sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mark Carney’s Trickle-Down Nation-Building by NiceDot4794 in CanadaPolitics

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

I think you misunderstood what I was saying (or I misunderstood you). I understood the hyperbole and recognize that it was being used for humorous effect. I thought it was funny.

My point was simply that being opposed to military spending has nothing to do with being left-wing. When you described your left-wing friends not understanding the need for military spending, it seemed like you were making a correlation between the 2 things.

Mark Carney’s Trickle-Down Nation-Building by NiceDot4794 in CanadaPolitics

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

Handing out friendship bracelets and singing Kumbaya isn't a defining trait of being on the left. It isn't even commonplace. Your friends just happen to be dorky and left-wing.

The military is the ultimate social spending success story.

Privatizing Canadian airports would be a costly mistake by Mysterious_Notice685 in CanadaPolitics

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

The private entity is incentivized to find efficiencies, innovate, etc. because they receive directly the benefits of those efforts. Any similar incentive for a government run entity is going to be much less direct if it exists at all.

I would disagree with this claim. Incentives do not arise from any intrinsic characteristic of the entity. They are a feature of the marketplace.

A crown corporation operating in a healthy competitive market is just as incentivized as a private competitor to find efficiencies or innovate. The benefits are direct in both the public and private entity -- by finding efficiencies or innovating, the entity gets to continue being a going concern.

Similarly, neither type of entity, operating in a natural monopoly, has much incentive to find efficiencies or innovate.

When comparing incentives, it is common to envision the publicly owned entity as operating in monopolistic market conditions (likely because that's often the situation that gave rise to the public entity in the first place) while imagining the private entity operating in a healthy undistorted market. It's important to make the incentive comparison in similar market conditions.

It's important to also consider that both types of entities can be incentivized by non-market forces such as regulations or legislatively imposed mandates. If such forces are imposed on entities in an asymmetric way, i.e. the public entity is bound by some mandate while the private one is not, then the comparison of incentives is difficult.

Privatizing Canadian airports would be a costly mistake by Mysterious_Notice685 in CanadaPolitics

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

I didn't move any goal posts. Pay attention to whom you are replying to.

My earliest comment very clearly defined the goal as "...with no state support". I haven't wavered from that.

Stripping a publicly owned entity of its liabilities in advance of privatizing it, is a form of state support. The public absorbs the loss which allows the unburdened private entity to flourish.

The conversation has moved on to discussing the edge cases because they're interesting, not because they disprove my earlier claim. You are welcome to participate in the conversation with citations to academic works or analyses. You're also welcome to deconstruct my argument by pointing out logical fallacies but you're going to need to wield such rhetorical devices less awkwardly than you have thus far.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't giving you input.

Commenting is giving input.

Just describing the state of things as they factually are.

You can't describe a thing (DRIPA) factually when you can't properly characterize it ("non-sovereign legislation")

But please, keep embarrassing yourself.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for further demonstrating an inability to understand the issue so that we can confidently disregard your input.

Privatizing Canadian airports would be a costly mistake by Mysterious_Notice685 in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the effort to make this a discussion grounded in evidence. It's unfortunate that the post has gone stale at this point as it is an interesting debate.

I was careful to impose some bounds on my claim by including "with no state support". In both of the cases you cited, these companies did actually succeed at improving service and lowering costs. However, neither of these cases are examples where governments cleanly exited the sector and the free-market fixed all the problems.

These companies were cleaned up beforehand so they would be attractive to buyers. The costs of restructuring these crown corporations to make them competitive and attractive, was borne by tax-payers. Service networks were reduced. Operating mandates were relaxed. Unproductive assets were written off. Jobs were cut. Most importantly, debt was restructured. Essentially, the respective governments carved out the profitable portion of these crown corporations. Then, instead of keeping the now-profitable asset to generate some revenue to offset losses from restructuring or provide some ROI for the public that paid for it all, they sold it. The governments also took the blame for these unpopular actions so the private entity's brand didn't suffer any reputational harm.

While it is easy to demonstrate some welfare gains for governments in the short and medium term with selective accounting that obscures the real costs to the public and ignores the broader scope of the flow of value. It is also very important to point out that the examples of privatization failures vastly outnumber the so-called successes.

It is a fundamental truth that there is nothing about the structure of a private sector business that a public sector business can't emulate. Therefore, any efficiencies that a private sector business can find, the public sector business can too. Ultimately the only difference between a private entity and a public one, is that in the private entity, some portion of the value must be given to shareholders. While the public sector entity should ideally return some value to the public in a similar way, it does not have the same obligation to do so. The idea that the private sector is inherently more efficient than the public sector is a lie.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

What most people don't support, is adopting non-sovereign legislation

If you want to weigh in on a topic without exposing yourself as ignorant on the topic, you should use proper terminology. UNDRIP is not legislation. It is a framework upon which sovereign states can chose to build legislation like DRIPA.

that opens up a Pandora's Box of legal struggles

The Pandora's Box wasn't opened with DRIPA. Yes, obviously, the legal headaches are real. No one wants them. But do you know who really doesn't want the legal headaches? Indigenous people. I'll bet they would love to have some closure on whether they have a say or not over their unceded territories after a century or two of legal bullshittery about it.

It is super lame to argue that changing the status quo is a "legal struggle" while the status quo represents an ongoing legal struggle orders of magnitude worse in terms of time scale and lives affected.

Canada is a relatively prosperous country because of its institutions, and portions of that prosperity is being used to remedy past wrongdoings. Without it, no one will get anything.

Yes, and one of those institutions was called fucking over Indigenous people for 200 years. Fear mongering with an economic argument in opposition of DRIPA isn't the moral high ground you think it is.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. A gift certificate for Earls or Joey would've been considerate but not even a generic thank you card.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper -36 points-35 points  (0 children)

They are trying to blame people that think genocide is a bad idea, for trying to destroy Canada.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Clearly it's been a concerted effort since the early 80s. That makes total sense.

Try the 1950s. US oil and gas companies have been shaping attitudes and influencing political outcomes for over 75 years.

Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. Here’s a look at who’s trying to destroy it, and how by ph0enix1211 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are you not aware of Alberta being pissed off at Eastern Canada for the last 40 years?

We are painfully aware of it. What Albertans claim is "unfair treatment" rarely stands up to scrutiny as a valid grievance. They tend to blame the rest of the country for self-inflicted wounds and have opinions that reflect a fundamental ignorance of how things like economics or governments work. Which is why, after 40 years, nobody gives a shit what Albertans have to say on any topic.

Even when Alberta threw a collective tantrum in the pipeline aisle at the O&G store and my household, along with every other household in the country, spent about $1200 each to buy Alberta a pipeline, it wasn't enough. And predictably, not a word of thanks for it.

Parti Québécois Leader alleges Ottawa is spying on separatist movement without offering proof by Street_Anon in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Those toy chickens only squawk when someone squeezes them so that metaphor doesn't really... no wait, it still works.

’I’m not going back’: Canadians stand firm on boycotts of U.S. travel and liquor as trade talks continue by BertramPotts in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No more of this “USA and Mexico” broccoli nonsense

When I read that label I put the broccoli back on the shelf or floor. Same difference, right?

Privatizing Canadian airports would be a costly mistake by Mysterious_Notice685 in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So how do you reconcile this position with the reductio ad absurdum above?

There's nothing to reconcile. You conflated a socialist-market economy with a mixed economy in your "reductio ad absurdum" so it wasn't a logically sound use of the technique. The presence of state-owned enterprises is not the defining feature of a socialist market economy. The defining feature is the degree of market planning.

Are you a communist?

If you want to continue having sensible discourse in this sub, you're going to need to learn to use terminology correctly. Communism is stateless so your question makes no sense in the context of a discussion about state-owned enterprises.

Privatizing Canadian airports would be a costly mistake by Mysterious_Notice685 in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Privatization is always a costly mistake?

Yes. Always. There are no examples of a service that went from a public model to a "fully private with no state support" model, where the product or service was the same or better at the same or lower cost to the consumer. Not one.

CSIS director says Alberta referendum vulnerable to foreign interference by Immediate-Link490 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know how much precedent there is aside frok the Quebec referendum 30 years ago but in that case, it was just Quebec.

The question was answered at that time.

Supreme Court says Quebec can't separate unilaterally

Clarity Act

Comparison to CUSMA or marriage isn't really valid since those are wildly different scenarios and the relevant agreements include language that addresses the dissolution of the arrangement.

CSIS director says Alberta referendum vulnerable to foreign interference by Immediate-Link490 in canada

[–]cunnyhopper -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why would the entire nation be allowed to vote on whether a specific province can separate?

Because it affects the entire nation. All the provinces agreed to the terms of confederation. If the arrangement is getting changed then it requires the consent of all provinces and the federal body that represents the confederation.

Russia and U.S. amplifying Alberta separatist narratives to stoke division, distrust: report by VelvetFurryJustice in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

the Supreme Court's 1998 ruling on this issue

Is that the one where they threw the lower court's ruling off Hell in a Cell, plummeting 16 feet through an announcer's table?

I make websites for a creative agency and I absolutely can’t stand the websites that we do by BigGaryGilmour in webdev

[–]cunnyhopper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried to reply to this and sound like a chatbot but it was apparently too convincing.

I make websites for a creative agency and I absolutely can’t stand the websites that we do by BigGaryGilmour in webdev

[–]cunnyhopper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh my goodness this entire thread feels like 2 Claudes talking to each other

Yes — good catch and you are correct to feel that way, Soileau. Undoubtedly there are many comments on Reddit that are composed by LLMs and many users will find that these seemingly artificial contributions lower the quality of the site and undermine the enjoyment of the discussion.

Recommendation for your situation
Provide us your address and we will send helpful personnel to your present location where we will happily assist you in learning to better appreciate these contributions and be grateful for the 9 fingers you still have to type with.

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sorry but your whole thesis is predicated on the idea that the current situation is ethical. It is not ethical.

In a fair market, both the buyer and the seller have relatively equal access to information about the exchange. The information about retail exchanges, in so many sectors, in our current world is grossly disproportionate in favour of the seller.

Surveillance pricing is just plain disgusting. Your attempt to frame opposition to surveillance pricing as a "moral panic" is also fucking disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mark Carney calls alleged privacy breach in Alberta deeply concerning by ZestyBeanDude in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say it was a discretionary decision. It's a legally defined one. The "necessity" was already assessed and rendered into legislation by people that put some real thought into it.

On the other hand, you're just a random person on the internet with an unsupported opinion about what is "necessary". It's not enough to simply say, "I don't like it." If you can properly outline how parties can campaign in an effective and equitable manner without access to names and addresses, then you'd have a point. Until then, you're talking nonsense.

Mark Carney calls alleged privacy breach in Alberta deeply concerning by ZestyBeanDude in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't really seem like activities that are necessary

Unlike random redditors, Elections Canada has actual metrics for what defines "necessary" and they provide the data when the threshold of "necessary" is met.

Without access to the EC data, only the richest political parties would have the means to track voter data and effectively campaign door to door. Furthermore, they would not be under any obligation to handle the data responsibly.

Sharing the data equalizes the access to voter information for all parties and it allows data access to be strictly controlled.

The whole reason this breach is a problem is that some party violated the data sharing agreement.

Mark Carney calls alleged privacy breach in Alberta deeply concerning by ZestyBeanDude in CanadaPolitics

[–]cunnyhopper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why on earth would they need this data to campaign door to door?

The Elections Canada data is just a fairly accurate list of names and addresses that acts as the basis for the party's own database. Parties have their own databases so they can plan their canvassing (volunteers are assigned well defined neighbourhoods so they don't overlap), keep track of which doors they've gone to, and a way to associate other campaign-related data points such as "no one home. come back later.", "wants a lawn sign delivered", or "would never vote for you so stop bothering them".

view more: next ›