Michael Hardner

I think this works the same throughout the west as a way of 'attracting' investment, tech etc. The thing is you can't change the rules of such things unilaterally or you will lose out. This is called 'the race to the bottom'. In the end, we will see that the populists are whiffing at the truth of the matter after all: working people with low skillset and few options are 100% shafted by western governments who treat them like chattel. The big surprise: getting Trump to tariff all of the cheap goods they rely upon to live is not the answer.

I think this example needs a deep dive. Here's some "in the know" chatter (Reddit obv) which indicates that the Dalhousie Researcher is filing their own patents:

This seems like a good place for Zeihan's summary of the US administration's mid-steps, recorded last week.

That's where the GINI comes in. You are happy that the economy is being upended but you don't understand where it's going. How exactly will this result in a windfall for working people ? I never understood that.

Also using REAL GDP per capita, gives you THIS for the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Real_gdp_per_capita.png

Yes that is why I augment it with GINI.

You're probably right, but there's still the chance that CPC voters aren't responding to polls. 338 publishes the accuracy of their model for past elections. It was pretty close.

Advertising just has a far different character than editorial comment. When the globe and Mail makes editorial comment, it's a serious consideration. They will typically write a single piece, with a reasoned argument as to why they as an entity support a candidate and their party. While it is an opinion, it's a reflection of the character of the institution ultimately. The bar is far lower for advertising. The message comes without attribution to a source, and there is no expectation of reason behind it, and there is no accountability for the message. In fact, people had to research that anti -muslim van message to in fact determine where it came from. They're just not the same thing. .... You have to read Neil postman... In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death he examines that length the problems with the decline of seriousness in our public sphere, in how issues are covered. Today everything is a narrative, an interesting story, a hook with a villain and a hero. The Public sphere no longer supports taking even a few minutes to try to be objective, to look at data. It doesn't even support having public figures are disciplined in this regard. As such, the landscape becomes the domain of the storyteller and the liar. A good charlatan can spin anything to make themselves look good, in the absence objective criticism. This is where we are today.

1. Not presently. 2. A dog who has to live OUTDOORS?!? How awful! 3. Cats know the difference between a good deal and a bad deal.

I do hear that, but usually the arguments omit global trade stats and GDP figures (which you have also done). And the arguments are about distribution of gains, which is measured by the GINI coefficient. So I concur that that argument is valid, but I believe tariffs and cutting global trade will impact GDP and will not address distribution of wealth. Kudos for citing numbers though.

I'm not sure who is saying it, not appearing in my feed but most of us who quote the "polls" seem to be circumspect when looking at it. And that's how it should be.

Look at that... why you are right 😮 https://338canada.com/polls.htm Didn't realize that at all. They ARE rated A- which is a high rating.

And results in odd effects such as the BQ being invited to participate in debates

The idea that the "left" (meaning somehow Democrats and Liberal Party) created globalization is just one of the head-spinning ideas that people with no sense of history float regularly. (Another example is saying that the Nazis who jailed socialists were themselves socialists). Of course the Liberals and Dems were glad to keep the agreements in place after the hard political work was done. It worked out nicely as you ended up with 8 years of Dems and umpteen years of Liberals due to the economic boon. Ah well...

Bullseye. Even the prevailing economic theory of the Chicago school of economics percolated for 20 years or so before it gradually gained acceptance. If you want to see something remarkable, watch the talking heads at CNBC, MSNBC, and FOX business ... Those shows that cover the markets ... Trying to get their heads around. What's going on here. They're slowly coming to the realization that Trump actually thinks he's smarter than the business world. That the economic orthodoxy they all buy into is under direct threat from The mad King that they supported. Most centrists were unnerved by his statements during the last election campaign, and felt there was at least a good chance of him pursuing the trade war and doing damage. Those who supported him felt it was rhetoric only, and that he would listen to advisors who would keep him grounded. If he doesn't give this up, it could be calamitous.

Thanks to the institutions you mentioned, America owned and controlled World markets. Over time though, they stopped spending money to maintain education and opted for tax cuts instead for the wealthiest.... Assuming they could just purchase the competition and stay on top. The current administration wants to turn back the clock, but the conditions have changed. It seems that the leadership, and even the investor class is going to bet heavily that they will win this trade war.

I made a point of reading at least one book from classic authors, aside from the ones that I was a fan of, such as Conan Doyle... But somehow if you picked two that I didn't read. Faulkner is the other one.

You are taking Ezra's word. I did not quote the CBC on anything they said about the matter. You're pretty clearly in the tank for the rebel, by automatically taking their word and stating that CBC has lied.

Sorry I thought she was talking about the liberal press, small l. I already voted. Did not vote liberal. I'm an independent thinker. We'll see.

We're about to find out if it was fear mongering.

Absolutely true. And this might explain why FOX took the stock ticker off their pages after Trump's tariff madness sent the stock market into the tank in recent weeks. The important thing is to keep the bubble intact, so that America's #1 news source does what it was designed to do: keep the Republicans in power.

I think it was capybaras...

No. It is not. An editorial is not an ad. The "a dog is really a cat if you look at it differently" is something that people use to excuse this new brand of nonsense regularly. Don't do it.

I didn't say any of that. I just gave some background on him... as a guy who sells right-wing flags, would you trust him as a journalist ?