The type of economics one espouses depends on and promotes a particular worldview.
In Carney's case, it's a worldview that presupposes that anyone with money should be able to extract as many resources, and as much value, from our planet and society as they can, while they can.
That's why he is calling up folks in charge of trillions of dollars to try and sell them anything and everything that can be dug out of the ground.
But this is all completely unsustainable, both environmentally and politically.
So, does Carney "know more about this stuff"? In a sense, yes, because he is well-versed in how to facilitate that extraction, even though it leads to increasing instability.
But is his economics/ideology good for the world? I'd argue no.
"University of Calgary, University of Alberta, University of Lethbridge, University of Saskatchewan, Lockheed Martin Canada, General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada, CAE, Dell Canada, and Calian."
OK so first off, what military applications are they making with machines that can't yet factor numbers greater than like, 8 or whatever?
Second, sorry but "Lockheed Martin Canada" is still a US company even if you slap the word Canada on it. As is "General Dynamics Canada" and "Dell Canada". What are we even doing.
"... there is no current consensus about the necessary scale of carbon capture. Several scenarios for achieving the Paris climate objectives assume that, by 2100, carbon capture and sequestration could account for 18 Gt per annum of emission reductions. There are concerns that carbon capture will be used as a means to justify continued fossil fuel use. The Energy Transition Commission assumes a more modest scale of carbon capture at around 5–8 Gt per year, reserved for the genuinely hard-to-abate sectors.9 In most cases, carbon-capture technologies will capture about 80–90 per cent of the CO2 stream, with the remaining 10–20 per cent still released into the atmosphere."
Carney has always been like this, I really wish people had actually read his book
So, the IAEA already knew about this, but the supposed problem is that they put the uranium in a different location after the US canceled the nuclear deal and then started hitting their civilian nuclear facilities with missiles? Ok
I am reading statements from the IAEA right now. I haven't seen one that claims Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Difficult for me to prove that no such statement exists though, so feel free to link one
I'm listening to them chuckle and joke around as they repeatedly reject non-Liberal amendments to their surveillance bill at midnight while occasionally complaining about the time hahahahaha
edit: to be clear, I think this is absolutely disgusting
Bad idea. The whole point of pension funds is stability. By artificially pumping the value of Canadian stocks and real estate, this widens inequality and shifts pension fund values to being pro-cyclical rather than a hedge against an economic downturn in this country. The federal government should not be pushing this. It's no different than Trump demanding lower interest rates to temporarily boost the stock market.
"The three countries need to approve a renewal of their existing agreement by July 1 or signal their intention to exit the pact, a process that would take 10 years and would buy time for alterations."
I'm told that it will be important to have people from all around the city write in and/or delegate to the Planning Committee on the 16th (next Tuesday). So if folks know anyone living in wards outside of the downtown core, say, Stoney Creek, or across the mountain, or especially places like Glanbrook or Mount Hope where the fights around urban expansion happen: please ask them to write to their councillors this week <3
Of course we won't. Hoekstra, like Trump, is useful for getting people to keep rallying behind the PM - who is selling us out to the US while telling us he's doing the opposite.
Out of curiosity: would purchasing these therefore mean the CAF would in a sense be locked into purchasing that type of plane in the future? And where are those planes manufactured?
I think I misread your previous comment. Regardless, both the 2% demand and the 5% demand were made by Trump, and the fact that other NATO countries are indeed spending a large chunk of those budgets on US weaponry should be all the indication that anyone needs that they are using Trump's feigned belligerence toward allies as an excuse to ramp up military spending and war posture, particularly in the far north, eg Greenland.
It's frankly unreal how many people can look at Carney's actions and still believe his words.
Economics is not a science.
Economics is ideological.
The type of economics one espouses depends on and promotes a particular worldview.
In Carney's case, it's a worldview that presupposes that anyone with money should be able to extract as many resources, and as much value, from our planet and society as they can, while they can.
That's why he is calling up folks in charge of trillions of dollars to try and sell them anything and everything that can be dug out of the ground.
But this is all completely unsustainable, both environmentally and politically.
So, does Carney "know more about this stuff"? In a sense, yes, because he is well-versed in how to facilitate that extraction, even though it leads to increasing instability.
But is his economics/ideology good for the world? I'd argue no.
OK so first off, what military applications are they making with machines that can't yet factor numbers greater than like, 8 or whatever?
Second, sorry but "Lockheed Martin Canada" is still a US company even if you slap the word Canada on it. As is "General Dynamics Canada" and "Dell Canada". What are we even doing.
oh lol thank you — what on earth did i do 😅 link should work now
Carney has always been like this, I really wish people had actually read his book
So, the IAEA already knew about this, but the supposed problem is that they put the uranium in a different location after the US canceled the nuclear deal and then started hitting their civilian nuclear facilities with missiles? Ok
also, I can do without the insults btw.
I am reading statements from the IAEA right now. I haven't seen one that claims Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Difficult for me to prove that no such statement exists though, so feel free to link one
Even the CIA said that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon
A threat so menacing that our government is actively taking steps to integrate defence systems more deeply and hand resource extraction rights to them
I'm listening to them chuckle and joke around as they repeatedly reject non-Liberal amendments to their surveillance bill at midnight while occasionally complaining about the time hahahahaha
edit: to be clear, I think this is absolutely disgusting
https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20260617/-1/45663
BUT MUH EFFICIENT MARKET
No response from our friend Scotty. Imagine my surprise!
What, specifically, does not make sense?
Bad idea. The whole point of pension funds is stability. By artificially pumping the value of Canadian stocks and real estate, this widens inequality and shifts pension fund values to being pro-cyclical rather than a hedge against an economic downturn in this country. The federal government should not be pushing this. It's no different than Trump demanding lower interest rates to temporarily boost the stock market.
If the rules of the agreement don't matter anyway, then why is Trump bothering to talk about not renewing it?
I feel like nobody is understanding this part
I'm told that it will be important to have people from all around the city write in and/or delegate to the Planning Committee on the 16th (next Tuesday). So if folks know anyone living in wards outside of the downtown core, say, Stoney Creek, or across the mountain, or especially places like Glanbrook or Mount Hope where the fights around urban expansion happen: please ask them to write to their councillors this week <3
Of course we won't. Hoekstra, like Trump, is useful for getting people to keep rallying behind the PM - who is selling us out to the US while telling us he's doing the opposite.
Out of curiosity: would purchasing these therefore mean the CAF would in a sense be locked into purchasing that type of plane in the future? And where are those planes manufactured?
i called this shit a year ago and this place downvoted me to hell for it https://sh.itjust.works/post/41864584
I think I misread your previous comment. Regardless, both the 2% demand and the 5% demand were made by Trump, and the fact that other NATO countries are indeed spending a large chunk of those budgets on US weaponry should be all the indication that anyone needs that they are using Trump's feigned belligerence toward allies as an excuse to ramp up military spending and war posture, particularly in the far north, eg Greenland.
It's frankly unreal how many people can look at Carney's actions and still believe his words.