Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[SebC]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Everyone knows that we can't win a trade war with the Americans. The tough guy talk is laughable and pathetic.

It's also why central Canada wants the oil card. Everyone knows we can't go dollar for dollar with the US. So Canada needs products with high leverage.

You admit it's a high leverage product, but don't want it on the table? Do you want tariffs forever?

Someone like you who thinks every dollar spent by government would be better spent by the private industry should surely be against giving our money to a government that isn't even ours.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The Alberta posters who are clamouring to appeaee central Canada Trump are behaving like an abused partner that thinks that if we'te just compliant one more time maybe things will be different.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I'm not talking about subsidizing the private sector to build infrastructure. I'm talking about government ownership of infrastructure. It resets the economic feasibility of large projects.

Ever since governments started selling off utility assets, it was the end of the line for new large public owned resources. Why?

Also, it wouldn't be running at a loss, it would run at break even (with a reserve). Eliminating the cost of building and restructuring the financials to include secondary and tertiary income resulting from the resource, would help the people (the province as a whole). Private companies be damned.

In the 60s, public spending in Canada was split roughly 2:1 between capital projects and services/entitlements. Today, that ratio has flipped. Public services and direct transfers like health and pensions have grown relentlessly while the population has aged, cannibalizing infrastructure budgets. And the cost of projects has increased as materials and labour have become relatively scarce, building standards stricter, and regulatory rent-seeking interests grown like weeds.

[calgarygeologist]

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson — the latest Liberal to visit Washington in response to president-elect Donald Trump’s tariff threats — is making a pitch for a Canada-U.S. energy and resource alliance.

Wilkinson told American lawmakers Wednesday that the best way for the U.S. to protect its economic dominance and national security from China is to work with Canada.

"The U.S. cannot be energy-dominant without Canadian energy," Wilkinson said during a panel discussion at the Wilson Center's Canada Institute on Wednesday.

Canadian electricity powers the equivalent of six million American homes, the U.S. imports four million barrels of Canadian oil per day and Canada supplies natural gas to parts of the Pacific Northwest and California, the minister said.

He also cited the United States' reliance on Canadian uranium, potash and critical minerals.

The U.S. Department of Defense is already working with Canada to build up critical mineral capacity. It awarded millions of dollars to Canadian companies last year to accelerate mine development and strengthen critical minerals supply chains.

Wilkinson suggested an early goal of the Trump administration should be to build an energy and resource alliance with Canada, instead of imposing damaging new tariffs.

He said Canada and the U.S. should invest jointly in mining and processing critical minerals to lessen both countries' reliance on China. He also suggested increasing the flow of oil and potash from the Prairies to the U.S., which would decrease the need for trade with Russia and Venezuela.

"None of this is possible if we get in a tit-for-tat exchange,” Wilkinson said.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...than-wilkinson

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Andy83

You realize this is a public form ya? You should be able to come to the conclusion that people have the ability to read for as long as they want without registering or posting. That said, the thing with insufferable dbags is they tend to stick out like sore thumbs.

Once again, you show your reading comprehension skills are poor, at best. I've said I'm not going to rehash the same points endlessly because I don't get the feeling we will ever see eye to eye. I've stated my view, you don't agree. You've stated your view, I don't agree. Cool. No need to continue on the same subject. Continuing down the same road, on the same subject is like playing pigeon chess. You will flap your wings, knock over all the pieces, #### all over the board and go back to your buddies claiming glorious victory. I'm sure, as the authority on being an adult, you can see the futility of this exercise. Get over it. Either come with something new we can disagree on, and start the whole process over, or piss off.

I'm going to take the other side of this. I enjoy having my ideas and thoughts tested because it assists in developing those ideas. There's not much I would agree with them on in regards to the subject at hand. But one is useful for me, the other is not. It's helpful to be able to tell the difference. That only happens when someone disagrees with you. The usefulness is in the disagreement. Pepsifree is useful this was I think - Fuzz does not. Even better if you are willing to modify your views with new information.


The trick is to learn how to not feel discomfort when someone disagrees with you - which is a natural human instinct. I don't take any of this personally, which is why I don't bother (mostly), with making personal comments or responding to them. Nothing seems more pointless and silly than making personal comments on an anonymous internet message board. My avatar's reputation has no usefulness for me.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody is going to be furious or hold politicians at gun point for doing what all of them are already running on anyway.

People do this all of the time.

- climate change and related policy
- fiscal/monetary policy with respect to GFC/Covid

People regularly vote for their own benefits, and then believe (mostly through the lies of politicians), that the cost isn't generalized. They are then upset when the consequences and the price that needs to be paid come home to roost. Generally the more the benefit looks like "free money", the worse this problem is. In the two examples I gave, inflation was always going to be the consequence, but nobody really cared. Until they do.

Something like minimum wage increases are similar. Seems good on the surface, until someone who doesn't have value commensurate with the minimum wage realizes that the actual minimum wage is $0 and they can't get a job.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by SebC

You admit it's a high leverage product, but don't want it on the table? Do you want tariffs forever?

Someone like you who thinks every dollar spent by government would be better spent by the private industry should surely be against giving our money to a government that isn't even ours.

I've stated that Alberta's oil and gas industry is high leverage and can be used as such. Trump has handed Alberta a lot of leverage in negotiating with the rest of Canada.

From Alberta's perspective, there is nothing to negotiate with Trump. Alberta sells a global commodity, so negotiating based on price with the US isn't that useful, pricing is determined rather than set. They already buy all of our product. What else is there to negotiate? Again, this all assumes that the US won't put a tariff on Canadian oil and gas.

The leverage (that I think Smith hasn't entirely utilized) is with the rest of Canada. Most of what Canada manufactures is replaceable in the US to a greater degree than the commodities Canada produces. That's not a great bargaining position for Central Canada, and that's unfortunate for them. If Central Canada wants Alberta to be part of The Team (as if that's even a thing), then they should pay handsomely for that. The vitriol and SDS (Smith Derangement Syndrome...you heard it here first), that is prevalent right now in the media is not a bad thing, it is an indicator of how much bargaining power Alberta has at the moment. We should press our advantage over the rest of Canada to its maximum. These types of situations are rare.

[Roughneck]

Alberta doesn't actually sell anything, and doesn't control whether tariffs can be put on exports. So what is the mechanism of this leverage you speak of? I get you've become obsessed with the national unity line, despite not believing in national unity in the first place because of the CCDS (Central Canada Derangement Syndrome...you heard it here first).

What is there to negotiate? Canada has levers to pull with the US, export tariffs on O&G being one. What's Alberta's lever to pull with big bad Central Canada?

[Fuzz]

He won't be satisfied until we have lorded our wealth over every other fellow Canadian, and have them prostrating themselves in front of Alberta, and sending us thank you cards every month for the transfer payments. And we are the deranged ones. Boy it's fortunate we were wise enough to be born in a province with resource wealth so we can threaten to #### over our less fortunate fellow citizens every chance we get. That's the Canadian way.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Alberta doesn't actually sell anything, and doesn't control whether tariffs can be put on exports. So what is the mechanism of this leverage you speak of? I get you've become obsessed with the national unity line, despite not believing in national unity in the first place because of the CCDS (Central Canada Derangement Syndrome...you heard it here first).

What is there to negotiate? Canada has levers to pull with the US, export tariffs on O&G being one. What's Alberta's lever to pull with big bad Central Canada?

National unity benefits Central Canada far more than it benefits Western Canada.

People are claiming that Smith/Alberta are undermining Central Canada's position, and also that Alberta has no power to undermine Central Canada's position.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm going to take the other side of this. I enjoy having my ideas and thoughts tested because it assists in developing those ideas. There's not much I would agree with them on in regards to the subject at hand. But one is useful for me, the other is not. It's helpful to be able to tell the difference. That only happens when someone disagrees with you. The usefulness is in the disagreement. Pepsifree is useful this was I think - Fuzz does not. Even better if you are willing to modify your views with new information.


The trick is to learn how to not feel discomfort when someone disagrees with you - which is a natural human instinct. I don't take any of this personally, which is why I don't bother (mostly), with making personal comments or responding to them. Nothing seems more pointless and silly than making personal comments on an anonymous internet message board. My avatar's reputation has no usefulness for me.

Good post, but I would add that part of the value isn’t just being disagreed with, but being pushed to expand on your positions (this isn’t always in the form of disagreement, it can just be questions). If questions make someone uncomfortable, that’s a problem, but then the response should be to think more deeply about your positions. Whether that means expanding on them or admitting they weren’t well thought out. But ignoring that and resorting to pure mud slinging is not useful or interesting.

And I’m fine with mud slinging, it’s fun. Let’s be monkeys together if that’s what someone wants. But let’s keep the actual substance going while we’re at it. I just have no respect for someone who brings it but can’t take it and especially none for someone who brings it as a means of covering for their own discomfort, eschewing any responsibility for bringing value to the back and forth whatsoever.

Anyone is welcome to call me an idiot if I can call them one back and they’ll still answer my question.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People do this all of the time.

- climate change and related policy
- fiscal/monetary policy with respect to GFC/Covid

People regularly vote for their own benefits, and then believe (mostly through the lies of politicians), that the cost isn't generalized. They are then upset when the consequences and the price that needs to be paid come home to roost. Generally the more the benefit looks like "free money", the worse this problem is. In the two examples I gave, inflation was always going to be the consequence, but nobody really cared. Until they do.

Something like minimum wage increases are similar. Seems good on the surface, until someone who doesn't have value commensurate with the minimum wage realizes that the actual minimum wage is $0 and they can't get a job.

Down the line, sure. Everybody wants better this and that but nobody wants to pay for it, we’d agree there. I’m simply pointing out that the proposal itself will get no push back as everyone including PP is running on the goal of reducing housing prices by increasing supply. Whether people like what that looks like once reality sets in is predictable, but different.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Everyone knows that we can't win a trade war with the Americans. The tough guy talk is laughable and pathetic.

It's also why central Canada wants the oil card. Everyone knows we can't go dollar for dollar with the US. So Canada needs products with high leverage.

I think you have it backwards. The US cannot win a tariff war with Canada, full stop. They need our resources more than we need theirs. It will be damaging to both economies but if Trump follows through he is going to hurt his country more then ours. That is why Canada is taking a hard stance against Trump, they are calling his bluff and if he follows through the backlash he will face will end his tariffs pretty quickly.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Alberta doesn't actually sell anything, and doesn't control whether tariffs can be put on exports. So what is the mechanism of this leverage you speak of? I get you've become obsessed with the national unity line, despite not believing in national unity in the first place because of the CCDS (Central Canada Derangement Syndrome...you heard it here first).

What is there to negotiate? Canada has levers to pull with the US, export tariffs on O&G being one. What's Alberta's lever to pull with big bad Central Canada?

Correct. Alberta leases a global commodity.

If they set up a crown corporation to sell it themselves, they would still be subject to some of the same taxes that private corporations are subject to. Including the export tax.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Good post, but I would add that part of the value isn’t just being disagreed with, but being pushed to expand on your positions (this isn’t always in the form of disagreement, it can just be questions). If questions make someone uncomfortable, that’s a problem, but then the response should be to think more deeply about your positions. Whether that means expanding on them or admitting they weren’t well thought out. But ignoring that and resorting to pure mud slinging is not useful or interesting.

And I’m fine with mud slinging, it’s fun. Let’s be monkeys together if that’s what someone wants. But let’s keep the actual substance going while we’re at it. I just have no respect for someone who brings it but can’t take it and especially none for someone who brings it as a means of covering for their own discomfort, eschewing any responsibility for bringing value to the back and forth whatsoever.

Anyone is welcome to call me an idiot if I can call them one back and they’ll still answer my question.



Down the line, sure. Everybody wants better this and that but nobody wants to pay for it, we’d agree there. I’m simply pointing out that the proposal itself will get no push back as everyone including PP is running on the goal of reducing housing prices by increasing supply. Whether people like what that looks like once reality sets in is predictable, but different.

Also good post, and I consistently appreciate your approach. I don't mind disparaging comments about my ideas. I don't even have a problem with personal attacks or ad hominems...other than that they waste my time and are boring.

As for the housing crisis - I find it fascinating that people fall for the euphemism regarding "housing affordability", when in fact it is precisely the same as saying to people who own houses that we are going to drain their equity. Unwinding assets bubbles is a really painful process.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I think you have it backwards. The US cannot win a tariff war with Canada, full stop. They need our resources more than we need theirs. It will be damaging to both economies but if Trump follows through he is going to hurt his country more then ours. That is why Canada is taking a hard stance against Trump, they are calling his bluff and if he follows through the backlash he will face will end his tariffs pretty quickly.

This is completely and utterly incorrect. In a trade war with Canada, the main leverage we have is the disruption that a trade war causes leading up to the mid-terms. That's the pinch point for Trump. But the US as an economy has the the mass to absorb body blows that Canada does not. This is almost universally acknowledged. Someone like Melanie Joly will admit openly (and correctly), that Canada can't tangle with the US on a dollar for dollar basis at the moment.

What hurts the US economy kills the Canadian one.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Also good post, and I consistently appreciate your approach. I don't mind disparaging comments about my ideas. I don't even have a problem with personal attacks or ad hominems...other than that they waste my time and are boring.

As for the housing crisis - I find it fascinating that people fall for the euphemism regarding "housing affordability", when in fact it is precisely the same as saying to people who own houses that we are going to drain their equity. Unwinding assets bubbles is a really painful process.

In some cases people might be “falling for it” but I think there’s people who realize what’s at stake. It’s definitely something that will disproportionately hurt the middle and upper class (and that pesky upper class that are convinced they’re actually just middle class) in favour of the lower middle class and below. But if you told me today that one family would be able to buy a home when they otherwise weren’t able to and it would cost me 30% of my home equity, I’d say go for it.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is completely and utterly incorrect. In a trade war with Canada, the main leverage we have is the disruption that a trade war causes leading up to the mid-terms. That's the pinch point for Trump. But the US as an economy has the the mass to absorb body blows that Canada does not. This is almost universally acknowledged. Someone like Melanie Joly will admit openly (and correctly), that Canada can't tangle with the US on a dollar for dollar basis at the moment.

What hurts the US economy kills the Canadian one.

Until 1.5M US homes go dark with no electricity in the middle of Winter. And no, despite what some Republicans try and claim the US cannot just make up for that on their side. Time to play hardball.

[calgarygeologist]

Chrystia Freeland held her leadership bid announcement just now and there was a sizeable protest in the hall at the start of the event which caused a delay as they had to deal with the protesters. This leadership campaign will be fun. It could be damaging to the Liberals internally.

[MelBridgeman]

All aboard the Karina Gould train !

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Chrystia Freeland held her leadership bid announcement just now and there was a sizeable protest in the hall at the start of the event which caused a delay as they had to deal with the protesters. This leadership campaign will be fun. It could be damaging to the Liberals internally.

Who was protesting? Was in more fake RW media rabble rousers?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Who was protesting? Was in more fake RW media rabble rousers?

Give it a break man.