Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Politics II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Had trouble posting this.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...w-twitter-view

    Comment


    • In particular, I would caution against interpreting the protests as within the American progressive framework of fighting inequality.

      Hahaha. (love it when the Bloomberg types pontificate).

      Add autocracy, climate change effect on agriculture and low level housing for many in the 3rd world and some negative effects of globalization and it is a tinder box out there ... no doubt. Dangerous times.

      The poor have an excuse about issues of CC (Greta et al) ... what exactly is ours? Just asking.

      Comment


      • slaw wrote: View Post

        You're arguing with yourself again. No one is debating the technical rules of the equalization program. I'm arguing there shouldn't even be such a program. Now, perhaps, there is a middle-ground but the current system is far too favorable to Quebec and is prejudicial to other provinces (not just AB).
        Ah, you should have said so before. I understand there was a bit of a spat between Kenney and Blanchet (PQ) last week on this very subject. These two shall have to agree on the fundamentals and eliminate the inaccuracies/one sided rhetoric if change to the payments process will occur.

        https://globalnews.ca/news/6178201/b...tion-payments/

        Comment


        • Bendit wrote: View Post




          Hahaha. (love it when the Bloomberg types pontificate).

          Add autocracy, climate change effect on agriculture and low level housing for many in the 3rd world and some negative effects of globalization and it is a tinder box out there ... no doubt. Dangerous times.

          The poor have an excuse about issues of CC (Greta et al) ... what exactly is ours? Just asking.
          It's nonsense and we shouldn't be beholden to insane, fundamentalist doomsday cults? Because The Return of the Primitive wasn't meant as a how to guide? Because while scientists have an important role in the advancement of civilization we should not turn over public policy to them as they don't understand or appreciate all of the trade-offs implications of their policy prescriptions that occur in incredibly complex social systems (nor do they care)? Because we have limited resources and we should focus them on where they will do the most good and create the most value for people? Because science is never, ever settled and completely altering our societies without understanding the consequences of doing so over the next 10, 15 or 50 or 100 or 500 years is not very prudent? Because how much we can actually alter climate change is debatable? Because if not everyone does it then the impact is even more negligible?

          Oh, and because no one has actually ever explained how effective their proposed carbon tax and related policies will be. For example, how much will Canada's carbon tax reduce global temperatures or, in the alternative, by how much will it slow the rise of temperatures? No one has ever answered that question for a reason.

          Comment


          • slaw wrote: View Post

            It's nonsense and we shouldn't be beholden to insane, fundamentalist doomsday cults? Because The Return of the Primitive wasn't meant as a how to guide? Because while scientists have an important role in the advancement of civilization we should not turn over public policy to them as they don't understand or appreciate all of the trade-offs implications of their policy prescriptions that occur in incredibly complex social systems (nor do they care)? Because we have limited resources and we should focus them on where they will do the most good and create the most value for people? Because science is never, ever settled and completely altering our societies without understanding the consequences of doing so over the next 10, 15 or 50 or 100 or 500 years is not very prudent? Because how much we can actually alter climate change is debatable? Because if not everyone does it then the impact is even more negligible?

            Oh, and because no one has actually ever explained how effective their proposed carbon tax and related policies will be. For example, how much will Canada's carbon tax reduce global temperatures or, in the alternative, by how much will it slow the rise of temperatures? No one has ever answered that question for a reason.
            This is mostly always the argument from "the other side" ... the economic one essentially to protect the financial status quo at the expense of not taking seriously what the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed climate scientists have considered very likely to occur.

            And with even more horrific results economically, if not politically and socially.... if we did nothing.

            This is not about the next 20-50 years but for future generations. It is not about our lulled myopic views of living in the relative open society and wealth of north America we enjoy ... but in fact the entire world. We shall not be an "island" of safe haven if there are societies out there who have been colossally damaged by all manner of negative influences (incl. pollution) which the first world has foisted on them.

            They will find a way to come ashore.... and over a wall if need be. So this is really a pre-emptive exercise which people like Greta propose ... not a cult.

            I recently read a decent essay on the subject and your concerns. Have a look:

            The AI-written essay is below. Under that are the judgments of several of our essay competition judges who were asked to rate the text by the standards they applied to the hundreds they read for the competition—but they were not informed it was written by AI.

            * * *

            Question: What fundamental economic and political change, if any, is needed for an effective response to climate change?
            https://www.economist.com/open-futur...e-an-algorithm

            Comment


            • What solution? Change to an alternative economy? What the hell does that even mean? How? When? To what? Just saying you're going to fundamentally change the entirety of an economy/society doesn't make it so. That essay doesn't address anything. You don't just create an economy. You don't just fundamentally alter economies. Anyone who thinks you can do that and appreciate the consequences is far too dangerous to ever be put in power over anything.

              The same people in Calgary who want to be in charge of fundamentally altering the world can't even build a bus line properly. The same people in Ottawa who want to fundamentally alter the economy can't even put a simple payroll system in place! How the fuck are they going to create an alternative economy?

              Again, the science needs to be distinguished from the policy, the latter of which has turned into a religion with its own Joan of Arc and high priests of climate.

              Comment


              • slaw wrote: View Post
                The same people in Calgary who want to be in charge of fundamentally altering the world can't even build a bus line properly. The same people in Ottawa who want to fundamentally alter the economy can't even put a simple payroll system in place! How the fuck are they going to create an alternative economy?
                Or have the common sense to test run in parallel with the old system and roll it out slowly.

                Comment


                • Exactly. Transition.
                  I don't think anyone is proposing that this is a binary thing, where it's only one way, or only the other. You transition the new system in slowly. Tax credits for providing education and creating careers in sustainable sectors, training for "old heads" to transition to sustainable careers (I know for those on the right "subsidize" is a bad word, but hey, it works) - there's lots of options on how to do this where we benefit the Countries Economy as well as a Countries Ecosystems.

                  And as mentioned, the economic consequences of ignoring the issue altogether will not be so desirable either. Let's see what downtown Calgary floods on a yearly basis from multiple 100 year storms do for the Alberta economy?

                  Comment


                  • slaw wrote: View Post
                    What solution? Change to an alternative economy? What the hell does that even mean? How? When? To what? Just saying you're going to fundamentally change the entirety of an economy/society doesn't make it so. That essay doesn't address anything. You don't just create an economy. You don't just fundamentally alter economies. Anyone who thinks you can do that and appreciate the consequences is far too dangerous to ever be put in power over anything.

                    The same people in Calgary who want to be in charge of fundamentally altering the world can't even build a bus line properly. The same people in Ottawa who want to fundamentally alter the economy can't even put a simple payroll system in place! How the fuck are they going to create an alternative economy?

                    Again, the science needs to be distinguished from the policy, the latter of which has turned into a religion with its own Joan of Arc and high priests of climate.

                    The climate crusaders are truly evangelicals. Passion uber alles. Their unwavering belief in the righteousness of the Church of Climatology is absolute and limits to them any debate. Like all religions there is no room for heretics, those that simply don't believe are relegated to sinner or denier status.

                    The current queen of the climatologists is a sixteen year old idiot savant...... who with time ..... will be seen as more idiot than savant .

                    For clarity....The Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has knowingly engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole.






                    Comment


                    • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
                      For clarity....The Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has knowingly engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole.
                      Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. Everyone is ignoring you on this since you clearly haven't gotten the response you are looking for.
                      Last edited by Joey; Tue Nov 19th, 2019, 01:02 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Joey wrote: View Post
                        Exactly. Transition.
                        And as mentioned, the economic consequences of ignoring the issue altogether will not be so desirable either. Let's see what downtown Calgary floods maybe, potentially, perhaps, at worst case, we believe, and any other disclaimer needed, on a yearly basis from multiple 100 year storms do for the Alberta economy?
                        fixed your point for you. we should starve now so later, we might not starve. smart socialist idea.

                        that canada, a country that decreases co2, has to suffer for china, and india is a disgrace, but that's socialism. it doesn't make shitty places like china, and india better. it makes good places like canada worse.

                        Comment


                        • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
                          For clarity....The Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has knowingly engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole.
                          i agree with you and joey here. trudeau doesn't like canada, it is racist disgusting place, and his vision is for a post national state. he doesn't care to help canada, he cares to help socialism. so you guys are both correct.

                          Comment


                          • Miekenstien wrote: View Post

                            fixed your point for you. we should starve now so later, we might not starve. smart socialist idea.

                            that canada, a country that decreases co2, has to suffer for china, and india is a disgrace, but that's socialism. it doesn't make shitty places like china, and india better. it makes good places like canada worse.
                            But the drop of "clean" in a vast ocean of shit is a moral victory.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo wrote: View Post

                              But the drop of "clean" in a vast ocean of shit is a moral victory.
                              yes, the way to run a country is to do what does the least for a good photo. it's leadership with chinese characteristics.

                              Comment


                              • Joey wrote: View Post
                                Exactly. Transition.
                                I don't think anyone is proposing that this is a binary thing, where it's only one way, or only the other. You transition the new system in slowly. Tax credits for providing education and creating careers in sustainable sectors, training for "old heads" to transition to sustainable careers (I know for those on the right "subsidize" is a bad word, but hey, it works) - there's lots of options on how to do this where we benefit the Countries Economy as well as a Countries Ecosystems.

                                And as mentioned, the economic consequences of ignoring the issue altogether will not be so desirable either. Let's see what downtown Calgary floods on a yearly basis from multiple 100 year storms do for the Alberta economy?
                                Au contraire my fellow Shatbot hating friend. The Church of Climatology brokers no heretics. You either accept the divine teachings of Suzuki as absolute or you are a denying piece of shit to be tossed to the curb. Such is the fate of all religions.. an inability to tolerate other pedestrian viewpoints such as economics that even remotely challenge the one true faith.

                                Dogmatic to the very core. When downtown Calgary does not flood and the east coast of North America remains pretty much as it is in 12 years will there be a softening of belief or will the end of days simply slide to the right ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X