“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ...
gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks
they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is
a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
I can't say that I'm surprised by what the Liberals put out in the budget.
So, what's my take on it?
You know the chase scene in Fury Road where Furiosa heads into an epic sand storm?
I can't help but think we're heading straight into one for a couple of reasons.
First off, there's a global recession and a threat of inflation, and add to this the fact there's low demand for resources and one has to wonder the wisdom in creating a deficit.
"It's no secret - central banks and policy makers around the world are intentionally manufacturing inflationary pressures in the hopes of
countering the global economy's prevailing deflationary headwinds. In
theory, the use of monetary policy to induce inflation eventually sparks
a self reinforcing cycle of economic growth, but there is growing room
for doubt that injecting paper money into the system only shows growth
on - dare I say it - paper. Perhaps nowhere is this more
evident than Japan, which has been losing the fight against deflation
for nearly three decades now."
Even with global central banks acting as inflation factories, the global
economy continues to exhibit deflationary tendencies and lackluster
growth. On the surface this may seem to imply there is nothing to be
concerned about, after all, the Fed's preferred measure of inflation,
the PCE Index (Personal Consumption Expenditures) has shown little cause
for alarm.
The thinking, so goes, is spending to spur growth and as long as Canada hits its projected forecast of 1.2% GDP growth, we don't have to worry about paying for it! But given the scenario mentioned, it doesn't take much for this delicate game to be blown apart. And with oil prices down coupled with environmental pressures to not lay down pipelines, it's really hard to see this ending up somewhere other than where the Liberals predict.
I'm not a fan of basing budgets on 'what if' scenarios. If the target misses ever slightly it will have serious implications for the economy.
Then comes to undo the burden on middle-class families (I'm surprised more has not been made of the fact they put a stop to income splitting which was a fantastic tool for families) and small and medium sized businesses. The former will be paying higher taxes (and don't forget the Liberals are committed to the climate change nonsense which will cost us in the form of still more taxes) while the latter were promised corporate tax cuts only to have been callously ignored.
Canada is back, eh?
Finance Minister Bill Morneau's explanation (a successful guy like that has to deep down know this is a risky gamble given the situation) that spurring growth this way is great for business and Canada as a whole but it rings hollow for me. I hope he's right but I doubt it.
It's unfortunate because, well, we're already over-stimulated. Sure, progressive economists claim we don't spend enough but we spend plenty. When economists start talking 'negative interest rates' you know things are getting a tad too, erm, Japanese.
We saw this play out in the United States (never mind the lessons of FDR's New Deal programs that prolonged the recession under Obama. He - and Bush - used stimulus as a means to an end and it went nowhere.
The Liberal strategy of spending and increasing deficits without provisions to pay for them in the future in an eroding global economic environment that will impact demand for our resources is a dubious play.
Coupled this with higher taxes for the middle-class, an aging population putting severe strains on the social safety net; a net young population are not paying enough into and we have one serious - serious - problem coming.
This week we saw the passing of star of The White Shadow Ken Howard, former MLB player and color commentatorJoe Garagiolaand comedian Garry Shandling. As well as one of the greatest soccer players in history - Johan Cruyff.
Man, did I love the Vin Scully-Garagiola duo calling ball games in the 1980s. Awesome. One of the all-time greats for sure.
'...German football, and in the Netherlands we like Dutch football. There
are massive cultural differences. It's to do with winning, losing,
attacking, defending, having fun and putting on a good show. The
Italians are different from the Dutch character-wise. Perhaps you could
even call it a matter of taste. We want to win and that has to be done
playing attractive football at the same time. We're almost embarrassed
to win a match through counterattacking football, and we refuse to play
the game defensively. To the Italians there's only one thing that
matters, and that's winning, whatever it takes. The clubs have some
excellent players, yet they couldn't care less about entertainment
value. It's the end result that counts.
Respecting all culturesWe may think that strange, but
it's not our business to think anything of it. It's the Italian
mentality and we ought to respect it. As a coach I've never felt ashamed
of the attitude and performance of my team, but I still respect all
cultures. Needless to say, I'd rather watch Spanish, English or Dutch
football. German and Italian football don't appeal to me as much,
although we have to say that results clearly show that their ideas are
more than just a lot of hot air...'
It's not a secret there's a war on fat now. Politicians egged on by experts are scrambling to table all sorts of legislation to combat obesity.
Like all moral panics, it's destined to explode in their faces and fail spectacularly.
Mostly because, as is always the cases where the state is concerned, it eventually descends into a full blown attack on people and their liberties.
What starts out on a 'sugar tax' (affecting the poor of course because progressives are presumptuous paternalistic twats) ends up being this:
"Overweight people should
pay higher taxes in order to cover the extra costs they create for
German's healthcare system, a conservative MP has said. "
Those Germans. Either doing bad things (Hitler) or stupid things (see Merkel).
I jest of course.
Yes, that's a conservative who proposed it in there but as noted many times here political conservatives, liberals and progressives all get in on the control the masses for the own and greater good act. But of the bunch the progressives are the ones, to me and my perception anyway, who bow before state authority to govern our personal choices more than any group.
This is why I loathe 'universal' institutions. Within the system there are all sorts of multi-tiered realities that mock the idea of 'one size fits all'. Fat people today, skinny people tomorrow. What will be the 'epidemic' disease of choice tomorrow because 'overloading' the system must be prevented?
People should think this has the potential to go beyond fat people. 'Hey man, you know, being too skinny is dangerous. Let's tax people for being skinny. We'll redefine what being skinny is to include many people to save them all.' If you can't be imaginative, just privatize already you jackasses. Capitalism, in all its adaptable and innovative glory, would not panic but look to find solutions that benefit people.
As opposed to the government side where all it seems to propose is to ban, tax, and expropriate things. Regardless, this is what happens when you 'consent' to allow the government to step in and act as a third party in our lives. You give them an inch but they want a foot. When will we learn that outsourcing our habits and general personal welfare to the government is not only inefficient but, I argue, immoral? Immoral to the extent we want to fine or put people in prison (see the latest example courtesy of Pamela Lampitt (D) Camden, NJ) for being human.
You've probably seen messages at court offices and in hospitals that have signs saying 'We will not tolerate rude behavior' or 'Don't ask us about wait times.' Or whatever.
Obviously, plenty of people have voiced or shown their frustration and displeasure at being treated poorly by government administrators or else those signs wouldn't go up.
Can you image Wal-Mart or Amazon or any other store putting up such signs? Amazon is a luxury Cadillac-Bentley-Maserati-Mercedes dream compared to the Lada-Skoda-Pinto-Micron services of public institutions in Canada.
It's enough to wonder if the government lives in a parallel Bizarro world universe independent from the rest of us rude, uncouth beggar-proles.
I mean to ask about wait times! How dare us!
Yet, rather than put up some counter-productive signs that help no one (except to induce mutterings under our collective breaths) there are simple steps and measures they can adopt and implement to keep people calm.
It's called communication. As in keeping people informed. I know. Rad idea, eh? When something is delayed all I want is an explanation. Even if it's a bad one (can't ask for too much) I don't care, as long as it's something. People just want to feel there's transparency. The second you meet their anxiety with a disapproving look or tone you threaten to escalate the issue needlessly. I get this at my daughter's school. Apparently, even school secretaries are in on the act.
It's not like public workers have never sat around talking as if you're not there sipping their crappy diarrhea they call Tim''s coffee while you stand at the wicket like a shlepp waiting for Doreen to finish her piece of shit story, right?
Everyone is too cool for the public.
It's basic fricken common sense. An axiom really. Treat people as you would want to be treated.
I can't tell you how often I have to proceed and act gingerly in front of precious administrators just to get basic information - information we're entitled to by the way - from them. I'm not asking you to read Tolstoy or Lee Iacocca or an essay on 'Why good customer service is the bed rock of civilization' or pinpoint how long the wait will be (heaven forbid we demand excellence from our bureaucracies) but to merely ball park it. Not even that they're willing to give.
Much easier to be surly and put up signs.
No, that they're under pressure or stress is not an excuse. We all face similar circumstances. It's how you deal with it that distinguishes the winners from the losers.
This is clearly a result of lack of leadership and communication among public sector staff probably exacerbated by the fact there is no incentive to improve the patient experience in hospitals or other institutions since, well, why?
What are the consequences exactly?
Canada is all about the cost-centric. Not patient or customer centric.
Until that mind set changes, it's who we are.
Second rate and you can expect more indignant signage designed to keep you, the taxpayer, in your place.
As the world continues to react to the the terrorist bomb attacks in Brussels, a predictable common theme is people expressing shock.
But here's the thing.
There's nothing shocking about it. It's only a shock if people are blind to ISIS and its intent to commit terrorist acts especially in Belgium where political correctness is a strategy in the fight to combat terrorism.
By now, Europeans (and to some extent North Americans) should already discount in the back of their minds that an attack is possibly.
Mayor Coderre is boasting about the bans on plastic bags and soon bottles he's imposing on the city.
I wouldn't be too proud.
To me, it's all rooted in anti-science stupidity.
Anecdote:
I was at Pharmaprix today buying some items. The lady set them aside and I paid. She handed me the bill and said 'Merci'. She didn't ask if I needed a bag nor do I feel I should have to ask for one like a beggar.
So when I politely asked for one when I saw she wasn't going to give me one she responded curtly en francais, 'next time please mention it before so that way I can charge .5 cents.'
Could you believe that shit? She didn't do her job and I'm to blame? Is it my fault I don't want to walk out with several items in my arms like a hobo as people stare?
All because of this Luddite nonsense of banning plastic bags.
While it's all fine and dandy Obama has attempted to normalize relations with Cuba (though he hasn't exactly articulated how he plans to do this), it's best to recall Cuba is still a communist dictatorship.
Raul Castro had the balls to lie to the world but thankfully the Internet keeps boneheads like him and his brother honest:
"For the 31st Sunday in a row, nearly 300 Cuban dissidents were
arrested as they tried to attend Mass, then peacefully demonstrate as
part of the #TodosMarchamos (#WeAllMarch) campaign. In Havana, nearly 100 members of The Ladies in White — the renowned
group composed of the wives, daughters, mothers and other relatives of
Cuban political prisoners — were arrested. Among those arrested was its leader, Berta Soler, who on Friday was
threatened by Castro’s secret police that “her time in the opposition
had come to an end.”
***
You know, the more I think of Pierre Trudeau and his relationship with Castro, the more I'm disgusted with him and the Canadian government over the years where Cuba was concerned. Did we exert enough pressure to have Cuba face their pitiful human rights abuses?
I bring up Pierre because his son Justin has been known to praise dictators and now seeks a seat on the UN Security Council. Would he use this position to urge Cuba to come clean?
I doubt it.
And the more I consider Obama's visit, the more I have reservations because I don't trust Obama to have the interests of Cubans at heart. At all.
The truth is people still romanticize Cuba looking at the music, the people, the beaches, architecture and quaint scenery. Never once realizing this romanticism they adore is rooted in decadence brought up by decades of evil communist dictatorships. They ruined lives more than they advanced a civilization.
People like the Ladies in White are fighting for the rights of the Cuban people be restored. What side are we on? What side are you on?
While I'm on the phone with Paypal, I observe my wife pitifully struggle to cut a lovely slab of prosciuttini I bought for her. "Really?" I ask annoyed.
As I speak to the agent, I slice her nice pieces respectful of the Italian cold cut. I get off the phone and pour myself a glass of bourbon with a splash of lemon and ice. I decide to watch a Louis CK bit (or two) on youtube. My wife joins in but warns about not putting it too loud lest the little one hears or comes out. 'Nah, she's totally absorbed in her activity' knowing full well I had no idea what she was doing in the room. My wife is unimpressed and adds, 'Your daughter has Bat-ears'. Which is true. Her hearing is scary good. I thought she was done but she continues, 'Unlike you.'
Yes, this is also true. I don't hear very well. I especially have a hard time with background noise interfering. Moreover, it's a bitch having to distinguish letters that sometimes have similar sounds like 'p', 'f', 's'.
Buy my eyesight is fantastic. I can peer into the soul of any person like few can.
I exaggerate but you get the picture.
I'm just good at sniffing out commies. Those bastards.
And bitches.
Wouldn't want to discriminate.
I digress.
Unsurprisingly, my daughter explodes onto the scene asking questions, making demands, and being a general pill.
'Shut it off!" my wife tells me.
Rather than close the tab, I pause the video and pick up the lap top to walk away. While I walk through the hall way my daughter for some inexplicable reason takes a sudden interest in what we were watching. I think I hide the screen but, like a hawk she reads out loud, 'You can cum more if you drink milk.
I mutter to myself, 'fuck'.
'Mommy, what does you can cum more if you drink milk mean?'
We try the tactic of ignoring because we're speechless.
She repeats, 'Mommy, I want to know more about you can cum more if you drink milk.'
Her mother scrambles on in gibberish tones 'it's vomit now go get your homework and these are the psalms to burn.
I wait until our kid leaves the room.
'Vomit and psalms. Awesome.'
'You never learn'. 'She didn't read anything she won't learn in the school yard.' She looks at me as if I just pulled down my pants. Which is a different stare back I usually get. 'I'm going to shower.' I look back at the girls. All back to normal. For now.
“Give me a list and I’ll release them," adding, “If we have those
political prisoners they will be released before tonight ends.” Raul Castro during Obama's visit.
Go fuck yourself and then go fuck your brother you asshole.
The entire debate around GMO labeling strikes me as just plain stupid.
It's a fight and exercise in futility and Luddism destined to be soon forgotten as it ought to be.
Anti-GMO arguments are rooted in deliberate misinformation (much like climate change) and it's best the population be as informed as possible consulting research other than what activists and media offer.
All these fights against Uber, GMO crops, nuclear energy and other technologies that unquestionably improve our lives and lead us to further prosperity thus creating even more technological advancements will ultimately recede into the dust bins of history.
I support the lifting of sanctions on Cuba and so far President Obama has lifted restrictions on Americans only which is fair enough but I'm not convinced an official visit was necessary. Optics and perception and all that. It strikes me as, well, somewhat ill-advised. Then again, it did work for Reagan and Gorbachev.
In my view though, Fidel Castro is a criminal for his actions in Cuba leaving the island essentially destitute. He created a Cuban diaspora and with it depriving Cuba at a chance for a prosperous future.
Instead, everyone is equally poor in Cuba.
Those of us who celebrate this development should keep in mind it came at a great cost. Think of all the Cubans who were robbed and escaped Castro's revolution. It is he and he alone who made Cuba what it is. Not sanctions given Cuba was trading with Canada and the EU.
Never mind that Cuba continues to crush dissent imprisoning its own citizens. Which is why Obama should mention it but likely won't. I just hope we won't see slurpy, silly photos of him and Michelle holding hands walking the streets of Havana pretending all is swell because we all know it isn't.
We'll find out soon enough if this was simply a 'look at me' vacation for the President and his family.
In other words, I'm not gonna go 0 to 60 on this one. It is improper to just look at this from one perspective - that is, through reestablished contact between the United States and Cuba. Rather, we should consider all the damage done to people who didn't ask for it and in the process lost their possessions and were forced to start a life elsewhere.
Keep the celebrations in check and proceed cautiously.
But the hope for the future has arrived. And one day, American capital and innovation will restore Cuba to its rightful place as a free nation.
I keep hearing people defend the notion that if a business does not, say, bake a cake for a gay customer, it's acceptable to sue. It matters little or not if it results in bankruptcy.
It never is correct to do so.
Not baking a cake should not result in bankruptcy. The punishment simply does not fit the crime. It's a grotesque version of justice.
It's important to distinguish something here. That I find it outrageous a citizen has that kind of power doesn't mean I condone the actions of the business. I don't believe one set of citizens should ever have access to power above another. For example, here in Quebec a person can levy a complaint to the language office which in turn can lead to a fine to another citizen for speaking a language other than French. The law or regulation creates two-classes of citizens with one holding the ultimate advantage.
This is not justice or fair under any definition no matter what Quebec intellectuals argue to justify it. In the end, when thought to its logical end, it's 'well, we are the majority, so too bad'.
I can't stress it enough on this blog. A society must eternally protect and preserve the sanctity of freedom of speech and expression for all - even those we don't agree with. If not, said society abandons its right to claim liberty.
Regarding demanding cakes be baked for gays, I consider the wider implication of judges handing out sentences that effectively suspend or put a permanent end to small business operations.
In the case of gay couple who sue a small business under the guise of 'fairness' strikes me more as vindictive and the state or laws, as mentioned, should not give power to such retaliation. Moreover, if driven by principles that is offset by the result - that is bankruptcy.
Those who support this, accept a form of Puritanism driven by the irrational fear that somewhere a small business will be able
to make business decisions they disagree with thus accepting a government agency stepping in to essentially take part in an of revenge.
I understand a business shouldn't discriminate but it's one thing to protest its practices and quite another to actively seek to destroy with the aid of the state in my view. There has to be better options - and there are. First among them, is to move on to another place of business.
Again, to cite Quebec's handling of language policies, the Montreal Canadiens, for example, have a hiring practice that will not consider candidates who don't speak French. To me, this is a form of discrimination but it's tolerated for some reason and one may argue at the expense of the organization's sole objective: Winning.
True it doesn't impact me personally but I wouldn't seek to destroy hockey operations because of it. Instead, I as my own moral agent I choose to not support the team emotionally or financially.
I suppose I can feign moral outrage and make an issue of it but I also understand this is just my personal view. If I had the power to take down the club I would be a pariah to an entire community (loss of jobs, a team of significance to a city etc.) and for what? I'll exercise my protest privately.
I see the bake me a cake or else travesty in a similar vain except the potential for destroying a business is more direct. Remember, it's irrelevant if you think 'they deserve it'. Everyone thinks someone 'deserves' their comeuppance all the time through all walks of life all over the world every single moment either through action or karma.
The degree of triviality, I suppose, is what determines if you think you should proceed with a lawsuit.
I don't see how rewarding people with large settlements forcing a business to close its doors (think of the unseen implication of this and its impact on families, employees and community at large) is sound law or justice.
They could have gone to the news, bring light on the issue (which is appropriate) and let the market determine if a business with prejudicial practices succeeds. That's an 'organic' form of justice I consider legitimate and one I possibly would support.
We are all our own moral agents and they had a choice to go elsewhere. Instead, they chose to exercise the full power of state coercion to destroy a business and a family while depriving others of a service they may like.
It's largely forgotten amidst are tire and short memories but not me, man. Me, I remember.
Lord me don't get me going on David Brooks and his latest on Trump.
The smug, sensitive, incoherence of a faux-conservative brain is too much for me to handle at the moment.
***
Speaking of insufferable nonsense.
"There followed a meditation on leadership: "I
think people look for leadership, and define it many times, as when
someone says something that they disagree with, but that they suspect is
probably right. I mean, as a leader, I look for opportunities to challenge folks."
Mediation? I mean, like, wut? I've read this quote three times and it makes no sense to me.
His idea of 'challenging folks' is to force them to accept the tired, stale progressive world view.
"...Michael Bloomberg, the man who recently declined to play the centrist saviour of American politics,likenedTrudeau
to John F. Kennedy and hailed him as a forward-thinking leader set to
make smart investments in infrastructure and greening the Canadian
economy."
Is Bloomberg retarded? Nanny-statist-progressive protecting his own I guess. I'm glad the comments are having none of it.
The CBC should just call itself Pravda for the rest of Trudeau's tenure and be done with it already. If propaganda puff pieces is what they want so be it. Privatize and not on my dime.
Competition always infers there will be an imbalance. That's why it's competitive.
Trying to 'level a playing field' every single time someone figures an edge (think the New England Patriots or Chicago Blackhawks (with cap management)) is fooling one into believing they are better than they actually are.
It's one thing to give everyone equal opportunity but it's another to want to tinker with that once someone finds a 'loophole' as it were.
By searching for 'fairness' for its own sake is to be condemned to a constant crush of unintended consequences.
“The magic of Uber is that it used mobile to create a 10x better product
than the incumbent (taxis), and did so at a lower price. The ‘and’ is
everything."Sarah Tavel, Greylock.
That's it. That's the secret.
On-demand is a pretty powerful thing. If Taxis were not sitting on their asses enjoying the fruits of a monopoly littered with disincentives maybe they would have evolved and innovated.
Instead, it was someone else and power to them.
And that's the part people who want to contain Uber better get used to.
Shakespeare once said, in a book, 'kill all the lawyers!' And since then, lawyers are, with some justification, the butt end of many jokes depicting them as opportunistic parasites and such.
Well, there is another breed possibly worse than them I think.
Government experts.
Or in this case, government economists.
It's a swell gig for a control-freak statist. Think of it. Where better to push and pimp horrific ideas than within the halls and bosom of government?
'Say, you know what would be great to fight climate change? A carbon tax! High five!'
'Say, you know what would be great to fight combat obesity? A sugar tax! High five!'
'Say, you know what would be blah, blah, blah, garble, gobble, gibble....tax, tax, TAX! High five!'
I'm starting to believe academics who work for government are just rejects who couldn't possibly get their ideas passed through in the private sector where it would be properly scrutinized.
"...(Chad) Shirley said that one way to charge drivers more is to implement "vehicle-miles traveled charges." Some members of Congress and some officials in the Obama
administration have argued for years that a vehicle miles traveled tax,
or a "VMT" tax, should be imposed in order to create more federal
highway revenue. The Obama administration in 2011 floated a draft bill
that would have created a VMT. Among other things, that plan foresaw the installation of
equipment on people's cars and trucks that would measure how far they
drive, and the collection of taxes electronically through a reading of
those devices at gas stations."
They're incredible these people. I'm not surprised Obama went for this really.
It's so filled with potential unintended consequences - first among them a screeching halt to parts of the economy that's on the road - think salespeople and truckers - it's ludicrous to even float this around. Not to mention deliciously creepy and 1984ish.
Just something makes 'sense' doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement; particularly when it comes to driving. The last activity of freedom we possess. Now the government is talking about taking this away.
Again. This is something that goes beyond left, right or center. This is government exacting control (forget the bull shit about the need for more revenues about highways. They'd just waste it. And if this is their sloppy solution then we shouldn't be against handing maintenance over to the private sector. It's the only sane choice among these options) over a free people.
"Goose Gossage, a giant bag of gas that somehow figured out how to grow a
mustache, f-bombed his way through the landscape of modern baseball
Thursday. In an interview with ESPN,
he managed to deride the single best moment of the 2015 season, tie the
actions of one man to the shame of an entire ethnicity, advocate for
concussions, praise pitches intended to injure opponents, yearn for the
days that left pitchers' arms in shambles because of overuse and
disparage people far smarter than he'll ever be. It was a glorious
festival of buffoonery."
Let me add I'm not convinced Gossage should be in the Hall of Fame either.
But.
You messed it up with:
"Contrast that with the
second-most-iconic snapshot of the season: Jonathan Papelbon throttling
Harper ostensibly because he didn't run out a groundball. It epitomized
pettiness, showcased everything wrong with the game's unwritten rules
that govern the thinking of Gossage and so many others...."
You run out the ball and you get Papelbon's in all sports who believe you need to hustle until the play is done. Period. Papelbon may be a bonehead but he's right to demand 100% out of your teammate.
"...maybe Gossage
and those of his ilk someday will understand that and appreciate
baseball for what it wants to be: something that can compete with
football and everything else that has stolen the game's market share by
appealing to young fans, be it with bat flips or anything else that
might not dovetail with tradition. Maybe, in fact, it's a good thing
that he is compelled to rant and rave about the current state of the
game. If Gossage doesn't like it anymore, he's more than welcome to stop
watching. Baseball has enough fans who are old, white men."
Seriously? You close with a bigoted stereotype?
Count me in as one of those 'soon to be old white men' and I won't be silenced!
I've grown a tad tired of the 'nouveau critical theory intellectualism' whereby anything white and male is open game for criticism or worse.
Heknewwhat he was doing in my opinion. It's laughably clear to the point you're insane to not read the proper cues as soon as he hit the ref. It's comical listening to talking heads trip over themselves trying to find an excuse for why he did it. Worse, I keep hearing there are people out there who claim 20 games is excessive!
Wha? Heck, it's too little if anything. Call me old fashioned but I would have sat him out for the year.
It was deliberate and he needs to face the music and stop taking us for idiots.
The NHL has every right to be upset at this ruling.
Funny how it becomes 'uncomplex' when they start to kill you, right?
Imagine that. And our leftists here were adamant about ever calling terrorist groups, you know, fucking terrorists. Lord were those debates about whether Western governments should designate Hezbollah (and Hamas) as terrorist organizations nauseating.
People are still not grasping the significance of Uber.
Case in point Trudy Mason of CJAD radio asserted it was somehow the government's actions and policies in the Taxi industry that creates or gives life to company like Uber. Making the further claim it was a product of 'inorganic' demand. That is, it wasn't people in the free market making the decision.
She has it completely backwards.
It's consumers, through their apps, who are driving this new Taxi service. Uber, like all business, simply identify and satisfy a demand. This is how business works.
That the government creates a superficial monopoly charging extortion rates for the privilege of buying a permit is inconsequential and independent to Uber and its existence. No one forced cab drivers in the age of Uber to fork over good money to get a permit. For decades Taxis benefited from a 'captured' market and now that train is over.
Even the regulations are irrelevant to the extent it shouldn't impede new players into a market. Like we need immigration to keep our innovative and cultural juices going, we need entrepreneurs to be encouraged to take risks; not discouraged because of fabricated barriers to entry. Have them follow the rules and get out of the way. People will ultimately decide if they survive. They will also choose who wins between Uber and Lyft. Choice is the key.
In case you haven't noticed, I don't support the government compensating cab drivers for allowing Uber into the market since it's my position the government shouldn't be involved in business to begin with. All they do is lay waste and inefficiency for consumers and taxpayers alike. See subsidized daycare or any other business that needs a permit to operate.
The fact is, Uber and its competitors like Lyft have already ushered in a new way of doing business and they've shown they have the guts and funds to challenge the government in the courts - and they're appropriately winning.
This is nothing but great for consumers and our economy.
Fighting them is an exercise in legal and intellectual futility. ***
Couillard and Coderre are abdicating their responsibilities to our society. In opposing pipelines, they're are essentially engaging in a dereliction of duty for political expediency.
The idea they would prevent such a project based on a 'worst case scenario' angle is ludicrous. Why not just apply a grotesque version of the 'precautionary principle' in everything we do in business? There's risk in everything we do. We're just, surprise, arbitrarily picking and choosing which we "think" are most dangerous or in this case, politically safe in order to keep environmentalists happy for some reason.
As for the pipeline itself, it's pretty much as safe as it can get and a better alternative than transporting it through trucks, railways and ships.
Canada is natural resources. We made that bed long ago and to act like this is not so is obscene and quite frankly dangerous for society at large who depend on oil and gas to exist.
Politicians who oppose this project are negligent.
Yes.
Negligent.
***
The truth is humans (and consumers) progress and usually, they've progressed by overcoming reactionary and preventative powers of the state.
We succeed in spite of them.
And it will be no different here.
That's what Uber is showing us right before our eyes.
"It's generally accepted in America that democracy is an absolute good; that, like tolerance, there can never be too much of it. But absolutism never survives the test of rational thought. Tolerance goes too far when it tolerates intolerance. And democracy
founders when people are convinced to embrace something fundamentally
undemocratic."
What in the fuck is this mess?
First off, technically, America is a constitutional republic. Second...
But absolutism never survives the test of rational thought.
Make an absolute claim with, an absolute assertion!
Tolerance goes too far when it tolerates intolerance. And democracy
founders when people are convinced to embrace something fundamentally
undemocratic."
Whaaa? No. No it does not.
Reminds me of those boobs who in their ever so compassionate plea to 'balance' free speech, argue there can be too much of it "if" it hurts someone's feelings.
"When Donald Trump does this as a populist tool … he is directly
undermining the national interest of the United States for political
reasons," says Gerson. "That itself is disqualifying in a president."
He says this as if Trump is the only one who does this. Sanders and Hillary are equal to that task.
"The U.S. government does not have an absolute populist democracy," he
argues, "and the parties are not run as absolute populist democracies.
Again. I ask. What's the difference between the Trump's populism and the one being pimped by Hillary and Sanders?
Canadian intellectualism boils down to one root: Us good U.S. bad.
It's, well, functionally retarded.
Like Forrest Gump.
***
Imagine all that access and this is the best he comes up with? On our dime?
It's quite startling and amusing listening to the Presidential hopefuls talk about making America 'great again' and promising a 'political revolution is coming' while talk in protectionist, populist and nationalist tongue.
Particularly when it comes to trade.
On this issue, both Trump and Sanders (who promises to end NAFTA among other trade agreements) talk nonsense but if I had to choose between the two at gun point (or knife point depending on the effectiveness of gun-control in a given jurisdiction), I'd go with the former for obvious reasons. Not obvious to you? One has conducted business and the other hasn't. Simple as that.
In any event, protectionism is bad. Very bad. Retarded even. And any candidate should be chastised into the fetal position for even mentioning it.
Especially when it comes to trade between Canada and the United States. The two economies are so intertwined talking in protectionist tongue is
akin to trying to cut around crucial nerves and tissue in the body. Cut the wrong nerve and forever be numb or worse, bleed to death.
In my view, there shouldn't even be any need for 'trade agreements'. Humans trade to deal with scarcity. It's a natural activity that (should anyway) transcend national borders and nation-states. There should just be FREE TRADE.
And the dichotomy between the two lands couldn't be any more different. A country like Canada can't afford to shut its borders pretending to act like it can sustain itself without a major finished goods economy (notice our complaints are always with resources - lumber for example) while the U.S. - ever producing and creating - needs new markets to keep its flow of goods and services going. These two countries were meant to be together as they fulfill each others needs and wants.
We're destined, for ill or for worse, to sink or swim together.
How this even becomes a talking point with politicians is beyond me to comprehend.
Well, let's reboot with Carlin talking about political correctness fascism. Remember kids, Social Justice Warriors are retards and enemies of free speech and expression. Challenge them.
Always.
Political correctness and affirmative action.
Time to out an end to all this. It's morphing and branching out into crazy things like 'white privilege' and 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions' and demands for 'gender neutral spelling' and so on.
"I'm enjoying the ironyof American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a
former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really
means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but
please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but
the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made
modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of
poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was
paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge
problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government,
more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd."
Garry Kasparov.
Not everything on Facebook is nonsense, huh.
I can't imagine under any scenario ever wanting to live under a socialist society or socialist regime. Worse, engaging in mental masturbation whereby I would wax poetic about it.
The idea of it strikes me as repugnant.
It's a valiant effort on Kasparov's part attempting to engage and educate Western idiots who possess, looks like, enough arrogance to try and explain to him how socialism 'works'.
I can but applaud him, re-post and offer support on our journey into bringing proper perspective to the potential evils of socialism or even communism.
I mean to put up with boobs like this:
From comments: "Bill Smith. It's sad that a guy who could keep hundreds of chess moves in his head gets befuddled by words that sound the same. USSR was socialist only in that the word suited the propaganda of the
state capitalists who ran that nation as well as the propaganda of the
private capitalists who claimed to be their enemies. Sanders' positions are nothing approaching true socialism. His
"Democratic Socialist" platform is just another word for free-market
socialism in which businesses and industries thrive privately, but the
safety net and access to education gets expanded reasonably enough that
we stop resembling a lop-sided third-world cluster fuck. Free-market
socialism: far preferable to the corporate socialism we've all been
duped into supporting."
Always remember Bill, you're not insulated from being taken away to the gulags because you defended or cheered them on.
Other than that, you display precisely why ignorant people buy into this crap. What, with people like you so graciously educating the rest of us on this matter to remind of socialism's 'gentle' side.
The mental gymnastics is impressive. In a sad way.
"...The idea that men are created free and equal is both true and misleading: men are created different; they lose their social freedom and their individual autonomy in seeking to become like each other."
The Lonely Crowd, Riesman, Glazer, Denney (1954); p. 349
"...One normally associates rhetorical rigor with the philosophers of ancient Greece, who hashed out their arguments in the agora, a public meeting ground. The discipline continued in Rome’s forums, but with the
demise of the Roman Empire, dialogue moved inward, becoming a meditative
practice. That changed in the 11th century with Anselm of Bec, an
Italian-born monk who taught in a Norman monastery; he found himself
drawn into using reasoned dialogues with his students as a method of
instruction. The logic-heavy form of dialogue he pioneered became the
“polemical genre of choice” for thinkers in the 12th century. Around the
same time, renewed interest in Roman law, which used a
question-and-answer approach to arrive at decisions, further whetted the
scholarly appetite for dialectic study."
Medieval disputation truly flowered with the 12th-century rediscovery
and translation of Aristotle’s Topics and Sophistical Refutations, which
provided the best models yet for dialectic argumentation. Little was
neglected in the effort to get to the truth. Disputation could occur
before a scholarly audience, with one student arguing against a
preannounced thesis, another dissecting his criticisms, and an
instructor summing up the proceedings. It could be a private exercise
between an instructor and his students. Or it could be conducted before
the public, with the debaters taking on subjects de quolibet (“about
anything at all”).
We tend to call those times 'dark'. Well, I'm not seeing a whole lot of brightness these days.
Today, it seems we seek a version of truth. See contemporary campuses.
