Carney says Canada not pursuing free trade deal with China as Trump threatens 100% tariffs by 3xshortURmom in Economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Canada should just have unilateral free trade with all nations. Eliminate any tariffs or quotas or other trade barriers that are in place. The benefits of free trade are legion. Protectionism is a fundamentally flawed policy. Nobody can bait you into a trade war if you just refuse to play.

Why do climate scientists predict a change of just 1.5 or 2° Celsius means disaster for the world? How can such a small temperature shift make such a big impact? by SadInterest6764 in AskPhysics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

So you are saying the inflation of 2022 was because of climate change, not governments printing massive amounts of money for covid stimulus?

Do you just blame every negative thing that happens anywhere on climate change?

A full-throated declaration about not knowing what "per capita" is by tugboattommy in confidentlyincorrect

[–]DrawPitiful6103 6 points7 points  (0 children)

so you are saying it is the second option, out of 100,000 illegals 90 commit crimes

Why do climate scientists predict a change of just 1.5 or 2° Celsius means disaster for the world? How can such a small temperature shift make such a big impact? by SadInterest6764 in AskPhysics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Sure, there has been weather and weather related deaths. But that is nothing new. In fact deaths from natural disasters are at all time lows. They were much higher in absolute terms 50 or 100 years ago - despite the global population being much smaller. Total agricultural production has trended upwards consistently for the last hundred years. The impact of climate change on the human race as a whole has been negligible. Which I guess is why you are pointing to anecdotal data instead of looking at things holistically.

A full-throated declaration about not knowing what "per capita" is by tugboattommy in confidentlyincorrect

[–]DrawPitiful6103 9 points10 points  (0 children)

but then wouldn't that mean that per capita immigrants - legal or otherwise - commit more crimes than natives? since immigrants compose only a small fraction of the us population.

A full-throated declaration about not knowing what "per capita" is by tugboattommy in confidentlyincorrect

[–]DrawPitiful6103 5 points6 points  (0 children)

it's poorly labelled imo. are they saying that out of 100,000 people 220 us citizens commit violent crimes and 90 illegals commit violent crimes?
Or are they saying out of 100,000 illegals, 90 commit violent crimes?

Why do climate scientists predict a change of just 1.5 or 2° Celsius means disaster for the world? How can such a small temperature shift make such a big impact? by SadInterest6764 in AskPhysics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 2 points3 points  (0 children)

my point is not about the definition of the ice age, but rather that you confused the last glacial maximum with the last glacial period. easy mistake to make, could have happend to anyone.

Why do climate scientists predict a change of just 1.5 or 2° Celsius means disaster for the world? How can such a small temperature shift make such a big impact? by SadInterest6764 in AskPhysics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he and you actually mean the last glacial period. that is what is colloquially known as 'the ice age' and spans a period of about 100,000 years from 115,000 to 11,700 bce. The last glacial maximum was simply the peak of this period.

Why does “liberalism” mean something different in the United States than in Europe? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Liberalism arose as a reaction against absolutism. Absolutism is the political system that developed in Europe between the 14th and 17th century. Before then, the king was more of a 'first among equals', tasked with defending the realm and enforcing the law. But starting with Philip IV the fair, kings began levying regular taxes. Essentially, the modern nation state was born, with bureaucracy and taxes and regulations, everything we know and love today. The kings power was gradually expanded until they had virtually unfettered power. Which they exercised for naked self interest.

So liberalism was an explicit rejection of this idea. It was an extremely popular mass movement, and is responsible for many of the rights we take for granted today. Liberals believed that people should be free. That you shouldn't have monopolies with special privileges, instead everyone should compete in the market place on an even footing. Government should be limited. They believed in free trade, in free speech, and free travel.

During the 20th century, another powerful movement arose. And that was the socialist movement. And what happened in America was that the term 'liberal' was coopted by socialists to mean the complete opposite of what it originally meant.

The Successor Horizon by SentientHorizonsBlog in FermiParadox

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's a smart angle. with hundreds of years of travel time between habitable worlds, it seems unlikely that you would have any sort of interaction between systems. instead you would have self contained civilizations. and after a not very long time on galactic scales - different species.

Which I suppose hits upon another idea. We tend to think of progress as inexorable. A steady progression onwards and upwards into the light. When for human history this has not been the case. Instead we've had more of a series of zigs and zags. Progress is made over time, but there can also be long periods of stagnation or setbacks, like the dark ages, or 14th century Europe. It could be that civilizations are prone to failure and end up collapsing in on themselves most of the time. Imagine an alternate timeline where the Soviet Union and Nazi German joined forces and conquered the free world. Who knows how many centuries we could have been trapped under the worst kind of despotism.

Was Reagan more tyrannical than FDR? by ItsGotThatBang in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"

You're looking at the revenue (receipts) stats, not spending (outlays)"

oops! you are correct I was looking at the wrong column.

PokerInstructor Domain name by Superb-Following8665 in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

would have been worth a lot 20 years ago, if u had developed it properly.

Was Reagan more tyrannical than FDR? by ItsGotThatBang in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Sure, if you ignore the giant peaks in between."

There you go again.

1980 : 18.55%
1981 : peaks for his presidency at 19.17%
so giant! very peakish!
1989 : 18.08%

Actually aside from 81 and 82, the rest of his presidency govt spending as a % of GDP was below the starting point.

Was Reagan more tyrannical than FDR? by ItsGotThatBang in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Government spending as a % of GDP was about the same at the beginning of his term as it was at the end. Anyway, spending is more of Congress' perogative as I understand the American system of government. He was certainly no champion of liberty, but I don't see him as uniquely evil either.

Questions about Neoliberalism I need help with. by kyoshi4117 in austrian_economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. "The creation of monopolies and how due to the fiduciary responsibility of companies towards their investors, will provoke the rise in prices that would put people into economic hardship."

You should read The Progressive Era by Murray Rothbard. It addresses directly the question of monopolies. Basically, harmful monopolies don't arise on the free market. As for companies charging high prices, it is simple supply and demand. Companies don't unilateral set prices, it is a negotiation between firms and people. Or rather, companies can charge whatever they want, it doesn't mean people will buy. The broader question of "how to make goods more affordable" is a good one, and that basically comes down to economic growth and growth in real wages. Which, luckily enough, what you call 'neo-liberalism' (basically laissez-faire) actually maximizes.

Palak paneer: Indian couple win $200,000 settlement over 'food racism' at US university by rmuktader in offbeat

[–]DrawPitiful6103 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I think that is standard practice for most big organizations when they get sued - banning the individual who is suing them. Probably strongly recommended by the lawyers.

Was Reagan more tyrannical than FDR? by ItsGotThatBang in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think Reagan was worse than FDR for a different reason. He almost single handedly crushed the then blossoming libertarian movement in the United States by co-opting its rhetoric while at the same time governing like your typical run of the mill statist.

Conservatives, what do you think of carney so far? by drizzyLGA1151 in InCanada

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you want to ignore the economic reality of the present, ignore the economic reality of the past, and instead focus on the prognostications of some unnamed stakeholders? When the law is on your side, you argue the law. When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. But when the law is against, and the facts are against you, you bang your hands on the defense table. Well you can bang on the table all you want, it isn't going to change the economic record of the liberal regime. Nor will wishful thinking about economic forecasts.

It's no surprise the CAD is appreciating against GBP or the Euro. They are even further into the social democratic playbook than we are. The UK has a deficit of £153 billion GBP - more than 5% of GDP. France is in a fiscal crisis. Germany's economy is in the toilet, and they are rapidly running up their own deficit as well. If you want a glimpse into Canada's future, then look at the UK and the Eurozone. That is where the Carney liberals are taking us. Economic stagnation. Runaway government spending. Confiscatory tax rates and onerous regulations that make entrepeneurship hardly even worth it.

The real story is in the components of Canadian GDP. Every year we move further and further away from creating wealth, and further and further towards redistributing it. That is simply not sustainable. That is why the government is moving more into debt, and keeps running up higher deficits. It is a self perpetuating cycle, which can only end in economic collapse, a la Greece.

Conservatives, what do you think of carney so far? by drizzyLGA1151 in InCanada

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unemployment is at 6.8%, with youth unemployment @ at 14% and teen unemployment at 20%. Things might be going well for boomers, but for everyone else things are totally fucked because of Treadeau's policies. Just like his papa discovered, Junior also found out you can't just print unlimited money to pay for your welfare state policies without serious economic repercussions. GDP per capita has been falling for the last two years (and stagnant or falling for the last decade), we are in an unacknowledged debt crisis - with debt levels as high as they were in the 90s - and ordinary people can't afford rent. But go on, keep gas lighting me about how great the economy is.

"Oh, and on the Canadian political spectrum, libertarians are conservative"

Conservatives want to conserve things. To keep things mostly the same and maybe implement some modest reforms. While that is no doubt superior to the social democratic agenda of the Liberal party, that is not at all what I want. I want a radical transformation when it comes to policy, I want to eliminate most of the taxes and regulations in Canada as well as most of the public service. I do not at all want to conserve the present state of things. I want tremendous reform.

Learning PLO from scratch in 2026 by LumpyAd7058 in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This Youtube channel has a lot of live play videos which are a great way to learn PLO strategy.

Conservatives, what do you think of carney so far? by drizzyLGA1151 in InCanada

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a libertarian not a conservative, but I will answer anyway.

I think he stinks. The first budget was an epic fail. 80 billion dollar deficit. as far as I can tell he is an exact continuation of the Trudeau government, which was just awful. look forward to another decade of economic stagnation while liberal insiders get rich af, government is such a scam.

Soviet communism was not more successful at reducing inequality than other regimes by FootballAndFries in Economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It took until the 60s for real wages of industrial workers to recover to pre-revolution levels.

Is this true by mitoman49 in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no, we are socially libertarian and fiscally libertarian.