Naww I didn’t haha. It just gave me that momentary heart attack lol

I hate you so much. I’m developing a Lemmy client, and ur user “[object object]” showed up. I panicked so hard for a second there, thinking that I massively goofed up somewhere. :|

Funny, but I still hate you <3

Slop

Minoxidil: Increases blood flow by dilating blood vessels. More blood flow means more resources for hair in the region that the minoxidil is acting in. More resources = hair grows thicker. CANNOT grow hair for follicles that are dead. Effects go away when you stop taking it.

Finestaride (probably the one you’re talking about): blocks DHT that causes male pattern baldness. Prevents hair loss caused by DHT (for most people). Effects last only while you take it.

Hence, people generally combine these things. Finestaride to stop mpb/lessen its pace, while minoxidil to make fine hairs at the hairline grow thicker.

I mean it does have legitimate narrow use cases imo ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Everywhere? Nawww not rlly

Nah the separatists think that dealing with the US would be easier. By “dealing”, they mean annexation. Sigh…

Yeah, I hope they create structures to reuse the CPP’s analysis and even staff for that matter.

My guess though is that it would be slightly the other way round, where the Canada strong fund creates investment products that the CPP could purchase. But yeah, I hope CPP’s talent is used here. It’s clearly working, and quite competent!

you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism.

It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.

Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.

The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.

You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.

Here’s my guess from my comprehension of the write-up:

• Crown corp with an independent board of directors (like the CPP).
• Mandate to invest only in Canadian projects.

So my guess is that the funds would most likely be used to fund highly capital intensive projects from the ground up (instead of just buying Shopify stocks for example). This would almost always be infra projects. Depends on how much risk the board would be willing to take for assessed potential reward.

Tbh I’m not really that worried about the competency of the board. The CPP and QPP have been incredibly successful till now ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯.

Ok, let’s bring back the dinos

A piece I think we’re missing. They probably are opening the fund up to the public to invest in for exactly this reason.

If I’m putting in a thousand bucks in the fund through my TFSA, and if PP decides to sell off my highway for pennies on the dollar, my next thousand bucks would be invested in a sniper rifle.

If public involvement in the fund wasn’t there, then what you said would be the likely outcome. I mean at least that’s how I understand it (and if what I’ve understood is correct… Holy hell is the Carney admin smart lol)

I was thinking of this the entire evening. Maybe there’s rebuttal to this point? So they’re talking of opening the fund up to the public as a retail product. They’ve stated that the mandate would be to give market returns. This way, the average individual buys into the fund as well (I would for sure). THAT is how the public becomes interested in the fund’s survival and growth as it is for the CPP.

Let’s say the Tories get in next election. If the fund is giving good returns, then the toriest of Tory voter would get out on the streets if there is even a whiff of the government dissolving it. Now I am exaggerating here, but the point I’m trying to make is that opening it up to retail investors ensures public interest in the fund’s continued existence and expansion.

Oooh thank you so much for linking it! Was quite an interesting watch.

Here’s a resource from the Canadian government in regards to this. Basically, the government says it has improved regulations to reduce methane emissions and that it is taking actions to enforce these regulations better (through improved methane emissions detection) and is cooperating with international partners (which includes the EU) for the same.

Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on this and would love an opinion piece from a climate researcher who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. However, to my untrained eye, it looks like the “good bridge fuel” isn’t totally a con (at least for Canadian gas?).

That’s a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that’s not their job and they tend to suck at it.

Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).

Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for ‘defence’ that could be better used for constructive purposes?

Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I’m done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.

Yeah, and the LNG terminal expansion isn’t really that bad for the environment either. Developing countries still have a few decades to switch to complete renewables.

Natural gas is the most environmentally friendly non renewable energy source out there. I mean it does emit CO2 (which is bad ofc, but it emits around 50%), but that’s all it emits. The other ones are even worse. That’s why Europe switched to natural gas as an intermediary source of energy (especially for backup power, when solar can’t generate anything). It’s highly likely that Asia would want to do the same.

Someone has to supply this. That “someone” is us. The LNG terminal expansion helps us do this.

CPP serves a different and super narrow purpose. The idea is to maintain a very safe, stable portfolio that can reliably pay out pensions. We CANNOT make politically/ethically charged decisions here AT ALL.

From what I’m guessing, the SWF that’s being proposed here is something of a middle ground. Independent, but with a “let’s invest in Canada” approach. The idea doesn’t seem to be just to maximise roi, but to rather do that along with “investing in Canada”. Basically the government wanting to create/fund profit making, Canadian businesses that require large capital to get started (so mostly infrastructure projects).

Keeping it independent from parliament kinda insulates it from political nonsense. At the same time, cheaper debt for the Canadian economy as a whole.

I like it. However, I would like if the operations were cooperativezed. I’m afraid that future governments would raid the fund to promise temporary tax breaks or whatever. They can’t do that with the CPP, as this would cause massive political backlash. I hope the public is well educated enough regarding this fund, where its protection is of paramount importance to them.

Sigh… Texas…

I didn’t provide an answer because the answer is highly obvious.

Let’s say the means of automation are seized by the public. Anyone can use it. You don’t have to be rich to benefit from the “fruits of automation”.

People can now innovate more. Public services can be a lot more efficient. High frequency, low capacity self driving buses running in remote communities could be possible. The public’s bus fares drop. If we get AI safe enough to engage in healthcare… well healthcare costs down (meaning lower taxes for us).

Basically, any service that requires human labor… doesn’t end up needing it anymore. Noone has to do boring soul sucking jobs anymore.

By “redistribute the fruits of automation”, I mean plans like UBI, more universal basic services and so on.

Ok, rant time.

This is how the market is SUPPOSED to work: Demand high, supply low. Suppliers rush in to increase supply with the incentive of profit. Eventually, supply increases and profits become razor thin. Consumers (average folk) win.

BUT, there are certain sectors where monopolies/oligopolies form naturally. Not necessarily because companies are evil, but because it’s simply economically more efficient to do so. Rail being the best example. Why would another rail company build a parallel track to an already existing freight corridor that connects 2 companies?

Banks require to pass through a lot of financial regulation (as they should). Hence, oligopolies form naturally. Same with telecom.

NOW. Let’s look at our utopic market again. Profits should be high where supply hasn’t met demand. NOT where supply and demand are the same. This is very good for those owning the companies (capitalists), but not good for the consumers (us). In our ideal market, this profit reduction happens due to competition. However, we have established that some sectors naturally are prone to less competition.

Banks posting record profits (when banking isn’t exactly a sector that requires crazy investment to meet allegedly crazy increasing demand) is bad for the average person. Same with companies that are in sectors where not much investment is needed. Groceries being an example.

So what do we do to reduce profits in such sectors so that a handful of people aren’t ripping us off? Here’s my opinion:

The state should force oligopolies/monopolies to become consumer cooepratives. If this is too politically infeasible, then raise capital, start a state owned corp and immediately shift the operations to a consumer cooperative (of which every citizen is a member by default).

So TLDR: The stock market booming isn’t always a good thing. Sure, actually innovative corps posting record profits (from the new stuff they’ve worked on) can be a good thing. BUT, boring ass corps which aren’t exactly innovating posting increasing profits means that the consumer (us) is getting ripped off.

Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.

The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.

Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?

To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.

The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.

Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.