???? Are you going to explain it?The province made $2.3 billion from the LCBO in 2019.
???? Are you going to explain it?The province made $2.3 billion from the LCBO in 2019.
That's pretty much what Moviefan-2 wrote before you excerpted him.Vaccination does offer protection from the severity of the disease.
I once got eight "likes" here on Terb.I wonder how many of them could get 152,661 people to vote for them.
That's profit from sales, sell the LCBO and the province doesn't get that annual money.???? Are you going to explain it?
Prestigious is debatable. Boston University overly-benefits from the aura of being an old, expensive, private, liberal arts school in New England. BU is dwarfed by other universities in the region. It's certainly a decent school though.You know she has a university degree from a prestigious university, huh?
You can only run the "bartender" line so far.
Why not? Are the private operators going to stop charging taxes? Are people going to drink less?That's profit from sales, sell the LCBO and the province doesn't get that annual money.
Ah, so by 'non-partisan' do you mean she was taught something other than the Chicago school of economics?Prestigious is debatable. Boston University overly-benefits from the aura of being an old, expensive, private, liberal arts school in New England. BU is dwarfed by other universities in the region. It's certainly a decent school though.
AOC has a B.A. in international relations and economics. I personally like discussing economics. I have said this before here. Judging the way AOC discusses economics, I don't think her studies focused on a more classical, nonpartisan approach to economics. I describe AOC's studies as political economics. In her case, there likely was a heavy emphasis studying the history and politics of why some countries and groups are wealthy and others are not. There is a heavy emphasis on redistribution and "equity". From the way she talks, I don't think she is well-versed on how economic policies actually affect growth and development around the world.
This is not at all surprising given that AOC attended a liberal arts school in Boston.
Of course not, but those profits will go to Ford's donors who will buy the stores off Ontario, if he sold, instead of to the province where it can pay for health care and education.Why not? Are the private operators going to stop charging taxes? Are people going to drink less?
Again, you're thinking through this superficially. AOC would likely advocate Canada take in far more immigrants from Latin America. She would want higher levels of redistribution within Canada and from Canada to the Third World.She's moronic to you and to right wing nut. But frankly what she advocates for are things we already have in Canada. And we are just fine.
The Chicago school is only one of several schools of economic thought. The classical approach is one where theses are vigorously studied and debated. They are held up to statistical analysis as much as possible.Ah, so by 'non-partisan' do you mean she was taught something other than the Chicago school of economics?
And you don't think anything that questions the status quo is 'non-partisan'?
Well actually, AOC had been performing about as well in her district as her predecessor Joe Crowley. She slipped to 71.6% in the last general election.He never got 80% of the votes like AOC got.
Sounds like you just don't want people to study or think about anything other than the really old theories.The Chicago school is only one of several schools of economic thought. The classical approach is one where theses are vigorously studied and debated. They are held up to statistical analysis as much as possible.
The University of Chicago has a great deal of economic academic diversity. You will find Keynesians and other schools of thought amongst professors at the University of Chicago. And before one besmirches "the Chicago school" of economics, they had a great deal of influence on making Chile one of the most successful (if not the most successful) countries in South America. This while other countries in the region that pursued more government intervention into the economy stagnated.
The difference can be encapsulated by comparing John Maynard Keynes to Karl Marx. John Maynard Keynes was an accomplished and forward-thinking economist. While Karl Marx is often described as an economist, he is better described as a philosopher, historian and a sociologist.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "science stream". Science-oriented grads are in big demand down here in the Lower 48. That would include accounting and finance along with STEM curriculum. Of course, if you went to some shitty school and got C's all bets are off.Dutch, she's now a congressperson. Smart or dumb?..... Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Some kids just want to take liberal arts, Dutch. If I had kids and they wanted to take liberal arts, I would be fine with that. It's not as though science stream grads are getting jobs either and there's plenty of time for a liberal arts grad to get a career skills course later.
Many are small, relatively homogeneous countries that are underpinned by trade surpluses. Some superficially look at trade surpluses as a success when it can't be replicated across the globe. Every trade surplus has to be offset by a trade deficit. The U.S. with the global reserve currency can't run chronic surpluses or it will trigger global demand depression.People here should really try to understand what Social Democracy means.
A hint: Most of Europe, UK being the exception, is governed by Social Democratic policies.
I would argue, that these countries are governed better than USA and Canada.
For the sake of argument, I will accept that trade surpluses are bad!!Many are small, relatively homogeneous countries that are underpinned by trade surpluses. Some superficially look at trade surpluses as a success when it can't be replicated across the globe. Every trade surplus has to be offset by a trade deficit. The U.S. with the global reserve currency can't run chronic surpluses or it will trigger global demand depression.
All you have to do is look at Southern European countries with Social Democracies to see there is more going on than just the social policies. Germany might be the largest Social Democratic success story, but they are a mercantilist drain on the global economy.
Spain, Italy, France, the U.K. These are shiny examples? You can always find countries that fit your personal view of politics and proclaim them better.For the sake of argument, I will accept that trade surpluses are bad!!
I maintain that the countries governed by Social Democratic policies are better governed than USA and Canada.
You are simply speculating about the nature of here education. Neither you nor I have any idea what, if any, bias there was in her program.Prestigious is debatable. Boston University overly-benefits from the aura of being an old, expensive, private, liberal arts school in New England. BU is dwarfed by other universities in the region. It's certainly a decent school though.
AOC has a B.A. in international relations and economics. I personally like discussing economics. I have said this before here. Judging the way AOC discusses economics, I don't think her studies focused on a more classical, nonpartisan approach to economics. I describe AOC's studies as political economics. In her case, there likely was a heavy emphasis studying the history and politics of why some countries and groups are wealthy and others are not. There is a heavy emphasis on redistribution and "equity". From the way she talks, I don't think she is well-versed on how economic policies actually affect growth and development around the world.
This is not at all surprising given that AOC attended a liberal arts school in Boston.
This might be true, but perhaps too harsh. She beat Joe Crowley in a primary to basically takeover a Democrat seat. Crowley was not only old, but appeared to take his seat in Congress for granted.Anyone with common sense would say AOC is nothing more than a young woman with the right looks, the right demographic, in the right place at the right time when it comes to her political career. That kind of timing does not make anyone smart, nor qualified, nor significant.
She's an American story, but not a success story. She's an example of what is wrong with American politics.
Again speculating about what she would "likely advocate".Again, you're thinking through this superficially. AOC would likely advocate Canada take in far more immigrants from Latin America. She would want higher levels of redistribution within Canada and from Canada to the Third World.
Canada is still a predominantly White, European country. Canada owes the World a lot more contrition
I do believe all European countries are governed better than USA. But I am particularly pointing the Northern continental European countries, who have been governed by Social Democratic policies for a long time.Spain, Italy, France, the U.K. These are shiny examples? You can always find countries that fit your personal view of politics and proclaim them better.
Now I understand why USA is such a shining example for the world. It is because it has a huge trade deficit.PS- There is nothing really to accept as far as trade surpluses. Most economists agree with the notion that developed countries that chronically run trade surpluses encourage over-investment at the expense of spending and are an economic drain on their neighbors (not the inverse). Economists are more tolerant of an export-oriented model for a developing country (i.e. China). They however know there will be painful adjustments towards balancing their economies later when it matures. There are plenty of articles on the net similar to the one I posted.
Denmark has run large trade surpluses relative to its size for thirty years. It makes financing social policies far easier.