|
Lobok posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: Whipping Out Our CF-18s and Showing How Big They Are Un-Canadian Politics Megathread: 50,000 pieces flying in formation.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Political Whores posted:Here's a fun activity. Using "math", calculate Canada's natural rate of unemployment. Woops turns out you can't because even good old Milt himself only ever used a simple abstract labor demand model to theorize about it. You can't actually figure it out for an economy, and there's no reason to believe economies even have such a long run equilibrium point. It is useful as a rhetorical device for blasting government intervention thought, so expect it in just about every first year econ text. No you can't calculate it if I remember correctly. Doesn't mean that the concept itself is impossible. However, most of my professors emphasized the following: while people call it economics, it used to be and more properly should be know as political and economic philosophy. The obsession with mathematics over the last half century is poisonous to the field and limits and narrows possible inquiries. The only reason that economics embraces math like it does now is because certain people in the sixties desperately wanted to be considered scientists instead of what they were: philosophers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Canadian Politics Megathread; Up poo poo Creek at Flank Speed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Gorau posted:No you can't calculate it if I remember correctly. Doesn't mean that the concept itself is impossible. However, most of my professors emphasized the following: while people call it economics, it used to be and more properly should be know as political and economic philosophy. The obsession with mathematics over the last half century is poisonous to the field and limits and narrows possible inquiries. The only reason that economics embraces math like it does now is because certain people in the sixties desperately wanted to be considered scientists instead of what they were: philosophers. The emphasis on mathematics also makes it much easier to discredit alternative or radical economic models, at least until someone like Piketty comes along and spends decades compiling the hard numbers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I only had a prof in University that was obsessed with Michel Foucault and I know it was time to stop taking Pol Sci classes when I giggled for a whole classes when he want on about power structures and all I could think about was BDSM and how much fun it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
So Trudeau's not supporting the military focus of the mission in Iraq, which is fair - it's not like Canada's jets are the ones that are going to turn the tide in Iraq, so volunteering them really is just a dick-waving move when Canada could be offering other kinds of support to those affected by the crisis. Interesting to see the liberals taking this tack, reminds me of when Chretien kept us out of Iraq the first time, still the decision that justified his entire Prime Ministership to me. Have the NDP put forward their position on an Iraq combat mission? If they haven't spoken out against it yet we're really entering a strange world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:33
|
|
Dolash posted:So Trudeau's not supporting the military focus of the mission in Iraq, which is fair - it's not like Canada's jets are the ones that are going to turn the tide in Iraq, so volunteering them really is just a dick-waving move when Canada could be offering other kinds of support to those affected by the crisis. Interesting to see the liberals taking this tack, reminds me of when Chretien kept us out of Iraq the first time, still the decision that justified his entire Prime Ministership to me. ??? The NDP got the ball rolling on push back against our role in an Iraq combat mission, starting with that utterly bizarre question period conversation followed by equally strange conservative crocodile tears in an apology, covered over the course of several pages of this thread. I'm gonna hazard a guess and say they're against it. e: sorry, don't mean to sound like a jerk, I just don't understand how you could miss this.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Atkins? The guy had a falling-out with Harper because he thinks politics corrupted Harper into a left-wing slimeball. I read a Albertan business magazine article by this guy that called Alison Redford a tax and spend liberal and a leftist amongst other ridiculous things. I facepalmed so drat hard while reading it. EDIT: Found it, titled Left vs Right matters in economics, page 16 here: http://issuu.com/businessincalgary/docs/bic_august2014_lo He calls Redford and Prentice left leaning politicians. ID129 fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
G&M posted:In a speech and news conference on Thursday, Mr. Trudeau said there is a need for humanitarian aid to deal with the crisis in Iraq, but added he has “serious concerns” about the potential for a Canadian participation in ongoing air strikes. Hey great, I'm totally in agreement. It would be great to get back to that whole peacekeeping/humanitarian thing we used to do instead of just dropping bombs on people and things. Show humanitarian initiative instead of just acting like Yank lapdogs. This Trudeau guy is starting to sound OK. Oh wait: G&M posted:Mr. Trudeau told the crowd that he hasn’t made up his mind on endorsing the expansion of Canada’s military mission, but party officials added afterward that it would take a massive shift in the government’s handling of the matter to obtain Liberal support. Why the gently caress not? Why the reluctance to take a hard and fast stance? Say straight up "The Liberal party supports only humanitarian, non-offensive assistance for the Middle East." In a year or so once ForeverWar v3.4 turns out to work just as well as EVERY SINGLE OTHER military intervention in the Middle East has been (ie. making poo poo worse for the people who actually live there and getting our own people killed in the process), it would look really good for them to be able to point back to that quote and say, "we've always known this was a terrible idea and we've always voted against it." Part of me wants to like the guy (hey if our only realistic govt. choices are going to be Conservatives vs. Conservative Lite + Weed, gently caress it, I'll vote Lib) but he needs to show some more serious stones. Not be afraid to take bold positions and defend them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Frum? I actually can't remember the name but that sounds familiar so probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I only had a prof in University that was obsessed with Michel Foucault and I know it was time to stop taking Pol Sci classes when I giggled for a whole classes when he want on about power structures and all I could think about was BDSM and how much fun it is. At least you didn't have to take any classes in cognitive behavioural therapy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Gorau posted:No you can't calculate it if I remember correctly. Doesn't mean that the concept itself is impossible. However, most of my professors emphasized the following: while people call it economics, it used to be and more properly should be know as political and economic philosophy. The obsession with mathematics over the last half century is poisonous to the field and limits and narrows possible inquiries. The only reason that economics embraces math like it does now is because certain people in the sixties desperately wanted to be considered scientists instead of what they were: philosophers. It could be a valid concept (thought there is data against). But without being able to calculate it, it just becomes a rhetorical tool to justify neoliberalism. Employment policy? That'll push us below the natural unemployment rate and cause inflation! Raise the minimum wage? That'll just push us above the rate and cause a labor shortage! Without a way to calculate it, it's meaningless for policy, but people still argue with it! See also Laffer curve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I actually took business...which is kind of how I got this title. I was lucky (lazy) enough to sign up last minute for my classes, so a couple of my economics classes were taught by a guy who didn't particularly put much faith in economics, instead of the regular undergraduate kool-aid drinking prof. He called it a voodoo science, which really stuck with me. To paraphase "none of the models can do an accurate job of predicting economic changes, and often can't even explain past events". Combine that with my bunch of business classes (where the most useful life skill I've learned is there's a whole ton of people who don't want you doing things the right way, they want you to do it their way, so figure out what that is and do it), and taking history, politics and labour history classes as my electives (instead of my ideal major) and it's pretty hard not to be at least socialist. The grand divide between labour history and what my business classes were teaching about similar topics, like NAFTA for example, and the side of history or at least where my feelings lie on those topics means I don't really have much of a choice at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:It could be a valid concept (thought there is data against). But without being able to calculate it, it just becomes a rhetorical tool to justify neoliberalism. Employment policy? That'll push us below the natural unemployment rate and cause inflation! Raise the minimum wage? That'll just push us above the rate and cause a labor shortage! Without a way to calculate it, it's meaningless for policy, but people still argue with it! See also Laffer curve. Even if you can't calculate it it's still useful in that as a concept it's just saying that you will never get 0 unemployment. There will always be a percentage of workers between jobs because the labour market in reality does not always slow perfect transitions from area or employment to another. Further, depending on how sticky your labour market is and the availability of support while not working, the natural rate may be higher or lower than other countries. It doesn't make judgement, it doesnt say if it's a good or bad thing, it's merely an observation. Traditionally the natural rate in Canada has been about 6%, while in the states it's about 4%. Neoliberals might argue this is a bad thing while sane economists simply acknowledge the fact that it is. Arguing about what the natural rate should be is a fools game. Economists would rather be arguing about actual policies like housing support, minimum wage and so forth rather then taking a rather useless metric and trying to suit everything too it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Canadian Politics Megathread: Erebus can stand this Terror
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: Erebus can stand this Terror lol love this one
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Even if you can't calculate it it's still useful in that as a concept it's just saying that you will never get 0 unemployment. There will always be a percentage of workers between jobs because the labour market in reality does not always slow perfect transitions from area or employment to another. Further, depending on how sticky your labour market is and the availability of support while not working, the natural rate may be higher or lower than other countries. It doesn't make judgement, it doesnt say if it's a good or bad thing, it's merely an observation. Traditionally the natural rate in Canada has been about 6%, while in the states it's about 4%. Neoliberals might argue this is a bad thing while sane economists simply acknowledge the fact that it is. Arguing about what the natural rate should be is a fools game. Economists would rather be arguing about actual policies like housing support, minimum wage and so forth rather then taking a rather useless metric and trying to suit everything too it. Right, except for where I had my econ profs expound exactly what I stated to me. You say "sane" economists, but many many economists in both the academic and public (think tank) sphere use things like the natural unemployment rate as a justification for policies that would otherwise be unpalatable to the public. It's the type of argument about making the "big decisions" that hurt but are "ultimately necessary", like cutting people off of EI because it distorts the labour market. Economics is, like you said, philosophy, but the pretentions it has to being a hard science (usually because the simple existence of econometrics is supposed to justify a blind trust in any economic assertions) mean that it becomes a political tool quite easily. If economics remained an abstract debate in academic circles, maybe I would agree, but it is totally enmeshed with politics now. People like Alan Greenspan didn't base their worldview on Ayn Rand alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I just had a guy from Acorn Canada come by asking me to sign a petition for regulations/licensing for rental property owners and asking me if I would "pledge to vote" in the upcoming municipal election. ACORN are 100% a sales based organization. You move up in In short, gently caress ACORN. Peggy Nash, on the other hand, rules.  e: Those pink/blue flags are part of some pro-life protest on Parliament Hill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:ACORN are 100% a sales based organization. You move up in Ahh, thanks for the Acorn info. I feel even better about not giving the guy anything. And yes, Peggy Nash is a pretty darn good MP, it's good to have her repping Parkdale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Canadian Politics Megathread: Third Place would fit you far better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Canadian Politics Megathread: This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Agreed. Intro economics isn't meant to be accurate, it doesn't reflect real life and the people who think it does and try to apply it are idiots. Into economics are there simply to give a foundation and introduction to the historical thoughts and economics so later professors can show how it has developed over time. Where it goes from there is entirely up to the student and to a lesser extent the teacher. Economics professors can pick holes in each others theories till the cows come home, it's the debate that's important, as well as trying to synthesize competing viewpoints. Honestly this is giving economics, at least as I've seen it taught, way too much credit. Typically the history of economics is completely ignored in intro economics and it's very easy to get an econ degree without actually studying the history of the discipline at all. Only the neoclassical economic perspective is shared and the closest thing to "debate" that you get would be between New Keynesians and Monetarists. Typically the only 'history' is a brief and superficial discussion of Adam Smith and maybe a little bit on Ricardo and 'comparative advantage'. Concepts like supply and demand are treated like natural laws. Important issues like the Cambridge capital controversy are completely ignored. The fact that marginalism was explicitly designed to justify the existing distribution of wealth against challenges from men like Karl Marx or Henry George is never mentioned or even alluded to. quote:The problem is when economics graduates try to go into politics. They become convinced that their interpretation is right and drat everyone else. The other problem is when non Econ people try to apply their one Econ course to the economy/government/anything. It never ends well. The problem goes way deeper than that. Neoclassical economics is the discursive framework through which practically all journalists, politicians and other public figures discuss economic or even social issues. Economics professors play into this as well. It seems like many econ professors will give totally different answers depending on who is asking the question. If a student asks "is free trade good for the economy?" many professors will give a complicated answer explaining that this depends on what you mean by free trade and about how some groups will stand to benefit while others will lose out. Yet if a journalist interviews that same professor and asks the same question it seems like they are far more likely to just say "yes, free trade is good" out of some kind of tribalist loyalty. Contemporary "economics" (and really we're just talking about a single school, neoclassical economics, with a couple mildly different flavors) sucks and so do the people who push it on the public. I won't go so far as to say that it has literally no insights to offer but on the balance it does a lot more harm than good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
It's bizarre to me, being in history to think that people aren't taught the history of their own discipline. Mind you, I imagine if you go to grad school for economics you dive right into it, but then you've gone to grad school for economics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Make it this please! Yeah we're not beating that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
I don't know if I should feel insulted or honoured right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
CanPol Megathread: We get the poo poo we deserve. Sorry for swearing. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway We got a winner over here
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Canadian Politics Megathread: You are on this thread's ignore list. Click to post anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 04:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I can limit it to the most entertaining posts this way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
That sure is an avatar. I miss so much having them off because of work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Hey great, I'm totally in agreement. It would be great to get back to that whole peacekeeping/humanitarian thing we used to do instead of just dropping bombs on people and things. Show humanitarian initiative instead of just acting like Yank lapdogs. This Trudeau guy is starting to sound OK. Oh wait: Eh, I think its not fair to assess the current situation in Iraq as "forever war". ISIS is pretty much what the characiture of Islamic extremism that crazy right-wing conservatives talked about in the early 2000's. and his reluctance is to look into whether or not actual kinetic operations are a good idea. I'm not saying they are, but at the same time as its not a good idea to have a kneejerk reaction to a Middle East crisis by jumping right in at the same time we shouldn't have a kneejerk reaction and only supporting humanitarian assistance. Here's a hint why only humanitarian assistance by itself sometimes doesn't work: Sometimes guys kill unarmed people trying to bring in humanitarian assistance. Guys like ISIS for example. Either way, jumping into this "NO BUSH'S WAR FOR BLOOD OIL!" bandwagon doesn't do any better than "TIME TO DROP SOME FREEDOM".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Either way, jumping into this "NO BUSH'S WAR FOR BLOOD OIL!" bandwagon doesn't do any better than "TIME TO DROP SOME FREEDOM". Except that in this case there's already several countries with vastly more resources ready to nut up and bomb for peace. What's the compelling argument to Canada sticking its dick in there too as opposed to providing humanitarian aid and helping to rebuild?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Except that in this case there's already several countries with vastly more resources ready to nut up and bomb for peace. What's the compelling argument to Canada sticking its dick in there too as opposed to providing humanitarian aid and helping to rebuild? Bombs expire after a certain length of time (high explosives aren't shelf stable, after all) and to have them dismantled instead of bombing ragheads and sandniggers is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Eh, I think its not fair to assess the current situation in Iraq as "forever war". ISIS is pretty much what the characiture of Islamic extremism that crazy right-wing conservatives talked about in the early 2000's. and his reluctance is to look into whether or not actual kinetic operations are a good idea. I'm not saying they are, but at the same time as its not a good idea to have a kneejerk reaction to a Middle East crisis by jumping right in at the same time we shouldn't have a kneejerk reaction and only supporting humanitarian assistance. Here's a hint why only humanitarian assistance by itself sometimes doesn't work: Sometimes guys kill unarmed people trying to bring in humanitarian assistance. Guys like ISIS for example. In the last twenty years I cannot think of any controversial issue that has been so fully vindicated as opposition to the war in Iraq in 2003. If your idea of shoring up your position is to suggest that people who opposed that war were just as shrill and unreasonable as the Neocon chickenhawks then you're kind of discrediting yourself right out of the gate. Oh, and as for whether or not this is a long term and open ended military commitment, here's David Cameron: quote:Prime Minister David Cameron, seeking parliamentary support for British involvement in air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq, told lawmakers they should be prepared for a long fight. Here's retired Gen. Petraeus: quote:“We’re talking about years, many years in the case of Syria,” he told business executives at a Tokyo hotel. “What we’re doing right now is disrupting. We are gradually chipping away at the strength” of the Islamic State of Iraq & Al-Sham (ISIS), but gains could not be sustained without ground forces. And here are reports on comments made by Obama about the likely duration of the conflict: quote:Obama was clear that he wanted general congressional support — or “buy-in” — for his plans, in part because the increased military campaign, including training of Iraqi military forces and other regional fighters to take on the Islamic State, will come with a significant price tag from the Pentagon and is likely to take several years, people involved in the dinner said. Keep in mind that the original Iraq war was supposed to only take like a year and it dragged on for more than 10 and in a very real sense isn't even over yet given that Britain and America are now being dragged back in. Honestly I don't have a very strong opinion on conflict one way or the other. ISIS is terrible but then again the US and Britain have zero credibility and an atrocious track record when it comes to these conflicts. Whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya the west always has a really good sounding excuse for entering the war, yet somehow they always make these countries worse off and then abandon them when the actual process of rebuilding is supposed to start, which then sets the stage for some future conflict. Also keep in mind that only a couple weeks ago Harper was denying there would be any combat role for Canadians! Who loving knows how far down this slippery slope we could end up sliding. So the idea that its discreditable or somehow bandwagon jumping to be reflexively against a war in the middle east led by the US is pretty loving strange in 2014. Have you learned nothing from the last two decades? Whether or not it's a good idea is debatable, but at this point anyone who doesn't have some respect for the anti-war in the middle east crowd seriously needs to get their head examined. Comparing them to the neocons is rank stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Whether or not it's a good idea is debatable I'm not trying to argue with you, I believe we're trying to make the same point. I'm not sure that this is really debatable in any sense other than the very literal one in which it is a subject we are "debating", without anyone having an argument for committing to offensive action. The US, UK, and several other nations with much more robust offensive capabilities have already committed to offensive action against ISIS in Iraq. What, realistically, does Canada have to offer anyone in Canada or Iraq by joining the fray? infernal machines fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Rime posted:Bombs expire after a certain length of time (high explosives aren't shelf stable, after all) and to have them dismantled instead of bombing ragheads and sandniggers is a waste of taxpayer dollars. No, you just take the expired ones, pay people to dump them in the sea, then pay other people to go recover them, and then pay more people to make replacement bombs, thus creating the self-sustaining economy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:50
|
|