Bonam

Naw, I got it and actually smiled a bit reading it. But the followup post (that I quoted) wasn't satire, just a criticism of the home renovation tax credit, a criticism which I agree with but which seems really out of place in this thread.

Who are you arguing against? All the micro targeted tax measures are stupid. Much better to have a tax system that is as simple as possible and that does not create distortions or opportunities for politicians to micro manage the tax code to favor their buddies or constituents.

Your thread was answered in whole with the first reply, there was nothing else to discuss.

A world without nuclear weapons is a world where major powers fight each other directly and tens of millions of people die as a result. No thank you. The horrors of using nuclear weapons, exemplified at Hiroshima, are important to remember, because it is precisely this memory of what nuclear weapons do that keeps the world at peace.

Hah! Doing pretty well? You have millions of people obliviously going about their lives while sitting on top of a ticking time bomb. The next Cascadia megaquake is probably gonna be the biggest natural disaster in the history of North America both in terms of lives lost and economic damage. And we haven't even bothered to install the cheap sensors and warning systems so that people can have the precious seconds they need to get out of danger.

No, but adequate preparations should be made to prevent as much loss of life as possible and minimize the property damage when the earthquake does occur. This includes better tsunami warning systems and evacuation routes, better seismic codes, mandatory retrofitting of older buildings to meet modern seismic codes with very few if any exceptions, and region-wide earthquake preparedness drills. A magnitude 9 earthquake is not unsurvivable. There has been a lot of writing on this topic about reasonable preparations that could be made, but that are unfortunately not being made. There are other choices between evacuation and simply letting tens of thousands of people die and incurring a trillion dollars in economic damage. For example, there are systems that can reliably give up to a 30-90 second warning of an impending earthquake, which are in use in Japan but not in the Cascadia fault zone. A 30-90 second warning would not give enough warning to reduce property damage but would certainly save thousands of lives as many people would have time to take cover, exit a building, or step away from objects that could be dangerous in an earthquake. You can be certain that when the earthquake does happen, there will be plenty of legitimate blame to go around for inadequate preparations, because Vancouver is most certainly not taking every reasonable and affordable precaution to prepare for it, and neither is Seattle or Portland or any of the other cities likely to be severely affected. Returning to the topic of fires... unlike the impending catastrophic Cascadia earthquake, wildfires are a predictable and regular yearly occurrence and the measures necessary to prevent them from affecting urban centers are well understood, if not always practical to implement.

What else are warships for if not to keep borders secure?

What a stupid discussion. Words or expressions comprised of other words routinely have meanings that are different than the literal interpretation of their constituent parts would imply. What is this, grade 2?

Hah thanks for the explanation. I was mostly just probing to stir things a little, this thread needs more discussion/controversy I definitely understand the comfort/cowardice thing. But the thing is... a lot of people think they are going to go on a grand adventure in their retirement (such as moving to a third world country), but most of them fail to follow through. The whole comfort/cowardice aspect of things doesn't go away after you retire just because you no longer have a day job, the comfort/cowardice just transfers to different things, for example: Going into your 70s, do you really want to live somewhere where the medical care may not be up to Canadian standards, or provided in a language that you may not be fully fluent in, and away from your lifelong family doctor? Do you really want to be on the other side of the world from your children and grandchildren (if you have any)? What happens if the country becomes politically unstable while you are there? Will retirement in an exciting tropical location still seem as enticing once you grow less physically independent and mobile, or would the familiarity and support of the town you lived your whole life in seem more suitable? Would you even be able to move back if you needed to, given the financial and physical stresses of doing so? Is a location on the other side of the world really more interesting than spending time with people you've had lifelong friendships with? These kinds of questions probably quash many adventurous retirement ideas people may have throughout their lives. My opinion is it's better to live the adventure now, while you are still young and able.

Oh I wouldn't "poo-poo" any of the "third world" options. They offer a different kind of life, and that life may be better suited for some people, such as yourself perhaps. That said, I wouldn't characterize Canada and other advanced nations as boring... it all depends on what you do and what you find excitement in. Myself, I'm all about alpine climbing, and there are lifetimes worth of world class mountains to be climbed in Canada, the US, and Europe (and of course other parts of the world too). But if you do find Canada so boring, I just don't understand continuing to live there. As an educated Westerner, there are any number of high paying jobs and career paths you could undertake in many of the countries you mention. Why not forget the partnership and move to one of these more exciting countries now?

Unless you're retiring to one of these countries purely for financial reasons because you can't afford to retire in Canada, I don't get it. If you prefer these countries to Canada, why not live and work there rather than waiting until you are old to go where you enjoy? If I liked somewhere else more than where I live, I'd just move there now rather than waiting decades.

I think the question for some Western countries may come down to: "Can we make anything cheaper and more efficiently?" If the answer is no, what then? Or if the answer is yes, but the things we can make cheaper and more efficiently only constitute a very small industry that is not enough to provide wealth and employment for the nation, what then?

Interestingly, nowadays we are actually finding that the cosmological constant is a good mathematical representation of the effects of the theorized dark energy that is thought to make up the majority of the energy in the observable universe and is thought to be behind its accelerating (rather than decelerating as one would expect due to gravity) expansion. Einstein said introducing the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder, but it may turn out to represent a real physical phenomenon after all!

All the more reason why unions will make sure those jobs last for decades longer than they need to.

In a broad economic sense, you are probably correct. Big corporations will find a way to operate their businesses across international boundaries whether there are a lot of hoops to jump through or fewer, as long as the business is worth it. On the other hand, for small businesses and individuals, NAFTA smooths things greatly. Consider the ease with which a Canadian professional can go work in the US using a TN visa... you literally show up at the border, present your job offer letter, and are admitted into the US with the right to live and work there for 3 years. Without NAFTA, one would have to go through the much more cumbersome and expensive H-1B process. NAFTA also makes it easier for individuals and small businesses to purchase, sell, and ship goods across the border. For Canadians, NAFTA is worth it for the convenience and increased opportunities alone.

You underestimate the power of unions and lobbies. City buses will be driven by human drivers decades after self-driving technology is commonplace. Just look at all the light rail / subway systems that still have human drivers, even though we have had driverless ones (like Vancouver's skytrain) since well into last century.

In the books, the return of Aegon VI features quite prominently...

The Canadian federal government operating expenses are around $300 billion/year right now, the provinces sum to about $400 billion/year, cities are another $150 billion/year or so. That all adds up to $850 billion, or about 42% of GDP which is I think would be close to $2 trillion by now since it was ~$1.8 trillion in 2013 and we've seen a ~2% growth each year. No, I'm making no such assumption. I'm merely presenting the numbers and then commenting on them. 57% of GDP is an economically crippling tax burden, and is thus not affordable, regardless of what the public would support. On the other hand, many advanced economies successfully function with taxes at 45% of GDP. Of course, the political environment in the US would make it very unlikely to want to implement such a program, especially not on a federal level, but if the political environment was such that Americans did support such a program, they could likely afford it, unlike Canada. That's all I was saying.

Perhaps there should be automated fire suppression systems all along the boundary between urban areas and surrounding woodlands? Just install a band of sprinklers a kilometer across all throughout the forest around a city? Expensive, but a whole lot less expensive than losing an entire city.

What I calculated was what % of total GDP goes to taxes (for all levels of government: federal + provincial/state + muni) right now, and what % would need to go to taxes if one ran a GAI program where everyone got funding equal to the poverty line, taking into account redirecting funds from other social programs that would no longer be needed. In Canada, it was something like going from ~42% now to ~57% with GAI, while in the US it was something like going from 38% to 45%. In both cases, taxes go up significantly, but the difference is 57% is just too much while 45% is possible, so the US could afford such a program if it really wanted it while Canada could not. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25436-what-policies-should-the-conservatives-party-start-putting-forward/?p=1134911 The overall point here being that as GDP/capita goes up relative to the poverty line, a GAI program becomes increasingly more affordable. So while it is not viable in Canada now it may become viable after another decade or two assuming a reasonable rate of economic growth.

Not necessarily. Canada just isn't rich enough and the cost of living is too high. If you run the same numbers for the US (I did this in some thread a while back), you can see that there it would not be completely unreasonable to implement, as GDP/capita is higher while the cost of living / poverty level is lower.

"That's what I do. I drink, and I know things." Best line of the season so far.

I think standard size inline emoticons like this are fine. Big animated ones serve no useful purpose and the case with them is very clear.

Images like the one waldo posted above do not in any way detract from the discussion or clutter a thread. The copy-pasted version looks much worse, and suggesting that it all be typed out is absurd (and it still wouldn't look as good or compact as the image). Reconsider your policy. And those emoticons? WTF?

Yeah. That's why Trump is the Republican front runner.