Misinformation

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Have you been to the US? Are groceries that much cheaper? I dunno. We were down in Montana over the summer and I wouldn’t say it was any more affordable than here.

I don’t know what to say. The article posted says US food inflation is the lowest. I guess you can dispute that article if you want.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of the why, but if I had to guess, it's because transportation was a big issue through covid, and we get a lot of our food from them, so it has to go further to get to us. The point is, many other nations without carbon taxes also see food inflation so there is ample evidence that the carbon tax isn't a big influence on it.

Do you have any information that supports your claim?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by #-3

But you are generalizing your personal situation and complaining that the carbon tax doesn't work, when economic theory behind it is sound and well established and you have no evidence that it doesn't work. So I don't know what you are complaining about. Right now you are paying a premium for the privilege of being a late mover for a situation where we are stuck forcing some people to be early movers, because we need early movers or we're screwed. But even better than that, you are paying for the privilege and being refunded for paying it.

Not complaining. Like I said, according to the calculator, I make money off the carbon tax.

[CliffFletcher]

Pretty much every country in Europe has higher taxes on gasoline than Canada. And increasing energy costs are a big driver of inflation in Europe.

The costs imposed by decarbonization are becoming a major political issue.

Expensive petrol, heating and electricity have helped foment a backlash against policies to fight climate change, which the hard right has seized on. This began in France with the gilets jaunes movement in late 2018, initially a protest against a carbon-tax hike on motor fuel. The afd’s rise this year was touched off by a proposed government ban on oil and gas boilers in homes. In the Netherlands the Farmer-Citizen Movement (bbb), a new populist party, began as a farmers’ protest against nitrogen-emission limits. It won an astounding 20% of the vote in regional elections in March.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2...ll-over-europe

As decarbonization measures start to bite voters, managing the political backlash has become a serious challenge to governments across the developed world. Macron backed down on the petrol tax increases. Germany has already deferred its ban on oil and gas boilers. And the Dutch agriculture minister resigned in the face of the nitrogen policy backlash.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I don’t know what to say. The article posted says US food inflation is the lowest. I guess you can dispute that article if you want.

Well, is it less expensive to buy groceries in the US than Canada?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Well, is it less expensive to buy groceries in the US than Canada?

I don’t know?? Not sure why you are asking me.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Do you have any information that supports your claim?

The link I provided earlier? This is getting circular. But here's another article with some evidence for you.

According to Jim Stanford, economist and director of the Centre for Future Work, there's no magic involved. In a report(opens in a new tab) originally published by the think tank in Canadian Dimension magazine on May 8, Stanford laid out arguments he said proved there is no significant correlation between the carbon price and rising inflation.

"I think the initial run-up in inflation was mostly driven by global factors," Macklem told the committee. "There were much higher energy prices… global supply chains were really gummed up, and we saw a big surge in demand globally for goods. All that drove goods price inflation up very rapidly."


And then, there was omicron, and the last major wave of COVID-19 infections in Canada.


"Last year at this time we were just coming out of omicron and the economy has never really looked back," he said. "Nobody could tell us how many waves of this there were going to be. Fortunately, that was the last major wave. The economy reopened. Businesses were not able to keep up with the demand and you saw domestic prices increase quite rapidly."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-e...says-1.6554273


This stuff all makes logical sense. I can only lead a horse to water...

[Doctorfever]

Ya. You are right back to where you started. I already refuted those numbers.

You let their horse to the pond. There just isn’t any water in it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Ya. You are right back to where you started. I already refuted those numbers.

You let their horse to the pond. There just isn’t any water in it.

LOL. "I refuted those numbers" with an opinion column by Brain ####ing Lilley, sharing numbers and comments from a Frasier Institute toady(never, ever trust their numbers or commentary) who took money from the Westons for grad students. Maybe find another source?



The point is the secondary effects are not large, and logic will confirm that. Imagine a semi shipping a load of food, paying carbon tax on the portion they drive in Canada, and trying to figure out how much carbon tax contributed to that $2 apple? It's going to be ####ing small. But you do the math for yourself and let me know.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I don’t know?? Not sure why you are asking me.

I am just wondering why you’re holding up the US as this beacon of low inflation and affordability.

[FacePaint]

Perfect example of misinformation. Food prices are artificially inflated due to bad supply chain management policies which all parties support.

And a tax is a deflationary mechanism. If something costs more and people have less money to spend that will not cause inflation.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I am just wondering why you’re holding up the US as this beacon of low inflation and affordability.

It was from the article fuzz posted. Ask him.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The point is the secondary effects are not large, and logic will confirm that. Imagine a semi shipping a load of food, paying carbon tax on the portion they drive in Canada, and trying to figure out how much carbon tax contributed to that $2 apple? It's going to be ####ing small. But you do the math for yourself and let me know.

You go ahead and do the math if you like.

The reason why the experts haven’t done the math is that it is impossible to drill down and get the costs.

Let’s say your imaginary semi breaks down, and needs a tow. The tow truck costs more and the parts to fix the semi cost more.

Like I said earlier, even the packaging, costs of manufacturing packaging, shipping packaging costs more. The facilities that manufacture and ship the packaging cost more to operate. The suppliers to the manufacturers have increased costs…. It goes on and on and on.

To say the apple only costs more because one semi costs more is absurd.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

He mentions the methodology in this tweet:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1707042337497428307

First, EKOS / Graves has an extremely strong Liberal bias that's well known.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4352832/

Mr. Graves' original comments, which were first quoted by columnist Lawrence Martin in The Globe, suggested he had told the Liberal Party it should invoke a "culture war" to battle the Conservatives. He described this as a battle between "cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Albera don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin."

As for the 4 statement questions:

-Canada's economic growth lags well behind the G7 average;
-Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
-The right to bear arms is guaranteed in Canada's constitution; and
-Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

All of these are leaning / leading questions

Question 1, you would tend to agree if you don't like the current government, while disagree if leaning Liberal, even without knowing the truth. This I expect most Canadians would have zero idea if this is true or false and it's also misleading as Bizaro86 pointed out.

Question 2 caters to the freedumb fighters / conspiracy mindset, who are predominantly PPC or CPC.

Question 3 is an obvious one, that could only be gotten wrong by uninformed Trump like supporters (see freedumb fighters)

Question 4 is an interesting one as while climate change has many factors, greenhouse gas emissions is one of the main causes. I expect CPC voters to be less informed about climate change.

I expect that nearly all CPC voters would get question 1 'wrong' (and I put in quotes, as our GDP growth is mainly doing well due to our population growth and our real GDP per capita is actually falling behind (though not well behind).

https://economics.td.com/ca-falling-...%2D7%20average.

So no matter what, the hand selected questions are written to ensure a bias to show that CPC voters will be more misinformed than counterparts. The questions already had a predetermined outcome.

That in itself is misinformation.

[Fuzz]

LOL, to summarize, CPC voters tend to be misinformed, and this poll is bias becuase it shows that.


OK, if you don't like this one there are no shortage of others that show similar results. And it shouldn't be surprising, since it's pretty easy to look at where they get their information from. If Rebel or Western Standard are your sources of information, you are guaranteed to be misinformed. This isn't a debatable point, it's fact.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

LOL, to summarize, CPC voters tend to be misinformed, and this poll is bias becuase it shows that.


OK, if you don't like this one there are no shortage of others that show similar results. And it shouldn't be surprising, since it's pretty easy to look at where they get their information from. If Rebel or Western Standard are your sources of information, you are guaranteed to be misinformed. This isn't a debatable point, it's fact.

Surely you are smarter than using this line of thought.

Let's bring a statement that would counterbalance.

Recycling plastics have become very efficient and we now recycle over 50% of all plastics.

True or false?

Do you believe Liberals / NDP / Green will do better on this statement than CPC voters?

I don't read Rebel or Western Standard, most people don't including most CPC voters.

But as some readers read Rebel or Western Standard and get fed misinformation and believe in such misinformation, so too does left-leaning folks, just different kind.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...erent-reasons/

New research suggests both liberals and conservatives are motivated to believe fake news, and dismiss real news that contradicts their ideologies

Are Liberals and Conservatives Equally Susceptible to Fake News?

The answer is yes. The researchers found that people on both sides of the traditional left-right divide are equally likely to believe political news that is consistent with their ideology, and to disbelieve news that is inconsistent with their side. For instance, liberals judged the anti-Trump story as being much more legitimate than the pro-Trump story, with conservatives showing the opposite judgment.

Interestingly, these effects were even more pronounced when they replaced binary party preferences with party warmth judgments. In other words, if you are way left or way right you are even more likely to cognitively distort yourself in all sorts of ways to either believe the news (if it supports your party) or bend over backwards to disconfirm it (if it disconfirms your party's line). The researchers conclude that "people infer news legitimacy in a way that appears motivated by their own ideological positioning." These findings are very much in line with Jonathan Haidt's account of motivated reasoning being a big source of divisions in politics and religion.

This finding is also consistent with other research suggesting that there are symmetries among both liberals and conservatives when it comes to motivated reasoning. For instance, liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions, and are similarly motivated to deny scientific findings that are inconsistent with their ideology.

The researchers suggest that conservatives may be most susceptible on average to fall prey to fake news stories, considering that they are the group most likely to be exposed to such material online, and they are also the group with the highest average levels of faith in intuition.

However, liberals aren't off the hook, as they are statistically more likely to use investment in the righteousness of their political viewpoints to believe politically-consistent news stories, and their higher level of need for cognition to delegitimize politically-inconsistent news stories. The researchers found that liberals who scored higher in a measure of "collective narcissism"-- which measures a tendency to invest in, and perceive superiority of, your political views--showed exaggerated legitimacy judgments for the politically-consistent (e.g., anti-Trump) fake news stories. This data is interesting because it suggests that collective narcissism is not only a right-wing populist phenomenon.

Effectively, there is more misinformation targeting right-leaning folks, but both sides are susceptible to it (as you show here).

If you poll based on those pieces of misinformation specifically only targeting the right, you get this bias. Your statement of 'this is fact' only feeds your own misinformation.

[2Stonedbirds]

Using an apple and only looking at trucking costs as the componant which carbon tax applies to is just so misinformed.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Not complaining. Like I said, according to the calculator, I make money off the carbon tax.

I may have missed understood you all along then, I had thought your original premise was that the carbon tax should be repealed because it was ineffective. I argued it was effective, you seem to have agreed and said you aren't complaining about it.

So we might be in the same spot, it's effective policy, and if they are going to tax something on a consumption level, it's probably the way to go.

[Doctorfever]

Nope

[Firebot]

I mean, look how much effort you are putting into showing how carbon tax "has been instrumental in keeping food inflation in Canada low" because you want it to fit your narrative. And proceeded to link an article that didn't even have the word carbon in it once.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You didn't explain how the carbon price has been instrumental in keeping food inflation in Canada low compared to peers without a cost reducing tax.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/food...ions-1.6425009

Your statement is quite the tall statement. Provide evidence of your statement "carbon price has been instrumental in keeping food inflation in Canada low". Even the Liberals haven't made this type of bold statement. We have some research that show that carbon taxes impact to inflation is negligible, and stats about our food prices inflation being average to low when compared to peers, but that is very different from your statement.