-1=e^ipi

Thank you for your curiousity. A variety of definitions of 'capitalism', 'socialism' and related words. But, I would argue that the most useful of these definitions are the traditional definitions, which you will still find some version of in dictionaries. Here are definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The reason why I think the traditional definitions are the most useful is because they both deal with the allocation of capital within society, which is very important for the prosperity of society. In economics, physical capital would refer to things such as tools, buildings, computers, etc.; really anything physical that workers use to be more productive and produce goods and services. If a society has more physical capital, it can usually produce more goods and services as its workers will be more productive, resulting in a more prosperous society. There are other forms of capital, such as intangible capital (software, trademarks, patents, etc.) and human capital (the education/experience/knowledge of workers), although the traditional definitions of capitalism and socialism may often focus more on physical capital. Since capital in society is a scarce resource, how it is allocated can affect the ability of society to produce goods and services. As an example, you might have 2 factories that produce crayons, but one might be more productive than the other (such as having a better manager, a more innovative production process, or a workforce with better mental health); as a result, the decision about which factory should be able to expand its production first could have consequences for the production of crayons within society. In addition, a society would (implicitly or explicitly) have decisions not just about which factories should get additional capital, but also which industries should get additional capital, and if some of society's productive capacity should be used to produce future capital goods rather than future consumption goods. The disagreement between capitalism and socialism under the traditional definitions isn't so much one of inequality of income in society, but rather a question of efficiency. Is a society more productive if it has a central planner (i.e. government) control the means of production and allocate capital, or is it better to have decentralized decision making and competition of capital? Socialists of the past argued that a central planner might be better able to coordinate the production of goods and services in society and might be more altruistic in the allocation of scarce resources within society. Capitalists of the past argued that that a central planner might not have perfect information, might not properly understand the preferences of the people (i.e. what goods and services do people actually want), might have limited ability to process all the complex information in society (whereas decentralizing decision making could better process all the information), and that the central planner might be susceptible to corruption. This was a dominant question during the cold war, and the results of the cold war suggest that the capitalists may have had the stronger position. In present day North America, the definitions used have become various, vague, and/or shifted from their traditional definitions. People might often refer to 'capitalism' to mean 'free-market capitalism', an extreme form of capitalism with very limited state intervention in the economy. On the other hand, people might use 'socialism' to refer to any economic system with some state intervention in the economy (such as state provided healthcare services). One issue with these new definitions is that they remove the importance of the allocation of capital in society. A second problem is that these definitions allow people to use disingenuous bait-and-switch tactics to try to convince people to their economic position. Such as a socialist saying 'if you think that their should be some government intervention in healthcare then you must be against capitalism and for socialism' or a conservative saying 'if you support any government intervention in healthcare then you must be a socialist or communist'. With respect to the issue of income inequality within society, while it is possible to have unequal capitalism (such as free-market capitalism) and egalitarian socialism (such as communism) it is also possible to have egalitarian capitalism and unequal socialism. A good example, of egalitarian capitalism would be Norway, where you have private ownership of capital, to take advantage of decentralized decision making and competition over the allocation of capital, but the government then taxes the economy somewhat to reduce income inequality and provide some goods and services for society. On the other hand, the various forms of fascism, such as nazism, are examples of unequal socialism, since they advocate for mass central planning and state control over the economy while simultaneously advocating for an unequal society. This is why nazi stands for national socialists (national socialist worker's party), and why fascist leaders such as Mussolini said things such as "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." To make things more confusing, there is also the usage of 'crony capitalism'. In crony capitalism, you might have corporations and supposedly private ownership of capital. But, corporations would only tend to do well if they are friends with the government in power (so get special treatment) or proclaim their ideological allegiance to the government in order to get special treatment. In a crony capitalist society, the government would pick and choose winners and losers, by taxing or regulating the losers, while giving special treatment to the preferred companies. While crony capitalism might appear to be capitalism according to the law, in effect it isn't capitalism since the society is not taking advantage of the decentralization of decision making within society nor of the competition over the allocation of capital. The fascist regimes of the past engaged in crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party also engages in crony capitalism, since only companies that proclaim their allegiance to the CCP will be allowed perform well. A cynic might even argue that many Canadian governments at the federal or provincial level frequently engage in crony capitalism, rather than allowing for competition to occur.

It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism. I see a lot of definitions thrown around by critics of 'capitalism' and a lot of people saying 'capitalism' is bad with out providing a definition (or even people pushing the idea that capitalism is systemically racist so needs to be dismantled in order to create the inclusive and non-capitalist economy). I would argue that any definition of 'capitalism' that does not involve the word 'capital' is probably wrong.

Communism was also a great idea to reconfigure the word economy to make it better for everyone. Communism was supposed to make things more equitable and inclusive.

I think that the AI polling by Advanced Symbolics is pretty reliable (they predicted Trump winning in the last election). https://advancedsymbolics.com/us-election-2/ So I will say, Biden: 350, Trump: 188

I look forward to their desire to censor the internet.

I don't think it is necessary to refer to Arruda's weight, and it may break forum rules. Perhaps you should edit your posts and the thread title?

As-tu un lien? https://www.journaldequebec.com/2020/09/22/covid-19-et-regles-sanitaires-les-policiers-pourront-ils-entrer-dans-les-maisons Is this link relevant? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/guilbault-police-covid-19-warrant-ticket-gatherings-1.5735339 The charter is a lie. We don't actually have charter rights. Sections 1 and 33 make sure of that. Of course Canadian nationalism prevents Canadians from seeing this, which means they never demand having actual constitutional rights.

Thank you for catching my typo. I meant the Communist Party of China.

I saw a random tweet by Andrew Coyne of a O'Toole advertisement and it just reminded me how awful O'Toole can be. This guy is a protectionist who wants to have "industrial policy", get out of trade agreements and have mass central planning of the economy. He literally calls free trade the result of 'big government' and says this unironically, as though the government putting up trade restrictions and tariffs counts as 'small government'. In his platform he mentioned wanting government funded greenhouses in Canada. Does this mean he plans to have state funded banana and orange plantations in greenhouses in Canada? As foreign affairs critic, one of O'Tooles 'big criticisms' of Trudeau, specifically when Saudi Arabia was angry at the Trudeau government for offering mild criticism of the Saudi government's treatment of women, was that Trudeau shouldn't publicly criticize regimes like Saudi Arabia or the Communist Party of Canada. O'Toole gets the criticism completely wrong. The problem with Trudeau's foreign policy is that he sucks up to authoritarian regimes too much. I think that O'Toole might be worse than Scheer (who was in turn worse than Harper due to Scheer's worship of the dairy cartel).

I'm a bit confused. I said bias TOWARDS Anglo names, meaning IN FAVOUR OF Anglo names. I haven't read the whole thread, but is there evidence of a bias AGAINST Anglo names?

@ Abies - I will point out that the name discrimination studies that you point to, particularly by Phil Oreopoulos, find a bias that favours female names over male names for job applications. In some cases, the bias towards female names is larger than the bias towards Anglo sounding names. Yet somehow this bias towards female names is always ignored...

Perhaps you misread my post? And she was elected in a proportional representation system... which you oppose.

Providing a universal basic income is not central planning. The first involves some redistribution of income, the second involves the government picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy rather than allowing for competition. Are you aware that the neoliberal economist, Milton Friedman, long advocated for a universal basic income (or as he called it, a negative income tax)? There was a multiparty committee that supported a national referendum on electoral reform, but Trudeau didn't want it perhaps because the FPTP system benefited him in the 2015 election. With respect to local candidates, maybe you want a local candidate, but perhaps not everyone in your riding prioritizes that. Perhaps they would prefer someone who shares their values. Why should your desire for a local candidate above all else trump other people in your riding having more choice or more democratic representation? Why should people who support the green party in rural Alberta get 0 democratic representation? Why should conservatives in downtown Toronto get 0 democratic representation? Why should supports of the communist party or supporters of the libertarian party get 0 democratic representation? A proportional representation system would better represent the will of the people, give more voter choice to people, and allow for greater competition of ideas in the house of commons (which should result in better policy). What's the point in having 300+ MPs in the house of commons if they all agree with each other and have no ideological diversity? If we keep FPTP, then we might as well cut the number of MPs by a factor of 10 and stop wasting tax payer money on the political class because these MPs are all clones of other MPs within the same party.

Yeah, the forums used to have more left-wing voices in the past. But, for whatever reason, it has become a bit of an echo chamber.

If only there were other parties in the house of commons that could make coherent arguments that could explain why mass central planning and spending hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars is a bad idea... Unfortunately, there aren't any. In addition, there aren't many choices for voters to choose from, to better reflect their preferences and beliefs; this makes it easier for extremists to gain power. It's almost like, one of the main causes of Canada's terrible political discourse is the first past the post system, and the random drift behaviour that a first past the post system can have on the political class. Perhaps the solution would be for people to stop voting for establishment parties that are afraid to have a public referendum on electoral reform and that want to reduce political competition and voter choice. If you vote for an establishment party that wants the first past the post system, then you are part of the problem.

PPC isn't on your poll... You can always add an 'other' option. It's quite common in polls to include an 'other' option to capture parties or candidates not on the list.

Alright, screw your poll (I assume that this is permissible forum language given the context; if not I apologize. Refusing to simply correct the poll to be more inclusive comes across as a bit impolite.). Apparently you want to know who we want to vote for but apparently we aren't allowed to vote for one of the six parties that were in the debates during the last election, nor are we allowed to vote for other smaller parties nor spoil our ballots. In that case, I'll vote for the Bloc Quebecois. They are the least bad party, even if they do support the dairy cartel and even if their leader thinks that secularism/laicite involves banning hijabs while also having a giant crucifix in the national assembly of Quebec (admittedly the crucifix has been since taken down). They never run in my riding, but I'll vote for them in your poll. Edit: If anyone else agrees with me, then please also vote for the Bloc in this poll.

Maybe I would vote for libertarian. But they might not run in my riding. Of course all the parties are terrible. But I will add that the Canadian political parties are unusually terrible, in part because of where Harper and Trudeau have taken their parties. I wouldn't mind voting for parties in other countries. Such as Tsai Ing-wen's party in Taiwan, the Australian Liberal Party, or Macron's party in France. Maybe if Martha Hall Findlay created a party in Canada, I would vote for that party. To be completely honest, I'd rather vote for Kanye West than any of the political parties in the list. Because at least Kanye West would disrupt the system and maybe lead to better options later on.

I'd rather be electrocuted or tortured than vote for any of these parties.

Maybe my understanding of this issue is too limited. Perhaps if we break this down into parts I can understand things better. 1. So, as I understand it, market value can exceed book value since the market value would capture intangibles and growth prospects. In an economy where an increasing component of it consists of tech companies with high amounts of intangibles, would having market values greatly exceeding book values be surprising? 2. So if market values are exceeding book values, are you saying that that represents capital that is not being invested? I'm not really sure if I understand the mechanism. Let's say we have 2 investors. The first investor buys a stock in a company in an IPO. After 1 year, the first investor then sells the stock to a second investor at an increased price. Are we saying that this transaction between the two investors results in less capital being invested? 3. Maybe I'm just really ignorant, but could you please provide an example of a 1000% return? Are we talking about derivatives here? 4. But if the money supply has already increased, why would it require the Greenback to lose hegemony in order for inflation to occur? If the value of money depends on the demand for money and the supply of money, then shouldn't we expect that the value of money will have decreased if the money supply has increased?

Is price speculation inherently bad? Sometimes prices determined by an IPO do not well reflect the value of a company as information isn't perfect. Isn't it better to have mechanisms that allow prices to adjust? Couldn't you choose to not invest in the companies that do this? The US and Canada, as well as other advanced economies, have experienced low stable inflation for decades. So I'm not sure what massive inflationary forces you are referring to. Wait, are you referring to insider trading? That is illegal. Government's bailing out large companies isn't an inherent property of stock markets, nor of capitalism. So I am confused by its relevance to the conversation.

Why is there no none of the above option? Why is there no option for the smaller parties, such as PPC, Libertarian, Communist, etc.?

I'm not entirely sure what idea you are trying to convey in your post. But if you are referring to the existence of the stock market, the stock market benefits the real economy through how it allocates capital. Labour and capital are used to produce goods and services that we benefit from in society. Investments may vary in how economically viable they are or in how much benefit they bring to society. Investments that are more economically viable or are of higher benefit to society tend to have higher economic rates of return. This causes the stock market to shift investments to areas of the economy that have higher rates of return, thereby increasing the economic productivity of society. Capital being allocated instead through central planning, as was done in various communist, socialist and fascist regimes in the past, tends to result in worse capital allocation as central planners generally do not have perfect information, as central planning decisions are often done for ideological instead of economic reasons, and as central planning is more prone to corruption.

It's not a question of the number of taxes that matters, but of the impact of the tax system on incentives, such as the incentive to work or the incentive for capital investment.

Yes, he wanted to conserve the dairy cartel and supply management, along with wanting to conserve other bad ideas and bad policies. A true conservative.