3mo ago

Carney Is Proving To Be An Economic Juggernaut

www.snopes.com

Unpacking claims that Canadian PM Mark Carney orchestrated a US Treasurys sell-off

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.

76 comments

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 economy
  
  No, 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.
  
  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.
- 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.
- 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.
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?
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.
- 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?
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?
- 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 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.
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.
- 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

76 comments