-1=e^ipi

What about Australia?

They are all anti-science. The green party just more so.

Your granddaughter is a Wahhabi Islamist?

Just because Canada Post is operating at a loss doesn't mean it isn't a net benefit to Canada. There are arguably a lot of external costs associated with removing home delivery (old people slipping on ice for example).

Not yet.

Even Mace Tyrell understands this concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value For the same reason people are willing to take out loans from a bank and why the bank can make money by investing savings. Time is money.

What is my dogmatic worldview? Where did I say I reject it? I just advocated skepticism. Apparently I do this now? Since when? You really want to keep the false dichotomy alive, don't you?

$100 today is worth more than $100 in the future even without inflation. The revenue gained from investment represents the conversion of $100 today to its monetary value next year. That $100 was earned and income tax was paid on it, the person just chooses not to spend it right away.

It's triple taxation because that money invested had to be earned at some point. With respect to how it affects the decision on how much money to save, let's say I have $1000. I can spend it today or I can invest it and then spend the money + interest in 1 years time. Let's say that the interest is 5%, so my decision is $1000 today or $1050 in a year. Now if you have a capital gains tax, that interest is effectively lower (let's say 20% of capital gains are taxed; so the effective interest rate is 4%). Now the decision is $1000 today or $1040 in a year. The capital gains tax makes it less desirable to save, thus it lowers the savings rate.

Wahhabi Islamist ghettos for example.

The anti-science party that hates nuclear energy and GMOs? How do they not disgust you as well?

What counts as modest carbon dioxide emission taxes? How are you determining what is modest? You already tax people when they earn money (income tax) and when they use that money to consume things (consumption tax), if you now have a tax on capital gains, that is triple taxation. It also makes saving less favorable compared to using your money right away, which leads to a lower savings rate (thus lower long run gdp).

They don't, but the package doesn't know in advance what the linguistic background of the person who will buy it will be. You could have either an anglophone or a francophone go to store to buy something, so there is a bit of an economies of scale argument to have a single kind of nutrition index.

And that is not the same thing as consequence, since you can have a consequence that is internalized.

Yes. I agree that the current language requirements are excessive, but in some cases it is providing important information to consumers (example: the nutrition index of food packages).

Using CNTRL + F, the word externality is not contained within the pdf. Consequence != Externality. You are using gender conditioning and reinforcing traditionalist gender roles with this statement btw.

Please define what you mean by maximally small government and hand outs.

You need to have an ounce of skepticism when it comes to these studies because they often have confirmation bias and sometimes the authors are trying to dogmatically obtain a certain conclusion. No.

Not everyone is Christian, so why should Canada operate by 'Christian' values? One of the main problems with respect to indigenous issues is the belief in the immoral concept of original sin. Eve ate an magic fruit, therefore all of her descendants should be punished even though they didn't do anything; that is the morality of original sin. Rather than treat people as individuals, original sin suggests people should be treated as groups and that people today are somehow responsible for what their ancestors did. Guess what? When all this treaty nonsense was signed, I wasn't alive, you weren't alive, our parents weren't alive, etc. What gave some unelected British monarch from hundreds of years ago the right to impose racist laws that apply even to this day?

Yes, but there is a big difference between a liberal Muslim and a Wahhabi Islamist. The liberal Muslims aren't going around advocating killing gays or apostates, blowing up planes, suggesting that freedom of speech should be thrown out when it comes to criticizing religion, or killing people on parliament hill. Mandarin or Cantonese?

Language skills are an asset, but they shouldn't be a veto. I don't mind ghettos that big, provided they aren't certain types of ghettos.

You can if it's a big enough ghetto and you are talented enough in other areas. Also, do you not see how letting in more immigrants from Hong Kong reduces the magnitude of our future problem with Islamism? Edit: Also less SJWs per capita. Less Islamists, less SJWs. Seems like a plus to me.

Canada does not have a common language. Arguably the USA does not have a common language anymore due to Spanish. If the person can be a net contributing member of society in Vancouver, then we are better off. Also, I'd rather have 100 productive Chinese immigrants from Hong Kong that can't speak good English or French than 1 Wahhabi Islamist immigrant that is fluently bilingual.

But you are advocating for a policy that makes us worse off as a country by excluding productive immigrants that can get by without English for French. The status quo seems far more stupid.