Moonbox

Nope. That's just you making up what you want to argue against again. 🤡 I mean, I literally just said: This is probably the 4th time I've reiterated this point, and you're still insisting that I'm saying something else. That's all you're really capable of on this forum. You're too foolish and helpless to argue against anything but the things you make up in your head. Look at big boy Fox, bravely arguing with himself...AGAIN! 🤣 No, you're absolutely clueless. MILK production costs consist mostly of raising cattle, feeding cattle, milking cattle. Almost none of that is taxed, and what little that is makes up a tiny percentage of the overall cost of milk in your grocery store (things like pasteurization, bottling, transportation etc). The overwhelming majority of emissions generated by MILK production is exempted, including almost everything on the farm beyond heating the barn when it's cold. That's why the BoC has quoted the impract of carbon taxes on food prices to be negligible. That's why the economists have as well. That's why CdNFox has nothing but his usual hand-waving bologna to offer us in terms of hard numbers.

No, I mean the worst PM we ever had, until his son became PM. I mean the PM who took us from virtually no debt, to drowning in debt, and who was our worst fiscal manager ever...until his dopey son became PM.

Nobody argued it doesn't pay any carbon taxes. This is just you arguing with yourself...again. The reality, however, is that most of the industry's expenses and emissions are not taxed. Most of it is exempt and never pays a dime. Scenario 1 never happened, so it only applies in your fantasy. Considering what's actually being taxed is a tiny portion of their overall expenses, you're stacking tiny percentages on tiny percentages, to equal up to tiny percentages, which is what bears out in the present day according to any credible source. According to Fox-math, however, pleading and waving your hands around is more reliable than what published economists and the Bank of Canada are saying. 🫠

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.

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. 🤡

What about just the "Left". OP used it 15 times.

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.

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...

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. 🙄

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.

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.

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. 👌

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.

Wrong about the numbers that you cited? 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. 🤣

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.

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. 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. 🫠

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.

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.

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. 🤣

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.

You Americans won, something about Reagan, Galicia Montreal Galicia. We Canadians get along. 🫠