Canada Election 2015

[Acajack]

Since we're having fun with cool phrases...

L'argent est un bon serviteur mais un mauvais maître.

(Money is good as a servant but sucks as a master.)

[Migs]

Originally Posted by biguc

Scandinavian countries are capitalist. IKEA is not a product of socialism.

Indeed.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by biguc

Scandinavian countries are capitalist. IKEA is not a product of socialism.

Correct. Democratic Socialism (Venezuela, Peru) =/= Social Democracy (Sweden, Denmark).

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by biguc

Scandinavian countries are capitalist. IKEA is not a product of socialism.

Yes but they are the closest to socialism I'd say in the western world. And to MIGS they'd be pure communists!

[Acajack]

Scandinavian countries espouse human scaled capitalism with a social conscience. It's not the same as dog-eat-dog capitalism.

This balance is what makes them some of the world's most envied and admired societies.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It's a false equivalence for all those reasons and more. It is like comparing the quantity of sugar used in baking versus salt - they are used in different ways and they have different purposes.

More fundamentally, it is like comparing a data set of the miles flown of a fighter jet versus a commercial airliner. They cannot be meaningfully compared, the data sets are fundamentally different.

While I agree that there are differences including those, I don't think the differences greatly impact the discussion. It's still much more accurate to compare like for like (as in percapita usage) than absolute numbers. It just doesn't make sense to say that because you're at greater risk from activity A than activity B, that activity A is more dangerous when the only reasons you're at greater risk from activity A is because you're putting yourself at much greater exposure to its (lower) risks.

I mean, if its unreasonable to say something like "Since there are far fewer injuries from motorcycle crashes than from car crashes, we should encourage people to use motorcycles for their transportation" because the data is not comparable, then it's also unreasonable to say "There are more injuries from car crashes than from motorcycle crashes, so we should apply stricter rules to car drivers including helmet laws" because, as previously established, the data is not comparable.

Can't have it both ways.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nathan

It means exactly what it says. The average injury costs (medical treatment, remedial therapy, income replacement benefits, etc) are 5 times higher for motorcyclists than drivers/passengers in vehicles.

Motorcyclists when in a collision are generally more seriously injured and have a longer recovery time.

This kind of comparison matters when setting insurance rates. Risks with similar characteristics are grouped together and together enough premium needs to be collected to pay for losses/injuries to that group. Though there are some more modern ways to assess risk more individually.

This all comes from the Saskatchewan market though which is a bit of a different jurisdiction (Non-profit crown corporation), though Manitoba, BC, and a portion of Quebec industry have similarities.

To bring it back to where the discussion started, the Saskatchewan government and the provincial insurance company have been making safety measures stricter in order to reduce the severity of claims (more training, better protective clothing, etc) because claims (and therefore, the required premium) for motorcyclists have been skyrocketing. I doubt they will go out and allow people to opt out, especially with a publicly run insurance company.

Also, all new cars have airbags, these function like helmets protecting from impacts. Motorcycle airbag technology doesn't seem to be as developed as car technology for some reason...

I looked for actual costs and couldn't really find much. If you have sources I'd love to see them.

I found this report:

https://www.sgi.sk.ca/pdf/Motorcycle-Review-Committee-Report-on-Findings.pdf

This generally alludes to the fact that they aren't collecting enough from motorcycle insurance to cover the claims. That makes sense as the population of motorcycle riders is generally incredibly small and the personal injury potential much higher (helmet or no). I wouldn't be surprised if they can't cover their costs and need to increase their collections. They will find out however, that no matter what the education and safety laws they implement, the numbers will be very linear with the number of riders on the road. That's what pretty much every other study says. The population of riders is so small the numbers are statistically insignificant anyway.

I did manage to find this helpful graphic to put into perspective what we are talking about here.



These are SK numbers. We are talking 0.5 fatalities a month about 14 personal injuries a month for motorcycles. Cars have about the same number of personal injury cases every single day (~11).

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Correct. Democratic Socialism (Venezuela, Peru) =/= Social Democracy (Sweden, Denmark).

I don't think one would be incorrect in saying the Scandinavian countries were properly socialist in the past. But after major reforms in the 90's (following a severe recession), they all follow the principles of free market socialism.

Some aspects could be considered very capitalistic. Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than regular income there. They must have decided that the gains in economic efficiency from that would outweigh the reduction in equality.


IMO, if the goal is to maximize equality but not at the expense of prosperity, the Scandinavians have found a pretty solid compromise.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Can't have it both ways.

I'm actually not trying to have it both ways, I'm simply pointing out that car drivers put such a lopsided and extraordinary burden on our health care system compared to these relatively tiny demographics of the population that it is patently absurd that we don't have helmet laws for cars.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

There's plenty of other concerns with TPP. For one, I am absolutely opposed to the massive expansion of copyright terms (up to 120 years for non-natural persons) which go way, way beyond what copyrights were intended for. The definition for copyright infringement includes infringements "have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain" and make those a criminal offence. The ambiguous language regarding "trade secrets" also makes the TPP threatening towards journalists and whistleblowers.

Good points. The copyright terms also apply to drugs and medicine which is something of real concern. People brushing off concerns about TPP as fear mongering aren't wrapping their heads around the impact it could have on us. Look no further than that asshole who bought the patent rights to that drug to treat AIDS and Cancer patients for the worst case scenarios of what is possible. Now picture this piece of shit having those rights for a century.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

There's plenty of other concerns with TPP. For one, I am absolutely opposed to the massive expansion of copyright terms (up to 120 years for non-natural persons) which go way, way beyond what copyrights were intended for. The definition for copyright infringement includes infringements "have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain" and make those a criminal offence. The ambiguous language regarding "trade secrets" also makes the TPP threatening towards journalists and whistleblowers.

Patents and copyrights are certainly controversial.

At the end of the day, the United States produces the most content and has the most of it's export value tied up in copyright laws. They are negotiating the TPP from a position of extreme weakness in this area as other countries don't really have to care as much about this. It will be compromise for all countries involved, and yes, many countries will put their copyright laws in line with the USA over this. It is an agreement and the USA made other concessions in other industries to accommodate that.

Patents being extended can benefit Canadian pharmaceutical and biotech research as well. Some drugs may be slightly more expensive during the length of the patent, but generics will still exist and will still come into the market just on a different time line.

Both instances have some rather lopsided fear mongering associated with them which seems slightly out of proportion to what is actually being proposed in such a wide sweeping trade agreement. This agreement will open up several of the worlds markets to Canadians and Canadian businesses. A few concessions regarding patents (which we also benefit from) and copyright (which only one country benefits from) seem quite small minded and making mountains out of mole hills.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Migs

MPs vote freely? I thought Trudeau refused to have any candidates who are pro-life. Can you imagine dictating to your members that you cannot be pro-life.

If MPs vote freely then what's the point of parties? I mean, Trudeau can say "if you elect the Liberal Party, we'll be doing this or that" but if the MPs are truly free there's no telling what they'll vote for. It's going to be empty promises (well, even emptier than ordinary politician's promises!)

I like the idea of having MPs be free (representing their constituents) and I also can find things I like with a party system and some form of PR, but it seems that with FPTP combined with strict party lines we have the worst of both worlds.

Strict party lines would work fine with (as of right now) ~35% power to the LPC, ~30% power to the CPC, ~25% power to the NDP, ~5% power to the BQ and Greens. Why do we need warm flesh and bones tools assigned to specific ridings in a party line system?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Good points. The copyright terms also apply to drugs and medicine which is something of real concern. People brushing off concerns about TPP as fear mongering aren't wrapping their heads around the impact it could have on us. Look no further than that asshole who bought the patent rights to that drug to treat AIDS and Cancer patients for the worst case scenarios of what is possible. Now picture this piece of shit having those rights for a century.

There's nothing really stopping what happened with that instance from happening in Canada with a Canadian developed drug under a Canadian protected patent. All the TPP does is bring patent laws in line with each other, the potential for exploitation was always there in many of these systems already (and is likely happening without you even knowing about it - as drug companies tend to start high and stay high).

[Procrastinational]

I have no problem with stronger copyright laws. I am in favour of stronger property rights of any kind, whether physical or intellectual. They encourage research and development, and discourage/prevent rent-seeking, both of which are desirable effects.

It's no surprise that American companies do very well, despite some of the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. Strong intellectual property laws are more important for business success than low tax rates.

People also forget that property rights work both ways, they don't just benefit huge corporations. Strong copyright laws also prevent entrepreneurs from having their ideas stolen by large corporations, as long as they are administered effectively and fairly. I would go as far as saying the difference in entrepreneurial culture between the US and Canada is almost entirely due to differences in patent laws.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

They have lost some support in Quebec because of that (but they're still on track to win most ridings, last I checked)... and this loss of support has apparently caused somewhat of a snowball effect (completely unrelated to the "why") among centerleft voters in the ROC.

Again, though: I wouldn't be surprised to see the NDP stabilize in Quebec. Everyone who was going to leave over this is gone already, the current voters are obviously planning to hold their nose and still vote for them.

I think the niqab issue has caused a portion of the electorate in Quebec to have an "Et tu, Brutus?" moment with the NDP. In that they've realized the NDP could also embody certain things about Canada that makes them uncomfortable. Since the Layton days, many Quebecers were under the impression that the NDP wasn't a pan-Canadian party like the others. That's why so many of them flocked to the NDP. I do think that the NDP has always toed the progressive Anglo-Canadian line when it comes to multiculturalism, even since 2011, but it hasn't really had to take a clear stand (either way) on this issue and its ramifications until now.

Mulcair on Tout le monde en parle kind of tried to do some damage control last night. He kind of hinted that he (too) isn't fond of the niqab, but that we live in a society with the rule of law, and what the courts have to say has to be respected and blablabla. Which was in IMO one of the weaker parts of the interview. I mean the courts aren't God. And I suspect most people, in Quebec at least, if given the choice between the opinion of an elected assembly, and that of a bunch of appointed judges (who never have to face the electors), most would choose the assembly. I do realize that it's more complicated than choosing this simply between the two, and that the strength of our system lies in the proper balancing of these powers to find an acceptable middle ground. But I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country ruled only by Supreme Court judges.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

It's no surprise that American companies do very well, despite some of the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. Strong intellectual property laws are more important for business success than low tax rates.

Absolutely, the beauty of capitalism at work. You increase the reward for pursuing research/development/creative pursuits you encourage industry investment in research/development/creative pursuits. It's a win win win.

Far too much talk about moving tax rates around by a few percentages and far too little talk about Canadian businesses being set up to thrive in the first place.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by biguc

Scandinavian countries are capitalist. IKEA is not a product of socialism.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Correct. Democratic Socialism (Venezuela, Peru) =/= Social Democracy (Sweden, Denmark).

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I don't think one would be incorrect in saying the Scandinavian countries were properly socialist in the past. But after major reforms in the 90's (following a severe recession), they all follow the principles of free market socialism.

Some aspects could be considered very capitalistic. Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than regular income there. They must have decided that the gains in economic efficiency from that would outweigh the reduction in equality.


IMO, if the goal is to maximize equality but not at the expense of prosperity, the Scandinavians have found a pretty solid compromise.

Yeah I think sometimes people confuse socialism with communism. Socialism is mostly a style of government rather than a type of economy. Communism is mostly a type of economy rather than a style of government.

Socialism as a form of government is strongly supportive of the social safety net, and doing more things as "the public" rather than having most things under the domain of private individuals or business. There is some overlap in the sense that with socialism there are usually going to be more publicly owned corporations whereas in non-socialist countries this isn't the case. More public schools and hospitals rather than private for profit, sometimes things like railroads, airlines, or utilities are publicly owned (what we refer to as crown corporations in Canada) but most of the economy is still capitalist.

With communism, the economy is what's referred to as "command style" in which the government (directly or indirectly through government owned corporations) determines what products and services are needed, how they should be distributed etc. rather than this being determined mostly by private companies using supply and demand. The government can be a single dictator, a single party with a complex command chain, or a democracy. I don't believe we've seen any real world examples of a communist democracy, but neither have we really seen any of totally free market capitalism as there has always been some level of regulation and public ownership.

The important thing to note is that very few people in Canada support the communist model, but many support some degree of the socialist model. The socialist model is not at odds with and cannot be contrasted against capitalism, as a socialist government and a capitalist economy are normally paired.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah I think sometimes people confuse socialism with communism. Socialism is mostly a style of government rather than a type of economy. Communism is mostly a type of economy rather than a style of government.

Socialism as a form of government is strongly supportive of the social safety net, and doing more things as "the public" rather than having most things under the domain of private individuals or business. There is some overlap in the sense that with socialism there are usually going to be more publicly owned corporations whereas in non-socialist countries this isn't the case. More public schools and hospitals rather than private for profit, sometimes things like railroads, airlines, or utilities are publicly owned (what we refer to as crown corporations in Canada) but most of the economy is still capitalist.

With communism, the economy is what's referred to as "command style" in which the government (directly or indirectly through government owned corporations) determines what products and services are needed, how they should be distributed etc. rather than this being determined mostly by private companies using supply and demand. The government can be a single dictator, a single party with a complex command chain, or a democracy. I don't believe we've seen any real world examples of a communist democracy, but neither have we really seen any of totally free market capitalism as there has always been some level of regulation and public ownership.

The important thing to note is that very few people in Canada support the communist model, but many support some degree of the socialist model. The socialist model is not at odds with and cannot be contrasted against capitalism, as a socialist government and a capitalist economy are normally paired.

What you've said here is true, but only given the revisionist definition of socialism. Originally socialism was seen as very much an economic model, where the means of production was socialized. In other words, socialism considered the capitalist as an unnecessary middle man, that could easily be bypassed through worker ownership of the means of production.

Over the last few decades, the interpretation of socialism has evolved to encompass more of a welfare state approach combined with free markets.

In fact, the original definition of socialism was far more radical, to the point that Karl Marx considered socialism merely a transitional state between a capitalist and communist society. He saw it only as a means to an end. I suppose this could explain the fear mongering from the far right that any and all socialist policies will necessarily lead towards a communist state. If you only consider the original definition of socialism, they technically aren't wrong.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The important thing to note is that very few people in Canada support the communist model, but many support some degree of the socialist model. The socialist model is not at odds with and cannot be contrasted against capitalism, as a socialist government and a capitalist economy are normally paired.

To make matters more confusing what a government (or country) actually calls itself is totally irrelevant. Democratic People's Republic of Korea is much closer to communism than the Communist Party of China.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Migs

That's funny since capitalism created this website & the device you're using to post that nonsense.

I guess you fail to see the irony of who the quote is from. Oh well.