tharmas

27 ms·

481.
by tharmas 3y ago
>The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple. I would agree with your point about the voters. But that just means the electorate are too stupid to realize that it
482.
by tharmas 3y ago
Yes, and heavily subsidized by other parts of Canada via transfer payments.
483.
by tharmas 3y ago
Maybe what happened to Intel is what happened to GE under Jack Welch. Edit: just saw the CFO put in charge reference in other comment. There's your answer: financialization of the company.
484.
by tharmas 3y ago
What would happen if the only vehicles on the road were all self-driving? Wouldn't it be easier if all self-driving vehicles are only having to deal with other self-driving vehicles and hence less accidents? Of course other objects suc
485.
by tharmas 3y ago
Death. They just killed trust in their products. Code Security. Code Copyright. It was the manner in how they implemented it. "We also sign contracts / agreement to do the work. Some of the clauses in those contracts (at least min
486.
by tharmas 3y ago
+1 for mentioning the Tyee.
487.
by tharmas 3y ago
Excellent and very WISE observation. Why, oh why, do people in charge never consider the Law of Unintended Consequences?
488.
by tharmas 3y ago
Both red and blue states are becoming intolerant of differing views/opinions/beliefs and enacting legislation accordingly. Both sides seem to be drifting towards fascism.
489.
by tharmas 3y ago
Both sides have seen significant industrial decline but the American side much worse, as I believe it was more industrialized to begin with. Moreover, there are not a lot of geographic alternatives on the Canadian side in comparison. Wester
490.
by tharmas 3y ago
I'm not taking sides but the issue is Canadian content. Because both countries share the same language, but there is a huge mismatch in economic might, Canadian content finds it hard to compete with American content. Mexico doesn'
491.
by tharmas 3y ago
I wasn't intimating that Friedman was a boomer. I was getting at that Milton Friedman's Economic Philosophy was fully embraced by the Boomers. And Reagan and Thatcher were fully endorsed by the Boomer generation. Boomers are the f
492.
by tharmas 3y ago
You're right, I was cavalier in my treatment of Boomers in my comment. I accept your criticism in that regard. Not all Boomers deserve blame. However, there was an embrace of laissez-faire economic philosophy that coincided with their
493.
by tharmas 3y ago
I know that Clinton watered down the anti-monopoly laws but wasn't sure if Reagan had watered down them considerably more than Clinton. Why the confrontational tone? If you think I'm wrong couldn't you have stated so in a mor
494.
by tharmas 3y ago
I was looking at it as Survival of the fittest implying Winners and Losers. You are right that "prosperity theology" is essentially Evangelical Christianity in the USA.
495.
by tharmas 3y ago
I meant it was the Boomers who voted him in. I suppose I should've made that more obvious as many readers where quite young at the time of Reagan or weren't even born then at all. And to be clear I was referring to Boomers voted f
496.
by tharmas 3y ago
The most egregious thing the Boomers did is they watered down the anti-monopoly laws. That was Bill Clinton's regime. I could be wrong on that, maybe it was Ronald Reagan's regime. Either way it was the Boomers. The enemy of the s
497.
by tharmas 3y ago
In the USA (and UK) if you are poor you are considered a LOSER! Society in these two cultures is all about Winners and LOSERS. If you are not rich you are a LOSER. A LOSER is a pariah. Everybody loves Winners and hates Losers. If the game i
498.
by tharmas 3y ago
Noam Chomsky said it best. Israel has two paths: land or security. Israel chose land.
499.
by tharmas 3y ago
Yes of course, Canada is the destination for "displaced" Palestinians.
500.
by tharmas 3y ago
Wouldn't the price of potatoes go up if the number of PEOPLE increased not the amount in their bank account? Sure, with more money you can eat more so there might be some increase in demand for potatoes but enough to see the price sky-
501.
by tharmas 3y ago
You don't need Govt administrators to manage the money with means-testing etc. It just gets paid out to all citizens. This is why Finland govt employees voted against their UBI pilot project. They saw the writing on the wall. Instead o
502.
by tharmas 3y ago
I'm beginning to think so myself. The cracks are beginning to show from decades of poor management and de-industrialization. What does Canada make? Its mainly resource-extraction.
503.
by tharmas 3y ago
One advantage of UBI is govts can streamline their social services division, as in eliminate them entirely. No means-testing and administration equals less bureaucrats needed to manage the money. You simply distribute it to ALL citizens reg
504.
by tharmas 3y ago
Not as much as you think it does. Most of the land is in very undesirable climates. A good chunk of Ontario and Quebec is part of the Canadian Shield - very hard rock not suitable for agriculture. The land suitable for agriculture is where
505.
by tharmas 3y ago
Didn't this happen in the UK with housing benefit? The UK govt helps out with rent so landlords raised their rents accordingly to capture that added benefit. UBI will just be captured by Landlords. I believe the number of UK MPs who we
506.
by tharmas 3y ago
Hmm...where have I seen this controversy over a cartoon before?
507.
by tharmas 3y ago
The problem with UBI is the landlords will just jack the rents accordingly. That's what happened in the UK when the govt introduced Housing Benefit. The landlords jacked the rent. So effectively the taxpayer subsidizes landlords.
508.
by tharmas 3y ago
He destroyed the Company in the long run. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1101505691/short-term-profits...
509.
by tharmas 3y ago
Yes, this exactly. I wish the media would cover this more. But we know why they don't.
510.
by tharmas 3y ago
Nuclear power is still expensive because those power plants have to be absolutely safe. They have to meet stringent safety standards making them expensive to build. Otherwise you get another Chernobyl.

More ›