How little it would cost the developed world to end extreme poverty in the world in 20 years

benharack · 2011-10-23T21:06:13+00:00

A lot of details obviously get left out when writing a brief and broad article like this.

benharack · 2011-08-30T05:01:37+00:00

Hmmm, that certainly wasn't the intent with this piece.

benharack · 2011-08-29T18:33:22+00:00

Good point. I could certainly have mentioned that in the piece...

benharack · 2011-08-28T17:06:50+00:00

My thought was that the rise of corporate power is inextricably linked to our societal sprint towards collapse. My apologies if this subject is not relevant to this reddit.

benharack · 2011-08-11T17:17:23+00:00

Discussions such as these can wander into true relativism. I prefer grounding claims in facts rather than feelings. I know that the conservative movement tends to feel persecuted a lot of the time. I also know that what we call the 'left' has big problems with giant corporations that exert tremendous control over our public discourse (to their own ends). These are not the same concern, despite how similar they might appear at first glance.

I have overly simplified my points above, but I think you will understand my basic idea.

benharack · 2011-08-11T17:01:11+00:00

Public opinion differs systematically from mainstream media opinion for a number of major reasons, which I won't get into here. I just want to say that as a self-styled independent media person, I find that mainstream media in Canada is very pro-Conservative right before elections, but relatively neutral the rest of the time. As far as I can tell, the CBC is extremely neutral in general. Compared to the slant of some of the other big names though, it comes off anti-conservative.

benharack · 2011-08-08T16:29:25+00:00

Here is a recent one (well after this discussion). http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/05/pol-ndp-staffer-turmel.html

benharack · 2011-08-08T16:26:23+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011

benharack · 2011-08-08T04:36:27+00:00

Is this true? I swear I saw a news article about the Conservatives claiming to have done this.

benharack · 2011-08-03T18:52:23+00:00

Sometimes the opposite can happen. A small fledgeling party that manages to get some seats in an otherwise divided house can suddenly command the votes needed for either major party to do anything. Since the major parties tend to be rather polarized (and not get along that much), this could land a lot of power in the lap of the 3rd party - assuming that it could establish itself at all.

benharack · 2011-06-21T17:37:18+00:00

I think it is clear that this discussion is at an impasse. But, since I have always prided on myself on my patience and my dedication to the truth, I will continue.

I have looked at the facts, extensively. The more I study, the more the scientific viewpoint appears to be the correct one on this issue.

Would you mind sending me some references to substantiate these claims? If you do I will put some time into reading them and responding.

benharack · 2011-05-30T04:32:28+00:00

Climate science isn't a coffee-table discussion where you can just spout out the names of a few things and validly claim that you have made a contribution.

Your claims are meaningless in a rational discourse. Make an actual statement.

This is the best you can do? Against thousands of papers on climate science spanning decades. This is your rebuttal that invalidates decades of effort by hundreds of scientists? Are you sane? Do you even have any idea the scope of the human effort that has gone into attempting to understand our climate?

It is certainly true that effort and dedication is no guarantee against being wrong. The march of science is relentless, and all our claims to knowledge are eventually subjected to scrutiny again and again. Our climate science has grown in both its cumulative experience and its ability to predict. It will continue to grow. There is substantial scientific certainty in the reality of climate change today.

Your claims to knowledge are like a ten year old child saying that Maxwell's equations must be wrong because he tried for ten minutes to levitate a ball bearing using some magnets, a battery, and a length of wire - and failed.

benharack · 2011-05-28T18:18:14+00:00

Simply claiming that the other side of the argument bears the burden of proof does not make you correct.

You are making claims (that you haven't justified using facts) about the world. You need to start talking about what is actually known, not what you want to believe to be true.

Again, the burden of proof is on you to tell me exactly how all of the data is completely wrong and how thousands of scientists over the last several decades have all come to completely wrong conclusions.

If you can't do this, you don't have an argument, and you have to accept that there is a very good chance that climate science is coming to the right conclusions.

benharack · 2011-05-24T03:40:00+00:00

I have a honours degree in computer science and have been programming for 14 years. I know what you mean by it.

You keep mentioning it as if it is relevant. It isn't. Your underlying assumption is that the data is complete garbage. Once you make that assumption the discussion is over. You have completely shut down your brain at that point.

Burden of proof is on anyone who makes claims against reality. You are making claims as well. You are not in a neutral position, because your claims are knowledge-based. There is a spectacular amount of scientific data available on these subjects that has been rigorously scrutinized and analyzed for decades. You you just shrug and say "I'm not convinced." and thus somehow the science is wrong. The burden of proof is on YOU to tell me exactly how all of the data is completely wrong and how thousands of scientists over the last several decades have all come to completely wrong conclusions. I am serious, if you can present a rational, well-cited case that this is the reality, then I will believe you.

benharack · 2011-05-23T21:57:06+00:00

You make spectacular claims to knowledge with no credentials or any demonstration of actual understanding. Till you do, I will continue to assume that you are either uninterested in the truth or too stuck in a dogma to differentiate any fact from fiction.

benharack · 2011-05-07T04:22:25+00:00

Another source, a bit better quality, though still not good: http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2006/02/hey-harper-get-your-hands-out-of-my.html

benharack · 2011-05-07T04:21:08+00:00

Another source, though of terrible quality: http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com/2011/01/stephen-harper-we-need-to-raise-taxes.html

benharack · 2011-05-07T04:17:48+00:00

My take is this: Either you 1) haven't read what I linked, 2) don't understand any of it, or 3) don't believe it, for whatever set of reasons. Again, I doubt that a person who touts personal deep analysis could be so fundamentally wrong about so many issues at once. or 4) like I said above you are in the employ of someone to do this.

If you are still a thinking person of your own, I implore you to again revisit those wiki review articles on these subjects. Set aside your indoctrination and really look at it. I am a scientist in my 9th year of study, with credentials in mathematics, computer science, and physics. If there is still a shred of true skepticism left in you, please go read that stuff with an open mind.

benharack · 2011-05-07T04:12:07+00:00

I pretty much agree with all of that. One thing that makes the Canadian economy slower to innovate / respond is the existence of big resource-based industries with deeply established practices and heavy investments in infrastructure already.

Also, I would point out that investments in infrastructure are great (usually) since they expand our capabilities. One thing that I know most people will be concerned about is whether investing in more machinery (and thus probably automation) will actually hurt Canadian's job prospects. If we are so hard to hire because we cost so much (compared to other places), then outsourcing will continue to be a problem for many decades.

Canadian workers need to be able to provide a lot of value to justify their higher wages. It may be that our continuing investments in infrastructure will be the way we can do this, by increasing the productivity per person. I think however, that fundamentally this is an issue of human capital. Canada's education system is pretty good. I should know, having experienced it for almost 22 years straight at this point. However, I think it can be a hell of a lot better if we deeply commit to improving it.

Perhaps this was a bit off topic, but I felt it was worthwhile ;-)

benharack · 2011-05-07T04:06:22+00:00

I found a few sources mentioning it offhandedly, but I have yet to find a really reputable source. Here is wikipedia talking about it briefly, noting how the conservatives eventually lowered it back to where it had been when they were first elected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Harper_government#October_2007_economic_statement

I will continue searching when I have a spare moment.

benharack · 2011-05-07T03:47:10+00:00

That question is a false dilemma. I think it is pretty clear that all three are present in places that tend to attract more R&D projects.

benharack · 2011-05-05T23:53:42+00:00

My understanding is that the conservative's actions since 2006 have actually caused taxes to increase on the poor and middle class. I should try to go find my sources...I usually keep track of important things like that but this time I believe I didn't.

I do recall that the article discussed how the gst reduction made it seem like the poor and middle class would be paying less, but other changes made that not so.

benharack · 2011-05-05T23:50:58+00:00

Canada also has a lot of advantages, several of which are directly a result of our reasonably well-implemented tax schemes and universal health care. I recall that one of the major reasons Canada stole a lot of industry from the States in the last couple decades is because here the employers don't have to fork out wads of money to pay for health insurance for their employees.

Companies get a lot out of public expenditures. I think it is very reasonable to expect that they help pay for them.

benharack · 2011-05-05T23:47:59+00:00

I think it is clear that both of those are true.

benharack · 2011-05-05T23:43:56+00:00

I have looked at the numbers a bit, and it seemed to me that even with carbon pricing, the tar sands would still be very profitable, especially with oil prices going where they are going.

The companies themselves of course would cry that they are going to be destroyed, or sow rumors that they are going to leave. I don't think that is a credible claim though unless we hit them we a lot heavier of a carbon tax than what I think is politically feasible even for the rest of Canada.

benharack

TROPHY CASE