Your ignorance of the discussion is. I'm not the one who brought it up. Picard did... you called his use of it incorrect. So... correct it. Or STFU.

Everyone who thinks Vander Zalm has only the best interest of the people of BC at heart with his Anti-HST campaign, raise your hands? No-one? Hmm...

That's the biggest tragedy, I think: you just KNOW the Zalm has something up his sleeve to advance his own agenda, be it a return to politics or whatever... and he's done a great job of hitching his wagon to what was initially just a public reaction, and whipping it up into a full-fledged revolt. Whether the petition succeeds or not, he's now seen as the Champion of the Little Guy, and he's gonna ride that right into whatever he's got in mind and leave the little guy behind.

The most unfortunate outcome would be if he actually managed to get the HST blocked or repealed, and his little publicity stunt took the province down the drain with it.

There is some finally great discussion in this thread courtesy of Soundy, Amaru, and Lomac.

To be honest with you, I'm glad that the politicians decided to make a tough decision that may end up costing them politically. Most of the public is fairly ignorant of things that have a long-term impact and judging from the first few pages of this discussion, (and various other public forums) saying that is not far off base.

Saw an interesting letter in today's Province... another point I've not seen or heard brought up this far: just what is Vander Zalm's little stunt costing the taxpayers? Consider that at the end of the day the petition is completely non-binding and can be utterly ignored by the Liberals, and even if they do go to referendum based on the petition, that too would be non-binding...

According to the letter-writer, JUST the bill for Elections BC to count and confirm all the signatures are valid, will run around $650,000... and that, dear taxpayer, comes straight out of your pocket.

I never said I got it from the movie (I assume you are referring to "A Beautiful Mind"), you still however, cannot say the explanation in the movie is completely wrong, as it describes a very specific case of a collaborative game which leads to a nash equilibrium (at the point of efficiency).

Here is the current definition of Nash Equilibrium I currently work off of - directly from one of my textbooks (Microeconomics: Theory and Applications with Calculus, Jeffery M. Perloff) My apologies ahead of time that I understand that I am still an undergrad student, and that I haven't seen all there is to economics yet.

page D-4

Futher more, to clarify my previous post - consumers will ultimately lose out in terms of "out of pocket" expenses for the consumption of goods, but as a member of society, we will gain in terms of additional government spending (if they do spend it), improved public goods, and increased productivity to name a few.

If you are to say I am incorrect, at least tell everyone your opinion and/or suggestions for amendment, not throw in a LMGTFY link