Nah, this isn't a great point at all.... even at face value really.
Put slightly differently, if we're assuming people sleep around as much as the text implies, if we focus on birth control solely for men, then one 'failure'/non-controlled man would result in a ton of pregnancies. If the onus is on women, then one 'failure'/non-controlled woman would result in one pregnancy.
Strange question perhaps, but with 13k posts in a year and your ubiquitous presence on lemmy, what do you do for a living that you're paying taxes? Like does lemmy somehow employ you?
Edit: heh, downvote all you want I guess. but whether it's an individual or some organisation that's posting 13-14k links + 6-7k comments in a year, it's clearly a lopsided contribution that's going to steer communities / content trends. I mean the entire Canada community has just 11.7k posts to it. Any individual or group doing that sort of thing deserves to be questioned / scrutinized.
Eh, having read some of the reddit posts from the old account etc, if I were in that area voting, I'd likely give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially compared to alternatives. There were quite a few posts that seemed like he genuinely thought the symbols extended beyond 'just' Nazism, often arguing in his posts that it was common to see that sort of imagery on ppl in the military.
The current liberal government is far more conservative leaning than the previous one. They're pushing very authoritarian bills, and effectively going along with much of the US's 'stuff', while attempting to spin a pro-Canada message for public support -- like the gov and our media lauding the push to diversify our energy supply by building small nuclear reactors... but glossing over that they require US-provided fuel to run (so we're literally increasing reliance on US stuff, while the US is busy using that dependence to attack us economically). On the authoritarian bills, there's stuff like making it so that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to get customer information from private companies, and making display of certain symbols/flags a crime. The folks I know who follow this stuff, basically agree that it's all a bit tepid at the moment, but that it's still better than it would've been under our 'official' conservative party, as those guys wanted to straight up do a DOGE-north (and likely still do).
I'd frame it as Canada is still moving along with the Tech-bro agenda from the US at present, though we're less in to the Christian Nationalist / overtly racist stuff. For example, the coming budget is expected to have items related to OpenBanking/Digital Currencies, which are ideas primarily pushed by tech kleptocrats (there're obvious reasons they fumble to name specific, quantifiable benefits of those systems for consumers -- and it's because the benefit is pretty much all for big tech).
The party that had a more progressive slant last time around, the NDP, got trounced -- deservedly, as they hadn't really put out anything to persuade voters, and essentially told people to vote liberal if it meant defeating the cons. Our green party, who were even more progressive in policies (and often had big, interesting policy ideas), committed suicide years ago due to their adherence to their party-negative approach to DEI -- they literally elected a black lesbian jewish pro-palestinian lawyer lady as their leader, and she destroyed what little support the party had. Eg. she spent all the campaign finances trying to win a liberal-stronghold riding for herself in Toronto; she demanded full control of all social media accounts for the party, which she was given, but then she proceeded to go to news agencies and comment about how the party wasn't publicly supporting her on social media... the media she controlled... because the party was racist. That sort of thing.
So, as to what they're thinking, I don't think they view the US as a potential threat to the same extent as the public. And I don't think they're progressive in the old sense of the world, but they're still progressive relative to our southern neighbours. But I mean, that's a really low bar at the moment.
Well, it means that profits earned by the Trump supporting business, will support Trump's agenda, which includes annexing / doing harm to Canada. As it's a US corp, it also likely means many of the high paying corporate backend jobs go south, removing high income earners from the tax pool. It's amazing to me that the gov is whining at Canadians about productivity, and grandstanding with 'elbows up' rhetoric, but they greenlight sending jobs to the states.
And if it's taking a more active role in supporting Trump, given that its such a large market slice, they could manipulate prices to gouge Canadians / do harm to Canada in a more direct fashion.
I know we have a bunch of parts manufacturers. That Avro thing that Ford would trot out was fairly well publicized, even if many didn't understand what it was.
That Avro thing was also not an actual Canadian EV. It was a vapour-ware marketing vehicle. Its purpose was to show that Canadian companies could make all the components that go in to an EV, so that Ontario could try and attract foreign companies to use those component makers. IE. it was a proof of concept marketing tool, meant to try and sell sub-contracting services to foreign companies/interests. There was never an actual plan to make a Canadian EV on Fords roadmap. In a world where foreign companies/interests are increasingly xenophobic/antagonistic, that's not something that I want my tax dollars going towards -- and in a world where Canada has no home grown options for EVs, I want foreign options available at low costs.
We're literally watching whole cities burn due to climate change out in western Canada. And we're playing politics with sustainable options / clean energy projects.
Besides, like Ford's own ad references, protectionist tariffs deployed to protect an inefficient/non-innovative industry are bad. They also lead to trade wars. I see no reason to prioritize the interests of a small sector in Ontario, over the interests of the Canola farmers in Sask/Man. And you're not too clear on where that 'investment' is coming from in the second paragraph, but if it's from gov as well, that industry just looks even worse in terms of being a leech of resources -- and is almost a poster child for the sort of things the Reagan piece was condemning. IE. a non-innovative industry incapable of competing with international options, being propped up by gov investments, and protected by gov tariffs, with practically no deliverable we can point to as regular non-industry employed citizens.
The tiny part of the country in Ontario, where American companies employ Canadians to make vehicles primarily for sale in the USA it seems, should never have been allowed to lobby for protectionist tariffs, thus blocking access to cheaper EVs for the entire country. At the very least, they should've HAD A PRODUCT that we could all buy instead, that was fully Canadian from a Canadian owned company. The tariffs that were put in place were uncalled for, and largely about Ford bending over for big American businesses. It'd be like saying no one in eastern Canada is allowed to import lumber from outside the country, cause BC has softwood lumber disputes with the US -- except even that isn't quite the same, as BC could provide lumber to other provinces. Ontario got this giant tariff blockade in place, offering nothing. Government shouldn't elevate the interests of a small minority, especially one with foreign corporate owners, over the interests of the broader country.
One of the themes in Doug Fords own Anti-Tariff ad that's caused Trump to get all pissy, is that Government shouldn't be artificially protecting industries with tariffs -- innovation requires competition. We've seen countless stories where US Car CEOs admit China and Asia in general has 'beaten' them in innovating in this space. The auto tariffs are exactly the kind of tariff that Ford is trying to make a case are 'bad' with his ad.
If GM and them don't want to build EVs in Canada, have a crown corp or some other investment group pick up the factory space and set about getting a fully Canadian made EV, that can be provided to Canadians for a price competitive with foreign EVs -- or at least in the same general ball park. It'd seem sensible, though I don't know the specific requirements, that if the USA is currently ditching EVs, that these corporations may aswell move that whole production line up to Canada and/or Mexico. And if they don't want to, or if they want to just 'shut down' plants and fire people... well, that's a lot of industrial space, and trained workers, needing work. So put em to work.
You know, as a Canadian, I can't help but look at Doug Ford / Ontario's approach here, and shake my head a bit. Like Trump's a dumbass baby dictator fascist for the response, sure -- But Doug Ford / Ontario put out an anti-tariff ad, which touches on some of the legit reasons tariffs aren't great.
The ad specifically notes the risk of retaliation and trade wars. The full speech, which obv would get pulled into this sort of ad conversation, also includes notes about the increased reliance on artificial govt mechanisms to protect industry, which also reduce innovation within industries -- they become reliant on govt protection via trade, rather than innovation, as their vehicle to success.
So.... how bout them Electric Vehicles from China, Mr Doug Ford and Ontario? Doug's busy lobbying hard to maintain these 100% tariffs, to protect an industry dominated by US companies (there are no "Canadian" car companies, just offshore production areas for American companies, located in Ontario). The tariffs demanded by Doug Ford, have encouraged a lack of innovation / advancement in the automotive area (there are numerous examples of western car makers admitting they lost on this front, without clear plans to try and regain ground!), and it's also lead to increase trade war / retaliations from China in their Canola ban (hurting the prairies, in exchange for bolstering US company profits? Seems like a shit trade off). Like, the 'risks' noted by Reagan, that Ford and Crowd want people to pay attention to ..... are already being realized, due to Ford being pro-tariff on the auto industry. If they really think tariffs are bad, they should be consistent in their actions...
Trump's a dope. We all knew that already. Throwing a fit is basically on brand for that man baby. But Doug Ford / Ontario are hypocritical fucktards for this sort of advertising.
I think the best part is Trump saying Canada's doin it to influence the Supreme Courts decision. As if Canadians don't already understand that the way you influence the Supreme court in the US is to bribe the Republican Justices, like Clarence Thomas. That guys for sale for sure.
Eh, I wouldn't say 'anyone', but rather 'most'. There are gen z in tech who made ridiculous salaries for years, salaries that dwarf the salaries of most in older generations. I mean, as an easy example I'm sure Big Balls and the DOGE boys made a killing fucking the government for Elon.
Eh, read the first little bit of the article, and bailed as soon as she was noted as saying stuff along the lines of "back then it was harder, because there were fewer desirable areas people wanted to live!".
In other words, back then you had cheaper options in the other nearby areas, which have since become unaffordable for starter homes. Nowadays you gotta move out to the middle of nowhere, where there're no jobs.
So idiot/detached CEO confirmed from my pov, her appearance at least matches her apparent personality.
So Trump'd seen the ad three days prior to his supposed late night melt down. And he's again making large, market disruptive comments on a Friday, which will likely get toned down by Monday/Tuesday.
This just smells like more market manipulation on behalf of wealthy backers that want to fleece people further.
The country from which the proud boys originate, Canada, has declared them a terrorist organization. But I guess this is on brand for the USA these days.
hahhaha, wait, Canada, gov worker, missed cheques not a thing????? Have you heard of the phoenix payroll system??
I mean, the US is currently missing pay periods due to a conflict between their political leaders -- but for us, our gov workers missed paycheques due to sheer incompetence. The people responsible for that shitshow weren't even fired / held accountable for screwing it up. I don't disagree that the US system has some issues, but I also don't think we're in that great a position to comment haha
So to the OPs broader point, you're still participating in the broader financial system/market -- the financial system doesn't "just" refer to items placed on the stock market, it includes any money stored in a financial institution, and ultimately even 'money' itself. The OPs position sounds a lot more like a libertarian / anarchist take, stating that all 'money' is essentially a bubble with imaginary value. I imagine this sort of mindset is increasingly on the minds of people, Americans in particular, as international trade starts to flounder -- the value of the US dollar is, in some circles, starting to cause concern. I think there was a news piece from one of their central bankers a couple days ago, commenting that the value of the American dollar is down 10% against other currencies this year, so if your net worth hasn't gone up by 11% you've taken a loss. Currency values are arguably based on difficult to quantify things -- it can be viewed as bubble-like at a fairly fundamental level.
For the RRSP item, typically banks/CUs provide parent accounts and sub accounts, in my experience. So, for example, you can have an RRSP account at a CU which has just cash sitting in it, or that RRSP can have a sub-account Term deposit where the cash is locked in for 5 years and earns 2-4% per annum in interest (essentially just keeping up with inflation) -- or an RRSP parent account with a trading sub account. Terms have lower return than the market, in general, but less risk. I've personally tended to split my savings between longer Terms in the RRSP for long term retirement needs, shorter more numerous Term Deposits in non-RRSPs that I can cash in for emergencies (taking a small hit if I break the term early), and a Market investment account I handle through my TFSA for now -- not really sure if that's a good approach, but it spreads the risk profiles around, and ensures that I have a baseline of emergency funds available.
In terms of interest rates / fees, if money is locked in for a longer period FIs generally don't charge fees, and instead you earn a higher interest rate. The BMO Investonline example, I would guess, is a result of that money getting booked differently in terms of their ability to leverage it for lending, and/or it's shunted over to a BMO subsidiary entity setup to specifically handle market actions, which is subject to different standards/fee structures. I've worked at banks/CUs that did that sort of thing for departments like their auto-leasing programs -- which was fascinating, as the CU actually had policies in place not to lease cars to their regular financial members, because they were totally fleecing the auto side and knew it (which was deemed 'ok', so long as those people aren't members/can't vote in elections). There were also likely larger regulatory hurdles if they were to try and cross sell that sort of product.
But the long and short of all this, is basically just .... if you're storing a pile of money in a bank/CU, stick it in a term deposit so that it at least keeps up with inflation / earns you interest, rather than costs you in fees. As an added benefit, moving those funds into a non-demand account makes them a lot more difficult for scammers to get at -- because the money isn't available "on demand".
Though again, if I've interpreted the Ops sentiment correctly, none of this matters from their POV, as it's all just a house of cards.
Eh? Term deposits/GIC savings vehicles generally just generate interest for the depositor, without fees involved. Demand accounts like chequing accounts / payment oriented accounts, will sometimes have a fee, which will typically get waived if the amount in that account exceeds a certain value (typically around $1000-1500). Been that way forever at CUs. It's generally because they can use that capital to fund loans, more confidently, if the money's locked in to a term deposit for a set period -- in a simple small CU setup, they're essentially taking all those deposits, pooling them together to help people buy homes, and charging the borrowers enough to pay both the deposit interest and the CUs operating costs. There's very little 'risk', given that any loan is secured by property, with a loan to value ratio of around 75-80% at the high end -- something regulators seem oblivious to at times in Canada, as many cripple industry without cause. They're actively working to kill small CUs, while also whining federally about a lack of financial industry competition.
But back on topic, I think the posters comment is more trying to imply that all assets/money is a bubble. I'm not really sure why. But whether you have money in property/assets, or money sitting in an account, it's part of "the entire financial system" that the poster says is a giant bubble.
Eh, I agree and disagree with the image text. There are similarities, yes, but I wouldn't view it quite as closely connected as the post implies. Main reason being that there's a difference between using verbal abuse to control someone's actions -- like what it implies an abusive boyfriend would do to control his gf -- and using generally third party reference points to construct an admittedly grim world view for a broad demographic group. The manosphere approach is closer, I'd say, to the marketing done by the women's beauty industry in this regard.
Ie. there are certain trends / norms that women tend to cycle through, and certain beauty standards that people generally seem to expect from women (without digging in to that!). The beauty industry leverages that and puts out products re-enforcing those norms / helping ppl align to those norms. There are lots of people that find alternative body types attractive, and/or that have more realistic expectations. But if you're a woman who's obsessed with beauty trends, it can become an unhealthy obsession leading to potential issues like anorexia.
In that it's toxic when taken to an extreme, and in that its fundamentals are based in "reality", the beauty industry's similar to manosphere rhetoric. The manosphere's "short guys get no girls" mentality is backed by many short guys experiences with dating (especially online, where they're pre-filtered!); similarly, a fat girl with lopsided facial features will have difficulty, making the beauty industries products/message more enticing/convincing. They both leverage the generally negative real world experiences of their target audiences to 'ground' their message. Both movements also have equatable super stars -- "Supermodels"/OnlyFans girls/Twitch Streamers/Whatever who are deemed the most beautiful women, and "Tech bros" who are fathering armies of children and touting right wing eugenics-like ideals.
Mostly pointing this alternative comparison out, because I think there's a bit of grey on the manosphere stuff. An obsession with beauty standards/industry stuff is unhealthy, but in moderation its ok/beneficial; an obsession with "men's rights"/"men's issues" is unhealthy, but in moderation it's likely a good thing. More guys being more conscious about their health, and getting more exercise, isn't a bad thing after all -- and that's one of the themes in that manosphere clusterfuck.
Canada’s financial institutions must foster homegrown investments and major infrastructure projects to kick-start the country’s sluggish economy.
HAH. The federal regulators are busy pushing for payment changes specifically to allow foreign businesses greater access to Canadians wallets. They've been working to kill small Financial Industry players, namely the provincially regulated Credit Unions, for literally decades -- largely stemming from Carney himself, during his time at the Bank of Canada. When they talk about opening up competition in that space, it's code for letting US tech giants/foreign companies have direct access to Canada's financial systems / Canadian's wallets -- not about some home grown industry.
If they were serious about trying to fund small businesses more, they'd set up a program to invest a sum of money at many of the smaller Credit Unions around the country -- that'd be direct investment in small businesses already. They could set up large deposit vehicles at those Credit Unions with a fixed, below normal interest rate (so they earn less on the deposit), on condition that the capital be used to fund small business loans for the local community at a preferential rate. Let the Credit Unions do all the heavy lifting in terms of vetting the loans. Using geographically contained credit unions also allows govt to target specific regions differently, simplifying a process for responding to a (de)evolving trade environment. If one community is harder hit by trade uncertainty / tariff shenanigans, they could provide additional funding to that regions local CUs to help mitigate it / pump funding into that region. Things like this have been done historically, from what I understand.
It's unlikely they'd go that way though, because they don't really want small Canadian businesses in the Financial Markets, they want to eliminate the provincial credit unions. Also, it gives up too much direct authority -- and the government is trending authoritarian, whether its left-wing, right-wing or centrist doesn't really matter on that front.
I think the point is more that while you're in the military, you're likely restricted in what you can say publicly, even if it's possible to resist illegal orders within the structure. The guys resigned and no longer beholden to that restriction, so he's publicly urging others to take similar actions in resisting illegal orders.
Could be wrong, as I'm not that familiar with military requirements, but that'd be my guess.
Maybe, though she could also be a paid propagandist -- many of her posts have a certain bias to them. I'm honestly just curious, given the volume of posts she seems to make.