News:
R.I.P to the great Charlie Kirk!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by Thiel
- November 03, 2025, 01:09:09 PMQuote from: JOE on November 02, 2025, 08:44:53 PMYer gonna die soon from all that barrel wash, hey HermanSweetie, Herman can't see your posts. You know that. Insulting him will not make your posts viewable.Herm?
Trouble is you'll never get to enjoy all that money you contributed to CPP which I'm currently getting. Unless you quit & yet body can recover.
And that's sure a pity cuz I git to enjoy all that money you contributed to my retirement hey Herm?
I hope you at least make it to 60, hey Herm? That way you kin collect at least some of what ya paid into.
I hope you and I have a long life together. But, I know you spend too much time each day sitting down and posting on forums. Sitting is the new smoking Sugarplum. Especially at your age.
Posted by DKG
- November 03, 2025, 07:47:52 AMTomorrow's budget will include a "Climate Competitiveness Strategy" that will be a lot more red ink and doubling down on the Liberals failed strategy of government instead of the market picking winners and losers.
Posted by JOE
- November 02, 2025, 08:44:53 PMQuote from: Herman on November 02, 2025, 07:28:28 PMYa, I will be the only way you will sleep tonight is with a thimble or two of barrel wash.
Yer gonna die soon from all that barrel wash, hey Herman
Herm?Trouble is you'll never get to enjoy all that money you contributed to CPP which I'm currently getting. Unless you quit & yet body can recover.
And that's sure a pity cuz I git to enjoy all that money you contributed to my retirement hey Herm?
I hope you at least make it to 60, hey Herm? That way you kin collect at least some of what ya paid into.
Posted by Herman
- November 02, 2025, 07:28:28 PMQuote from: Prof Emeritus at Fawk U on November 02, 2025, 07:25:43 PMWell I am just plain shocked at this development.Ya, I will be the only way you will sleep tonight is with a thimble or two of barrel wash.
Posted by Herman
- November 02, 2025, 07:27:39 PMWatch Tuesday's budget. It will be loaded with green grift called investments in Canada's low carbon economy.
Canada's economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the 'green' economy
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadas-economic-performance-cratered-after-ottawa-pivoted-green-economy
There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what's needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn't try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.
The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger "industrial policy") better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.
It's never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau's Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the "green" economy.
The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the "green" economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).
Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.
Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.
Canada's economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the 'green' economy
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadas-economic-performance-cratered-after-ottawa-pivoted-green-economy
There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what's needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn't try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.
The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger "industrial policy") better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.
It's never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau's Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the "green" economy.
The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the "green" economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).
Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.
Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.
Posted by Prof Emeritus at Fawk U
- November 02, 2025, 07:25:43 PMWell I am just plain shocked at this development.
Posted by Herman
- November 02, 2025, 07:18:42 PMThis is the cost of Conman Carney's low carbon economy. Hundreds of billions of tax dollars wasted and good jobs are sent to other countries.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/ottawa-and-the-four-biggest-provinces-have-spent-or-foregone-revenues-of-at-least-158-billion-to-create-at-most-68000-clean-jobs-since-2014
VANCOUVER—Despite the hype of a "clean" economic transition, governments in Ottawa and in the four largest provinces have spent or foregone revenues of more than $150 billion (inflation-adjusted) on low-carbon initiatives since 2014/15, but have only created, at best, 68,000 clean jobs, according to two new studies published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
The study finds that since 2014/15, the federal government and provincial governments in the country's four largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia) combined have spent and foregone revenues of $158 billion (inflation adjusted to 2024 dollars) trying to create clean jobs, as defined by Statistics Canada's Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account.
Importantly, that cost estimate is conservative since it does not account for an exhaustive list of direct government spending and it does not measure the costs from Canada's other six provinces, municipalities, regulatory costs and other economic costs because of the low-carbon spending and tax credits.
A second study, Sizing Canada's Clean Economy, finds that there was very little change over the 2014 to 2023 period in terms of the share of the total economy represented by the clean economy. For instance, in 2014, the clean economy represented 3.1 per cent of GDP compared to 3.6 per cent in 2023.
"The evidence is clear—the much-hyped clean economic transition has failed to fundamentally transform Canada's $3.3 trillion economy," said study co-author and Fraser Institute senior fellow Jock Finlayson.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/ottawa-and-the-four-biggest-provinces-have-spent-or-foregone-revenues-of-at-least-158-billion-to-create-at-most-68000-clean-jobs-since-2014
VANCOUVER—Despite the hype of a "clean" economic transition, governments in Ottawa and in the four largest provinces have spent or foregone revenues of more than $150 billion (inflation-adjusted) on low-carbon initiatives since 2014/15, but have only created, at best, 68,000 clean jobs, according to two new studies published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
The study finds that since 2014/15, the federal government and provincial governments in the country's four largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia) combined have spent and foregone revenues of $158 billion (inflation adjusted to 2024 dollars) trying to create clean jobs, as defined by Statistics Canada's Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account.
Importantly, that cost estimate is conservative since it does not account for an exhaustive list of direct government spending and it does not measure the costs from Canada's other six provinces, municipalities, regulatory costs and other economic costs because of the low-carbon spending and tax credits.
A second study, Sizing Canada's Clean Economy, finds that there was very little change over the 2014 to 2023 period in terms of the share of the total economy represented by the clean economy. For instance, in 2014, the clean economy represented 3.1 per cent of GDP compared to 3.6 per cent in 2023.
"The evidence is clear—the much-hyped clean economic transition has failed to fundamentally transform Canada's $3.3 trillion economy," said study co-author and Fraser Institute senior fellow Jock Finlayson.