Jump to content

SpankyMcFarland

Member
  • Posts

    4,333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by SpankyMcFarland

  1. The question that arises at this stage of a government is whether changing the leader will lead to a rout rather an orderly retreat. JT is an excellent campaigner; it’s one of the things he does well. I wonder do any of his potential successors think, let him wear this and he can step down afterwards? Either way, I don’t think the Liberals will be out of the running for years on end unless Poilievre can move his party and supporters to the Canadian centre. He’s got some wild people in there who will cause him trouble east of Manitoba. 

  2. 27 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

    Canada is small in many ways. You know what I mean.

    I do. It was an outburst of semantics on my part to dispute it. I struggle with how to express the problem succinctly myself. In my job, Canada was a very small country

     

    19 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    The Taliban got a meeting in the White House with the president. Every American president grovels at the feet of the Saudis and Gulf states. The Turkish butcher Erdogan has their total respect.

    What are these 'privileges' of which you speak?

    You don’t think MBS has the same influence in Washington that Netanyahu has? 

  3. 14 hours ago, robosmith said:

    Heard an ex-Federal prosecutor bemoaning the process of bargaining down charges for a plea, which is never done at the Federal level (he  said).

    According to him, Federal charges are not reduced for plea.

    Really? That’s not my impression but correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s some info from a law firm to unfortunates facing a federal prosecution:

    Quote

    Plea agreements provide some benefits for both parties. For the federal prosecutor, it means they are resolving the case without all the time and expense of a trial.

    For a defendant, it means they will typically receive a lighter sentence, or have some charges reduced or dismissed.

  4. 15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

    What's new is, as Douglas Murray has said, the Israelis are the only people not allowed to win wars. If they had crushed the Palestinians  years ago, or even pushed them off the land they wouldn't have faced this kind of attack.

    For now at least, Israel wants to remain a privileged member of the Western club and not one of the barely tolerated Middle Eastern ruffians that have to use the tradesman’s entrance. 

  5. Although America’s plea bargaining system is used way too much to extort pleas from powerless defendants, it is a wonderful instrument against white-collar conspiracies that Canada would do well to examine. Look at these bad guys (and gals!) falling over each other to explain their crimes and those of others. Each new collaborator increases the pressure on the ringleaders. I don’t think we want to know the truth about much of our corruption in Canada. It’s easier for us to pretend we are cleaner than the Yanks. 

  6. 11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    it will never happen. It just enables us to do more.

    We've heard all this before.  Computers were going to put secretaries out of work. Libraries would be shuttered due to the interent. blah blah blah.  Everytime humans get more tools to work with, they do more.

    AI will have it's uses but it's not going to replace people. Any more than mail merge on computers replaced the office worker or accounting software replaced accountants.

    And at the end of the day, the system only works if people take out that which they contribute - if people are taking without contributing then it's like running a car with no oil in the engine - the friction quickly causes it to seize up.

    And usually before then there's a backlash. Suddenly people won't give a damn about the poor who can starve for all they care ,Just like they've become immune to overdose deaths.

    This is a horrible idea that will just drag people INTO poverty rather than lift them from it.


    In human history there are events that change everything. AI may be one of those moments. Its potential is different from any of the previous innovations we have seen. If it does eliminate work for many people, we will have to think about the emphasis we gave to this activity. Humans may need other goals to fill their time and the morality around the worth of work will itself become obsolete. 

    • Thanks 1
  7. 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    There's no possible way that it would result in balance.  it would drag society down, it's just a question of how far.

    This is a fundimental truth - you cannot give something to someone for free that you didn't take away from someone who earned it - and that results in higher inflation and lower economic growth.  Always.  Ask greece about that.

    Even our basic welfare system right now hurts the country - its a necessary evil to prevent serious tragedy but adding to that just increases the damage for nothing.

    We are already set to experience a reduced standard of living for the next FOURTY YEARS -  how much do you want to see our people suffer before you realize that these social experiments are just evil?

    Work has its value but at the moment it’s relatively easy to find. What happens if AI makes many of us surplus to requirements in the workforce? 

  8. On 10/18/2023 at 10:02 AM, Dougie93 said:

    I simply mean that Canada always was a French & Indian Romanist institution

    British North America was imposed on top of it

    now that the Anglos have ceased to be British

    Canada is reverting to its pre Enlightenment state

    the French and their Indian allies are tearing the Confederation of 1867 down, and very deliberately

    Romanist? 

  9. 5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

    Every system proposed already does this.  The UBI you would receive is taxed, so if you make money, the UBI portion is flawed back through income taxes.  This makes it extremely simple to administer.  Once you introduce complexities, it gets more expensive to administer. 
     

    Thanks. I kind of thought that but wasn’t sure. 

    • Like 1
  10. 21 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

    You are so right!!!,  I was a pro-Israel all my life but this guy and the other extremist with their posts turned me into a pro Palestinian!!!!!.

    I believed that Arabs (men) are culturally violent and woman-haters who in the past invaded and raped women and captured and sold them in markets and destroyed lands and ruined advanced civilizations so they deserved what is coming to them. Many civilizations fell to these gangsters. In previous war I defended Israel as a tiny country surrounded by hateful and violent enemies who are determined to destroy and massacre them so they have every right to respond with brutal force against these haters. Look at Assad, Sadam Hussein, Ghadafi all mass murderers and violent people.

    Why was I turned by 180 degrees?, because they showed me the nature of Israeli settlers and soldiers as how they treat their defenseless neighbors. They are likely equally vicious and extreme and full of hate and want to kill all defenseless women and children as he has said in post after post in order to remain the ruler of Jewish state. In all good conscience I cannot defend atrocities being commixed in Gaza against women and children, Arabs or else.

    I believe all humans have these tendencies - we struggle to control them in each generation - but many Arab countries have a particularly reprehensible history of involvement in the slave trade and still treat their Asian migrant workers quite abominably. The level of misogyny and homophobia is truly spectacular as well. 

    The Arab conquest of much of the world may have been a rather fortuitous event. As I am sure you are aware, the Persian and Byzantine empires were at a particular low ebb at that time after endless wars against each other. 

    • Like 1
  11. 15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    yes there are several out there including the European ones.  but honestly you can look them up for yourself just as easily as i can.

    UBI simply doesn't work .  You can't magic up money from nowhere.  If it resulted in getting people back in the workplace or the like then it might be justified but it doesn't. They stay unemployed - they just stress less about it.  So they don't contribute anything back, and you simply can't have a drain like that on society without everyone else paying a price.

    Like i said - if you honestly believe it would work then why not set the rate at 1 million dollars? We all get a million a year - no problems with that right? :) 

    The precise amount matters a great deal and would be a major source of debate. I don’t believe everybody at the lower end of the income scale would give up paid work forever if they got UBI. There would be an effect but it would have to balanced against positive quality of life effects such as individual health, opportunity to care for relatives, pursuing educational courses etc. 

    As I understand it, most UBI proposals offer little benefit to better off people? I would prefer a BI system that cut off any benefit somewhere in the low to middle range. 

    Attitudes to UBI may change if ChatGPT announces: “Workers of the world, goodbye”. 

     

     

  12. On 10/22/2023 at 5:33 PM, CdnFox said:

    And the studies on this kind of thing always show that it eases stress in the poor (obviously) , but shows it DOESN"T help them find work or move ahead in life, it just makes their poverty comfortable.  There's no measurable benefit to society or the taxpayer.

    But i bet good money this is going to be trudeau's "big thing" for the next election to try to win back the woke vote.

    Have you got links to these studies? There was a small experiment in Manitoba? I like the idea of UBI. Why tell people they can’t work if they receive money from a Gov program? Andrew Yang is a supporter and he’s not a lefty by Canadian standards. Apparently, some on the US right have seen benefits in UBI although they are not named here:

    Quote

    On the right side of the political spectrum, people see UBI as potentially realizing a number of goals. One, they emphasize this is anti-paternalistic in nature. There’s an element of government not interfering with the lives of individuals by imposing all these conditionalities on them, but rather just letting them be free to live their lives as they see fit with the income. 


    The other thing that folks on the right emphasize is the way UBI might allow you to shrink the size of government. People on the left often think of basic income as something we’re going to add to the safety net and keep much of the safety net intact. People on the right often see it as a replacement: We’re going to give people a guaranteed income, and we’re going to get rid of a whole host of social safety net programs that cost a lot of money and require a lot of people to administer.

    https://college.unc.edu/2021/03/universal-basic-income/
     

    In his presidential campaign, Yang saw UBI as a way of cushioning the effect of automation on employment and this was before ChatGPT was on everybody’s lips. Some obvious questions:

    1. How much would it be per person?

    2. Would it replace existing programs entirely or would people have a choice? 
     

     

     

     

  13. 54 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    Maybe we should tell that to all the students in all the military academies around the world, from West Point to Sandhurst. Apparently, they're wasting their time studying past wars and battles.

    One lesson to be learned is how often generals are still fighting the last war and fail to incorporate advances in tactics, technology etc. until forced to do so. 

  14. 1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

    @CITIZEN_2015,  It's typical of those of you on the left that you'd hide behind a downvote because you haven't got the balls or the brains to address my post directly.

    You might as well admit i'm right and you can't defend your pathetic defense of terrorists if you're going to bother doing that.

    Actually, there are many good reasons for not wanting to get too involved in this particularly emotional scrap. Given the adversarial nature of online debates, nuance tends to be lost and one is often forced into a more extreme position than one really holds. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...