Inflation/Gas Prices/Rising Prices in General

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

If society at large was living in massive fear of climate change 30 years ago, and corporations saw a willingness and desire for people to drive EVs that were limited in their capabilities vs. ICE vehicles because of that fear, they would have seen a larger market opportunity for battery development, and thus dumped more resources into it, thus speeding up developments.

The science on Global Warming has been mainstream and settled for a while now. Still not massive advancements.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

We have lots of examples including recent battery R&D and cancer to see that dumping a ton of money and resources into research results in faster technological development.

No we absolutely do not. Both battery and cancer R&D are progressing at their natural paces. Even then, a lot of the changes in cancer mortality have been the result of preventative measure and changes in behaviour:

https://www.statnews.com/2021/07/08/...th-rates-2021/

The biggest difference is probably vast decreases in smoking rates. Lung cancer was formerly the biggest and one of the fastest killers with a mortality rate of almost 95%. Now lung cancer rate are falling dramatically as fewer and fewer people are habitual smokers:

https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com...decrease-risk/

Absolutely nothing to do with throwing money at the problem. Nor was anybody at any time obstructing cancer research. We've always wanted to cure cancer.

[Bill Bumface]

Ok, I give up. Advancements in technology just happen, and have nothing to do with the amount of investment in them. It's all a pre-set path that we have no control over.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ok, I give up. Advancements in technology just happen, and have nothing to do with the amount of investment in them. It's all a pre-set path that we have no control over.

That's not the argument at all.

The technologies we require, like new processors, transistors, batteries, superconductors, computers, solar panels, etc... were already being heavily researched by large businesses, who had all the incentive in the world to research this technology.

There's no evidence to show that oil companies prevented this research in any meaningful way. As such, most of the change over the last 40 years would have had to come from individual choices. Even now, with full knowledge and even some level of outcome, people are not making those choices. To expect them to do that 40 years ago is absurd.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ok, I give up. Advancements in technology just happen, and have nothing to do with the amount of investment in them. It's all a pre-set path that we have no control over.

Black! - {grey}

Black! - {grey}

Black! - {grey}

Ok fine, white!


(directed generally, at most discussions - not so much at you directly)

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Table 5

What magical substance do you have in mind? Everything we've ever made or eaten or consumed has come from the natural resources around us.

My point was, we might have had an answer by now if we had put more resources toward researching over the past number of decades.

For example, Mycelium Fungus as a replacement for plastic (and other materials) has been suggested, but the R&D is still in the early stages right now.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

My point was, we might have had an answer by now if we had put more resources toward researching over the past number of decades.

For example, Mycelium Fungus as a replacement for plastic (and other materials) has been suggested, but the R&D is still in the early stages right now.

Could there have been more funding thrown at this type of research? Sure, of course.

But that funding has to come from somewhere else, we are limited by finite resources.

The question that has been up for debate is: have the O&G companies materially diminished that R&D from their mis-information? Maybe a little, but I have a hard time imagining it has been a significant amount. The motivation for R&D has been there for a long time. Picking and choosing where it might have been allocated differently, in hindsight, doesn't really change things much.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's no evidence to show that oil companies prevented this research in any meaningful way. As such, most of the change over the last 40 years would have had to come from individual choices. Even now, with full knowledge and even some level of outcome, people are not making those choices. To expect them to do that 40 years ago is absurd.

You're... you're clearly not paying attention. Climate change denial efforts HAVE had a big impact in shaping public opinion. Public funding for clean energy R&D has been far lower than it would have been if the public knew the enormity of the problem and hadn't been peddled lies and confusion about the true nature of the problem. I've given plenty of examples of things that would be further along if there had been more funding sooner. You've chosen to close yourself into talking only about lithium ion batteries as if that's the only thing that matters. There's a lot more to this topic than just lithium ion batteries.

But since we're talking about EVs anyway, I'll refer you to what I posted in the EV thread

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...56#post8335056

Gee, it's almost like government funding and public policy DOES matter.

[Slava]

Hate to pull this off topic, but I guess the federal government plan to deal with inflation is handing out more money. Mind boggling. I fully recognize that jacking up rates causes pain for some, but has any country ever brought down inflation by sending more money to people?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hate to pull this off topic, but I guess the federal government plan to deal with inflation is handing out more money. Mind boggling. I fully recognize that jacking up rates causes pain for some, but has any country ever brought down inflation by sending more money to people?

What's the alternative? Let low income Canadians fend for themselves against rising prices of basic necessities?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hate to pull this off topic, but I guess the federal government plan to deal with inflation is handing out more money. Mind boggling. I fully recognize that jacking up rates causes pain for some, but has any country ever brought down inflation by sending more money to people?

Isn't essentially everything they said today stuff that was already announced with the budget? Things like the increase to the Canada Workers Benefit, increased OAS for 75+ year olds, dental coverage, etc. were all previously announced.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hate to pull this off topic, but I guess the federal government plan to deal with inflation is handing out more money. Mind boggling. I fully recognize that jacking up rates causes pain for some, but has any country ever brought down inflation by sending more money to people?

The consequences of widespread financial and economic illiteracy.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hate to pull this off topic, but I guess the federal government plan to deal with inflation is handing out more money. Mind boggling. I fully recognize that jacking up rates causes pain for some, but has any country ever brought down inflation by sending more money to people?

This spending was already in the budget. So it's not new per se. It would have already been baked in.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

What's the alternative? Let low income Canadians fend for themselves against rising prices of basic necessities?

Well admittedly part of the issue is supply-chain and cost-push inflation. But there’s a demand element as well, and doubling down on sending out more money when you know inflation is an issue (and the very issue you’re trying to solve!), is clearly ill-advised.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well admittedly part of the issue is supply-chain and cost-push inflation. But there’s a demand element as well, and doubling down on sending out more money when you know inflation is an issue (and the very issue you’re trying to solve!), is clearly ill-advised.

But the budget was already set, money spent, so where are you moving it instead that’s making a difference?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

What's the alternative? Let low income Canadians fend for themselves against rising prices of basic necessities?

Practice the other half of MMT. Raise taxes to remove money from the economy while targeting dollars at low income. The upper Quartile of Canadians pays.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But the budget was already set, money spent, so where are you moving it instead that’s making a difference?

What are you driving at here? Because it was in the budget, the money has to be spent somewhere?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

Practice the other half of MMT. Raise taxes to remove money from the economy while targeting dollars at low income. The upper Quartile of Canadians pays.

Gasp! You economically illiterate hippie!!!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

What are you driving at here? Because it was in the budget, the money has to be spent somewhere?

Well you have to do something with it, you can’t just throw it in the garbage and you don’t want to give it back to people, right? So what do you do with it that fights inflation?

Not driving at anything. Pretty straightforward question.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

Practice the other half of MMT. Raise taxes to remove money from the economy while targeting dollars at low income. The upper Quartile of Canadians pays.

That would make landlords very happy. There's a housing shortage. Increasing money supply in the lower economic sectors is going to further increase rent.

As long as there's a combo of high immigration and heavily zoned/controlled housing supply, things will not get better.

We're also getting closer to a point where the rich aren't so much much earning cash, as they are already owning capital or inheriting it. Taxing the upper middle class is going to make this problem worse.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

That would make landlords very happy. There's a housing shortage. Increasing money supply in the lower economic sectors is going to further increase rent.

As long as there's a combo of high immigration and heavily zoned/controlled housing supply, things will not get better.

We're also getting closer to a point where the rich aren't so much much earning cash, as they are already owning capital or inheriting it. Taxing the upper middle class is going to make this problem worse.

Better than raising interest rates.