Serious Political and economic discussion thread

[salmon man]

voting for scheer is the worst possible thing that could happen to our country

i live in toronto, i've already seen the garbage that has come out of doug ford's office which anyone with half a brain could have seen coming if they paid attention to the debates, andrew scheer is cut from the exact same cloth and putting in his policies on a national level will be devastating to our countries human rights stances and actions towards the climate

i don't care how much you think trudeau needs to be punished, punishing the country (and rest of the world) by electing scheer is not the solution

Thing is, I live in Toronto, too. I personally believe Doug Ford to be an acceptable Premier. Not very good, not very bad, just acceptable. His decision to cut down the city's council size was a great decision. 44 precincts were way too much. Just look at the larger cities out there. Seoul has 25, Tokyo has 23, and Paris has 20. Increasing the funding of the Toronto Police is beneficial as well. Just take a look at what happened back in April. Reversing the disaster that was Kathleen Wynne is what Ontario currently needs most, and Ford is the person for that job.

Now for your second post:
I knew you would throw in the abortion argument in there somewhere. I'm a pro-lifer myself. Abortion is morally wrong. It is the killing of a living, breathing human being. The fetus isn't the part of the woman's body, but rather an autonomous being. Therefore, the mother should have no right to make the decision to kill an autonomous being. Now, while babies conceived by rape is quite tragic, this does not erase the humanity of an unborn child.

I've had it with Justin Trudeau's SJW shenanigans. He is an SJW hypocrite. "Peoplekind", what's next? "Gerpeopley"? "Ropeopleia"? He says all of these things yet he chose to pressure a woman, who Justin Trudeau seemingly stuck up for, to stop investigating a criminal case. This needs to change, and it will all change this October.

 

[earl]

Now for your second post:
I knew you would throw in the abortion argument in there somewhere. I'm a pro-lifer myself. Abortion is morally wrong. It is the killing of a living, breathing human being. The fetus isn't the part of the woman's body, but rather an autonomous being. Therefore, the mother should have no right to make the decision to kill an autonomous being. Now, while babies conceived by rape is quite tragic, this does not erase the humanity of an unborn child.

Don't know a bit about canadian politics but you can't single out a single point Texas made in order to invalidate the entire post

 

[salmon man]

Don't know a bit about canadian politics but you can't single out a single point Texas made in order to invalidate the entire post

It's just a part of the second post about the anti-abortion thing.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

This isn't the place for an abortion debate and your position is morally understandable. I suggest ignoring that word in the context of the list of things I provided as regressive policies of Andrew Scheer

Thing is, I live in Toronto, too. I personally believe Doug Ford to be an acceptable Premier. Not very good, not very bad, just acceptable. His decision to cut down the city's council size was a great decision. 44 precincts were way too much. Just look at the larger cities out there. Seoul has 25, Tokyo has 23, and Paris has 20. Increasing the funding of the Toronto Police is beneficial as well. Just take a look at what happened back in April. Reversing the disaster that was Kathleen Wynne is what Ontario currently needs most, and Ford is the person for that job.

Doug Ford is not an acceptable premier by any standard. The size of city council is arguably the least relevant political action possible to undertake.

Other things Doug Ford has done? Well those are much more interesting.

- Revoked regulation of carbon emissions, simultaneously increasing the risk of negative climate impact in our province while also removing a provincial revenue stream
- Cancelled the scheduled minimum wage increase
- Rejected our ongoing efforts to aid refugees, turning them away from the province
- The nepotist nonsense with the political meddling in the chair of the OPP Police Commissioners office, ron taverner, etc
- Rolling back a widely lauded new sex-ed curriculum to one twenty years out of date
- Demonstrated support for changes to laws that would remove protections of the rights and freedoms of women
- Actively tried to open up development in the green belt, literally the environmental heart of our city

 

[salmon man]

This isn't the place for an abortion debate and your position is morally understandable. I suggest ignoring that word in the context of the list of things I provided as regressive policies of Andrew Scheer

Doug Ford is not an acceptable premier by any standard. The size of city council is arguably the least relevant political action possible to undertake.

Other things Doug Ford has done? Well those are much more interesting.

- Revoked regulation of carbon emissions, simultaneously increasing the risk of negative climate impact in our province while also removing a provincial revenue stream
- Cancelled the scheduled minimum wage increase
- Rejected our ongoing efforts to aid refugees, turning them away from the province
- The nepotist nonsense with the political meddling in the chair of the OPP Police Commissioners office, ron taverner, etc
- Rolling back a widely lauded new sex-ed curriculum to one twenty years out of date
- Demonstrated support for changes to laws that would remove protections of the rights and freedoms of women
- Actively tried to open up development in the green belt, literally the environmental heart of our city

While I'm completely against the development in the greenbelt, the thing is your point about the minimum wage increase and your point about the refugees. A minimum wage increase to $15, while it may seem good, is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. A dollar's increase may not seem bad on paper, but considering that there is a huge number of employed people in Ontario, it turns out that even $1.00 increase in minimum wage costs employers a huge amount of money, eventually leading to employers not being able to pay some employees and jobs being cut. Just look at Alberta: It was predicted that a minimum wage increase of $1.00 would cost 50000 jobs. Ontario has even more people than Alberta, obviously, so the same increase would result in even more jobs being reduced. The bulk of the 56000 jobs added in Canada last month (February) were in Ontario, which was a province that decided to reconsider the minimum wage increase and scrap it altogether.

Now, for the refugee point. I understand that it is good to help out another person in need, especially if that other person is in danger of losing their life. However, it is also good to consider your own problems before you help out that person in need. Let's categorize the refugees into two categories: those that are brought in from the Middle East directly by Canada, and those who cross the border illegally, mostly at the New York-Quebec border.

It's self-evident that transporting a large number of people is costly work. The Government of Canada has predicted that the costs for transportation for their refugee program will cost $94 to $121 million. Where does this come from? The answer is, obviously, our tax dollars. Many of these tax dollars could be put to better use, perhaps solving Canada's own issues before accommodating for refugees. Now, for the illegal crossers. Many of these illegal border crossers are put into hotels. What happens to the homeless Canadians? They're just left out to stay on the streets. Actual legal Canadians are forced to live on the streets while people who break the law to enter the country are well-accommodated for. Seem weird to you?

And honestly, going back to the 1998 sexual education curriculum isn't as bad as many people make it out to be. Media that spread awareness about the new additions to the 2015 sex ed curriculum accurately is so accessible today that there really is no need to have them taught the topics in school.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

While I'm completely against the development in the greenbelt, the thing is your point about the minimum wage increase and your point about the refugees. A minimum wage increase to $15, while it may seem good, is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. A dollar's increase may not seem bad on paper, but considering that there is a huge number of employed people in Ontario, it turns out that even $1.00 increase in minimum wage costs employers a huge amount of money, eventually leading to employers not being able to pay some employees and jobs being cut. Just look at Alberta: It was predicted that a minimum wage increase of $1.00 would cost 50000 jobs. Ontario has even more people than Alberta, obviously, so the same increase would result in even more jobs being reduced. The bulk of the 56000 jobs added in Canada last month (February) were in Ontario, which was a province that decided to reconsider the minimum wage increase and scrap it altogether.

This is extremely basic reasoning. I'd encourage you to look into some research regarding correlations between paying people living wages and decreased social costs as relates to medical care, law enforcement, and unemployment rates, among others.

Speaking of correlations, have you heard the saying correlation does not equal causation? The economic drivers of job growth are far more complex than relating to a simply existence or non-existence of a wage increase and suggesting that job growth is tied to not introducing a wage increase (which itself incentivizes job seeking) is intellectually dishonest at best.

Frankly, if you as a business owner cannot afford to pay your employees a living wage, you cannot afford to be in business in the first place.\

Now, for the refugee point. I understand that it is good to help out another person in need, especially if that other person is in danger of losing their life. However, it is also good to consider your own problems before you help out that person in need. Let's categorize the refugees into two categories: those that are brought in from the Middle East directly by Canada, and those who cross the border illegally, mostly at the New York-Quebec border.

It's self-evident that transporting a large number of people is costly work. The Government of Canada has predicted that the costs for transportation for their refugee program will cost $94 to $121 million. Where does this come from? The answer is, obviously, our tax dollars. Many of these tax dollars could be put to better use, perhaps solving Canada's own issues before accommodating for refugees. Now, for the illegal crossers. Many of these illegal border crossers are put into hotels. What happens to the homeless Canadians? They're just left out to stay on the streets. Actual legal Canadians are forced to live on the streets while people who break the law to enter the country are well-accommodated for. Seem weird to you?

Do you have any idea of how small 100 million dollars is on the scale of federal spending? Canada generated $313 Billion dollars in revenues last year. 100 million is a drop in the bucket (0.032% of revenues to be precise). As for your comments on the homeless, setting aside the part where one issue has nothing to do with the other (False Dilemma), I completely agree with and support social assistance programs designed to assist such vulnerable groups in regaining a semblance of control over their lives. The major difference of course is that our homeless population, generally speaking, isn't in danger of dying within the next week which is not something that can be said for refugees from war-torn countries (i.e. Syria)

And honestly, going back to the 1998 sexual education curriculum isn't as bad as many people make it out to be. Media that spread awareness about the new additions to the 2015 sex ed curriculum accurately is so accessible today that there really is no need to have them taught the topics in school.

This is not a coherent or defensible position. Education is the backbone of society and the primary method of disseminating credible, actionable information to our youths.

Suggesting that the media or the internet is sufficient to educate children on topics that literally did not exist 20 years ago is shameful. Or would you agree to a proposal removing Civics as a curriculum class? Children obviously don't need to learn how the government works because after all the media spreads so much awareness about the government.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

It's self-evident that transporting a large number of people is costly work. The Government of Canada has predicted that the costs for transportation for their refugee program will cost $94 to $121 million. Where does this come from? The answer is, obviously, our tax dollars. Many of these tax dollars could be put to better use, perhaps solving Canada's own issues before accommodating for refugees. Now, for the illegal crossers. Many of these illegal border crossers are put into hotels. What happens to the homeless Canadians? They're just left out to stay on the streets. Actual legal Canadians are forced to live on the streets while people who break the law to enter the country are well-accommodated for. Seem weird to you?

And honestly, going back to the 1998 sexual education curriculum isn't as bad as many people make it out to be. Media that spread awareness about the new additions to the 2015 sex ed curriculum accurately is so accessible today that there really is no need to have them taught the topics in school.

I'm from the U.S. but I disagree with your points and also your reasoning. Refugees and the homeless share a similar problem, being that they're not productive members of society. It's also not a false dilemma to allocate funds helping both groups out. We can and we should help refugees, not only for our own obligation to help other human beings, but there's a huge payoff: immigrants pay taxes and are more of an immediate benefit to a society than native-born people (a nation have to spend a few years to raise and support these native-born people). And if people don't become poor, they're far less likely to commit crime and sell drugs, and so we spend less resources trying to resolve those negative consequences.

Illegal immigration is a far more complex problem than "they broke the law". We have to understand why they break the law. And is breaking the law inherently bad? Illegal immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born people. They become illegal a lot just from expired visas, which is hardly something that actively damages society.

 

[MikeDawg]

Just because it's always a fun topic for conversation: what are everyone's thoughts regarding male circumcision/female genital mutilation?

Research supports the idea that there are tangible, albeit relatively mild, health benefits to male circumcision, and that sexual pleasure is unaffected (or even increased) by circumcision. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/). That said, it's impossible to ignore the moral implications of choosing the penile fate of an infant before they can give consent.

FGM is repulsive and completely incomparable to male circumcision, but I'm sure one of our local MRAs will challenge that opinion.

What do you think?

 

[earl]

Just because it's always a fun topic for conversation: what are everyone's thoughts regarding male circumcision/female genital mutilation?

Research supports the idea that there are tangible, albeit relatively mild, health benefits to male circumcision, and that sexual pleasure is unaffected (or even increased) by circumcision. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/). That said, it's impossible to ignore the moral implications of choosing the penile fate of an infant before they can give consent.

FGM is repulsive and completely incomparable to male circumcision, but I'm sure one of our local MRAs will challenge that opinion.

What do you think?

A thread about this was made a few months back and then locked, peoples opinions range from indifference to unhealthy levels of opposition when it comes to male circumcision

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.comicsands.com/nazi-des...K&tse_id=INF_3bd83f6048e111e9b433ab68d22425b2
when they try to say the nazis were socialists

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Just because it's always a fun topic for conversation: what are everyone's thoughts regarding male circumcision/female genital mutilation?

Research supports the idea that there are tangible, albeit relatively mild, health benefits to male circumcision, and that sexual pleasure is unaffected (or even increased) by circumcision. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/). That said, it's impossible to ignore the moral implications of choosing the penile fate of an infant before they can give consent.

FGM is repulsive and completely incomparable to male circumcision, but I'm sure one of our local MRAs will challenge that opinion.

What do you think?

A bit of a bump, but I think male circumcision should be made with a certain age limit, just so involved party can actually decide to undergo it or not. Unlike vaccines, I don't think there's a huge benefit to male circumcision that justifies the arguably invasive procedure (guys, does male circumcision sound fun to you because I don't think that's fun?) and we should probably make it a "let the person decide" thing.

Female circumcision is... quite.... another thing.... barbaric, has no place in civilized society, but it requires huge attitude changes to those performing it. Respect different cultures, sure, but I draw the line when a culture values violate basic human rights like not wanting to get the clitoris crudely chopped off.

 

[MikeDawg]

The only issue with waiting before circumcision is that many of the benefits are felt during early development (e.g. 90% reduction in infant UTI rates). Also, complications are much less likely when circumcising an infant.

 

[earl]

Personally I see no huge merit to the practice and believe it shouldn’t really be commonplace but it’s equally stupid to see circumcision (“baby knife rape”) as a major problem worthy of one’s full attention. Basically, we have more worthwhile issues to focus on

 

[Cresselia~~]

I think I should start supporting socialism.
Life just sucks more and more with the upper class pushes the housing prices in multiple countries.
Then the upper class bribes the government, so the government doesn't pass laws to regulate housing prices.
The same people also pay the press to blame millenials for being lazy/ unwilling to work over time/ spend too much on electronics, etc.
Then we people have to pay unreasonable amounts for housing.

It just plain sucks-- both for working class and middle class!
Even if you are eligible for immigration, most countries are having the same problem anyways.

 

[Cresselia~~]

https://futurism.com/the-byte/young-people-choosing-live-pods

Now, some are pushing the sharing economy to its logical conclusion: NPR reports that young people in Los Angeles — and other cities around the country — are choosing to rent small pods instead of an apartment.

I don't think they have a choice. Housing prices are way too high. Government housing is scarce, etc.
Millennials get paid too little in comparison to housing prices and food costs.

I don't even have student debt, and probably am still privileged, but I already think my life sucks (compared to say 10 years ago) ?
Life must be like hell if you have student debt.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Why It's More Expensive To Be Poor

That is very messed up. I don't think banks should charge a fee for withdrawal at all. They already have your money to invest with, why do they even have the guts to charge you a service charge? That sounds insanely greedy to me.

 

[orch]

Imo the biggest scam is the banks having access to Fed's interest rates for liquidity (2.5%). However, the ordinary people are not able to access the cheap credit. They must obtain massively marked up loans from banks.

We have technology for massive and transparent ledger to enforce the loans (blockchain and smart contracts). Are the banks really necessary in 2019? I would argue that they are inhibiting the growth with expensive credit.

 

[MikeDawg]

If Donald could stop ruining all of my stocks, that would be great.

 

[orch]

So glad that I didn't fall for boomer's favorite ponzi scheme. My crypto portfolio has already outperformed 20 years of SPY in a year.

In the other news, gold is skyrocketing. Vix is elevated. I'm ready and excited to profit from the upcoming recession.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

how do I invest my foodstamps into gold and bitcoin?

 

[GatoDelFuego]

So glad that I didn't fall for boomer's favorite ponzi scheme. My crypto portfolio

 

[orch]

All markets are ponzi. The only smart play is to be in the ones that make your numbers go up the fastest.

 

[MikeDawg]

All markets are ponzi. The only smart play is to be in the ones that make your numbers go up the fastest.

thats some deep shit man

 

[Cresselia~~]

So glad that I didn't fall for boomer's favorite ponzi scheme. My crypto portfolio has already outperformed 20 years of SPY in a year.

In the other news, gold is skyrocketing. Vix is elevated. I'm ready and excited to profit from the upcoming recession.

I think, usually stuff that skyrockets are bubbles.

 

[orch]

I think, usually stuff that skyrockets are bubbles.

Not necessarily. The debt backing up the market cap of bubble are important. Young markets usually grow the fastest (skyrocketing) due to relatively small amount of money causing large percentage growth.

Stocks which are propped up by printed money (quantitative easing) is definitely not a massive bubble waiting to be popped...