Machjo

That's another thing that breaks down communication in the English language: the widening gap between academic and standard English. If scholars want to be able to bridge the language barrier between themselves and the general population, they need to learn to use standard dictionaries. Racism has taken on some convoluted definition in academic English too.

No, I just favour free markets, globalization advances free markets, and nationalism hinders them (think supply-management, cultural nationalism, and telecommunications cartels like Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc. who don't want foreign competition). But hey, suit yourself.

Mondialist is a good example of how French, though still more word-based than root-based (the word 'feminism' as synonymous with 'equality of the sexes' as an example), is still less wordbased than English is. Of the four languages that I know, English is by far the most word-based one even when we go by standard dictionary definitions straying from the component parts of the words.

Also, don't forget that some non-Whites have White friends and some of them get irate at Whites always being accused of racism too. I'm not saying racism isn't a problem in Canada, but there's a big difference between saying racism is a problem in Canada and that all White Canadians are racist (which is actually a racist statement in its own right). There is also a big difference between racism and ignorance. I've heard non-Canadians sometimes make claims about Canadians that they sincerely believed to be true, not because they were racist against Canadians but just because they were ill-informed. They quickly changed their ideas once proved wrong. The same applies to some Whites. Even I might hold certain prejudices that I'm not aware of and when I discover them will promptly discard them. No one is perfect. But the moment we start hating on a group for its imperfections, expect backlash.

A little off topic here, but I know English, French, Chinese (Mandarin), and Esperanto. English and French are mostly word-based languages whereas Chinese and Esperanto are mostly root-based languages. As a result, the meaning of an English or French word can sometimes stray significantly from its etymological roots whereas the meaning of a word in Chinese or Esperanto will always (or at least almost always in the case of Chinese) be clear from the meaning of the parts of the word itself. To take but one example, the word 'feminism' actually sounds quite harsh in Chinese and Esperanto since it translates quite literally into Chinese as female-doctrine and in Esperanto as female-ism. As a result, in those languages, we tend to use different words the roots of which actually mean sex-equal-ism unless we actually mean radical feminism or alternatively an ideology that addresses only female-specific concerns. Depending on either of those meanings, it may not necessarily conflict with the equality of the sexes but the word itself, unlike in English or French, never contains that meaning. In that respect, a root-based language is much easier to learn than a word-based one since it's easier to infer the meaning of a word from its component roots, compounds, and affixes which is much less often the case in English and French.

Don't forget the one-child policy, the pill, the legalization of abortion, and divorce rates. Many contributing factors.

No wonder English is such a difficult language to learn. Globalist has the word global in it, meaning that it would not support barriers between countries, which tariffs are. It's pretty much in the definition.

Thanks for that. So, what are your thoughts on supply-management vs. subsidies? Though both are harmful, do you see one as worse than the other?

I guess so. May as well max it out before declaring bankruptcy too.

And that's why we're drowning in government debt.

The best part is that it's not subsidized.

I don't even shop in that section. Do you shop in the produce section?

You eat the same stuff we do and then some.

Proportionately, omnivores use up more land than vegans do. Our food goes straight from field to mouth, yours goes to the ranch first.

But on a more serious note, should the vegan minority be subsidizing the omnivorous majority's food consumption?

Whatever happened to supporting minority privileges... er... I mean rights?

So? US dairy farmers could shift their production to more beans and nuts. I really would much appreciate it. By the way, maybe the reason the US doesn't export as much as it would like is because it subsidizes the wrong stuff. Milk tastes gross. Subsidize cherries and other fruits and expect to grow your trade surplus real fast.

Just impose quality standards. Done.

Well then, may I recommend Canada be smart about this, drop its tariffs on US milk, and let Canadians take advantage of the generous US taxpayer? There is no point in Canada wasting its resources to produce milk at our own cost when the US taxpayer is prepared to subsidize our milk for us. As long as my taxes don't subsidize milk, I'm fine with that. Heck, I should petition Trump to increase US subsidies on US fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, grains, and legumes and petition Canada to cut all tariffs on same. I would much appreciate it. God bless America!

The point is that then you'd be bearing the full cost of the milk you buy rather than have everyone else subsidize your milk. why are you so against a free market for milk?

Of course not. Since your taxes are already subsidizing that milk, you might as well get at least some of your tax dollars back by buying subsidized products. Instead, you should be asking the US government to cut milk subsidies, preferably without having tariffs and and supply-management replace them but do; but even if they do, they would still mean an improvement. You'd pay more for milk, but the government could finally start paying off the debt and maybe even start lowering taxes eventually. Milk is not a necessity of life. It's a luxury. Those who can't afford it should just save up more to buy it or buy a cheaper alternative instead.

That's why the debt keeps growing.

Do you have any idea how big the US Federal debt is? Canada's Federal debt is big enough without adding milk subsidies. Canada can't afford it.

Not as cheap as you think. Remember, your taxes are subsidizing it.

So you don't care how the government spends your tax dollars? I agree that it would be best to eliminate supply-management and tariffs. I'm just saying that in relative terms, subsidies would be even worse. I have no qualms abut paying less in tax and more in food. That's called the free market.