C’mon guys this is such an easy win for us as a country. Justin went a little too far with his style of governing for a lot of you and now the liberals have voted this guy to be it’s leader and new PM. This is who we want to lead us into the second half of the 20th century, this guy is so fucking smart. Pierre just sings slogans and simple pretty things that sound nice but in reality he’s just going to sell us off to American interests and cut the things that help working people.
If you’re a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney’s your guy for sure, but I don’t think it’s necessary to invent a conspiracy theory to explain why markets understand that Trump actually going through with it and imposing massive tariffs on all trade with America would be very bad news for the US dollar and Treasuries.
“If you’re a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney’s your guy for sure…”
I think both Pierre and Carney fit this description.
However one will cheer on the 51st state and one will lead a stable 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.
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.
The difference, fundamentally, is that Carney studies markets, while Milhouse worships them.
Well put and I second the encouragement to read his book. If nothing else it will help one understand Economics a little better.
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.”
Putting out another regular reminder that there’s multiple incompatible definitions of capitalism.
I think Pierre has something a bit more Putinesque in mind. I can’t even say it would a libertarian free-for-all, because he’s big on strict rules to protect his favoured industries and people.
If you don’t want capitalism, depending on definition, you have to go for a fringe party.
If you’re a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney’s your guy for sure
Carney is a Keynesian and would probably prefer a 1950s or 60s style capitalism than what we have right now.
Except when he was advising Trudeau we ran huge deficits every single year. I’ve never heard him say anything Keynesian.
when he was advising Trudeau
You mean since all the way back in the… fall of 2024?
Carney is essentially a conservative (except for socially) by most metrics.
He handled Trump really well in his first month but there is legitimate risk he has private (as opposed to public) interests at heart.
I guess that’s better than the alternative (Poilievre) who will undoubtedly prioritise private interests. At least there’s a chance Carney might do some good.
Hoping for a liberal minority government. Canada is very fortunate to have a third party (NDP) to keep their mainstream “progressive” party in check. We’ve seen how things have gone to shit in the US.
Carney is what a conservative BELEIVES they are. Economically sound. Which they have never been for a long long time, and he’s perfect for this job in this moment. Pierre Polievere is a fucking moron and whoever actually believes his bullshit is cooked to a crisp and has zero critical thinking skill or a broad understanding of economics
Carney is essentially a conservative (except for socially) by most metrics.
What metrics have you used to paint Carney in this light?
He handled Trump really well in his first month but there is legitimate risk he has private (as opposed to public) interests at heart.
What information do you have that demonstrates Carney is a legitimate risk to public interests?
I guess that’s better than the alternative (Poilievre) who will undoubtedly prioritise private interests. At least there’s a chance Carney might do some good.
Is the chance Carney does “some good” higher than the “legitimate risk to public interests”, and what information are you basing this comparison on?
Hoping for a liberal minority government. Canada is very fortunate to have a third party (NDP) to keep their mainstream “progressive” party in check. We’ve seen how things have gone to shit in the US.
We have seen what happens with a Liberal Minority propped up with the NDP, which is the bare minimum.
Why do you believe it will go better a second time?
A liberal government propped up by the NDP saw us have one of the best COVID recoveries out of the developed world. It saw us get childcare, pharmacare, dentalcare, and the first home savings account. They made student loans interest free, gave more tax breaks to the working class and produced a school foods program… Would you say these are not all monumental achievements that most developed nations in Europe has had for decades?
Here’s an official source on how bad Canada is doing when adjusting for mass immigration:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2024004/article/00001-eng.htm
Meanwhile asset holders became filthy rich coincidentally, as the UN called us modern slavers.
Three years and they did the bare minimum.
My wife is a diabetic and has seen 0 benefits from pharmacare, my medication isn’t covered and won’t be anytime soon, dental is a joke, poor people need money to save for a savings account to matter, childcare is spotty at best, tax breaks help no one because taxes fund infrastructure, the school foods program is great however it is also not universal.
They had three years and did the bare minimum, and it was barely because of the NDP.
Justin was the right leader at the time he was elected, but his ‘best before’ date had certainly come and gone. Politics really wears one down. American politics wears down a Canadian leader even more. But Justin did stand up to Trump and won in the last round of trade negotiations with America.
Fell flat on his face in the Meng Wanzhou, affair, however. The Michaels were clearly targeted because of their American connections - one with the Democrats the other seriously tied to the Republicans. Lawful and legitimate targets for the Chinese, they fit perfectly into the requirements - influential Canadian citizens who were very close to American politicians and under the American State Department umbrella. Justin knew (or should have known) that, and he fell right into an American cesspit that there was absolutely no good way out of for Canada.
Methinks also his Catholicism and the political fighting between the Pope and China at the time had something to do with the animosity, as well. Really, selecting as the Canadian ambassador to China, a devout Roman Catholic official who is a staunch supporter of and even leader in the Roman Catholic Church bid for domination of the world religious order, during this crucial time? Smells entirely of Justin putting his religion ahead of sound international diplomacy. China never got over that slight, and held it over Justin and Canada ever since. China hit Canada hard, economically, for that.
The world has changed since he was first selected as PM, and the new era requires a different leadership style. A ‘just watch me’ decisiveness of his dad, but without the arrogance. Carney has that style. When he lead the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he got things done while outmaneuvering the politicians. And he understands more than any other world leader today about how money and the economy work. A ‘social responsibility conscience’. we will have to wait and see, but that is what the Green party is for.
I don’t think the liberals are just offering talking points. They are talking unity, which is what we need right now, and even before Carney the liberals were taking strides to fix our problems but you were all just eating up instagram and tiktok reels with Pierre spitting bullshit at you like: THE CARBON TAX ELECTION
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.
So Carney is going to be around for another 25 years until the second half of the 21st century, lol clearly?
