113 comments posted · 7 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ - For the good of the co... · 0 replies · +17 points

It's worse than that: the budget for the census is something like $500m. That $30m was the cost of mailing out extra forms.

13 years ago @ - Idea alert · 7 replies · +3 points

See, everyone? It *is* possible to read first and *then* judge!

13 years ago @ - The Iowa car crop · 1 reply · +3 points

Paul Krugman calls this the "Santa Fe syndrome" in that piece I link to below. People will jump on the most arcane, obscure and complicated model instead trying to understand the basic point.

13 years ago @ - The present and future... · 1 reply · +2 points

"It's like working all your life at Volvo being focused on car safety and then learning that the next model will have no seatbelts because people in focus groups find them uncomfortable."

That's a great analogy!

13 years ago @ - The Iowa car crop · 15 replies · +3 points

No, it doesn't make it untrue. It makes it an unsupported assertion about something that is generally known to have been inconsistent with the data in almost all other contexts.

The burden of proof is on someone who would make that case.

13 years ago @ - The present and future... · 6 replies · +3 points

Exactly. After making such a big deal about State Coercion, will the govt actually follow through and enforce the mandatory short form?

13 years ago @ - The Iowa car crop · 20 replies · +5 points

Do you really think that's the case here?

What Krugman showed - actually, he'll tell anyone who listens that he borrowed heavily from UBC's Jim Brander and Barbara Spencer - that it is possible to imagine cases where govt intervention can be justified. He has since gone on to recognise that those conditions are rarely met in practice. If you think that this is one of those cases where they are, then you should explain why.

13 years ago @ - The Iowa car crop · 26 replies · +8 points

You know, disliking an idea is not really the same as rebutting it. It's certainly not the same as understanding it. There's something about international trade theory that makes it especially difficult to understand; see Paul Krugman's "Ricardo's Difficult Idea."

13 years ago @ - Of jobs and jets · 0 replies · +4 points

Again, you're talking about a game in which aerospace firms are the only people who can win, and taxpayers can only lose.

Mike Moffatt has a nice post on this. Those jets will be made with Canadian labour regardless of which firm does it. The only question is which technology will be used - and trade is just another form of technology.

13 years ago @ - Of jobs and jets · 14 replies · +4 points

Are Canadian firms explicitly shut out of this project? That would be silly. But if they're not, I don't see why this is a question worth worrying about. If the Canadian firm is the lower-cost supplier, then the Canadian firm is the profitable choice.