-1=e^ipi

Given the compellingness of the argument of comparative advantage, I think such a default assumption is reasonable. Lower tariffs.

Not yet. Once you have an objective function, just just maximize it. That's the easy part. Maybe. I think it makes sense to go with the best models available. Which means the ability of the model to fit empirical observations has to be traded of with model simplicity (example: Akaike's information criterion). Get an estimate of the probability distribution and maximize expected social welfare while taking into account all forms of uncertainty. That's a model that arguably has some very interest predictions. I wonder if it agrees with empirical evidence. Maybe you can list some countries that you don't think meet your threshold and we can see if there is any correlation between self-reported happiness and income. Before the wright brothers, everyone who tried to fly in an airplane failed. Does that mean they should have never tried? Did these past temps use empirical evidence, or statistics when trying to define their 'greater good' function?

They are not necessarily the same, but definitions vary. Could you please provide your definitions of freedom and privacy? 1. There is stigma associated with these programs as well as lack of knowledge of these problems so not everyone will use programs when they need to. 2. The leisure time of people has value, as well as their consumption and their freedom. So this is not ideal. 3. Do you really think that this is the most economically efficient way to help poorer people? The programs have to get their food from somewhere and if the food is more expensive the programs will be more expensive. 4. How are children supposed to be able to go to a store and buy cheaper milk? As for the parents, you realize that there are abusive or neglectful parents out there, right?

They could, and they would be wrong, and I would disagree with them. I agree, but I classify this intrinsic value as part of the outcome. I also think that the value of freedom can be empirically quantified using empirical data; and from there one just needs to define an empirically justified social welfare function and maximize expected social welfare using the best data available.

It's not that fringe anymore, especially the number of students that are taking liberal arts, sociology, gender studies, journalism, etc. Plus there are being many program changes to require these 'non-fringe topic' programs to have 'fringe' classes. Engineers are mostly immune to this stuff but it's finding ways to creep into areas that are not traditionally affected by this stuff. You even having nobel lauraete in biology getting fired over this nonsense. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-forced-to-resign

There is uncertainty, but if the expectation is that the effect of the 'right' is positive then I think that justifies the 'right'. I think the overall effect of freedom of speech, religion, thought, etc. is good so I support them.

I said privacy, not freedom. No idea, and I don't want to bother looking it up. Point is that there are lots of people in Canada that are not well off. There are undernourished children, homeless people, etc. Reducing the price of the food would help these individuals greatly. Those also have the benefit of incentivizing creation of new technologies, drugs, books, etc. That's not part of the TPP. That's the Canadian government being stupid. I'd prefer the government not give them anything. Please point to all these health problems that New Zealand has due to all this awful milk they are drinking. This also encourages investment. It is less desirable to invest in a country if that country might expropriate all of your stuff. Do you want less investment in Canada to make it poorer? So? I care about how it affects the well being of society. The hurt feelings of nationalists that care about 'sovereignty' are tiny in comparison. The horrors of data sharing to make better decisions! I guess we need to axe that evil long form census then! 1. Trade allows countries to take advantage of comparative advantage, which allows them to be richer. 2. Countries that trade together are less likely to wage war with each other. This deal increases world peace. 3. Maybe you should try living in North Korea. They have 100% control over their food supply. If these privacy issues were such a concern, maybe our government should have tried to get better privacy results in the negotiations instead of just trying to protect the dairy, egg and poultry industries at the expense of the poorest in Canada. The horrors of comparative advantage! North Korea's looking really appealing now, eh? This is a pretty legitimate concern.

Did you feel safer by the removal of the long form census? 'Privacy concerns' were why it was removed. No idea. I was not referring to that specifically. It might result in better decisions made by governments and corporations which may improve health care in the future. I think privacy has value. I just don't think it vetos everything else.

There is often a tradeoff between privacy and safety.

What process? Everything is being rushed in order to obtain sunny ways!

That sounds about right.

Is it really a big issue? Oh no, pharmacare information might be used for companies or governments to make better decisions! The horror! Aren't you a person that was complaining about the missing long form census? For some people, it makes a big difference between starving and not starving.

Why would you need to replace it with anything?

No, it was believed that protecting those industries would get you more votes. Plus our mainstream parties are irrationally pro-status quo.

Tarrifs, transportation costs, regulations, quotas, etc.

It affects both. It creates a price wedge between demand and supply.

Whichever. How does society fairly decide who should be able to determine what speech is 'correct' and 'incorrect'? If there is no fair method, then it is better not to restrict people's freedom of speech.

Relatively recently. What? I have to given up online anonymity now? No thanks.

Yesterday I was tutoring an undergraduate in a similar field and she had a very interesting 'economics' assignment for one of her classes. She had to prove that the results of our recent general election were illegitimate because it did not represent minorities. It wasn't an open question at all, it was something that had to be proven. She was very distressed because she did not know how to approach solving this problem and I couldn't really help her with that. I have many more stories like this, this was just the most recent one. They are not useless. They help indicate to others that you are a neoprogressive. This way, you can benefit from noble cause corruption and croyism to be able to obtain certain types of jobs. In particular, jobs that involve the media, the education system or the public service. The neoprogressives can then use their positions in society to skew society's perception of reality, which allows the neoprogressives to win elections, which then allows the neoprogressives that win elections to funnel money to their neoprogressive friends that helped them win elections. If you think students are learning to think critically, you don't understand what has become of universities across north america. People aren't taught to think critically; they are taught to think dogmatically, accept the neoprogressive dogma, and then try to silence those that disagree.

Who is the objective arbitrator of what is correct and what is incorrect? 'We must prevent the stupid people from questioning our religion and harming our feelings, so we need to have blasphemy laws and should kill apostates.' 'We must prevent the stupid people from harming the greatness of the aryan race, so we need to put them all in concentration camps.' 'We must prevent the stupid people from harming the utopia of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so we need to put dissenters into concentration camps and ensure that their kids and grandchildren are also punished.' 'We must prevent the evil MRAs from questioning our view of gender/sex issues, so we need to imprison people that disagree with feminists on twitter, ensure that those that disagree do not find employment, and pull fire alarms to prevent discussion.' etc.

People having incorrect beliefs is not fraud.

No, no I don't. It is primarily due to a cold war mentality. Also, mass confirmation bias in our society doesn't help. Who did Russia invade? They have permission from the Syrian government and the Crimeans voted in a referendum to join Russia.

limits? Fraud. That is the only reasonable limit that I see can be justified from a consequentialist point of view.

Why do people have to die? Just mandate that all kids must be vaccinated and any parent that doesn't follow with the law gets fined, imprisoned or their children taken away. What's your value? That free speech is bad? Well the pope, Hitler, Stalin and ISIS certainly agree with that.