-1=e^ipi

Yes, for example, a few months ago I was trying to figure out which were the tallest publically accessible buildings that I could jump off of. You want to make sure you do it properly.

But US data is so much easier and convenient.

@ EveningStar - I don't want to completely derail this thread over microaggressions. Maybe just partially to point out the hypocrisy of certain members such as Cybercoma. Why not just go to the other thread and read it? It's not a very old thread. Many universities are mentioned: Berkley, McGill, University of Wisconsin, University of New Hampshire, Rutgers University, etc.

Sure. It does. Every molecule of CO2 causes warming. At the margin, and additional molecule will cause the temperature to increase by 7 x 10^-41 C.

@ Evening Star - I did in the microaggression thread. For example, Berkley. Go to the microaggression thread if you want to go through the examples I have given.

I claim that if a professor does X, Y will happen. You ask me to support this claim by showing there are professors that have had Y happen to then. But that's conditional on professors doing X. Which they are too scared to do because they know Y will happen to them if they do X.

Those are different claims. How do you not see how similar this is to the microaggression issue? What mental gymnastics do you do in your head to convince yourself your positions are consistent?

How is it playing semantics to point out that both poor and richer people are getting richer? If you want to state that income inequality is growing that is one thing, but don't state untrue cliches as if they are fact. The thing is we accept the pareto principle. Unfortunately, not everyone in this thread does.

@ WIP - your graph clearly shows all quintiles becoming richer. Thank you for supporting my claim. Flat tax when combined with a guaranteed income can be as arbitrarily 'progressive' as you want. So arguing that a flat tax isn't 'progressive' enough is a non-argument.

Nice guilt by association attempt. Silly cliche that isn't supported by empirical evidence. Both rich people are people are on average richer than 30 years ago. Clearly someone can't comprehend what a guaranteed income is. You could have a flat tax rate of 100% and redistribute that to everyone equally in the form of a guaranteed income. This would be effectively communism. Is communism not 'progressive' enough?

Why? I never made such a claim. But while you are on the topic: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid "I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain."

Berkley. See the microaggression thread.

If convincing yourself of this untruth makes you feel better about avoiding challenges to your world view then that's your choice.

Catchy tune. But if a professor in certain universities expresses online that they think the most qualified individual should get the job, that would be a 'microaggression' and they would face 'disciplinary action'.

You don't need a military for a coast guard. We do not need to spend anywhere close to what we spend on military for sufficient navy to ensure ownership over the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Nope. 1. Stupid laws or policies piss me off, be it in Canada, the USA, France or North Korea. 2. I value myself and other people. Bad policies cause people to suffer needlessly. A dollar that was spent on military could have been spent elsewhere, such as on cancer patients. Need money for that. Silly cliche which isn't always true. Also, things like increased economies of scale and reduced barriers to trade would be mutually beneficial for both Canada and the USA. Is this an attempt at using gender conditioning? If it is, it won't work as I reject gender roles. The USA has plenty of stupid policies too. With respect to military spending, they are far worse than Canada. I don't mind. Perhaps you feel this way because my questioning puts the basis of your self identity in doubt.

I thought this was common knowledge. Transistor density is still going, but clock speed has definitely stalled. That's why they started going for multi core computers. http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/27875/moores-law-and-clock-speed

So you advocate some sort of anti-lgbt propaganda law like they have in Russia? What happened to the free market place of ideas? Yes. It's a big mystery why men commit suicide 3.5 times as much as women and transwomen outnumber transmen 3 to 1. *sarcasm* Gender Identity and transexualism are not the same thing as sexual orientation. You can be a transwoman/transman and be androsexual, gynosexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.

Slightly related, but Moore's Law has completely broken down. Was nice while it lasted.

That includes population growth and isn't a long term trend. Obviously growth can vary from quarter to quarter.

Random blog post by random economist I found which suggests labour productivity growth might be slowing down permanently: http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2014/10/26/is-economic-growth-permanently-lower/

If we are talking about non-developed countries like China, then they will definitely slow down as they catch up to developed countries. I was asking mostly about developed countries since that is more interesting as it is usually assumed that developed country long run economic growth is roughly constant.

This is silly. Lots of things have been discussed and rejected before eventually being accepted. Be it slavery abolition, a carbon tax, gay marriage, low inflation monetary policy, etc.

Not in the largest province with most of the manufacturing ability.

You need competitive energy prices for that.

You say that with such certainty. Sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong and the only way to find out is to challenge it. The discussion of what is the optimal tax system for a country isn't that different for the USA, Canada, France, Japan or other developed countries. If the Canadian government introduced a very large VAT, discussion on it would spill over to the US. Besides the idea that politics should cross national boundaries is outdated. Perhaps we need international political parties.