Sunday, July 31, 2016
Interns
Note the multiple sets of numbers are because after one "pass" I'd notice I missed some folks and they were caught on subsequent passes.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
new left and new right vs old left and old right
this article explains it well
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thenewpoliticaldivide
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thenewpoliticaldivide
russian democracy
I was trying to figure out just what the "real" votes in the last russian election would have been without the fraud.
That's actually super easy to do. The core to why my entire election projection math works is that voting patterns change slowly, and that the normal "pattern" of a vote can be easily seen by looking at any set of given elections. To pinpoint when elections become stolen, you simply find the break in that pattern.
To my true surprise; there was no break.
In fact the areas that vote strongly for Putin now, with very high turnouts, were areas that voted strongly to retain the Soviet Union in 1991, with similarly high turnouts. This even works in the non-republics.
In short; areas that seem to be pro-putin by the official numbers, actually are pro-putin.
This is not to say there is no fraud, only that putin has real support in russia, and it is to say that the areas that back him strongest, are areas that'd likely back any "strongman" with this level of support.
In general the pattern holds through all elections. The largest deviation in the pattern would suggest that Putin has more control over the various republics in the caucuses than he "should".
That's actually super easy to do. The core to why my entire election projection math works is that voting patterns change slowly, and that the normal "pattern" of a vote can be easily seen by looking at any set of given elections. To pinpoint when elections become stolen, you simply find the break in that pattern.
To my true surprise; there was no break.
In fact the areas that vote strongly for Putin now, with very high turnouts, were areas that voted strongly to retain the Soviet Union in 1991, with similarly high turnouts. This even works in the non-republics.
In short; areas that seem to be pro-putin by the official numbers, actually are pro-putin.
This is not to say there is no fraud, only that putin has real support in russia, and it is to say that the areas that back him strongest, are areas that'd likely back any "strongman" with this level of support.
In general the pattern holds through all elections. The largest deviation in the pattern would suggest that Putin has more control over the various republics in the caucuses than he "should".
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
The Teddy Party
So the CBC did an article on this "Economist Party" joke that's been running on twitter for some time now. A better platform of the party can be found here.
I agree with many of their proposals.
However, I decided that I'd outline things the Teddy Party would do.
Top Priorities:
These are things that would be done first. That means start to finish, these things are done prior to moving on to other items on the list, unless otherwise noted.
1 - Abolish "Payroll Taxes"
To be specific, any income tax that has a maximum. These are regressive taxes that only hurt the poor, and need to be done away with ASAP. Either replace them with general taxation, or keep them but eliminate the cap.
2 - Abolish stealth payroll taxes in crown corporations
This would also apply to non-crown corporations; in short it would ban things like the equal-per-house delivery fee for electricity. These again are regressive taxes that only hurt the poor, and again, need to be done away with ASAP.
3 - Stick social support and other indexes to inflation
You can use another measure, like CPI, or a basket of goods, but social support (IE welfare) needs to be stuck to inflation. Ideally this is done with a basket of goods, and those goods must include things that poor people actually buy and use; things like transit fares, and apartment rents. Welfare must rise with these costs, not below them. Also stuck to these indexes should be fees, taxes, and all sorts of other things, to ensure that the value of these things remains the same over time.
Next Priorities:
After all three of the above are 100% done, we can move on to a few other important items
1 - Basic Income
This will need to be done properly. The first step would be to increase all social supports to the same level of the highest. AFAIK the most any social program gives to single people is AISH which gives $1,588 to albertans with disabilities. This means that all welfare, all other provincial disability programs, and all pensions, will rise to $1,588 a month. Next is catching more people in the system. The best way to do this is to simply lower the bar for welfare entry to those making less than $1,588 a month, after taxes. Finally, you need a clawback that is not 100%. 1/3rd seems fair to me, this means for every dollar you make over $1,588, the government would give you 1/3rd of a dollar less in social support. The final step is merging all these programs into one. Should the government decide that $1,588 is too much, it can hold the rate steady for a while; but in general, the poverty line (which is $1,734.25 a month) should be used.
Priorities:
After a basic income is in place, and only after a basic income is in place, we can do the following,
1 - Flat taxes, and/or no income taxes
Taxes should ideally start with a 0 bracket up to the level of the basic income, with any income above this subject to the same flat rate. Alternatively, eliminate income taxes. If not, then you must do one very important thing: eliminate all tax credits.
2 - Carbon Taxes
Ideally introduced at the same time as the reduction or elimination of the income tax.
3 - Introduce a european-style sales tax
And no, I don't mean switch to a VAT. I mean make it law that all stores must have the after-tax price on the price tag, like Gas stations or Taxicabs do. No more "sticker shock" at the till.
4 - Tolls
In particular, roads and highways that are overcrowded, where alternatives exist (transit, other roads/highways) should be tolled. Importantly, these tolls are only to be put in place after the alternative is up and running.
5 - Corporate Registration and Taxation.
Make it easier and cheaper to register a corporation. Also, corporate taxes should be simplified and reduced. Currently, corporate taxes can be as low as 11% on small businesses, but that's only after a series of complex reductions and paperwork. Taxes can be as high as 54%, but are not that high in reality due to the said complex paperwork. A revenue neutral combined federal and provincial flat tax would have to be 30%. This can be reduced to 28% though a BC style carbon tax. 28% also happens to be the federal corporate tax rate after all the paperwork. While we could go with this as both the personal flat income tax rate, and the corporate flat income tax rate, it would be ideal to lower this as much as possible. Increasing the sales tax, highly recommended by economists, to a total of 18% would mean we can reduce income taxes to 22% or more, while an increase to 25% sales taxes, standard in europe, could provide for a combined provincial-federal income tax as low as 15%, on both corporate and personal income, without any complex paperwork.
Other Objectives:
After all of the above are done, all of them, start to finish, I propose the following, in no particular order:
Legalize pot
Legalize euthanasia
Re-write copyright law to comply with modern expectations
Reform the Senate
Change the voting system
Examine the benefits and drawbacks of unicameral and tricameral systems VS our current system
Reform the entire prison system from the ground up
Fixing the problems with the police
Writing laws for eventual AIs
And a bunch of other stuff I can't think of right now.
I agree with many of their proposals.
However, I decided that I'd outline things the Teddy Party would do.
Top Priorities:
These are things that would be done first. That means start to finish, these things are done prior to moving on to other items on the list, unless otherwise noted.
1 - Abolish "Payroll Taxes"
To be specific, any income tax that has a maximum. These are regressive taxes that only hurt the poor, and need to be done away with ASAP. Either replace them with general taxation, or keep them but eliminate the cap.
2 - Abolish stealth payroll taxes in crown corporations
This would also apply to non-crown corporations; in short it would ban things like the equal-per-house delivery fee for electricity. These again are regressive taxes that only hurt the poor, and again, need to be done away with ASAP.
3 - Stick social support and other indexes to inflation
You can use another measure, like CPI, or a basket of goods, but social support (IE welfare) needs to be stuck to inflation. Ideally this is done with a basket of goods, and those goods must include things that poor people actually buy and use; things like transit fares, and apartment rents. Welfare must rise with these costs, not below them. Also stuck to these indexes should be fees, taxes, and all sorts of other things, to ensure that the value of these things remains the same over time.
Next Priorities:
After all three of the above are 100% done, we can move on to a few other important items
1 - Basic Income
This will need to be done properly. The first step would be to increase all social supports to the same level of the highest. AFAIK the most any social program gives to single people is AISH which gives $1,588 to albertans with disabilities. This means that all welfare, all other provincial disability programs, and all pensions, will rise to $1,588 a month. Next is catching more people in the system. The best way to do this is to simply lower the bar for welfare entry to those making less than $1,588 a month, after taxes. Finally, you need a clawback that is not 100%. 1/3rd seems fair to me, this means for every dollar you make over $1,588, the government would give you 1/3rd of a dollar less in social support. The final step is merging all these programs into one. Should the government decide that $1,588 is too much, it can hold the rate steady for a while; but in general, the poverty line (which is $1,734.25 a month) should be used.
Priorities:
After a basic income is in place, and only after a basic income is in place, we can do the following,
1 - Flat taxes, and/or no income taxes
Taxes should ideally start with a 0 bracket up to the level of the basic income, with any income above this subject to the same flat rate. Alternatively, eliminate income taxes. If not, then you must do one very important thing: eliminate all tax credits.
2 - Carbon Taxes
Ideally introduced at the same time as the reduction or elimination of the income tax.
3 - Introduce a european-style sales tax
And no, I don't mean switch to a VAT. I mean make it law that all stores must have the after-tax price on the price tag, like Gas stations or Taxicabs do. No more "sticker shock" at the till.
4 - Tolls
In particular, roads and highways that are overcrowded, where alternatives exist (transit, other roads/highways) should be tolled. Importantly, these tolls are only to be put in place after the alternative is up and running.
5 - Corporate Registration and Taxation.
Make it easier and cheaper to register a corporation. Also, corporate taxes should be simplified and reduced. Currently, corporate taxes can be as low as 11% on small businesses, but that's only after a series of complex reductions and paperwork. Taxes can be as high as 54%, but are not that high in reality due to the said complex paperwork. A revenue neutral combined federal and provincial flat tax would have to be 30%. This can be reduced to 28% though a BC style carbon tax. 28% also happens to be the federal corporate tax rate after all the paperwork. While we could go with this as both the personal flat income tax rate, and the corporate flat income tax rate, it would be ideal to lower this as much as possible. Increasing the sales tax, highly recommended by economists, to a total of 18% would mean we can reduce income taxes to 22% or more, while an increase to 25% sales taxes, standard in europe, could provide for a combined provincial-federal income tax as low as 15%, on both corporate and personal income, without any complex paperwork.
Other Objectives:
After all of the above are done, all of them, start to finish, I propose the following, in no particular order:
Legalize pot
Legalize euthanasia
Re-write copyright law to comply with modern expectations
Reform the Senate
Change the voting system
Examine the benefits and drawbacks of unicameral and tricameral systems VS our current system
Reform the entire prison system from the ground up
Fixing the problems with the police
Writing laws for eventual AIs
And a bunch of other stuff I can't think of right now.
Friday, July 22, 2016
I'll play that game if you buy it for me
I have a general rule.
It's called I like free stuff.
As such, if you buy me a game, I'll play it with you. The "rules" of this offer are...
Pro:
I'll play at least 8 hours with you, over 3 days, max of 3 hours a day, guaranteed. In general you can pick the days, but if there's a dispute, I get 3 vetos.
I'll also play 15 minutes for every dollar you spend on the game. That means if you buy me a $60 game, that's 15 hours, in addition to the previous offer. Again, I'll be presuming 3 hours a day, so that adds 5 days to the mix, and I also get the same number (5) of vetos.
I'll take the time to configure things, that includes hosting said game if setting up for hosting is difficult.
Chances are I'm not going to veto your days, demand 3 hours or less a day, or say that we've used X hours and stop playing mid round. I hope/expect to enjoy these games, and will likely play more hours than "required". These are just there in case you decide to be a dick about it, so I can defend myself.
Con:
Generally this only applies to steam games. I'm willing to look at other games, but chances are I wont like it.
I get to say no to an offer. So don't buy a game for be before checking. In general I'll play anything free, but
I like to go to sleep as early as 8pm and wake up as late as 8am, eastern time. Outside that, though, you can pick the hours.
It might take me as much as an hour to get ready if you suddenly come in and I want to play
It's called I like free stuff.
As such, if you buy me a game, I'll play it with you. The "rules" of this offer are...
Pro:
I'll play at least 8 hours with you, over 3 days, max of 3 hours a day, guaranteed. In general you can pick the days, but if there's a dispute, I get 3 vetos.
I'll also play 15 minutes for every dollar you spend on the game. That means if you buy me a $60 game, that's 15 hours, in addition to the previous offer. Again, I'll be presuming 3 hours a day, so that adds 5 days to the mix, and I also get the same number (5) of vetos.
I'll take the time to configure things, that includes hosting said game if setting up for hosting is difficult.
Chances are I'm not going to veto your days, demand 3 hours or less a day, or say that we've used X hours and stop playing mid round. I hope/expect to enjoy these games, and will likely play more hours than "required". These are just there in case you decide to be a dick about it, so I can defend myself.
Con:
Generally this only applies to steam games. I'm willing to look at other games, but chances are I wont like it.
I get to say no to an offer. So don't buy a game for be before checking. In general I'll play anything free, but
I like to go to sleep as early as 8pm and wake up as late as 8am, eastern time. Outside that, though, you can pick the hours.
It might take me as much as an hour to get ready if you suddenly come in and I want to play
Saturday, July 16, 2016
"Friendship" and "Respect"
The third and final post in my "rants about bullshit from last night"
Just a very short and quick note that considering someone a friend - even if they do not consider you a friend in return - and/or having respect for a person only magnifies any feelings outlined in the past two posts.
It does not mean I've stopped respecting you, or I no longer consider you a friend.
It does mean that I've been personally hurt by the things you've said, and that it will take a long time for those wounds to heal.
Just a very short and quick note that considering someone a friend - even if they do not consider you a friend in return - and/or having respect for a person only magnifies any feelings outlined in the past two posts.
It does not mean I've stopped respecting you, or I no longer consider you a friend.
It does mean that I've been personally hurt by the things you've said, and that it will take a long time for those wounds to heal.
A personal attack
Just quickie on what a personal attack is and is not.
If I told Justin Trudeau that he sucked at Basketball, is that a personal attack?
Well technically, yes. Trudeau, however, is not a professional basketball player. Nor is he known for his basketball skills. As such, while it might be such an attack, him getting overly offended by this would be comical.
Now what if I told Michael Jordan that he sucked at Basketball. Now that is a flat out personal attack, without any question. Jordan is not only defined by his basketball ability, but has gone so far as for his ability to define basketball. Basketball is his thing and as such, attacking him on it, even slightly, is a direct personal attack.
Now what am I known for? Well in some places for maps. In other places for video games. And in other places for running for office itself.
But what I'm most known for is explaining what's going on in the world to people, especially when those things going on are political.
Not only that, but I go out of my way to let people know that I define myself by my ability to explain the world to people, and, with my miniature youtube career, it may soon be how I make my living.
As such, and sit back because this may surprise you:
ATTACKING MY ABILITY TO EXPLAIN WORLD EVENTS IS A HIGHLY PERSONAL ATTACK, AND I WILL TAKE IT AS SUCH.
If I told Justin Trudeau that he sucked at Basketball, is that a personal attack?
Well technically, yes. Trudeau, however, is not a professional basketball player. Nor is he known for his basketball skills. As such, while it might be such an attack, him getting overly offended by this would be comical.
Now what if I told Michael Jordan that he sucked at Basketball. Now that is a flat out personal attack, without any question. Jordan is not only defined by his basketball ability, but has gone so far as for his ability to define basketball. Basketball is his thing and as such, attacking him on it, even slightly, is a direct personal attack.
Now what am I known for? Well in some places for maps. In other places for video games. And in other places for running for office itself.
But what I'm most known for is explaining what's going on in the world to people, especially when those things going on are political.
Not only that, but I go out of my way to let people know that I define myself by my ability to explain the world to people, and, with my miniature youtube career, it may soon be how I make my living.
As such, and sit back because this may surprise you:
ATTACKING MY ABILITY TO EXPLAIN WORLD EVENTS IS A HIGHLY PERSONAL ATTACK, AND I WILL TAKE IT AS SUCH.
That's not to say you can't. You may, for example, honestly feel that Jordan was a bad basketball player.
However, if you do so, you (are either an blithering idiot, or you) must be fully aware that Jordan has every right to be deeply, deeply personally offended.
Thank you for your time
If you saw this happen live, fuck you
During the middle of the turkish coup attempt, as usual, I tried to keep my friends up to date on what was going on. While that happening, another user, who we shall call "Egg" came in.
Now Egg has a history of coming in and sharing news stories. When he does that, there's a good chance the news story is either from a bad source (IE the Daily Mail) or that it's media bullshit (IE stories about how vaccines probably are okay for you but maybe not). Even if he does somehow find a quality news story, his interpretation of it is always way off. I'm pretty sure that in the past 4 months alone he's managed to declare that Russia and the USA are on the brink of armed conflict a dozen times.
In short, Egg has 0 credibility on current events, or his interpretation of current events.
Anyway, so Egg comes in and starts to challenge what I was saying. First off, if you saw this happen, fuck you. Not a single one of you idiot motherfuckers said a peep. The only thing in your defence is that you didn't rush to defend Egg. Instead, while serious shit (tm) was going down, you decided to grab your popcorn and sit back and watch while I desperately attempted to appeal for calm, with the reality that the coup had lost.
(For those who were not around, this all happened in the hour prior to the storming of CNN Turk, when it was very clear that the coup had lost)
I made a few claims that have all turned out to be 100% correct.
1 - That withdrawing from the airport was a tactical mistake.
Doing so eventually allowed Erdogan to return where he started assuming direct control over the situation.
2 - That it was clear the coup was winding down and had lost.
Every media organization I was following started talking about the coup in past tense before I went to bed; I went to bed within 30 minutes of this little argument ending.
3 - That the fact the Government was getting it's message out was important.
The counter claim from Egg was that this is just PR and the Military had more serious shit (tm) to take care of, and that PR was not important.
I want to take the time to fully respond to that.
1 - Fuck you, you were flat out wrong. The key turning point in this entire thing was when Erdogan took to the air to ask people to take to the streets. That was his message. He got his message out. As a result, the street filled with civilians and the military was (mostly) unwilling to fire on them.
2 - Fuck you, if they are getting their message out it means they are not only alive, but free.
3 - Fuck you, if they are alive and free ti means they can do "government stuff" like ordering the police to arrest the plotters.
In short: WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO TAKE CONTROL OF!?
It's not "Just PR". and evidence backs that up after the fact.
Turns out I was right about everything I said, and Egg was wrong about everything he said.
This is not the first time that I've been right while Egg has been wrong either, and it wont be the last.
So to all of you who saw the entire thing happening, knowing full well my record (on being right) and his record (on being wrong)
fuck you.
Now Egg has a history of coming in and sharing news stories. When he does that, there's a good chance the news story is either from a bad source (IE the Daily Mail) or that it's media bullshit (IE stories about how vaccines probably are okay for you but maybe not). Even if he does somehow find a quality news story, his interpretation of it is always way off. I'm pretty sure that in the past 4 months alone he's managed to declare that Russia and the USA are on the brink of armed conflict a dozen times.
In short, Egg has 0 credibility on current events, or his interpretation of current events.
Anyway, so Egg comes in and starts to challenge what I was saying. First off, if you saw this happen, fuck you. Not a single one of you idiot motherfuckers said a peep. The only thing in your defence is that you didn't rush to defend Egg. Instead, while serious shit (tm) was going down, you decided to grab your popcorn and sit back and watch while I desperately attempted to appeal for calm, with the reality that the coup had lost.
(For those who were not around, this all happened in the hour prior to the storming of CNN Turk, when it was very clear that the coup had lost)
I made a few claims that have all turned out to be 100% correct.
1 - That withdrawing from the airport was a tactical mistake.
Doing so eventually allowed Erdogan to return where he started assuming direct control over the situation.
2 - That it was clear the coup was winding down and had lost.
Every media organization I was following started talking about the coup in past tense before I went to bed; I went to bed within 30 minutes of this little argument ending.
3 - That the fact the Government was getting it's message out was important.
The counter claim from Egg was that this is just PR and the Military had more serious shit (tm) to take care of, and that PR was not important.
I want to take the time to fully respond to that.
1 - Fuck you, you were flat out wrong. The key turning point in this entire thing was when Erdogan took to the air to ask people to take to the streets. That was his message. He got his message out. As a result, the street filled with civilians and the military was (mostly) unwilling to fire on them.
2 - Fuck you, if they are getting their message out it means they are not only alive, but free.
3 - Fuck you, if they are alive and free ti means they can do "government stuff" like ordering the police to arrest the plotters.
In short: WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO TAKE CONTROL OF!?
It's not "Just PR". and evidence backs that up after the fact.
Turns out I was right about everything I said, and Egg was wrong about everything he said.
This is not the first time that I've been right while Egg has been wrong either, and it wont be the last.
So to all of you who saw the entire thing happening, knowing full well my record (on being right) and his record (on being wrong)
fuck you.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
how to effect change
if you want to effect change you need to first of all calm down - nobody takes outraged people very seriously
secondly, use what you know about politics (which is a lot) to put pressure on people and in places that matter
the objective is to get the right people thinking that a lot of people care about the issue
once you've done that, you then should reach out to others who also want change, but filter out those who
are still acting "angry". they will not help your cause. calm determination will.
anger only ever works in large masses, IE an "angry mob". one on one it has very low success ratios.
if you are successful you'll have convinced those in power that a lot of people actually want change.
the final step is convincing the masses that they do, indeed, want change, so that it becomes a doorstop issue.
but that final step should be occurring all throughout the process bring it up at every possible opportunity with voters
secondly, use what you know about politics (which is a lot) to put pressure on people and in places that matter
the objective is to get the right people thinking that a lot of people care about the issue
once you've done that, you then should reach out to others who also want change, but filter out those who
are still acting "angry". they will not help your cause. calm determination will.
anger only ever works in large masses, IE an "angry mob". one on one it has very low success ratios.
if you are successful you'll have convinced those in power that a lot of people actually want change.
the final step is convincing the masses that they do, indeed, want change, so that it becomes a doorstop issue.
but that final step should be occurring all throughout the process bring it up at every possible opportunity with voters
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Pedantic
So I was re-reading this
http://thenewteddy.blogspot.ca/2016/06/clarity.html
And realized I did a god awful job at explaining myself.
As such to make it clear:
There is nothing wrong with being pedantic.
If you think there is you are wrong.
The end
http://thenewteddy.blogspot.ca/2016/06/clarity.html
And realized I did a god awful job at explaining myself.
As such to make it clear:
There is nothing wrong with being pedantic.
If you think there is you are wrong.
The end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)