LinkSoul60

I wonder if that wise man saw the warfare in politics to what it is now....but regardless, he is right. I just accept it for what it is, very different times around the world politically, economically and socially. Curious to see how the politicians lead us forward. There are direct lines of communication from Trump to each country leader. They built up their fleet in the region so it wasn't a surprise there. The timing and actually doing it was I'm sure. A quick 2 minute one on one call could have went a long way. I'm not drawing any conclusions from politics or otherwise, it's right from Trump. I think most have him somewhat figured out now, if that makes sense. Definitely agree on the telegraphing. There is definitely an arrogance, and rightfully so, that Trump and Hegseth like to talk about. I also agree there has to be nuclear materials elsewhere, but I'm cynical enough to think the end game will somehow finish with a financial agreement. That could well be, and honestly wasn't as aware of their depth of nastiness as I am now. I have no disagreement at all with eliminating the leaders of the regime and the bad guys but this has proved to be way more complicated than I'm sure what was expected. It's hindsight, this should have been looked differently, and with allies involved which to your earlier comment, the continuation of war in the political world. I'm curious how this ends with Iran and US, if it does, but agree the US is in good shape militarily, but won't be politically if it drags on. I'm certain the straight was looked at but clearly they've been surprised by Iran and their tactics. They can't go toe to toe with the US but are throwing some jabs that obviously have them off balance. Warfare is a lot cheaper and easier these days. It is what it is. If a friend needs help you help them, but the karma of this was/is pretty damn good. This didn't have to do with our standing in the world. It had everything to do with Trump and his Israeli buddy. No other country was invited to the party either so these guys clearly thought they could get it done themselves. I have no shame of irrelevance at all. We never have and never will be a superpower militarily or economically in the global sense, but we've known that forever. We got problems and so does everyone else. The world's changing but I think we're hanging out more with the right people now, including the US, as it changes.

There was no reason for anyone to pull their weight, until asked/begged/threatened. What are friends for right.

It speaks to a growing problem we have in our Western and European societies because of social media doesn't it.

Another pull out of your ass attempt to make this report or any other that are findable incorrect because they didn't include what you're saying. Unqualified economists everywhere, should have called you... Understand what you see, not what you want to believe.

Clearly math isn't your thing... You're far better though at picking things out of your ass to suit your ridiculous arguments. Why can't you process what you read for the way it was intended to be interpreted rather than reading it the way you want it to be. Do you struggle with the meaning of words, or do you get confused when too many of them are next to each other? What is this.... You picked this out of your ass and I can only wonder if you even took math in school, in any grade. Where did you pull this from - 'it's JUST at the production level'? The author plainly says 'While we abstract from general equilibrium responses, our analysis suggests emissions pricing in Canada has only a modest effect on food costs' or 'QUANTIFYING THE EFFECT OF EMISSIONS PRICING ON CONSUMER PRICES'. There is no mention of 'JUST at the production level'. What don't you understand about either of those comments from the report? This one and any other that can be found says the same....it's less than 1%. For a laugh I'd be curious to hear how you got to 2 and almost 3%, but I'm sure you have no idea how either... 🤡 I heard this quote from Mark Twain that made me laugh, and is so applicable to you - "Never argue with stupid people. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience" BTW.... still waiting for the cite of Carney's $1Billion 2025 expense summary, please send.

It seemed to me the crawling was from the other end, which makes sense when you're in over your head. It's the right thing to do given you obviously need everyone's help with this mess. Hopefully all gets resolved soon and we're back to normal. When things are I wonder if this support will be appreciated or he'll go back to insulting and pissing on 'allies'. I'd like to think he wouldn't, but he will.

You can't change history, unless you're Trump. I get it Iran isn't good, the war has already started so no turning back now. It's escalating and that isn't good. They can only fight a different kind of war with any effectiveness and saying today they'll target worldwide civilian tourist sites and infrastructures. Isn't that nice... We're a country of 40M people. We'll never be the world's police and hope we'll always do what's best in our interests, which obviously includes the US. He did change his mind a few times.... probably shouldn't have said anything immediately and waited to know more but whatever, lesson learned for the next war. I heard a guy on power & politics say he'll wait until the end of his life to listen to the podcast. Me too. I've heard Poilievre's comments which are just reiterating what's been known and said for the past year. I'll give him this though from what I've seen/read... he did well. Taking a year to get around to talking in any detail about a trade deal with US isn't going to change my mind. I have no idea of what's being discussed or if Poilievres ideas have any merit. What I think is happening in the negotiations is 'Okay, this is want we want and we don't care what you want because we're bigger, and we can'. That's perfectly fine using that tact when negotiating but I'd also hope we're saying 'we get it, but it doesn't change our mind. No'... which certainly appears we are. Keep yapping about Trudeau. I still think you'll be voting liberal next time around...

The transportation costs are in the summary I cited. Carbon tax adds less than 1% to the cost of food. Your logic, math and dislike for liberals has your thinking off.

Didn't think so... No idea what he was briefed about but at the end of the day, this is on his watch. It's getting a lot stupider by the hour/day as well. That's not good and there's only guy who'll be held responsible. Part of the job. The UN or international law is of no concern to Trump. Can't figure out what he wants though... In the same sentence he dumps because nobody wants to help then immediately says they don't want and need help. The guy isn't right... Ahhhh here we are.... Justin fùcked up for 10 years. Okay, I've heard you guys say that a few times already. Enough already. What's the plan... Pierre now that he was on a Joe Rogan podcast? We just elected a PM last year so worry about dissing him and forget about Trudeau. I'm not sure why you're pointing at me for voting for someone that actually has a resume and did something? I looked hard for the other guys but couldn't find one. Whatever, get over it...

Same author and opinion as the last piece. Okay it's inconvenient.... tell us the truth. how much does it add? Are you going to take a guess like fxx did? Any percentage increases you find in searches will be less than 1%. The industrial carbon tax isn't the problem. We have higher production costs from fuel, fertilizer and labor, higher operational costs, high transportation costs, retail fees grocers charge suppliers, and import ~30% of our food at an average dollar last of 0.7157USD/1.398CAD. Throw in the weather/climate factors that add costs and it's expensive to eat

Yes, the Sun is reliable if you enjoy right biased news and editorials. Your google search doesn't have any back-up, and the only link is the Dalhousie summary that suggests industrial carbon tax add's cost but doesn't quantify the opinion with the cost per tonne breakdown and how that translates to a percentage increase. Your search also showed - 'In summary, while the carbon tax does add to the costs of producing and transporting food, it represents a very small portion of the overall increase in food prices, with 0.15%', but congrats to you for adding your uneducated opinion of - 'the reaility is it's a lot closer to 2 by the time the dust settles and the consumer actually eats it.' That sounds like a pretty qualified opinion. If your current gig doesn't work out maybe look into a career as an economist...? Please cite those credible sources you mention. Send it along with Carney's $1B expense summary if it's easier for you. Thanks in advance. If the Climate Institute wasn't good enough for you, try this from a professor of economics and research fellow at the School of Public Policy at The University of Calgary; From Farms to Tables: Quantifying the Effect of Emissions Pricing on Canadian Food Prices Trevor Tombe , Jennifer Winter Dec 1, 2025 Abstract We examine the effect of emissions pricing on the cost of Canadian food. We describe emissions pricing policies relevant to the agriculture and food sectors and the differing design details of various provincial systems and the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. To quantify the potential effect of such policies, we use a detailed input-output model of Canada’s economy to estimate both the direct and indirect cost increases across sectors. We also explore how exemptions and policy design can mitigate what would otherwise be larger effects. In particular, imported inputs, generous exemptions for most direct emissions in primary agriculture, and special provisions for large industrial emitters all dampen the effect. Overall, we find that emissions pricing at $80 per tonne could potentially increase the cost of domestically produced food by approximately 0.8 percent on average. Combined with imported food that is not directly affected by emissions pricing, we find an average effect of approximately 0.5 percent. While we abstract from general equilibrium responses, our analysis suggests emissions pricing in Canada has only a modest effect on food costs. Type Journal article https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cjag.12383 Publication Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (4): 358-384 Date December, 2025

Do you look at anything other than right-wing tabloid sites? Here, try this; https://climateinstitute.ca/news/fact-sheet-canada-industrial-carbon-pricing-systems/

All that to say what you posted had nothing to do with anything, other than the younger generations happiness around social media and those interactions. Good god man.... 😂 Where is the Carney expense report?

No need to, I've said and you've seen it. You're capable of finding it again if it's important to you. Okay, that link was today. Why wasn't a clear objective and definition of success communicated from the start rather than the mixed responses.

No, I say it's not fact. Try looking for them....I even made it easier for you by sending it to Goddess who I'm sure is reaching out to all her X and Facebook contacts looking for rebuttals. Anyway, now you're aware that you had no idea what you posted yesterday with the World Happiness Survey, where are you with Carney's $1B expense summary? Thanks in advance....

All that to say what you copied from your Facebook buddy wasn't fact...? 😂 Guess you're just in the habit of throwing random shìt around huh.... Don't further embarrass yourself, if that's even possible. You're all the same.... say it enough times and you'll believe it yourself. Why don't you try reading the survey FFS and stop trying to justify your own way of thinking, which a rock could emulate. It's the World Happiness Survey in its entirety..... but unfortunately touch on what you thought it was or think it should be. Calling you oblivious is far too flattering....

So, you obviously can't comprehend what I've said. What was the plan, or is the plan? Your defence of him is admirable. Doesn't change the facts of what's happened and where we're at though.

See, that's easy. I bet you're voting liberal next time around. He screwed up by not considering Iran's actions and their impact to the global economy. He's a piece of work though... Said yesterday that he actually thought gas prices would be higher so the fact. they're not means he's winning. The good thing for him is that fools everywhere will buy that. The strait is in a war zone. If missiles were to hit a Canadian ship there would be a loss of life and justifiable uproar asking... exactly why did we do this? We should have done a lot of things, just like your guy Harper should have done a lot of things when he was the PM too. Everyone is an expert with hindsight. Talk to me about what we do to move forward. I see little value in crying every day about the past. It's not going to change the past, and affects my concentration when over the golf ball. He won't be remembered fondly by the masses.... Me included, but I don't spend my waking moments thinking about him. So what if Mexico is supposedly 'ahead'... whatever that means. You're under the opinion we should sign a deal that's bad for us. Most with an ounce of common sense wouldn't agree with that. Correct, I voted for the most qualified candidate we had for PM. And yes, getting on a plane and meeting with foreign governments and investors is generally what needs to happen if you're trying to expand your foreign trade relationships. Wild guess but thinking everything you've got the past 11 years is because liberals have been the only governing party we've had. Imagine if the conservatives were actually able to put forth better candidates than Scheer, O'Toole or Poilievre and what might have been... Oh well. I've never said the world is 'running good'. As I said above though, I don't spend my waking moments complaining about the past. Didn't work in sports, didn't work in business, and sure doesn't work in day to day life.

Take your far too tight conservative hat off for minute.... Their wealth is an example of what I'm saying with wealth inequality. Think about it.... I don't subscribe to the 'in it for personal financial gains' theory you do though.

Haven't seen that. Good because I'm getting waxed in the market again like everyone else. If you paid attention to what I've said you would have heard 'Wouldn't surprise me though that if this drags out we'll be involved in some small way, if we aren't already'. I don't know what happened today but will read soon enough. Better question though... I'm sure you're happy though and Carney can count on your vote next time around? Is how he screwed up even a question??? WTF do you see going on right now and who the hell do you think started it. Yes, being an ally was never a question. Going into a war for all the reason I said doesn't make sense. Again, not sue what happened today but it's not going to mean anything for goodwill even if we do assist. He doesn't like that. You conveniently omit the part of Canadian's losing their jobs because of those sectoral tariffs. I'll say it again... his smack talk is classless but who cares, it's only words. People losing their jobs are the problem I have. Sorry but wasn't around the last time we invaded their WH so can't comment.... Again, if you understood what you read I said Trump is doing what he should do for his country, but there is a right and wrong way to do things. His way was and is wrong. Think you'll ever get over Justin? We don't have an agreement because what's on the table doesn't work for us. I and you sure as hell don't know the entire conversations but that makes sense.... don't you think? With the exception of the last paragraph every other had a rant about left, liberals, Carney or Trudeau. Holy shìt.... you can't even think straight. Fùckers are watching you too so be careful....

It's proven to be a lot more accurate than where you get your news, wouldn't you agree? 😂

What are you even talking about.... The government gave lower income persons a tax break last year and is trying to help this year with food-related rebates. What has he done in policy that has widened the wealth equality gap?

What if the liberals had an X platform...more believable? Cite those economists when you can. Interested to see how their perspectives differ. No, I didn't vote for all that and the poor and vulnerable have always been on my radar. A liberal minded person can't have empathy or provide charitable donations? Let me save you some time on X or Facebook though. If something doesn't make sense let me know; Industrial carbon pricing systems are Canada’s most important policy lever for cutting carbon pollution and creating a competitive clean economy with low costs for businesses and big incentives for investment in low-carbon projects. These systems are also designed to cost next to nothing for Canadian consumers. The Canadian Climate Institute has done extensive research and modelling quantifying the effects of this policy. This fact sheet outlines how and why industrial carbon pricing has virtually no impact on the day-to-day expenses of average Canadians and keeps costs low for businesses: Industrial carbon pricing costs Canadian consumers next to nothing—and in some cases even provides benefits. Our research shows that industrial carbon pricing systems have an impact of around zero per cent on household consumption, a measure of income, in 2025. These costs are projected to remain very low and reduce consumption by just a tenth of one per cent by 2030. In some cases, industrial carbon pricing—also called large-emitter trading systems—provides small net benefits for consumers, largely because of provisions in Alberta’s system that can reduce the cost of electricity Industrial carbon pricing applies to goods sold on international markets where most price increases aren’t passed on to consumers. Most companies that participate in industrial carbon pricing systems sell a significant portion of their products in other countries. About 50 per cent of the output of Canada’s large emitters is exported, and some industries export much more, which lowers costs on consumers. For example, the oil sands send closer to 80 per cent of production abroad. In addition, these exported products are sold on global commodity markets, which set the price paid and further limits the amount passed on to consumers. Industrial carbon pricing has essentially no impact on the price of food and the agricultural sector. Our modelling, done in partnership with Navius Research for the Independent Assessment of Carbon Pricing Systemsshows that industrial carbon pricing has near zero overall impact on households’ spending on food. The same analysis projects that the cumulative GDP impact on the agricultural sector would be 0.08 per cent by 2030. Farmers don’t directly pay the industrial carbon price and there are almost no costs to pass through the supply chain on to consumers. Costs for consumers are virtually nothing because industrial goods have only a small impact on the price of finished consumer products. Industrial carbon pricing does not apply directly to individual consumers—only to the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the country, like oil sands facilities, steel mills, and cement plants. Industrial carbon pricing has modest or negligible increases in the cost of industrial goods such as steel, which represent only a small portion of the final cost of consumer products people buy in Canada. For example, research finds that industrial carbon pricing that applies to the highest emitting steel plants in the country would still only add $0.12 to the cost of a refrigerator, and under $3 to the cost of a pickup truck. Industrial carbon pricing is low-cost for businesses, which also limits costs passed on to consumers. Industrial carbon pricing is designed to contain costs because industries only pay for emissions that exceed a specified limit, and if they outperform the limit they make money by selling credits for cash. Data shows that industrial carbon pricing currently only adds an average of 9 cents per barrel to oil sands producer costs. Our research shows that if industrial carbon pricing is strengthened in line with the Canada-Alberta MOU, oil sands producers would still only be paying 50 cents per barrel in 2030—roughly the cost of a Timbit, after inflation is factored in. Industrial carbon pricing imposes much lower costs on total emissions than consumer carbon pricing, around $10 or less per tonne of emissions against a carbon price of $95 per tonne.

Absolutely it has and I'm in the corner of similar bans here that Australia did for banning persons under 16 from most social platforms. The biggest concern though (my 2 cents).... wealth inequality. Those who have wealth continue to grow that and those who don't continue to go backwards. It's going to blow up at some point in the masses.

I'm not capable because I don't subscribe to X. Come on now.... What if I said the industrial carbon tax adds less than 1% to our cost of food. Would you believe that? And why would you assume I don't care about people of low or no income and vulnerable communities?