Moonbox
-
Posts
8,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
12 hours ago, CdnFox said:
And scenario 1 is what applies to our dairy industry.
And i've told you that.
You can tell people whatever you like, but when it's that clueless it counts for nothing.
Scenario 1 doesn't really apply to anything, because it assumes there are no exemptions for farmers. The dairy industry is at least +80% exempt from carbon taxes. I've already told you that. The difference is that what I'm telling you is actually real. 🤡
-
11 hours ago, eyeball said:
I can't think of any other word that triggers right wing suspicions faster.
What about just the "Left". OP used it 15 times.
-
3 hours ago, herbie said:
There is no 'advantage' or sensible reason for the average BC resident to vote for the Tories federally. Not liking Justin Trudeau is the least intelligent reason to support a Party that does and will act against your own interests.
It's a pretty good reason. Justin Trudeau is a clown, and it would be hard to name a PM who's done a worse job than him in Canada's history. The only one that might compete shares his last name.
-
46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
so the report was bullshitting when it said that the correct number was 2.? (don't feel like looking it up).
The report was from 2018, and estimated cost impacts of carbon taxes based on two scenarios:
Scenario 1
There being no exemptions whatsoever to carbon pricing. This is the scenario you chose and quoted with your number, which was 2.24% for milk. This scenario never came to be.
Scenario 2
The agriculture sector was exempt, in which case food prices would only go up 0.17-0.27%. This is the scenario you ignored, and it's also the scenario closest to reality, because most agriculture activity is exempt. These are also the sorts of numbers the economists and the Bank of Canada are providing.
As for bullshitting, it's hardly the report's fault. It didn't know what would happen 6 years ago. The bullshitting was all you, spinning your wheels and carrying on like a clown, quoting numbers from scenarios that you knew never came to pass (lying). 🤡
-
Speaking of the politicization of language...
-
17 hours ago, CdnFox said:
You do whether you mean to or not. I think you're 4th or 5th time where i had to correct you this thread on basic facts you got wrong was confirmation enough
The only thing you "corrected" me on was my not realizing the thread was (apparently) just about milk.
Everything else has been your usual bullshitting and jackass distraction. The only actual numbers you provided were from a 2018 study that do more to prove you wrong (again) than anything. Scurry away little muppet. We know you don't like talking facts, cites, or numbers. Thanks for confirming it again, whether you mean to or not. 🙄
-
12 hours ago, eyeball said:
Speaking of scale, didn't we have the 4th largest armed force on the planet once upon a time? We could have had a seat on the UN Security Council with those sort of chops. So what happened? I mean I get that being 4th place was due to having an economy on a wartime footing but clearly this business of declining started long before any of us were born.
4th? Maybe by some strictly technical measure, immediately after German/Japanese disarmament and immediately before our own.
I don't think it really matters. The fact is that our military has been left to rot, and whatever you want to say, there's value in having one.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, CdnFox said:
So you're confirming you're prepared to lie about it? Not surprising. You always do
I'm not confirming it anything. You are. Like every other time you get challenged on numbers, you can't change the subject fast enough, and revert to your usual jackassing. You can't provide any actual numbers. You can't provide any sources that support your claims, nor explain why all of the credible ones contradict you.
So...thanks for confirming it. 👌
-
I think there are some issues of scale here. We barely even have an air force, so running a tiny training program with antiquated aircraft for a barely airworthy fleet of ancient CF-18s was probably a waste of money...especially when we're transitioning to the F-35...sometime...eventually...probably.
-
1
-
-
So you're confirming you won't talk numbers. Not surprising. You never do. 👌
-
You can't run away fast enough from a numbers-based discussion, can you? As usual, you have nothing but make-believe and belligerence. The one source you did provide was from 2018, using wildly inaccurate assumptions that render it instantly useless.
You're left with nothing but canned insults. Thanks for playing, playa. 👌
-
14 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Nope. You still can't read/
There is a large variation among food price increases due to the federal carbon tax, with the
range being from 0.34% to 3.6%. The most affected food commodities are fishery products, with
an increase in price of 3.60%, followed by unprocessed fluid milk and eggs, with an increase of
2.24%.Annually.
And - that's the 'commodity price'. Now add on the mark up for the bottling and transport to the store, and the grocer etc.
Sigh. You just can't read.
Sure. I can't read. 🥱
Let's use the 2.24% as the estimate for dairy then. That was without any exemptions.
Over 65% of a dairy farm's emissions come from biological emissions (cow farts, burps manure). All of that is fully exempt.
We're now left with 0.78% per year, but much of that is also exempt, including most of the cost of feed production and farm machinery fuel use.
Transportation, barn heating, grain drying, milk bottling etc are a small fraction of overall costs, and fuel/energy costs would only be a fraction of their cost in turn.
All of these small incremental costs, apparently, snowball out of control into something...but you have no specifics, no cites, nothing much of anything beyond your usual hand-waving, insisting and wild exaggeration.
-
15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
And you're wrong. Thanks for playing. Glad you figured it out in the end.
Wrong about the numbers that you cited?
15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:That is how it works, sorry you weren't smart enough to realize there's a mark up on mark ups
Mark ups on mark ups amounting to...less than 1% annually...according to your source.
Way to go playa. Nobody scores on his own net as much as you. 🤣
-
57 minutes ago, herbie said:
When you buy a car, you don't buy for the least. You gt what you want. So most EV buyers aren't really paying "extra", they're buying what they want. Hell, I could've got the Jepp $1200 cheaper on the Mainland, but it would've cost more plus 2 days driving to go there and back.
Some of them do. Some of them don't. Not having to pay for gas is one of the primary selling points. This isn't a debate about which vehicle is the best "investment". Anything beyond a basic Corolla or something is probably bad.
-
42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
You literally said otherwise.
Your words: "My point of contention is and always was that the tax doesn't multiply and snowball on top of itself "
My words are not contending that carbon taxes are paid throughout the supply chain. They're contending your donkey math and the wildly exaggerated snowball effect you attribute to them.
7 hours ago, CdnFox said:Lets go through it slowly - Farmer smith marks up his goods 10 percent. So the carbon tax he pays to grow the feed gets marked up 10 percent in his pricing. Then the farmer who has the milk cows marks up his costs 10 percent - which includes the carbon tax from before, etc etc.
If this is how you think the carbon tax is applied, it's no surprise that you need to go through things slowly. You don't even know how it works on the most basic, fundamental level. 🫠
-
10 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:
Also the value of a 7 year old EV . . . . who would want one? They are a thrrow-away item. A seven year old diesel truck is worth something.
I don't really know what a 7 year old EV is worth. The 4 year residual is supposedly similar to an ICEV...🤷♂️
-
It's probably much worse than the study publishes. I only briefly glossed through the study summary, but I didn't see any mention anywhere about financing and opportunity costs for the initial capital outlay. Whatever extra money you spent on the car up-front could be earning you something in investments, or paying off your mortgage etc, and if you borrowed the amount then you're paying interest on it.
This sort of cost comparison should probably include a further 15-35% premium on the EV to account for the yield you'd earn or the interest you'd pay over 7 years for the price difference.
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
The carbon tax will be added to goods produced all the way along. ANd that's for everything - but in the case of the milk it will be added to the cost of producing the feed, and again when raising the cows and milking them. Then it will get bumped again heading to the bottling plant and then again on the way to the grocer and then again by the grocer to keep it cool. That's how it works.
Nobody's saying otherwise! 🤣
You're just arguing with yourself again!
The source you posted estimated a worse-case scenario of less than 1% annual food price inflation on milk, which it pointed at as one of the most vulnerable to carbon taxes, and that was supposing it received no exemptions at all (which it does). When they say "food prices", that's what the consumer pays. Your hand-waving and pseudo-economic bullshitting doesn't magically multiply these end price increases.
-
6 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Despite your idiiotic claims to the contrary carbon tax keeps getting added and added to the products we buy. It's not a one off tax. Worse - as it contributes to inflation it drives up other related costs indirectly such as labour - gotta pay them more if they can't afford stuff.
I didn't claim otherwise. In fact, I acknowledged this was true. Once again, you're just making up what you want to argue against.
My point of contention is and always was that the tax doesn't multiply and snowball on top of itself over and over for outsized effect. You provided a source yourself that proved it doesn't, estimating a worst-case scenario on a worst-affected item like milk increasing prices by less than 1% per year because of the carbon tax.
Waving your hands around doesn't change the numbers you posted, and peeing your pants and spamming emojis doesn't either. 🤣
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
Jordan Peterson is a former therapist who is popular because of an audience thirsty for old timey moral lecturing and oblivious to his poor scholarship.
I love that Jordan Peterson, of all people, was considered by anyone, anywhere, as an expert on China, surveillance and security. Congress may as well have invited Kanye to tell them about the Ashkenazi.
-
1
-
1
-
-
You Americans won, something about Reagan, Galicia Montreal Galicia.
We Canadians get along. 🫠
-
Pretty easy to win an election when you murder or disallow any real opposing candidates. 🤡
-
20 hours ago, CdnFox said:
That was the conversation. Why are bananas from honduras so cheap and milk so expensive.
But yeah - nobody mentioned it.
Gosh, you're right. Herbie mentioned the jug of milk, so that means the debate is all of the sudden only about milk. 🙄
20 hours ago, CdnFox said:F*ck you're an 1diot. You could at least make this a challenge.
Speaking of 1diots, let's talk milk. You provided a source with a high-end estimate for carbon taxes increasing its cost by 0.9 to 0.95% annually, and only if it received no exclusions whatsoever (which isn't the case). Based on that, we're looking at a <5% increase in the price of milk attributable to carbon taxes since Jan 2019, vs a ~20% overall increase in the price over that time span.
As your own source stated, this is one of the food items that would be worst effected by carbon taxes. It's also based on worst-case no-exclusion scenario, which didn't happen. It's also only a fraction of the food budget, with most agriculture receiving far more substantial exclusions.
Soo...whoopsie for you again. 🤣
-
19 hours ago, CdnFox said:
The study proves my point. For dairy, which is what we were discussing, the carbon tax is added several times and strongly effects the price, AND they didn't even account for it's inflationary price on labour.
I didn't post anything about dairy. Nobody else posted anything about dairy. That's just your lame pivot after faceplanting again. 🤣
The carbon tax is going up and so are emissions
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Yes, we can see what you're doing here. It's right there. You're making shit up again carrying on like a clown.
and yet you're wrong, and still cluelessly bullshitting, as usual.
(lifted from the power point presentation of the Canadian Agriculture Federation's annual general meeting, 2019).
From the dairy farmers of Canada, in their submission to the Senate in 2018:
"DFC also notes with appreciation that the government has excluded greenhouse gases of a biological nature from their pricing scheme. "
Whoopsy, not true. As usual, you're just making shit up, or have no idea what you're talking about, but it's probably both.