CdnFox

I think you got that backwards - i think he was saying the area was liberal because the bums and criminals were there, not that they were there because it was liberal. Although certainly it doesn't hurt that these areas are more liberal. In more conservative areas they may be tolerated less.

It's a fair hunk of it. Again as you mention it's something that affects ALL the stops on the supply chain - it affects growing the food, harvesting the food, shipping the food to the processors, processing the food, shipping it to the stores and the costs of the energy to keep it fresh once it's there. There's carbon tax on all of that. I believe the current carbon tax has been found to be responsible for something like a half percent or more of the current overall inflation - that's actually a fair bit. Doubling the subsidies doesn't help in an inflationary situation. Pouring more unearned money into the economy just drives inflation up. That's largely how we got into this mess. At the end of the day the only things that beat inflation are reducing demand or increasing availability of product. That's it. And we're not likely to deal with the first one unless trudeau is willing to slow down the number of people coming into the country until things stabilize. So they have to look at how to take some of the red tape and costs out of production and supply (and make sure the savings get passed on). And they may have to slow immigration till that catches up, 400,000 extra mouths to feed every year puts a LOT of strain on that system and keeps prices high.

Sure. me too. And for others it isn't and they buy EV's which is good because it does encourage the industry to keep advancing and coming out with better products.

No, that's not why they raised interest rates. And that wouldn't be very smart of them to do - the demand for housing would remain the same. There's the same number of people. So if people can't afford houses then there's more renters and rents go up. Which is precisely what's been happening. It tends to affect how much groceries they buy, and how much food restaurants buy. And some types of groceries more than others. I get what your'e saying - it's not direct. But - if I have to spend more on my mortgage, i've got less to spend on food. If i have to pay more for fuel, same thing. So raising the interest rates affects consumer spending across the board, even if it's not directly. And that SHOULD have SOME impact on food prices but so far not so much. which is in and of itself concerning.

Well you got the first part right anyway.

Why. If you're a two person two car family why wouldn't it make sense to have one of each if you're in that profile where an EV is a better choice 90 percent of the time. I actually know people like that, they are able to use the vehicle that makes the most sense the vast majority of the time and feel they benefit from it financially. I swear Boges just wants them to be awesome and near perfect for everyone and you just want them to be terrible and the worst choice for everyone. If you two had a kid we'd probably get a little closer to reality If the infrastructure was in place they'd probably be a very good option for about 40 - 50 percent of people. maybe a hair more, in a province like bc with cheap electricity. The infrastructure isn't in place and even 50 percent wouldn't justify banning the sale of ICE vehicles like trudeau wants, but it'll slowly move forward. At some time the tech will catch up. It's a natural progression.

Yes, thank goodness we're only hurting ours..... hey, wait a minute.... No, thankfully we do have the vote. If we can just convince ontario that corruption, abuse of authority and selling the country out to foreign powers is a BAD thing.

Yeah - where have we seen THAT kind of thinking fail spectacularly recently Speaking of - hear justin' s looking to appoint a first nations person as head of the RCMP regardless of experience. That should work out as well as all his other political appointments.

Well very true about the housing impact - people think housing prices have come down but really the cost of buying a home for anyone who has to take a mortgage has gotten worse. A 20 percent drop in housing prices (from the super high peak) doesn't make up for a 400 percent increase in mortgage rates. But the whole 'interest rate' thing wasn't just about housing. It's been billed as an 'inflation fighting' tool. But it's not really reducing the inflation on food. Or much else if we're being honest. And that's what the article is pointing to.

That's the same regardless of vehicle. I'm sure you're not suggesting EV's don't have windshield wipers Well that's what insurance is for. And that's why it costs so much. Whereas electricity is pretty cheap, depending where you live. But it's like i said - depends on the variables. Many can't change their own oil. On the other hand some places electricity is very expensive. Compare BC for example to chicago or detriot - electricity is a quarter of the price in bc - and gas is about 1/3 the price in those places. So - for someone living in bc who's got a predictable regular daily commute and the ability to charge at home, living in one of the major metros where gas tax is through the roof and it's 1.80 a litre and not likely to go down.... well suddenly that might be a pretty big money saver. For a while there all i had was my truck which is good on gas for a TRUCK - and i had to go into work which is a fairly long ways away. I was spending upwards of 600 bucks a month on gas. Dropping that to 50 bucks in electricity or less leaves a lot of room for savings. Now i almost never go into the office, i'm spending about 50- 100 dollars a month in gas, That's even tho gas has gone up. So - NOW is it worth it? Well probably not. I just don't think you can make blanket statements about it being the best choice for everyone or a horrible idea for everyone. It just really depends.

Well that's arguably true, but i think they would say the environmental savings is the fuel consumption, lack of oil changes, etc. rather than the disposal of the vehicle at end of useful life. Well i tend to agree but for some people it is a real savings and there's reasons for ev's beyond just the environment, and i do support people having choices as consumers. So if someone thinks it's a benefit to their particular circumstance then i say fill yer boots. I think arguing that it's never a good idea is probably as hard to defend as saying its always a good idea. oh i'm pretty sure most of the manufacturers will keep a few ice models around

Well that wasn't very truthful was it. Putin has rattled his nuclear saber MANY times in the past and in fact did so in this crisis before anyone helped. Pulling out of the treaty is largely meaningless. There is zero evidence the US blew up any pipelines. So if we're being 'honest' - nothing has significantly changed. Russia still has more than enough nukes to toast the planet, treaty or no, and other than that it's the same as its always been. Well you'd have to be about 7 different kinds of dense to think that i said that. As i was clear many times, given the pounding he's taken over Ukraine it's unlikely he will be planning ANY military adventures for a long time. This has moved us AWAY from more risky conflicts. Dude - putin did NOT drive his forces into those regions and attempt to save them. He drove his forces straight at the heart of Ukraine and tried to take the entire country. So lets be crystal clear -this had ZERO to do with helping the poor people of the donbas escape repression. This had EVERYTHING to do with attempting to add Ukraine to russia by way of military adventure and conquest. Period. Anything else could have been negotiated. It wasn't. There is NO redeeming feature here - putin chose to invade for no other reason than he wanted the territory and resources and every death is his fault directly. You sound like those people who try to say we shoudln't lock up muderers and rapists because they had a hard life so it's not their fault. It's their fault. The depletion of the russian conventional forces to the point where they are no longer a threat and sending the very cear message to russia and china that if you partake in military adventure and conquest it might go very very badly for you, so maybe don't do that. Which is exaclty what they're getting. Russia's ability to project power beyond it's borders has been outrageously damaged, and their weapons stockpiles have been seriously depleted. It's a safe bet that if putin could rewind the clock he wouldn't have invaded. China gets the message and realizes that if they can't take tiawan in a day or three then those people will get enough arms to make it a very very bloody affair for the chinese that may not achieve what they want it to. And of course russia is taking a massive prestige hit worldwide. When "client states" are thinking about getting behind russia they're going to think twice. They're going to decide if they're getting russian gear and their opponents are getting nato gear, they may be at a disadvantage. And finally of course nato is getting someone to test out the effectiveness of their gear and develop new tactics for them for free. The next gen himars will be even more impressive and the tactics and lessons of this war will be integreated into the us plans and equipment making them even more effective. And all it cost them was a few billion which is nothing. All of which is why they won't have any problem continuing to fund this forever as long as public sentiment about the war continues. It's got squat to do with 'democracy' or that ukraine is such a great and noble and honest country blah blah.

I looked it up. Not toxic. Sorry little fella Nope. All inert for modern ones. The cobalt has been replaced with things like manganese or phospate. Strike two little guy Yes - it is very difficult to actually cite the voices in your head Lithium batteries are currently 100 percent recyclable. There's literally no problems with doing so anymore. For consumer electronics the problem is people just toss them, not that they can't be recycled. But nobody's going to just throw their tesla in the garbage can. They are standardized, tonnes of places recycle them. They will eventually be replaced by better tech but not for the reasons you state. Well yes and no. If battery tech improves or changes it should be pretty easy to convert a tesla over to the new battery tech when it's current batteries start to die. Even if the battery changes it's still putting out electricity. For example, i can replace my old disposable battery in my old flashlight for a new rechargable lithium one and get the benefits of more power and longer life without buying a new battery. Newer battery tech should be smaller and lighter. So there should be more than enough room in the vehicle for it when the day comes to upgrade. it's not like replacing an engine. That wasn't your worst post little guy! tell your mom i said you could have an extra cookie in your luchbag for snacktime at recess

Did you notice the bit where i said mining it was the problem? Currently 80 percent of car batteries are recycled. And they are worth a lot less to recycle than lithium will be. I did post where it's believed it will be 80 percent or higher recovery. Not significantly more than a regular vehicle. If you think lithium that's not recovered is somehow bad for the environment, try motor oil, an ice car has to dispose of a lot of that over it's life and they don't recover 100 percent of that either. And As i said, and as you basically repeated, the problem with lithium is not in it's disposal, but in the extraction and mining. Solid state might be, depending on what you mean by that. Solid state is not a specific technology per se, it's still in development. . Even more interesting is quantum battery tech which would be massively lighter and far faster to charge and much more energy dense even than most of the envisioned possible solid batteries. And they're getting close to some of that tech. And hydrogen keeps threatening to make a comeback. Bottom line is we agree the tech for EV's isn't mature yet. It's close, but it has a ways to go. I don't know how much of an 'illusion' it is. I've seen studies which attempt to calculate in ALL the variables and go to great lengths to do it and still seem to show a benefit over ICE in many situations, but it depends on variables. Not always in all cases everywhere. In places like quebec and bc where the power is mostly renewable hydro, for many drivers there probably is an environmental benefit.

Awww little guy - do you wish people would talk to you too? I mean, without laughing and pointing? That's the potential challenge. And it also depends a little on where you live. I appreciate communists like you don't believe in ownership of personal property but it's a bit of a stretch to think the average person gets a new cell evey two years In any case, lithium isn't toxic. I don' t know where you heard that. And the batteries are quite recyclable, and while someone might throw a cell phone in the garbage nobody is going to toss out their tesla. That's not the biggest problem. The massive pollution created by pulling it out of the ground in the first place is more of a problem. I notice you don't like to cite your sources. Kind of odd. Is there some problem with them? I did notice this: Within the next decade, as much as 80% of the key ingredients in EV batteries could come from recycling, much as is the case today with the lead-acid batteries in conventional vehicles. https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2023/02/recycling-ev-batteries-looms-as-a-game-changer/ Looks like there's a bunch of companies setting up as well, and recycling of car batteries will be in full swing pretty fast. You're like the opposite of him - there are serious problems to be addressed but you're taking the easy ones and trying to stretch them into absurdity.

We were always close. THe difference is you couldn't see it. Everybody is thinking that this came out of nowhere and 2 years ago there was no problems and war, nuclear or otherwise, was not an issue but really this has been going on since crimea when Vlad took that region without a fight. Since then he's been biding his time looking for the right moment and we were ALWAYS headed to another conflict with the ever present possibility of nuclear war. We are just bloody lucky that it didn't end in a week as he hoped, or we'd be headed to the next conflict. As it is, no matter what happens now he'll think twice before jumping into his next military adventure. Now we just have to grind him as much as possible and make this as miserable as possible. You have to show him that the threat of nuclear war is not your concern, otherwise he'll always pull that out. He's been threatening nuclear retaliation since day one and if we'd listened we'd never be able to back down in the future without pushing him into a corner. Hardly. Biden isn't threatening to cut off germany's gas and let them freeze in the dark That'd be putin.

Yeah but if china starts to fall apart they will be more focused inward than outward.

Now THAT'S interesting

I just don't see any evidence of that. In fact, China's been largely out of the game since covid. And the world economy is pretty warm right now, we're just going into the slowing period. So i don't see how the world is waiting on China for a bail out. THAT part i see. Bit of a stretch there tho. Austria was a first world country, just a smaller one. And both had major backing from the major powers. Whereas nowadays even countries like Hati can't get anyone interested in their domestic messes. Preeeeety sure it was the germans invading Poland actually. I think you're reaching pretty hard. It's not impossible but it's hardly likely. Localized conflict, sure. But widescale armed conflict? If anything the chinese collapsing would consolidate the western powers and they'd be free to put their military might where they want to.' I think most will be on their best behavior.

Well i'm not sure who 'he' is but the US isn't intervening anywhere at the moment. Although i probably better time stamp that just in case something happens before you read it ERrrrrr whatnow? Well the russians are testing that theory right now with their oil supplies. And i think the germans would rather be dependant on other sources of oil than the russians.

There's always unrest in the third world countries, but i'm not sure i see how china specifically blowing up would make that extraordinarily worse. If anything there might be some provincial breakaway action (kind of like we saw when the soviets packed it in) but i'm not sure there'd be a whole lot of 'unusual' conflict. Certainly nothing that would ilkely be concerning beyond the concern one would normally feel for those in war.

I can see why youd think that but really it's not that bad. We might see a severe recession but the world would very quickly adapt and we'd be fine. Not without wounds and scars but not that bad. Economies and people are a lot more resilient than some would think.

Honestly i don't see it. China imploding (unless it breaks down to serious civil war) will have significant economic impacts of course, but remember that while many buy things FROM them very few sell things TO them, they keep their markets closed to others. I think that the biggest issue would be a lack of supply of various electronic components which would soon be taken up by other countries. That's one of the good things about capitalism, it does find a way to adapt.

Weren't you just going on about how peaceful and good natured they were? You got right upset when i posted info which suggested that might not be true. Now you're worried that they are blood thirsty killing machines. Consistency - look it up.

Well they didn't build 100 warships in 2015 of course. They finished around that number - but that is not the same thing. Really they've only bulid 240 ships in 20 years. The fact that in one year they finished an unusual number means nothing. And the us production of large warships was higher than that in ww2 when they were trying. America's ship building capacity is vastly higher. And their other manufacturing is as well. No, they're not. They're producing more than they have in the past but not that many. Again, if the us were trying they would greatly outstrip that. China's at pretty close to max production, the us is not even trying. But when they do they can produce HUGE amounts of material. China simply doesn't have that kind of capacity. There can be no doubt. The Chinese are catching up but they're no where near the production capacity of or the quality of the ships the US has. Their newest carrier is getting up there, very impressive, but while they've closed the gap they're just not at the same level. But - we're really talking about production of war material here. How many missiles, how many shells, how many anti tank guns etc etc can they produce. And china can't hold a candle ot what the US and it's allies can turn out if they're getting serious.