Today, the Carney government joined the Conservatives and the Bloc to defeat Jenny Kwan’s No More Loopholes Bill — legislation that would have stopped Canadian weapons sent to the U.S. from being used to fuel the genocide in Gaza.
It’s a deeply shameful vote that suggests they would rather appease Trump than protect vulnerable civilians.
But this moment also shows why voices like Jenny Kwan and her colleagues in the NDP caucus matter so much. They continue to champion human rights, peace, and international justice with courage and persistence, even when few others in Parliament will.
Millions of Canadians share that vision. They want Canada to be a force for peace, not a junior arms dealer.
This is exactly why our country needs the NDP.
#cdnpoli #gaza #NDP
Lol! That’s hilarious. You obviously don’t know what the sunk cost fallacy even means, if you’re using it in this context. It doesn’t apply here.
If you have a factory full of equipment, and enough workers to run that equipment…how do you pay for that, without contracts? You can’t just sit there producing nothing, and expect to stay in business. Even if all of your machines were fully paid off…which is almost never the case…you would still need work to keep the lights on and the doors open.
How is that so hard to understand?
When you’re talking about sunk costs, you’re talking about investments that haven’t returned anything yet, and are unlikely to in the near future. That’s not at all what I’m talking about. If you read my comment again, you should get to the part where I said, manufacturers are constantly reinvesting in more capacity. Newer technologies. More capabilities. When machines or equipment wear out or newer technology becomes available, they cycle out the older, outdated machines and equipment for new ones. This is a gradual, but constant cycle. There are almost always machines and equipment that are still being paid off. And as soon as they’re paid for, you start the cycle again. Whatever expands your capabilities, is next on the list. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If a company isn’t reinvesting in its own capacity like that, they cannot accept more work. They have a hard limit on what can be produced in a given amount of time. The only way to produce more, is to buy newer equipment, that can produce products faster or in greater quantities. That kind of equipment is very often extremely task specific. Those capabilities are very often not transferable to other industries. That means any investments made into that equipment would be for nothing, if you had to switch tasks. You would have just paid off…or would still be paying off…equipment that can no longer be used for its intended purpose. The only way to see a return on that investment, is to use it.
And if your customers want something new, you need to have the equipment needed to make it, before they’ll give you the contract. Why would they agree to pay you for something you don’t have the capacity to produce?
Again. How is that so hard to understand?
Your weird claim that government EV investments never materialized is genuinely hilarious and proves you have not looked at global auto manufacturing or supply chain data in the last decade. Legacy automakers are actively pouring billions into retooling their existing plants right now precisely because leveraging established vendor networks, trained labor pools, and permitted industrial real estate is infinitely cheaper than trying to build greenfield factories from the dirt up.
See, I really don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I brought up that example to point out that the government itself can’t just force a company to “pivot”, no matter how much money they throw at the project. It’s up to the car companies themselves to make those changes, at a pace they can afford. What you’re describing here, is exactly what I’ve been saying about individual companies themselves reinvesting in their own capabilities. If there are subsidies to take advantage of in order to upgrade thoae capabilities, great…but those car companies aren’t “pivoting” to completely different industries, like you seem to think they can.
Using this analogy, what the government is effectively trying to do to the defense industry, would be to stop those car companies from producing EV’s after the companies have already invested in those upgrades. And you’re here saying they should have just used all that money on other things, like healthcare or housing.
The bottom line is, none of those companies would survive a transition away from car manufacturing. Without seeing a return on that investment, they would go bankrupt. That’s not a sunk cost fallacy…it’s just how businesses work.
It is genuinely incredible to watch someone confidently type out the exact literal definition of the sunk cost fallacy while screaming that I don’t know what the sunk cost fallacy is. You literally just argued that if a company buys a specialized machine and the demand for its product disappears they still have to keep using it just to see a return on that investment. My guy that is chapter one page one of behavioral economics. A sunk cost is simply money that has already been spent and cannot be recovered. The fallacy is choosing to bankrupt yourself by continuing to run a doomed product line just because you feel bad about the loan instead of liquidating the asset or retooling. If nobody is buying your widgets anymore the bank does not care how much your bespoke widget stamper cost so you eat the loss and move on instead of throwing good money after bad.
You also keep harping on about how manufacturing equipment is magically locked into one single task forever. I have to ask if you have actually been on a modern factory floor recently. A five axis CNC mill or an automated welding line does not magically explode if you feed it a CAD file for a commercial tractor part instead of an artillery shell. Yes the specific molds and custom jigs are sunk costs but the actual heavy capital expenditure is in the facility the power infrastructure the automation systems and the trained workforce. The idea that foundational industrial capacity is completely untransferable is absolute nonsense. When major geopolitical shifts happen the industrial base pivots from building weapons to building commercial infrastructure all the time and they do it without just sitting down and crying about their tooling loans.
Then you try to salvage your EV analogy by building an absolutely massive strawman. Literally nobody is saying an automotive plant or a defense contractor needs to pivot to running a hospital or framing residential houses. The argument is that a heavy industry conglomerate with billions in capital equipment and engineers can pivot to building civilian infrastructure or commercial aerospace components. The government forces these industrial shifts constantly through procurement changes and tax incentives. If the defense department cancels a massive weapons program tomorrow the prime contractors do not just fold up and die. They reallocate their capital they bid on different contracts and they adjust their production lines because they are rational actors who actually understand how to write off a depreciating asset. You are desperately trying to invent a fantasy scenario where industrial machinery is entirely rigid just to excuse a complete lack of basic corporate adaptability.
I just can’t wait to see what sort of clown shit you’ll come up with next.
Lol! That’s hilarious. You obviously don’t know what the sunk cost fallacy even means, if you’re using it in this context. It doesn’t apply here.
If you have a factory full of equipment, and enough workers to run that equipment…how do you pay for that, without contracts? You can’t just sit there producing nothing, and expect to stay in business. Even if all of your machines were fully paid off…which is almost never the case…you would still need work to keep the lights on and the doors open.
How is that so hard to understand?
When you’re talking about sunk costs, you’re talking about investments that haven’t returned anything yet, and are unlikely to in the near future. That’s not at all what I’m talking about. If you read my comment again, you should get to the part where I said, manufacturers are constantly reinvesting in more capacity. Newer technologies. More capabilities. When machines or equipment wear out or newer technology becomes available, they cycle out the older, outdated machines and equipment for new ones. This is a gradual, but constant cycle. There are almost always machines and equipment that are still being paid off. And as soon as they’re paid for, you start the cycle again. Whatever expands your capabilities, is next on the list. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If a company isn’t reinvesting in its own capacity like that, they cannot accept more work. They have a hard limit on what can be produced in a given amount of time. The only way to produce more, is to buy newer equipment, that can produce products faster or in greater quantities. That kind of equipment is very often extremely task specific. Those capabilities are very often not transferable to other industries. That means any investments made into that equipment would be for nothing, if you had to switch tasks. You would have just paid off…or would still be paying off…equipment that can no longer be used for its intended purpose. The only way to see a return on that investment, is to use it.
And if your customers want something new, you need to have the equipment needed to make it, before they’ll give you the contract. Why would they agree to pay you for something you don’t have the capacity to produce?
Again. How is that so hard to understand?
See, I really don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I brought up that example to point out that the government itself can’t just force a company to “pivot”, no matter how much money they throw at the project. It’s up to the car companies themselves to make those changes, at a pace they can afford. What you’re describing here, is exactly what I’ve been saying about individual companies themselves reinvesting in their own capabilities. If there are subsidies to take advantage of in order to upgrade thoae capabilities, great…but those car companies aren’t “pivoting” to completely different industries, like you seem to think they can.
Using this analogy, what the government is effectively trying to do to the defense industry, would be to stop those car companies from producing EV’s after the companies have already invested in those upgrades. And you’re here saying they should have just used all that money on other things, like healthcare or housing.
The bottom line is, none of those companies would survive a transition away from car manufacturing. Without seeing a return on that investment, they would go bankrupt. That’s not a sunk cost fallacy…it’s just how businesses work.
It is genuinely incredible to watch someone confidently type out the exact literal definition of the sunk cost fallacy while screaming that I don’t know what the sunk cost fallacy is. You literally just argued that if a company buys a specialized machine and the demand for its product disappears they still have to keep using it just to see a return on that investment. My guy that is chapter one page one of behavioral economics. A sunk cost is simply money that has already been spent and cannot be recovered. The fallacy is choosing to bankrupt yourself by continuing to run a doomed product line just because you feel bad about the loan instead of liquidating the asset or retooling. If nobody is buying your widgets anymore the bank does not care how much your bespoke widget stamper cost so you eat the loss and move on instead of throwing good money after bad.
You also keep harping on about how manufacturing equipment is magically locked into one single task forever. I have to ask if you have actually been on a modern factory floor recently. A five axis CNC mill or an automated welding line does not magically explode if you feed it a CAD file for a commercial tractor part instead of an artillery shell. Yes the specific molds and custom jigs are sunk costs but the actual heavy capital expenditure is in the facility the power infrastructure the automation systems and the trained workforce. The idea that foundational industrial capacity is completely untransferable is absolute nonsense. When major geopolitical shifts happen the industrial base pivots from building weapons to building commercial infrastructure all the time and they do it without just sitting down and crying about their tooling loans.
Then you try to salvage your EV analogy by building an absolutely massive strawman. Literally nobody is saying an automotive plant or a defense contractor needs to pivot to running a hospital or framing residential houses. The argument is that a heavy industry conglomerate with billions in capital equipment and engineers can pivot to building civilian infrastructure or commercial aerospace components. The government forces these industrial shifts constantly through procurement changes and tax incentives. If the defense department cancels a massive weapons program tomorrow the prime contractors do not just fold up and die. They reallocate their capital they bid on different contracts and they adjust their production lines because they are rational actors who actually understand how to write off a depreciating asset. You are desperately trying to invent a fantasy scenario where industrial machinery is entirely rigid just to excuse a complete lack of basic corporate adaptability.
I just can’t wait to see what sort of clown shit you’ll come up with next.