Doug MacIver

@RodAVanier Why is Canada then only one of a handful of countries in the entire world (only in the G7) that is in a recession. This is all while our PM boasts that we have the BEST trade deal with the US in the world. Ya, must be Trumps fault 🤦

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

about 1 month ago

#thefutureisbright #crawfish @PBDsPodcast @patrickbetdavid @VincentOshana @RobbShowTV

Who to follow

Glen Garvin

@ggarvin

Automobile professional - Optimistic & somewhat cynical dad, sports nut, business catalyst, teacher & aspiring daily to be a better Christ follower - Tru Images

Gareth Thomas 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿👨‍💻🥁🏒

@TheStub

Geek manager and Agile evangelist. I'm happy if I'm playing with computers, drums or watching Cardiff Devils. @[email protected]

Andrew DiFeo

@FLCarguy

Managing Partner - Hyundai of St. Augustine. Angel investor

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

about 1 month ago

@itspawsibl @LevantWire Why not?

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

about 1 month ago

@Tablesalt13 @grok Brookfield or any Liberal insiders own a security firm?

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

about 2 months ago

Canada should be the richest country in the world. Full stop. Not “could be.” Not “one day.” Right now. Look at what we’re sitting on. Fourth largest oil reserves on Earth. Massive natural gas. Top global producer of potash, uranium, nickel, gold, and more. 10 of the 12 critical minerals the modern world is fighting over. This isn’t a small advantage. This is winning the lottery. And yet… People are skipping meals. Young families are stuck renting forever. Homelessness is rising in cities that used to be stable. So what gives? Because this isn’t a mystery. It’s policy. And it has a name. Mark Carney We were told he was the guy. The smartest guy in the room. The global economist. The steady hand. People bought in because of the resume. Not the results. Here’s the reality. We still don’t have the infrastructure to move our resources at scale. We still don’t have new pipeline capacity to reach global markets. We still have projects tied up in delays, regulation, and political hesitation. And while all that’s happening… He just dropped one of the largest deficits in Canadian history outside of COVID. Think about that. We are sitting on trillions in potential wealth… And choosing debt instead. That’s not bad luck. That’s a decision. And it gets worse. In his own writing and past positions, Carney has supported the idea of leaving large portions of fossil fuels in the ground as part of long-term climate strategy. If that’s the belief system driving policy, then what we’re seeing right now makes a lot more sense. You can’t become a wealthy resource nation… While actively choosing not to use your resources. And this is where the frustration is coming from. Canadians were told one thing. “Unlock the economy.” “Make life affordable.” “Use our strengths.” But what we’re getting is the opposite. More spending. More restriction. More waiting. And somehow we’re supposed to believe it’s all part of a bigger plan. Here’s the truth most people are starting to feel. We don’t have a resource problem. We have a leadership problem. Because leadership isn’t about sounding smart. It’s about producing outcomes. And right now the outcomes are clear. More struggle. Less affordability. Missed opportunity. Canada isn’t poor. It’s being managed like it is. And until that changes… Nothing else will.

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

2 months ago

@elonmusk @grok what do those letters stand for?

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

4 months ago

@THudson59618056 @Tablesalt13 Are you making an argument that this isn’t an issue?

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

4 months ago

@TrustNoOne2781 @Cornflakes67 @OlenaRohoza Seems like you are 100% a real person 🤦‍♂️

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

4 months ago

I watched Mark Carney’s announcement today on the new Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit. And I couldn’t stop thinking the same thing. Isn’t this how we got here in the first place? We’re frustrated because groceries are expensive. So the solution is to give people more money to buy those same expensive groceries. That feels backwards. I want to be clear before someone twists this. Helping people who are struggling matters. No one wants families choosing between rent and food. But at some point you have to ask a harder question. If food prices keep going up… And the government keeps handing out money to “offset” those prices… Are we actually fixing anything? Or are we just pouring fuel on the fire? When you inject more money into an economy without fixing supply, costs don’t magically fall. Demand stays high. Producers still face the same taxes, energy costs, transportation costs, and regulatory friction. So prices stay elevated. Then we repeat the cycle. Higher prices. New benefit. Bigger deficit. More inflation pressure. Rinse and repeat. What’s missing from today’s announcement is any real accountability for why food costs are so high in the first place. Why does it cost so much to grow food here? Why is fuel so expensive for farmers and truckers? Why are we layering carbon costs, regulatory costs, and compliance costs onto every step of the supply chain and then acting shocked when prices rise at the checkout? That’s the part that keeps getting ignored. Handing someone $700 or $1,400 a year might help them survive the problem. It does not solve the problem. And worse, it quietly admits defeat. It’s the government saying, “Yes, things are expensive, and we don’t know how to bring prices down, so here’s some cash to cope.” That’s not leadership. That’s management of decline. This is where the Conservative argument actually makes more sense. Lower the cost of producing food. Lower the cost of moving food. Lower the tax burden embedded in every loaf of bread, carton of milk, and bag of groceries. Focus on inputs, not payouts. You don’t beat inflation by subsidizing consumption. You beat inflation by making things cheaper to produce. You don’t make food affordable by mailing cheques forever. You make food affordable by removing the policies that made it unaffordable. People aren’t asking for handouts. They’re asking for prices that make sense again. Every benefit like this quietly locks us into a future where high prices are normal and government cheques are permanent. That should scare everyone, regardless of party. Because once the solution to everything becomes “send more money,” the bill always shows up later. And it’s usually bigger than the benefit that started it. If we want affordable food again, we have to be willing to fix the causes, not just cushion the symptoms. That means fewer headlines. Less staging. And a lot more uncomfortable policy changes. Money helps people survive. Lower prices help people live. There’s a difference.

dougmaciver's tweet photo. I watched Mark Carney’s announcement today on the new Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit.

And I couldn’t stop thinking the same thing.

Isn’t this how we got here in the first place?

We’re frustrated because groceries are expensive.
So the solution is to give people more money to buy those same expensive groceries.

That feels backwards.

I want to be clear before someone twists this.
Helping people who are struggling matters.
No one wants families choosing between rent and food.

But at some point you have to ask a harder question.

If food prices keep going up…
And the government keeps handing out money to “offset” those prices…
Are we actually fixing anything?

Or are we just pouring fuel on the fire?

When you inject more money into an economy without fixing supply, costs don’t magically fall.
Demand stays high.
Producers still face the same taxes, energy costs, transportation costs, and regulatory friction.
So prices stay elevated.

Then we repeat the cycle.

Higher prices.
New benefit.
Bigger deficit.
More inflation pressure.

Rinse and repeat.

What’s missing from today’s announcement is any real accountability for why food costs are so high in the first place.

Why does it cost so much to grow food here?
Why is fuel so expensive for farmers and truckers?
Why are we layering carbon costs, regulatory costs, and compliance costs onto every step of the supply chain and then acting shocked when prices rise at the checkout?

That’s the part that keeps getting ignored.

Handing someone $700 or $1,400 a year might help them survive the problem.
It does not solve the problem.

And worse, it quietly admits defeat.

It’s the government saying, “Yes, things are expensive, and we don’t know how to bring prices down, so here’s some cash to cope.”

That’s not leadership.
That’s management of decline.

This is where the Conservative argument actually makes more sense.

Lower the cost of producing food.
Lower the cost of moving food.
Lower the tax burden embedded in every loaf of bread, carton of milk, and bag of groceries.

Focus on inputs, not payouts.

You don’t beat inflation by subsidizing consumption.
You beat inflation by making things cheaper to produce.

You don’t make food affordable by mailing cheques forever.
You make food affordable by removing the policies that made it unaffordable.

People aren’t asking for handouts.
They’re asking for prices that make sense again.

Every benefit like this quietly locks us into a future where high prices are normal and government cheques are permanent.

That should scare everyone, regardless of party.

Because once the solution to everything becomes “send more money,” the bill always shows up later.

And it’s usually bigger than the benefit that started it.

If we want affordable food again, we have to be willing to fix the causes, not just cushion the symptoms.

That means fewer headlines.
Less staging.
And a lot more uncomfortable policy changes.

Money helps people survive.
Lower prices help people live.

There’s a difference.

108

Doug MacIver

@dougmaciver

4 months ago

This is the moment a lot of people finally realized their car isn’t really theirs anymore. In January, over 100,000 vehicles in Germany lost features overnight. No recall. No dealer visit. No broken hardware. Just an over the air update. Toyota, including Lexus, remotely disabled remote start and pre-heating on a massive number of combustion-engine vehicles. Not new cars. Cars already sold. Cars already paid for. Cars already sitting in driveways. Why? Because German regulators interpret remote start as illegal idling. Under long-standing emissions and traffic laws, running an engine without a “compelling reason” is prohibited. Remote starting the car to warm it up or defrost it counts as unnecessary engine operation. Exhaust is emitted. Fuel is burned. CO2 is released. So the feature was shut off. Remotely. Toyota said the move was to protect owners from fines. Regulators reportedly contacted manufacturers and pressured compliance. Thanks to connected apps and OTA updates, the solution was simple. Flip the switch. Owners woke up during a cold snap, opened their apps, and the button was gone. No warning. No opt-out. Just removed. You can still start the car once you’re inside. You just lost the option you paid for. EVs and plug-in hybrids were exempt, since pre-conditioning uses battery power instead of engine idling. That detail matters, because it shows where this is heading. This wasn’t a dramatic new law. It wasn’t a government agent touching your car. It was software. And that’s the part people should be paying attention to. For most of automotive history, ownership was straightforward. You bought the vehicle. You chose the options. You controlled it. Now cars are software platforms on wheels. Apps. Subscriptions. Remote permissions. Over the air updates. And once a vehicle is fully connected, control quietly shifts. We’ve already seen this play out with phones. Features move into software. Connectivity becomes mandatory. Updates become constant. Then ownership turns into conditional access. That’s why there’s now real demand for dumb phones. Not because people hate technology. Because they want autonomy. I think the same thing is coming for cars. Because this doesn’t stop at emissions rules. In 2023, Ford filed a patent outlining autonomous self-repossession concepts. Just a patent. Not implemented. Not announced for production. But read what it includes. Miss payments and the car could disable “non-essential” features like air conditioning, radio, GPS, or cruise control to pressure the owner. Ignore that and it could fully disable itself. In an autonomous future, the car could drive itself to a repossession facility. Sensors and cameras could detect interference and transmit location data. Again, this is not live technology. But patents show intent. They show what companies believe could be normal someday. People online are already connecting the dots. Concerns aren’t just about Ford. They’re about any future connected vehicle from companies like Tesla, where missing a payment or violating a policy doesn’t mean a tow truck shows up. It means the car decides to leave. That’s a fundamental shift. Ownership used to mean control. Now it increasingly means permission. I’m not anti-technology. I’m not anti-EV. I’m not romanticizing carburetors for fun. But I am deeply skeptical of a future where a product you already bought can be altered, restricted, or removed remotely to satisfy regulators, lenders, or policy goals. Especially without your consent. I genuinely believe we’re heading toward a split market. One side will embrace fully connected vehicles and all the convenience that comes with them. The other will actively seek older, simpler cars. No apps. No subscriptions. No updates. No surprises. Just a machine that does tomorrow what it did yesterday. Because once a car can decide when it stops being yours, ownership becomes a lease you never agreed to.