It's frustrating because this government didn't make up the name. This is a well understood system. By calling it by the typical name it should be easier for people to look into it understand it.

But so many people lack the ability to look into things and instead just listen to what politicians say.

But of course none of that matters these days. 😞

I certainly don't think I can tell the difference in every case.

But the most basic validation (is this a creditable source, does it reference creditable sources) is really a good starting point.

This post doesn't pass either of those.

There are more advanced techniques that can be used to fact check after that. But as a general rule (unless you really enjoy fact checking), if you're not reading an official source and what you're reading isn't referencing an official source, it's likely not worth giving any weight to.

Where there's smoke, there's a good chance there's a fire!

The trouble is, it's often just fog. And at somepoint you need to start recognizing the difference 😉

What on earth even is this. A whole lot of words, not a single source.

The site it is posted to is blogging site that anyone can post to.

Why would anyone try to pass this post off as official?

Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.

I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.

But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory... In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it "what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying" and you would want a response.

I'm not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that's roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.

There already aren't gas stations in these remote locations. Why would there need to be EV chargers??

The thought of having rail service small campsites is comical.

If we did move to a world where cities are dense enough that public transit did replace cars for most people, cars would still be a viable rental for when leaving the city.

What perspective was I trying to push?? All I did was point to the same source as you but in full rather than cherry picked.

The source you posted doesn't even agree with your conclusion, this isn't my opinion.

People need to be able to fact check. I'm helping people, I don't want people to take my word as fact, I want them to read for themselves (which I thought was clear from my first post).

It's wild seeing you talk about dogma, then show how far down the rabbit hole you are. You talk about data, but never have anything to back it up. You ignore any data anyhow shares to you and retort with your own opinions. It's so tiring.

Like I said originaly I only commented to help other people not fall down the same missinfomation spiral you have.

I hesitate asking you for a source on what Russias new revenue streams are.

GDP isn't the same as revenue maybe that's what you're thinking?

Russian oil production is down since 2019.

It also feels like a stretch to assume you're being downvoted for dogma related things when at this point that's are multiple comments explaining how this post is misleading, this graph could be used as part of a larger argument, but as is it can't be used as a conclusion.

Whoa there. You can't be applying context to these images, it changes the message they were trying push.

I wasn't looking to argue, the down votes on this post suggest others also see this misleading aspect of this.

I just wanted to post something for people who aren't aware of how these things work and wanted to dig deeper and were curious of why this post was being downvoted.

My experience is that vacant land does have property tax collected on it. But that may be unique to Ontario.

Are there places that only collect property tax once a building is built on it? As far as I understand, empty land is typically taxed via property tax

I know right. It so easy for someone to post a table and suggest one thing, but it then took me like 45 minutes to read into where the data came from and learn that the conclusion suggested in this post isn't the same conclusion the authors of the data are suggesting.

I wish people would do due diligence before posting things like this rather than forcing everyone else to.

It is cherry picked. The 2024 number for Russia looks decent, but when you also look at 2022, 2023 and projected 2025 it doesn't suggest the same conclusion.

The source of this is here:

https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2024/April/English/text.ashx

The data used in the graphic is cherry picked to spin a narrative (as always).

I suggest looking at table A4 on page 142 to make your own call on how Russia is doing compared to others.

It's also worth noting that Russia's per capita GDP isn't particularly high, and countries with lower per capita GDP traditionaly have an easier time growing economies vs well developed countries (like most of the countries Russia is being compared against in this graphic)

I'm always confused by these criticisms, do I misunderstand how they work?

Reading this article, this 1.7million is an interest free loan, so taxpayers are only covering the lost potential of that money being used elsewhere, unless something happens whichs exempts them paying back.

For the various EV related plants, the majority of the subsidies are tax rebates. Which means the company needs to setup and actively operating in Canada such that they are making enough revenue in Canada that their paying enough taxes to be able to untalize any rebate. As Canadian taxpayers the tax revenue were missing is purely net-new revenue that wouldn't exist if the company didn't setup here. It's not like we're writing a blank check, we're just saying that if they setup here and start making money, they can pay us less money for the first while.

Neither of those feel like obvious bad deals for Canadians. Am I missing something?

Ok I'll bite. How does Canadian policy cause global inflation?

The only angle that I can think of is that we've had a larger impact on carbon production than most other countries, and at least when it comes to global food inflation, climate change is having a noticable impact. So one might be able to argue that our role in climate change is causing food inflation. But I doubt anyone has actually done any peer reviewed studies on that so it's likely just assumptions at best.

CBC responded to this https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-gaza-breach-1.7189987