|
Helsing posted:The point of this little rant being this: the government can turn on the spigots and spend lots of money, but that isn't going to help anything unless that money is spent intelligently. The great innovation of the mid-20th century wasn't Keynesian spending, it was embedding markets and other forms of commerce within a thick institutional layering which forced wealthy individuals and private businesses to give up a larger share of the economic pie. This system was mostly founded on universal or broadly focused programs, in particular various forms of social insurance, and welfare. It was guaranteed by, among other things, a strong labour movement which the government brought onside with various concessions. This, I think, is where Canadian governments, even big spending ones, have consistently messed things up over the past few decades: even when spending large sums of money and racking up deficits and debts, Canadian governments seem to be very poor at spending that money responsibly in ways that will actually stimulate future growth. We end up with things like the OLP spending large sums of money to make new bridges that don't work, airport train lines that price themselves out of competition, subways that are the least efficient way of providing public transit to the affected area, and wind farms that export power to America at a loss. Note that this is not to say that government is inherently inefficient or bad at spending money. Our private sector is just as bad, and often much worse, at allocating their investment in ways that stimulate the long-term growth of Canada's economy. Canada's resource boom and housing bubble can attest to that. Plus in the past we have had governments that were effective at this kind of investment. Until the 70s we had very effective investments in society and human capital in programs like universal healthcare and the advent of widespread education. In the past government, even Ontario governments, have effectively invested in infrastructure like rail lines, hydroelectric power plants, and subsidized energy to promote economic growth. The problem as I see it is that the current crop of politicians and business leaders, those that have run the country over the last thirty years, are either incompetent or corrupt. They either don't know how to spend money in effective ways, or they're more interested in diverting money into their own pockets and the pockets of their friends and supporters than they are in investing it effectively. Being charitable and going with the incompetent option, I think the problem is an entrenched culture within our economic and political elites that is neoliberal to the point of almost being libertarian. Look at how the media doesn't question balanced budget rhetoric. Look at how all three major political parties, for the last however many election campaigns, tout the importance of balanced budgets except in extraordinary circumstances. Look at how the politicians that actually run things (so, not the NDP) seem to legitimately believe in the orthodox doctrine that the private sector is more efficient than government in every scenario, and load us with inefficient things like P3s. Look at how the TPP wasn't even an issue in the last election, despite being the biggest encoding of neoliberal principles in the last two decades. There are very few media figures, politicians, businesspeople, or social commentators who are willing to critique this consensus in Canada, and the academics who critique it all the time get ignored. This is why I agree that the NDP were the best choice last election, for the exact same reason. Mulcair played his hand very poorly and the balanced budgets thing was a huge mistake. Support for Sanders in the US, Corbyn in the UK, and Trudeau in Canada has shown that there is a significant appetite for policies that are perceived as being anti-neoliberal, whether they actually are or not. But you're right when you say that they were proposing the first real expansion to the state in decades (not counting all those times the NDP had no chance of winning power). It was a platform built on a different principle than the neoliberal consensus, even if the choice of Mulcair to lead that platform and his terrible choices during the campaign scuppered that attempt. I really do wish Trudeau success with the current budget. Despite my dislike for him and his party and my complete lack of faith that they will spend this money effectively, I wish them all the best. Because if they gently caress up this big budget deficit spending plan, I foresee it further entrenching the current consensus and killing the very idea of fiscal expansionism for years to come.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Ikantski posted:Sorry can't talk about it until 12 years after hooooly poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
23 year old in Toronto arrested on "terrorism" charges
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
So they thought he might try to go to a country he could potentially get terrorist-related training, and so they arrested him and charged him with carrying a pocket knife or something? Pretty lovely article, all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:So they thought he might try to go to a country he could potentially get terrorist-related training, and so they arrested him and charged him with carrying a pocket knife or something? Pretty lovely article, all things considered. Cbc says it was cause of social media posts
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:This actually has serious implications for the average Canadian who plans on winning the lottery tonight. Not for this year. Lottery winnings are considered a windfall and aren't taxed. That gives you ample time to get your poo poo together and hide most of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I'm glad to see that everyone is fighting: yesterday I was accidentally made a mod for GBS and though some of my mod powers have been taken away, I still have some of them. Anyway, I made and sticked a "Pay for Probations" thread where, for a donation to a reputable charity of your choice, you can choose another user (who has to have posted in GBS or its subforums) to be probated, ~$20/ 3 days I know Hal has been active in the Rubio thread, if that gets anyone motivated, and so far we've raised a few hundred! The only wrench in the whole plan is that I've been asked to stop probating people until the kink that in part caused me to be a mod gets worked out, however Lady Ambien seems to be on board so even after I lose my semi modship, it could continue. Also, I am not immune to this and will already be taking a 3 day vacation Stop by and check it out!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Shad is a painfully dull host and they definitely picked the wrong guy in their desperate search for any competent non-molester able to make a long-term commitment at a moment's notice. I'm convinced Shad got the job because there was one episode where he was guest host and interviewing Norm MacDonald, who keep repeating "Shad you're the best, you should totally be the new host" in his normal Norm-MacDonald-esque way where you can't tell if he's being serious or seriously sarcastic. I think the producers were thinking the former, but it was really the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
On the other hand of replacement cbc host who took over when the previous one left in a cloud of public scandal Rosemary Barton is killing it
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
It's funny watching Solomon struggle to stay relevant on twitter
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
The only time Norm MacDonald has ever been sincere on stage was during his last standup routine on Letterman. Not related to previous statement; what was the downfall of Evan Soloman? Wasn't he supposed to the hot new thing in journalism, like a sexy Knowlton Nash?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
He was making sketchy art deals on the side or something I think. E: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/2015/06/09/cbc-host-evan-solomon-took-secret-cut-of-art-deals.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Him, George Clooney and Brad Pitt robbed a casino
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
quote:A re-elected NDP government would double the number of yurts in Manitoba.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:He was making sketchy art deals on the side or something I think. I'm glad the CBC has the moral integrity to immediately fire staff for their absolutely heinous and disgusting behaviour as soon as they catch wind of it, instead of ignoring it because of the 'stardom' of the individual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Trees and Squids posted:I'm glad the CBC has the moral integrity to immediately fire staff for their absolutely heinous and disgusting behaviour as soon as they catch wind of it, instead of ignoring it because of the 'stardom' of the individual. It's funny that they nailed him for that but Amanda Lang gets to stay employed, guess he wasn't as valuble to some people as she was
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Threads quiet today so I'm gonna go ahead and rant into the wind. Today's subject is Keynesianism Interesting reminder that what we know as "hypothesis" in real science is called "theory" in economics. One of these days I need to read Picketty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
I had to stay up late designing my Nephews easter egg hunt for tomorrow so now you're all going to be subjected to more of my maybe not entirely coherent further ramblings on economics and Canada.Hexigrammus posted:Interesting reminder that what we know as "hypothesis" in real science is called "theory" in economics. Pikety's book is interesting but (full disclosure, I have not read the book cover to cover yet) it's also fairly conventional and doesn't necessarily have the most sophisticated theory of what 'capital' actually is. If you're interested in reading some good books on economic theory, history, development, etc. then my top recommendations (assuming you don't have the time to go and read Schumpeter, Veblen, Keynes and Marx) would be the following: 1) How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor by Erik Reinert 2) Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste: How Neo.liberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown by Philip Mirowski 3) Bad Samaritans by Hajoon Chang 4) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter (specifically section II, "Can capitalism survive") Reinert's is my favourite because it convincingly lays out a strong theoretical critique of economics, and it has a great historical sweep to it. It's a very accessible book while still have some reasonably in depth criticisms of the neoclassical tradition. I wouldn't necessarily endorse every single idea in the book but overall I think its one of the best possible introductions to debates in economic theory that you could offer an intelligent and interested layman. Chang's book is written to intentionally complement Reinert's and is a great companion piece, though it focuses a bit more on the historical examples and a bit less on the theory. Mirowski's book came out the most recently and is much more focused on neo.liberalism specifically and on explicating how it survived the financial crisis. The 4th book is very old and written by an ultra-conservative pseudo-Austrian author who just happens to be one of the most brilliant economists of the 20th century, and probably one of the most important. He coined the term 'creative destruction' and while I definitely take issue with many of his ideas section II of his book is one of the best and most succinct summaries of the basic workings of the capitalist economy. Schumpeter is a fascinating figure, a contemporary of Keynes whose alternative theories have at various times found advocates on both the left and the right. In contrast to most other conservatives Schumpeter had an abiding respect for Marx (despite entirely rejecting his political vision) and in essence you can read a lot of Schumpeter's work as a capitalists adoption of basic Marxian principles, resulting in a theory of development and innovation that I think is vastly superior to the account found in most neoclassical textbooks. vyelkin posted:This, I think, is where Canadian governments, even big spending ones, have consistently messed things up over the past few decades: even when spending large sums of money and racking up deficits and debts, Canadian governments seem to be very poor at spending that money responsibly in ways that will actually stimulate future growth. We end up with things like the OLP spending large sums of money to make new bridges that don't work, airport train lines that price themselves out of competition, subways that are the least efficient way of providing public transit to the affected area, and wind farms that export power to America at a loss. There's a phrase you hear in some sections of academia, where someone will say that a phenomenon is "overdetermined", i.e. there are so many plausible explanations for something we can't determine which one(s) are correct. I'd say that the incompetence of Canadian elites is definitely overdetermined in that sense of the word. quote:Being charitable and going with the incompetent option, I think the problem is an entrenched culture within our economic and political elites that is neoliberal to the point of almost being libertarian. Look at how the media doesn't question balanced budget rhetoric. Look at how all three major political parties, for the last however many election campaigns, tout the importance of balanced budgets except in extraordinary circumstances. Look at how the politicians that actually run things (so, not the NDP) seem to legitimately believe in the orthodox doctrine that the private sector is more efficient than government in every scenario, and load us with inefficient things like P3s. Look at how the TPP wasn't even an issue in the last election, despite being the biggest encoding of neoliberal principles in the last two decades. There are very few media figures, politicians, businesspeople, or social commentators who are willing to critique this consensus in Canada, and the academics who critique it all the time get ignored. Well, first I'd caution that the NDP has run things in some of the provinces, and their record of government is totally unremarkable. In fact some of those western NDP governments had already turned to Third Way style policies long before Blair took power. For leftists, backing the NDP is very much the equivalent of taking a knife to a gun fight. It just happens to be that the alternative would be showing up totally empty handed. More broadly, I largely agree with your analysis here but I emphasize that the reason neo.liberalism as an ideology is so prevalent is directly tied into the institutional structure of Canadian society. It isn't just that neo.liberal ideas have come to dominate: it's that these ideas are constantly being reinforced, on a daily basis, whereas other ideas don't really have anyone championing or supporting them. For instance, I'm not sure how many politicians truly believe that the private sector is more efficient than government. No doubt some do and some don't and some are agnostic. But there are big incentives, on multiple levels, that sometimes reward (and at other times punish) privatization of government services. I strongly believe that we must always keep one eye on the material incentives behind neo.liberalism. I'll note briefly, here, that this comes back to certain debates about how to think of neo.liberalism, i.e. how to tell its story, how to interpret its rise to power, where to place the explanatory emphasis. In David Harvey's "History of Neoliberalism", which lays out one of the conventional narratives regularly invoked on the left, Harvey starts with the writings of Hayek and the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Society. He suggests that this theory, plus a mobilization amongst the ruling classes to reclaim power they had lost after WWII, is the key to understanding neo.liberalism. Thus, even as Harvey emphasizes that neo.liberalism is extremely flexible depending on the needs of capital, he nevertheless sees it as an essentially intellectual creed. Other theorists dispute this. I have a book I just picked up called "Globalization or Empire?" by Jan Nederveen Pieterse, and it points out that most of the hallmarks of neo.liberalism are actually just staples of the economic strategy of the American south: police repression, racial division, cheap labour and generous corporate handouts. Or, to quote him in his own words: Globalization or Empire?, p. 2 posted:But by locating the origins of neo.liberalism in the realm of ideas and the theories of the Chicago school, this overlooks the actual economic policies that shaped "real neo.liberalism" already before teh Reagan era. The low-taxes, low-services regime envisioned by free market advocates already existed in the American South. Real neo.liberalism in the United States in the 1970s and 80s meant the implementation of the low-wage, low-tax model of Southern economics. The political muscle of the Southern conservatives and the welcome mat of the anti-union South for corporations fleeing the Northeast is what gave the "Reagan revolution" its depth and punch. Eventually this led to the rollback of the regulatory and social functions of the state as a national trend. I'm still digesting the book and haven't reached any final conclusions on it but I thought that was a pretty interesting passage and broadly lines up with my own instincts, which is to always try and look for the material basis behind people's professed beliefs (though, obviously, to do no more than this would be to subscribe to a sort of intellectually bankrupt vulgar Marxism). I bring this quote up, and contrast it with the account set out of Harvey, because it helps focus us back on the concrete material conditions that gave rise to neo.liberalism. Obviously it had to be able to win ideological converts through some compelling ideas, and I think it very much accomplished that, but at it's core I think that neo.liberalism was largely concocted not by economists but by businessmen telling politicians exactly what they wanted, and then getting their way by employing the full arsenal of political weaponry that is available to private enterprise in a liberal democracy. quote:This is why I agree that the NDP were the best choice last election, for the exact same reason. Mulcair played his hand very poorly and the balanced budgets thing was a huge mistake. Support for Sanders in the US, Corbyn in the UK, and Trudeau in Canada has shown that there is a significant appetite for policies that are perceived as being anti-neoliberal, whether they actually are or not. But you're right when you say that they were proposing the first real expansion to the state in decades (not counting all those times the NDP had no chance of winning power). It was a platform built on a different principle than the neoliberal consensus, even if the choice of Mulcair to lead that platform and his terrible choices during the campaign scuppered that attempt. At bare minimum I think Trudeau is better than Harper, and some of the investments he plans to make in transit could end up being worthwhile. Also, notwithstanding my previous negative comments on the theory behind the Keynesian multiplier, in principle its perfectly feasible that in our under performing economy some new spending could have some kind of impact. Sadly, though, and I think you alluded to this above, many of the best investments we could make are not necessarily all that politically sexy. Actually, on his rare non-trolling days Cultural Imperial often points out, quite correctly I think, just how difficult it is to establish the basis for innovation. It would require a huge investment in developing clusters of economic activity, and unfortunately the time horizon of our current elites is way too short for them to contemplate that. Which is why, after more than 30 years of editorials in the national press bemoaning our lack of productivity or innovation, we still haven't come up with a better solution than tax credits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
It's too late for me to give any kind of detailed response so I'll leave that for the morning, but I just want to add that my favourite recent political economy book is Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Blythe, who is absolutely fantastic. Also if anyone wants to read this but doesn't have time for a full book, just look up any Blythe talk on Youtube, he gives a fe high-profile lectures each year and all the ones I've seen have been very high quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Piketty states in the introduction that he hasn't actually read Capital or any Marx and then proceeds to dismiss Marxism and any there-derived economic theory in a paragraph, using arguments Marx specifically addresses and refutes in the first chapter of Capital (cause liberals have been making them for lo these 175 years or whatever), so you shouldn't actually think of him as meaningfully heterodox in any way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
I suppose I should ask you, Helsing: what is your take on the economic theories of Harold Innis or Karl Polanyi? They are basically the two names I come across most whenever I am trying to find to find economists who operated directly within Canada. I suppose Innis would be somewhat outdated by now, but the more you mentioned "embedded" things, the more I thought about Polanyi at least. I ask the question because in some regards I am frustrated by how most of our economic ideologies are on loan from other parts of the world, that -- correct, moral, or not -- at least made sense for that context in which they appeared. The lines about neoliberalism being a projection of the postbellum American South retroactively given an intellectual gloss is reprehensible, but it makes sense given that is where it came from. They were able to happen upon their exploitation economy because the temperate climate allowed for it. We, though, are in a different context, facing different challenges. The geography and climate of Canada is such that there can be no fully market-oriented solution simply because one heavy snowfall can render all market activity to a dramatic stall. Even from the perspective of the golden straitjacket, it should at least follow that we need more customized solutions to our situation, but somehow that is not evident and cannot ever be evident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
I can't believe I left out Polanyi during my sleep deprived rant the other day. I actually had the incredible privilege and fortune to audit a class taught by one of his students (and later co-authors), Abraham Rotstein, who sadly passed away last April. Polanyi's book is brilliant and I'd recommend it over Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy to anyone interested in the history of capitalism (if you're more interested in a model of how the capitalist economy innovates and grows stick with Schumepter though). It's a brilliant book, though it's somewhat dated given that it pre-dates neo.liberalism and is critiquing a laissez-faire doctrine that, at the time of Polanyi's writing, appeared to be dead forever. Your intuition is 100% correct when you see the connection between Polanyi's work and my use of the term embedded. While the idea of "embedded liberalism" (i.e. the North American answer to social democracy, embedding markets and commercial enterprise within social and governmental institutions that restrain the more destabilizing aspects of market societies) is used by scholars other than Polanyi, his 1944 book was key to developing the concept. I know Harold Innis' economic theories by way of various summaries and discussions of his work I've encountered. The only book by him I've actually read is "The Bias of Communication" which is different in focus and not directly tied in to his work on Canada's economic relationship with the US and Britain. I've wanted to read his stuff on the Canadian economy, since I think it's both relevant today and important from an intellectual history standpoint, but life is short and I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I cannot possibly imagine that reading his stuff would be a waste of time though. Also 'The Bias of Communication' had a big impact on McLuhan so if you're interested in his work you might check out that book as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
I studied Communications in university, so I too knew of Innus from his media studies stuff. I only found out he was supposedly this big-name economist well after the fact, which was the reverse of the historical record in that case. From what I understand, his big shtick in economics was a rejection of theory in favour of direct experience and journalistic study. It was around his time that economics textbooks were first being distributed using the ethnocentric British orthodoxy. All of his students were adapting what was in the textbooks without question, even though Innis found that almost all of the economic theories didn't, and couldn't, apply to Canada. The textbooks highlighted the wonderful effects of competition in the marketplace, but Innis' studies found Canada's economies did whatever it could to minimize sources of competition due to how investments were so long term even slightest bit volatility would produce massive systemic risk. The few times during the fur trade when competition was allowed were immediately followed by the few times the Canadian economy nearly collapsed. That, among other things, made Innis think that liberal economic orthodoxy (formed in England) couldn't ge applied to Canada, and yet almost all of his students adopted the orthodoxy despite his grievances, regardless of whatever contrary evidence he gave. This was partly a reason why he later went on to write the early books on media studies. He was trying to figure out why this could happen, as was to answer some questions that political economy was no longer allowing him to explore. I was at my university bookstore the other week, and they had a new textbook on sale for way too much money called "Innis meets Chomsky" or something so very specific to my tastes like that. Unfortunately, I have too drat much to read as it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:Piketty states in the introduction that he hasn't actually read Capital or any Marx and then proceeds to dismiss Marxism and any there-derived economic theory in a paragraph, using arguments Marx specifically addresses and refutes in the first chapter of Capital (cause liberals have been making them for lo these 175 years or whatever), so you shouldn't actually think of him as meaningfully heterodox in any way. Does Marx address how every attempt to implement a revolution according to his ideology has failed catastrophically? Because that would be uncharacteristically prescient of him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
I only know Innis from his work on early Canadian economies, the Laurentian/Metropolitan thesis, and his work with Donald Creighton. Needless to say it's still pretty influential in academia. Even if economic and other historians have moved on from it, people still use it as a springboard to dive more deeply into the specifics Canadian historical economies. In response to Helsing's big post about Keynesian economic theory and Canada's WW2/postwar economics, what I've always found interesting is how close the relationship between business and the government was well after the war. Canadians didn't want to immediately transition into the post-war economy we immediately associate with the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, but as Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau argue: quote:Cultures of Citizenship in Post-war Canada 1945-1955 pg 4 Sounds familiar! Essentially what they find is that Canada's postwar experience is much more similar to that of France, Britain, and Germany. Although Canada never received Marshall Plan assistance, its economy and society didn't really embrace the same commitment to modernity, belief in technological progress, consumption as the United States until well into the 1950s. This is backed by the work of historians like Joy Parr in Domestic Goods: The Material, the Moral, and the Economic in the Postwar Years where she examines the patterns of consumption in a few markets and discovers that, for example, women resisted the shift to an electric washer until well until the 1950s, opting for the reliable, but slower wringer-washers. In that nebulous decade, instead, you find a grand commitment by Liberal politicians to the creation and expansion of a social safety net but beside mother's allowance, there's no institution-building until after 1955. Nancy Christie covers this in several of her books, especially Engendering the State: Family, Work, and Welfare in Canada. What you get instead, beginning right in the midst of the Second World War from intellectuals and public commentators is the promise of a rejuvenated Canadian society, one founded on participatory democracy and civic responsibility. Manufacturers actively advertised for future consumer products during the Second World War that would be available to all Canadians after the war was over (covered in a great book by historian Graham Broad, A Small Price to Pay Consumerism on the Canadian Home Front, 1939-45). Suddenly there are a number of different groups in active discussion about the future of Canada and what shape Canadian society should take. Labour, businesspeople, politicians, educators, and other cultural critics were projecting new ideas of what Canada could become with its newfound economic and (assumed) political power. What emerges are new ideas and interesting positions on everything from mass media to the impact of automation. L.B. Kuffert covers this in A Great Duty: Canadian Responses to Modern Life and Mass Culture, 1939-1967. It's impossible to say if these discussions and arguments emerged from the direct intervention of the Canadian state in the economy throughout and after the war. But they are connected. Much of the same discussions happened in the United States and Britain as well, but for probably the first time in the nation's history, those public debates in Canada reflected Canada's own particular context and history, rather than borrowing from the country's two contemporary political influences. Economic intervention has all sorts of unforeseen outcomes. Sorry for all the book dropping but those might be some books to look at if you're interested in the era. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Does Marx address how every attempt to implement a revolution according to his ideology has failed catastrophically? Because that would be uncharacteristically prescient of him. Heh,
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/713916002296270848
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Some time last year my boyfriend told me that he doesn't like that "douchy topknot thing" and I had no idea what he was talking about. And like a lightswitch I suddenly started seeing it everywhere and oh man gently caress that hair style, it's so bad looking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
"world-famous" "man-bun" "model"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
canada.txt http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/28/money-for-refugees-lost-gambling-says-catholic-church-in-london-ont.html quote:Police have launched an investigation into a Chaldean Catholic priest from London, Ont., after church officials reported more than $500,000 slated for refugee sponsorship was lost to gambling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:"world-famous" "man-bun" "model" And people say you can't make it big and still live in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Does Marx address how every attempt to implement a revolution according to his ideology has failed catastrophically? Because that would be uncharacteristically prescient of him. I guess it depends on how you define "revolution" and whether dramatic changes in government policy over a relatively short time frame can be counted as a "revolution", but European Social Democracy and much of the Canadian welfare state, including healthcare, can be attributed to the struggles and agitations of a socialist movement that owed an immense intellectual debt to Marx (though, given the last few years, maybe it's time to consign social democracy and welfare to the accumulating pile of 'failures'). Also, as I said earlier, every time you hear some Techbro boosting for Uber or AirBnB or whatever because of "creative destruction" keep in mind that this theory is a thinly veiled reworking of Marx's ideas by way of Schumpeter. Marx the living author is a bit different from the Marx that we think of today. He had some wildly contradictory opinions over the course of his life and changed his mind a fair amount. He was a big supporter of Lincoln and wrote columns for the Republican party's main newspaper for 10 years. He was a supporter of free trade (on the assumption it would destabilize capitalism and hasten the transition to socialism) and even speculated that more advanced countries like Britain could possibly transition to socialism without a violent revolution. He was, of course, wrong, just like most economic theorists who attempt to actually predict the future. But I think the point is that he was wrong in an interesting way, and we can learn from that. The Marx most people think of today is actually Lenin. Most of the good or common sense parts of Marx's ideas and writings have become so fully integrated into the way we view the world that, much like with Freud, we just take those influential ideas for granted and only really associate him with the stuff that blew up spectacularly or turned out, in retrospect, to be massively wrong. It probably doesn't help that the only people who are willing to actively defend Marx's intellectual legacy can be very insufferable in person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:canada.txt No, Canada.txt would be the priest spending 500k on a 600 square foot condo in Vancouver and a raised chromed out F150.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Yeah, real Canadians gamble on the real estate market, not at some Casino.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Oh yay MB liberals are announcing 5-6 years of deficits too now I can't wait to hear my family tell me why this makes them better and not just a bunch of rookies trying to ape federal success
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:Oh yay MB liberals are announcing 5-6 years of deficits too now Hey, federals stole it from Ontario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:Oh yay MB liberals are announcing 5-6 years of deficits too now There's a very good possibility of the PCs winning 95% of the seats in the Legislature because of the general incompetence of Rana. She's spent the majority of her campaign arguing that a Payroll Tax Cut will put money in everyone's pockets and not just businesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
There's an article from the Globe and Mail discussing just how little leverage Trudeau now has over the senate, with Liberal senators saying its "naive" to think they'll do anything to make things easier for him. I think the Liberals may have managed to actually find a set up even worse than the pre-2016 Senate. Now the senate isn't just an unelected chamber full of Conservative and Liberal bagmen -- it's also completely unmoored from any elected party. At least in the past you could have some vague sense that the party who was voted into power would have sufficient leverage to get things through the senate. Now we've wrecked that tradition and we've got a handful of bitter geriatrics with an almost unlimited veto and basically no mechanisms for bringing them to heel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of the Ha-Joon Chang book because it is ultimately a historiographical argument, and those are always rad. I forget whether this is stated outright, but the structure of the book can basically be subdivided as (1) the conventional neoliberal "there is no alternative" historiography; (2) examples where the neoliberal policy package has been unnecessary; (3) examples where the neoliberal policy package has been insufficient; and (4) what are the defences of TINA in the face of apparent contemporary failures. The really neat part is that while Chang focuses on the national/international level, you can adopt his argument to domestic and local discourses really easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Helsing posted:mechanisms for bringing them to heel. The french developed a literal mechanism for bringing powerful but useless unelected officials to heel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:19
|
|
