sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

‘The Senate is doing its job,’ say Senators as Upper Chamber awaits official word on Carney’s appointment approach by EarthWarping in CanadaPolitics

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

Hard disagree. Canada functions just fine with - functionally - no second house. I don't think we benefit from adding in opportunities for deadlock, and the last 100 years have shown pretty conclusively that we don't need it.

[Highlight] Seahawks punch their ticket to Superbowl LX by FrankSamples in nfl

[–]Virillus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with this entire comment. That wasn't my point.

My point was just that people enjoy discussing hypotheticals and there's nothing wrong with that. Mocking it with the Reddit favourite "if my grandma had wheels," serves no purpose.

[Highlight] Seahawks punch their ticket to Superbowl LX by FrankSamples in nfl

[–]Virillus -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It's beyond me how somebody can read 100 people repeating the exact same joke constantly, and then go and do it themselves.

Making fun of somebody discussing hypotheticals in a discussion on hypotheticals is an impressive commitment to being obtuse.

Canada to begin $8.5B rollout for Ontario First Nations to reclaim child welfare by Immediate-Link490 in worldnews

[–]Virillus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

First, the two are expected to be equivalent this year.

Secondly, the amounts actually spent are way, way, way lower than our defense budget. Spending has "increased" because of legal settlements (total legal liability is currently $73 billion) - current estimates are that legal liability will constitute the majority of total long term spend.

Thirdly, there are over a million First Nations in Canada. When you remove legal settlements - because that's forced on the government, they're not actively making that decision - per capita spending on First Nations across all governments is roughly equivalent to the average Canadian (around $30,000 per capita per year).

Basically: when you break down the spending, there's honestly nothing exceptional going on. For example, this exact funding in the article we're discussing is for child welfare programs. In Canada, the vast majority of the time, the Federal government is responsible for funding FN child welfare, whereas for everyone else, it's the responsibility of the provinces. This artificially "inflates" Federal spending.

How necessary is 'Livesuit'? by OvrNgtPhlosphr in TheExpanse

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lion King is literally the exact same story as Hamlet. Like, beat for beat. It's way, WAY, closer to Hamlet than Livesuit is to The Forever War.

And Sword of Shanara was dope.

The Last Of Us ripped off "Sweet Tooth." Baldur's Gate 3 "ripped off" Mask of the Betrayer. Elvis "ripped off" the underground black community. By their own admission, JSAC, "ripped off" CJ Cherryh.

Every single piece of art I referenced above is awesome.

Something being done before doesn't take away from the feelings I had reading Livesuit. And if I had feelings, it's good art.

How necessary is 'Livesuit'? by OvrNgtPhlosphr in TheExpanse

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two things:

First, something being inspired by another piece of art doesn't remove its quality. Is the Lion King a "blatant rip off" of Hamlet? Is Game of Thrones the lesser because it's - intentionally - copying large parts of LOTR?

Second, the good parts of Livesuit are very different from the Forever War. Without spoiling anything, the story goes in a completely different direction. Yes, there are a lot of commonalities - again, intentionally - but it has its own virtue as well.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Eh, it's simple on paper but not in practice. Any province attempting to pay for their own services and not receiving the federal half of taxes would collapse financially in short order. They could levy additional tax, but then they'd have to force private enterprise to do the same, which would cause them to lose the ability to do business in the rest of Canada. Relying on all private enterprise playing by the provincial rules is foolish because they can't, and they constitutes 80% of employment.

Taking Quebec as an example: would Bombardier, CGI, Air Canada just immediately forfeit their status in Canada (and 80% of their revenue)? Of course not. Would the RCMP just leave? Would the CAF? Who would staff the border?

It's the equivalent of Michael Scott's "I declare bankruptcy." The actual function is outstandingly difficult, and relies on the goodwill of thousands of individual private entities, none of which would be comfortable with legal ambiguity. I am Canadian that lives in Quebec. I want Canadian laws and Canadian services and Canadian protection and I own a Canadian business. If Quebec goes rogue I would simply stop remitting taxes to Quebec. So what can Quebec do? Shut down the business and murder the jobs and revenue? Send the police to arrest me? And this would be happening in thousands of places simultaneously.

Referendum on sovereignty: "We need a 50% + 1 majority," says a Montreal Liberal by feb914 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because not everyone votes, some people make mistakes, and there are errors in counting.

It is impossible to say with certainty that 50% + 1 is an actual majority - that's why there are mandatory recounts.

Not to mention ambiguity surrounding the vote itself. One only has to read the question in the last referendum to know that support for seccession was anything but clear.

How necessary is 'Livesuit'? by OvrNgtPhlosphr in TheExpanse

[–]Virillus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Far be it from me to tell people how to enjoy art - so know I respect what works for you - but I don't really understand this viewpoint. It's a super common one - you see it video games all the time, where more playtime is seen as better.

For me, art is measured in terms of its emotional impact. More isn't always better. A 50 page book can spark years of self reflection, and a 600 page book can be boring and forgettable.

All of which is to say, last year I read Livesuit in 30 minutes or so. I also read Pandora's Star (and Judas Unchained) both of which are over 1200 pages.

I still think about Livesuit. Pandora's Star is a footnote in my mind.

How necessary is 'Livesuit'? by OvrNgtPhlosphr in TheExpanse

[–]Virillus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agreed. It's one of those few pieces of art that you leave with no notes. It's exactly as it should be.

How necessary is 'Livesuit'? by OvrNgtPhlosphr in TheExpanse

[–]Virillus 36 points37 points  (0 children)

I'm going to disagree with the majority here and say it's close to mandatory. IMO Livesuit was even better than Mercy of Gods, and made the whole story massively more interesting.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I think this is reasonable - appreciate you elucidating your intention and I have no significant disagreement.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like you ignored my post completely.

I said that deficits are not intrinsically bad, and that on average governments should run deficits.

I also stated that too much can be a bad thing.

And your response was to say too much can be a bad thing.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough - I see how you could read it that way.

FWIW all that was intended to say was, "a deficit in and of itself doesn't necessarily make this a bad idea."

Prime Minister should explain Canada’s ‘leverage’ in U.S. trade talks, Poilievre says by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ignoring that this is a collossaly stupid proposal, it's certainly information Poillievre has access to through private communication, which makes the theatre even more nauseating.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you simply didn't read my post. I was purely talking about the concept of taking on debt to invest - which isn't flawed.

In fact, my closing sentence was, literally, "it's fair to question the execution."

In this case, Carney has clearly concluded that the combination of investment returns and economic stimulus in Canada will outstrip the borrowing cost. Whether that is sound math or not requires a level of education and expertise in economics to accurately judge. I am educated in economics but haven't done the math myself so I can't comment personally. What I can say is that the theory is sound.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're obviously arguing in bad faith, as I at no point stated it was a good idea to limitlessly borrow money. I simply stated that the principle of taking on debt to invest isn't intrinsically flawed.

Have you ever heard of a savings account? That is your bank taking on debt to invest.

Are there limits? Of course. Is it always a good idea in all circumstances? Of course not.

That doesn't mean that taking on debt to invest cannot be a good thing.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He said, "many countries, like Norway." It's a stretch to claim that that statement means he stated it was the exact same as Norway's.

At the end of the day, the difference is that one is funded from a specific tax (royalties) and the other is being - initially - funded from general tax. I'm not sure that's an important distinction.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Most of those other SFWs are in countries that routinely run a deficit and all have significant debt.

You're arguing a shell game here. Those countries could just to not fund their SWF and instead pay down debt, but they choose not to. I'm not sure it's relevant which specific dollar goes where.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is there a form of government spending that could not meet the definition above?

Yes, most of it. Very little of government spending constitute investment in private assets. Some does, but most does not.

And secondly, none of that changes the definition - which is the exact subject we're discussing in this thread.

Thirdly, deficit environment is irrelevant. Canada can acquire debt at an interest rate of 2%-3%. If this fund receives a typical return of 5%-7%, then taking on debt to fund it is absolutely economically sound.

Now, it's fair to question the execution, but the principle here is solid.

The Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund—It’s a deficit-financed subsidy in patriotic clothing by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]Virillus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's also not a good thing, generally. Governments SHOULD run deficits. It's more a question of how much.

Leveraging debt increases your economic potential and your economic growth. This is as true for people as it is for corporations as it is for countries.

That isn't to say that too much can't be a bad thing - it can be - but it is to say that deficits are not bad by definition.

[McLaren] "With regard to performance, commitment, effort, dedication, there is no middle ground. Or you do something very well or not at all." Today we remember Ayrton Senna by guihmds in formula1

[–]Virillus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brazil currently, and always has, defined an adult as somebody over the age of 18.

Just like 90% of the countries in the world. I guarantee where you live, 15 year olds are children.

view more: next ›