Do you consider Canada an ally?

#77
#77
05_never_again said:
They cannot project naval (or any military power) beyond the first island chain. Their history of political systems throughout history is certainly not stable. Just since their dynastic period ended (which was unstable itself) in 1912, they've had 2 revolutions that killed hundreds of millions of people. The precarious position of their financial system has absolutely nothing to do with them being buyers of our debt.
Click to expand...
You realize, China and Russia have both been preparing to cripple the US. They can do so without firing one shot.
 
#83
#83
I find it useless to have good faith arguments with people that voted for this man. This is the man that they trust.
 

Attachments

  • 8b6c4c3a-ddf3-4c40-8fba-ed82d553ea14.jpg
    8b6c4c3a-ddf3-4c40-8fba-ed82d553ea14.jpg
    100.3 KB · Views: 4
  • 054aa4e9-8863-469a-800c-d883d59e719a.jpg
    054aa4e9-8863-469a-800c-d883d59e719a.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 4
  • Like
Reactions: HeuperDrive and TN Ribs
#86
#86
n_huffhines said:
Can you explain the error, please?

Every deal has a cost and a benefit, and that net benefit is how we measure deals, right?

If you get 67% of the benefit and have only 60% of the cost, and your partner gets 33% of the benefit for 40% of the cost, where is the inequity?
Click to expand...
Had an unexpected break in my schedule.

Let's start with this sentence I posted in a previous reply to you. I want to explore your thoughts on this as a concept in order to help dial in the error I think exists. I am not using this as a debate tactic to illustrate the inequity or prove my opinion as valid. It is simply a starting to point to see where the train of thought got off track.

In this scenario (if demonstrably true):
If your ultra wealthy neighbor hired a security company to patrol the grounds and streets, your place would be safer too.
Would you think that you and your neighbor were in an inequitable relationship?

eta: I just saw this in a response to hog...
McDad used the example of neighbors next to each other going in on home security together, but the part he left out is that one house is valued at $3.5 M and the other at $400k. They're both getting a good deal because they both get X level of security for a split cost, but the guy protecting a $3.5m house is definitely getting the better deal. He's getting $3.5m worth of protection.

What is the "split cost" you referenced?
 
Last edited:
#88
#88
titansvolsfaninga said:
I find it useless to have good faith arguments with people that voted for this man. This is the man that they trust.
Click to expand...
You aren't really having any good faith discussions with anyone. All I see are drive-by posts that have nothing to do with this got dayum thread. It has already been established that Trump is a big blowhard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and hog88
#89
#89
n_huffhines said:
Not exactly. Relative cost/benefit is worse in the example. I am positing that it's likely Canada is on the inequitable side of the deal because they can't benefit as much as we do. IDK know for sure because there may be other considerations, but I know for fkn sure the benefit is not equal. This is an economic question and not a single economist in the world is going to say the benefit is equal just because they get the same protection.

McDad used the example of neighbors next to each other going in on home security together, but the part he left out is that one house is valued at $3.5 M and the other at $400k. They're both getting a good deal because they both get X level of security for a split cost, but the guy protecting a $3.5m house is definitely getting the better deal. He's getting $3.5m worth of protection.
Click to expand...

Wild animal example. There are two farms that share a 2100 acre lot. To keep coyotes away from the farms, a fence is needed and they need to determine way to share cost. It is determined it is cheaper to have 1 contractor and split cost. Both farms need to keep coyotes out although the 1,000 acre farm has more valuable animals than the 1,100 acre farm.

Do you allocate the fence cost based on the value of the animals or the amount of fencing needed for each property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#93
#93
hog88 said:
Without US protection Canada would be forced to spend much more than they do on defense, without US owned industry operating in Canada and their exports to the US Canda would essentially be Mexico so again explain how they are not dependent on us.
Click to expand...
We pay the bulk because we get the bulk of the benefit. Without the US as a neighbor and ally they wouldn't necessarily need all that defense.
They and we benefit from our trade, buying and selling. That's not the same as providing the means to survive like we and other Allies did with West Berlin during the airlift.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#95
#95
EasternVol said:
That was actually supposed to benefit them, get this, in the long run. Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they weren't and aren't thinking long term.
Click to expand...
I think this is fair. Birth rates in Japan and Korea show this could have been done without the policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#96
#96
EasternVol said:
That was actually supposed to benefit them, get this, in the long run. Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they weren't and aren't thinking long term.
Click to expand...
A poor policy decision that lasted nearly four decades. It is hard to think long term if there aren't many to do the thinking.
 
#97
#97
EasternVol said:
We pay the bulk because we get the bulk of the benefit. Without the US as a neighbor and ally they wouldn't necessarily need all that defense.
They and we benefit from our trade, buying and selling. That's not the same as providing the means to survive like we and other Allies did with West Berlin during the airlift.
Click to expand...

How do we get the bulk of the benefit from the defense we provide Canada? If the US made it clear Canada was not under our defense umbrella we still wouldn't be under threat of attack but can you say the same about Canada?
 
#98
#98
hog88 said:
How do we get the bulk of the benefit from the defense we provide Canada? If the US made it clear Canada was not under our defense umbrella we still wouldn't be under threat of attack but can you say the same about Canada?
Click to expand...
That defense umbrella is for missiles coming from the Russians and Chicoms, the big majority of which would be on course for targets in the US. They'd most limely have no reason to attack Canada unless they were attacking us too.
 
#99
#99
McDad said:
Had an unexpected break in my schedule.

Let's start with this sentence I posted in a previous reply to you. I want to explore your thoughts on this as a concept in order to help dial in the error I think exists. I am not using this as a debate tactic to illustrate the inequity or prove my opinion as valid. It is simply a starting to point to see where the train of thought got off track.

In this scenario (if demonstrably true):
If your ultra wealthy neighbor hired a security company to patrol the grounds and streets, your place would be safer too.
Would you think that you and your neighbor were in an inequitable relationship?

eta: I just saw this in a response to hog...
McDad used the example of neighbors next to each other going in on home security together, but the part he left out is that one house is valued at $3.5 M and the other at $400k. They're both getting a good deal because they both get X level of security for a split cost, but the guy protecting a $3.5m house is definitely getting the better deal. He's getting $3.5m worth of protection.

What is the "split cost" you referenced?
Click to expand...

The 60/40 split cost of security.

I do not make a habit of looking for reasons to feel like I'm in an inequitable deal. My buddy asked to split my youtubeTV bill with me and put him on the account. You get 3 devices at once to stream on, so I told him I'll pay $45/month and he can pay $35/month and if there is ever a conflict where we're using 4 devices (him 2 and me 2), they jump off one of them. This almost never happens. I'm probably getting the worse of the deal, now that I'm thinking about it. I don't care. I don't dwell on it. I harbor no resentment towards him. That's a weird way to approach life. I save $35/month. That's how I look at it. No idea why we're looking for reasons to feel this way about Canada, especially when NORAD almost definitely benefits us more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#100
#100
volfanhill said:
After 35 years of it being in play. They screwed themselves
Click to expand...
I doubt they screwed themselves that much. they were still able to develop over that time frame, and as you pointed out its been long enough where its effects should have already been seen if they were screwing themselves.

they put an artificial cap on their economy, but they had to do something to curtail the population crisis they were staring at back then. and clearly since they have still added 500 million more people over that time, it hasn't crushed their growth.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top