Michael Hardner
-
Posts
45,849 -
Joined
-
Days Won
101
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Michael Hardner
-
-
35 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
I see he’s ranting about the ‘China loving Wall Street Journal’ now.
Amazing... After all Rupert has done for him
..
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
If you couldn’t save some coin from being in a decade long real estate boom for the inevitable downturn, I’m not going to shed any tears for you.
I do feel sorry for dumb people who make decisions that go against their interests.
This is why I weep for the chuds. You can find Trump fans online waiting for things to turn around any day now... -
Just now, TreeBeard said:
1. Has Canada ever had a holy grail of a political leader? Sounds to me like your expectations might be a tad high.
2. If the Cons do pull it off, I don’t think we have much to worry about. I think Poilievre would be scared to death of governing in a way where he is compared to Trump. It would make his government a brief minority, or a single term majority.
1. My expectations are spot on. I am waiting on something that I don't expect to see in my lifetime. Sir John A. was pretty good. Sir Mackenzie Bowell was pretty bad.
2. Agreed. I don't think a lifetime as an MP is a good place to start for making wholesale changes. As for Carney... while I do think he understands economic matters, I wonder if he knows how to govern.
I think we're in for a bad few years, in all likelihood. My prayers are with you if you work in small business, real estate or anything to do with that business, startups ... -
2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
I don’t think @Michael Hardner is scared of something so far fetched.
It doesn't matter much to me. I haven't heard anything from these leaders that tell me they're the Holy Grail I have been waiting on.
-
5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
But it definitely highlights how Canada sometimes subsidizes innovation that ends up creating wealth abroad, rather than building domestic industries.
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. -
21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
But as Balsille pointed out even when the research is done here, we give away the IP anyways or allow it to be privately sold for peanuts For example Tesla battery technology was developed at Dalhousie U with a large taxpayer funded endowment but we allowed tesla who also contributed funds to walk away with the IP
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.
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
And what? The middle-class already knows the sham GDP quoting is.
The US (and hopefully Canadian) economy is getting an enema...and its about time.
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.-
1
-
-
Also using REAL GDP per capita, gives you THIS for the USA:
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
GDP is very deceptive. A generalization that does not represent the welfare of the citizens. It's used to argue for further globalization but is a lie of omission since it does not address the population.
Yes that is why I augment it with GINI.
-
3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Polls show the CPC is getting their butts kicked in Ontario and QC. It's over.
CPC even won the most votes the last 2 elections but their vote distribution is not efficient, lots of blowouts in the prairies.
Apparently 7 million votes were cast in advance polls. They could count those and we'd already know the wwinner
You're probably right, but there's still the chance that CPC voters aren't responding to polls.
9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:So are pollsters deliberately falsifying their data in Canada? That would leave a yawning opportunity for firms that aren’t.
338 publishes the accuracy of their model for past elections. It was pretty close.
-
7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
What's the difference between raising money and then paying to put out ads supporting one party over another vs putting out an editorial supporting one party over another?
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
-
-
19 hours ago, August1991 said:
1. Homeless?
2. These people (men, mostly) often force dogs to live in similar circumstances.
3. -I have never seen a cat beside a begging men at the SAQ.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
Americans, Canadians, Italians, Germans, even the French know the whole bullshit story that the economy is great under globalism, is a lie. A facade.
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. -
55 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
I'm just confused by where we get "All the Polls say it's a TIE" when it appears to only be a single pollster out of many. 😑
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
I'd love to see where genius is getting his polling information from though, because the only pollster I've been able to find showing the race is a tie is Mainstreet Research.
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. -
11 minutes ago, Boges said:
The FPTP system rewards broad-based support.
And results in odd effects such as the BQ being invited to participate in debates
-
13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
Thats Ratification.
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...-
1
-
-
On 4/16/2025 at 9:18 PM, BeaverFever said:
Surely even you must realize that policy especially something this important is the result of ideas that have been studied and refined dor years by a wide variety of experts and stakeholders and are only implemented when they have achieved the highest levels of scrutiny and broad acceptance from some segment of society Trump’s uninformed and half-baked tariffs ideas haven’t been put on paper much less studied or refined and what he has uttered about them is absolute gibberish to anyone either even a basic understanding of economics. Even many in his own administration don’t support them. It is absolutely unfathomable that the “leader of the free world” is acting in a manner that would get even a McDonalds manager fired
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.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
Dumbass. USA effectively created and controlled WTO, along with IMF, world bank and all the other globalist institutions and USA benefited greatly from them, more than anyone else did America became even more rich and powerful after the cold war ended ESPECIALLY during the Clinton years but it didn’t start there it started under Reagan. Clinton years were just peak America before the economy crashed under Bush and all the tea party nutjobs started coming out of the woodwork
American capitalists wanted globalization and they became billionaires doing it. Republicans were the biggest champions of it.
Basic social safety nets are not “welfare” and your ridiculous attitude is exactly why USA ids full of destitute shitholes not seen in other first world countries.
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.
-
7 hours ago, August1991 said:
Michael,
Do you know Evelyn Waugh? He had a brother - Alec Waugh. He fought in Passchendaele.
I'm not gay but I learned much of my English from Somerset Maugham.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Haven't heard you or @Michael Hardner criticize the CBC's undemocratic behaviour (and illegal aka defamation).
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, August1991 said:
One week from voting day?
=====
Before, the federal Liberals were obviously going to win. Strong. They defend us against the bully Trump.
Now, a few days after pre-voting dates, close to election day, the federal Liberals present a different image.
The federal Liberals need your vote - they may lose.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, August1991 said:
I tend to agree, Betsy.
We're about to find out if it was fear mongering.
China wants to Unite with Canada to counteract Trump bullying
in Canada / United States Relations
Posted
Interesting idea.
I assume the bar is lower, now that our number one trading partner kidnaps people and deports them without due process.