1. Why is Justin Trudeau Bad - he will often point out SOMETHING JUSTIN TRUDEAU HAS ACTUALLY DONE THAT IS BAD.
2. He actually has talked about how to get more housing being built. He has actually talked about things to cut - and why to cut them (like the Carbon tax that has had pretty much zero benefit, but has inflated the cost of heating, transportation, and food in this countries at a time we have an affordability crisis).
3. Block Chain being out of control of the Government, means the Government can’t devalue the currency (As in cause inflation) By printing more of it on a whim. There is some (unfortunate) sense to it. I would prefer a constitutional reform that would tie the Canadian Dollar back to Gold as it would again, prevent willy nilly printing of money which… drives inflation. And that would generally mean less bailouts, and more cautious action taking that needs to focus on prevention of crisis instead of printing your way out of a financial crisis.
4. Slowing down immigration is really important. We are adding more people than jobs being added to the economy, and more people than houses can be built. We also have an issue with Doctors. If a person already owns a house here - whatever. But we need to slow down on immigration.
5. No. But you have to make sure your Outfit provides a sense of you being competent.
6. I don’t think he has ever said “fellow poor people” But he has certainly pointed out the policies and situations that have driven more people into poverty.

Instead of Parroting the Media, maybe actually go and listen to his uncut, unclipped answering of the media. Unlike what Trudeau seems to do, Pierre is seemingly actually able to speak a whole sentence without stuttering - almost like he is actually confident in his remark: And that is bloody refreshing.

Oh. PS - I think Pierre has some bad takes, he is a human being after all. But after these years of Trudeau: This country is in Shambles. Car thefts are up, Government Spending is up, Poverty Rates are Climbing. We have had more Scandals in the last 8 years than in the rest of my lifetime - and they all fall on Trudeau’s Shoulders.

Love him or Hate him: Pierre is by current appearances more competent of a Leader than Trudeau, and Competent is what this country needs.

Of course IBM does - who runs them: Engineers? Or Bean Counters?

People have been growing up with a government that lies ever more to them. People have grown up with a government that has purposefully done things that end up being harmful, lied about it, and then the truth comes out - only those same people have been austrasized by being labelled conspiracy nuts - and no one stopped to apologize.

And then the entire situation with Covid and the Covid Vaccine, where yes - depending on health conditions, that damn thing had a serious risk to some people’s health and we were lied to. Some of the issues are related to accidental poor injection which we have had techniques that would have wasted like a tiny % of vaccine doses but avoid all kinds of complications. Then we had people stuck on ventilators for far too long which leads to long term health complication concerns but we were all being told no it’s fine - but then the information comes out.

Flat Earthers, Anti-Vaccers, and so on don’t come out of no where - it comes from a place of strong distrust in authorities that are pushing such information. And especially the Trudeau Government over the last decade has smashed trust in the federal government. And some actions taken by provincial governments have strained trust - with very few Politicians Publicly apologizing for missteps taken during the Pandemic.

TL;DR: Our current Federal Government smashed trust with a lot of people, and that is going to bring into question anything and everything they push - no matter how good or bad. And with the Lack of family doctors in many area’s, few people have trusted sources of good information to turn to, leading to a rise in Anti-vaccination, and other movements.

You know what is amazing: They can index taxes to inflation, but they can’t be damned to index minimum wage to the cost of living increase.

It absolutely does.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3712680/return-to-office-or-quit-ibm-tells-managers.html

IBM has a history of this kind of stuff - when they need to expand: Remote work schemes, and flexible work hours become more common. When they need to tighten the belt, the first step is a RTO. So long as you are willing some flexibility in the time line, and support employees in the move - it will lead to plenty of people quiting, a few people moving, then you do a small round of layoffs avoiding people who willingly moved closer to the office etc as these are people unlikely to have quick new opertunities and are more stuck with the company/loyal to it.

The Pandemic is not the first time IBM has done something like this, and it won’t be the last.

Now, if we really get into the weeds - a lot of Companies that know this can be pulled off REALLY DO NOT want Remote work/hybrid work schedules to become industry norms, as once they do - these practices for ridding your company of say 1-2% of it’s staff periodically stop being viable and you need to go for a more traditional layoff scheme.

Don’t forget HR.

If people aren’t in an office, around other people, their aren’t really a lot of opportunities for random nonsense complaints to come out. And if they do, there are email messages, recorded video calls, and so on that can clarify reality far easier - meaning HR’s job is made clearly irrelevant, and clearly demonstrates it is a mop job for a handful of busy bodies that cost the company more in efficiency, than they earn the company after accounting for their wage.

Which is all well and fine, until you realize the way you learn about new innovations tends to be through advertisement of some sort - word of mouth is a form of advertisement, and, if you can make it work for you: It is by far the most effective.

Thing is: Companies are out to make money, people want to provide affordable access to their product, and when you combine these two desires together - you get advertisements.

The key to making sure it is fine is, regulate and enforce - stop false advertising in it’s tracks. When an advertisement makes a claim: Make them back it up, or face severe economic sanctions such as fines, requirement to spend the same money and time on putting out a recall of the message in the advertisement, and so on. Do that a few times and allow for automatic re-voting on issues where false advertisement was used to oppose a bill and you will quickly see all of that scummy behavior go away.

The problem right now, is companies aren’t really penalized sufficiently for false information spread and other behavior: So, the fine is just a cost of doing business. Just look at cities with “Catch and Release” policies regarding crime - and it is starting to go through the roof. And it’s not the criminals being impacted negatively: It’s the law abiding citizens who are finding their amenities locked up, their grociery stores barring entrance, box stores closing down. This is the same issue so many people have with gun control laws: Law abiding citizens are NOT the ones causing headaches - it’s the people willing to go to a sketchy alley at 2 in the morning willing to pay extra to skip the background check who are absolutely causing problems. It’s the organized crime syndicates that can get their hands on a CNC mill and a machinist who will make the firearms for them - and they will pay.

Unless Law Breakers face real consequences: Nothing changes, and the problem perpetuates or even worse: Gets worse.

Does solving the problem have an immediate political benefit? I actually don’t think it does.

Does letting the community argue about the issue have immediate political benefit? Well - it certainly will sweep other issues (read: scandals) under the rug.

So I’m going to say, the community 100% will be brought into it, the location will end up being unselected, and the issue will be kicked down the curb for the next time the government needs an issue to debate about and to distract people with.

When you have a firm, that is ran by accountants - odds are, you have a firm that is great at squeezing on line items, but lacks the long term vision to see how that squeeze will lead to deficits and higher cost in the long term.

The fastest way to plummet a successful company, is to take the Industry experts out of the position (I mean people who worked their way up through the industry, and learned management along the way by experts btw), and replace them with an MBA/ Accountant who got hired into their upper management position without really working in the industry prior to.

And I pretty much guarantee you, this is what happened.

Not all old designs were bad. And one has to understand that the USSR, UK, France, and the US all had a shared objective (by the way, these are the primary nations designing and creating nuclear reactors back in the 50’s and 60’s). And the goal? Plutonium for Nuclear Bombs. You can imagine how this changes design Parameters.

So now lets talk about the CANDU Reactor, designed in 1955 (or there abouts).

It’s an oddity of the day - Designed for energy generation for civilian use, without the desire to actively produce Plutonium. Functionally speaking, complete fission of the material with the least degree of enrichment possible for efficient opperation was the design goal. And what you get is well, this.

Beyond this, because it is a Heavy Water Reactor (CANDU standing for Canada Deuterium Uranium), it’s moderator is well, heavy water - which is interesting as two things: If it boils off, the neutron regulator (which is slowing down neutrons to encourage fission in the core) boils off. And Boiling water takes away a LOT of heat. Beyond this, heated water will naturally circulate so even if active pumps pushing the water through the system fail, natural circulation can occur until corrective action is taken.

Yes, there are newer designs that are probably safer. But don’t just say “old designs bad” without understanding the design constraints created by the circumstances to which they were created. Look at also, all of the designs of the era. There is a reason pretty much everyone can name Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima. And anyone with half a length of common sense would avoid putting a nuclear reactor on Japan - a place that has an active Valcano, is prone to tsunami’s, and sits at the intersecting point of three tectonic plates… It’s kind of a bad place for it. Not impossible to do safely, but when you use a reactor design that is basically set up for the production of plutonium by the very design constraints and such of the day: It’s not surprising.

And then we can talk about SMR’s.

Do you have any idea how much energy is used in the form of combustibles to heat homes, and power vehicles? It’s absolutely massive. Beyond this - the energy density of Petrol is something like 25-45x that of batteries - meaning for the same weight of fuel as a battery, you can go MUCH further, even factoring in the lower efficiency of an ICE engine (20-30%) vs. Electric (something like 90%). However, Electric Vehicles also have higher ware and tare on roads, tires, breaks, bridges, etc. And that means a higher TCO (Total cost of Operation) outside of the vehicle itself.

You might say “Improve Public Transport” And I’m all for it - but that requires doubling the average population density in urban centres to START to be practical. And achieving that is a decades long (like closer to half a century, if not longer) undertaking that has a huge environmental cost do to the tare down of existing buildings.

What all this means: To replace combustibles, we don’t just need a tripling of Nuclear - we need to increase it by an order of magnitude (10x it for clarity), 2 orders of magnitude increase of wind (100x), and we should aim for three orders of magnitude for solar (1000x). If you do that, AND improve average home insulation value, then we can start to get somewhere reasonable.

To be clear: We can do it.

1. Solar Roof Incentives for generally sunny cities (ex. Calgary)
2. Off Shore Wind
3. Dual Use Installations - So Parking Lots with Solar Covers for instance. Bonus points for onsight energy storage to buffer generation for charging cars.
4. SMR’s for remote area’s (think far northern area’s where diesel generators are the norm, as it reduces the need to ship fuel)

You will note that Hydro isn’t listed here - and for good reason: The environmental destruction, and long term upkeep is extremely impactful on the environment.

All of this, by the way, is something like a trillion dollar investment. And what is the Canadian Governments investment plan? 4-5 billion by 2035? If the Canadian Government wants to get serious - they need to start making the entire government beaurocracy far more lean, far more mean, and take the savings and throw it into everything that reduces power use, as well as renewable generation.

And finally: Start jacking up the minimum wage, start increasing labor protections, and the entire why? So that people can afford to invest into these things for themselves on a wide scale.

Well, ya. The Liberals are on the way out, so they can put into place policies and such that force future spending on things people want, that will have to get cancelled do to budgetary constraints. And if the future parties do plow forward with it, you can shit can on it and rally the people that don’t want it into a frenzy, and sweep all of this up under a rug somewhere by the time you get to the next election.

Welcome to Flip Flop First Past the Post Politics when you have a defacto two party system.

The problem is many fronted.

1. Free trade: When you are competing with lower cost of production regions, with dirt cheap shipping do to the way you can basically register a ship any where with a port - you have a competition problem. In other words: Free trade benefited those with money - and acted to displace manufacturing jobs. Thing is - there are far fewer designers that you need.

2. Money Printing as a Stop Gap to Dissuade dissidence against Long Shot Downs: Reality is the lockdown scenario that kept service possitions from being filled and used, could have been far shorter with a far harder lock down early on to allow time to implement precautions. This would have lead to 1-2 months of lowered economic activity, instead of say a year of it.

3. No solid organized plan to account for inflation: Had a policy of increasing minimum wage WITH inflation do to the printing of money been implemented, we would have actually been alright. Yes money would have been devalued, but the buying power of the average Canadian would have kept up with inflation avoiding the problems we are seeing.

4. Extended time of low interest rates: This leads to high debt ratio’s, which - if and when interest rates need to go up, tightens belts, and results in layoffs and so on. This in turn pinches the economy and can very easily kick off a spiral of lowered spending that degrades the economy with lower demand. The end result is a very difficult to control spiral downard that only starts several months OR LONGER after the offending change that is the trigger of it do to the lag time. What this means, is even if corrective action is taken - it’s too late.

Of course - admitting a recession, would mean admitting the government did not just fail in one spot, but in basically everything. And we all know how well modern day politicians accept blame.