He hasn’t done anything yet lol. Maybe these clowns wouldn’t rob you blind and give it all to corporations if you were so won over by nothing but talking points 🤦♂️
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
143 points (90.4% liked)
Canada
9535 readers
980 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
Rules
-
Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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?
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.
You don't have to be a "fan of the established order of capitalism" to see that moving towards authoritarian hyper-nationalism, destroying international trade relations, and tanking the economy to consolidate power for oligarchs is bad.
“If you're a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney's your guy for sure…”
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.
The difference, fundamentally, is that Carney studies markets, while Milhouse worships them.
The nuance I’d add is that while free markets are efficient, serving the public good is more important than the purest efficiency.
As an example, an unrestricted free market incentivizes the development of monopolies. This can be efficient and in the extremely long term these monopolies may fall to disruptive new entrants — but we humans live in the present and take little solace in the idea that the monopolist will someday get too bloated and fall. We just want to afford groceries!
So using competition bureau powers, we can restrict those markets. This may subtract from some extreme market efficiency but that’s an efficiency only the monopolist benefits from in a useful time frame.
The same principles are true in many other areas of the economy.
To add to this, as result of these differences, Carney might be able to extend the shelf life of the established capitalist system. PP on the other hand is going to accelerate its decline towards more inequality, poverty and instability. So from the perspective of preserving the system itself, Carney is the guy.
If Carney gets a majority and is unable to substantively turned things around, I’m giving up on capitalism.
I sincerely believe we will never have a better candidate to represent the perspective of directed market economics. As the sportsball chant goes: “If he can’t do it, no one can.”
Mass immigration into an existing housing shortage is not "capitalism". Inverting the Phillips curve via mass immigration is huge government overreach.
It's not so much capitalism as it is the premiers being literal throns in our countries side when it comes to progress (Alberta and Sask). They will threaten to "leave Canada" because of some bullshit reasoning that changing our economy from a petrol one to a green one will be bad for the economy. Meanwhile it will only generate new growth and stability for everyone who invests in it. Carney KNOWS this
The challenge for the prairies is that we need to undo the brain rot that has told the people in those provinces their only future is in servicing American oil extractors.
There is a story for these provinces. The Norwegian or Saudi model of having the oil extraction being state-owned — and then using the profits to enrich the population — has been tremendously successful.
Alberta and Saskatchewan control these rights in their provinces and the centre and left should be screaming this from the hilltops. The oil and minerals are non-renewable and they should focus on getting value to enrich their own populations, not rush to produce at a discount in order to enrich American shareholders.
Bingo. Alas all they consume is brain rot
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well put and I second the encouragement to read his book. If nothing else it will help one understand Economics a little better.
Which is separate from saying everyone should agree with it.
I’d love to see a similarly highly-competent socialist economics nerd leading the NDP in our future.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Mostly agreed but I would say that there's plenty of room in all kinds of ways for a more unconventional approach to economics than what Mr. Carney proposes without going all the way to "reject markets entirely."
than what Mr. Carney proposes without going all the way to “reject markets entirely.”
I think there's a vast gulf between absolutely unregulated 'free' markets of the typical cruel blue, and 'reject markets entirely'. Just because the Cons typically play in the farthest anti-people range of the spectrum doesn't mean everything that places any value on society over those markets is immediately rejecting markets entirely. There's a lot of room for a gov to do anything beneficial to its people, and thus appear to be way more social than the cons' typical position, and still not be anti-capitalist.
Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination on my part.
What I see from the NDP for example are extremely poorly considered centre-left policies that don’t go far enough but yet at the same time are ignorant of the economics they want to continue working within.
Take for example their proposal for national rent control. This is a disastrously ignorant policy proposal inside the context of a market economy as it will instruct the markets to halt any future construction of rental units.
Whereas I believe what they need to be doing is either what Carney is proposing, or giving up on the idea of markets entirely and using socialist tools to directly build the homes that the market has failed to build.
But I’ll take your advice to heart and listen if someone comes up with an alternative I’ve not considered.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Justin was the right leader at the time he was elected, but his 'best before' date had certainly come and gone. Politics really wears one down. American politics wears down a Canadian leader even more. But Justin did stand up to Trump and won in the last round of trade negotiations with America.
Fell flat on his face in the Meng Wanzhou, affair, however. The Michaels were clearly targeted because of their American connections - one with the Democrats the other seriously tied to the Republicans. Lawful and legitimate targets for the Chinese, they fit perfectly into the requirements - influential Canadian citizens who were very close to American politicians and under the American State Department umbrella. Justin knew (or should have known) that, and he fell right into an American cesspit that there was absolutely no good way out of for Canada.
Methinks also his Catholicism and the political fighting between the Pope and China at the time had something to do with the animosity, as well. Really, selecting as the Canadian ambassador to China, a devout Roman Catholic official who is a staunch supporter of and even leader in the Roman Catholic Church bid for domination of the world religious order, during this crucial time? Smells entirely of Justin putting his religion ahead of sound international diplomacy. China never got over that slight, and held it over Justin and Canada ever since. China hit Canada hard, economically, for that.
The world has changed since he was first selected as PM, and the new era requires a different leadership style. A 'just watch me' decisiveness of his dad, but without the arrogance. Carney has that style. When he lead the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he got things done while outmaneuvering the politicians. And he understands more than any other world leader today about how money and the economy work. A 'social responsibility conscience'. we will have to wait and see, but that is what the Green party is for.
Carney is essentially a conservative (except for socially) by most metrics.
He handled Trump really well in his first month but there is legitimate risk he has private (as opposed to public) interests at heart.
I guess that's better than the alternative (Poilievre) who will undoubtedly prioritise private interests. At least there's a chance Carney might do some good.
Hoping for a liberal minority government. Canada is very fortunate to have a third party (NDP) to keep their mainstream "progressive" party in check. We've seen how things have gone to shit in the US.
Carney is what a conservative BELEIVES they are. Economically sound. Which they have never been for a long long time, and he's perfect for this job in this moment. Pierre Polievere is a fucking moron and whoever actually believes his bullshit is cooked to a crisp and has zero critical thinking skill or a broad understanding of economics
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›