with you. and, it affects your ability to trust people. a prank like this isn't harmless.
Nick Bean
+deathtokoalas I have, and I know what it feels like. Roman has been cheated on by his ex wife, so he already knows how that feels. Of course a lot of raging emotions came through. You could see the anger. But once you found out it was just a prank he was relieved.
deathtokoalas
+Nick Bean what i'm saying is that even if it is a prank, it's hard to know it is, for sure. and, that uncertainty is something that can never really be dealt with. it's this toxic thing that just balloons, until it explodes and takes the whole thing down with it.
Nick Bean
It's obvious you've been cheated on before. But not everyone is like that. A harmless prank is all this was.
deathtokoalas
+Nick Bean well, we'll see. i don't know...anything...about these people. but, don't be surprised if this festers and lingers and is ultimately toxic. based on what i've seen in this video, if i was in his shoes, i would have a hard time suppressing the thought that i was being played in just about the most disgusting way possible, and would be both searching everywhere for evidence (evidence to prove it wrong, mind you - i'd be trying to prove it didn't happen) and have a heightened level of caution about things i maybe hadn't thought of before.
you don't grow the economy by cutting spending, donald. and you know what? you know that. and everybody knows you know that. who do you think you're fooling?
what's he doing? his appeal was that he was out of the paradigm. but as time has gone on, he's just picked up talking point after talking point. and, he's starting to sound like every other republican.
if you line up bush and trump so they agree on every point, bush clobbers him. there's not a person in the world that votes for trump over bush, unless he's presenting some policy differences. bush is a safe bet - well, i'm saying that very carefully; from a republican voter perspective, he's a safe bet, anyways. trump is a massive gamble. and, he knows that, too.
this is how trump loses the primary - he loses his policy edge. he starts to fade in. then, he's not competitive.
slashing taxes and spending doesn't eliminate the comparative labour advantage that asia has over the united states in attracting producers, and it doesn't reverse the technology of automation. it's just a continuation of the same policies that have created the problem. it's the status quo.
he doesn't get back on message, and he's going to get destroyed.
listen: his immigration policy sounds deplorable, but he's just being honest in saying things that all of the other republicans (and most democrats) are thinking. i'm reminded of a policy paper in 1969 that the liberals in canada produced on aboriginal policy. for the first time, it explicitly cemented an assimilation policy and put the issue up for debate as to what the fairest and most just way to accomplish that assimilation policy was going to be. see, it recognized that it's past assimilation policies were often ham-fisted and repressive, but it concluded that it was (then, more than ever) the only rational way forwards and that it needed public input. there was massive uproar. but, the reality is that the government of canada had spent the previous 200 years operating a stealth assimilation policy. it wasn't a change of direction, it was just the government being honest about it for once and trying to open it up in the sake of fairness and transparency. in response to the uproar, they withdrew the paper and went back to pushing assimilation by stealth; in fact, the sneaky policies got even worse (with the eventual introduction of a blood quantum rule meant to abolish the definition of aboriginal within a few generations).
the truth is that america has a choice between carrying out a repressive, racist border policy in practice and not talking about it, and addressing it in the open so that it can be modified in ways that are more fair. and, trump was really moving in the right direction on it, relative to where this party has stood in the past.
there's been these other glimmers of hope that he's willing to take a fair, if autocratic, hand. see, this guy is a tyrant. sure. but he comes off as a sort of a fair tyrant. and, decades of slashes in education have perhaps left that as the best short term option in america - imperfect, but we may have to be realistic.
i'm not endorsing this guy. i don't like him. but, in a roundabout way, he was doing what needed to be done - before the party snapped him into line. now, he's just getting boring.
what's he doing? his appeal was that he was out of the paradigm. but as time has gone on, he's just picked up talking point after talking point. and, he's starting to sound like every other republican.
if you line up bush and trump so they agree on every point, bush clobbers him. there's not a person in the world that votes for trump over bush, unless he's presenting some policy differences. bush is a safe bet - well, i'm saying that very carefully; from a republican voter perspective, he's a safe bet, anyways. trump is a massive gamble. and, he knows that, too.
this is how trump loses the primary - he loses his policy edge. he starts to fade in. then, he's not competitive.
slashing taxes and spending doesn't eliminate the comparative labour advantage that asia has over the united states in attracting producers, and it doesn't reverse the technology of automation. it's just a continuation of the same policies that have created the problem. it's the status quo.
he doesn't get back on message, and he's going to get destroyed.
listen: his immigration policy sounds deplorable, but he's just being honest in saying things that all of the other republicans (and most democrats) are thinking. i'm reminded of a policy paper in 1969 that the liberals in canada produced on aboriginal policy. for the first time, it explicitly cemented an assimilation policy and put the issue up for debate as to what the fairest and most just way to accomplish that assimilation policy was going to be. see, it recognized that it's past assimilation policies were often ham-fisted and repressive, but it concluded that it was (then, more than ever) the only rational way forwards and that it needed public input. there was massive uproar. but, the reality is that the government of canada had spent the previous 200 years operating a stealth assimilation policy. it wasn't a change of direction, it was just the government being honest about it for once and trying to open it up in the sake of fairness and transparency. in response to the uproar, they withdrew the paper and went back to pushing assimilation by stealth; in fact, the sneaky policies got even worse (with the eventual introduction of a blood quantum rule meant to abolish the definition of aboriginal within a few generations).
the truth is that america has a choice between carrying out a repressive, racist border policy in practice and not talking about it, and addressing it in the open so that it can be modified in ways that are more fair. and, trump was really moving in the right direction on it, relative to where this party has stood in the past.
there's been these other glimmers of hope that he's willing to take a fair, if autocratic, hand. see, this guy is a tyrant. sure. but he comes off as a sort of a fair tyrant. and, decades of slashes in education have perhaps left that as the best short term option in america - imperfect, but we may have to be realistic.
i'm not endorsing this guy. i don't like him. but, in a roundabout way, he was doing what needed to be done - before the party snapped him into line. now, he's just getting boring.
definitely a good piece.
but, keep in mind that nobody voted for this. i mean, look at the 2013 convention. the chasm between mulcair and his base is enough to fly an f-35 through, and i think that as soon as he gets a platform to paper you'll start seeing caucus revolts and a mass exodus to the greens.
and, we need to have a talk on the left about this.
it seems to me that the era of mass socialization in production is over. we're in a world where those jobs are done by robots. and, we need to be looking at rebuilding the left along libertarian/anarchist lines.
corbyn strikes me as a fucking hippie. and, while it's nice to get past new labour, the left is just digging sideways if it thinks it's future is in herbal remedies to cure cancer and rallies against vaccines.
the greens have some problems, but, they're already set up. and, they're roughly sitting in the right space of co-operative friendly libertarian socialism that the left needs to build itself on. the way to get them moving in the right direction is to crash and co-opt them and steer them in it.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/09/third-way-politics-suffer-massive-defeat-uk-while-canada-they-t
Alfredo Louro
Actually, the world could do with more politicians who are "fucking hippies".
deathtokoalas
yeah. great. let's all go back to the dark ages. who needs science, when you have magical thinking? after all. the best way to change the world is to change yourself!
Alfredo Louro
You'd be surprised. I have a book recommendation for you:
http://www.amazon.ca/How-Hippies-Saved-Physics-Counterculture/dp/039334231X
deathtokoalas
i want to make a far side cartoon with two bearded hippies in lab coats, standing in front of a table with flasks with coloured liquids and steam rising and whatnot, with one looking at the other and speaking:
"you know what, dexter? sometimes, i find myself wondering if everything is like strawberry fields, after all."
it's all in our minds, man. we just imagine it first, and then it appears. timothy was right.
marx was extremely dismissive about what he called "utopian socialism". now, let's not get caught up in that, sure - no need to trip over that. long time ago. but it remains true that the embrace of bullshit hippie anti-intellectualism is a one-way ticket to becoming a laughingstock - and deserving it.
Mark Ragnar
"seeing caucus revolts and a mass exodus to the greens"
Or, maybe you can hope that they will remember they are in a Westminster parliamentary democracy like the Australian Liberals did, and oust him as leader. However, if he becomes the first to lead a federal NDP government it's hard to see this or a mass exodus occurring.
deathtokoalas
well, the thing is that he's taken steps to throw a lot of people out already. the biggest victory was pushing libby davies out. in some sense, this should have already happened, but he's demonstrated a lot of control in the process...
it really depends on just how far he pushes and how fast. and, see that's the thing: where is tom mulcair on the spectrum? not his party. himself. if it's somewhere maybe just a little to the left of tony blair, and just a little to the right of brian mulroney, it's a very long ways away from a lot of his candidates. and, where is the broadbent institute in this mess? writing papers criticizing the ndp?
i guess it's release is imminent at this point; but i think this is a document that a lot of people are going to find upsetting, and that those people are going to have limited options fighting from within the party. it's not exactly the policy shifts that are going to push people out. it's the disinterest in discussing it.
Arachne646
Libby was my (utterly respected) MP and until I realized how much Mulcair had changed the platform of the Party, I thought she had retired just because of personal reasons, age and so forth. But now I really think that because she either doesn't want to work in a Party under discipline like that, or because she has a conscience, and won't shut up and be under a Party whip, she was forced to retire.
She was not paid off by the Israel lobby, and was, like Elizabeth May, one of the few MP's who spoke up against the massacre in summer 2014 by Israel in Gaza. She was a strong voice for Palestinians in Parliament.
I'll probably be voting Green in Vancouver East. The NDP platform nor the candidate in this riding doth appeal much, and there isn't a safer riding for them, but I think I'll send them a message.
deathtokoalas
it's well understood that she was forced out over comments she made about israel; the conservatives reacted, as one would expect them to, but the difference is that mulcair didn't just agree with them, but went out of his way to demonstrate it.
i tend to avoid falling into the "zionists control the world" narrative, but mulcair does seem to be unwaveringly pro-israel, which is a big difference and something i don't like, either. it's not yet clear to me exactly *why*. i'm getting the impression that a lot of it is a misreading of the public; he seems to see criticism of israel as an electoral liability, and is stamping it out for the simple reason that it makes the party look more electable. i'm not sure that's correct, to begin with. and, history isn't going to be kind to it, either. i mean, there were similar attempts to silence people in the democratic party in the united states about apartheid, and they're roundly condemned nowadays. it's worth pointing out that canada, under trudeau, played an ambiguous role; we seem to have provided more than moral support for the cuban forces in africa. but, whatever the accuracy of it, this calculus seems to be a big driver.
rumour has it that mulcair's riding also has a large jewish minority in it, but it seems to me that it's jumping through some logical hoops to deduce that this minority is supportive of likud.
a third possibility is that it's an attempt to lock into american policy, which is not zionist in the zionist sense - it's a geo-political thing, to ensure a military presence in the oil producing regions. the logic is that coming out as critical of israel would possibly alienate the pentagon and the white house, which is maybe a more important consideration in determining the outcome of the election than any of us really realize.
whatever it is, it's a real and substantial thing. the ndp have pushed out several candidates over this, and it's not likely to reverse course on it.
the reality is that there's not much canada could do anyways - actively or passively. the best hope is in electing a prime minister that is close enough to the president that he can maybe change his or her policies. but, it's pretty clear we're not going to get that from mulcair or the ndp - we're going to get an authoritarian enforcement of the status quo.
but, keep in mind that nobody voted for this. i mean, look at the 2013 convention. the chasm between mulcair and his base is enough to fly an f-35 through, and i think that as soon as he gets a platform to paper you'll start seeing caucus revolts and a mass exodus to the greens.
and, we need to have a talk on the left about this.
it seems to me that the era of mass socialization in production is over. we're in a world where those jobs are done by robots. and, we need to be looking at rebuilding the left along libertarian/anarchist lines.
corbyn strikes me as a fucking hippie. and, while it's nice to get past new labour, the left is just digging sideways if it thinks it's future is in herbal remedies to cure cancer and rallies against vaccines.
the greens have some problems, but, they're already set up. and, they're roughly sitting in the right space of co-operative friendly libertarian socialism that the left needs to build itself on. the way to get them moving in the right direction is to crash and co-opt them and steer them in it.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/09/third-way-politics-suffer-massive-defeat-uk-while-canada-they-t
Alfredo Louro
Actually, the world could do with more politicians who are "fucking hippies".
deathtokoalas
yeah. great. let's all go back to the dark ages. who needs science, when you have magical thinking? after all. the best way to change the world is to change yourself!
Alfredo Louro
You'd be surprised. I have a book recommendation for you:
http://www.amazon.ca/How-Hippies-Saved-Physics-Counterculture/dp/039334231X
deathtokoalas
i want to make a far side cartoon with two bearded hippies in lab coats, standing in front of a table with flasks with coloured liquids and steam rising and whatnot, with one looking at the other and speaking:
"you know what, dexter? sometimes, i find myself wondering if everything is like strawberry fields, after all."
it's all in our minds, man. we just imagine it first, and then it appears. timothy was right.
marx was extremely dismissive about what he called "utopian socialism". now, let's not get caught up in that, sure - no need to trip over that. long time ago. but it remains true that the embrace of bullshit hippie anti-intellectualism is a one-way ticket to becoming a laughingstock - and deserving it.
Mark Ragnar
"seeing caucus revolts and a mass exodus to the greens"
Or, maybe you can hope that they will remember they are in a Westminster parliamentary democracy like the Australian Liberals did, and oust him as leader. However, if he becomes the first to lead a federal NDP government it's hard to see this or a mass exodus occurring.
deathtokoalas
well, the thing is that he's taken steps to throw a lot of people out already. the biggest victory was pushing libby davies out. in some sense, this should have already happened, but he's demonstrated a lot of control in the process...
it really depends on just how far he pushes and how fast. and, see that's the thing: where is tom mulcair on the spectrum? not his party. himself. if it's somewhere maybe just a little to the left of tony blair, and just a little to the right of brian mulroney, it's a very long ways away from a lot of his candidates. and, where is the broadbent institute in this mess? writing papers criticizing the ndp?
i guess it's release is imminent at this point; but i think this is a document that a lot of people are going to find upsetting, and that those people are going to have limited options fighting from within the party. it's not exactly the policy shifts that are going to push people out. it's the disinterest in discussing it.
Arachne646
Libby was my (utterly respected) MP and until I realized how much Mulcair had changed the platform of the Party, I thought she had retired just because of personal reasons, age and so forth. But now I really think that because she either doesn't want to work in a Party under discipline like that, or because she has a conscience, and won't shut up and be under a Party whip, she was forced to retire.
She was not paid off by the Israel lobby, and was, like Elizabeth May, one of the few MP's who spoke up against the massacre in summer 2014 by Israel in Gaza. She was a strong voice for Palestinians in Parliament.
I'll probably be voting Green in Vancouver East. The NDP platform nor the candidate in this riding doth appeal much, and there isn't a safer riding for them, but I think I'll send them a message.
deathtokoalas
it's well understood that she was forced out over comments she made about israel; the conservatives reacted, as one would expect them to, but the difference is that mulcair didn't just agree with them, but went out of his way to demonstrate it.
i tend to avoid falling into the "zionists control the world" narrative, but mulcair does seem to be unwaveringly pro-israel, which is a big difference and something i don't like, either. it's not yet clear to me exactly *why*. i'm getting the impression that a lot of it is a misreading of the public; he seems to see criticism of israel as an electoral liability, and is stamping it out for the simple reason that it makes the party look more electable. i'm not sure that's correct, to begin with. and, history isn't going to be kind to it, either. i mean, there were similar attempts to silence people in the democratic party in the united states about apartheid, and they're roundly condemned nowadays. it's worth pointing out that canada, under trudeau, played an ambiguous role; we seem to have provided more than moral support for the cuban forces in africa. but, whatever the accuracy of it, this calculus seems to be a big driver.
rumour has it that mulcair's riding also has a large jewish minority in it, but it seems to me that it's jumping through some logical hoops to deduce that this minority is supportive of likud.
a third possibility is that it's an attempt to lock into american policy, which is not zionist in the zionist sense - it's a geo-political thing, to ensure a military presence in the oil producing regions. the logic is that coming out as critical of israel would possibly alienate the pentagon and the white house, which is maybe a more important consideration in determining the outcome of the election than any of us really realize.
whatever it is, it's a real and substantial thing. the ndp have pushed out several candidates over this, and it's not likely to reverse course on it.
the reality is that there's not much canada could do anyways - actively or passively. the best hope is in electing a prime minister that is close enough to the president that he can maybe change his or her policies. but, it's pretty clear we're not going to get that from mulcair or the ndp - we're going to get an authoritarian enforcement of the status quo.
i'm not sure if the active campaigning really matters. i think ontarians see themselves without any real options; neither the conservatives nor the ndp have been electable in ontario for quite a long time, and it's hard to see how either are going to cobble together a coalition any time soon. the conservative grass roots is widely seen as a bunch of lunatics. and, the ndp has had a really nasty ceiling imposed upon them by their inability to appeal to unionized voters, which has forced them to take some very disappointing positions.
i think what's more to the point is whether allegiances from the provincial election may still be lingering, and if they may even be more formative than federal platforms, because people tend to be more engaged at the local level. it gives the liberal a kind of incumbency advantage, and hurts the ndp by association. and, as i've pointed out in a few other places, i think the results of the last election need to be taken with a grain of salt; a lot of very liberal ridings swung blue last election, as a consequence of somewhat unique circumstances. these people aren't going to require a lot of convincing to go back to their normal voting patterns. it's just a question of trudeau not being the guy that wrote op-eds in support of an illegal war.
where i think wynne can make a difference is in providing a couple of good arguments as to why it benefits ontarians to have a change of government. not attending rallies and standing together on stage, or maybe offering a few empty platitudes. a good essay. and, there's plenty of good reasons, too - she doesn't need to make anything up, she just needs to clearly lay it out.
but, that's likely to be minor - perhaps important, but minor. overall, it's less a question of the ontario liberals doing or being anything specific, and more a question of the federal liberals not being the specific kind of awful they were four years ago.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-landry/kathleen-wynne-federal-election-harper_b_8112968.html
i think what's more to the point is whether allegiances from the provincial election may still be lingering, and if they may even be more formative than federal platforms, because people tend to be more engaged at the local level. it gives the liberal a kind of incumbency advantage, and hurts the ndp by association. and, as i've pointed out in a few other places, i think the results of the last election need to be taken with a grain of salt; a lot of very liberal ridings swung blue last election, as a consequence of somewhat unique circumstances. these people aren't going to require a lot of convincing to go back to their normal voting patterns. it's just a question of trudeau not being the guy that wrote op-eds in support of an illegal war.
where i think wynne can make a difference is in providing a couple of good arguments as to why it benefits ontarians to have a change of government. not attending rallies and standing together on stage, or maybe offering a few empty platitudes. a good essay. and, there's plenty of good reasons, too - she doesn't need to make anything up, she just needs to clearly lay it out.
but, that's likely to be minor - perhaps important, but minor. overall, it's less a question of the ontario liberals doing or being anything specific, and more a question of the federal liberals not being the specific kind of awful they were four years ago.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-landry/kathleen-wynne-federal-election-harper_b_8112968.html
so, foreign policy isn't justin's strong point. i'd like to point to the liberals from the last government, but the truth is that they were all thrown out or resigned during the martin purge. but, hopefully a change of power will bring some of them back - and a few new people can learn a few things under their tutelage.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/10/trudeau-mulcair-munk-debates_n_8117966.html
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/10/trudeau-mulcair-munk-debates_n_8117966.html
but, he stated previously that he was going to delay the increase in the health transfer until the budget is balanced. i'm sure it will make sense on paper*.
also:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuagPpdIgAAdBCN.jpg
* - by that, i mean that it probably won't actually make sense on paper.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/13/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-announces-1-8-billion-health-care-plan-for-seniors_n_8129938.html
also:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuagPpdIgAAdBCN.jpg
* - by that, i mean that it probably won't actually make sense on paper.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/13/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-announces-1-8-billion-health-care-plan-for-seniors_n_8129938.html
these battles will be fought and won in court.
it's not just a lack of political will. the crux of the pipeline debate is really around property rights.
regarding shifting out of production, the key is in building the other industries first. you can't expect the government to cut and run on it's own investments. but, you can put pressure on it to make future investments in sustainable production and phase the dirty ones out.
we've lost ten years. we can't get it back. we can try and accelerate it. but, there's really only one possible approach.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/cameron-fenton/climate-change-election_b_8119780.html
it's not just a lack of political will. the crux of the pipeline debate is really around property rights.
regarding shifting out of production, the key is in building the other industries first. you can't expect the government to cut and run on it's own investments. but, you can put pressure on it to make future investments in sustainable production and phase the dirty ones out.
we've lost ten years. we can't get it back. we can try and accelerate it. but, there's really only one possible approach.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/cameron-fenton/climate-change-election_b_8119780.html
who wrote the headline? now, look at the confused comments. yeesh.
he's trying to spur investment. you've no doubt heard that tax cuts for businesses create jobs [although they don't]. by the same logic, tax cuts for property developers making rental units should create more rental units, although it probably won't for the same reason that tax cuts to businesses don't actually create jobs. and, this would in theory reduce rental costs by increasing the supply, if it were to actually work.
another thing that is restricting supply and thereby driving up costs is the large amount of dilapidated housing we have in our urban cores. money to fix these units up would drive prices down by increasing the supply. except that it's ignoring the fact that they were largely left in disrepair because property owners want to reduce the supply of housing to drive up costs in the first place.
what is at the core of the problem is that housing is too concentrated in too few hands. these steps are good, but in order to truly be effective they need to be paired with rules that restrict the amount of housing that a company can own in any specific area.
judging by the comments - and i've seen this elsewhere, most notably at occupy - the liberals have two issues in getting a policy like this across to voters:
1) the people that want lower rental costs don't understand the economics underlying the policy.
2) the efficacy of the economics underlying the policy is questionable at best, anyways.
but, the idea is that less taxes = more rental units = lower rental costs. if you combine that with pro-active action to breakup large landowning companies, you have a decent policy.
remember - the problem with markets is not that they create competition. it's that they prevent competition. if you leave a market to evolve without interference, it will become a monopoly. state intervention is required to break the institutions up and allow the market to function. and, the contemporary tendency of governments to refuse to do this is at the root of a lot of the problems we have in front of us.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/09/liberals-vow-tax-breaks-for-landlords-homeowners-as-part-of-social-housing-plan_n_8109734.html
he's trying to spur investment. you've no doubt heard that tax cuts for businesses create jobs [although they don't]. by the same logic, tax cuts for property developers making rental units should create more rental units, although it probably won't for the same reason that tax cuts to businesses don't actually create jobs. and, this would in theory reduce rental costs by increasing the supply, if it were to actually work.
another thing that is restricting supply and thereby driving up costs is the large amount of dilapidated housing we have in our urban cores. money to fix these units up would drive prices down by increasing the supply. except that it's ignoring the fact that they were largely left in disrepair because property owners want to reduce the supply of housing to drive up costs in the first place.
what is at the core of the problem is that housing is too concentrated in too few hands. these steps are good, but in order to truly be effective they need to be paired with rules that restrict the amount of housing that a company can own in any specific area.
judging by the comments - and i've seen this elsewhere, most notably at occupy - the liberals have two issues in getting a policy like this across to voters:
1) the people that want lower rental costs don't understand the economics underlying the policy.
2) the efficacy of the economics underlying the policy is questionable at best, anyways.
but, the idea is that less taxes = more rental units = lower rental costs. if you combine that with pro-active action to breakup large landowning companies, you have a decent policy.
remember - the problem with markets is not that they create competition. it's that they prevent competition. if you leave a market to evolve without interference, it will become a monopoly. state intervention is required to break the institutions up and allow the market to function. and, the contemporary tendency of governments to refuse to do this is at the root of a lot of the problems we have in front of us.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/09/liberals-vow-tax-breaks-for-landlords-homeowners-as-part-of-social-housing-plan_n_8109734.html
i'll say it again: if corporations are people, why don't we tax them like people?
the constitution specifies that discriminatory laws are only unconstitutional insofar as they relate to "natural persons". so, preferential tax treatment for corporations and businesses gets off on a technicality. but, it's certainly discriminatory in spirit to say "these people are special and deserve a special tax rate".
eliminate the loopholes by simplifying the code; tax it all the same at the same income level, regardless of where it came from.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/10/baloney-meter-did-trudeau-unfairly-smear-small-business-owners-as-tax-dodgers_n_8115754.html
what's the deal with the corporations, anyways?
these people make billions of dollars in profit, and they hardly pay any taxes on it.
who are these people?
the constitution specifies that discriminatory laws are only unconstitutional insofar as they relate to "natural persons". so, preferential tax treatment for corporations and businesses gets off on a technicality. but, it's certainly discriminatory in spirit to say "these people are special and deserve a special tax rate".
eliminate the loopholes by simplifying the code; tax it all the same at the same income level, regardless of where it came from.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/10/baloney-meter-did-trudeau-unfairly-smear-small-business-owners-as-tax-dodgers_n_8115754.html
what's the deal with the corporations, anyways?
these people make billions of dollars in profit, and they hardly pay any taxes on it.
who are these people?
it's a bubble, and it's going to burst. i think the state's role is in determining how to react to it when it does, and i think this is a part of the strategy the state needs to adopt in trasferring the boomers out of the workforce. that is set to ramp up just about any minute, now.
boomers were told their entire professional lives to invest in housing. it's their retirement plan. when they get to a certain age (75, 80), or perhaps when their partners pass, they will sell their house and move into an apartment or a retirement home. they will then live on what they make on the sale, combined with whatever pensions they're entitled to.
and, had wages kept up with inflation it would have worked out just fine. but, as it is, their houses have been rising at 10% (inflation adjusted) while wages have been broadly stagnant. this is a useful graph:
it claims the gap is debt. in young people, it is. in older people, it threatens to be the difference between their retirement assets on paper and their retirement assets in truth - if the bubble bursts, and if they make it long enough to see it.
the first chunk of the boomers will likely be shielded from this. but, ten years from now, the first of the boomers are going to start hitting their life expectancies. as they die by the thousands, thousands of properties will appear on the market. this sudden increase in supply is going to burst the bubble, as their children seek to wipe their hands of the assets and sell them off to the people that are currently being priced out. and, i might note that this will likely slow down construction, and possibly lead to a recession. we should be building things right now, but housing is maybe not the most forward-thinking construction plan.
there's a lot of cliches about the boomers, how they remade society and etc. i think it's less clear how much of what they changed is going to survive them. and, their run through time may be better imagined as a bulge on a graph that slowly recedes over time. on the other side of this population and wealth imbalance, things may start to balance themselves out a little bit better.
so, yes - it's a bubble. and, the government has done a lot to stop it bursting, and will continue to do so (those mass purchases of toxic assets will continue). but the one thing they can't stop is a massive increase in supply created by a mass generational die-off.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/samantha-brookes/federal-election-housing_b_8119138.html
it's often stated that gen x is the first generation that has done poorer than it's parents.
another way to look at it is that the boomers were the first to place their children in debt to themselves.
we're paying interest on their savings.
Cornell Hessing
The only bubble that will burst is the one surrounding your alternate reality. Of all the factors that impact the housing market in the GTA (or Vancouver), the only one that will change is the interest rate. They wont be creating new land...foreign investors will continue to have access (even if protectionist measures are employed, savy investors will easily navigate them)...etc..etc.
Also, it's worth noting that the moment prices start to decline, supply will tighten.
Seriously, talk to someone...if you're wait for the market to crash to capitalize, you're doing your future self a HUGE disservice. Get in the market...start small if you have to, but get in! People that bought $400k townhomes 2 years ago have already seen more than $150k in equity growth.
Jessica Amber Murray
i'm not waiting for anything to crash. if i had advice, it would be to tell boomers to sell sooner than later. but, housing is not like the stock market. that's the error you're making, here, and it's rather ironic given your language - you're conflating what is called real wealth with what is called paper wealth. paper wealth is not tied to any kind of physical reality - it exists in the realm of our imagination. so, we can inflate something like the dot com bubble just about as far as we will allow ourselves to because it's just all make believe, anyways. but real wealth has to conform to the reality on the ground. and the reality on the ground is that housing cannot deviate nearly as far from incomes as it has been without eventually coming crashing down. at some point, people will simply be unable to buy property at the price it's listed at because they are not able to generate the wealth that is required to do so. banks are not likely to ease lending requirements. so, these properties will either sit on the market unsold or they will need to come down in price. that is, housing prices will need to be corrected to better align with incomes.
as mentioned, the cmhc has tools that it can use to offset reality somewhat, but the truth is that it's been abusing this power for the last decade or so and this is not a good thing. it's been trying to convert real propertied assets into imaginary paper assets, and created a lot of delusional people with delusional investments in the process. cash in while you can, because that cannot last.
it can continue the fantasy for quite some time, but what it will not be able to fight is a sudden increase in supply. this is where the demographics are leading us to. at that point, market principles overpower state intervention. and, let's be clear: the reason housing prices are high is due to state intervention, not some conspiracy theory about foreigners buying up property.
boomers were told their entire professional lives to invest in housing. it's their retirement plan. when they get to a certain age (75, 80), or perhaps when their partners pass, they will sell their house and move into an apartment or a retirement home. they will then live on what they make on the sale, combined with whatever pensions they're entitled to.
and, had wages kept up with inflation it would have worked out just fine. but, as it is, their houses have been rising at 10% (inflation adjusted) while wages have been broadly stagnant. this is a useful graph:
it claims the gap is debt. in young people, it is. in older people, it threatens to be the difference between their retirement assets on paper and their retirement assets in truth - if the bubble bursts, and if they make it long enough to see it.
the first chunk of the boomers will likely be shielded from this. but, ten years from now, the first of the boomers are going to start hitting their life expectancies. as they die by the thousands, thousands of properties will appear on the market. this sudden increase in supply is going to burst the bubble, as their children seek to wipe their hands of the assets and sell them off to the people that are currently being priced out. and, i might note that this will likely slow down construction, and possibly lead to a recession. we should be building things right now, but housing is maybe not the most forward-thinking construction plan.
there's a lot of cliches about the boomers, how they remade society and etc. i think it's less clear how much of what they changed is going to survive them. and, their run through time may be better imagined as a bulge on a graph that slowly recedes over time. on the other side of this population and wealth imbalance, things may start to balance themselves out a little bit better.
so, yes - it's a bubble. and, the government has done a lot to stop it bursting, and will continue to do so (those mass purchases of toxic assets will continue). but the one thing they can't stop is a massive increase in supply created by a mass generational die-off.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/samantha-brookes/federal-election-housing_b_8119138.html
it's often stated that gen x is the first generation that has done poorer than it's parents.
another way to look at it is that the boomers were the first to place their children in debt to themselves.
we're paying interest on their savings.
Cornell Hessing
The only bubble that will burst is the one surrounding your alternate reality. Of all the factors that impact the housing market in the GTA (or Vancouver), the only one that will change is the interest rate. They wont be creating new land...foreign investors will continue to have access (even if protectionist measures are employed, savy investors will easily navigate them)...etc..etc.
Also, it's worth noting that the moment prices start to decline, supply will tighten.
Seriously, talk to someone...if you're wait for the market to crash to capitalize, you're doing your future self a HUGE disservice. Get in the market...start small if you have to, but get in! People that bought $400k townhomes 2 years ago have already seen more than $150k in equity growth.
Jessica Amber Murray
i'm not waiting for anything to crash. if i had advice, it would be to tell boomers to sell sooner than later. but, housing is not like the stock market. that's the error you're making, here, and it's rather ironic given your language - you're conflating what is called real wealth with what is called paper wealth. paper wealth is not tied to any kind of physical reality - it exists in the realm of our imagination. so, we can inflate something like the dot com bubble just about as far as we will allow ourselves to because it's just all make believe, anyways. but real wealth has to conform to the reality on the ground. and the reality on the ground is that housing cannot deviate nearly as far from incomes as it has been without eventually coming crashing down. at some point, people will simply be unable to buy property at the price it's listed at because they are not able to generate the wealth that is required to do so. banks are not likely to ease lending requirements. so, these properties will either sit on the market unsold or they will need to come down in price. that is, housing prices will need to be corrected to better align with incomes.
as mentioned, the cmhc has tools that it can use to offset reality somewhat, but the truth is that it's been abusing this power for the last decade or so and this is not a good thing. it's been trying to convert real propertied assets into imaginary paper assets, and created a lot of delusional people with delusional investments in the process. cash in while you can, because that cannot last.
it can continue the fantasy for quite some time, but what it will not be able to fight is a sudden increase in supply. this is where the demographics are leading us to. at that point, market principles overpower state intervention. and, let's be clear: the reason housing prices are high is due to state intervention, not some conspiracy theory about foreigners buying up property.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
i agree it might backfire, but this analysis is missing the point of the ad. i'll put my biases out front: i have a lot of contempt for ad people. i think the vast majority of advertising is completely useless, and most people just ignore it. when advertising is rarely effective, it's not because it convinces people at a conscious, rational level but because it reinforces something at a subconscious level - something we've never even really thought about, but that the advertisers realize is floating through the back of our minds.
the reason the ad exists as it does is because they've collected the data through intense micro-polling and who knows what other techniques to conclude that this is a subconscious thought in the minds of the voters they're most likely to swing back. it follows that if you're analyzing the ad on the way most people react to it on the surface, you're just misanalyzing it. the question isn't about how most of us react to it actively, it's how it's target audience (older people) reacts to it passively.
but, i think it might backfire for the reason that it's transparent. not because it's talking points. not because it's awkward. but because it's obvious that it's meant to mess with people.
messing with people like this can be extremely effective, but only if people don't realize they're being messed with. as soon as people realize what's happening, it can backfire - and hard.
but, if that doesn't happen? if people don't see it for what it is? then, this is the most effective ad we've seen yet - for the 5% of voters it's directed at.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservatives-stephen-harper-isnt-perfect-1.3225349
the reason the ad exists as it does is because they've collected the data through intense micro-polling and who knows what other techniques to conclude that this is a subconscious thought in the minds of the voters they're most likely to swing back. it follows that if you're analyzing the ad on the way most people react to it on the surface, you're just misanalyzing it. the question isn't about how most of us react to it actively, it's how it's target audience (older people) reacts to it passively.
but, i think it might backfire for the reason that it's transparent. not because it's talking points. not because it's awkward. but because it's obvious that it's meant to mess with people.
messing with people like this can be extremely effective, but only if people don't realize they're being messed with. as soon as people realize what's happening, it can backfire - and hard.
but, if that doesn't happen? if people don't see it for what it is? then, this is the most effective ad we've seen yet - for the 5% of voters it's directed at.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservatives-stephen-harper-isnt-perfect-1.3225349
somebody needs to tell bob rae to go on vacation for a few months. they're trying to win an election in ontario, here. the last thing they want is bob rae making statements. it doesn't matter if he happens to be right. he's bob rae.
"It's a global economy, it's a competitive economy. We'd all love to tax the rich, on the left, but on the ground, it no longer works."
well, let's get the pitchforks, then, because the deduction is that we need a revolution, not that we need to become conservatives.
after all, that's what revolutions are for: to get political representation. it seems clear that the ndp aren't doing this. it's up to the people to make sure they pay for it.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-liberals-ndp-1.3225365
Buffalojump
NDP don't balance budgets. That's why people vote for them.
Vote NDP
Jessica Murray
the ndp are unfortunately actually quite adept at slashing services in order to balance budgets. their record since the 90s is pretty clear on that. as ndp supporters are quick to mention, they have the "best" record in balancing budgets and slashing services of all the parties - even the conservatives. if you want real fiscal conservatism and real spending discipline, the ndp is your party. the record is clear; the conservatives push deficits, the ndp don't.
but, people are broadly voting on their record from the 60s, rather than their record from the 90s. that's why articles like this are important as voter education.
the high polling numbers have largely receded, but for a while it seemed like we were voting for david lewis and about to get tony blair instead. and, that's a big problem. a big systemic problem.
and, i think the ndp need to take responsibility for it. they had a convention in 2013 where they confirmed all kinds of long standing positions. they've ignored and reversed almost all of it, without replacing it with anything in writing. the only way to know where they are in the spectrum is to follow the news cycle. they need to get that platform out soon, so people have the opportunity to realize what they're voting for.
"It's a global economy, it's a competitive economy. We'd all love to tax the rich, on the left, but on the ground, it no longer works."
well, let's get the pitchforks, then, because the deduction is that we need a revolution, not that we need to become conservatives.
after all, that's what revolutions are for: to get political representation. it seems clear that the ndp aren't doing this. it's up to the people to make sure they pay for it.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-liberals-ndp-1.3225365
Buffalojump
NDP don't balance budgets. That's why people vote for them.
Vote NDP
Jessica Murray
the ndp are unfortunately actually quite adept at slashing services in order to balance budgets. their record since the 90s is pretty clear on that. as ndp supporters are quick to mention, they have the "best" record in balancing budgets and slashing services of all the parties - even the conservatives. if you want real fiscal conservatism and real spending discipline, the ndp is your party. the record is clear; the conservatives push deficits, the ndp don't.
but, people are broadly voting on their record from the 60s, rather than their record from the 90s. that's why articles like this are important as voter education.
the high polling numbers have largely receded, but for a while it seemed like we were voting for david lewis and about to get tony blair instead. and, that's a big problem. a big systemic problem.
and, i think the ndp need to take responsibility for it. they had a convention in 2013 where they confirmed all kinds of long standing positions. they've ignored and reversed almost all of it, without replacing it with anything in writing. the only way to know where they are in the spectrum is to follow the news cycle. they need to get that platform out soon, so people have the opportunity to realize what they're voting for.
the conclusion of the article is that we ought to let the americans worry about innovation and just focus on producing raw materials. i'm not content with that. but, let's change what we think about innovation, and what we think about business. it is no doubt true that we cannot spend at the levels that are required to create an apple or an intel. but, do we want to?
canada is going to have unique concerns is transitioning out of the carbon economy, due to our unique climate. we may not be able to export this. but, we can use it for ourselves.
we also have unique growing concerns. i'm sick of importing fruit from california; we could build this ourselves at low cost, if we were to invest in the technology to automate indoor growing services.
there's plenty of more examples that have to do with things like public transit, housing, garbage collection and recycling...
in this rush to service the rest of the world, we've lost track of what we need, ourselves. and, isn't that what really matters? we don't just need a shift in economic philosophy, we also need a shift in priorities.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/on-the-economy-what-next-when-the-election-is-over/article26335844/
canada is going to have unique concerns is transitioning out of the carbon economy, due to our unique climate. we may not be able to export this. but, we can use it for ourselves.
we also have unique growing concerns. i'm sick of importing fruit from california; we could build this ourselves at low cost, if we were to invest in the technology to automate indoor growing services.
there's plenty of more examples that have to do with things like public transit, housing, garbage collection and recycling...
in this rush to service the rest of the world, we've lost track of what we need, ourselves. and, isn't that what really matters? we don't just need a shift in economic philosophy, we also need a shift in priorities.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/on-the-economy-what-next-when-the-election-is-over/article26335844/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)