Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Altair]

Yes. Competition means winners and losers. We aren't assured of not being the loser. It would be ludicrous to allow that risk to intimidate us into not playing the game.

You know what. This is one of the few times I'm going to say this...I trust corporate canada to handle its own affairs. If they aren't pumping massively more I'm going to assume it's for a good reason. That said, they are pumping more oild and gas than ever before but in gradual gains which I assume they know the market can handle.

That's an argument for more competition. The less the competition, the easier it is for wannabe monopolists and price-fixing cartels.

Tesla produced a million cars. They are sitting on lots, not selling. Turns out...no.

Incomplete. "no longer profitable for particular competitors". They fail, and the resources they consumed (by definition less productively) are available for other uses. Do not reinforce economic failure.

I'm going to trust corporate canada has their shite together compared to us on the internet.

Quit reaching so far. We're not about to declare war on anyone.

Politics is politics. Dismiss it all you want, but that's true

No. My position is "end tariffs", which are among the government impediments I mentioned.

But pumping more oil, I mean making more canola will create the demand. You said this.

More hand-waving cloud-shaped "safety concerns". All weak excuses.

I will trust corporate canada.

I feel so dirty saying that, but compared to your....interesting take, it's warranted.

I'm going to go shower now

 

[Brad Sallows]

You know what. This is one of the few times I'm going to say this...I trust corporate canada to handle its own affairs. If they aren't pumping massively more I'm going to assume it's for a good reason. That said, they are pumping more oild and gas than ever before but in gradual gains which I assume they know the market can handle.

Tesla produced a million cars. They are sitting on lots, not selling. Turns out...no.

Examples of occasional - very occasional - misjudgements are not arguments refuting the principles.

Politics is politics. Dismiss it all you want, but that's true

I don't dismiss it. I deprecate it; its effects are usually malign.

I'm going to go shower now

You'd be better off reading economics.

 

[QV]

mediocre leadership notwithstanding, Trudeau's biggest asset was the media. He bought them off and they did his advertising for him. That and terror tactics. The cons could never live down the abortion issue regardless of the number of leaders that denied it. And for the last 6 years it was the NDP that ensured he continued to govern. He accomplished very little and left a divided country as his legacy along with a cannabis shop on every corner. Don't forget the people out on bail whilst out on parole and the million or so illegals that have overloaded every social system we have. Yes indeed, he accomplished a lot. Carney won the election for two reasons in my opinion. 1 was fear brought on by Trump and the other was his promise to follow the conservative platform thus people felt they were protecting themselves and the economy from Trump with a banker and getting rid of the liberal gasoline policies at the same time so why change? Carney stole PP's total platform and the press (bought and paid for) made sure we all ended up believing it was his. And his big 5 infrastructure things were all somebody else's work. He did nothing for them except provide publicity.

As for encouraging infrastructure, I have said previously that until he gets rid of the carbon tax completely no oil company is going to put the money into building a pipeline to anywhere. There is no profit for them with the government clawing back 100 dollars a ton is it?

The power of media cannot be understated.

 

[Altair]

Examples of occasional - very occasional - misjudgements are not arguments refuting the principles.

The principles are not absolute.

I don't dismiss it. I deprecate it; its effects are usually malign.

Okay, let's forget about trade deals then. Let's just make stuff.

You'd be better off reading economics.

Sure. You might want to learn a thing or two about politics and the politics of economics. Then we will both be better people.

 

[Brad Sallows]

but this is an open question for anyone who doesn't like the media subsides. What would you do instead?

Let them compete without taxpayer funding.

Let the national post, bell media, global, everyone collapse?

If they are too dull-witted to produce products people want to consume, yes.

But seriously, how would you protect the media in Canada?

I reject the premise that it needs to be coddled, much less protected.

We're a nation of over 40 million. We ought stop behaving like a tiny weak timorous servile one.

 

[Altair]

Let them compete without taxpayer funding.

They were. They were failing.

If they are too dull-witted to produce products people want to consume, yes.

People consume it. They just don't pay for it

I reject the premise that it needs to be coddled, much less protected.

Rejecting the question isn't answering the question. So be brave. You are tasked with ensuring Canadian media is able to survive. What do you do?

 

[Jarnhamar]

What would you do instead? Let the national post, bell media, global, everyone collapse? Let all our news come from the USA and Russian troll farms? Who does local news? If they got rid of the subsidy, the only news left, in Canada, ironically, is the CBC.

Supply and demand. If Canadians don't want to pay for subscriptions to said media platforms maybe the platforms should start asking themselves why and not just get bailed out by the government.

 

[Altair]

Supply and demand. If Canadians don't want to pay for subscriptions to said media platforms maybe the platforms should start asking themselves why and not just get bailed out by the government.

The media model has broken. Everything is available online. People will always choose free over needing to pay.

The demand hasn't changed. The supply hasn't changed. The method of payment disappeared.

Again, so the task isn't to poo poo the subsidies. If your task is to ensure Canadian media can survive without subsidies, what do you do instead?

All I am hearing is people saying they don't like the subsidies so get rid of them, but no one, to date, has a better idea that doesn't involve allowing the Canadian media landscape to burn to the ground.

 

[QV]

The media model has broken. Everything is available online. People will always choose free over needing to pay.

The demand hasn't changed. The supply hasn't changed. The method of payment disappeared.

Again, so the task isn't to poo poo the subsidies. If your task is to ensure Canadian media can survive without subsidies, what do you do instead?

All I am hearing is people saying they don't like the subsidies so get rid of them, but no one, to date, has a better idea that doesn't involve allowing the Canadian media landscape to burn to the ground.

I say let it burn to the ground. Something viable will emerge. The void won't remain empty.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The principles are not absolute.

Very few things are. A person deviating from well-reasoned and empirically-confirmed doctrine ought to be able to state sound reasons concisely.

Okay, let's forget about trade deals then. Let's just make stuff.

I didn't object to trade deals, the point of which is mostly to remove government-imposed impediments.

Sure. You might want to learn a thing or two about politics and the politics of economics. Then we will both be better people.

Your assumption that I'm less- or under-informed on either topic is likely invalid.

 

[Altair]

I say let it burn to the ground. Something viable will emerge. The void won't remain empty.

So I've had a few answers and every answer is a variation of the same theme.

Let it burn to the ground.

That's not the question. The question is, how would you save the Canadian media landscape without the subsidies. And seeing as nobody, and I consider you all to be reasonably intelligent, can come up with a better plan that would save the Canadian media landscape, I'm just going to assume that the subsidies is the best way to do it out of a list of increasingly bad ideas.

As for who fills the void? Bloggers. Foreign content farms. People who don't need to follow anything in terms of fact checking, journalistic integrity, or accountability. In other words, your Facebook feed and twitter will be the level of news everyone gets and forgive me if I don't personally want to live in that hellscape.

 

[Altair]

Your assumption that I'm less- or under-informed on either topic is likely invalid.

Jury is out

 

[Brad Sallows]

The media model has broken. Everything is available online. People will always choose free over needing to pay.

"Build a better mousetrap". No-one has satisfactorily explained why taxpayers should subsidize poor offerings. No-one has satisfactorily explained why media deserve protections not offered to brick-and-mortar stores facing online competition.

The demand hasn't changed. The supply hasn't changed. The method of payment disappeared.

Demand, supply, and methods of payment have all changed. Prominently, the cozy old model has been broken by upstarts who in many cases have eliminated many of the various middlemen between the writer and the reader. The establishment is responsible for its failures to adapt adequately, the most prominent of which is eliminating the cost structures not borne by small providers.

All I am hearing is people saying they don't like the subsidies so get rid of them, but no one, to date, has a better idea that doesn't involve allowing the Canadian media landscape to burn to the ground.

Replacement isn't removal.

When they are pressed hard enough, the defenders of the establishment often enough emit a whine that sounds like a lament for the loss of information control.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People who don't need to follow anything in terms of fact checking, journalistic integrity, or accountability. In other words, your Facebook feed and twitter will be the level of news everyone gets and forgive me if I don't personally want to live in that hellscape.

The media do a shit job of fact-checking and have no integrity worth mentioning: selective quotations omitting meaningful context are habitual. Many have become mere stenographers for political operatives. The ideal to be preserved doesn't exist, so there's nothing to be preserved.

 

[Jarnhamar]

All I am hearing is people saying they don't like the subsidies so get rid of them, but no one, to date, has a better idea that doesn't involve allowing the Canadian media landscape to burn to the ground.

Making people pay for 50 channels when they only want to watch 3 is an ancient Babylonian trick.

If Canadians are willing to let their media burn to the ground then stop trying to 'do what's best for them' and let it burn to the ground.

If Canadians aren't happy with getting their news from Russia they can figure something out.

 

[Altair]

"Build a better mousetrap". No-one has satisfactorily explained why taxpayers should subsidize poor offerings. No-one has satisfactorily explained why media deserve protections not offered to brick-and-mortar stores facing online competition.

Demand, supply, and methods of payment have all changed. Prominently, the cozy old model has been broken by upstarts who in many cases have eliminated many of the various middlemen between the writer and the reader. The establishment is responsible for its failures to adapt adequately, the most prominent of which is eliminating the cost structures not borne by small providers.

Replacement isn't removal.

When they are pressed hard enough, the defenders of the establishment often enough emit a whine that sounds like a lament for the loss of information control.

Again, the task was a simple one.

If this was the military, and I have given you, or anyone else a task, and you come back saying I reject the premise of the task, I wouldn't be impressed.

I am also not impressed now. The question isn't if the subsidies are good or bad. The question is what is the alternative to accomplishing the task of ensuring the Canadian media landscape can survive.

You don't have an answer. So your lack of an answer is only showing me that the subsidies is the best way to accomplish that specific task.

 

[QV]

Again, the task was a simple one.

If this was the military, and I have given you, or anyone else a task, and you come back saying I reject the premise of the task, I wouldn't be impressed.

I am also not impressed now. The question isn't if the subsidies are good or bad. The question is what is the alternative to accomplishing the task of ensuring the Canadian media landscape can survive.

You don't have an answer. So your lack of an answer is only showing me that the subsidies is the best way to accomplish that specific task.

Your task is an unlawful order.

 

[Altair]

Making people pay for 50 channels when they only want to watch 3 is an ancient Babylonian trick.

If Canadians are willing to let their media burn to the ground then stop trying to 'do what's best for them' and let it burn to the ground.

If Canadians aren't happy with getting their news from Russia they can figure something out.

That is the entertainment side of the media landscape and it still has enough add and subscription revenue overall.

It's the journalism side that was on its death bed. That said, as I've said repeatedly, until someone can come up with a better way than the current subsidies to accomplish the task, I'm going to assume it's the best way to do it.

 

[Altair]

Your task is an unlawful order.

Assuming it's not, you're just horrible at problem solving.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Again, the task was a simple one.

"I'm responding to you, but this is an open question for anyone who doesn't like the media subsides. What would you do instead?"

after which

"If your task is to ensure Canadian media can survive without subsidies, what do you do instead?"

is moving the goalposts.