Politics: GBR Post Leave vote, Canadian Carbon Tax and Hilary vs. Trump
Tech is boring right now. Exploding phones aren't really interesting and neither is the iPhone 7 or the Pixel phones. Though, I will add quickly, changing the branding to Pixel was outright idiotic. IF the Pixel phones succeed it will be because people still think of them as Nexus phones and the prior iteration of those were damn good. At those prices, the Pixel name is meaningless. In fact, exploding Samsung batteries just happen to be giving them the best chance.
Moving on. Politics. This is all opinion and nothing else. You are forewarned.
Starting at home. Carbon pricing. The outrage to this is like everything else. Morons read just enough to cause trouble. Yes, the cost of certain things will go up. Usage of gasoline and other pollutants may go down. Or it may not. Either way, the Canadian Governments plan is actually not all that bad. What people don't seem to be reading is that while the Federal Government is enforcing this carbon pricing on the provinces, it isn't collecting the money. You can basically guarantee that low and mid-income earners will receive assistance in various forms to offset this. And it will hopefully lead to greater investment in clean, renewable energy solutions. To those complaining. When the Earth is uninhabitable, who will you blame then? Sure, there are possibly better plans to reduce emissions. But the complainers aren't offering any up.
Simple fact is, global warming is happening. And we NEED to be doing something about it. Anything. Bitching about paying a few extra cents to the liter at the pumps or a couple dollars more a month is beyond pointless.
Frankly, I don't expect carbon output to change much for a few years after such a tax. But, I think if the provinces are willing to invest in research and companies pursuing green alternatives and consumers are given credits and tax breaks for buying into such solutions, then I think it is feasible that this could help us meet or exceed carbon emission targets and without hurting many.
Will it royally screw some people over? Sure. Every change does. Prices being adjusted for inflation do this. Will it royally screw the "average person". Unlikely.
Next, moving south of the border. I don't understand this presidential election one bit. I Googled around the other day trying to find out why people hate Clinton so much. And it appears to generally boil down to two things; she does the same things every politician does, and people hate her face. Literally, I can find ZERO credible reason to choose Trump over Clinton. Well, outside of his xenophobic, racist and sexist tendencies which seem to be the heart of the Brexit vote as well.
Yes people politicians change their minds. Sometimes because they have had a change of heart. Some times they are lying and some times they simply say the wrong things (they don't write most of those speeches themselves after all).
To add to the insanity, most of the specific cases people are trying to nail her to the wall for are things which she had no control over, or was related to misquotes, etc...
And while I too lament that politicians flip flop on topics regularly, I have to admit... changing their minds to help their ratings generally means that when they change their minds, they do so to align themselves with the common will of the people. Given how democracy works in the US, this is certainly better than someone who steadfastly sticks to outdated ideals. And, as stated, you can basically not find a politician that doesn't fit in that hole. AMUSINGLY, Trump included!!!
So, if we eliminate the standard political persona, we're left with people either voting for Trump solely because they hate Clinton's face, or because they side with Trump's functionally white-male-supremist views. Both are terrible reasons.
Am I saying Trump will F*** up the US? Hard to say. He's not even popular with his own party. It seems unlikely that he could even veto through much of anything. He would probably be removed on a vote of non-confidence in fairly short order. If that doesn't happen, it will likely be because he will functionally become a puppet president. Only way I can see anything he appears to want getting done is if it is actually someone else's (who is sane).
And now we go across the pond. I'm not British. I don't care much on the Remain vs. Leave topic. Honestly, it sounds like there are benefits to both. I think those that voted Leave will find that much of the control they sought to bring back to GBR will just be traded away again in trade agreements. But, from what I read, there are certainly advantages of leaving the EU. Namely, breaking free of Germany's ability to crush them economically.
As for the pound plummeting through the floor. The UK IS STILL PART OF THE E-F***ING-U. And, unsurprisingly, stocks plummet every time parliament makes a decision related to leaving the UK. In other words, these impacts are really artificial.
What I will say is this. Article 50 of the EU is structured (whether intentionally or not) to royally screw over any country who plans to leave the EU in the short term. The reason is simple. The UK can't really formally enter into any trade agreements until they are formally out of the EU. The 2 year exit process thus puts them in a spot where the markets, faced with uncertainty, plummet. Especially, any time the focus is brought back to the country leaving. Which, basically puts the EU in the strong position with regards to exit negotiations, which will likely further hurt the UK.
We won't see the "real" financial impact of Brexit until 5-10 years after the UK is actually out of the EU.
Yes, the impacts to businesses and people are real. But that doesn't make the causes any less artificial and/or engineered.
Moving on. Politics. This is all opinion and nothing else. You are forewarned.
Starting at home. Carbon pricing. The outrage to this is like everything else. Morons read just enough to cause trouble. Yes, the cost of certain things will go up. Usage of gasoline and other pollutants may go down. Or it may not. Either way, the Canadian Governments plan is actually not all that bad. What people don't seem to be reading is that while the Federal Government is enforcing this carbon pricing on the provinces, it isn't collecting the money. You can basically guarantee that low and mid-income earners will receive assistance in various forms to offset this. And it will hopefully lead to greater investment in clean, renewable energy solutions. To those complaining. When the Earth is uninhabitable, who will you blame then? Sure, there are possibly better plans to reduce emissions. But the complainers aren't offering any up.
Simple fact is, global warming is happening. And we NEED to be doing something about it. Anything. Bitching about paying a few extra cents to the liter at the pumps or a couple dollars more a month is beyond pointless.
Frankly, I don't expect carbon output to change much for a few years after such a tax. But, I think if the provinces are willing to invest in research and companies pursuing green alternatives and consumers are given credits and tax breaks for buying into such solutions, then I think it is feasible that this could help us meet or exceed carbon emission targets and without hurting many.
Will it royally screw some people over? Sure. Every change does. Prices being adjusted for inflation do this. Will it royally screw the "average person". Unlikely.
Next, moving south of the border. I don't understand this presidential election one bit. I Googled around the other day trying to find out why people hate Clinton so much. And it appears to generally boil down to two things; she does the same things every politician does, and people hate her face. Literally, I can find ZERO credible reason to choose Trump over Clinton. Well, outside of his xenophobic, racist and sexist tendencies which seem to be the heart of the Brexit vote as well.
Yes people politicians change their minds. Sometimes because they have had a change of heart. Some times they are lying and some times they simply say the wrong things (they don't write most of those speeches themselves after all).
To add to the insanity, most of the specific cases people are trying to nail her to the wall for are things which she had no control over, or was related to misquotes, etc...
And while I too lament that politicians flip flop on topics regularly, I have to admit... changing their minds to help their ratings generally means that when they change their minds, they do so to align themselves with the common will of the people. Given how democracy works in the US, this is certainly better than someone who steadfastly sticks to outdated ideals. And, as stated, you can basically not find a politician that doesn't fit in that hole. AMUSINGLY, Trump included!!!
So, if we eliminate the standard political persona, we're left with people either voting for Trump solely because they hate Clinton's face, or because they side with Trump's functionally white-male-supremist views. Both are terrible reasons.
Am I saying Trump will F*** up the US? Hard to say. He's not even popular with his own party. It seems unlikely that he could even veto through much of anything. He would probably be removed on a vote of non-confidence in fairly short order. If that doesn't happen, it will likely be because he will functionally become a puppet president. Only way I can see anything he appears to want getting done is if it is actually someone else's (who is sane).
And now we go across the pond. I'm not British. I don't care much on the Remain vs. Leave topic. Honestly, it sounds like there are benefits to both. I think those that voted Leave will find that much of the control they sought to bring back to GBR will just be traded away again in trade agreements. But, from what I read, there are certainly advantages of leaving the EU. Namely, breaking free of Germany's ability to crush them economically.
As for the pound plummeting through the floor. The UK IS STILL PART OF THE E-F***ING-U. And, unsurprisingly, stocks plummet every time parliament makes a decision related to leaving the UK. In other words, these impacts are really artificial.
What I will say is this. Article 50 of the EU is structured (whether intentionally or not) to royally screw over any country who plans to leave the EU in the short term. The reason is simple. The UK can't really formally enter into any trade agreements until they are formally out of the EU. The 2 year exit process thus puts them in a spot where the markets, faced with uncertainty, plummet. Especially, any time the focus is brought back to the country leaving. Which, basically puts the EU in the strong position with regards to exit negotiations, which will likely further hurt the UK.
We won't see the "real" financial impact of Brexit until 5-10 years after the UK is actually out of the EU.
Yes, the impacts to businesses and people are real. But that doesn't make the causes any less artificial and/or engineered.
Comments
Post a Comment