Updates from August, 2019 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 22:22 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

    Tennis Canada honcho says the Jarry Park stadium “needs” a $70‑million roof to keep the Rogers Cup event in town.

    • Chris 08:12 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      I was in that park the other day, for the first time in a long time. Amazing how much of it is not actually greenspace. Parking, pavement, police station, etc. Maybe they could trade a roof for removing the parking and cop station?

    • Kate 09:16 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      I recall discussion of enlarging the police station, but it was eventually decided against. I think even the SPVM realized if they wanted a bigger facility they would have to move that station somewhere else.

      I agree with you, Chris: there’s already too much of that park paved for stuff, often “deserving” things like the roller hockey rink, skate park, swimming pool, basketball court, but of course also the parking (around the police station, but also around the tennis and a big piece of paved land on Jarry close to the tracks) and so on. Every little “useful” element chips away at the green space.

      They could easily do some things. Reduce the parking, get rid of that bathroom building not far from the police station that hasn’t been used in living memory and green it over.

      When I went to look for the change.org link for the petition against the stadium roof I found another one: a petition against parking fees at the tennis stadium! Some car owners are 100% entitled.

    • Chris 18:20 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      Car parking is a human right, didn’t you know? 🙂

    • Ian 20:16 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      Another way to look at it is that people don’t like getting charged for what they used to get for free.
      But yes, evil cars, blah blah blah.

    • Chris 21:31 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      They’re not mutually exclusive.

      Ian, what are your thoughts on climate change? If you think it’s a real/big problem, how do you reconcile that with car culture not being evil? (Genuinely curious.)

    • dhomas 09:09 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

      Ian is completely correct. It never should have been free in the first place.

    • Chris 10:50 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

      It’s rather long, but if the topic interests you, I highly recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking

    • Ian 12:52 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

      I get it. You hate cars.
      Let’s look at the numbers though, c02 emissions worldwide… all of transportation (including shipping, air, trucks, etc.) accounts for 15%.
      Of all greenhouse gas emissions, c02 counts for 76%.
      So that’s 11.4%.

      Even specifically closer to home, using US stats, transportation accounts for 29% of all greenhouse gases, with cars (no distinction between private and commercial) representing 59% of that, so 17%.

      Now I understand, not everyone that drives needs to – but some people do need to drive to get to work or for a variety of other reasons. But you guys don’t care. You don’t care if the car is a used car. Or a fuel efficient compact car. Or if the person carpools. To hear you all go on about it, cars are unconditionally bad, nobody should drive. You don’t complain about trucks, rail, flight, shipping, it’s cars that are the problem, cars that are killing the planet. There is no nuance, there is no context, evil cars, blah blah blah. There is no incentive to stop people from driving, only punishing them because they are EVIL.

      Reactionary narrowmindedness aside, this much the same thing as people that go on about recycling while ignoring the fact that most waste is from heavy industry.
      …or how we need to take 3 minute showers and use low flow toilets, or get rid of plastic bags, or meatless Mondays, or veganism – whatever your personal obsession is… Yes these are all useful things BUT…

      In the big picture you as an individual are not going to be solving the climate crisis by changing your consumer patterns. That’s misdirection, and big business/ industry want to make sure that is where you are focused instead of getting mad at them.

      … but really, it’s that all you have to do is mention cars and the same brigade of reactionaries comes faithfully trotting out the party line, and it’s just tiresome.

    • Michael Black 14:07 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

      For the record, I’ve never objected to cars for environmental reasons, just a sense that as a pedestrian I feel like drivers expect me to get out of the way.

      Yes, many drivers could reduce their driving, I’ve seen people who got really lazy since they had a car, but that seems the same sort of entitlement that makes drivers bad, like illegally parking. I think cars parked i the wrong place should be towed, because it can be an influence invenience or danger to others.

      I won’t give a pass to cyclists “because they are environmentally good” when some behaviour is the same sort of entitlement that car drivers have.

      I’m sorry you had to get a car, and maybe sorrier that public transit doesn’t fit your needs. I like taking the 211 to St. Anne’s every so often, but I wouldn’t want to do it daily, and I’ve never taken a commuter train because theschedule wouldn’t fit even a recreational trip.

      Your buying a car says something is wrong,there are lots of reasons to need publuc transit, but public transit is too often seen as something for the “marginal”. People who can’t drive, or can’t afford a car get stuck, and may not be able to relocate closer to work, or get a job near their home.

      One can’t ignore those affected when wanting to make change, they need to be part of the equation, and probably solutions aren’t as black & white as some would like, but somewhere in between.

      I’ve never driven a car, I guess I have that luxury, but I think it incidentally makes me a good “environmentalist” even if I seem less anti-car than some. I’ve done my share, at least one thing trendsetting back in 1970, thiugh maybe I’ve become more balanced in “old age”, at least better able to see value in what others are saying.


    • Chris 14:13 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

      Ian, you again seem to have this mutual exclusion thinking. In fact, we should go after heavy industry, *and* change consumer patterns, *and* go vegan, *and* take short showers, *and* fight car culture. That’s how one should react to an emergency, on all fronts. (Unless there isn’t a climate emergency?)

      You also appear to be strawmanning: arguing against all kinds of points no one has made here. Perhaps you misread/misunderstood when I describe “car culture” as evil vs “cars” as evil? I still want motor vehicles for fire trucks, ambulances, public transport, and the like. This is far different from our culture’s idea of an idyllic large house with two car garage in a far flung suburb, one car per person, free parking everywhere, subsidized oil, massive strip malls, toll-free roads, taxpayer bailouts for car companies, etc.

      On your 17% number: Does it include emissions to build the cars? from mining for steel? to cut the trees to build roads and parking? to manufacture asphalt and cement? Does it account for the disfigurement of our cities? urban sprawl? the space to store all these individual cars? heat island effect? etc. The problem of car culture goes much deeper than just direct emissions by vehicles.

      On business/industry vs individuals: Who do you think business/industry are making things for? Everything is ultimately made for human beings. Business is nothing more than a collection of humans after all. For every trinket one forgoes buying, it goes all the way up the chain. Obviously one individual changes little, a critical mass of individuals changing their behaviour is required.

    • Raymond Lutz 14:32 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

      Excellent commentaire, Chris! Et @Ian, j’aurais voulu vous corriger au sujet de l’importance des déchets industriels mais vous avez raison à prime abord: aux USA la quantité des déchets industriels est 25 fois plus élevée que celle des déchets municipaux (domestiques)… mais ils ont été produits lors du processus de production de biens qui sont finalement acheté par les consommateurs.

    • dwgs 08:53 on 2019-08-04 Permalink

      The truth of the matter is that there are too damned many people on the planet, we are a virus which is slowly killing our host. As nasty as it is to say, the best thing that could happen for the planet is a global pandemic that culls the human population drastically. For the time being we’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    • Tim S. 19:10 on 2019-08-04 Permalink

      Or we could just continue our current policy of creating a housing bubble so no young people can afford space for kids anymore. Might take slightly longer than the pandemic option, though.
      I was also in Jarry Park for the other day (to watch some of the tennis practices, actually) and was struck by the lack of trees. I guess you can’t play cricket in a forest, but as a green space on a hot day it seemed a little unfriendly.

  • Kate 16:57 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

    Airbnb is flatly refusing to collect Quebec sales tax.

    • david100 17:47 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      Quebec can hammer them if it wants to. Airbnb’s decision makers are either ignoring the advice of the legal team and/or doing a game of chicken with the government.

      I bet the government does nothing.

    • JaneyB 18:21 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      They need to be reminded who’s boss. Legault: you may unleash the dogs now.

    • Ian 20:11 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      It’s about time the government does SOMETHING. it’s like every agency is waiting to see which one will make the first move.

    • Ephraim 20:55 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      Not the smartest move… RQ now finally has a reason to come down hard on everyone. I bet you that the government will finally change the reporting requirement and make them issue a Releve and then in the dogs of war… at $2500 to $5000 per night per infraction.

    • Ian 21:00 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      It’s been 7 months, RQ needs to do something, anything.

    • Chris 21:45 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      JaneyB, corporations are the boss, not government.

      Ephraim, I bet you the opposite, they will continue to leave it alone.

    • mare 22:23 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      Airbnb, and other foreign companies like Netflix etc. are afraid this will set a precedent, and that soon every country wants them to charge sales tax. They re also worried this will be the foot that’ll open the door to full access of foreign tax collection agencies to their books. They claim that they’re just a broker and that their hosts are responsible to charge sales taxes if they have to. But at least in Quebec, most small hosts don’t need to charge sales tax since they don’t reach the threshold for reporting. (They do need to file income taxes but Airbnb REALLY doesn’t want to reveal that amount. ) Bigger outfits, with 10 or 25 condos on offer year round per straw man, do make much more than the threshold, but they don’t pay it now. If Airbnb is forced to charge sales tax, they also have to show other data to RQ so they can check if the reporting amounts are correct. And then it might become clear that some companies rent /manage 100s, maybe 1000s of addresses, and basically run hotels without the overhead.

      It gets even more complicated when someone from Montreal rents a place on Airbnb in Montreal, where they should pay both GST and TVQ. Then Revenu Canada also wants access to the pot with gold.

    • steph 23:44 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

      Why does the government hesitate to go after them?

    • Chris 08:14 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      steph, because, as with netflix, the general public love Airbnb. Remember last election everyone promising not to introduce a ‘netflix tax’? Same idea.

    • Ian 11:18 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      There’s a lot of negative sentiment toward AirBnB from locals who aren’t the ones renting out their properties, though. Yes everyone loves Netflix because cable sucks. Only a segment of tourists and those who illegally convert their rental property into untaxed temporary hotels love AirBnB.

      I suspect that mare has hit the nail on the head – it’s actually pretty complicated. I do hope RQ et all get their ducks in a row soon, though, because this is getting ridiculous.

    • Ephraim 11:22 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      Mare, AirBnB’s fees are over the threshold and therefore they should be registered for GST/QST. But besides that, Expedia and Booking.com both collect the tax and AirBnB has an office in Quebec as well as a .CA domain, which means they have a company in Canada. They themselves should be subject to the taxes, at least on their fees.

      I don’t think that Quebec can allow this to continue…. or more and more companies will play this exempt game. But I also think that Quebec will change the law and make AirBnB issue receipts for hosts or require AirBnB to issue a report with incomes over $1000, just as PayPal does.

      I think that AirBnB is hoping that this doesn’t get through until after their IPO, because once Quebec does it, all the rest of the provinces and the federal will want to do it as well…. and that doesn’t bode well for their IPO. And yet they collect VAT in Europe. And they issue tax papers in the US and Europe. It seems that they are only profitable as a tax evasion scheme in Quebec. (I know of a few cases where people have ended up in BAD trouble with RQ for not declaring or collecting taxes. One guy paid $62K in GST/QST and fines for not collecting those taxes… and was lucky, because he had declared the income. One guy in Quebec city wasn’t so lucky with a building he turned into a illegal hotel on AirBnB.)

    • Kevin 12:37 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      We know that while there are lots of small fry renting out their place occasionally with Airbnb, the majority of revenue comes from places that are modular hotels.

      Governments just need to come out and tell people that if they want healthcare/roads/whatever those international companies need to pay their taxes, or else personal income taxes can go up.

    • Ephraim 13:14 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      The small fries are covered by a law that allows you to rent if you are present that doesn’t require a sign and doesn’t have commercial taxes on the property. If you rent out a full apartment that you do not occupy and where you don’t receive your mail and where you don’t have your belongings, you need a permit. Those guys are about 90% of the market in Montreal…. if not more. AirBnB as a place where individuals rent out their place while away is a MYTH… that AirBnB perpetuates because it’s good for the press…. but they can’t make enough money on these places… and these people constantly give up after finding out how disrespectful most people on AirBnB can be (not that they all are, but you should hear some of the stories). On the other hand, people expect hosts to be professionals when they aren’t… they are amateurs… so you get cancelled reservations, etc. (One story recently was a guy who found out that his reservation was cancelled in the morning because the host went on a bender… so he woke in the morning to find out he had no place to stay and AirBnB themselves had kicked him out, not the host… but because of the host’s actions that caused another guest to freak out.) And of course the attitudes that some of the guests have and requests for refunds for minor things just drives more and more people from hosting… so you get the companies doing it to avoid taxes and make more than apartment rentals.

    • Chris 21:31 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

      I guess time will tell.

  • Kate 10:59 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

    For those missing the World Film Fest or just feeling nostalgic, the Outremont Theatre is doing a month-long film series called “Les films de notre vie” which starts Thursday evening with Le violon rouge. Many of the titles are given in French, so you have to be alert for La horde sauvage and Chambre avec vue.

    • Kate 10:54 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

      A Le Devoir writer has an op-ed here with the scare headline La mort annoncé du marché Jean-Talon.

      • DeWolf 11:36 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        The editor in me says this op-ed is missing a lot of numbers to back up the author’s claims. What is the actual vacancy rate of stalls in the market? How has the vacancy rate changed over the past several years?

        I like the part where he whines about how the city removed “plusieurs places de stationnement” without mentioning the exact number of spots that have been removed: 10. And then he has the audacity to complain that this asphalt parking lot has been replaced by “un espace totalement minéralisé, avec dalles de béton ou de pierre, sans aucune végétation sauf un petit sapin ridicule qui ne fournira jamais d’ombre.”

        Is Georges Langlois a pseudonym for Lino Birri?

      • Blork 11:48 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        JTM is dead. Long live JTM.

        This is an “opinion” piece, which means basically anybody can say anything. While I don’t doubt there may be some problems to resolve and that in some ways the JTM is a victim of its own success, I doubt it is seriously threatened.

      • dwgs 12:15 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        My one complaint about the market these days (and it’s a big one) is that it’s getting harder to find stalls where you are buying directly from the producers.

      • Frankie 13:03 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        I don’t go to the JT market as often as I used to because I find it is too expensive for my budget now. Like the Devoir writer, I, too, have noticed that there are fewer sellers, even in midsummer and have wondered why they have left, ie rents, lack of custom, who knows. This has been happening for a few years, now. I had conversations with vendors at least 5 years ago about the disappearing customer. People seem to forget that the growing season is pretty short in Quebec so you won’t find local corn or tomatoes, apples or lettuce in April or even May. Going to the market at that time and expecting to find anything local that is grown outdoors is going to be a disappointment. And once apple season is over, anything local is already a month old, ie apples, potatoes, onions, etc. The shops along Henri Julien seem to do fine all year long but they don’t necessarily offer local products. So the vendors have to have something to sell off season besides local stuff and that may be where the Costa Rican bananas come in. As far as local producers selling there, I suspect that it is less and less the business model for most farms, who probably sell all their produce to big buyers like the supermarket chains. The vendors that remain are those that enjoy the environment, the contact with customers, and that it is still profitable for them to a certain extent. My dad had a store there, near where Birri is now. It was a tough living even in the 60s when the market was the only place to get fresh produce at good prices.

      • Spi 14:12 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        I tend to agree with the op-ed, I usually go a hand full of times a month to the market and this year it is noticeable how many empty spots there are. The shops around the market seem to be doing fairly well, maybe it’s evolving into more a food market than a produce market?

        Also the author isn’t wrong about it being “mineral”, that new space on shamrock and the area in front of the SAQ/Premiere Moison is seriously lacking in shade. I had that exact thought the other there while I was waiting for someone.

      • thomas 15:07 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        Surely, the development of farmer basket delivery services like Lufa, Le Jardin des Funambules, etc. means that the market must evolve.

      • YUL514 21:58 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        I agree as well, I stopped going on weekends where I used to take my time and buy a lot of products, produce, meat,.etc…Although if there really are empty parking spots I may have to reconsider weekends,. although highly doubtful that weekends are quiet. Right now I have a small window of about 50-60 mins after work. It sucks having to rush but I get the essentials and at least it’s not crowded. The op-ed forgot to mention that they have also increased parking rates, another reason to stay away. I used to easily find a parking spot in the neighborhood, forget that idea today.

        And there are still some decent producers, but yes the green alley is empty, I noticed that too, pretty evident, MPM needs to get it together.

      • Chris 11:26 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

        YUL514, is it that you can’t find parking at all, or you can’t find *free* parking?

      • Jack 12:31 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

        This opinion piece is garbage. The market has evolved for the better in the last decade. It wasn’t that long ago you could shop from your car. That period of time is looked upon with nostalgia by car drivers, the good old market days!

    • Kate 10:19 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

      Tu Thanh Ha has a fascinating if belated obituary for William Obront, once deeply involved in underworld affairs in this city.

      • Max 21:14 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

        Thanks. I find the Globe and Mail’s obit page almost always a good read, this being no exception.

      • Bill Hawkes 13:30 on 2020-05-12 Permalink

        What are family ties to Seymour Obront and Jack Cohen?

    • Kate 10:08 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

      There was a classic bank holdup by a masked man on Wednesday afternoon in a branch on St‑Hubert Plaza. The robber then walked right into the hands of a couple of cops nearby.

      • Kate 10:05 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

        Police have arrested a man suspected in a series of fires set in public garbage cans in various parks.

        • Kate 09:42 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

          The Journal reports on the Netherlands’ new burqa ban, although if you read down, you’ll find it’s also reported that the Dutch police have said it’s unenforceable. The Guardian also notes the Dutch cops’ refusal to enforce the new law. The Dutch law is different from ours, banning face coverings in public buildings including schools and hospitals and on public transport, but it’s an example of how difficult it is to reconcile sumptuary laws with modern notions of freedom of choice.

          • Chris 21:44 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

            It’s also an example of how difficult it is to reconcile 7th century superstition with modern notions of equality of the sexes.

            Your summary doesn’t make it clear: but 1) this law only applies to full coverings like burka, not lesser coverings like hijab. 2) it’s not religious only, it applies to balaclavas and the like too. 3) it does not apply on the street, only in select places. (These are just facts, not an endorsement.)

          • Kevin 21:57 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

            I know some people have been hit a few times by the ugly stick. I think we need another stick labelled The Constitution allows freedom of religion.

            Doesn’t apply in France though, since they don’t have that in their Constitution.

          • Chris 09:03 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            Freedom of religion is not absolute!

            Many religions call for human sacrifice[1], should that be allowed? I grant that such rituals are virtually unpractised today, but religions are ideas, and ideas never die. How about lesser examples like FGM? That’s illegal in Canada. Surveys show that many people cite *their* religion as requiring it.[2] How about divorce? That’s forbidden by some religions[3], shall religion trump our laws there too? How about homosexuality? Several religions call for the death penalty there.[4]

            Really these ancient superstitions should be generally ignored when making laws in the 21st century. Yes, we should have freedom of religion in the same way we should have freedom of thought and freedom of assembly; but it doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want because your god said so.

            Anyway, the Dutch law seems to say nothing about religion. Helmets and balaclavas are not religious, and banned identically. Quite clever on their part. It reminds me of Montreal’s P-6 bylaw.

            Also, France? You mean Netherlands?

            Lastly, I’m generally not for these kinds of laws (except in very narrow cases: showing id and few other things). But I think I’d rather have this Dutch law than the Quebec law: no one is denied a job and the hijab is not affected at all.

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
            [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Religion
            [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Religion_and_divorce
            [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_religion

          • Kate 09:33 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            Chris, I am satisfied if religion is held back by existing law. Murder is not legal and therefore you can’t practise human sacrifice. We shouldn’t have laws specifically against religious actions or culture simply because they are seen as religious. It is not illegal for a woman to wear a scarf on her head or a man to wear a tiny hat, so it should not be forbidden simply because some people perceive it as religious.

          • Ian 12:18 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            This is an important distinction for secular humanism, Kate, that sadly few people seem to comprehend. As much as regular folks shouldn’t be subject to religious law except by choice, and religious folks should be able to practice their faith only insofar as it doesn’t conflict with human rights as enforced by state law, you can’t make state laws that persecute religious folks for stuff other folks are allowed to do.

            That should just be common sense.

          • Chris 18:04 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            And the Dutch were clever about that, weren’t they? They didn’t ban anything religious, they banned _completely_ covering your face and hiding your identity (in select places), regardless of how or why. Just as we’ve banned killing, regardless of how or why.

            Ian, how about making state laws that allow religious folks to do something, but make it illegal for others to do the same? Like Alberta and its ‘no helmets required for Sikhs but required for everyone else’ law?

          • Ian 20:24 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            Honestly in that particular instance I just hope their organ donor cards are filled out. Getting on a motorcycle without a helmet is just stupid.

          • Chris 21:40 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            May those motorcyclists stay safe by dodging obstacles as deftly as you dodged the question. 🙂 I agree with your first two, but would be interested to know your thinking on the third:

            regular folks shouldn’t be subject to religious law except by choice
            religious folks should be able to practice their faith only insofar as it doesn’t conflict with human rights as enforced by state law
            regular folks shouldn’t be forbidden by state law to do something that religious folks are permitted by law to do.

          • Kevin 22:17 on 2019-08-02 Permalink

            Don’t people know the reason nothing is absolute is because their belief affects other people? Your right to swing your fist stops before you hit my nose.

            Since nobody is walking around the Netherlands weaing balaclavas or face masks, a law that specifically tailored should make people think: the rule of do what you want as long as you don’t harm others is being broken.

            And yes, I did mean France, source of countless bad ideas appropriated by our province’s intellectual class.

          • Kate 09:14 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

            regular folks shouldn’t be forbidden by state law to do something that religious folks are permitted by law to do.

            See, this all sounds very plausible until you turn it around. Writers at the Journal de Montréal have been known to get worked up because police are tolerant of parking around synagogues on major Jewish holidays, for example. Tolerance should not be tolerated?

            I’m not religious but that’s not the society I want to live in.

          • Chris 11:18 on 2019-08-03 Permalink

            Kevin, we have lots of laws that go against ‘do what you want as long as you don’t harm others’. How does it harm anyone else if I don’t wear a helmet motorcycling? Or if I walk the streets nude? Or if I use heroin? These are all nonetheless illegal. I guess one could argue that *if* I crash by motorbike, taxpayers pay for my care. But then one could also argue that *if* I commit a crime, taxpayers will have to spend more on the harder job of identifying a masked perpetrator.

            Kate, interesting example to think of. Not sure it’s quite the same though. If a Jew and non-Jew park next to each other on such a holiday, do the cops ticket one and not the other? Seems more like the tolerance is indeed religion-based, but gets applied to everyone equally at that time/place. There’s no actual test of an individual’s religiosity as there is with the helmet case. And cops are lenient with parking tickets on many occasions, it’s not like religion is the only example.

        • Kate 08:57 on 2019-08-01 Permalink | Reply  

          Guy from the Montreal Economic Institute says the city’s pet and plastics bylaws are bad for business. But some necessary changes are bad for business. Ending the slave trade was certainly bad for business too.

          • Simon 09:14 on 2019-08-01 Permalink

            The Montreal Economic Institute is a libertarian think-tank scorned by all the economists I’ve met, as well.

        Compose new post
        Next post/Next comment
        Previous post/Previous comment
        Show/Hide comments
        Go to top
        Go to login
        Show/Hide help
        shift + esc