C’mon guys this is such an easy win for us as a country. Justin went a little too far with his style of governing for a lot of you and now the liberals have voted this guy to be it’s leader and new PM. This is who we want to lead us into the second half of the 20th century, this guy is so fucking smart. Pierre just sings slogans and simple pretty things that sound nice but in reality he’s just going to sell us off to American interests and cut the things that help working people.
If you’re a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney’s your guy for sure, but I don’t think it’s necessary to invent a conspiracy theory to explain why markets understand that Trump actually going through with it and imposing massive tariffs on all trade with America would be very bad news for the US dollar and Treasuries.
“If you’re a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney’s your guy for sure…”
I think both Pierre and Carney fit this description.
However one will cheer on the 51st state and one will lead a stable economyNo, it doesn’t. There are two important differences.
PP is a devotee of the cult of the free market, that markets are best and all we need to do is remove restrictions on them. Carney believes markets should serve to people, that the end goal isn’t just naked efficiency but they we need market forces directed to get human-centric outcomes.
This is extensively covered in Carney’s 2021 book “Values” which I encourage everyone to read in order to understand the important differences in these approaches. Carney’s approach is an explicit rejection of the idiotic free market cultism of PP and his ilk.
Another critical difference is in competence. Carney is an experienced leader who was so well-regarded in his field that the UK selected him as the first ever non-local to run the Bank of England. Whereas PP can’t even manage to handle questions from friendly press, let alone lead something.
So no, they are not the same. You might still want to prefer an explicitly socialist approach that rejects markets entirely, which is a legitimate perspective for sure. But aside from the revolution party no one is really advocating that at the federal level.
The difference, fundamentally, is that Carney studies markets, while Milhouse worships them.
The nuance I’d add is that while free markets are efficient, serving the public good is more important than the purest efficiency.
As an example, an unrestricted free market incentivizes the development of monopolies. This can be efficient and in the extremely long term these monopolies may fall to disruptive new entrants — but we humans live in the present and take little solace in the idea that the monopolist will someday get too bloated and fall. We just want to afford groceries!
So using competition bureau powers, we can restrict those markets. This may subtract from some extreme market efficiency but that’s an efficiency only the monopolist benefits from in a useful time frame.
The same principles are true in many other areas of the economy.
To add to this, as result of these differences, Carney might be able to extend the shelf life of the established capitalist system. PP on the other hand is going to accelerate its decline towards more inequality, poverty and instability. So from the perspective of preserving the system itself, Carney is the guy.
If Carney gets a majority and is unable to substantively turned things around, I’m giving up on capitalism.
I sincerely believe we will never have a better candidate to represent the perspective of directed market economics. As the sportsball chant goes: “If he can’t do it, no one can.”
It’s not so much capitalism as it is the premiers being literal throns in our countries side when it comes to progress (Alberta and Sask). They will threaten to “leave Canada” because of some bullshit reasoning that changing our economy from a petrol one to a green one will be bad for the economy. Meanwhile it will only generate new growth and stability for everyone who invests in it. Carney KNOWS this
The challenge for the prairies is that we need to undo the brain rot that has told the people in those provinces their only future is in servicing American oil extractors.
There is a story for these provinces. The Norwegian or Saudi model of having the oil extraction being state-owned — and then using the profits to enrich the population — has been tremendously successful.
Alberta and Saskatchewan control these rights in their provinces and the centre and left should be screaming this from the hilltops. The oil and minerals are non-renewable and they should focus on getting value to enrich their own populations, not rush to produce at a discount in order to enrich American shareholders.
Bingo. Alas all they consume is brain rot
Capitalism very much has large internal problems that require unending relentless work to keep from undermining it. So it’s very much a problem itself. Then the problems you highlight add to the challenge. 😂
Mass immigration into an existing housing shortage is not “capitalism”. Inverting the Phillips curve via mass immigration is huge government overreach.
Well put and I second the encouragement to read his book. If nothing else it will help one understand Economics a little better.
Which is separate from saying everyone should agree with it.
I’d love to see a similarly highly-competent socialist economics nerd leading the NDP in our future.
Agreed.
I would just love to see highly-competent people in politics across the board. We need less career politicians, and ideologues, and more experts in their fields running the show.
In the middle of it now and it’s only made me want this guy as our PM even more. But honestly most people today couldn’t read a book to save their life
Agreed on the first point, his book is a very good argument for him to be PM. But I wouldn’t say “Couldn’t read” to save their life, but unwilling to read that which they don’t already assume they will agree with. Which is a problem across the political spectrum unfortunately.
That’s is true, but honestly I know VERY few people irl that actually own books other than their textbooks from college or uni. They all scroll and get their news and Infor from Instagram or tiktok. It’s fucked and makes me incredibly worried about the future and it being full of people with the attention span of a walnut
I think you may need to surround yourself with better people, or work to influence the ones you already know in a positive way.
Mostly agreed but I would say that there’s plenty of room in all kinds of ways for a more unconventional approach to economics than what Mr. Carney proposes without going all the way to “reject markets entirely.”
than what Mr. Carney proposes without going all the way to “reject markets entirely.”
I think there’s a vast gulf between absolutely unregulated ‘free’ markets of the typical cruel blue, and ‘reject markets entirely’. Just because the Cons typically play in the farthest anti-people range of the spectrum doesn’t mean everything that places any value on society over those markets is immediately rejecting markets entirely. There’s a lot of room for a gov to do anything beneficial to its people, and thus appear to be way more social than the cons’ typical position, and still not be anti-capitalist.
Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination on my part.
What I see from the NDP for example are extremely poorly considered centre-left policies that don’t go far enough but yet at the same time are ignorant of the economics they want to continue working within.
Take for example their proposal for national rent control. This is a disastrously ignorant policy proposal inside the context of a market economy as it will instruct the markets to halt any future construction of rental units.
Whereas I believe what they need to be doing is either what Carney is proposing, or giving up on the idea of markets entirely and using socialist tools to directly build the homes that the market has failed to build.
But I’ll take your advice to heart and listen if someone comes up with an alternative I’ve not considered.
It certainly would be nice if the NDP could learn to speak convincingly about economics, that’s for sure. Understanding how things work is a prerequisite to making the right changes.
The Green party sometimes finds itself in the general area of what I had in mind. Take a look at their plan for housing for example. In my view though, broader changes are required to break the stranglehold that entrenched oligopolies have on most of the Canadian economy. Concentration of market power is reaching new extremes, and it’s going to take serious changes to correct that. Keep in mind that “using money” and “having markets” do not necessarily mean capitalism at all, let alone capitalism as we know it.
There’s a whole world of ideas about how to run things differently that get talked about elsewhere and get no play in mainstream Canadian politics. All the usual social democratic stuff but also wilder things like MMT or variants of Georgism for instance. There are many possibilities and I don’t claim to know exactly which ones are best, but I wish the Overton window wasn’t quite so absurdly narrow as it is when it comes to this stuff. Maybe a competent manager of the status quo is the best we can hope for out of electoral politics for now, but sooner or later we’re going to need someone with big new ideas.
Maybe a competent manager of the status quo is the best we can hope for out of electoral politics for now, but sooner or later we’re going to need someone with big new ideas.
Well said. 100% agree.
Take for example their proposal for national rent control.
I prefer to call it “that thing that has worked in some provinces for decades”, but okay.
These policies have abjectly failed with extremely harmful consequences.
Rent control is a very useful short-term bandage, to prevent a blip in the market from pricing people out of their homes.
What it isn’t, is a long-term solution inside a market system. After decades of rent control, developers have become largely disinterested in pursuing new rental units as it strictly limits the financial upside for them.
People who have been in these units get benefits, but with these benefits come serious drawbacks. Because rent control allows them to live beyond their means (relative to market prices), people in rent controlled units are stuck. They cannot find a comparable home if they want to move for a better job, to go to school or training elsewhere, to get out a bad domestic partnership situation, to find a different sized home because of life stage changes.
So yes I get that it feels good, and it absolutely helps in the short term. But it’s urgent that market prices come down as well. And while Carney is working on the market solution for this, the NDP or some other emergent group has ample room to come up with a comprehensive socialist alternative for this as well.
Capitalists do not have a monopoly on economic policies. Marx was an economist (amongst other things), for crying out loud. They can, they should, have a well-considered policy platform. For the love of gourd, NDP, don’t let a banker who works at a hedge fund have a better socialist policy on housing. It’s worse than embarrassing, it’s a goddamn travesty.
Perhaps a market approach to housing is the core of the problem. I don’t know, and I’m just tossing out an idea triggered by the repeated explicit assumption you’re making (“inside a market system”). I am tossing out the idea in the spirit of cooperative “yes, and…” discussion, I am not challenging your point, and I am not interested in debate, but rather, conceptual exploration to see what ideas might emerge. (If you know De Bono’s work, what I am saying is, “po housing is not based on a market system”).
I don’t know the details of that, but I’m skeptical. Nothing about the housing system has worked great lately.
That’s how I feel about the NDP aswell. They are basically all talk without any of the economic realities. Carney KNOWS how markets work and how we can harness them to create wealth and prosperity while building a net Zero future, by making it PROFITABLE to do so.
deleted by creator
aswell
Putting out another regular reminder that there’s multiple incompatible definitions of capitalism.
I think Pierre has something a bit more Putinesque in mind. I can’t even say it would a libertarian free-for-all, because he’s big on strict rules to protect his favoured industries and people.
If you don’t want capitalism, depending on definition, you have to go for a fringe party.
You don’t have to be a “fan of the established order of capitalism” to see that moving towards authoritarian hyper-nationalism, destroying international trade relations, and tanking the economy to consolidate power for oligarchs is bad.
If you’re a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney’s your guy for sure
Carney is a Keynesian and would probably prefer a 1950s or 60s style capitalism than what we have right now.
Except when he was advising Trudeau we ran huge deficits every single year. I’ve never heard him say anything Keynesian.
when he was advising Trudeau
You mean since all the way back in the… fall of 2024?
5 years now actually.
You’re counting his informal COVID response advice? That’s stretching the truth to the breaking point.
Justin was the right leader at the time he was elected, but his ‘best before’ date had certainly come and gone. Politics really wears one down. American politics wears down a Canadian leader even more. But Justin did stand up to Trump and won in the last round of trade negotiations with America.
Fell flat on his face in the Meng Wanzhou, affair, however. The Michaels were clearly targeted because of their American connections - one with the Democrats the other seriously tied to the Republicans. Lawful and legitimate targets for the Chinese, they fit perfectly into the requirements - influential Canadian citizens who were very close to American politicians and under the American State Department umbrella. Justin knew (or should have known) that, and he fell right into an American cesspit that there was absolutely no good way out of for Canada.
Methinks also his Catholicism and the political fighting between the Pope and China at the time had something to do with the animosity, as well. Really, selecting as the Canadian ambassador to China, a devout Roman Catholic official who is a staunch supporter of and even leader in the Roman Catholic Church bid for domination of the world religious order, during this crucial time? Smells entirely of Justin putting his religion ahead of sound international diplomacy. China never got over that slight, and held it over Justin and Canada ever since. China hit Canada hard, economically, for that.
The world has changed since he was first selected as PM, and the new era requires a different leadership style. A ‘just watch me’ decisiveness of his dad, but without the arrogance. Carney has that style. When he lead the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he got things done while outmaneuvering the politicians. And he understands more than any other world leader today about how money and the economy work. A ‘social responsibility conscience’. we will have to wait and see, but that is what the Green party is for.
Carney is essentially a conservative (except for socially) by most metrics.
He handled Trump really well in his first month but there is legitimate risk he has private (as opposed to public) interests at heart.
I guess that’s better than the alternative (Poilievre) who will undoubtedly prioritise private interests. At least there’s a chance Carney might do some good.
Hoping for a liberal minority government. Canada is very fortunate to have a third party (NDP) to keep their mainstream “progressive” party in check. We’ve seen how things have gone to shit in the US.
Carney is what a conservative BELEIVES they are. Economically sound. Which they have never been for a long long time, and he’s perfect for this job in this moment. Pierre Polievere is a fucking moron and whoever actually believes his bullshit is cooked to a crisp and has zero critical thinking skill or a broad understanding of economics
Carney is essentially a conservative (except for socially) by most metrics.
What metrics have you used to paint Carney in this light?
He handled Trump really well in his first month but there is legitimate risk he has private (as opposed to public) interests at heart.
What information do you have that demonstrates Carney is a legitimate risk to public interests?
I guess that’s better than the alternative (Poilievre) who will undoubtedly prioritise private interests. At least there’s a chance Carney might do some good.
Is the chance Carney does “some good” higher than the “legitimate risk to public interests”, and what information are you basing this comparison on?
Hoping for a liberal minority government. Canada is very fortunate to have a third party (NDP) to keep their mainstream “progressive” party in check. We’ve seen how things have gone to shit in the US.
We have seen what happens with a Liberal Minority propped up with the NDP, which is the bare minimum.
Why do you believe it will go better a second time?
A liberal government propped up by the NDP saw us have one of the best COVID recoveries out of the developed world. It saw us get childcare, pharmacare, dentalcare, and the first home savings account. They made student loans interest free, gave more tax breaks to the working class and produced a school foods program… Would you say these are not all monumental achievements that most developed nations in Europe has had for decades?
Here’s an official source on how bad Canada is doing when adjusting for mass immigration:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2024004/article/00001-eng.htm
Meanwhile asset holders became filthy rich coincidentally, as the UN called us modern slavers.
Three years and they did the bare minimum.
My wife is a diabetic and has seen 0 benefits from pharmacare, my medication isn’t covered and won’t be anytime soon, dental is a joke, poor people need money to save for a savings account to matter, childcare is spotty at best, tax breaks help no one because taxes fund infrastructure, the school foods program is great however it is also not universal.
They had three years and did the bare minimum, and it was barely because of the NDP.
All these complaints about the delivery of these programs are on the provinces. They are the ones who administer it, so that’s their fault but people don’t seem to be getting that through their thick ass skulls and instead hear Pierre talk about how more spending on these things is what’s making everything more expensive and they’re buying it. Pharmacare is something that has just been getting going and being signed onto in various provinces within the last year, dental care has now been expanded to all those households that make 90K after taxes IF their province has agreed to the program.
Because that’s how Canada works at its core, it is run by the provinces in almost every facet of your daily life. And the federal government is there to fund and protect them and the environment and handle indigenous relations… This is a very serious disconnect in how the people of this country think it functions.
No the complaints are straight at the feds here as the programs aren’t easily administered, and to be frank, you can take the Pierre talk elsewhere because I don’t listen to that jerk off and think for myself. I use my own eyes to watch the circus (ourcommons.ca @parlvu) and I read the bills proposed. Assuming that because I understand the programs are basically fucking worthless and I expect far more from a Government who could have passed literally anything else and do it much better I must be listening to Pierre or ignorant of how Canadian politics work is asinine.
Then I see you are a month old account and I am not at all shocked. We are done here.
He hasn’t done anything yet lol. Maybe these clowns wouldn’t rob you blind and give it all to corporations if you were so won over by nothing but talking points 🤦♂️
I don’t think the liberals are just offering talking points. They are talking unity, which is what we need right now, and even before Carney the liberals were taking strides to fix our problems but you were all just eating up instagram and tiktok reels with Pierre spitting bullshit at you like: THE CARBON TAX ELECTION
what has PP done that isnt a talking point?
let’s recall that we’re not yet a two party country
This is who we want to lead us into the second half of the 20th century,
I can’t make this sentence make any sense.
“this is the man that we want leading us into the second half of the 20th century”
But we’re not in the 20th century and we’re only just crossing into the second quarter.
Clearly we made a wrong turn and should start heading back towards 1999 as quickly as possible.
I believe it was clearly meant to be 21st century lol
So Carney is going to be around for another 25 years until the second half of the 21st century, lol clearly?
It’s 2025. Letting the foundation now would indeed set us up to be ready by 2050 and beyond…
1.5 million immigrants in a year isn’t a “little too far”. The UN called it modern slavery.
Carney also seemingly wants to continue it.
When asked whether Canada can afford a pro-immigration policy, Carney responded, “The short answer is yes we can – and arguably, we can’t afford not to.”
Carney emphasizes integrating the 4+ million newcomers who arrived in recent years, focusing on transitioning temporary residents (TRs) to permanent residents (PRs).
If you want to help the poor then reducing demand is the first step, obviously matching immigration to housing supply would have been smart.
1.5 million immigrants in a year isn’t a “little too far”. The UN called it modern slavery.
This is misleading and arguably just a lie. AFAICT, the UN did not infer anything from the amount of immigration, only from the conditions and treatment of the immigrants: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140437 – those two things may have some connection, but it is obviously mediated.
If you want to help the poor then reducing demand is the first step
According to what economic or social theory? Why isn’t progressive taxation, redistribution, improved social welfare, stimulating industry, or improving education the first step?
Why do you assume that the problem is caused by the poor people seeking opportunity rather than caused by the landlords and corporate oligarchs extracting profit?
Its very simple, you’re importing people faster than you’re building homes. What level of brain rot do you have to have to deny that is dramatically increasing demand, are you eating road kill like RFK?
Heck the CMHC and the bank of Canada have outlined it clearly, do you deny our own institutions as well?
I believe the foreign temporary worker program was definately being abused and that’s what they were talking about… Regular immigration is not bad and Canada needs it desperately
Youth unemployment in Toronto is near 15%.
Unless you mean we need something resembling slave labor with poor salaries, worker rights, and housing to increase corporate profits?
There was a labor shortage, as per the Phillips curve, but the Bank of Canada raised rates to cool the economy and to lower the money supply. The shortage is long gone.
Demand-side economics is not what we need; we need supply-side economics. The market isn’t making enough houses on its own.
Why put the cart before the horse, increase housing FIRST.
I swear you people just hate the poor. The single mother needs to be sacrificed at the alter of GDP growth.
I’m not sure I understand. Increasing housing is what I am arguing in favour of.
Clearly don’t understand the appeal of the conservatives policies at all if that’s how you simply view them. No party’s perfect, but the cons are largely responsible for many of the moves carney has made. Consumer carbon tax is an example of that.
Even the consumer carbon tax being removed is a dumb thing. It was only done to shut the conservatives up because all they were doing was kicking up misinformation about it. The carbon tax literally impacted the richest of us more than the working class, the working class even gained more money from it as we move away from ICE’s and more towards EVs and hybrids, heat pumps, etc.
The only appeal the conservatives have are for the richest of the country really. No GST on new homes if you’re a first time home buyer OR NOT. How does that help? That just means rich people can get a 5% break on buying new houses to sell off or rent out. Their tax cut? While the most out of all the other parties, will also cost the most and where are they going to get that money from? Take a guess. And then the declaration of using the not withstanding clause, opening that can of worms just so they can overrule the charter and constitition to be “tough on crime” it’s rediculous.
The NDP and bloc and greens have far better platforms then the cons but people who vote conservative are too fucking stupid to vote for anyone else, or just simply read for that matter
Sorry, I completely disagree with you.
How exactly do you disagree with them? They were more stating facts than opinions.
People don’t like confronting the disturbing facts of reality and instead reject reality and substitute their own
The consumer carbon tax was the most minor of minor problems in the consumer economy but Poliviere paints it as the end of civilization as we know it. Now he’s shifted to industrial carbon tax (which mainstream economists all agree don’t hurt the consumer much if at all) and other taxes that he wants to “axe” again for being the end of civilization as we know it. None of which by the way he advocated against until recently. He’s so painfully obviously in the pocked of big oil.
And people love to gloss over the fact that the industrial tax NEEDS to be there in order for us to diversify and increase trade with the EU, a modern advanced society. Meanwhile PP just loves to claim that we will get rid of it and… Do nothing? That’s because the Conservative party have flat out voted that climate change is not real. Completely anti science bullshit. If anyone is from the days of the PCs, they would vote for Carney
I highly recommend taking a look through pages like this: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/platform-crunch-3-every-party-is-promising-tax-cuts-and-cash-transfers/
Its really interesting to see how the proposed changes actually benefit different income brackets. TLDR: Proposed income tax changes from the Conservatives and Liberals predominantly benefit the richest tax bracket(s). If you happen to be in those tax brackets, I can see how conservative policies might ‘appeal’ to that demographic.
In general, when parties propose tax cuts (unless very thoughtfully targeted), they benefit the rich - who already have ample financial resources to pay for things they might need (like healthcare, private education for their children, etc.), while those who get net benefit from taxation through services are net losers from tax cuts… Because cutting taxes necessitates some reductions in service funding to balance the books. (I’m always fascinated when low income voters vote conservative as opposed to NDP.)
Weird take. Yes, the consumer carbon tax sure. But look at housing, Carney has one of the most ambitious plans in the developed world, the cons’ is more of the same with minor tweaks. Admittedly, Polievre borrowed Carney’s removal of duplicate reviews… But other stuff, like expanding resources East West have been pursued by both parties for years but mostly died against opposition from the provinces.
It’s why Polievre is reduced to cheap stunts like provoking a constitutional battle to extra punish murderers or stupid sound bite policies like 3 strikes which have been repealed in most (if not all) places they’ve been tried.
Plus Pierre just wants to remove the GST on ALL new homes, not just for first time home buyers (who aren’t really buying a new home anyways). BUT, with Carney’s plan to rapidly increase the construction of homes and make them denser, with new methods and materials, of done correctly, could mean that a first time homebuyer a few years from now COULD potentially buy one of those new houses/townhouses.
He also understands that you must spur the private capital investment into these sectors with public money, but not to fund in completely. We need to build affordable housing yes, but we just need to make the construction of houses cheaper overall. And for home to say we’re going to use Canadian lumber only will help our lumber industry during this Turbulent trade situation with our biggest customer.
It will create jobs, create growth, and create a more affordable life overall with their housing plan. Pierre is a free market radical meanwhile Carney wants to harness that free market potential and concentrate it to work FOR us. Hence his book “Values” which I highly recommend anyone reading this to check out, even in audio form. This dude is the guy every conservative has been whining for, an economic juggernaut to build Canada for the 21st century
BUT, with Carney’s plan to rapidly increase the construction of homes
The LPC plan promises to increase the rate of construction to 500k units a year by 2035. CMHC says we need 3.5 million units by 2030 to return housing to affordable levels. Those two numbers aren’t close enough.
Similarly, the plan relies on private builders for construction. Assuming they keep their current profit incentives, that maintains a significant cost to new construction.
Surprisingly, the plan doesn’t address the shortage of skilled trades, either through training or immigration. The shrinking workforce will slow the rate of construction or installation of prefab homes.
The plan to bulk buy construction materials may have value, but I’m not sure that will have a significant impact on the final sticker price of a home.
The two pager released for the election doesn’t explain how the promises will lower prices. It asks us to believe that building 500k units/ year by 2035 will lower prices without explaining how. I’m skeptical.
With the increasing of construction there is an immediate need to invest in tradespeople. That isn’t something missing from the liberals, every party is on the same page in that regard. The cutting of GST on first time home buyers and easing municipal bylaws and taxes on homes will lower construction costs. If they want to have funding by the government to connect their new housing plans to existing infrastructure as to lessen the burden on the municipalities and the costs taken on by the builder, fine, as long as they state that this must be for affordable or have a profit cap on the construction of that home that has been able to be built by the federal funds used.
I’ll tell first hand that the construction industry is fucking greedy and they are liars. We will price a job out and jack the mark up to 20-30, even 40%%, and they are still going up, because they are all in agreement. That they can ride the gravy train of “things just keep getting more expensive”.
This debate just highlighted that any working class conservatives who are fed up with the liberals, should be voting for the NDP… And any richer, upper middle class conservatives should be voting for the liberals, and only the goddamn greediest mother fuckers would want the conservatives to win. They refuse to acknowledge that we cannot spend the next 10 years building a fucking 4000km pipeline for oil to the east coast… We don’t NEED to ship oil out east, we need to ship oil out west if anything.
Anyways, the debate was very good and really gave us a good look at the party leaders. But I just see Carney as being the guy for those middle of the road conservatives who are socially progressive but fiscally conservative, especially after ten year of JT.
