RNG
-
Posts
1,496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RNG
-
-
Whether that is good or not depends on whether Telsa is making money selling each car. My understanding is the Telsa business model depends entirely on its ability to sell 'credits' to other automakers who need to meet California's fleet requirements. What I would like to know is how much Telsa makes on each car without including these subsidies.
It is also worth noting that the other jurisdictions like Singapore do not rig the fuel economy ratings to favor EVs and instead base their ratings on science. Under a fact based model Telsa's cars are not that environmentally friendly.
My understanding of the situation in Singapore is that they assume that all the electricity is generated from coal and they input large inefficiencies in the movement of the power from the power station to the vehicle.
The Road and Track reporter who wrote the story strongly implied that the government there was being prejudiced against Tesla since other electric cars there get subsidies.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a28417/singapore-government-fines-tesla-model-s-owner/
-
The likely deficit over the next few years is 80-90 billion which would increase the 1.2 trillion national debt by about 7%. Inflation will most likely average out to somewhere near 1.5% which will also amount to roughly 7% over the same period. We will owe a larger number of tokens than we do today... but no more in terms of real output.
Keep in mind these are all projections. Nobody knows what will happen with economic growth, inflation, or deficits.
At present, we are using 10% of federal revenue to service the debt. What happens when the interest rates finally succumb to all the QE the west has been "enjoying" recently?
Low or no debt is still the safe way. Why should my grandkids have to pay for Trudeau's vote buying today?
-
This is pure speculation.
Based on projections by either government or private sector economists the debt burden on Canadians wont change much. Canada would end up with a slightly LOWER debt/gdp ratio than we have now, and in terms of real value the national debt will be about the same size as it is today.
What fictitious inflation rate had to be assumed to come to that conclusion? Several economists I have read disagree with your economists.
-
not that ole chestnut again... from a prior waldo post:
" the 2008 recession barely impacted upon Canada... 3 quarters period... - per StatsCan: Canada's (first Harper) recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!
"Canada's 'mild & short" recession resulted more from how Canada was positioned going into the recession; positioned as a result of policy/actions over the prior decade where the Liberal federal governments had budget and trade surpluses for most of that prior decade. Of course, Canada's banks were solid and there was no ongoing/pending housing bubble. All of this helped to diminish any credit crunch when banks ultimately tightened up on loans. Additionally high commodity prices helped to reduce the initial recession impact; effectively Canada entered the recession well after most other countries. Milder, shorter and entered later... resulting in, again, only a 3 quarter recession.""
.
And many economists have said that Canada's relative mild affect of the toxic asset meltdown was due to Paul Martin's regulations and the Harper government's guidance.
-
Thanks for the laugh , always good to hear from another delusional Liberal supporter . You mean the budget that the Conservatives where forced into by the Liberals and NDP when they had a minority government ? The Conservatives steered Canada through the worst economic downturn since the great depression while the village idiot we have now racks up a 30 billion dollar deficits and we aren't even in recession. Canada is on the same path as Ontario and how is that working out ? Like really high taxes and jeopardizing your children's futures with massive debt ? Remember , Trudeau is a feminist not an economist.
Thank you for bringing up a point that the Koolaid drinkers always miss. The performance of the economy during a particular government's rule is greatly affected by the overall world economy. Harper had the misfortune of guiding things through an horrible period.
Now, in total, he made some grave mistakes on the social side, but economically he is golden, IMO of course. Trudeau is becoming the opposite.
-
Promises Kept:
- Pensions
- Canada Child Benefit
- Income Splitting
- Veterans offices and benefits
- First Nations funding
- Climate change
Promises Broken:- Balancing the budget by 2019
- Small business tax cuts
- Stock options
Promises Delayed:- Veterans lifetime pensions
- Canadian Infrastructure Bank
A politicians promise delayed is a politicians promise broken.
-
It's nice to know to now that the US is now exporting oil, the world may be a little more peaceful now they don't NEED the oil from other countries that they usual invade to get.
Except that the US is still a large net importer of oil. And natural gas.
It's just that for some areas, it is cheaper to export here and import there depending on logistics.
Last month, the US imported about 8 million barrels per day and exported about 300 thousand barrels per day.
-
THIS is an op-ed from Neil Macdonald of the CBC. The way the CBC dumped on Harper as soon as he cut their budgets made me think this budget would have made the CBC kiss Trudeau's nether regions, but I guess he didn't get the message. Some interesting excerpts.
For example, a family living in Saskatchewan's Fort Qu'Appelle with two kids and a household income of, say, $130,000 will now receive a dose of other Canadians' money, and the Liberals will effect the transfer of that wealth.But this much can be stated as fact: most of the wealth the government is redistributing isn't going where it will do the most good.Economists tend to agree that governments achieve the greatest stimulative effect by giving money to poor people, not people making $90,000, or $110,000, or $130,000.
Because poor people spend the money. They have to. They're poor.
-
Uh....are you for real?
Stephen Harper did not sell anything. Nexen sold itself to CNOOC, as did Talisman to Repsol. "Canada" didn't own either one. What Canada DOES own is all of the resources, and anyone taking them out of the ground will pay their royalties to Canada for the privilege. To GET those resources out of the ground, someone has to put their money up, take a HELL of a lot of risk, employ an awful lot of Canadians in the process. That is the oil business.
This post makes out as if Nexen was the be-all and end-all of the Canadian patch. They were merely one more company among hundreds - most remarkable for taking the plunge to try to tease oil out of the Athabasca Oil Sands. That - especially right now - is more like throwing a few billion into a great big hole in the ground and hoping like hell the thousands of people working there will be able to squeeze enough oil out of the sand to make a profit. - something very, very unlikely at $30odd oil. Also worth noting: Nexen/CNOOC not only extracts, they add value HERE by making synthetic crude.
The industry is global. Always has been. Take a look at who is in the Canadian patch and downstream, and you might notice that Exxon, Shell, Suncor and so on are FOREIGN companies, trading on the NYSE and TSE - exactly as is and does CNOOC (ltd.). Even the sort-of Canadian giants - Husky for one headquartered in Calgary - are owned in part by foreign entities. AND: you as a Canadian can buy as much of each of those companies as you would like
One post suggests we are going to run out of oil and have to buy it from China. Ahh...geez...that is just plain silly. The largest known deposit of hyrdocarbons in the world is the Athabasca Oil Sands (not by many technical standards conventional oil so seldom shows up) and 50% of the largest contiguous oil reservoir by surface area (the Bakken shales) are in Canada. If we REALLY tried hard, we might be able to put a dent in the Athabasca in another century or two, long after the rest of the world has run out of oil.
Thank you for a well thought out and excellently presented post. The misconceptions and misinformation the media spews about the oil industry is a constant source of frustration for me.
-
There are other sources, hitops.
The fossil fuel era is over.
It is not a good investment anymore.
Smart money invests in renewables.
Not yet. Try flying on renewables. How much can the railroads spend on extension cords? And you do realize that virtually everything you buy has long haul trucking in it's past.
We need to develop renewables intelligently, but oil is far from dead unless some eureka discovery is made.
-
Although I respect the intent of the gender parity, I equate it to affirmative action in the US. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The unindtended consequences can hurt.
Wouldn't it make more sense to choose approximately in ratio to the numbers elected, assuming the number of "stars" are proportional? Or just not worry about it and choose the best people?
-
The timing of that response is the very questionable thing. First we grieve, then we analyze.
My fear is that often "understanding" is used as shorthand for appeasement.
-
The sad fact is that attack ads are very effective with the low information voters.*
*TM by Rush
-
I still maintain that what Gosnell is on trial for and abortion are not related.
And I strongly echo the statement that increasing the number of restrictive laws, or worse yet outlawing abortion would just encourage the establishment of more of these types of charlatan's basement clinics.
-
In fact, the fighting went as far as the communist party partnering with the Federal Liberals during the election in the early 1990s. The purpose of the communist-liberal partnership was to beat the CCF into submission.
Why did the Liberals joined the communist? To avoid the left wing party from stealing votes from the center oriented party.
Why were the communist fighting the CCF? Because they believe the party betrayed the marxist values. Keep in mind that CCF were more left wing than the modern NDP.
Now there's a bit of Canadian and Liberal history I wasn't aware of. Chretien being communist stooge. I love it.
-
I am just cynical enough to fear that the NDP now are developing a hidden agenda. This CBC story suggests Mulcair is trying to move them to the center. But given what I know about him I suspect it is far from a change in his political philosophy but a blatant admission that they aren't that popular and this is a means of attracting more votes.
Removing the word Socialism from their constitution would make a lot of older NDP/CCFers spin.
From CBC, rest of article here
NDP debates taking socialism out of party constitution
Effort to modernize preamble to party consitution expected to cause debate -
I would be very scared to have someone, in fact anyone implement solutions to what are at present imaginary problems. In my experience the futurists have had an abysmal track record.
All changes have some negative effect. A "good" change carries with it a small, short-term negative effect and results fairly quickly into an improved situation. For example replacing a terrible boss with a good boss. There is still uncertainty and having to learn their particular traits. I won't both wasting your time with examples of bad change.
I think most of the younger generation now realize that the old truths so many of us grew up with, for example that you got a job and stuck it out and that led to a comfortable pension is not a given anymore. Hell, even governments are cutting back and letting people go in the current environment. So hopefully we won't have to do much since the population is becoming more and more aware of these things being operative and have some type of contingency plans.
-
Firstly, isn't the controversy surrounding this situation the fact that some fear the location of the meeting could be construed as defacto acceptance of Israel's claim to that territory?
And it often appears to me that Israel is as inflexible on its demands for peace terms as any other player in the region. Israel is imperialistic.
-
For a long time, immigration quotas were determined by the number of new tax payers needed to continue the various Ponzi schemes the government runs. EI, healthcare, OAS and till recently CPP required an influx of high birthrate immigrants since the multi-generational Canadians were showing a progressively lower birth rate.
Finally the education and employability of the applicants are being given more weight, and sob-story inclusion of barely connected relatives is being curtailed, but it is still a matter of funding unsustainable government gimmes.
-
My bigger concern is that we could have a provincial election soon in Ontario and low information voters (Rush's polite way of putting it) will vote Liberal thinking that Justin Trudeau will become Premier.
And I thought I had problems.And I like that phrase. Low information voters. When did Rush get so PC?
-
It's fairly normal for a leadership convention to cause a short term blip in the polls. Check it three months down the road.
-
You are engaging in speculation.
And any such attempt will not happen at any trial in Canada under as much scrutiny as this one.
WWWTT
And your statement that a young-un couldn't do such a thing wasn't speculation, it was hard proven fact, was it?
-
We will have to see what happens,but I somehow doubt that someone who was only 20 or 21 yrs old would have thought up and executed such a plan for these robocalls.
WWWTT
Ever seen some of the convoluted computer hacks perpetrated by teenagers?
-
The environment was there before the economy. So yes, the environment does not need an economy to exist.What you stated is no equivalent.
The proper thing to say is the economy could not exist without the environment. The economy was essentially built on natural resources aka the environment. Take the environment away, and what do you have?
That very much depends on definitions. For example, without the very intensive farming methods being used which many extreme environmentalists complain about many in the world would starve. Like most things there is a cost and there is a benefit. That is true of egg farms, oil pipelines, cars and planes.
I personally think all irrigation should be banned for a period of 20 years to see if the drop in steady state concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere would help control global warming and to see how much the environment and biodiversity of various river and lake systems would improve. That would be a great benefit. The cost would be many people starving to death.
Andrew Scheer unveils climate plan promising green technology
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I'm disappointed in cSheer, again. He badmouths the Liberals, something I do often, about their "tax" costing Joe Average X dollars per year. But when he inflicts cost on corporate emitters here, does he really think the extra cost will be swallowed by the corporations?
Trickle down works on expenses, but not profits.