|
Count Roland posted:Yeah, but I want it to be actually legal. Decriminalization does not interest me. I'm very curious about how the Liberals will go about doing it, there are a few examples in the US and they're none of them the same. I know a lot about the subject so I feel like flooding the thread with my informed opinions on the matter instead of listening to diet advice.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
You know what, right now is a good time to bring back the NEP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Excelzior posted:
Yo, if we're going to gossip about the weight of cabinet members, at least show the effort he made about losing that extra weight following the exact same critics being bandied about in this thread.  Now if only he wasn't so insistent on also slimming down health care into nothing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Yeah, but I want it to be actually legal. Decriminalization does not interest me. I'm very curious about how the Liberals will go about doing it, there are a few examples in the US and they're none of them the same. I know a lot about the subject so I feel like flooding the thread with my informed opinions on the matter instead of listening to diet advice. Please do. I'm more interested in it from a civil rights / policing perspective because I think it's genuinely cool when the guys with the boots on the ground decide that a law shouldn't exist anymore because it's not worth their time. I wonder what horrible mutilations they'll have to put s.253 through if they plan to make it practical for cops to test for weed impairment at roadside/collisionside; whether it'll be a meaningful legalization and not one of the "anyone with a license can do it but we'll never issue licenses stop asking" variety; what sort of penalties might linger for the people who make it available to the five teenagers who want it but can't already get it from their friends, and what the provinces'/municipalities' response will be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:You know what, right now is a good time to bring back the NEP. The exact opposite of the context for the original one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
jm20 posted:How much of the spend was on infrastructure we can perhaps reuse instead of security or garbage collection costs? Don't bother answering because the number is super low and depressing. I fly into Toronto about every three weeks and work out of an office about 10 minutes walk from Union Station. I didn't know the UP Express was a thing until September and literally no one in our Toronto office believed me that there was a train from the airport to downtown. They thought I took GO or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Please do. I'm more interested in it from a civil rights / policing perspective because I think it's genuinely cool when the guys with the boots on the ground decide that a law shouldn't exist anymore because it's not worth their time. I wonder what horrible mutilations they'll have to put s.253 through if they plan to make it practical for cops to test for weed impairment at roadside/collisionside; whether it'll be a meaningful legalization and not one of the "anyone with a license can do it but we'll never issue licenses stop asking" variety; what sort of penalties might linger for the people who make it available to the five teenagers who want it but can't already get it from their friends, and what the provinces'/municipalities' response will be. As far as root policy goes, the Liberals will hopefully be heavily referencing the two major reports that have been done on marijuana over the years. The famous Le Dain commission was completed in '72, which recommended decriminaliztion or something like it. The less famous but much more important Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, released in 2002, recommended full legalization for recreational use. The Liberals cited these reports to justify their pro-legalization stance. Here's a summary of the cannabis section. It is an interesting and readable document. Its conclusions start on page 31, its very specific policy recommendations on page 41. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/rep/summary-e.pdf It goes over just about anything you'd want to know on the subject, from scientific evaluations of the drug, history of laws, international treaties, policing, addiction, "gateway" drugs, medical use, driving, pricing, age of use etc. Importantly, it provides steps for government itself to follow to make legalization happen. quote:Recommendation 1 Some key highlights: Full legalization for recreational use Set up a distribution system roughly based on alcohol Let people grow their own for personal use Driving probably isn't as huge a concern as people think Legal age of 16 * Now, I can promise you the Liberals won't just go ahead and follow this document to the letter. This report pre-dates Canada's current system for regulating medical weed. This system is important, and I'll bring it up later. It also suggests a legal age of 16 to buy it in stores which is certainly not going to happen. It also obviously pre-dates the massive expansion of legal pot in the US. A large number of states have it legal for medical use, while the following states legalized for recreational use: Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon. DC has something kinda special I think. The above report -intelligently!- based many of its findings on the successes and failures seen in other countries. What I figure is that we'll get some new study on the subject, hopefully announced soon. Later I'll go into more depth on what I want, what others have and how this might get done. Count Roland fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:The exact opposite of the context for the original one? Brilliant, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:You know what, right now is a good time to bring back the NEP. I'm actually curious if this could work full-bore, because of the whole "rah rah provincial freedumbs" way that Canada is structured? It's weird, compared to the whole "states rights" bullshit down south we appear to be basically set up as semi-autonomous nations that report back to a governing body. Can that governing body just nationalize an entire industry, in every province, in a short enough time frame to prevent the industry from sabotaging its own operations? Because if they tried it and it got tied up for two years in a provincial-federal court battle clusterfuck, that's more than enough time for the corporations involved to implode things and leave. Historically it seems that it's very easy for the feds to download cost burdens onto the provinces by slashing federal programs and washing their hands of things, but very hard to force any new programs down provincial throats which result in cash flowing into federal control for redistribution. Rime fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Rime posted:I'm actually curious if this could work full-bore, because of the whole "rah rah provincial freedumbs" way that Canada is structured? It's weird, compared to the whole "states rights" bullshit down south we appear to be basically set up as semi-autonomous nations that report back to a governing body. It's less the provincial battle (though there would be a truly unholy one over it) and more the fact that the federal government would need to come up with absurd amounts of money to pay compensation or denounce and withdraw from just about every trade agreement signed in the last half century. Even doing price controls and subsidies like the old NEP is illegal under NAFTA and most recent trade treaties. Then you have the fact that the Canadian oil industry isn't dominated by foreign producers any more, the largest ones operating in Canada are all domestic companies (the lone exception being imperial), meaning that you're effectively hurting Canadian pension funds and so forth, not foreign owners. And finally, you'd either be buying (under nationalization) an unprofitable and extremely capital intensive industry, or killing it entirely under price controls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Rime posted:It's weird, compared to the whole "states rights" bullshit down south we appear to be basically set up as semi-autonomous nations that report back to a governing body. You realize that's more or less exactly how the U.S. was set up initially, right? the Tenth Amendment posted:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Sure, the federal government likes to bash states over the head with the Commerce Clause and federal funding, but the latter is just as possible up here (e.g., the Canada Health Act).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:What's Keynesian about JT's program? Given that Keynes' General Theory (especially as interpreted by John Hick's in "Value and Capital") essentially created the modern field of neoclassical macroeconomics I think it's fair to say that "Keynesian" ideas (though not necessarily the ideas of Keynes specifically, since the major interpretations of his work don't always capture what he himself believed) form the terrain upon which all three major parties and most prominent economists argue and debate. Similarly, I'd caution posters here from treating neoliberalism as antithetical to Keynesianism. The real story is a lot more muddled and confused than that. While it's true that neoliberalism is - politically speaking - an attempt to reduce the power of the post-war welfare state it isn't really an anti-Keynesian theory. Milton Friedman was very much working within a modified Keynesian framework, he just emphasized monetary policy over fiscal policy, but in many regards he's much closer to Keynes than he is to, say, the Austrians. Ultimately both supply side and demand side economics are derived in large degree from interpretations of Keynes and the economists working in his legacy. Much in the way that Newtonian physics or Darwinian evolution work within the channels laid out by their founders despite have changed significantly, modern macroeconomics carries over a lot of ideas worked out in the mid-20th century by Keynes and his followers. Brannock posted:What grade are you in? The economic system, and the dominant way of understanding it, have tended to change every few decades. The economic debates of the 1870s (i.e. the time period when Henry George was writing, when Marx penned Capital, and when the early marginalists like Alfred Marshal and John Clark Bates), as well as the economy of that period, had changed dramatically by the 1930s. And the received economic wisdom of the 30s and 40s was upended again in the 1970s. A lot of our contemporary economic ideas are still largely pitched toward problems that emerged in the 1970s like stagflation, a powerful labour movement, and the growing reach of the regulatory state. Given that many people are now more worried about deflation, a vanishing labour movement and a state that is too weak to properly regulate the economy, and given the changes in the global economic balance of power, I don't see why its ridiculous to speculate that economic theory and policy will change again. In fact we're already seeing the growing prominence of fringe theories such as Austrian economics, so called "chartalism" or "modern monetary theory", behavioral economics, etc. While I doubt neoliberalism will be ditched wholesale anytime soon you can already see his ideological hegemony getting weaker than it was even a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Consistently good posting Thank you for the very good and educational posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Here I am defining neoliberalism as: How many of these do you have to accord with in order to be a neoliberal? All? One? Is this a scale thing, where being really anti-labor means you're neoliberal unless you're also really positive in other categories? What is the scale, or are they just dichotomous? Without those established, it's pretty easy to put everyone into that definition. You can have it be restrictive if you want, but you probably ought to make that clear to also clarify the level of ideological purity required to pass the bar. Otherwise setting down this list isn't really helpful to anyone. Especially since, for example, the arisement of labour disputes could be classed anti-labour because the leading party did things that were not to the benefit of the union. Possibly an absurd distinction, but possibly not either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Given that Keynes' General Theory (especially as interpreted by John Hick's in "Value and Capital") essentially created the modern field of neoclassical macroeconomics I think it's fair to say that "Keynesian" ideas (though not necessarily the ideas of Keynes specifically, since the major interpretations of his work don't always capture what he himself believed) form the terrain upon which all three major parties and most prominent economists argue and debate. I was being a dick, mostly: Keynesian economics in the modern sense is usually understood to refer to countercyclical fiscal policy - spend more (and run deficits) in bad times, spend less and pay down the debt in good times. The LPC is proposing to run a deficit at a time when the economy is doing pretty well, so their motivation for it is clearly not stimulative. The actual reason to do it is: we need this infrastructure spending, and rates are so low now that you might as well do it now - there's unlikely to be a better time. People who are arguing that it's for stimulus reasons are just parroting arguments in favour of stimulus spending from 2009, which is clearly v. different from now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:How many of these do you have to accord with in order to be a neoliberal? All? One? Is this a scale thing, where being really anti-labor means you're neoliberal unless you're also really positive in other categories? What is the scale, or are they just dichotomous? Too difficult to assess policy? Here are some helpful examples. Loosening of established regulation without review for benefit of industry Back to work legislation and essential service labeling Selling off profitable crown assets for short term budget patches while establishing structural deficits Boutique tax credits, two tier tax systems for salaried workers and capital Trade agreements that give up sovereignty, and benefit multinational corporations over domestic industry Reduction of social spending in order to reduce taxes for the benefit of the wealthy
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The LPC is proposing to run a deficit at a time when the economy is doing pretty well, so their motivation for it is clearly not stimulative. The economy is doing pretty well, eh? Could've loving fooled me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Thank you for the very good and educational posting. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The economy is doing pretty well, eh? Could've loving fooled me. Strong Q3 y-o-y GDP growth, great jobs report this morning. Sorry about your province I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The economy is doing pretty well, eh? Could've loving fooled me. Pinterest Mom posted:Sorry about your province I guess. Apparently after nine years of Harper the center of the universe moved from Toronto to Calgary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Strong Q3 y-o-y GDP growth, great jobs report this morning. quote:Statscan says the country churned out 44,400 new positions last month, easily topping estimates from economists who were anticipating a much more modest bump of 10,000. That headline number sounds like a big beat – and it is – but much of the strength is temporary, thanks to the one-time hiring event that was the Oct. 19 federal election. quote:Public administration jobs soared last month by 32,000, a not-at-all surprising development given the need to hire armies of poll workers. http://globalnews.ca/news/2322974/5-things-to-know-about-canadas-job-numbers-right-now/ And, as always, little information on how much of this growth was part time vs. full time. Don't regurgitate hollow bullshit without the numbers to back it up, pls k thx. The economy continues to circle the drain, the Loonie is trading at the lowest in over a decade, and a federal rate hike could crater us in the next quarter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Too difficult to assess policy? Here are some helpful examples. This doesn't actually resolve my inquiry (I also think there are issues with linkage to neoliberalism, but i'm not concerned with them at this moment). Are you saying that engaging in any of these activities makes one a neoliberal? Does failing to eliminate these things make one a neoliberal? The fact that you state "Until I see otherwise" indicates there is a region in which a party can operate outside of this activity, so what is it? Note that I do not take issue with most of these being lovely things, but while these are nice prototypical examples, my concerns line more in the sort of issues where the application of your definition is conditional to the voracity in which you apply it. To reiterate, this matters mostly because without some sort of standard, the criteria becomes useless because it is not the criteria that matter, but how well one feels a government (or a person or a party) is in accord with them, which is a pretty arbitrary thing and makes the criteria themselves unimportant. This stuff is easy to apply when there is a nice dichotomy of action, but the world is most frequently not forthcoming with such things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Strong Q3 y-o-y GDP growth, great jobs report this morning. I think it's a bit far to say that represents economic strength. For better or worse (definitely worse, it seems), Canada really hitched its wagon to the oil industry, as has been discussed at length in this thread. When it is not healthy, the economy is not healthy, and it will continue to be so until we become more diversified. This is the same thing that would happen if the housing industry took a poo poo. We have too many eggs in too few baskets, as everyone has been happy to acknowledge for the past decade, and one jobs report does not change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:This doesn't actually resolve my inquiry (I also think there are issues with linkage to neoliberalism, but i'm not concerned with them at this moment). Are you saying that engaging in any of these activities makes one a neoliberal? Does failing to eliminate these things make one a neoliberal? The fact that you state "Until I see otherwise" indicates there is a region in which a party can operate outside of this activity, so what is it? Note that I do not take issue with most of these being lovely things, but while these are nice prototypical examples, my concerns line more in the sort of issues where the application of your definition is conditional to the voracity in which you apply it. To reiterate, this matters mostly because without some sort of standard, the criteria becomes useless because it is not the criteria that matter, but how well one feels a government (or a person or a party) is in accord with them, which is a pretty arbitrary thing and makes the criteria themselves unimportant. This stuff is easy to apply when there is a nice dichotomy of action, but the world is most frequently not forthcoming with such things. My chief complaint is that criticisms of these policies never address the fundamental issues, rather they criticize within the framework. The NDP should be a strong voice for democratic market and non-market socialist reform, not simply arguing for middle class benefits while seemingly being chill with the status quo of libertarian corporatism. Basically, the extent of legislation within the neoliberal sphere is not that important to me, but the complete absence of any major movement pushing for alternative philosophies is what decides my cynical view that all parties have implicitly adopted neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
ITT, no one has ever heard of arbitrage
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-will-support-inquiry-into-missing-murdered-indigenous-women-1.3308463 Excellent news, the now official opposition is totally on board to support an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women! twitter posted:Rona Ambrose I am completely convinced that after a decade of actively trying to squash this, the CPC is now totally on board with getting to the bottom of this issue, and it is a breath of fresh air to see that they will support the LPC, even though the LPC has a majority and can order it even if Harper threatens to stand in the House topless. Is this the new strategy then? Have every CPC MP come out and say that they were really progressive after all, but because of big, bad Harper they were all muzzled and couldn't speak the message that they wanted to promote? Not that I don't think there's a lot of truth to that, just that it seems a day late and a dollar short to try and jump on the bandwagon now. Also, it seems logical to conclude that if they actually were so vehemently opposed to Harper in spirit, why did they toady along instead of speaking out? Rather spineless "leaders" - who else would they kow-tow to if put into power again? Also, I'm not that familiar with Ambrose, but a quick Wiki showed a lot of cabinet shuffling and a lot of cries for her resignation over trying to reopen the abortion debate while being Minister responsible for the Status of Women. That and blowing the Environment file by not living up to the Kyoto protocol (which I do remember but not her specifically). To the point where the NDP tabled a motion to force her to resign in 2006 (failed - thanks LPC). But hey, she didn't really want to do all those awful things! Harper made her do it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
They're starting to create the narrative that will get them back in power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:That's not really a useful definition, you know better. Why not? quote:I was being a dick, mostly: Keynesian economics in the modern sense is usually understood to refer to countercyclical fiscal policy - spend more (and run deficits) in bad times, spend less and pay down the debt in good times. The LPC is proposing to run a deficit at a time when the economy is doing pretty well, so their motivation for it is clearly not stimulative. I strongly disagree with your assessment of the economy. I think it's been under-performing for a long time. There's a reason that people were attracted to the rhetorical pivot that Wynne and Trudeau have used to re-position themselves as big spending lefties. And the trouble with your definition of Keynesian economics is that it's misleading: that might be the textbook definition, but it isn't accurate in practice. Since the 1950s most governments in North America have run deficits of varying size every year, regardless of economic conditions. From Pearson to Mulroney the Canadian government ran consistent deficits and then since Mulroney it's managed to run surpluses in about ten years give or take. Whatever you want to call that, it's not really a record of counter cyclical spending. Instead it seems like the size of government and the deficit mostly expanded or contracted for other reasons, probably having more to do with the hegemonic ideology in Ottawa at the time rather than any kind of technocratic commitment to counter cyclical spending. quote:The actual reason to do it is: we need this infrastructure spending, and rates are so low now that you might as well do it now - there's unlikely to be a better time. People who are arguing that it's for stimulus reasons are just parroting arguments in favour of stimulus spending from 2009, which is clearly v. different from now. They're parroting arguments that the government has been making since the 50s because Really Existing Keynesian Policy has, at the end of the day, often just turned out to be a rhetorical exercise by government to justify what it already wants to do (or what it feels compelled to do in the case of Harper). Even right wing governments in Canada talk about infrastructure projects in terms of the jobs they'll create and advertise tax cuts as a way to stimulate business investment, all of which is right out of the Keynesian toolkit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Heyyyyy SJWs defend thisquote:
http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/alberta-shrugs-off-obama-decision-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
No. Why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
What do you expect her to do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Heyyyyy SJWs defend this Remember when everyone was all disappointed with your SJW bullshit and you knocked it off for like 4 or 5 days? Can you make it 4 or 5 months this time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Notley's presser was actually pretty sweet. Loaded with pretty oblique statements about how if the government and the oil companies ran a cleaner show environmentally, XL quite probably wouldn't have been rejected. She also all but said that Northern Gateway was never going to happen either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:08
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
apatheticman posted:Remember when everyone was all disappointed with your SJW bullshit and you knocked it off for like 4 or 5 days? His posting is much better when all you see is "fart faaaaaaart fart"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Heyyyyy SJWs defend this Alberta oil stuff is a serious issue among the social justice community so you were right to bring this to us first
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Remember when everyone was all disappointed with your SJW bullshit and you knocked it off for like 4 or 5 days? u mad your NDP hugbox just got smashed
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:u mad your NDP hugbox just got smashed you've gotten kinda low effort lately
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
I took an Uber tonight just to spite my useless city government, and I have to say it was pretty great. Burn the taxi cartels to the ground in every city and town across this great country!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:u mad your NDP hugbox just got smashed I'm annoyed that your posting is pretty much the definition of low effort bullshit All its been lately is "____ ___ SJWs __ __" then a quote of a news story, Before it was full quotes now you are just proving links and the only context we get is from the URL. VVV Parody is fine, sometimes its funny to see crazy people scream into the void, now its just devolved to throwing poo poo on a wall. apatheticman fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
I've lurked various iterations of this thread for years and I'm shocked that anyone reads any CI post since about mid-2013 as anything but self-parody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:33
|
|
