Just imagine -- you can use a new currency to buy corruption from Brazil, war sanctions from Russia, war with china from india, old people from China, or horrific racial violence from south africa!
She's lying. We know she's lying. She knows we know she's lying. We know she knows we know she's lying. But for some people they need to keep pretending because otherwise the truth will be too much to bear.
https://youtu.be/q8MnNeEPVSY
Hard times ahead for a lot of people in Canada.
Much of Canada is set up so you can't just hand the keys back to the bank, so if you're underwater on your mortgage, you still have that mortgage. It's called a recourse loan vs. A non recourse loan. The bank has recourse to go after assets other than the home itself to be made whole.
Roughly 92% of mortgages have interest terms of 5 years or less. Typically the highest interest term that's practical is 10 years, after that you get to interest rates close to 10% so virtually nobody would have gone with those.
Interest rates started to rise around late 2021/early 2022, so a lot of people who took out massive mortgages (the average house price at the peak was $850,000 nationwide) at rates as low as less than 1%(!!!), and they'll reset to 6%, meaning that many mortgages will be resetting at many times the interest they had before.
Some mortgages are "insured", but you have to be careful because that doesn't mean the people are insured, it means the banks are insured. The people are still on the line for the mortgage they're supposed to pay (and if many mortgages fail, the taxpayer is on the line for it). Moreover, many of the most dangerous mortgages for the million dollar homes in Toronto or the 2 million dollar homes in Vancouver are not insured so that could be a major hit to the banking system if there aren't any more buyers and prices collapse because nobody can afford million dollar mortgages at 6%.
Meanwhile people need to demand insane salaries to be able to afford rent on a million dollar home, and often people are paying insane rents for horrible living conditions such as the person in the video trying to rent out underneath a bed for 900/mo.
Hard times ahead for a lot of people who made a lot of decisions everyone could have told them were stupid at the time but because the line was going up didn't look stupid for a while.
Hard times ahead for a lot of people in Canada.
Much of Canada is set up so you can't just hand the keys back to the bank, so if you're underwater on your mortgage, you still have that mortgage. It's called a recourse loan vs. A non recourse loan. The bank has recourse to go after assets other than the home itself to be made whole.
Roughly 92% of mortgages have interest terms of 5 years or less. Typically the highest interest term that's practical is 10 years, after that you get to interest rates close to 10% so virtually nobody would have gone with those.
Interest rates started to rise around late 2021/early 2022, so a lot of people who took out massive mortgages (the average house price at the peak was $850,000 nationwide) at rates as low as less than 1%(!!!), and they'll reset to 6%, meaning that many mortgages will be resetting at many times the interest they had before.
Some mortgages are "insured", but you have to be careful because that doesn't mean the people are insured, it means the banks are insured. The people are still on the line for the mortgage they're supposed to pay (and if many mortgages fail, the taxpayer is on the line for it). Moreover, many of the most dangerous mortgages for the million dollar homes in Toronto or the 2 million dollar homes in Vancouver are not insured so that could be a major hit to the banking system if there aren't any more buyers and prices collapse because nobody can afford million dollar mortgages at 6%.
Meanwhile people need to demand insane salaries to be able to afford rent on a million dollar home, and often people are paying insane rents for horrible living conditions such as the person in the video trying to rent out underneath a bed for 900/mo.
Hard times ahead for a lot of people who made a lot of decisions everyone could have told them were stupid at the time but because the line was going up didn't look stupid for a while.
I recall some research showing that dead trees are more effective for learning from your reading. It's a bit out of date but I'd believe it still applies since it's fundamentally about having something physical in the real world you're relating your reading to.
So what you're telling me is that smoking actually does make you cooler?
My life is a lie. Where's my smokes?
My life is a lie. Where's my smokes?
Gullible city folks who don't know how forests work think forest fires are caused by magic and worse that a one degree change in temperature in California is the same as a one degree change in the goddamn Arctic.
Imagine it's 1997 and you're trying to learn more about this GTA thing you found on this month's magazine demo disk, and you keep seeing more crap about Toronto.
I'm not opposed to letting the GTA separate from Canada. The area can join New York State.
It isn't entirely insane the idea that you could have coils built into the cement and you'd park on top and charge that way, though it isn't really that efficient at such a distance.
Could be a big deal, as long as there aren't too many gatekeepers keeping costs up. If their costs end up as 3380 but they charge 20,000 then it's all a wash anyway.
You know, back when cars were first becoming safer than wrestling an angry bear, they made all headlights standardized so you could get spare parts from anywhere. Something similar for EVs isn't such a bad idea...
You know, back when cars were first becoming safer than wrestling an angry bear, they made all headlights standardized so you could get spare parts from anywhere. Something similar for EVs isn't such a bad idea...
I ended up getting the highest mark in the class in Grade 12 English up here in Soviet Canuckistan, but I always felt it was a betrayal that left a lot of us without adequate ability to write anything meaningful, and for the most part the books were were supposed to read were read to us in class so as long as you paid minimal attention you could do just fine without doing much reading or writing.
The next class I took was in college, on writing reports and letters, and although I went from getting an A+ to getting a C, the course taught fundamental writing skills such as considering your audience and not yammering on for pages and pages (given my long posts on the fediverse you could say I don't always follow that advice...) -- Despite ostensibly being a class teaching much more basic skills, it provided more important skills I use all the time in life.
In some ways it was like the high school curriculum was trying to get us to do advanced analysis of works when there was a lot of basic stuff they hadn't properly covered yet.
The next class I took was in college, on writing reports and letters, and although I went from getting an A+ to getting a C, the course taught fundamental writing skills such as considering your audience and not yammering on for pages and pages (given my long posts on the fediverse you could say I don't always follow that advice...) -- Despite ostensibly being a class teaching much more basic skills, it provided more important skills I use all the time in life.
In some ways it was like the high school curriculum was trying to get us to do advanced analysis of works when there was a lot of basic stuff they hadn't properly covered yet.
You say that, but I think about Peter Schiff who has been trying as hard as anyone could and it's been to his detriment.
I don't think anything I wrote disputes any of that, in fact the whole message is about the fact that you can help choose the candidates even if it's a "deep blue" or "deep red" area through the primary process, so there's no such thing as a fully foregone conclusion.
If you had a good idea that something big and bad was coming, wouldn't you want to say something ahead of time? Even if you didn't intend to change anything by your words you can at least go back and say "well I did warn about what was coming"
I don't follow.
If you choose not to vote in a primary, it was still the people who did vote who chose the candidate. Meaning I'm not ignoring the role of voters...
If you choose not to vote in a primary, it was still the people who did vote who chose the candidate. Meaning I'm not ignoring the role of voters...
How so?
You vote in the primary and then you vote in the general for the candidate who won the primary.
You vote in the primary and then you vote in the general for the candidate who won the primary.
One of the things that you said in there feels like something really important and something that I strongly agree with.
One of the reasons that liberalism does need to be something of a value is that we do need to coexist with people that we don't strictly agree with, and the better we can do that tomorrow more harmonious our society. Of course there's going to be people that you just can't coexist with for example if I want to live and you want me to die then we can't compromise I'm not going to die just a little bit. On the other hand, for the most part that's not really the sort of things that people disagree over. We tend to disagree on things that may seem life or death but perhaps aren't necessarily.
I've told people on here before that I don't necessarily even agree with everything that I say so it's pretty important to find ways to coexist with people I don't agree with!
Ideally it becomes sort of a two-way social contract, where you leave me alone to live how I prefer even when you disagree, and I leave you alone to live how you prefer even when I disagree, and maybe we can come together on the things we agree with. Especially if we both happen to agree on some very important things.
That's one of the things that I find most mind-blowing about some of the current political back and forth is fundamentally I think that most people agree on big things, whether they're left or right. Instead of using that commonality as a starting point, we fight over the stuff we disagree with, leaving the stuff we could agree with and do something about on the table.
One of the reasons that liberalism does need to be something of a value is that we do need to coexist with people that we don't strictly agree with, and the better we can do that tomorrow more harmonious our society. Of course there's going to be people that you just can't coexist with for example if I want to live and you want me to die then we can't compromise I'm not going to die just a little bit. On the other hand, for the most part that's not really the sort of things that people disagree over. We tend to disagree on things that may seem life or death but perhaps aren't necessarily.
I've told people on here before that I don't necessarily even agree with everything that I say so it's pretty important to find ways to coexist with people I don't agree with!
Ideally it becomes sort of a two-way social contract, where you leave me alone to live how I prefer even when you disagree, and I leave you alone to live how you prefer even when I disagree, and maybe we can come together on the things we agree with. Especially if we both happen to agree on some very important things.
That's one of the things that I find most mind-blowing about some of the current political back and forth is fundamentally I think that most people agree on big things, whether they're left or right. Instead of using that commonality as a starting point, we fight over the stuff we disagree with, leaving the stuff we could agree with and do something about on the table.
The problem is that any term with a defined meaning will simply have that meaning changed by the opponents of the thing.
Liberalism has a definition, it's had a definition for centuries. What is called liberalism today there is very little resemblance to liberalism. Just as you said, you have two factions both trying to silence speech they don't like, well arguably neither one of them is liberal in that regard.
I've heard some deep conservatives make a good argument that while liberalism is good, it is also a blank slate that can't be the sole basis for an ethical system. You have liberalism as the basis of how a state behaves, but there must be a moral foundation so that the people when given the freedom to behave however they want, choose to behave in a way that is prosocial and beneficial to the liberal society.
It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, the fact that some of the constraints on our lives aren't necessarily social or economic, but just constraints based on reality. It doesn't matter what economic system you live under, you need to eat food and drink water or you die. It doesn't matter what social mores say, for the human race to continue we need to procreate and ensure that our offspring thrive. Liberty therefore is always constrained by reality, and if we are a wise species, then alongside our Liberty we should be passing on the lessons of how to survive and thrive and attempt to pursue happiness.
Becoming a father was a little bit of a gut punch for me, because I never expected it to make me happy, but it does. I never really expected fatherhood to be fulfilling on a fundamental level, but it definitely is. Meanwhile, if the only thing that you care about is Liberty then of course you would not want to have children because they are going to just tie you down. But sometimes being tied down isn't such a bad thing. Sometimes it's those constraints and the responsibilities that you take on that give life meaning.
Anyway, going back to my initial point, one of the ways that you can end up with multiple meetings layered over an initial concept is that people will always look to the most powerful concept around to justify what they want. I once work somewhere with a very strong union, and if you asked people everything that they wanted was exactly what the union said that they needed to have even though that was false. When I worked in a place of a very strong safety culture, everything that they wanted had to be done because it was related to safety. And society that is extremely focused on liberalism, whatever people want will be reframed in terms of how liberalism demands it, and so I relatively simple concept ends up getting tied down with 100,000 individual social and political causes not because it necessarily follows but because that's how those individuals get what they want. Unfortunately along the way it also means that a relatively simple concept ends up becoming really complicated.
Liberalism has a definition, it's had a definition for centuries. What is called liberalism today there is very little resemblance to liberalism. Just as you said, you have two factions both trying to silence speech they don't like, well arguably neither one of them is liberal in that regard.
I've heard some deep conservatives make a good argument that while liberalism is good, it is also a blank slate that can't be the sole basis for an ethical system. You have liberalism as the basis of how a state behaves, but there must be a moral foundation so that the people when given the freedom to behave however they want, choose to behave in a way that is prosocial and beneficial to the liberal society.
It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, the fact that some of the constraints on our lives aren't necessarily social or economic, but just constraints based on reality. It doesn't matter what economic system you live under, you need to eat food and drink water or you die. It doesn't matter what social mores say, for the human race to continue we need to procreate and ensure that our offspring thrive. Liberty therefore is always constrained by reality, and if we are a wise species, then alongside our Liberty we should be passing on the lessons of how to survive and thrive and attempt to pursue happiness.
Becoming a father was a little bit of a gut punch for me, because I never expected it to make me happy, but it does. I never really expected fatherhood to be fulfilling on a fundamental level, but it definitely is. Meanwhile, if the only thing that you care about is Liberty then of course you would not want to have children because they are going to just tie you down. But sometimes being tied down isn't such a bad thing. Sometimes it's those constraints and the responsibilities that you take on that give life meaning.
Anyway, going back to my initial point, one of the ways that you can end up with multiple meetings layered over an initial concept is that people will always look to the most powerful concept around to justify what they want. I once work somewhere with a very strong union, and if you asked people everything that they wanted was exactly what the union said that they needed to have even though that was false. When I worked in a place of a very strong safety culture, everything that they wanted had to be done because it was related to safety. And society that is extremely focused on liberalism, whatever people want will be reframed in terms of how liberalism demands it, and so I relatively simple concept ends up getting tied down with 100,000 individual social and political causes not because it necessarily follows but because that's how those individuals get what they want. Unfortunately along the way it also means that a relatively simple concept ends up becoming really complicated.