joshhsoj1902

Dental care, housing deals with cities and the fall back carbon pricing were all done dispite provincial pushback (as far as I'm aware).

The only one where they worked with the provinces was the daycare, and that took like 18 months for provinces to actually agree on and even today provinces like Ontario continue to drag their feet on.

From what I've seen over the last 3-5 years, the provinces have very little interest in actively working constructively with the feds.

I don't know what the current status of the healthcare chats are, but a few years ago the feds were willing to help push additional funding into the provincial healthcare systems, but the provinces needed to agree to terms (I believe the terms were around the money needing to be spent on the public healthcare system and not working towards privatization). as far as I know the talks never went anywhere, and healthcare systems are still underfunded.

What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn't stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces

Sure it shouldn't be used like this. But incrementing a number isn't enough to steal someone's identity.

Isn't it the address being leaked with it that makes this notable?

You can't add a number to a SSN and also add a number to the street address to then narrow down which full names are associated with that SSN to then possibly be able to use it.

I didn't think the number had any use on its own

Were billions given upfront for this project? Most of the battery/EV projects I saw were mainly tax breaks.

To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it's the lower tax rate.

In places like Ontario we "double dip" on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.

When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it's a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.

None of this refutes what was said above.

Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.

I've also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.

Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I've done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.

This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.

Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.

When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don't have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it's own it can't correct for the extra spent per person.

I would almost want a "government revenue" per "wholesale/retail value" or maybe multiple numbers where it's "government revenue" per "liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc" and then compare those in both markets.

Because that's truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.

It's so frustrating. There isn't a single situation where Ontario needs this change. If people are unhappy with alcohol access and want less alcohol revenue, we could easily open more stores and allow them to be less profitable per store.

There is absolutely no reason to route money away from the LCBO as it is (at least I've you've actually looked at the financials, I can understand how people who haven't might be convinced otherwise)

most of it...

• didn't/doesn't address housing shortage.

Not sure what to say about this. This is a failure of every level of government, some levels are more willing to try to address part of this while other levels are actively trying to make it worse. To me this statement feels like it comes from someone who is frustrated but hasn't taken the time to understand the problem that they are frustrated with.

• didn't/doesn't address inflation.

Inflation is being dealt with... Things are nearly back to normal levels of inflation. You can't say that it's not being addressed.

• increases taxation as a means to get more income flow to the government

This is normal and a good thing? I'm also not sure which taxes you're referring to? Our taxes haven't really changed much recently.

• spends crazy(milions and bilions) on S.D.G ideals

Unless you have meaningful examples there isn't anything I can say here.

• makes it impossible for farmers to meet (Co2 etc)regulations
  • and government buys them out..
  • and Schiphol etc buying that land for extra CO2 credit.

Once again I need some sources on this, this sounds like something you heard and are repeating without taking the time to understand what was being talked about and now you're trying to pass it off as fact.

• has crazy 'sustainability' demains, which makes international production business move elsewhere

Not sure what you're talking about here. Is this referring to businesses "offshoring" the production of goods? This has been happening for a long time and I hope that we can start bring more manufacturing back "onshore"

• increasing poverty. People requiring food-bank support is increasing, but because of increasingly harsh business environment the food-bank actually obtains less from industrie.

Yes poverty is up, but not for the reasons you're suggesting(unless you have some new data I haven't seen). food inflation is going to be the new norm until the world gets the climate crisis under control. Our global agriculture system is not built to handle the rapidly changing climate we've created. droughts, floods and war are likely going to continue to cause price instability.

• many small/medium businesses are going bust because they can't repay the corona-loan. (which many have warned is a slow death trap)

This is also normal? Many economists believe that economic downswings every 7-15 years is good for an economy because it helps wipe out under preforming businesses. if a company took out 60k in loans, and after 4 years hasn't been able to pay back the 40k they owe (20k was already forgiving), and also can't find a bank to move that loan to, they are likely not running a very good business.

I'm glad that we gave these businesses a lifeline during covid, but at some point they need to prove that they can adapt to the new market conditions. No one forced them to take these loans...

So ya, to me most of this was a mix of unsubstantiated opinion and vague concepts, which I feel is acceptable to call nonsense

All of those things are recyclable today with wind turbines being the hardest and batteries being the easiest. But the quantity of materials that needs recycling is still low so there are only a handful of companies doing it.