avidamoeba

collapsed inline media

Seems like a fix is on the way.

They're pretty good. The affected models are 10-year-old now. Not that it means they should stop working, but just some context.

Really? I was able to comment a couple of minutes ago.

I was taken aback by this random person's statement, interviewed by the CBC about this. They were like "Well we all know that Poilievre is good, but Carney just seems better." 🥹

I mean it's possible that it may have fallen some due to the relentless campaign against it in thr US, coupled with the typical leakage of American propaganda into Canada. The support for gay marriage was never 100% so it's conceivable that it may have dropped a bit but I don't expect a dramatic change or anything approaching a majority against. Not coming off of 79% approval in 2023.

I really liked how Carney addressed the woke scare. He said that while America engages in a war on woke, Canadians will continue to value inclusiveness. Also he contrasted the US as a melting pot with Canada as a mosaic. Simple.

A quick look in Wikipedia shows in 2017 support for same sex marriage stood at 74% and in 2023 at 79%. Did it fall since then? To what?

Jaw dropped, I think the expectation was 55-65.

Insane. Now let's see to what extent that translates to the general public.

Freeland has polled fairly poorly against Poilievre and this is what everyone i know voted on - who can defeat him. Then there's some of the bad takes she made. She sounded austerity-ish, made some anti-woke statements which play right in the cons' hands.

He plans to bring in more taxes if he can't increase current sales taxes plus increase income taxes.

Not sure where you're getting this from but it goes directly against what he's been saying throughout his campaign.

Last time I checked the OTPP wasn't a major BCE shareholder. This seems to agree

But that doesn't invalidate the general pattern. I think the ownership of a large corporation by a labor union or its pension plan is an improvement over traditional ownership. Reason being that the negative externalities produced by such a corporation are felt much more by the union's members who have much lower incomes than some fat cats. As a result these members have on one hand the incentive to extract value from this corporation, but on the other the incentive to not overextract.

Another related thought I had some time ago is that if union density is very high and union members manage to extract the lion's share of the company profits, then they'll be able to accumulate much bigger savings. In such a reality the economic equation flips from having a financial system extract the value of labor for your pension to workers getting that value right in their paycheque, every two weeks. Of course there are other issues like some workers perhaps still not making enough for a decent pension due to the generally lower pay in some sectors. That's why I think if union density goes high enough, we'd likely move to a much stronger national pension system.

Oh damn, I didn't notice. Thanks!