I’d appreciate it if everyone could just stop burning fossil fuels, please. Thank you for your cooperation.
He wasn’t exactly sphynx-like in the speech I was thinking of. He spoke with eloquence, but directly and plainly. It did indeed seem clear that he sincerely believes that the existing banking system — which he had a hand in running for so long — operates in service of the public good.
When it was announced that Mr. Carney would run for office, the first thing I did to find out about him was to watch a video of one of his recent speeches to a big business audience. There is no way he would think of MMT as acceptable. He’s a huge fan of the way things are, so we will keep spending a significant percentage of the government budget directly on satisfying the greed of the rentiers.
Of those, defence needs mentioning as it is the biggest by a large margin.
You mean we could afford it now, or we could afford it if some form of MMT were adopted? I think readers might benefit from it being noted that there is a difference.
Throwing money at established for-profit real estate developers: Not the best thing they could be doing, but maybe it’s better than nothing?
Apparently the new units will have access to an indoor bicycle parking area, so that’s nice.
Your critique of Modern Monetary Theory does not suggest that your study of the concept has been comprehensive enough to include glancing at the Wikipedia page about it.
I see no reason why advocates of MMT wouldn’t have the same kind of reaction I do to the spending on oil pipelines, the military, the capital gains tax cut, the new ministry for AI, the new ministry for online censorship, the carbon capture idiocy — you’re spending how much on what!?
See also: Why businesses lie about AI
a situation in which everyone – “boards, executives, employees, vendors, consultants” – has a strong incentive to lie about how much AI is delivering for their companies.
The link is presumably meant to be to this: https://blundervalley.ca/blog/what-flipped-hamiltons-vote/
[some random tech bro] suggested that based on its size, the data centre proposal before the city was unlikely to be an AI data centre, claiming it wouldn’t be economically viable. A quick search of Ontario’s corporate registries determined the owner of the land also runs an AI software company.
AI software companies are not going to hesitate to do a thing just because it’s not economically viable.
Just common sense innit? You’ve got more money, you get more votes. It’s practically a law of nature. Trying to enforce some other system would be going against the natural order of things. It’s the best way to maximise shareholder value.
What an exquisite combination of the wonders of the social media world.
If Mexico and Canada were to make a trade deal and leave the US out of it, maybe it could be an actual free trade deal without any bullshit about ISDS, data sharing agreements, draconian new copyright laws, or anything else.
It’s hard to believe it’s as low as that but then I should’ve hesitated more to believe the much higher estimate from the first website I saw making a guess. If he’s done better in life than I had thought, my apologies for repeating such slander.
deleted by creator
the vast majority weren’t going to buy a simple ‘leave it in the ground’
Well then, the vast majority are in the wrong. It happens sometimes. This is one of those times. It does not mean you should join them.
I was into fuel efficiency for a while, yes I too was fooled until about 2007, so I can tell you that gasoline-powered cars are more efficient at 90km/h than they are at 100 but typically they’re most efficient somewhere below 60km/h. Probably lower, depends on gear ratios and such. That they went with 55 instead of 40 is just because nobody would have accepted the latter. In fact they largely didn’t accept 55 either in the long run, as we know. But such technical details don’t matter a whole lot at this point because fossil fuels should not be burned at all by anyone.
Fuel efficiency standards: Demonstrating the Jevons paradox and distracting everyone from the urgent necessity to stop burning fossil fuels, since 1975.
Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.
How did kitty-corner and point form make the list? Surely everyone who speaks 500 words of english knows those words.
Yeah. Not exactly an improvement, is it.
I guess when you’ve preemptively announced that you’re not going to retaliate against the illegal tariffs in any way that would get their attention, such as putting export duties on petroleum products, you end up with little choice other than to give them whatever they want.