Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[2ArmBands]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think I’m going to drink every time someone uses GDP per capita. It’s the only way to put me out of my misery, because this entirely useless and meaningless statistic just gets used constantly.

It’s so annoying. Go look at Ireland and how they have this massive GDP per capita, and it’s all due to low corporate tax so Apple and other companies have funnelled profits through Ireland. It’s been called “Leprechaun Economics”, and sure the per capita GDP is $100k/ person, but it’s meaningless. There is a lot of disparity and it’s basically an inflated figure. All the dumb graphs that show how terrible Canada is, also show Ireland with this massive figure, and both are misleading. Ireland, as I explained, and Canada because our population has increased substantially. So, while growth hasn’t been good in Canada, the denominator has increased significantly and the per capita GDP declined.

Okay? Are there other economic statistics or projections you prefer? Alberta and Saskatchewan economies will likely shine in whatever statistic you prefer.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

Okay? Are there other economic statistics or projections you prefer? Alberta and Saskatchewan economies will likely shine in whatever statistic you prefer.

Nationwide leaders in the number of deplorables!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Yeah Apple is bringing up Alberta and Sasks Per Capita GDP

It’s a fantastic comparison . More like an Apple to Natural Resources comparison

It was a comment on GDP per capita as a measurement, not on Alberta and Sask specifically or comparing them to Ireland.

I can see how you felt mislead though. When you miss a point that easy and obvious it probably feels better if you convince yourself someone was trying to trick you.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

Okay? Are there other economic statistics or projections you prefer? Alberta and Saskatchewan economies will likely shine in whatever statistic you prefer.

Of course our economies are good, and no one would deny that. When energy prices are good, our economy is also good. But the UCP didn’t put the oil in the ground; they’re not fiscal geniuses and our economy performs despite their leadership, not because of it.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by Slava

Of course our economies are good, and no one would deny that. When energy prices are good, our economy is also good. But the UCP didn’t put the oil in the ground; they’re not fiscal geniuses and our economy performs despite their leadership, not because of it.

Is it also meaningless that Canada’s GDP per capita is declining?

It’s the most widely recognized proxy for the health of an economy. If it’s shrinking then so is the capacity of the state to fund programs, etc.

This thread continues to deliver a steady stream of utter nonsense, with a heavy dose of sanctimony.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vedder

Is it also meaningless that Canada’s GDP per capita is declining?

It’s the most widely recognized proxy for the health of an economy. If it’s shrinking then so is the capacity of the state to fund programs, etc.

This thread continues to deliver a steady stream of utter nonsense, with a heavy dose of sanctimony.

I wouldn’t say it’s a steady stream. You only pop in once in a while.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Vedder

Is it also meaningless that Canada’s GDP per capita is declining?

It’s the most widely recognized proxy for the health of an economy. If it’s shrinking then so is the capacity of the state to fund programs, etc.

This thread continues to deliver a steady stream of utter nonsense, with a heavy dose of sanctimony.

The GDP per capita is naturally going to decline when you have a short term influx of hundreds of thousands in population as we did, no? In which case it’s temporarily not a very accurate barometer of how your economy is performing, plus as Slava said it can also be manipulated.

Please don’t put me in a position to agree with Slava. I think I speak for us both when I say it leaves us feeling uncomfortable.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I wouldn’t say it’s a steady stream. You only pop in once in a while.

Cute!

So you also think GDP per capita is meaningless?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That’s not an accurate framing of left vs right when it comes to climate change. The left position is to subsidize the green transition. The centrist position is encourage the market to capture the externalities. The right-wing approach is to simply ignore climate change is happening and do nothing about it.

But that isnt the correct way to approach the climate change debate on the political spectrum.

That one group denys its existence doesn’t change what a right wing policy is. Thats the whole problem conservatives are no longer conservatives. If they were conservatives they would support conservative policies to deal with problems. The Carbon Tax and Globalism regardless of their current level of support are pure Chicago school economics.

Taxing externalities is straight out of Friedman.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The GDP per capita is naturally going to decline when you have a short term influx of hundreds of thousands in population as we did, no? In which case it’s temporarily not a very accurate barometer of how your economy is performing, plus as Slava said it can also be manipulated.

Please don’t put me in a position to agree with Slava. I think I speak for us both when I say it leaves us feeling uncomfortable.

https://thehub.ca/2023/06/15/trevor-...match-the-u-s/

This article has been posted in different contexts, but it’s not just the denominator that’s the issue here…….

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because that's the IF. If the situation arises.



Man, it's like you explain it to them, they seem to get it, then go back to whatever media feed they drink the #### funnel from, get lied to, and come back here saying "but...but...but." You could save us all a lot of time by just not going back to places that lie to you daily.

https://www.parliamenttoday.ca/news/...avens-10433349

The Brookfield tax Haven and relocating Brookfield to the USA stories keep coming up. Drink it up!

Asked about the report at a Windsor campaign stop yesterday, Carney said that the design of the funds was such that Canadian pension funds invested in them reaped benefits and that the beneficiaries then paid taxes on those investments. Pressed on whether it’s ethical to register the funds in Bermuda and why that was done, Carney said it was an “efficiency” method.

“The flow through of the funds go to Canadian entities who then pay the taxes appropriately as opposed to taxes being paid multiple times before they get there,” he said. “It doesn't avoid tax because the tax is paid in Canada.”

But opposition leaders pounced on the report, the latest to scrutinize Carney’s time at BAM.

CPC Leader Pierre Poilievre called for more transparency from Carney, arguing he needs to explain why he thinks Canadians should pay taxes but “bigshot bankers” like himself can “dodge” the rules.

“He claims that somehow this money gets funnelled through a Bermuda tax haven only to come back to Canada — well why wouldn't he just leave it in Canada in the first place?” Poilievre told Quebec reporters. “He says he knows how the world works? He knows how to make it work for him and against you, and that is exactly what he will do as prime minister."

Poilievre added that after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Canada’s economy, he sold his own investments in "foreign economies” and now has investments in Canadian stocks and companies. He did not say which ones.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh chided Carney for being “personally responsible” for the Bermuda decision, arguing it was “for the sole reason of avoiding paying taxes.” He said the move means there is less cash for Canada to invest in services for seniors and health care, telling Toronto reporters it makes him “wonder” about who Carney is fighting for.

Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet called the use of tax havens “worrisome,” urging Carney to be more forthcoming about his assets and possible conflicts of interest.

“People have to know who that guy is, what he owns and if facing a choice between personal interest and friends’ interest of millions of dollars, will he favour the people in the small families or the friends?” Blanchet told Montreal reporters.

Carney reiterated that he’s “overcomplied” with ethics rules to divest his assets into a blind trust since being sworn into office, dismissing suggestions for more disclosures about his time in the private world.

“What I've done is put all my affairs in order well in advance. I own nothing but cash and personal real estate. That's not going to change in public life. It’s actually quite straightforward," he added.

Pressed on whether that means he won’t receive equity stake, stock options or other payments in the future from fintech company Stripe or BAM, Carney stressed that all other assets are in a blind trust. Carney sat on Stripe’s board but said he has since resigned to enter politics.

Meanwhile, Carney also shut down suggestions from Poilievre that his time at BAM puts him at odds with national interests, given the firm’s ties to China. Poilievre argued that Carney should disclose his conflicts of interest, though the Liberal leader said he is “absolutely not beholden” to anybody but Canadians.

“(Poilievre is) a conspiracy theorist. He spends too much time with his MAGA friends and comes up with everything you can think of. I'm beholden to the Canadian people,” Carney said.

The Liberal leader said Canada has frosty ties with Beijing over its actions in the agriculture and auto sector, appearing to dismiss China’s ambassador to Canada’s suggestions that both countries should deepen trade amid Canada's tiff with the U.S.

“We’ve got to understand where China is, where China is going, whether or not there is any room for partnership in that,” Carney said. While Ottawa needs to diversify its trade and pull away from the U.S., Carney argued it must cozy up to “like-minded” nations in a “deliberate” way.

“There are partners in Asia that we can build deeper ties (with), but the partners in Asia that share our values don't include China,” he added.

Tax havens.

Relocate company out of Canada, to the USA.

Jagmeet is all over him, this might sting.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://www.parliamenttoday.ca/news/...avens-10433349

The Brookfield tax Haven and relocating Brookfield to the USA stories keep coming up. Drink it up!



Tax havens.

Relocate company out of Canada, to the USA.

Jagmeet is all over him, this might sting.

How is working for your clients to legally save them money some sort of scandal? If anything he knows loopholes to close.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Vedder

https://thehub.ca/2023/06/15/trevor-...match-the-u-s/

This article has been posted in different contexts, but it’s not just the denominator that’s the issue here…….

Uh huh. What is your point exactly?

I’m not gonna try and predict what you’re trying to say by reading an article written by someone else. I’m well aware our GDP is lower than that of the US. I’m also in favour of taking sensible steps to increase our GDP. Where I disagree with you is when you try to imply that GDP performance has no nuance to it, or at least that’s how I interpreted your statement. No one is saying that a we should be ignoring a declining GDP or pretending as though it trending in that direction shouldn’t be addressed.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How is working for your clients to legally save them money some sort of scandal? If anything he knows loopholes to close.

Loopholes to close!!

I like that one, thanks!

“Hey Mark, you gonna close any of those tax loopholes you have been using to avoid paying taxes in Canada?”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Loopholes to close!!

I like that one, thanks!

“Hey Mark, you gonna close any of those tax loopholes you have been using to avoid paying taxes in Canada?”

I don’t think that this line of criticism is fair or at a minimum it should be viewed as complimentary.

He built systems to maximize investor returns within the legal framework. That was his job. We want prime ministers with real world experience. I think your question is a fair one to ask. How will he as prime minister ensure that we won’t drive companies to move headquarters or drive investment funds offshore.

That’s a much better question then the gotcha ones that resonate.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think that this line of criticism is fair or at a minimum it should be viewed as complimentary.

He built systems to maximize investor returns within the legal framework. That was his job. We want prime ministers with real world experience. I think your question is a fair one to ask. How will he as prime minister ensure that we won’t drive companies to move headquarters or drive investment funds offshore.

That’s a much better question then the gotcha ones that resonate.

Ohhh I am sure there will be plenty of questions for him to dodge.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Ohhh I am sure there will be plenty of questions for him to dodge.

That’s a non answer from you.

Would you accept if he said that was my job and I was good at it?

I think you are being disingenuous in your criticism here. There is no answer that would have satisfied you. Essentially your position would need to be only career politicians and drama teachers should make up Parliament.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s a non answer from you.

Would you accept if he said that was my job and I was good at it?

I think you are being disingenuous in your criticism here. There is no answer that would have satisfied you. Essentially your position would need to be only career politicians and drama teachers should make up Parliament.

Guess if he would disclose his assets it would help determine his integrity. But he doesn’t want to do that for…. Reasons.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Uh huh. What is your point exactly?

I’m not gonna try and predict what you’re trying to say by reading an article written by someone else. I’m well aware our GDP is lower than that of the US. I’m also in favour of taking sensible steps to increase our GDP. Where I disagree with you is when you try to imply that GDP performance has no nuance to it, or at least that’s how I interpreted your statement. No one is saying that a we should be ignoring a declining GDP or pretending as though it trending in that direction shouldn’t be addressed.

Well, first of all my original point was that GDP per capita is actually quite useful as a metric to measure our economy. You seemed to imply that you agree with Slava that it’s “meaningless”. That of course is ridiculous and the article articulates why it’s important. It may not be perfect, but it’s a tool that economists and govt’s use as a proxy for our economic performance.

Second, you seemed to imply that our GDP per capita problems were solely due to population growth. As the article states, numerator growth is also a problem, and one that has a direct link to conscious policy choices that we have made, and continue to make……

Things take too long here, our regulatory processes are too slow, and private capital has shied away from big projects that have a meaningful impact on GDP as a result.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Guess if he would disclose his assets it would help determine his integrity. But he doesn’t want to do that for…. Reasons.

Well he’s not PP, Smith, Trump, Musk, or a far right individual actively implicated in a major scandal or doing something insane like calling for the death of millions so he’s obviously doesn’t meet Doctorfever’s requirements for “benefit of the doubt.”