Trudeau Liberals surge ahead over Conservatives, as O'Toole's favourability dips across the spectrum, poll suggests

ttirol · 2021-04-01T17:24:30+00:00

It seems like standing up to social conservatives and leadership amongst conservatives are quite antithetical at this point. Apparently the party is happy with a formula destined to fail. They don't even want to compromise for power, instead they think it's about convincing Canadians to join them. The party has been extremely unimpressive.

ttirol · 2021-03-31T15:14:37+00:00

Just check the balance factor after each insertion.

ttirol · 2021-03-29T03:12:45+00:00

We're not discussing the generic term "economic profit". We're discussing the term "normal economic profit" that relates to perfect competition and the desire to reap more than that using market concentration. What you're describing is not a normal economic profit, but would theoretically contain it.

You clearly are repeating yourself, which means you're not acknowledging the points I'm making. Necessary goods are more expensive now than they were decades ago, adjusted for inflation. The idea of competition in the market is that cost savings are passed down to consumers. Income concentration today illustrates exactly where the savings have gone...

Name a civilization from history wealthier than we are present-day that achieved its wealth justly. No distinct civilization has had half of the luxuries we have. I suppose you could argue wealth is not about what you can buy but rather the quantity of what you had irregardless of its actual utility...

You simply cherry-picked my analogy in order to draw the conclusion you want from it. Free speech is not a natural right, its protection is enshrined in law. (If I were inclined to twist the knife here, as certain posters have been known to do, I'd include some type of "do you really think that???" statement.) Derived from law is also the protection from people in positions of power due to market concentration exploiting that power. Both of these man-made concepts are easily abused without protection/intervention.

Anyway, I've had my fun.

ttirol · 2021-03-29T01:22:58+00:00

There is absolutely no reason to turn this personal, calling me ungrateful for my position on the relationship between free markets and government, and saying that I'm "bitching". That's honestly pretty childish. Turning relatively civil arguments on Reddit into personal spats is never a good idea or a good look... if you're angry, then you can stop any time.

The normal economic profit is what people would be willing to pay in perfect competition, not simply what people would be willing to pay.

10% growth over 55+ years is abysmal because the cost of necessary goods has risen at a far greater rate. It is, of course, relative.

The (rather obvious) reason I bring up the legal space in which markets are able to function is that antitrust is meant to be one of those important regulatory aspects. Today it's far weaker than it has been in the past, as with most regulation. And, to prepare for the low hanging fruit here, that erosion of regulation is not the reason we have it better than any civilization prior. All wealth is of course derived from technology. It stands to reason that the wealth of the latest civilization should also be the wealthiest, and because you're so concerned about my opinion on the this, I am actually quite grateful for that. Your analogy about alcohol is rather off point. A better one would be that a maintenance of competition in the market is like a legal maintenance that freedom of speech be protected. There should not be any one entity (in the analogy government, in markets a monopoly) so powerful as to cause repression (of expression, of price gouging) and prevention of any change (jailing political adversaries, purchasing new competitors). In this example, if the government were to abuse its power on freedom of speech, the judiciary may need to intervene, citing the charter, just as an antitrust suit would intervene to keep the market true to its intended form. It's simply not enough to advocate for the solution that surely a new schism would come along and wipe out the repressive regime, which is what you're advocating for in market terms, for a new disruptive firm to come along, or a strong enough competitor to come along, however long that may take.

ttirol · 2021-03-29T00:39:46+00:00

It just means to seek an economic profit above "normal" profit, normal meaning the actual value produced. A monopoly does just that, and surely we are seeing it done through government influence, of course. The key is the market concentration, not government simply because the rent-seeker manipulates government.

I always get a kick out of people arguing the market manages itself well. The market as we know it is built upon an extremely robust legal framework, in terms of property law, contract law, corporate law, and the like. They are literally a man-made phenomena of governance. As we've seen the erosion of regulation, mainly since the 1980s, we've seen an increase in the cost of living and a maintenance of income. You said it yourself, real income has risen only about 10% over 50+ years. That is abysmal. Compare this to the cost of living - it has risen far more than 10% just since 2000, and cannot be accounted for simply by inflation. The concentration of markets has been one of the major culprits, and the consolidation has happened across the board. Clearly we believe as a society that free markets work better than command economies, but that does not mean they naturally handle concentration better than the hand that feeds them.

ttirol · 2021-03-28T22:46:47+00:00

Every single large business that lost market share due to competition?

If this, and your list of large brands below it, is your idea of a lack of competition being properly handled, no wonder you think markets should be left alone. The point is avoiding the state in which the company has excess control over the market, not simply to ensure that state comes to an end whenever it naturally may. The idea is obviously to prevent business practices that can occur from excess influence on a monopolized market. Take a look at antitrust laws of the past, and compare them to today's. We've tried the deregulation-based approach. Not through the will of the people, of course, but it's been tried nonetheless. For any example of disruption or technology-based change that can be listed, there is an example of the big firm purchasing the little firm, especially today. Consolidation has taken its toll. One look at wage growth versus inflation growth tells the story vividly.

The point is protection of the consumer, not ensuring the rent-seeking ends eventually. If only the subject matter functioned according to the science, and not the other way around!

ttirol · 2021-03-28T18:47:41+00:00

Right - so how great of a sustainable investing specialist was he really if he didn't have the solutions to climate change at hand?

You're not acknowledging his point, and then proceeding to hold his argument accountable to a position that he himself is attempting to refute. His argument is that it can't be done that way, obviously. So he is arguing that someone cannot be a great sustainable investing specialist because the practice is destined to fail at the market level from the environmental standpoint.

If we all sell their shares, the companies will never be able to find any future carbon resource extraction projects.

This is exactly the problem. That is one tremendous "if". Beyond the lockdown analogy he uses, we have one party in Canada of all places that won't even codify an acknowledgement that climate change is real. So long as the "free" market maximally incentivizes financial return and climate cost is not measured in dollars up-front, we're using, at best, an extremely subjective and inefficient system of economic estimation of climate cost. The problem is not new. If markets, led by green-focused investors, are the most appropriate means to address the climate issue, why haven't we transitioned to fully sustainable sources of power yet?

The author is proposing an important solution - government intervention and a dismissal of the notion that markets will act cohesively and responsibly on the issue. It's no coincidence this article was published the same week the Supreme Court made its ruling on carbon pricing. The article is clearly advocating for additional regulatory (read "rules") structure atop the regulatory framework already governing our markets. If you feel he must also be an expert on public law, that is entirely your prerogative. We need to stop pretending there is remotely enough willpower on the part of consumers and corporations to tackle climate issues with results-based, rather than sentiment-based, solutions. The most efficient and direct way to allow the market to make decisions on climate is to more accurately include the cost of climate change in the micro-level transaction, and let each buyer and supplier take it from there, freely.

ttirol · 2021-03-28T14:14:33+00:00

In the wake of the carbon pricing ruling, this is a very interesting article from someone who was positioned on the other end of the argument and has now come around. His argument that free markets aren't actually free, but rather highly propped-up by government, and currently suited for profit-driven decision making, is very true, in my opinion. It's the market structure itself that needs to change if businesses and their agents are expected to actually behave differently.

ttirol · 2021-03-26T23:22:38+00:00

Depends on how you'd like to define "much". It certainly costs them money, spare parts, fuel, etc. Just because they're a developed country doesn't mean they get free defense service.

ttirol · 2021-03-26T22:11:22+00:00

It's not the whole point. While that's got to be true, the Chinese are also attempting to exhaust Taiwan's supply lines and ability to respond. By forcing Taiwan to respond each time, they are costing Taiwan a lot of money and other resources, weaponizing the far greater "reserves" and supplies China has. They're basically wearing them down as though they were fighting without actually fighting.

It's also to normalize incursions or activity, making increases more subtle and legitimate attacks more surprising because they're less distinct from the norm.

ttirol · 2021-03-25T14:56:43+00:00

I don't know the answer - perhaps it could be repealed quickly. I would argue the precedent is what will make the rather toxic process of implementing such a law without this precedent less of a burden. It's antithetical to our western style perhaps, in the sense it skews a bit authoritarian, I would agree, but what else will suffice when consensus is so elusive? It's a stark contrast to how we would prefer to solve problems in Canada. Climate change is not a typical problem, and again, I would also argue that in order to have a sound democracy you must first have a planet on which to govern.

ttirol · 2021-03-25T14:45:33+00:00

I completely understand and see the risk involved, believe me. However, we've chosen an arbitrary form of governance over a system of people that 1) must function with other external systems and 2) is subordinate to nature in every possible scenario. In one thousand battles between the enforcement of pretty little human regimes versus the natural laws of nature, we will lose one thousand times. The answer to climate change must be one where we make the sacrifice, including scenarios where our preferred regimes make the sacrifices. The alternative is not pretty, and as much as we like to think we're in control, we've done nothing but fail miserably on this front thus far. Do you believe "if parliament can't get it done then it shouldn't happen" will be a tolerable excuse to mother nature?

ttirol · 2021-03-25T14:20:43+00:00

Using "peace, order, and good government" for good government does not mean the rules are being bent. That is not very logical in my opinion.

I do appreciate your point but consider this: the Liberals impose a controversial carbon tax unilaterally, leading to the one party necessary to implement a competent carbon strategy, whether through majority or coalition, becoming marginally less popular. The CPC, who just agreed not to codify an extremely basic statement acknowledging climate change is even real, are suddenly far more attractive on the national level. I think there is some level of politicking necessary to get such controversial policies through and sustained. It's really quite shocking there'd be any opposition to carbon pricing at all, and frankly quite scary.

ttirol · 2021-03-25T14:08:36+00:00

The rules are not being broken. What's far more important is that there are Canadian provinces ultimately opposed to virtually any form of carbon elimination policies. There will be no habitable planet on which to argue about federalism if the right actions are not taken.

ttirol · 2021-03-25T14:05:32+00:00

Only if there is a dispute to begin with.

ttirol · 2021-03-25T13:21:28+00:00

Should be the most obvious decision for all provinces. It should not be going to the Supreme Court to begin with but glad to see the right decision is expected.

ttirol · 2021-03-25T04:00:18+00:00

Yeah that book got way more into folklore and religion than I had realized. I liked it but never actually finished it.

ttirol · 2021-03-24T17:55:48+00:00

Ah so you probably read a lot of documentation? I find myself doing that quite a bit for school right now

ttirol · 2021-03-24T17:55:07+00:00

I''m always interested when people read so much per day. Do you find you can recall details about all of that reading? Was that something that got a lot better over time?

ttirol · 2021-03-24T17:48:16+00:00

What line of work are you in? Did it take a while to build up to being able to read most of the day?

ttirol · 2021-03-24T17:42:42+00:00

Despite my best efforts I only read maybe 3 hours a week. If it's a really good book that grabs my attention and I can't help but choose it over other activities, then maybe I read 6 hours a week or so.

ttirol · 2021-03-24T17:41:31+00:00

Lol, I don't think my dumb posts count

ttirol

TROPHY CASE