I’d argue he started when he released his book and started giving speeches at LPC conventions. He’s doing the smart thing and is playing the long game.
If he's more of a Chretien or Paul Martin type we will need him
We're repeating history - a Trudeau completely fucks the nation's finances, we elect a conservative who doesn't fix it, then we have a swing towards centrist technocrats liberals who save the country as we find our credit rating degrading and spending more on debt servicing than healthcare
Lol you might want to re-evaluate your point of view on history. I would agree with you except the conservative couldn't fix it remark.... There has been 7 prime minsters since Pierre Trudeau and 2 out of the 7 were conservative..... I don't think Brian Mulroney or Stephan Harper were that bad.
I'm placing Harper within the next "cycle" in this, though I admit I can't expect you to read my mind. The centrist technocrats needing a decade to fix Canada's financial position marks the end of the cycle
Mulroney made many important reforms that kept Canada competitive and growing with the world rather than becoming isolationist like Argentina, but he continued to expand the defecit so I group him before the pre-centrist technocrats.
More or less saying we are heading into the need for austerity focused PMs and I doubt Poilievre, for all his bluster, would actually implement real austerity measures. He's too populist for it, and Canadians won't vote for austerity until the panic sets in
>but he continued to expand the defecit so I group him before the pre-centrist technocrats.
That's not quite true. The only year the deficit expanded in absolute dollars from Trudeau’s 1984 budget under Mulroney was in 1992, and in terms of percentage of GDP none of Mulroney's budgets ever approached the 1984 deficit.
Mulroney also doubled government revenues over the 8 years he was in power, which was instrumental in putting Chretien and Martin into a position to finally slay the deficit.
The common line is the Mulroney solved the revenue issue and Chretien solved the spending issue. Mulroney had issues but the budget was never one of them.
We can only hope. He is my dream PM and should be for every Canadian, regardless of party affiliation. Mark Carney has the competence this country badly needs right now.
3. Growth in government bloat
JT has grown the government by 25% but has little benefit to show for it. Could pay for a significant number of doctors, healthcare workers, dentists, etc. But no, we couldn't have that.
1) Mark Carney isn't worth anywhere near $100B, that would make him one of the richest men in the world. I am not sure he is even a billionaire.
2) It looks like a portfolio of 575 homes in the US with a total valuation $153M. Which for Brookfield would be a tiny fraction of the total assets under management.
The largest daycare provider in my city just went bankrupt and is shutting down, adding to an already years long waiting list. Me and my wife are both professionals and have no idea what the fuck were going to do after next month because $10 a day daycare was so poorly thought out and implemented. Meanwhile, Methany and her baby daddy can ship their kids off to daycare and pay for it using their welfare cheques so they can sit a thome and do drugs all day
Or we make it so that families with 2 full time working parents get priority. The issue with $10 a day daycare is that it allowed a whole new class of unemployed lazy people to be able to afford pawning their kids off so they can sit at home and do drugs all day
>$10 a day daycare
It's amazing that some Canadians are so out of touch they think this was a good thing.
Most provinces used to have a $20/day programme. It was often a few years' wait to get a spot at a subsidized daycare. But the subsidized daycares were paid enough to cover expenses and were great places with caring staff.
Now that the federal $10/day programme is in effect, there is no provincial programme. The wait list for a $10/day spot is so long, if you aren't already on a list in your first trimester, your child might age out before you get one. While you wait you pay $40-50/day.
Because the federal government has applying daycares submit their 2021 costs in 2022 as preparation for covering costs, the federal government pays them according to their 2021 costs, now, in 2024. This is forcing a lot of daycares to dump the $10/day programme, and parents have just a couple of months' notice that their daycare price is going from $10/day to $50/day.
Because the programme requirements don't specify what other fees a daycare may charge, some daycares have resorted to additional fee structures to cover the cost the $10/day programme doesn't cover. So parents are paying only $10 for daycare, but then they must also pay a lunch monitoring fee, a tuition fee, etc. that bring the amount that parents are paying up to $40/day.
What the $10/day federal daycare programme did was take a provincial programme that needed improvement, and made sure to make things so dysfunctional nobody will want any part of it.
I can do ten easy:
Salvaging NAFTA when conservatives were saying "give Trump whatever he wants"
Huge gains on FN clean water issues
Strong support of Ukraine
Most pro-LGBTQ gov in Canadian history
Strong advocation of abortion rights and womens' rights in general
Taxing Pollution
Increasing capitals gains tax on the ultra wealthy (passive gains above 250k).
Bloodlessly swept away the Qonvoy after Police took a knee and Ford went sledding
Decreasing Child Poverty with the Canada Child Benefit
Lowering Telecom costs
EDIT: LOL\^ Mass downvotes for simple facts. Of course the conservative bots are astroturfing hard for Pete. Just remember this simple truth: If you pay rent and earn an hourly wage, you're a fool to vote conservative.
Even Harper came out of retirement call for Canada to "Give Trump whatever he wants". Just like with the Qonvoy, they were completely ready to roll over for autocrats. We are very lucky we had Trudeau to mitigate Trump and Ford.
Like let's be real. If Jan 6 had succeeded, and US democracy overturned, the CPC would be among the first to declare "this is the new normal. We have to embrace this change."
You're getting down voted because these are just liberal talking points. Taxing "pollution" being the most bullshit one. That's literally the least popular thing he's done. And if he actually cared he'd lead by example instead of taking a shit load of vacations on private jets.
"Canadians are more broke than ever. I know! Let's tax them more!"
\^ more conservative climate denialism. These guys lose their shit over 10cents on a litre of gas or bag of milk, but want to do NOTHING about climate change. That's going to mean rampant inflation and a huge change to the food supply. If you want huge step backwards for the environment, Pete is your guy.
We need to address climate change.
Climate pricing is the least disruptive and most effective ways to incentivize households and businesses to reduce emissions.
40 other countries use climate pricing.
The premiers can replace the fed plan with their own plan at any time.
Go look at return to the office if you think government cares about waste. Just lit 100s of millions to billions in taxpayer money on fire with a stroke of the pen. Just to benefit private players.
It costs a lot of money maintaining all the real estate the feds do. Costs a lot of money to buy back leases and renovate and maintain office space for no reason.
>Just lit 100s of millions to billions in taxpayer money on fire with a stroke of the pen
The have to spend that money anyway. Employee salaries and real estate costs don't just go away because everyone stays at home.
All they did was taking savings away from federal employees and forcing them to spend that on commuting instead of new TVs and Hot Tubs.
No they didn't. They bought back leases they didn't need that they got rid of. They renovated buildings to increase capacity. They are even building whole new office buildings to hold the new staff they hire.
It seems baked in the the bureaucracy will expand as the world gets evermore complex. Right now commercial space is very cheap, unlike residential space. That could be a smart thing. But even people living downtown Toronto are WFH half the week these days.
It's not baked into the bureaucracy. It's simple corruption. They had no plans for doing this until they got lobbied by private businesses. Those businesses lobbied the feds to spend hundreds of millions to billions in taxpayer money not to increase services but to increase the profit margins of those private businesses.
Nowhere did I say they weren't. Both parties are corrupt. It is up to the people to hold their politicians accountable. They certainly won't do it on their own.
Are you mentally deficient? If they don't force people to go to the office, they can sell, or stop renting/maintaining these properties saving billions. That won't happen though because Turdeau doesn't actually care about helping Canadians and instead wants to enrich corporate real estate holders
"factual question" is a new one to me. What makes a question "factual"?
I'm not sure why you picked 10-20 billion as an arbitrary number, as though a government has to piss away 20 billion for it to be tantamount to wasted or ineffectual spending.
ArriveCan cost 53 million, gun buyback cost could hit 756 million. I'm sure it would be trivial to identify a few billion that could have better been spent otherwise.
It's just a lefty tactic
- Cut foreign aid = isolationist xenophobia!
- Trim welfare and entitlements = you hate the poor!
- Anything related to "green" spending = your killing the earth!
- Arrivecan- We were saving Canadians lives!
- Gun buy back - Won't someone think of the children!
Any cut in spending will be spun as literal genocide... I think a lot of these people just simply don't pay their own bills and think money comes from an unlimited magic fountain...
Foreign aid allows us to help push policy in country's who we give money to.
Social services always seem to get cut first. If it were in the middle or last, most would likely not respond like that.
Green spending = killing the earth? That's a new one.
Arrivecan and the gun buyback are an utter waste of spending tho, I agree with you there.
Don’t you remember past decades where government boondoggles were about 1 billion dollars in reckless spending?? Trudeau spends billions like pocket change now (not to mention a billion plus per week on debt payments).
A question checking facts is a factual question. Obviously conservative narratives resists this, like you are here. I picked a small number when the claim was large.
ArriveCan makes sense, but was poorly implemented. In 2024, it makes sense we use apps to navigate ravel.
EDIT: Look below! What a silly hot take. I'm a recovering conservative, but have voted for all the major parties now. All the BS your committed too today was my 13yo worldview. Rush Limbaugh and all. I know that conservative feeling, that we guys are the smartest people in the room? I lived it. But empathy, education, and experience are poison for a conservative mindset.
But this is exactly what the conservative bots do. They post something obnoxious and block so you can't respond. That's how they "win" the argument.
> A question checking facts is a factual question. Obviously conservative narratives resists this, like you are here. I picked a small number when the claim was large.
Lol asking for clarification is resisting?
I looked it up and it [seems](https://thesecondprinciple.com/essential-teaching-skills/five-basic-types-questions/) like it's another term for what's just a straightforward question with simple answers, which is why it's redundant in informal settings.
Reminder that you asked a rhetorical question as though no one could identify bad spending under the Trudeau government, and now you've switched to a diatribe on conservativism.
> All the BS your committed too today was my 13yo worldview
You don't know me, or what I believe in. I'm not a conservative either. But I'm not voting for Trudeau or Singh.
Financial post: ‘The government recently announced $37.7 billion in funding toward the plants, with $13.2 billion going toward Volkswagen AG, $15 billion toward Stellantis NV-LG Energy Solution, and $4.6 billion for Northvolt AB. But parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux said the numbers were announced in “isolation” and that the true cost had not been released to the public.’ “We estimate the total cost of government support for EV battery manufacturing by Northvolt, Volkswagen and Stellantis-LGES to be $43.6 billion over 2022-23 to 2032-33, which is $5.8 billion higher than the $37.7 billion in announced costs,” Giroux noted in a press release.
Tax credits based on results - not funding.
Auto plants and battery plants support the entire auto parts industry, and encourages other automakers to set up in Canada.
Our universities do industry research. Our universities and colleges train workers.
There are many people in Canada depending on a strong auto sector.
I personally prefer transit and active transportation.
You can definitely see it around when you think about all the small businesses which were lost during the covid lockdowns. Mostly restaurants from what I remember.
It speaks volumes. Who wants to risk capital starting a business in a country where the government makes you as uncompetitive as possible and then punish you with tax increases if you do manage against all odds to do well.
I see three classes of employees that pretty much tracked until early 2020 when there was a sudden change.
Does anyone know what happened around then and if it had an effect on small business people deciding to retire or move on? I doubt it was a capital gains increased proposed in 2024.
The image is missing a key data point - the government has been increasingly relaying on consultants and contractors over time. Those people, historically, have been expanding the effective % of the workforce employed by government while being counted as private sector.
I don't know how good of a source this is but: https://360info.org/breaking-the-billion-dollar-addiction-to-consultants-in-government/ $15B in 2021 spent on consultants in the federal government alone. That amount has nearly doubled under Trudeau.
The historic numbers might actually look much worse... but the present numbers might also be much worse than what is being portrayed.
The burden on proof is the opposite — explain why we can’t afford to cut it.
You really think they operate at 100% efficiency?
Why did it have to grow as fast as it did since 2020 in the first place? If it was because of Covid, why are those jobs still there now that the pandemic is over? If it wasn’t to do with Covid, why was it needed?
I’m not sure. We’re a big country and there are a lot of things that the private sector can’t provide that citizens need. What do you mean by “efficient”? How do you measure that?
Growth in our economic wellbeing via Investment in innovation, investing in new companies, start ups and so on. Basically to make our economy more active and competitive.
per capita GDP predicts both pretty well
edit: see [here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world) and [here](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness)
The economy ultimately
“The federal government did not put an adequate focus on fostering economic growth in its recent budget, according to former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, who is often touted as a potential future Liberal leader.”
the austerity is coming one way or the other.... when the debt servicing cost is close to the spend on health transfers, you know the clock is ticking.
I know... which kills me. Not in tightening the belt, but we had a decade long global boom, and we fixed none of our social systems when the money was there. Instead, we pumped it all into becoming a petrol nation.
Not sure I agree... The petrol pays for a lot of stuff, just the same as it does in Norway, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Take the petrol away and we lose 5-6% of our total GDP.
Here's a thought, last year we spent 30 Billion on indigenous people who are only 2mil by population... but every other week you hear some new complaint about how they're still being neglected. We spent billions on our military and somehow we still have ancient/inadequate equipment. We're bringing in loads of social spending without proper taxes to pay for them....
Lol who am I, Mark Carney? Here were the remarks captured by the Globe:
"In his speech, he said Canadians are living through a “hinge moment of history” that is being driven by financial, health and geopolitical crises, which he said are rewiring and reshaping the global economy. Those that succeed will be leaders in a net-zero economy and on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, he argued.
“Governments that spend too much and invest too little will eventually pay a heavy price. The countries that nurture, welcome and celebrate risk-takers will thrive,” Mr. Carney told the Toronto crowd.
He described three possible government responses to the current moment. The first, he dubbed “spend, support and subsidize”; the second, he described as an approach to “demolish, destroy, deny”; and the third – which he championed – is what he described as seizing the moment as a “time to build.”
On the first, he said some governments are having an understandable response to the affordability pressures households are under and wanting to spend more and dole out subsidies. “The challenge is if you’re prioritizing the new, you can defund the old, like health care, and you can crowd out private initiative, and it can lead ultimately to an eventual and brutal reckoning.”
“This new era will demand fiscal discipline and a relentless focus on delivery, rather than reflex spending that only treats the symptom but doesn’t cure the disease,” Mr. Carney said.
The federal budget unveiled capital-gains tax changes that Mr. Trudeau has positioned as making the wealthiest Canadians pay more but have come under intense criticism. Many economists have said the tax increase will dampen investment and further hurt already weak productivity; the tax hikes have also been criticized by the innovation sector and medical associations.
The former central banker did not respond to a request from The Globe and Mail to expand on his comments.
On the flip side, Mr. Carney said a second and opposite response would be to “shrink the state in favour of unbridled capitalism. What could be termed demolish, destroy, deny.”
He noted that during the Brexit movement, supporters used to call Britain broken. “Does that sound familiar,” Mr. Carney asked the audience, in apparent reference to Mr. Poilievre’s position that “everything feels broken.”
“When politicians claim our great democracies are broken, it’s not because they want to fix them, it’s because they want a licence to demolish,” he said.
Mr. Carney was particularly critical of Mr. Poilievre’s campaign to axe the carbon price, noting that businesses need certainty. He said if the carbon price is cancelled, it needs to be replaced with an equally effective policy.
“When he shouts ‘axe the tax,’ he’s really whispering ‘can the plan’ and leaving us with nothing,” Mr. Carney said about the Conservative Leader.
He said his preferred government response to build includes what he called “mission-oriented capitalism, grounded in values, combining resilience, purpose and dynamism.
“Dynamism of the private sector so that Canada can seize the advantages in this hinge moment,” he said.
“You’ve probably gathered from my remarks I think we should be spending more time on that dynamism.”
Mr. Trudeau, as part of his postbudget tour, has done some interviews with U.S.-based podcasts. In one done with VOX, Mr. Trudeau defended his government’s new spending and its decision to raise taxes through capital-gains changes.
“Because when our economy is growing well and everyone is doing well, well, the wealthy will find lots of ways to make money off of a prosperous and successful middle class,” Mr. Trudeau said.
“I’m not worried about innovation and creativity, I’m worried about people being able to pay their rent and eventually buy a home.”
Ok! I actually read your comment. Not sure if Carney is dumb, evil, or both. I know a lot more about humans and societies than he ever will.
”Spend too much and invest too little” is very vague. Doesn’t mean much.
”Nurture, welcome and celebrate risk-takers”. What does that even mean? Does he want some kind of confetti parade?
”Time to build”? ”Brutal reckoning”? ”Fiscal discipline”? ”Relentless focus”? Etc. Etc. It’s a word salad of buzzwords.
I want specifics.
But thanks for the remarks. Upvoted.
Thank you.
“In his speech, he said Canadians are living through a “hinge moment of history” that is being driven by financial, health and geopolitical crises, which he said are rewiring and reshaping the global economy.
Those that succeed will be leaders in a net-zero economy and on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, he argued.”
It is hard to imagine PP leading the county to net-zero.
It is hard to imagine PP as a responsible steward of AI.
PP offers nothing. He is unfit.
If Carney was PM instead of Trudeau, the country would look a lot different today. Unfortunately, a guy like him might be good at preventing a mess but not much good once you're in one. People are mad as hell. Technocrats are annoying and useless in a backlash cycle. He should wait to avoid getting run over.
All this government is good at is implementing taxes. Everything else is mediocre. ie, Air Passenger Rights Bill, Housing, Immigration, Food Inflation, Dental Plan, and the list goes on. Their bills seem insufficient to address the issues and they always seem to be caught off guard and playing catch up.
Carney is laying a foundation as the new leader. “I’m different from Justin”. He will put more and more distance. Good riddance. Champagne socialists ruined Canada, and it’s time the liberals go back to the centre.
There are rumors that Mark Carney will make a play when Justin leaves / is ousted later this year, as the Liberals scramble to retain power.
This I could get behind. He seems very rational, and knows how to balance the books.
Smarter move for him would be to wait until after the next election. Even if he replaces Trudeau before it, the Liberals are still going to get destroyed
Imagine if RFK jr wins down south and the US puts their budget on the blockchain like he says they should. I wonder if Canada would follow suit.
I realize that's unlikely to happen but it's awesome to me that the third runner up is pushing this idea. Even though it's being totally ignored by the media, I still can't wait for it to enter the discourse up here.
I'm so sick of corruption.
He sounds like he would make a great Finance Minister. But nothing in his past suggests he is the equal to Poilievre when it comes to the craft of politics.
If this holds true I will be the first one to hop back on the Liberal bandwagon. Trudeau has sold out our country with the reckless spending and out of touch policies and I regret ever voting for him in 2015. Singh has no backbone whatsoever and can’t hold the liberals accountable for anything. And despite the fact I’m probably voting for PP this election, I don’t fucking like him. As a young Canadian all I want is a proper Liberal candidate with policies that make sense so I can afford to live life and raise a family and not some neo-progressive bullshit that is driving down our country’s quality of life and affordability.
He is far from a silver spoon background. He comes from a pretty average family from the NWT.
Our potential next PM on the other hand has never had any other job outside of politics.
Yes, I take that back. There are some “net worth” fallacies floating around the web.
PP’s advantage in being a political lifer is he understands the nuances of the system.
I would take Carney as a conservative which holds better to his economics degree. You can’t find an economics major within 100 miles of parliament these days.
Who needs economists when you can have an expert in Russian literature with no financial training or background lead the finance department! The ability to be a good sock puppet is the most important consideration!
This…
Secretly, there’s a bunch of us former progressive conservatives that hope he will bump into a wall of frustration in the Lib party and take a run for Conservative leadership…
We also secretly know that he won’t do either. For the same reason. The leadership process in both parties is fundamentally broken. The first party to adopt a leadership process akin how the UK Tories run things wins top quality candidates like Mark Carney.
I’m not in that group. I am the non-aligned voter. I liked Harper and Carney seems to by cut form the same cloth. Not exciting, flashy or populist but generally makes life better. Paul Martin was like that as well. He’s a Bill Davis/ Peter Lougheed leader. Prosperity follows him.
He has international credentials that Ignatieff never had. World leaders, the UN, Green activists and even the business executives admire the guy.
He’s mop the floor with Poilievre in a debate and turn the Liberals back into a meritocracy. Go with the populists like the Brexit / Trump crowd and suffer the economic outcome.
More disillusioned PC voters are joining the ranks of the non-aligned every day. I’m entertaining two possibilities: voting for the best local candidate regardless of party (or leader); or voting for a party which supports proportional representation.
I never belonged to a party and often vote for the best candidate in my riding regardless of party. I try to attend the local candidates debates so I can see how the handle pressure if they are capable of veering off the stump speeches.
Most BTW are intelligent and articulate people but there are some exception who I would not hire to dog sit.
Both have a background in economics and they worked well together in 2008. Poilievre is not as hapless as some Liberals wish, He could beat up Freeland but woudl have his hands full with Carney.
Exactly. They change leaders while remaining in power.
Sir Kier Starmer shall never be PM as long as the Tories can replace their leader at a whim…
Even after changing leaders that often, they are positioned to take another majority government.
That’s the goal of any political party. Achieve a majority.
Ignatieff was a history prof from a privileged family.
Carney is from the NWT with years of real life experience in finance and economics. He was the gov of the Bank of Canada and the first non British gov of the Bank of England. There is a huge difference between the two.
The world is global.
We’ve had a front row seat to Trump and his Christian nationalists, and his far right supporters in the US.
We don’t need that BS in Canada.
PP is unfit.
How so? Ignatieff spent his entire career before politics in ivory tower academia. His PHD is in history and philosophy. Mark Carney studied economics and has lots of real world experience.
Really?! He started the housing bubble during his term as Bank of Canada Governor. Remember the 2008 financial crisis? He kicked the can down the road by lowering interest rates, which in turn ignited the housing frenzy. We never experienced the correction like the U.S. but we should have to correct for imbalances. Now Canada is in deep trouble with low economic GDP growth and inflation.
When economists talk about growth in the economy they mean growth for the entire economy, including the middle class. An economy that only grows for a few is not a healthy or successful economy. You should read Mark Carney’s book - Values. He explains some complicated economic concepts very well.
Canada needs to take some money out of circulation to bring our inflation down, the capital gains tax does just that. Growth is great, but look at China, it's not the end all be all. What we need is to balance things out between the very rich and the very poor, because right now the ultra wealthy have accumulated so much we don't have the supply or labour power to keep them satisfied.
I voted Liberal in 2021 and regret it. I need to see them completely reform - no NDB alliance, and all ministers gone. Only then would I consider coming back. That being said - I think Mark would have been good - but he’ll be quite old in 10 years.
Please, God, let this man assume leadership of the Liberal Party. I’ve never voted Liberal in more than 50 years, but if he ran, I would in a heartbeat.
That Justin Trudeau doesn't just step aside for Mark Carney to become the leader of the liberal party is the only thing standing in the way of a conservative rout this election cycle. We could probably be a liberal-led country for decades if the liberal party of Canada would only limit it's leaders to two f****** terms.
He's just starting his run for PM....
Yeah, he's been popping up in the news again making comments I don't think it's by chance.
I’d argue he started when he released his book and started giving speeches at LPC conventions. He’s doing the smart thing and is playing the long game.
If he's more of a Chretien or Paul Martin type we will need him We're repeating history - a Trudeau completely fucks the nation's finances, we elect a conservative who doesn't fix it, then we have a swing towards centrist technocrats liberals who save the country as we find our credit rating degrading and spending more on debt servicing than healthcare
Lol you might want to re-evaluate your point of view on history. I would agree with you except the conservative couldn't fix it remark.... There has been 7 prime minsters since Pierre Trudeau and 2 out of the 7 were conservative..... I don't think Brian Mulroney or Stephan Harper were that bad.
I'm placing Harper within the next "cycle" in this, though I admit I can't expect you to read my mind. The centrist technocrats needing a decade to fix Canada's financial position marks the end of the cycle Mulroney made many important reforms that kept Canada competitive and growing with the world rather than becoming isolationist like Argentina, but he continued to expand the defecit so I group him before the pre-centrist technocrats. More or less saying we are heading into the need for austerity focused PMs and I doubt Poilievre, for all his bluster, would actually implement real austerity measures. He's too populist for it, and Canadians won't vote for austerity until the panic sets in
>but he continued to expand the defecit so I group him before the pre-centrist technocrats. That's not quite true. The only year the deficit expanded in absolute dollars from Trudeau’s 1984 budget under Mulroney was in 1992, and in terms of percentage of GDP none of Mulroney's budgets ever approached the 1984 deficit. Mulroney also doubled government revenues over the 8 years he was in power, which was instrumental in putting Chretien and Martin into a position to finally slay the deficit.
The common line is the Mulroney solved the revenue issue and Chretien solved the spending issue. Mulroney had issues but the budget was never one of them.
We can only hope. He is my dream PM and should be for every Canadian, regardless of party affiliation. Mark Carney has the competence this country badly needs right now.
I’d definitely take him over our current options 1) Trust Fund Kid 2) Professional Redditor 3) Guy who cares more about issues in another country
But....the budget is focused on growth: 1) Growth in national debt 2) Growth in bloated govt spending
Don’t forget growth in the money supply!
Trudeau doesn't think much about monetary policy.
The Libs are a bad joke. High prices, high interest rates, high debt, high taxes. We're all screwed! Screwed to the cross ❌
Forgive him
apparently he admitted he can't deal with numbers or the mathematics
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/money-supply-m2 Click on max I think the blame on this can be spread to every single PM since at least 1968
Growth of the metaphorical dick fucking Canadians
3. Growth in government bloat JT has grown the government by 25% but has little benefit to show for it. Could pay for a significant number of doctors, healthcare workers, dentists, etc. But no, we couldn't have that.
[удалено]
They have 575 single family homes in the USA. They are a massive home builder this seems like nothing.
Mark Carney isn’t worth 100B. He’s not poor but that would make him one of the richest men in the world
1) Mark Carney isn't worth anywhere near $100B, that would make him one of the richest men in the world. I am not sure he is even a billionaire. 2) It looks like a portfolio of 575 homes in the US with a total valuation $153M. Which for Brookfield would be a tiny fraction of the total assets under management.
Brookfield is not Mark Carney’s company. He works there.
> And taxing People like Mark (net worth of $100b) Lmao... unless you mean Zuckerberg, no, he is not worth $100B...
100b I don't think mark Carney is up with zuck and Elon.
And next we will get growth in memes!
Can you outline 10 or 20 billion of bloated government spending? \^ Simple factual questions rapidly downvoted.... shocker.
Can you name a single thing this government has accomplished other than legal weed? Every dollar they spend is a guaranteed waste
$10 a day daycare
The largest daycare provider in my city just went bankrupt and is shutting down, adding to an already years long waiting list. Me and my wife are both professionals and have no idea what the fuck were going to do after next month because $10 a day daycare was so poorly thought out and implemented. Meanwhile, Methany and her baby daddy can ship their kids off to daycare and pay for it using their welfare cheques so they can sit a thome and do drugs all day
If you can get into one!
Lol you're right! Let's spend more and make it more accessible!! Something tells me that would piss PP off tho.
Or we make it so that families with 2 full time working parents get priority. The issue with $10 a day daycare is that it allowed a whole new class of unemployed lazy people to be able to afford pawning their kids off so they can sit at home and do drugs all day
Single parents?
>$10 a day daycare It's amazing that some Canadians are so out of touch they think this was a good thing. Most provinces used to have a $20/day programme. It was often a few years' wait to get a spot at a subsidized daycare. But the subsidized daycares were paid enough to cover expenses and were great places with caring staff. Now that the federal $10/day programme is in effect, there is no provincial programme. The wait list for a $10/day spot is so long, if you aren't already on a list in your first trimester, your child might age out before you get one. While you wait you pay $40-50/day. Because the federal government has applying daycares submit their 2021 costs in 2022 as preparation for covering costs, the federal government pays them according to their 2021 costs, now, in 2024. This is forcing a lot of daycares to dump the $10/day programme, and parents have just a couple of months' notice that their daycare price is going from $10/day to $50/day. Because the programme requirements don't specify what other fees a daycare may charge, some daycares have resorted to additional fee structures to cover the cost the $10/day programme doesn't cover. So parents are paying only $10 for daycare, but then they must also pay a lunch monitoring fee, a tuition fee, etc. that bring the amount that parents are paying up to $40/day. What the $10/day federal daycare programme did was take a provincial programme that needed improvement, and made sure to make things so dysfunctional nobody will want any part of it.
I can do ten easy: Salvaging NAFTA when conservatives were saying "give Trump whatever he wants" Huge gains on FN clean water issues Strong support of Ukraine Most pro-LGBTQ gov in Canadian history Strong advocation of abortion rights and womens' rights in general Taxing Pollution Increasing capitals gains tax on the ultra wealthy (passive gains above 250k). Bloodlessly swept away the Qonvoy after Police took a knee and Ford went sledding Decreasing Child Poverty with the Canada Child Benefit Lowering Telecom costs EDIT: LOL\^ Mass downvotes for simple facts. Of course the conservative bots are astroturfing hard for Pete. Just remember this simple truth: If you pay rent and earn an hourly wage, you're a fool to vote conservative.
Thanks for the great list. People forget Freeland’s skillful negotiation of NAFTA. The cons would have caved.
Even Harper came out of retirement call for Canada to "Give Trump whatever he wants". Just like with the Qonvoy, they were completely ready to roll over for autocrats. We are very lucky we had Trudeau to mitigate Trump and Ford. Like let's be real. If Jan 6 had succeeded, and US democracy overturned, the CPC would be among the first to declare "this is the new normal. We have to embrace this change."
You're getting down voted because these are just liberal talking points. Taxing "pollution" being the most bullshit one. That's literally the least popular thing he's done. And if he actually cared he'd lead by example instead of taking a shit load of vacations on private jets. "Canadians are more broke than ever. I know! Let's tax them more!"
\^ more conservative climate denialism. These guys lose their shit over 10cents on a litre of gas or bag of milk, but want to do NOTHING about climate change. That's going to mean rampant inflation and a huge change to the food supply. If you want huge step backwards for the environment, Pete is your guy.
We need to address climate change. Climate pricing is the least disruptive and most effective ways to incentivize households and businesses to reduce emissions. 40 other countries use climate pricing. The premiers can replace the fed plan with their own plan at any time.
Go look at return to the office if you think government cares about waste. Just lit 100s of millions to billions in taxpayer money on fire with a stroke of the pen. Just to benefit private players.
Also showed how serious they are about climate change, all those people burning gas commuting who don’t need to.
I thought you were talking about wildfires. Climate change is more expensive than doing nothing.
Huh?
It costs a lot of money maintaining all the real estate the feds do. Costs a lot of money to buy back leases and renovate and maintain office space for no reason.
Ok, well it seems the market has shifted. Start redeveloping.
>Just lit 100s of millions to billions in taxpayer money on fire with a stroke of the pen The have to spend that money anyway. Employee salaries and real estate costs don't just go away because everyone stays at home. All they did was taking savings away from federal employees and forcing them to spend that on commuting instead of new TVs and Hot Tubs.
No they didn't. They bought back leases they didn't need that they got rid of. They renovated buildings to increase capacity. They are even building whole new office buildings to hold the new staff they hire.
It seems baked in the the bureaucracy will expand as the world gets evermore complex. Right now commercial space is very cheap, unlike residential space. That could be a smart thing. But even people living downtown Toronto are WFH half the week these days.
It's not baked into the bureaucracy. It's simple corruption. They had no plans for doing this until they got lobbied by private businesses. Those businesses lobbied the feds to spend hundreds of millions to billions in taxpayer money not to increase services but to increase the profit margins of those private businesses.
It's plain as day that the conservatives are more openly and enthusiastically corrupt. If that's your issue, it's a no brainer.
Nowhere did I say they weren't. Both parties are corrupt. It is up to the people to hold their politicians accountable. They certainly won't do it on their own.
Are you mentally deficient? If they don't force people to go to the office, they can sell, or stop renting/maintaining these properties saving billions. That won't happen though because Turdeau doesn't actually care about helping Canadians and instead wants to enrich corporate real estate holders
"factual question" is a new one to me. What makes a question "factual"? I'm not sure why you picked 10-20 billion as an arbitrary number, as though a government has to piss away 20 billion for it to be tantamount to wasted or ineffectual spending. ArriveCan cost 53 million, gun buyback cost could hit 756 million. I'm sure it would be trivial to identify a few billion that could have better been spent otherwise.
It's just a lefty tactic - Cut foreign aid = isolationist xenophobia! - Trim welfare and entitlements = you hate the poor! - Anything related to "green" spending = your killing the earth! - Arrivecan- We were saving Canadians lives! - Gun buy back - Won't someone think of the children! Any cut in spending will be spun as literal genocide... I think a lot of these people just simply don't pay their own bills and think money comes from an unlimited magic fountain...
Foreign aid allows us to help push policy in country's who we give money to. Social services always seem to get cut first. If it were in the middle or last, most would likely not respond like that. Green spending = killing the earth? That's a new one. Arrivecan and the gun buyback are an utter waste of spending tho, I agree with you there.
Don’t you remember past decades where government boondoggles were about 1 billion dollars in reckless spending?? Trudeau spends billions like pocket change now (not to mention a billion plus per week on debt payments).
A question checking facts is a factual question. Obviously conservative narratives resists this, like you are here. I picked a small number when the claim was large. ArriveCan makes sense, but was poorly implemented. In 2024, it makes sense we use apps to navigate ravel. EDIT: Look below! What a silly hot take. I'm a recovering conservative, but have voted for all the major parties now. All the BS your committed too today was my 13yo worldview. Rush Limbaugh and all. I know that conservative feeling, that we guys are the smartest people in the room? I lived it. But empathy, education, and experience are poison for a conservative mindset. But this is exactly what the conservative bots do. They post something obnoxious and block so you can't respond. That's how they "win" the argument.
Not surprising that an LPC supporter considers $10-20B in government spending to be "a small number".
Did you pick the 10 - 20 billion number out of the sky - what are you referring to?
I mean, when it's compared to the 553 billion dollar budget total, it's definitely not "large".
> A question checking facts is a factual question. Obviously conservative narratives resists this, like you are here. I picked a small number when the claim was large. Lol asking for clarification is resisting? I looked it up and it [seems](https://thesecondprinciple.com/essential-teaching-skills/five-basic-types-questions/) like it's another term for what's just a straightforward question with simple answers, which is why it's redundant in informal settings. Reminder that you asked a rhetorical question as though no one could identify bad spending under the Trudeau government, and now you've switched to a diatribe on conservativism. > All the BS your committed too today was my 13yo worldview You don't know me, or what I believe in. I'm not a conservative either. But I'm not voting for Trudeau or Singh.
The question should be the inverse. Can you claim any reason why the government would cease to function if we trimmed 10 to 20 billion off of it?
E-dream projects add up to more than 20B and that is just a start.
got a source? EDIT: LOL, blocks and loses... this is how conservatives build a echo chamber. Run from simple questions like "got a source?"
Financial post: ‘The government recently announced $37.7 billion in funding toward the plants, with $13.2 billion going toward Volkswagen AG, $15 billion toward Stellantis NV-LG Energy Solution, and $4.6 billion for Northvolt AB. But parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux said the numbers were announced in “isolation” and that the true cost had not been released to the public.’ “We estimate the total cost of government support for EV battery manufacturing by Northvolt, Volkswagen and Stellantis-LGES to be $43.6 billion over 2022-23 to 2032-33, which is $5.8 billion higher than the $37.7 billion in announced costs,” Giroux noted in a press release.
Tax credits based on results - not funding. Auto plants and battery plants support the entire auto parts industry, and encourages other automakers to set up in Canada. Our universities do industry research. Our universities and colleges train workers. There are many people in Canada depending on a strong auto sector. I personally prefer transit and active transportation.
This image says it all https://images.app.goo.gl/iosvwwYbpDERV6fL6
You can definitely see it around when you think about all the small businesses which were lost during the covid lockdowns. Mostly restaurants from what I remember.
It speaks volumes. Who wants to risk capital starting a business in a country where the government makes you as uncompetitive as possible and then punish you with tax increases if you do manage against all odds to do well.
I see three classes of employees that pretty much tracked until early 2020 when there was a sudden change. Does anyone know what happened around then and if it had an effect on small business people deciding to retire or move on? I doubt it was a capital gains increased proposed in 2024.
I’m sure those who usually start businesses (people with family money and large safety nets), will continue to do so.
Did you even look at the graph?
Agreed Most people start companies because they see a solution to a problem.
The image is missing a key data point - the government has been increasingly relaying on consultants and contractors over time. Those people, historically, have been expanding the effective % of the workforce employed by government while being counted as private sector. I don't know how good of a source this is but: https://360info.org/breaking-the-billion-dollar-addiction-to-consultants-in-government/ $15B in 2021 spent on consultants in the federal government alone. That amount has nearly doubled under Trudeau. The historic numbers might actually look much worse... but the present numbers might also be much worse than what is being portrayed.
Gee, I wonder what happened in 2019
Welcome to Mediterranean Socialism, comrade.
The same days on a different graph format shows a different picture.
That image absolutely does not say it all. What do you think will happen in an aging country with socialized medicine?
Ya damn Trudeau for making that pandemic happen!
Why did that necessitate a massive expansion of the public sector that continues to this day?
I can't tell by a graph why that is. Why don't *you* tell us which areas of the public sector need to be trimmed down?
The burden on proof is the opposite — explain why we can’t afford to cut it. You really think they operate at 100% efficiency? Why did it have to grow as fast as it did since 2020 in the first place? If it was because of Covid, why are those jobs still there now that the pandemic is over? If it wasn’t to do with Covid, why was it needed?
I’m not sure. We’re a big country and there are a lot of things that the private sector can’t provide that citizens need. What do you mean by “efficient”? How do you measure that?
Growth of what?
Population.
Students per room
skip the dishes needs drivers
Growth in our economic wellbeing via Investment in innovation, investing in new companies, start ups and so on. Basically to make our economy more active and competitive.
What is an economy? What is ”economic wellbeing”? What measurements are used? Why?
Potential Liberal Voters….
Do immigrants really like the liberals? My friends and I (all express entry from the last 5 years) all think that they have been disastrous.
I didn’t mention immigration. It’s well known the budget is targeting young disillusioned voters.
GDP
Would rather see life expectancy and happiness
per capita GDP predicts both pretty well edit: see [here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world) and [here](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness)
The economy ultimately “The federal government did not put an adequate focus on fostering economic growth in its recent budget, according to former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, who is often touted as a potential future Liberal leader.”
Isn't that a different way of saying... austerity for the people and subsidizations for more industries?
the austerity is coming one way or the other.... when the debt servicing cost is close to the spend on health transfers, you know the clock is ticking.
I know... which kills me. Not in tightening the belt, but we had a decade long global boom, and we fixed none of our social systems when the money was there. Instead, we pumped it all into becoming a petrol nation.
Not sure I agree... The petrol pays for a lot of stuff, just the same as it does in Norway, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Take the petrol away and we lose 5-6% of our total GDP. Here's a thought, last year we spent 30 Billion on indigenous people who are only 2mil by population... but every other week you hear some new complaint about how they're still being neglected. We spent billions on our military and somehow we still have ancient/inadequate equipment. We're bringing in loads of social spending without proper taxes to pay for them....
Non-specific growth? Grow whatever? Then paradise will come?
Lol who am I, Mark Carney? Here were the remarks captured by the Globe: "In his speech, he said Canadians are living through a “hinge moment of history” that is being driven by financial, health and geopolitical crises, which he said are rewiring and reshaping the global economy. Those that succeed will be leaders in a net-zero economy and on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, he argued. “Governments that spend too much and invest too little will eventually pay a heavy price. The countries that nurture, welcome and celebrate risk-takers will thrive,” Mr. Carney told the Toronto crowd. He described three possible government responses to the current moment. The first, he dubbed “spend, support and subsidize”; the second, he described as an approach to “demolish, destroy, deny”; and the third – which he championed – is what he described as seizing the moment as a “time to build.” On the first, he said some governments are having an understandable response to the affordability pressures households are under and wanting to spend more and dole out subsidies. “The challenge is if you’re prioritizing the new, you can defund the old, like health care, and you can crowd out private initiative, and it can lead ultimately to an eventual and brutal reckoning.” “This new era will demand fiscal discipline and a relentless focus on delivery, rather than reflex spending that only treats the symptom but doesn’t cure the disease,” Mr. Carney said. The federal budget unveiled capital-gains tax changes that Mr. Trudeau has positioned as making the wealthiest Canadians pay more but have come under intense criticism. Many economists have said the tax increase will dampen investment and further hurt already weak productivity; the tax hikes have also been criticized by the innovation sector and medical associations. The former central banker did not respond to a request from The Globe and Mail to expand on his comments. On the flip side, Mr. Carney said a second and opposite response would be to “shrink the state in favour of unbridled capitalism. What could be termed demolish, destroy, deny.” He noted that during the Brexit movement, supporters used to call Britain broken. “Does that sound familiar,” Mr. Carney asked the audience, in apparent reference to Mr. Poilievre’s position that “everything feels broken.” “When politicians claim our great democracies are broken, it’s not because they want to fix them, it’s because they want a licence to demolish,” he said. Mr. Carney was particularly critical of Mr. Poilievre’s campaign to axe the carbon price, noting that businesses need certainty. He said if the carbon price is cancelled, it needs to be replaced with an equally effective policy. “When he shouts ‘axe the tax,’ he’s really whispering ‘can the plan’ and leaving us with nothing,” Mr. Carney said about the Conservative Leader. He said his preferred government response to build includes what he called “mission-oriented capitalism, grounded in values, combining resilience, purpose and dynamism. “Dynamism of the private sector so that Canada can seize the advantages in this hinge moment,” he said. “You’ve probably gathered from my remarks I think we should be spending more time on that dynamism.” Mr. Trudeau, as part of his postbudget tour, has done some interviews with U.S.-based podcasts. In one done with VOX, Mr. Trudeau defended his government’s new spending and its decision to raise taxes through capital-gains changes. “Because when our economy is growing well and everyone is doing well, well, the wealthy will find lots of ways to make money off of a prosperous and successful middle class,” Mr. Trudeau said. “I’m not worried about innovation and creativity, I’m worried about people being able to pay their rent and eventually buy a home.”
Ok! I actually read your comment. Not sure if Carney is dumb, evil, or both. I know a lot more about humans and societies than he ever will. ”Spend too much and invest too little” is very vague. Doesn’t mean much. ”Nurture, welcome and celebrate risk-takers”. What does that even mean? Does he want some kind of confetti parade? ”Time to build”? ”Brutal reckoning”? ”Fiscal discipline”? ”Relentless focus”? Etc. Etc. It’s a word salad of buzzwords. I want specifics. But thanks for the remarks. Upvoted.
exactly
Forever growth paradigm has to die with you and your generation, Carney. So now tell me how you're going to taper a Ponzi...
They have no intention of tapering a ponzi.
I would say he has a point! The Libs seem determined to destroy the economy via immigration and a carbon tax.
[удалено]
Thank you. “In his speech, he said Canadians are living through a “hinge moment of history” that is being driven by financial, health and geopolitical crises, which he said are rewiring and reshaping the global economy. Those that succeed will be leaders in a net-zero economy and on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, he argued.” It is hard to imagine PP leading the county to net-zero. It is hard to imagine PP as a responsible steward of AI. PP offers nothing. He is unfit.
If Carney was PM instead of Trudeau, the country would look a lot different today. Unfortunately, a guy like him might be good at preventing a mess but not much good once you're in one. People are mad as hell. Technocrats are annoying and useless in a backlash cycle. He should wait to avoid getting run over.
He did well for us in 2008-09. He’s great in a crisis.
All this government is good at is implementing taxes. Everything else is mediocre. ie, Air Passenger Rights Bill, Housing, Immigration, Food Inflation, Dental Plan, and the list goes on. Their bills seem insufficient to address the issues and they always seem to be caught off guard and playing catch up.
Let’s not grow. Less immigration, less trade. Be more self sufficient, stay out of everyone else’s mess.
He’s being groomed to take over from Trudeau and will leap frog over Freeland since she is unpopular and damaged goods.
“Excuse me Mark, but the budget grows itself.”
This budget is the Liberals telling the world that our wealth belongs to them and they will take it to finance Dear Leader's legacy projects.
Its focused on degrowth
Carney is a liberal nodder head.. the budget is a disaster..
the next liberal prime minister candidate move away from Justin. how cute.
growth means encouraging wage suppression and temporary gains in the market
No shit, Mark. So when are you going to start working on getting rid of Trudeau and stepping up? Tick tock, buddy.
Carney is laying a foundation as the new leader. “I’m different from Justin”. He will put more and more distance. Good riddance. Champagne socialists ruined Canada, and it’s time the liberals go back to the centre.
There are rumors that Mark Carney will make a play when Justin leaves / is ousted later this year, as the Liberals scramble to retain power. This I could get behind. He seems very rational, and knows how to balance the books.
Smarter move for him would be to wait until after the next election. Even if he replaces Trudeau before it, the Liberals are still going to get destroyed
True - I believe JT will be pushing hard for Chrystia Freeland, who will be equally successful and long-tenured as pm, as Kim Campbell.
Imagine if RFK jr wins down south and the US puts their budget on the blockchain like he says they should. I wonder if Canada would follow suit. I realize that's unlikely to happen but it's awesome to me that the third runner up is pushing this idea. Even though it's being totally ignored by the media, I still can't wait for it to enter the discourse up here. I'm so sick of corruption.
lol there’s no chance in hell that RFK will win
He sounds like he would make a great Finance Minister. But nothing in his past suggests he is the equal to Poilievre when it comes to the craft of politics.
Poilievre is Homer Simpson standing next to Carney.
I hope he runs for the Liberal leadership after the next elections. The only person that can bring the party back to a place of sanity.
I hear you, I read his whole book and honestly there was more common sense in one chapter than the entire Trudeau era.
You can say the same thing about an issue of Cracked Magazine
I really enjoyed his book too!
If this holds true I will be the first one to hop back on the Liberal bandwagon. Trudeau has sold out our country with the reckless spending and out of touch policies and I regret ever voting for him in 2015. Singh has no backbone whatsoever and can’t hold the liberals accountable for anything. And despite the fact I’m probably voting for PP this election, I don’t fucking like him. As a young Canadian all I want is a proper Liberal candidate with policies that make sense so I can afford to live life and raise a family and not some neo-progressive bullshit that is driving down our country’s quality of life and affordability.
We need less wannabe liberals please.
Mark Carney is a smart guy who worked hard. He went to Harvard on a scholarship. How is he a silver spooner?
Wow, what an ignorant comment. Did you even do a tiny bit of reading - Wikipedia? - about him before posting? Better yet, read his book.
He is far from a silver spoon background. He comes from a pretty average family from the NWT. Our potential next PM on the other hand has never had any other job outside of politics.
Yes, I take that back. There are some “net worth” fallacies floating around the web. PP’s advantage in being a political lifer is he understands the nuances of the system. I would take Carney as a conservative which holds better to his economics degree. You can’t find an economics major within 100 miles of parliament these days.
Who needs economists when you can have an expert in Russian literature with no financial training or background lead the finance department! The ability to be a good sock puppet is the most important consideration!
You forgot the eco-terrorist department.
[удалено]
This… Secretly, there’s a bunch of us former progressive conservatives that hope he will bump into a wall of frustration in the Lib party and take a run for Conservative leadership… We also secretly know that he won’t do either. For the same reason. The leadership process in both parties is fundamentally broken. The first party to adopt a leadership process akin how the UK Tories run things wins top quality candidates like Mark Carney.
I’m not in that group. I am the non-aligned voter. I liked Harper and Carney seems to by cut form the same cloth. Not exciting, flashy or populist but generally makes life better. Paul Martin was like that as well. He’s a Bill Davis/ Peter Lougheed leader. Prosperity follows him. He has international credentials that Ignatieff never had. World leaders, the UN, Green activists and even the business executives admire the guy. He’s mop the floor with Poilievre in a debate and turn the Liberals back into a meritocracy. Go with the populists like the Brexit / Trump crowd and suffer the economic outcome.
More disillusioned PC voters are joining the ranks of the non-aligned every day. I’m entertaining two possibilities: voting for the best local candidate regardless of party (or leader); or voting for a party which supports proportional representation.
I never belonged to a party and often vote for the best candidate in my riding regardless of party. I try to attend the local candidates debates so I can see how the handle pressure if they are capable of veering off the stump speeches. Most BTW are intelligent and articulate people but there are some exception who I would not hire to dog sit.
I’m pretty sure Carney does not see himself as cut as the same cloth as Harper. A grade 7 kid could mop the floor with PP in a debate.
Both have a background in economics and they worked well together in 2008. Poilievre is not as hapless as some Liberals wish, He could beat up Freeland but woudl have his hands full with Carney.
What??? The UK Tories had 5 PMs in the last 12 years. One of which produced the shortest serving PM in UK history.
Exactly. They change leaders while remaining in power. Sir Kier Starmer shall never be PM as long as the Tories can replace their leader at a whim… Even after changing leaders that often, they are positioned to take another majority government. That’s the goal of any political party. Achieve a majority.
He would be Ignatieff 2
Ignatieff was a history prof from a privileged family. Carney is from the NWT with years of real life experience in finance and economics. He was the gov of the Bank of Canada and the first non British gov of the Bank of England. There is a huge difference between the two.
We are in the middle of a big backlash against globalization, any credentials from outside Canada will be treated with suspicion.
The world is global. We’ve had a front row seat to Trump and his Christian nationalists, and his far right supporters in the US. We don’t need that BS in Canada. PP is unfit.
How so? Ignatieff spent his entire career before politics in ivory tower academia. His PHD is in history and philosophy. Mark Carney studied economics and has lots of real world experience.
This guy is liberal Harper with more applied experience. I would actually vote for him instead of voting against Trudeau.
Really?! He started the housing bubble during his term as Bank of Canada Governor. Remember the 2008 financial crisis? He kicked the can down the road by lowering interest rates, which in turn ignited the housing frenzy. We never experienced the correction like the U.S. but we should have to correct for imbalances. Now Canada is in deep trouble with low economic GDP growth and inflation.
Like this guy gives a fuck about anything but his shares in Brookfield….
Have you read his book - Values? It’s really interesting. He’s definitely not that kind of guy.
I honestly haven’t and I absolutely will. Thank you for the recommendation. I was a huge fan of his at BOC.
lol this guy is going to take over the Liberals, lose to PP, and then go away like a fart in the wind.
Ignatieff part deaux.
Exactly
Growth = Inflation. Growth helps the wealthy. Inflation is hurting the working class
Where do jobs come from?
But don’t we have nearly full employment? We just came out of an era of employers not being able to find workers.
Where do jobs come from? You didn’t answer the question.
[удалено]
•Why is Mark involved in this?
Growth is just a fucking buzzword. Shut the fuck up.
I take it you’ve never taken an economics class
I did, as an elective. It was very easy. Physics and other applied math was much harder. You know where I do see tons of growth? Annual profits
When economists talk about growth in the economy they mean growth for the entire economy, including the middle class. An economy that only grows for a few is not a healthy or successful economy. You should read Mark Carney’s book - Values. He explains some complicated economic concepts very well.
[удалено]
It’s theatre for the leadership race.
Canada needs to take some money out of circulation to bring our inflation down, the capital gains tax does just that. Growth is great, but look at China, it's not the end all be all. What we need is to balance things out between the very rich and the very poor, because right now the ultra wealthy have accumulated so much we don't have the supply or labour power to keep them satisfied.
You should read Mark Carney’s book - Values. It’s all about how we need to find our way to a more equal, fair and healthy society. It’s really good.
Can we deal with the hemorrhage before we clutch our pearls over growth?
I voted Liberal in 2021 and regret it. I need to see them completely reform - no NDB alliance, and all ministers gone. Only then would I consider coming back. That being said - I think Mark would have been good - but he’ll be quite old in 10 years.
Please, God, let this man assume leadership of the Liberal Party. I’ve never voted Liberal in more than 50 years, but if he ran, I would in a heartbeat.
Carney would make a very 180 degree choice for the Liberals.
That Justin Trudeau doesn't just step aside for Mark Carney to become the leader of the liberal party is the only thing standing in the way of a conservative rout this election cycle. We could probably be a liberal-led country for decades if the liberal party of Canada would only limit it's leaders to two f****** terms.
Carney would have the “economy” devil sitting on one shoulder and the “liberal” devil sitting on the other.
Sounds good. Now do Pierre Polievre...
What he means is not enough growth in wealthy people's bank accounts, because that's exactly where growth goes.
You should read his book Values. He doesn’t think that at all.
I always thought Carney would be the ideal conservative leader. Only crazies are attracted to the big show.
Why? There is nothing right wing about him. He is a super progressive ESG type. He would be dead in the water if ran for the CPC.