Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Moonbox

  1. My link? I posted my links ironically, to make fun of you: So I guess I was right? ๐Ÿ˜†
  2. Not it doesn't. It's clearly marked from the "Russian Ministry of Defense". You scour the interwebs desperately trying to find things that support your donkey worldviews. That's why you always end up having to source your "news" from third world shitholes. What you've exemplified by posting your CNN article is that you're not actually making up your mind. You're choosing your own reality. Everything CNN says is spoonfed MSM fake news, apparently, until it says something you want to hear. Then all of the sudden Mr. Nationalist carefully considers other sides of the story. LOL! ๐Ÿคก For the amount of time you've spent on this forum raving about Donna Lemon and CNN (despite nobody every citing or referencing it), it's hilarious seeing you post articles from it now.
  3. It would have been smart to agree to pay 8% interest on 30-year bonds, like FRIKKIN MEXICO? ๐Ÿ˜‘
  4. $347M is nothing. That's like trying to bail out a ship that just hit an iceberg with a sand bucket. "Titanic still sinking, despite $15 investment in large sand bucket." That's how that article reads. ๐Ÿ˜†
  5. Most economists and central bankers predicted rates staying rock bottom until late 2023. Whether it happened in 2022 or 2023 isn't material in the context of long-term government bonds. A 2020 long-term government of Canada bond was a contract that would not only pay you in urine, but also punch you in the dick and guarantee you double-digit capital losses in the short/near term. I'm not going to get in anyone's way criticizing dear Justin for torching our public finances, but the idea that the government blew it by not re-organizing most of its debt to long-term, almost interest-free bonds is based on the fantasy of non-existent lenders prepared to throw their money away.
  6. Two things: 1) You still linked 4 videos above this directly from the Russian Ministry of Defence, telling us it's "reality" ๐Ÿคก 2) Dumping links with no explanation of how you figure it supports your point is goofy. What part of that article do you figure is relevant, or supports your point? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-stabilized-kharkiv-russia-offensive-crimea-drone-attack-power-rcna152717 https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-fighting-donbas-kharkiv/31851233.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/21/ukraine-war-russia-putin-kharkiv-attack-failure-brigades/ We can both lob links with no explanations at each other all day. It's stupid, but maybe that's just the language you communicate in.
  7. Everyone knew the rates would be going up. That's why nobody was going to buy 30 year t-bills issued in 2020 and 2021. Every single one of those contracts is now deeply in the red (like easy double digits), and none of them will be made whole until they mature. The only buyers would have been institutional, heavily-regulated institutions with strict capital reserve requirements (think pension plans and insurance companies) who had no real choice in the matter. The real issue here, as has been discussed, is the glut of debt we took on and continue to grow. That's how Justin Trudeau has dicked us. The math nerds looking after bond financing almost certainly knew what they were doing, and did the best they could. This stuff is really cut and dry, and very boring.
  8. Almost no "people" buy 30 year bonds. That market is mostly reserved for institutional investors (pension plans and the like). At <1% coupon, the market for 30 year bonds would have been pretty limited. I'm sure Canada did renegotiate as much as it could at rates like that, but I doubt there was much appetite for it from buyers. Most fund managers at the time were doing everything they could to shorten their portfolio durations, anticipating rates would eventually strike upwards and hammer long-term bond markets. At higher rates where they might have sold, the trade-off would not have been there. When Conservative critics point to how Mexico's debt is generally much longer duration (as if they're financial geniuses or something), they ignore that 30 year gov't of Mexico bonds were paying ~8% or more in 2020. There were fund managers out there willing to embrace the extra credit risk of Mexican t-bills compared to US or Canada, but that was mainly because it was impossible to find worthwhile fixed-income yields in the safer and more traditional markets.
  9. CNN? Wtf? You referenced videos from the Hindustan Times and the Times of India, with footage clearly marked "Russian Ministry of Defense", while accusing other people of falling for propaganda. You're making a fool out of yourself in so many ways here.
  10. So things like DEI quotas in the public service don't cost anyone any money? This is a pretty poor take.
  11. You make that criticism as you foolishly drop 4 video links on us from India, a country with near-zero media/press freedom and whose leader is aligned with Putin. Even dumber, however, is the fact that the video is sourced directly from the Russian Ministry of Defense. You're literally spreading direct-from-the-Kremlin propaganda on this forum, while complaining that everyone else is falling for propaganda. No words can fairly describe that level of stupidity.
  12. Do you suppose that the veneration and prominent display of an unlikable and inbred-looking old man of questionable character would somehow contribute to our "core identity"? We put Charles the Unfaithful on our money and all of the sudden...what do you figure happens here?
  13. No, but what does that have to do with our $20 bills? Yeah, but why bother? Why would we be in any rush to get the face of a whiney, deservedly unliked monarch, when the bills of the previous popular monarch are just fine? Like...why would we do anything but the bare minimum on this front?
  14. To what? That after 6 months of delays for arms supply, Russia managed to capture a handful of tiny villages, before stalling out yet again? Fixed that for you. My logic easily demonstrates how bad yours is. See the above quote. Russia has manpower shortages too, and also shittier leadership, less motivated troops, and nothing worthwhile to fight for. The logical thing to do isn't to make a shitty peace deal on Russian terms. LOL!
  15. As usual, you can't actually defend yourself, or your logic - just limp insults. ๐Ÿคก
  16. The entire quote is there. That bolded part makes absolutely no difference, and it's weird that you somehow think it does. If you hadn't feverishly spent the last two years promoting Putin's nonsense propaganda and doing everything you can to undermine Ukraine's struggle to remain free, someone might give you the benefit of the doubt. You said literally said you're hoping for the destruction of Ukraine, and everything you've done and said on the topic since has demonstrated that's what you actually want to see. That you think you're fooling anyone here is a joke, but it speaks loudly of your cowardly character.
  17. So many of the "facts" you list...that just aren't facts. ๐Ÿคฃ I can certainly grant you that the war will end with some sort of peace treaty, and that NATO troops aren't going in, but you're stating the obvious. Everything else you've said is just your regular rootin' for Putin, rife with your regular contradictions and cluelessness. If you think Ukraine is rapidly ceding territory, you might want to compare a map of the frontlines in late 2022 to one today.
  18. What predictions were those, precisely? That Ukraine had no hope in fending off Russia, and that they'd have to accept their status as a neutral buffer state? That Putin was going to end the war by May 9th, 2022, with "Mission Accomplished?" That the Ukrainians and Europe was going to freeze in winter 2022/2023? Oh wait...those were your predictions. ๐Ÿ™„ The one thing I'll admit I underestimated was the servility and stupidity of the average Russian peasant - willing to die like rats in the mud in their tens of thousands for absolutely nothing.
  19. Yeah Trump never says anything that makes himself look ridiculous...nope...never. ๐Ÿ™„
  20. There's that, but there are lots of other differences too. My point was that you can draw similarities easily amongst politicians, but saying Trudeau = the Left's Trump, or Poilievre = Canada's Trump are just lazy heuristics. All you're really saying is so and so is BAD, and just like this OTHER bad person we don't like.
  21. I just think it's funny how important these polling numbers are...the mediocre support for campus protests, but the fact that the Freedumb Convoy had something like 70% of people opposed to it was irrelevant and not worth discussing for...certain types. ๐Ÿ˜† For the record, I think these campus protests (especially in Canada) are useless and incoherent, protesting everything and nothing at the same time.
  22. How many threads do you think can you derail today? More, or less, than yesterday? Go away.
  23. Yes, I very easily can. No two politicians are exactly alike, and though you have drawn some very good comparisons (particularly the narcissism, the silver spoon, the incompetence and incuriousness), there also very large differences. I can, like I said, draw comparisons between Trump and Poilievre. They're both deceitful and manipulative populists, focusing on simple-minded slogans and language to mobilize their base. They're both prone to exaggerated (sometimes wild) rhetoric and they both enable and encourage conspiracy theories. They both belittle and erode trust in experts, the government and media, and they're both highly divisive and polarizing. That said, I do not think Poilievre is the same as Trump. I think he's ultimately much smarter, less narcissistic, has more empathy, an actual moral compass, and that he believes in democracy. Saying he's like Trump would be a narrow-minded, lazy criticism. I think it's worth drawing the similarities between Trump and Trudeau, and pointing out that some of the things we mock the MAGA asshats for can often be pointed back at our Dear Leader, but saying Trudeau is the Left's Donald Trump is a poor argument, IMO.
  24. That's not what we're disputing, you donkey. I asked you to to prove where I "literally said Statscan was a blog", as you've repeated multiple times. Once again (and not for the first time in this thread), we've proven you're absolutely full of shit. ๐Ÿ™ƒ LETS RECAP your journey of humiliation on this thread: "All of the research says remote work improves productivity" (aside from the numerous academic papers published within the last year suggesting otherwise) "bu-bu-but that's all old research! That's from 2023! Here are some blog articles from 2024....and a statscan page referencing employees surveys from 2021 !" "You literally said statscan was a blog!" (see above) Keep up the good work. Clown Academy is very proud of you.
  • Create New...