Canada's economy grew by a greater-than-expected 0.3% in May and looks set to turn in its best annualized quarterly performance for more than three years, official data indicated on Friday.

...

[The growth] indicates annualized second-quarter growth of 3.4%, significantly higher than the Bank of Canada's July 15 forecast of 2.5%, and the highest annualized quarterly increase since the 4.3% seen in the first three months of 2023.

The central bank left its benchmark overnight rate unchanged at 2.25% on July 15 and said growth would strengthen in the second half of the year as inflation pressures eased and firms continued to adapt to U.S. tariffs.

"The economy appears to have found ways to navigate the current cloud of uncertainty relating to trade with the United States," said Royce Mendes, managing director ‌and ⁠head of macro strategy at Desjardins.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 28 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Those soup lines will start getting shorter with this progress. Canada needs to make money if it wants to solve its problems. Imagine growth, during a recession, while dealing with the orange turd posse's unpredictability to the south as we navigate away from relying on American spending for our goods and services. It's kind of impressive really.

[–] 1egg4u@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Money being made doesnt mean anything if it isnt going where it should be

[–] qaeta@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A bunch of rich assholes making more money usually makes the soup lines longer these days, not shorter.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In industries that involve tech, yeah I'll agree. In industries requiring resource extraction, not at all. That only happens with labour, which is one of the reasons Carney has been advocating for opening up Canada. They're very well paying jobs. It shortens these lines because these workers can also pay for services, so it really does trickle down in cases like this - more restaurants or more local artists, etc, can make it with a better economy.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It also burns the planet. We kinda need that.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you genuinely think if Canada stopped selling oil the world would be ok? We're at about 0.5% of the world's population, and we make about 6% of the world's supply. I don't know about you, but if the world is gonna burn, I'd rather a full stomach than an empty one for when that time comes.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

So this is what we've come to.

First it was "global warming isn't real", then it was "it is, but it's not our fault", then "it's our fault, but there's nothing we can do about it", and now you're taking the position of "it's all gonna burn anyway, so I might as well get mine."

Putting the emotional argument aside for a moment, this is a blisteringly naive position to take. In a world on fire, and with Canada's terrain the way it is, what could possibly make you think that your home isn't going to be burning next year? A "full stomach"? In a world on fire? Where do you think the food is going to come from? What in your head tells you that you're going to be able to afford to feed yourself or your family in a world where crop yields are cratering everywhere? The people with the money, who stand to profit further from policies like the one you're supporting here will gleefully let you die and not even notice.

For every litre of oil & gas Canada leaves in the ground, the cost of accessing those fossils elsewhere increases. Driving up the price drives divestment and innovation everywhere, and that means fewer burning forests and a better chance of survival.

While it's true that resource extraction can drive an economy, extracting resources that literally burn the future is at-best shortsighted... extractive if you will. We could be pushing money into electrification, transport, and education, fields in desperate need of support that objectively lead to a stronger economy nation-wide. With the US cratering, we could position ourselves as a cultural hub, or a manufacturing bridge between Asia and Europe... but instead Carney is choosing short-term profits for private companies (protected by public funds!) and increasing our already sizeable contribution to burning the world.

But I guess it's ok if a few people have some jobs for a few years. You best hope your home isn't next on the to-burn list.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I can empathize with your statement. I really can. I felt like you, once. Once, I went and worked in the Ontario AFFES, and I traveled around the country literally putting out fires for years. I tried to be the change I wanted to see in the world, someone helpful. Then I learned about our forests, and how it's pretty much too late to save them.

Canada is fucked no matter how you look at it. The entire boreal forest sits on roughly 50cm to several meters of organic growing material and then it's mineral soil underneath. When it goes, we'll have a massive desert stretching through our country.

The world's burning of fuels affects Canada whether we contribute or not. If we completely drop out, the world is still going at 94% pace, which is still going to blow past all of the warning limits scientists have screamed about. The world is doomed. Rage and complain all you like, it'll change nothing. People are too stupid to listen to scientists, and so they'll just keep using these fuels the world over, and here in Canada our forests will keep burning.

Do you know why? Because no one goes out and solves this problem. No one. Everyone complains, but no one sacrifices their comforts for the world's health. In addition, developing nations need our resource to grow. You'd deny them advancing civilization, after you've got yours?

I have not gotten mine. I'm no millionaire. I just understand some harsh truths that I've come to terms with. People are generally awful, not out of malice, but out of indifference/convenience. So yeah, fill my stomach before I die. It's better to burn full than hungry.

But I'll continue the discussion for you. You complain about burning crops. Well, do know know what percentage of fields are devoted solely to animal food? Way too much, north of 50% of all fields, but much higher if my memory serves. Those fields can be converted and we'll be fine. It'll just take too much loss before we do. Do you know why? Because humans don't listen and don't care enough until they have to suffer for their choices.

Fwiw, I've never said the statements you opened with. I always knew it was the fault of humans and argued with several big wig deniers that we strongly contribute to climate change. It was all in vain. And now here we are.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 minutes ago

You sound like a reasonable person who's given up, and I get that. Given everything we see, it may even be the rational choice, but it's not the moral one. It's fine if you want to check out, but that doesn't explain the cheerleading for policy that will make everything worse. It turns you from a bystander to an antagonist.

If this planet is going to end in fire, I have to believe that Good people are going to fight for it, even if we know we can't win because "if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do".

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Let's be real, these companies aren't hiring people off the street. I think the guy wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants is going to have some friction in the interview process.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Of course, but the services he needs will be more likely to be in place thanks to the increased tax revenue as the jobs market picks up.

It sounds like you're taking about a homeless person with a debilitating mental health issue, but there are many unemployed who have employable skills that would benefit from this news. The homeless people with these mental issues will never be employable regardless of the economy, so I think you need to figure out what you're trying to argue here.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Of course, but the services he needs will be more likely to be in place thanks to the increased tax revenue as the jobs market picks up.

Not true when services are being cut

The homeless people with these mental issues will never be employable regardless of the economy

Also not true for a lot of people if they were actually supported.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Services are being cut for two reasons: we're in a recession and we need to triage, and people aren't so keen on the policies being cut as they are for those remaining in place. This means that essentials stay, and perks get dropped. Sadly, those perks usually most benefit the ill and downtrodden, as those resources/services are very cost intensive for the return to society.

You're right about my comment on unemployable. That wasn't said properly. If we were fully funded, warning signs would be caught earlier and supports would be put in place to keep the individual as a contributing member of society.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Cutting services isn't "triage" if it impacts the most vulnerable and poor. Triage would be cutting tax breaks for multi billion dollar oil corporations and raising taxes on the wealthiest people in the country.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fun fact, the class with the biggest share of the country's wealth, is also the one most on Lemmy.

Like, sure, that probably is the answer, but let's not pretend there's some kind of distant, invisible group of billionares that will be the only ones effected. And that's why it's hard for politicians to actually raise taxes.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wealth taxes are actually very popular. The reason they aren't implemented is because libs and Tories are captured by capital

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Really? Go to someone on the street and ask if they want to pay more taxes. You might get a yes, but you'll get a lot more nos.

Politicians are captured by middle or upper-middle class voters, yes.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Onviously if you ask a slanted question like that, you will get slanted answers, but we are just talking hypotheticals right now. While its a little dated, the data suggests you are quite wrong and wealth taxes are popular.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So, that puts the cutoff at 20 million. Most people don't know anyone that rich, but if you ask someone with just a few million, they might, and they'll probably be against it. And guess what, they're going to know a lot of people with just hundreds of thousands, and those are the white picket fence people who vote and donate the most.

It's slanted, not the original question, in that it passes the buck to some distant third party. Politicians don't have the luxury of just ignoring that they have one big interconnected populace to satisfy, and none of them are an island. They raise taxes, and the big narrative is that they raised taxes for no reason, and that can cost an election.

It has nothing to do with it being a good idea or not. It's just politically difficult, and not because of anything spooky. (And FWIW OP was about income taxes; wealth taxes have additional complications)

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What argument are you making here? Government won't do it because raising any taxes is bad? Maybe if a government is shit at messaging, they could lose political capital through a wealth tax but its clearly popular policy.

I brought up a wealth tax because the OP said thay services needed to be cut because we dont have enough money coming in. My point is that services don't need to be cut if the country's wealthy actually paid their fair share and I dont understand why everyone acts like financial troubles means that poor people have to suffer rather than rich people paying more.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What argument are you making here? Government won’t do it because raising any taxes is bad?

Unpopular in practice is different from unpopular in concept (look at cutting emissions, for another great example), and both are different than bad. Other than that, pretty much: The government won't raise taxes because it's unpopular when they do. (Thank you for asking, by the way, It's hard to just insert "this is my thesis")

Sure, they might be forced to raise taxes eventually. Probably, even; it's happened before. Or, maybe some socialist firebrand will come in and make extremely progressive taxes their signature policy (meaning they have to go with the flow elsewhere). But, this is descriptively, factually, why hikes don't happen that much.

Now, normatively, you can make whatever you want of that.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago

It is a popular policy, and I wholeheartedly agree with wealth taxes as they're the only way to get back income to get fully funded everything. If it were as popular as you claim, it'd be policy now. That's how politics works. Maybe we'll see the NDP rise to prominence once our economy is running better and we'll transition as a society to funding all of the great social programs to the fullest extent possible. I hope that day happens, but that's not out current Canadian priorities sadly.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, you're saying it'll trickle down any moment now?

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see. You're just trying to argue because you don't understand economics. To you, everything needs to be immediate, is that it? Have you ever built something?

It takes over a year to build a house. How long do you think it takes to build an industry? It starts tickles down when people show up to put the shovels in the ground and continues until the last coat of paint is on. You think all of those workers are going to be eating bush berries to survive as they work, or will they be buying up services as they work? Have some patience.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

No, not at all. Some investments take hundreds of years.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Money ain't a solution, it's a middleman with questionable value. We need a major system change that focuses less on money (or amounts of money/profit) and more on ecology, progress and humanity. We run around in money circles over and over again while things get steadily worse. Reminds me of this scenarios..."Well, we have the shovels and we have the men and we can feed them, clothe them and house them, but we ain't got the money".

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago

I agree with you that our system needs to focus more on progress, ecology and humanity. An ideal country ought to have policies where these are the paramount foci. But we don't live in that ideal society sadly, as we're a bunch of humans. Without incentive, we don't make things happen as individuals or as a collective. We need to make that money so we can have good things again. People won't do much for free, and money is still the best reward for effort, regardless of its value to you. That money opens up more options for a future government that's more in line with what we'd both like to see.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Toronto LRT had 118 vice presidents at one point. Canada suffers from an excess of white collar bullshit jobs.

[–] RadiallyAxiomatic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

It would be nice if the less-than-needed jobs could be cut and the needed jobs split more evenly among everyone able to do so. I'd love a 5 day weekend, or to be able to imagine retirement as a possibility.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

So how do we keep track of ecology, progress and humanity, in such a complicated system? Maybe we could make some kind of tokens representing it, and then require everyone to maintain a positive flow of tokens. Realistically, there's going to be an unavoidable shortfall somewhere, but if whatever activity is worthwhile, you could still make it up somewhere else.

Oh wait, that's money.