Olivia Chow skips Toronto's Israeli flag raising event as 'it's a bit divisive'
joshhsoj1902 @ joshhsoj1902 @lemmy.ca Posts 2Comments 228Joined 2 yr. ago
joshhsoj1902 @ joshhsoj1902 @lemmy.ca
Posts
2
Comments
228
Joined
2 yr. ago
This feels like unnecessary noise. Yes Shoppers Drug Mart, like corner stores, sell food at a large markup. They've always done this, they know that if you're picking up food there you're willing to pay a convenience markup.
Shifting any focus here gives Loblaws a potential out by just reducing prices at shoppers, which has nothing to do with what we actually want to happen.
What?
What projections are you looking at? It is a few cherry picked ones? Generally the projections going back to the 80s are in line with what's actually happening, if anything they were optimistic.
Even if you don't agree with projection or that we're actually in-line with them, the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature isn't disputable anymore.
Good? 140$ per night for a hotel room is roughly what I would have expected, it's not like this government (or the Conservatives) would ever consider building and operating their own housing, so this is the only option...
I imagine the problem here is that we need more government workers hired to process asylum seekers, but once again would we expect the Conservative government (the one that has been on and off criticising the number federal workers we have) to actually hire more people to fix that?
I'm so tired of reading these low effort "news" pieces
Don't forget you only get taxed extra if you realize all those earnings in the same year. So not only do you need to make more than 250k you also need to have a reason to take it out all at once rather than a little bit each year as you typically would if it were retirement income or something along those lines.
It started good, but then started to fall into typical conservative taking points.
He correctly identified that the problem started when Canada sold off crown corporations, but then attributed the problem to over regulation of these newly private cooperation.
Somehow he also called CBC a monopoly in there, which is a wild jump.
My main take away from this video is the best solution is to deregulate (the other points were "increase competition", but at this point that's like politians saying they will create more nurses or doctors, unless you also state a plan I assume you're just blowing smoke). His argument for how deregulating airlines or banking or ISPs would make things better for us didn't really exist.
Regulations might make it hard to start a new bank, so I'll give him that. But I have a hard time seeing how regulations is what's preventing new ISPs or grocery stores from cropping up.
Overall in my opinion it's a captivating video that lacks any substance, which is typical for politicans, but also disappointing because you don't often get to hear them talk about something for over 10 minutes where they actually do have time to explain a plan properly.
It's been a month since they manage to get a first phase of a pharmacare bill passed.
It's frustrating seeing conservative followers claim the the current government is lying to them based only on the lies they are hearing from conservative leaders.
Is no one capable of fact checking what they hear? It's exhausting hearing the same bogus statements over and over and over.
... Did you read what I posted?
Yes there is a carbon pricing program, that was never up for debate. I pay it too (and get more back than I pay in).
And yes portions of provinces have been mislead because they seem to have no ability to actually validate what they hear on the news. You're a perfect example of that. You're clearly really angry, but the things you're angry about aren't actually true.
I'm assuming you've heard things said by the media, or conservative polititions and you just accepted it as fact and it made you angry. Which was their plan. The whole conservative strategy these days is to mislead their base, create division and make people angry. They don't have any substantial solutions for anything, but that's also ok because their base have been trained to not question anything they hear.
I highly highly encourage you question everything you hear in the media. Official sources (like canada.ca) are trustworthy, but you can also go even deeper and find actual bills. You can work yourself out of the hole you're in, it'll just take time, and you'll have to put in effort. I the current conservative controlled media landscape it takes constant effort to get real facts about things.
Do you have anything to actually prove any of that is lies?
I've given you substantial evidence that what you're saying isn't true. And you're just responding with "lies" as if that somehow invalidates the factual evidence I've given you.
You need to either read this new information, learn something new and admit that what you were saying before isn't true. Or you need to provide proof that what you're saying is backed up by reputable sources.
You hear it all the time because it's how the system works.
This page has more details that will be useful for you:
There are also links at the bottom of the page to more details.
If you don't trust it because it's a Canada.ca address, then I think your best bet is to go read the actual bill, I'm not going to find that for you, but you're going to have to but in some effort, you've been mislead (which is fine it happens) but then you've decided to start spreading that same misinformation, that isn't ok. It isn't that hard to be an informed citizen today, but a big part of that is not trusting everything you hear on the news.
Every province have a carbon pricing model, how did you miss that?
Provinces had the option to build their own system, or use one provided by the feds.
Judging from your other comments you have some very large fundamental misunderstandings of how the system works. I think you need to take a good hard look at where you've been getting your information, someone is lying to you and you're falling for it.
You're so close. So very close.
If company A uses gas, they have to pay a little more carbon tax, and that extra costs end up in the final product.
But lucky for you! Company B also exists, they crunched the numbers and found that over the life of their vehicle it is actually cheaper to use EVs, in their case their end product is a little cheaper than what Company A could provide.
Then you go to the store and you see option A and B, you see B is cheaper and you buy it.
The carbon pricing model has now worked exactly as economists have been saying for decades.
What are you talking about?
The carbon pricing plan from the federal level applies to every province. Each province has the option to create whatever program they wish to put a price on carbon, if they don't WANT to create their own program they can choose to use the default carbon rebate program managed by the federal government.
Any province using the carbon rebate program is doing so by choice. And if you don't like it you should be talking to your provincial politicians and encouraging them to setup whatever system you prefer.
You can't blame the federal government because your conservative provincial government is unable to actually solve any of it's own problems (but that seems to be the conservative strategy these days)
Lol.
There aren't even any major sporting venues in that area.
The people who you "know" clearly do not live in the area.
I thought I listed a bunch of cases where there were options (and not monopolies). But yes, 100% inside many ecosystems are monopolies, and those ecosystems/walled gardens have been slowly expanding every chance these companies have.
I'm saying the competition can only exist because products that actually fill the same need.
If you decide that you need product A, and have multiple options on where to get that, you have competition.
So if you're looking for a Cola, you have options.
If you're looking to play StardewValley, you have options where you want to buy it and which platform you want to play it on, you don't need to buy a new game system to play it.
If you're looking to play the latest Zelda game, you don't have options, you need to buy a Switch.
If you're looking to watch Ozarks, you don't have options, you can only watch Netflix.
If you're looking to just have something playing on TV and don't really care what it is, you have options.
If you're looking to listen to music, you have options, most of the steaming services have most of the music.
If you're looking to be able to text friends, you have options, any phone will work.
If you're looking to be able to iMessage friends and for your case only iMessage will work, iPhone is your only option.
Competition is complex and is more dependent on a consumer needs than just classification of what a product is. In your earlier point you used Apple as an example of a company that can increase prices despite competition, but really Apple is a prime example of a company putting up walls to an ecosystem making it really hard to leave once you're in.
Generally in the current tech landscape there barely is any competition outside openish platforms. But with tech, you often can't look at competition as product A vs Product B. Like while we can say that Window competes with OSx, it's harder to say that a Mac laptop competes with a given Dell laptop (because what you can do with each OS is different to different people).
This is why I like to think of all the tv streaming services as different types of food stores. There is no supermarket that supplies everything, you're forced to have memberships to the single butcher, the single milk man, the single bakery, etc. if you want a particular food, there is currently no (or very little) competition. You can certainly survive on just bread, and people are happy to do that, but that bakery can and will increase prices whenever because they aren't really competing with the butcher.
I still think you're looking at competition slightly wrong.
Coke and Pepsi do compete with eachother, along with the rest of the drink market. And overall prices in that industry are pretty low, some people will buy other competitors (the store brand Cola's). But overall competition is working.
Apple only kinda competes. Sure a phone is a phone and a laptop is a laptop. But unless someone is entering the market for the first time. They already have applications they are looking to use, so if you need an iPhone, you need an iPhone, and same for a Mac. But if you're an android or Windows user, suddenly you have a lot more choice because there is lots of competition!
The reason companies setup walled gardens, or pay for exclusive access to a piece of media is to erode competition. If a user wants that thing, they can only get it from that one place.
It's only competition if they provide similar products.
The current landscape is like farmers markets and butchers. Sure they both provide food, but they don't really directly compete with eachother.
Feels like the most relevant part of the article.