The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet
I'm all for you and Lozen denying studies showing the carbon tax worked, can you at least read them?
Shifty doesn't even understand the very basics of carbon tax in what world does this dumbass know it did or didnt work.
In BC or across Canada ? I’m not denying BC
Amazing that econ 101 is such a big struggle. Here, I'll simplify it as much as possible, let me know where you get confused: Cost is big big make people no buy buy. Cost go small small make people buy more more!If you can't understand why people would buy less when the price is more I don't think you get to call yourself a conservative who advocates market based approaches. Bu
You right under Trudeau everything cost more including groceries so folks eat less
Amazing that econ 101 is such a big struggle. Here, I'll simplify it as much as possible, let me know where you get confused: Cost is big big make people no buy buy. Cost go small small make people buy more more!
Not true, especially with nessities like fuel, heat and energy. Karen isn't taking her kids to hockey practice on an E-Bike.
If you can't understand why people would buy less when the price is more I don't think you get to call yourself a conservative who advocates market based approaches. But I'd take your "convenience over price" theory to apple and let them know they can double their prices!
Again, energy isn't a good. You are acting like fueling your vehicle is the same as buying a new pair of shoes.
It's ok, they already know. Which is why people already pay twice as much than their competition for the Apple logo.
Now you're getting it! People DO indeed change their food consumption behaviours in the face of higher prices, often shifting from more expensive foods to less expensive foods. In particular, if some foods use lots of carbon and become more expensive, people will shift from higher carbon foods to lower carbon foods. This isn't rocket science boys, it is basic supply and demand.
Not true, especially with nessities like fuel, heat and energy. Karen isn't taking her kids to hockey practice on an E-Bike.
LMAO econ 101 fail! Supply and demand curves apply just as well to fuel and heat and energy as they do any other thing. Karen of course might find it necessary to drive in a circumstance and willing to pay a high price to do so. Somebody else might not be. The point about supply and demand curves is that as prices rise, the quantity consumed goes down. Energy products aren't magical outliers.
FAIL!
Again, energy isn't a good. You are acting like fueling your vehicle is the same as buying a new pair of shoes. .
LMAO you just failed your midterm. Of course energy is a good you silly goofball! Fail!!!
FAIL!!!
It's ok, they already know. Which is why people already pay twice as much than their competition for the Apple logo.
Ok. Last question on the econ midterm. Why don't they double it again?
Don't answer. You already failed. It doesn't matter what you answer.
LMAO econ 101 fail! Supply and demand curves apply just as well to fuel and heat and energy as they do any other thing. Karen of course might find it necessary to drive in a circumstance and willing to pay a high price to do so. Somebody else might not be. The point about supply and demand curves is that as prices rise, the quantity consumed goes down. Energy products aren't ma
Of course they apply, but producers control supply and price. It takes a lot of investment and effort to get energy out of the ground to the end user. The energy is being sold and consumed once it's produced no matter what. It doesn't get donated to GoodWill or thrown away. If the carbon tax had any meaningful effect on consumption, producers would lower the price, supply and demand. Did production decrease under the carbon tax?
LMAO you just failed your midterm. Of course energy is a good you silly goofball! Fail!!!
It's a need. People NEED to fuel their vehicles a certain amount to function, people NEED to refrigerate their food so they don't get sick, people NEED to heat their homes so they don't freeze to death (which is why the carbon tax was cancelled on home heating oil in nfld), people NEED to cook their food, people NEED running and clean water to survive and flourish. People won't die if the iPhone is to expensive and they don't buy it.
Now you're getting it! People DO indeed change their food consumption behaviours in the face of higher prices, often shifting from more expensive foods to less expensive foods. In particular, if some foods use lots of carbon and become more expensive, people will shift from higher carbon foods to lower carbon foods. This isn't rocket science boys, it is basic supply and demand.
Wow higher carbon foods to lower carbon foods. So what your saying is the carbon tax dramatically adds to the cost of food
Never heard that term before is it in the Liberal Cult Guide talking points along with 90% of CDN's get more back than they pay
Econ 101 FAIL. No, pricing is not determined by either a single producer or by producers in general. Instead, supply and demand curves determine pricing. There's a trivial sense in which case this is true, a producer can choose to sell for 1 dollar or a million dollars, but in reality the price they sell at is determined by the market just like anything else. FAIL.
If the carbon tax had any meaningful effect on consumption, producers would lower the price, supply and demand.
Econ 101 FAIL. No, when you tax a good that doesn't mean producers magically lower the price a commensurate amount. We literally just saw a disproof of this - years of carbon tax increases all came off at once, and the price of gas dropped by more or less the amount of the carbon tax, it wasn't like producers magically increased all their prices. FAIL.
Econ 101 FAIL. The amount produces by Canada went up over the last few years, but this is because we are part of a global market of supply and demand that changes over time. The carbon tax might shift consumption patterns in Canada, but that isn't going to necessarily stop production primarily for export, nor was it meant to. FAIL.
It's a need. People NEED to fuel their vehicles a certain amount to function, people NEED to refrigerate their food so they don't get sick, people NEED to heat their homes so they don't freeze to death (which is why the carbon tax was cancelled on home heating oil in nfld), people NEED to cook their food, people NEED running and clean water to survive and flourish. People won't die if the iPhone is to expensive and they don't buy it.
Econ 101 FAIL. While yes people certainly need some minimum amount of necessities, that doesn't dispute the basic economic fact that energy products are "goods". Category error. Of course, the carbon tax was designed to rebate 90% of the revenues equally so it is additionally a progressive wealth distribution. Those that are most at the boundary of struggling to make basic necessities work are the biggest net beneficiaries of the carbon tax. So while it may discourse say a middle class person from commuting every day in their F150 from the suburbs, if you are struggling to afford basic food and shelter constraints, you are better off. FAIL.
For someone who pretends to be a conservative, you know shockingly little about how market pricing works.
Yes. Some foods take more carbon emissions to make and ship to your grocery store than others. This isn't a "wow" moment, it is utterly basic.
The carbon tax added to the price of some foods, particularly those with high carbon utilization. Those costs were then rebated back to the people. It didn't dramatically add to the cost. Most of the price inflation in food was due to other factors, a lot of them international. This is evidenced by the fact that that after the carbon tax was removed, the price of food has only increased. There was a fairly small effect only due to the carbon tax.
Never heard that term before is it in the Liberal Cult Guide talking points along with 90% of CDN's get more back than they pay
Lol at "liberal cult guide". Unfortunately, you can't even quote it correctly. The 90% wasn't about the percentage of Canadians who get back more than they pay, 90% is about the legally mandated amount that is returned. Nobody disputes this number. The number you think you are talking about is 80%, which is what the PBO confirmed were teh direct and indirect fiscal effects and while that statistic doesn't tell the completes story on the carbon tax it is correctly quoted.
Yikes, bad day for the cons ITT at basic understanding of basic facts and principles.
Econ 101 FAIL. No, pricing is not determined by either a single producer or by producers in general. Instead, supply and demand curves determine pricing. There's a trivial sense in which case this is true, a producer can choose to sell for 1 dollar or a million dollars, but in reality the price they sell at is determined by the market just like anything else. FAIL.
Lol, you missed the point. Producers control the supply. It gets sold and consumed regardless of the price. It's doesn't sit on the shelf waiting to be bought. If it's not being consumed then the price drops (COVID), it doesn't just not get consumed. Supply and demand.
Econ 101 FAIL. No, when you tax a good that doesn't mean producers magically lower the price a commensurate amount. We literally just saw a disproof of this - years of carbon tax increases all came off at once, and the price of gas dropped by more or less the amount of the carbon tax, it wasn't like producers magically increased all their prices. FAIL.
LOL, because the carbon tax wasn't impacting producers margins or supply. Which is why production increased under the carbon tax. Thanks for proving my point. Remember it's consumed if it's produced.
Econ 101 FAIL. The amount produces by Canada went up over the last few years, but this is because we are part of a global market of supply and demand that changes over time. The carbon tax might shift consumption patterns in Canada, but that isn't going to necessarily stop production primarily for export, nor was it meant to. FAIL.
Then what was the point of the carbon tax and how was it working great if it was being consumed anyway?
Econ 101 FAIL. While yes people certainly need some minimum amount of necessities, that doesn't dispute the basic economic fact that energy products are "goods". Category error. Of course, the carbon tax was designed to rebate 90% of the revenues equally so it is additionally a progressive wealth distribution. Those that are most at the boundary of struggling to make basic nece
It's a need, Without it people die.
Econ 101 FAIL. Sure there is a trivial sense in this is true - all the producers globally collective do the production. But it's not true for any individual producer or even whole country of producers in the context of a global market. And the amount supplied by producers depends on demand. There is a basic economic error of falling into "supply side economics" or "demand side economics" where you basically pretend one is in control. This is the mistake you make. FAIL.
Econ 101 FAIL. The amount consumed absolutely does depend on price. This is just basic economic theory that for any good as the price goes up the demand falls. You are confusing this with a triviality: that after a unit is produced it will eventually be consumed. True, but the amount produced depends on supply and demand just as for everything. FAIL.
LOL, because the carbon tax wasn't impacting producers margins or supply....Which is why production increased under the carbon tax.
Econ 101 FAIL. You seem once again confused about how taxes work. Odd. Increased taxes on a good lower the demand for a good. Basic economic theory. That lowered demand results in less consumed. Of course in a globally integrated market, it might be that Canadian oil producers still produce lots or increasing amounts of oil for export quite separately from Canadians using less carbon per capita. FAIL.
Remember it's consumed if it's produced.
Econ 101 FAIL. You are confusing a transient process - that if a barrel of oil is produced it will eventually be consumed at some price - with the basic supply/demand laws of economics. The way it works is that if there is less demand for a product, this puts downward pressure on the amount produced. FAIL.
Then what was the point of the carbon tax and how was it working great if it was being consumed anyway?
Econ 101 FAIL. How is this still not obvious. Increased prices of carbon products in Canada mean Canadians consume less carbon products. FAIL.
It's a need, Without it people die.
Econ 101 FAIL. Again, a category error. The question was whether energy products are a "good". They are. You can also point out that some minimal amount of energy is needed for human survival as well. Sure. That doesn't mean economic theory of what a good is magically stops applying. As described, for the poorest people in Canada struggling to have survival level food, they are net winners from the carbon tax given the rebates so this "without it people die" bit is pathetic. FAIL.
Honestly, can you just make one economically viable point in this whole discussion? Yikes you are bad at this.
Honestly it's so hilarious seeing these supposed believers in free markets just absolutely and miserably fail to say anything economically correct about the basic economics of them. It's like a belief in a thing without having any idea of what the thing actually is.
Because of the higher cost of gas I keep my home at 21C in the winter now instead of 22.5C 10 years ago. Put on some heavier socks or a light sweater. Also my next car won't be a V8 and will be at a minimum a hybrid, maybe full electric depending on incentives. These policies work and they arent that big of a deal.
Hold on, are you my mom? Oh no, she sets it to 18 because gas is so expensive😃
Yes. Some foods take more carbon emissions to make and ship to your grocery store than others. This isn't a "wow" moment, it is utterly basic. The carbon tax added to the price of some foods, particularly those with high carbon utilization. Those costs were then rebated back to the people. It didn't dramatically add to the cost. Most of the price inflation in food was due to
Math 101 Fail
As a math professor you know the phrase show your work
80% get more back than they pay? False the Statement should read 80% of the folks in provinces that are under the federal program get more back than they pay Quebec and BC fall outside that program . That is 13.5 million folks were that is just false
Now the math 101 Fail
80% get more back than they pay
So lets say A = the mount of carbon tax credits Albertans got That number is $1800
And B = the amount they paid . No one will define B and say the average Albertan owns 1 car and spends $700 on carbon tax to heat their home
So the formula would be (A-B) = C
Sadly you cannot calculate C as no one will tell you what B is not even the PBO officer
Lmao. That was such a pathetic attempt I can’t even be bothered but go read the PBO report if you disagree I’m correctly quoting it.
Look it’s gone. Poilievres lies worked. You don’t have to keep repeating them. We can be honest about what happened.
Math 101 Fail As a math professor you know the phrase show your work 80% get more back than they pay? False the Statement should read 80% of the folks in provinces that are under the federal program get more back than they pay Quebec and BC fall outside that program . That is 13.5 million folks were that is just false Now the math 101 Fail 80% get more back than they pay So le
But that inflation cost we saved tho from carbon tax tho …..
Not !
Econ 101 FAIL. Sure there is a trivial sense in this is true - all the producers globally collective do the production. But it's not true for any individual producer or even whole country of producers in the context of a global market. And the amount supplied by producers depends on demand. There is a basic economic error of falling into "supply side economics" or "demand side
Right, did production, demand or price decrease drastically under the carbon tax?
Econ 101 FAIL. The amount consumed absolutely does depend on price. This is just basic economic theory that for any good as the price goes up the demand falls. You are confusing this with a triviality: that after a unit is produced it will eventually be consumed. True, but the amount produced depends on supply and demand just as for everything. FAIL.
Lol, but demand and production grew under the carbon tax. It takes investment and capital to increase production, producers aren't just adjusting a tap, were they not aware of the carbon tax and supply/demand. Again, if the carbon tax had any impact on consumption the price would drop so it was consumed, supply and demand.
Econ 101 FAIL. You seem once again confused about how taxes work. Odd. Increased taxes on a good lower the demand for a good. Basic economic theory. That lowered demand results in less consumed. Of course in a globally integrated market, it might be that Canadian oil producers still produce lots or increasing amounts of oil for export quite separately from Canadians using less
That's because it is a NEED. A certain amount is required for society to operate, and that amount continues to grow.
Econ 101 FAIL. You are confusing a transient process - that if a barrel of oil is produced it will eventually be consumed at some price - with the basic supply/demand laws of economics. The way it works is that if there is less demand for a product, this puts downward pressure on the amount produced. FAIL.
Did the carbon tax lower demand?
Econ 101 FAIL. Again, a category error. The question was whether energy products are a "good". They are. You can also point out that some minimal amount of energy is needed for human survival as well. Sure. That doesn't mean economic theory of what a good is magically stops applying.
It's not at all pathetic. Without cheap, reliable and plentiful energy people die, making it a need.
Because of the higher cost of gas I keep my home at 21C in the winter now instead of 22.5C 10 years ago. Put on some heavier socks or a light sweater. Also my next car won't be a V8 and will be at a minimum a hybrid, maybe full electric depending on incentives. These policies work and they arent that big of a deal.
This is just nonsense. Without a carbon tax did you put it back to 22.5C? How come hot tub spa installations increased under the carbon tax why idiots like you drop your heat 1.5C and spend money on heavier socks.
Let's see if ONE of your statements is economically correct. I'm hoping. Just one. Most will be wrong. Can we get one?
Econ 101 FAIL. As explained to you, Canadian oil prices are part of a global system, and so you ask the wrong question. The absolute value of any of those quantities can go up and down based on changing global circumstances over time. The right question to ask is how the carbon tax influenced Canadian consumer choices. And unequivocably, in economics, all else being equal, increasing the price lowers the demand. FAIL.
Lol, but demand and production grew under the carbon tax. It takes investment and capital to increase production, producers aren't just adjusting a tap, were they not aware of the carbon tax and supply/demand. Again, if the carbon tax had any impact on consumption the price would drop so it was consumed, supply and demand.
Econ 101 FAIL. Mostly a repeat of the previous fail with some extra fail spiced in.
Did the carbon tax lower demand?
Econ 101 FAIL. As should be obvious to you, when you increase the price of a good you lower its demand. This is basic supply and demand theory. That you are asking this question is a hilarious fail.
That's because it is a NEED. A certain amount is required for society to operate, and that amount continues to grow.
It's not at all pathetic. Without cheap, reliable and plentiful energy people die, making it a need.
Econ 101 FAIL. Again, category error. The debate was whether it was a "good" and thus follows normal supply/demand rules of economic goods. It is a good. The principles of economics still apply. Noone is disputing that some amount of energy is needed to survive, but calling it a "need" when the debate was previously about whether it is a "good" is a fail because saying it is a need doesn't stop it from being a good. Besides, the carbon tax most benefits those poor people struggling with survival in Canada who are massive winners under the carbon tax and rebate scheme as they use very little energy being so poor and get the full rebate.
Damn, not even one right statement? Yikes conservatives are bad with understanding markets.
This is just nonsense. Without a carbon tax did you put it back to 22.5C? How come hot tub spa installations increased under the carbon tax why idiots like you drop your heat 1.5C and spend money on heavier socks.
LMAO what a fail of a fail. Like this supposed free market guy just utter fails over and over and over again to understand basic economic principles. This one is actually a common misconception. What we know is that as prices increase - all else held equal - the quantity consumed drops. As prices go up, yes of course people in general will be more concerned with their heating bill. That doesn't mean any individual person necessarily changes, but as a market people do. I don't know where the **** hot tub installations came from.
This is were Carney is just so much smarter than Trudeau. Carney is supporting a new pipeline knowing damn well that it will never get past all the regulatory requirements that will be needed as well as no private company has put up the cash .
Give him credit he appeases Alberta knowing no pipeline will get built
Imagine if Trudeau had the brains to handle the Trucker protest the same way
Hot tub/swimming pool installations went up because of covid, nothing to do with carbon tax. Everyone was at home so they invested in their home.
