Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This means the Michaels were actual spies, what I am gathering from this article, and they weren't just detained in a vacuum?

Definitely puts the whole thing in perspective.

From what I read it sounds like neither was a spy but maybe Kovrig was an asset? An unnamed official who knows them both called Spavor utterly naive so he’s more likely an unlucky dude, wrong place and wrong time kinda thing.

Either way the whole thing seems really sloppy and totally political for the Chinese. 1,000 days in Chinese prison sounds like hell.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This means the Michaels were actual spies, what I am gathering from this article, and they weren't just detained in a vacuum?

Definitely puts the whole thing in perspective.

Probably not spies, per se. And if Spavor is telling the truth, he wasn't even an intelligence asset. But it sounds like Kovrig was probably used to collect intelligence in China. And China likely knew this, but only acted when they wanted some leverage.

And if the story is true, it does make the whole politicization of it kind of gross, given that a lot of MPs with the right security clearance likely knew what was really going on. Sort of like when Pierre Trudeau kept hammering the Clark government to do more to help the US in Iran, even though he knew full well that American diplomats were being sheltered and were in the process of being extricated with Canada's help.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This means the Michaels were actual spies, what I am gathering from this article, and they weren't just detained in a vacuum?

Definitely puts the whole thing in perspective.

It’s not really surprising. Even nice countries like Canada employ enough people doing shady things in foreign countries that the host doesn’t need to round up random people when they want to send a message. It was frankly pretty naive of Canadians to think those guys were just totally innocent diplomats.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This means the Michaels were actual spies, what I am gathering from this article, and they weren't just detained in a vacuum?

Definitely puts the whole thing in perspective.

They were never just "detained in a vacuum", it was purely political. "Hostage diplomacy". Canada detained Meng Wanzhou on behalf of the US, whom had submitted a formal extradition request to Canada alleging Meng violated sanctions against Iran and committed fraud to do so. In direct retaliation the Chinese detained Spavor and Kovrig, and held them indefinitely, until Meng was released from house arrest, the extradition request to the US dropped, and a deferred prosecution agreement reached. As soon as that happened Spavor and Kovrig were released. Classic hostage diplomacy.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

They were never just "detained in a vacuum", it was purely political. "Hostage diplomacy". Canada detained Meng Wanzhou on behalf of the US, whom had submitted a formal extradition request to Canada alleging Meng violated sanctions against Iran and committed fraud to do so. In direct retaliation the Chinese detained Spavor and Kovrig, and held them indefinitely, until Meng was released from house arrest, the extradition request to the US dropped, and a deferred prosecution agreement reached. As soon as that happened Spavor and Kovrig were released. Classic hostage diplomacy.

What I mean by detained in a vacuum was that the charges against the Michaels was purported to be fabricated and they were illegally detained, when in reality China's allegations were much closer to the truth.

"Spying on State Secrets or Intelligence for Parties Outside the Territory of China” is the charge on Michael Kovrig. Now Spavor is blaming Kovrig for intelligence gathering causing both to be detained.

Covert intelligence gathering is the literal definition of a spy. It seems their actions were tolerated until China needed a bargaining chip.

[Slava]

This kind of thing is exactly why Pierre and his brand of conservatism is in for a rougher ride than the polls might suggest. He brought up firing Tiff Macklem before, and now their Communications’s person has said that they don’t need central banks. Hilariously misguided and people who are way out of their depth. Firing Macklem was a dumb idea and now this takes the stupidity to an entirely new level.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1726063425866895814

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

This kind of thing is exactly why Pierre and his brand of conservatism is in for a rougher ride than the polls might suggest. He brought up firing Tiff Macklem before, and now their Communications’s person has said that they don’t need central banks. Hilariously misguided and people who are way out of their depth. Firing Macklem was a dumb idea and now this takes the stupidity to an entirely new level.

The populism of our times means you can reach a high level in politics without being a serious person. It’s scary how many politicians and activists today don’t understand even the basics of how the world functions. They’re informed entirely by memes and half-truths sifted out of their social media feeds.

When I see ideas like scrapping central banks, I want to ask “what country are you using as your model here - where has this loopy thing you’re suggesting actually worked”? It seems obvious that the loons haven’t given it much thought, and don’t even understand how our system works, let alone other countries.

[Fuzz]

A central bank has no purpose if you shift a countries currency to bitcoin. Which is a brilliant idea, and I wonder why no one has thought of it.

[Ozy_Flame]

That's not some fringe person. That's the official Director of Comms for PP and the CPC.

Her follow-up Tweet suggests the CPC can operate without a central bank by discipline alone. You know, good honest penny pinching.

Looking forward to a CPC majority as our next federal government.

[Mr.Coffee]

Jesus Christ, that is so ####ing concerning.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A central bank has no purpose if you shift a countries currency to bitcoin. Which is a brilliant idea, and I wonder why no one has thought of it.

Well it's worked so well for El Salvador and Central African Republic! I can see why Pierre is so enamoured those thriving economic conditions.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's not some fringe person. That's the official Director of Comms for PP and the CPC.

Her follow-up Tweet suggests the CPC can operate without a central bank by discipline alone. You know, good honest penny pinching.

Looking forward to a CPC majority as our next federal government.

It's entirely fair-game to say that she represents the party and as her job is communications she knows exactly what she's putting out there and how to frame that message.

[Yoho]

Nothing she said was wrong they are allowing the liberals to spend to no end.
Edit just read article.

[Ozy_Flame]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1726252940988743896

Ah yes, convert to Bitcoin, a speculative 'asset' not at all susceptible to wild fluctuations and abuse through private interests.

Careful Sarah, your populist libertarianism is showing.

[Yoho]

Just read the article regardless of what anyone thinks of Bitcoin the principle she is saying is correct. Thinking that USA and Canada can just continue printing money into infinitely won’t end up leading to a collapse is complete buffoonery.

Defending a model like that is insane.

It’s almost by design what the government is doing with its unsustainable overspending.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Just read the article regardless of what anyone thinks of Bitcoin the principle she is saying is correct. Thinking that USA and Canada can just continue printing money into infinitely won’t end up leading to a collapse is complete buffoonery.

Defending a model like that is insane.

It’s almost by design what the government is doing with its unsustainable overspending.

I think someone needs to look back and understand why we have central banks today and how they function.

[Ozy_Flame]

And there it is - conspiracy theory time to justify highly dangerous fringe ideologies that could wreak havoc on the economic fortunes of Canadians because "trust me bro".

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think someone needs to look back and understand why we have central banks today and how they function.

Yes everyone that still supports them in the USA. Such a sound financial plan what’s going on with the debt there.

This is all a sleep walk into central bank digital currency which the lemmings will continue to applaud.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Yes everyone that still supports them in the USA. Such a sound financial plan what’s going on with the debt there.

This is all a sleep walk into central bank digital currency which the lemmings will continue to applaud.

Do you understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy?

I find it interesting that the main solution for conspiracy theorists to solve the "potential" overreach by governments with a digital currency is...a digital currency.

But on bitcoin, I don't know how interested I am in having this conversation.
I'll just say that to have any legitimacy, a currency is a currency because you can pay taxes with it. That's the critical point. And sure, you can have other things that are exchanged and have value...but that value is in relation to the currency. You could own every single bitcoin in the world and if you owe taxes to the Canadian government, you're converting those into CAD.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Just read the article regardless of what anyone thinks of Bitcoin the principle she is saying is correct. Thinking that USA and Canada can just continue printing money into infinitely won’t end up leading to a collapse is complete buffoonery.

Defending a model like that is insane.

It’s almost by design what the government is doing with its unsustainable overspending.

Why? In the long run, the creation of new money is roughly equal to Real GDP growth + productivity growth + inflation.

So if money creation was insanely out of whack with growth, then inflation would be unsustainably high over the long term, but that hasn't been the case for decades.

As for "infinite money printing", the pace has slowed significantly since the '70s and '80s. Canada's M2 annualized growth:

1970s: 14.8%
1980s: 10.6%
1990s: 3.3%
2000s: 7.4%
2010s: 6.4%
2020s: 8.8% (this is dragged up by the one-time influx during COVID and is dropping every month)

If you think adding 6-7% to the money supply equates "printing money into infinity" then you really don't have a very good handle on economics.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Slava

Do you understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy?

Lol. Considering the poster, do you really have to ask? Understanding differences, nuance, and context isn't exactly in his wheelhouse.