Unfortunately doing what we want is not really an option. It’s not a question of whether or not we’re going to lose it becomes a question of whether or not we’re going to lose or we’re going to lose horribly and with disastrous consequences.

Trump is unlikely ever put the 50% tariff on us certainly not for anything time but he might very well put tariffs on us that are lower. And we simply couldn’t survive that. We might be able to diversify our economy in the next 20 years or so but not any time in the immediate future,

Future so at the end of the day we’re going to have to give him what he wants and get what we can get which is going to be terrible.

Carney played a strategy of string trump out to the midterms and hope that he loses badly at the midterms and in the meantime give him whatever he wants to drag things out. So we came down every thing from the bridge to the DST etc

But now trump thinks that carney will came on anything and he’s not going to wait till the midterms.

So now we’re in a tough position. We can’t walk away cuz if trump actually does put those tariffs on we’re dead. I mean really dead, like declare bankruptcy and live like Mexico dead

There does seem to be a certain amount of that and some of the communities. I feel like people are too sensitive but I don’t want to say that too loudly or I might get banned

The beings are finite but the wealth is not. I don’t know how to explain this more simply. If you fall into the ocean there’s only so much water you can drink so your ability is finite but from a practical point of view the water is infant.

This is extremely simple, the point is the limit is the person not the wealth

And no I’m just trying to find a way to explain it to you that will make it easier for you to get your head around. Honestly I’ve never had this kind of trouble explaining this concept to someone. My mother gets this.

Bottom line is that your lack of wealth is not because somebody else is hoarding wealth.

No it’s not, god it’s like talking to A four-year-old.

The wealth is infinite. There can’t be a shortage of it. Our capacity can be limited. Therefore when we’re talking about the real world that we live in it is dumb to talk about wealth as if there’s a shortage and it makes sense to discuss capacity to create wealth.

Can you just not smart enough to have this conversation I’m sorry. I’m trying my best here but you keep making statements that are absolutely asinine because you have fallen in love with this idea that somehow there’s this limited supply of wealth out there and someone’s hoarding it and that’s why you don’t have any. That’s just not how it works

That’s basic economics. Had you gone to a real school to study this stuff you might have realized it. Wealth is infinite, our capacity to generate it is limited. Your comment is no different than if somebody were to say there is a finite amount of kinetic energy in the universe. That’s just not how it works

I know the wealthy aren’t taking any resources from the rest of us. Wealthier in a position where they can create wealth at a higher and more effective rate. But interestingly enough that wealth creation actually benefits us and we make more than we would have as a result of it, not less

I’m afraid if you’re poor it’s your own damn fault you can’t blame it on anyone else. You have every bit as much of potential to increase your wealth and become extremely wealthy as anyone else and if that was your primary focus in life you could certainly do that. While it takes a lot of work it’s not terribly hard.

You have a fundamentally flawed view of what wealth is. Well isn’t a thing. It’s not like there’s a limited amount of wealthonium in the world and whoever holds it gets it and nobody else does. That’s not how it works.

Wealth is created through activity. Without the activity there is no wealth. Therefore the supply of wealth is endless, the problems usually come with limits or issues with the activity

So no, increasing wealth inequity is not the issue. The issue is that people are struggling harder and harder to be able to do enough activity that’s worth enough value to be able to get what they want. That’s true whether there are wealthy people or not

So the underlying issue is that the middle class and poor class aren’t able to create enough wealth to meet their needs and that has nothing to do with the wealthy. You don’t address that by worrying about what the wealthier doing, you address that by creating more opportunity for the middle class and the poor. And funny enough to do that you need the help of the wealthy which they are more than happy to give if they feel that it will be successful

Right now the tax burden and other burdens on the middle class prevent any disposable income or time that would allow for them to increase the value of their skills or begin to acquire assets and that is the problem. The wealthy are not excited about starting new businesses or educational opportunities that would fix this because they see the country as failing

And no reactionary politics does not follow from financial systems in the slightest.

I didn’t say whether or not it was a success I said it proved me right. Wealth inequality is something that people that don’t understand how money works talk about. Whether or not someone else is richer than you has nothing to do with how rich you are. It’s not a measure that has any particular value. Reactionary politics has nothing to do with our financial system that’s something else.

And most of that is a product of the last 12 years or so. And much of that problem was created by an imbalance between the growth of our population and our lack of ability to supply the needs of that population. As I have already pointed out with regards to housing, medicine, education, etc.

And that becomes a cycle or death spiral where are inability to supply leads to inflationary pressure and low wages which leads to our inability to supply etc

So bringing in low-wage people in any way shape or form make the economy stronger. At best it can mask weaknesses and cover them up for a short time until they kind of blow up in your face.

The last 40 years proves I’m right even more 😆😆😆

Sorry kid. Try reading a book instead of getting her education from Facebook. Demand exist in every economic model, capitalism addresses the supply sideit is that effort that makes things work. The ability to create products and services including ones that didn’t even exist before which creates new demand is what drives us. Demand is not what drives us immigrants don’t produce the supply necessary to meet the demand and that creates inflation and weakens the economy

No they are not. And as the reality of the situation proves that I’m right and you are wrong. So there you go

Carbon taxes don’t work at all. Well, in fairness I suppose I should have you at that. They don’t work to reduce emissions. In BC which was one of the first to adopt it and paid as much attention as possible to the results it was found that it slowed the growth of carbon emissions by about 5%, possibly as much as 10% although five is more likely.

It didn’t reduce anything though. It just meant that gross was a tiny bit slower. Carbon taxes don’t work

Us carpentry is not reducing emissions at all.

The Uk is phasing out coal because Cole’s not actually an efficient way to do things. But they’re not switching to a non-carbon model, they’re going for things like natural gas. And of course they cite carbon taxes as a big thing because the government wants to continue collecting carbon taxes. I’m sure it’s shocking to everyone that our government may want to try and justify why it’s taking your money 😂

I know, Sweden’s emissions would have been low either way. The carbon tax did not make that happen

And you’ll have a tough time finding anyone who doesn’t have a direct interest in promoting carbon taxes saying otherwise

This has been explained by a number of economic studies. The biggest problem is that energy expenditure is not elastic. The whole idea behind carbon taxes was that if it cost you more to buy gas you would drive less. Essentially. And it turned out that that wasn’t true. People still needed to drive and get to where they were going every bit as much as they used to. What they stopped doing was spending money on more discretionary things like going to the movies and it causes the economy to slow down but it doesn’t help emissions other than if you can’t afford to go to the movies at least you’re not driving there

So then it was hoped that if it didn’t change Behavior at least it might help change people’s buying decisions. Perhaps corporations and people would buy more electric vehicles?

But it turns out that for a variety of reasons about the same number of people by electric vehicles as would have either way. The actual driving force there is in carbon tax but rather subsidies. If you use subsidies to make an electric car cheaper than a gas car then people will buy the electric car and that’s pretty obvious. That would happen no matter what.

As far as carbon taxes on businesses go it doesn’t actually cause them to do much different at all. They’re always going to go with the most efficient system and pass the costs on to the consumer if necessary. So they don’t really buy anything that they wouldn’t have already bought even if there wasn’t a carbon tax, and if they have to stay with something where there’s a carbon tax they pass that on to the consumer and it’s the economy that suffers

Global warming hasn’t slowed down one tiny little bit as a result of carbon tax. It’s just smoking mirrors for governments to collect money

Market economies are not built on demand. If all you have is demand then you have a failed economy because you will have runaway inflation the vast majority won’t be able to afford the things they need

Which is precisely what’s happening in Canada. The housing market has exploded because there’s demand but not a sufficient supply. The strain on the medical systems is similar, demand increase faster than supply

Essentially you got it backwards. The magic in a market economy is the supply, and it is the nature of section economy that supply will appear to try and fill in demand. Loweskilled glow paid workers artificially ruin that dynamic and demand winds up outpacing supply with disastrous results

And their wages are too low because they’re not worth anything. The system operates on the concept of being paid a dollar for the creation of a dollar’s worth of value. To create higher value you need to have skills and abilities or assets which allow for that and that is exactly what is leaving Canada

You could but not successfully 😁 Joking aside though there have been other instances of brain drains taking place in the past. I think to suggest that there’s been a consistent brain drain for that. Of time would be severely erroneous and there are definitely been times when we attracted people to Canada. But this is definitely one of the worst and we are seeing people leave for the record percent of them being exactly the kind of people we want to stay

And it shows up in a lot of stats. Our GDP per capita is horrible and that’s one of the reasons, our investments climate is cored, etc etc. We have to find a way to reverse that and quickly

The problem is the people leaving are the highly talented and valuable people economically speaking. The people that are staying are the low income low skill people who do not substantially increase our GDP per capita and in fact lower it

This is going to be more and more of a problem.

We wasted 11 years on ’ carbon taxes’ instead of learning to adapt or doing something that would have made a difference

I think they have to be careful. During these tough times it would not be difficult to lose the moral High ground and piss the public off.

But I think that they’re mentally revisiting 1999, where we had an outgoing NDP government and the union was able to negotiate a sweet deal because the NDP of the day was trying to win points to salvage their chances.

We will see but I don’t think this is the right time for anybody to be excessively unreasonable that’s for sure

In fact, it’s getting to the point where “I’m not optimistic” is actually a pretty optimistic position to take

Simple facts and I did give examples. And the PC and reform party are not the same thing you can’t mash them together and pretend it’s an equivalency. That’s like pretending that if voters vote for the NDP it’s proof that they still vote for the liberals, that’s just not a real thing

And as I mentioned with your example. They accepted corruption for numerous election Cycles with no penalty and voted them out for different reasons so no, it’s not an example.

While it is arguably true that some NDP went to the liberals because of trump it is also true that a large number of NDP have expressed that they did not vote for their party this federal election because they felt that sing was corrupt. There are numerous examples of the conservatives doing that including the death of the PC as well as things like the death of the social credit party in British Columbia

What role voters are just not the same. And it’s not like I’m pretending that the right wing is some group of angels or something, I’m giving every bit as much credit to the farther left NDP voters.

But the liberals have shown again and again that they will accept any amount of corruption and still vote for their party without punishing it substantial. They went psycho after cycle with justin, they’re continuing to support carney despite the fact that they’re all ready scandals, we see it provincially as well when there is a liberal party that they will allow numerous election Cycles with massive corruption and do nothing. They just don’t have the same intolerance for corruption as everyone else and that is a real problem

Your commentary is clearly intended to be a defensive carney it has nothing to do with team sports. I addressed your points point for point, there’s nothing team-oriented about it

And nobody gives a crap who’s to dig her asshole. If you want to hire someone to be your friend the last big brothers. But we’re talking about here is who has the skills and knowledge experience and vision to be able to leave the country forward. There is absolutely no doubt that it’s Poilievre over carney. Something that the only man to employ both of them pointed out quite clearly

Carney pretends that he’s going to execute PoilievreS agenda because he knows it’s popular and correct. But then he either can’t or doesn’t or both.

And you are literally playing “Defend or compare the assholes”. That is the literal definition of what you’re doing.

And no I didn’t actually ask anything. I pointed out that your previous statements were entirely wrong and explain why point for point

I know why he got elected. He is an incredible snake oil or peddler and a continent who managed to convince those on the far left that someone with a long history of renovations and hiding the wealth of the 1% is a great idea. And he convinced liberals that he would be better than you know which he absolutely is not turning out to me. We’re on the same downward trajectory

Well it’s more than that. For us submarines really aren’t about combat vessels as much as they are about surveillance platforms.

We have a hell of a lot of ocean that touches our country. Proper surveillance is absolutely critical. Not just of military threats but also criminal and other activity. You can do a certain amount with planes but they can’t sit around and later forever watching a vessel and if they do the vessel knows they’re being watched. Same as surface vessels.

So even if the Americans were still at work allies we would still need to have a submarine fleet that was large enough to reasonably patrol and monitor the absolutely vast amount of ocean we have to deal with. I don’t think that any other country in the world has as much ocean directly touching them was Canada does, so of course we kind of need Subs

What absolute nonsense. Unless you define maga like Policies as being tax breaks and the like there is no comparison between trump’s policies and Poilievres. If anything carney was far more trump like, with his build baby build comments and make Canada strong again stuff.

And no, carney is not putting in place PoilievreS economic policies. He said he would, he ran on them, but now he’s running away from them. Remember when he promised to deal with interpreneurial trade? Then tried to walk it back when you realized it might be hard? Remember what he said he was going to get rid of the carbon tax but then doubled up the industrial carbon tax and associated fees? He never got rid of the regist legislation that is preventing companies from building pipelines and doing things in Canada, and now he suggesting that the Canadian taxpayer will pay for it just like they did under Justin Trudeau which is the absolute direct opposite of what the conservatives were going for.

Carney’s platform was very much like the conservatives but his actual actions are nothing like the conservatives

And carney is absolutely threatening civil rights. Both the left and the right are deeply concerned about his online gestapo bills. The new police powers for search and seizure are deeply worrying. Etc etc

Conservative spending is the opposite of what you’re saying. In harper’s time for example spending was extremely targeted and did very well and did not flow into the hands of his buddies. Right now we have a scandal where it appears that Brooksfield bought into a company 15 days before carney agreed to give them billions of dollars in bailouts for their condos. Which is exactly what you were just talking about but it’s not the conservatives doing it

Poilievre was clear about what his policy was. Get government spending under control and come up with a plan and March towards a balanced budget. Attract business investment to Canada by creating a favorable environment. Keep investment money in Canada by giving a break to those people who invest in Canadian investments instead of moving their money to America which is what has been happening for the last year and change. Focus on correcting the mistakes and problems of the last 10 years and get crime under control

None of those are bad things. You can say what you like but those are all things that even if you feel there are other priorities out there you can’t say that those are bad things. And none of that is happening under Carney