How do you decide who you vote for?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think informed and reasonable people can disagree on what’s best for the greater good of society?

Yes. Next.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think informed and reasonable people can disagree on what’s best for the greater good of society?

This is part of why I started the thread.

I probably politically have more in common with someone who votes based on the goals of society then in self interest even if I completely disagree with the logic they are using to determine the greater good.

[PeteMoss]

I definitely vote based on the betterment of society or at least how I view the betterment of society (which obviously can differ from others).

Its interesting because I'm basically the complete the opposite of Locke in terms of reasoning. I don't think the government (especially in Canada) has much impact on the economy at all. As the world becomes more globally integrated - I just don't think much of anything we do in Canada is going to have a tremendous impact on the economy.

I also think this covid response and the economic reaction causes great doubt in that all these economic theories we've been taught are actually right. We've been spending like drunken sailors for 16 months now. Even if you believe today's inflation is not just related to supply chain/timing issues - I don't recall reading you can print money like mad for 14 months with no real impact to anything.

I'm also comfortable enough that the changes the government would actually make will have little impact on me. So climate stands at the top of the list for me, along with belief in science.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

yes, that is what I am saying - vote for who you want, don't vote 'strategically' for a party you don't want, in an attempt to try and make another party lose.

Makes perfect sense to me to vote against a party.

In Canada we have 3 main parties (4 in Quebec) and then a few 'serious' fringe parties.

If on a 1-10 scale you rate: Party A is 7, Party B is 6 and Party C is a 2. Then seems perfectly rational to care more about Party C losing than who wins between Party A or B in particular if you know based on history that Party A isn't going to win your riding. Yeah - it sucks for Party A, but the voter is acting in their best interest by voting for Party B in that case.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I definitely vote based on the betterment of society or at least how I view the betterment of society (which obviously can differ from others).

Its interesting because I'm basically the complete the opposite of Locke in terms of reasoning. I don't think the government (especially in Canada) has much impact on the economy at all. As the world becomes more globally integrated - I just don't think much of anything we do in Canada is going to have a tremendous impact on the economy.

I also think this covid response and the economic reaction causes great doubt in that all these economic theories we've been taught are actually right. We've been spending like drunken sailors for 16 months now. Even if you believe today's inflation is not just related to supply chain/timing issues - I don't recall reading you can print money like mad for 14 months with no real impact to anything.

I'm also comfortable enough that the changes the government would actually make will have little impact on me. So climate stands at the top of the list for me, along with belief in science.

So you think Canada’s governments have more influence over climate change than the Canadian economy?

[PeteMoss]

Probably not. But there is a global effort on climate change with the Paris accord that we can contribute to.

[PeteMoss]

Also Cliff - post your reasoning.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I don't think the government (especially in Canada) has much impact on the economy at all.

You don't think governments that racks up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt have much impact on the economy?

You don't think governments that actively hamper economic activities in regions have much impact on the economy?

If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the history of humanity.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I definitely vote based on the betterment of society or at least how I view the betterment of society (which obviously can differ from others).

Its interesting because I'm basically the complete the opposite of Locke in terms of reasoning. I don't think the government (especially in Canada) has much impact on the economy at all. As the world becomes more globally integrated - I just don't think much of anything we do in Canada is going to have a tremendous impact on the economy.

I also think this covid response and the economic reaction causes great doubt in that all these economic theories we've been taught are actually right. We've been spending like drunken sailors for 16 months now. Even if you believe today's inflation is not just related to supply chain/timing issues - I don't recall reading you can print money like mad for 14 months with no real impact to anything.

I'm also comfortable enough that the changes the government would actually make will have little impact on me. So climate stands at the top of the list for me, along with belief in science.

I don't want to get off topic, as this thread is doing well on that front, but you have to take things in context: yes, all else equal, you can't print money like drunken sailors for 14 months without creating inflation. However, due to Covid, the global engine had stalled, so revving the engine hasn't caused the over-heating it normally would. Going forward however, that spending is going to start having consequences, which is why there has been concern recently, and increased discussion about inflation.

Anyways, just wanted to comment on that, but I am not going to debate it any further in this thread.

[CliffFletcher]

I actually agree that governments in Canada don’t have nearly the impact on the economy that we like to believe they do. Partly due to the globalized economy, and partly because policy doesn’t change all that much when government changes.

I just think the effect our governments have on climate change is even less. Climate change and it’s proposed remedies are mostly economic, and we’re in agreement that government doesn’t have much control over the economy. And it’s a truly global and borderless problem that a country (or rather economy) the size of Canada has little influence over.

I also think that if standards of living and economic security decline for Canadians, willingness to devote resources and make sacrifices to combat climate change will also decline.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

You don't think governments that racks up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt have much impact on the economy?

You don't think governments that actively hamper economic activities in regions have much impact on the economy?

If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the history of humanity.

Not particularly. Unless you think our government and the US government make the exact same mistakes at the exact same time - all of our recessions map directly with theirs since 1950. We had a recession in 2008/2009 despite the entire issue being caused the US.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think informed and reasonable people can disagree on what’s best for the greater good of society?

Of course.

[Sainters7]

Whoever my dad yells at me to vote for

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't want to get off topic, as this thread is doing well on that front, but you have to take things in context: yes, all else equal, you can't print money like drunken sailors for 14 months without creating inflation. However, due to Covid, the global engine had stalled, so revving the engine hasn't caused the over-heating it normally would. Going forward however, that spending is going to start having consequences, which is why there has been concern recently, and increased discussion about inflation.

Anyways, just wanted to comment on that, but I am not going to debate it any further in this thread.

If interested - I found this podcast episode to be interest on this subject - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/o...am-tooze.html? Its an hour long - so probably not a big uptake but I found it interesting

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Did you ever do the math to determine when or if you started paying more in taxes than getting in services? Are you sure you’d be better off with lower taxes and less services?

Hard math. You could just divide spending by population, but there are two issues with that. One is that some percentage of government spending is waste. The other is that some regions/demographics/citizens get a lot more government spending than others.

To try and add up your individual services is also difficult. How much is healthcare worth? The only health care resources I've used in the last year is 2 covid vaccines. But the presence of free health care is worth something, but hard to pin point a value. What is decent public school worth for my kids? Etc.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Hard math. You could just divide spending by population, but there are two issues with that. One is that some percentage of government spending is waste. The other is that some regions/demographics/citizens get a lot more government spending than others.

To try and add up your individual services is also difficult. How much is healthcare worth? The only health care resources I've used in the last year is 2 covid vaccines. But the presence of free health care is worth something, but hard to pin point a value. What is decent public school worth for my kids? Etc.

Health care is tough to estimate because much of the lifetime cost is incurred in the final years and months of life. Someone who dies suddenly of a heart attack at 55 will cost the system far less than someone who dies at 85 after 20 years of heart procedures and medication, followed by two years of cancer treatment and then six weeks of end of life palliative care. A typical Canadian incurs 20 per cent of their lifetime healthcare costs ($60k in hospital costs alone) in the final 12 months of life. And of course for many those numbers are much higher.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Health care is tough to estimate because much of the lifetime cost is incurred in the final years and months of life. Someone who dies suddenly of a heart attack at 55 will cost the system far less than someone who dies at 85 after 20 years of heart procedures and medication, followed by two years of cancer treatment and then six weeks of end of life palliative care. A typical Canadian incurs 20 per cent of their lifetime healthcare costs ($60k in hospital costs alone) in the final 12 months of life. And of course for many those numbers are much higher.

I was thinking you just use average yearly costs for healthcare because in the absence of a public system you would likely buy insurance instead. Same with schools, if you have kids in school you could add the average yearly costs. I think things like Transit are much harder to determine because even if you don’t use it you derive benefit from it if you drive due to less congestion.

[LouCypher]

I look at whoever has the most signs. That's how it works right?