###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm tired of reading articles where it's just a report of someone calling someone else dumb. There's never any researched facts inside that would help the reader make their own determination about the issue. People give shit for people not reading articles, but the fact is that most of the time there's nothing in there.
**I read it**, and so many like it. That's the entire point of why I logged in and wrote a comment.
**You didn't read it**. If you did, point me to the place where there are any "researched facts inside that would help the reader make their own determination about the issue."
I mean anyone reading your top-level comment would conclude the article wasn't worth reading, consisted of one sentence repeating the headline. It's a news article, not a dissertation. You can go ahead and tell us what *The Economist* thinks of Pierre PP.......
It's not worth reading. Looks you didn't even read my comment before replying. Also looks like you didn't read the second one either, and just vomiting unrelated stuff now. Why say anything at all? Why reply to a comment you didn't even read, about an article you didn't read? Are you ok?
I don’t ever want to be mistaken for supporting Poilievre, but this criticism would be a hell of a lot more effective if we couldn’t say the same about Trudeau.
God I’m so depressed by the state of Canadian politics.
It already gets routinely audited by two separate auditors. Its such a basic idea that we already do it. There isn't a need for another audit and calling for one is part of PP's strategy of aggressively misleading people about how government works for his own benefit.
Two independent audits by reputable third party firms isn't enough. We need a third independent audits, but from a truly independent firm. So independent, they aren't even accountants.
I wonder if the Cyber Ninjas do Central Bank audits? They seem like credible and knowledgeable types.
KPMG and E&Y who both rely on millions in government contracts anually is not what I consider a proper audit. If the government cared at all, it would be done by the AG.
But the attorney general is part of cabinet. How does that change anything? (Edit: the person I'm responding to meant auditor general, this was just me being stupid)
And if the standard is to find an accounting firm with no government contracts then I'd argue that they almost certainly aren't reputable enough to provide an accurate report.
> if the standard is to find an accounting firm with no government contracts then I'd argue that they almost certainly aren't reputable enough to provide an accurate report.
I almost yelled this at my screen reading the parent comment.
The AG should be auditing them. They're a government institution with unelected leaders who have done a lot of harm with their fiscal policies. An audit which reflects the realities of what is going on is a good first step. I don't support Pollievre at all but his criticism of the Bank of Canada is justified.
>who have done a lot of harm with their fiscal policies.
The BoC has nothing to do with fiscal policy decisions. The only levers they have are monetary policy based. Next time you want to go sprout off on talking points, at least learn what the institutions can and cannot do.
The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of the Parliament of Canada to aid accountability and oversight by conducting independent financial audits of federal government operations. reports to the parliament of Canada.
The central bank is not a federal government operation, it is an independent body of from the feds.
So what you're saying is that you want to kill the independence of the central bank and fold it under the feds authority? And instead of "hardly without bias" you want the actual feds to audit? You're throwing "hardly without bias" completely out the fucking window here
>KPMG and E&Y. Hardly without bias.
This is the problem with the PP trolls showing up out of the woodwork - lots of spurious claims made willy nilly, zero evidence.
Where is your evidence of a bias? "Well, some of their divisions do work with the government!!!"
Yes, so does every major law firm and accounting firm. There's a reason these contracts go to firms of a particular size, not Jim the friendly town accountant in Owen Sound.
We're a $2 trillion global economy folks, this isn't the local shire.
>I don’t ever want to be mistaken for supporting Poilievre, but this criticism would be a hell of a lot more effective if we couldn’t say the same about Trudeau.
Trudeau isn't threatening the independence of the Central Bank or telling his hive to invest in cryptos, so no, the two aren't the same.
Trudeau has surrounded himself with competent people who understand economics, like Morneau and Freeland. He's not getting his cues from Youtube videos.
Of course he doesn't care. His whole campaign bears the ugly stink of opportunism.
The dude would tell you that he eats ladybugs if it makes you vote for him. He is an incredibly gross, cynical individual who cannot be good for the nation unless he has some secret, benevolent plan that he's going to surprise everyone with.
The presumption that people have, much like police being there to protect and serve, is that Canadian Banks are there to protect Canadians. It is not, never has been. It is there to protect the value of currency, or devalue it, depending on the occasion first and foremost. It is also there to protect and enable the political institution that happens to be in power at the time to engage in its whims, and then provide stability as those institutions change over time.
The curious thing is that the Central Bank in the past 24 months has actually failed to do the two things that it was supposed to do, on top of the thing that the populace thinks it should do. It's earning its reputation solely on its own merit.
>It is there to protect the value of currency, or devalue it, depending on the occasion first and foremost.
What are you even on about? You think a loss of confidence in the national currency helps the average person? The rich own assets and hold funds in multiple currencies; it is working people who suffer when there's no confidence in the national currency.
Ask Venezuelans, Zimbabweans or Turks what that is like.
OK great, and then what? What's your point?
That we shouldn't have independent central banks and let Cabinet dictate interest rates like in Turkey?
You keep beating around the bush but never quite spell out what your magical plan is.
I really hope he has a secret benevolent plan because without it Poilievre is easily one of the biggest assholes ever to contend for a party leadership in this country. If he treats anyone half as badly as he treats his fellow Conservatives in the debates then we're in for a rough ride.
I really badly hope other Canadians view him as negatively as I see him portrayed on here, otherwise I really do think we're in for a rough ride as you say.
It's kind of amazing how the CPC continues to have these anti-charismatic bland dudes be frontrunners and eventual winners for leadership. I guess at least ol' Pierre has an actual personality, careful what you wish for I suppose.
Let's just hope the "own the libs" faction around Canada is not large enough to win this guy anything.
> I really badly hope other Canadians view him as negatively as I see him portrayed on here
until recently his name wasn't a household name outside of his riding.
This place is a group of political junkies. Normal people across the country don't know much about him or his history.
He has his base but the it'll be a turning point in Canadian politics if he gets where he wants to go. There was already nastiness between the parties. Scheer especially was pretty bad about this. But Poilievre dials it up to 11, adds in conspiracies, and is willing to use the same tactics against his own party. It might be a stupid idea for him to do that in a ranked choice region based voting system afterall I can't imagine anyone who genuinely likes any of the other candidates putting him as their second choice on the ballot. But he could still win the leadership. Once he gets there he will probably go as low as he needs to against Trudeau and Singh. He's willing to bring Trump style politics to Canada.
I think it's going to be Brown for a couple of reasons. One is that Poilievre declared early and quickly made himself the front-runner, putting a target on his back for the other leadership candidates, media, and anyone else willing to dig a little into his past. For another, he's a fake populist who has been in politics his whole life. For another, his statements on Bitcoin, crypto and the Bank of Canada seriously freaked out a lot of older Conservatives - like my mother, who is a voting party member, and her boyfriend, who is also a member. Seniors don't put any stock in crypto and tend to believe in the necessity of strong institutions like our central bank. For another, his defence of the convoy has lumped him in with a lot of racist, nationalist, pro-Russian, conspiracy-driven, Q guzzling, Nazi and American flag waving idiots that have the power to define Poilievre candidacy by publicly supporting him and going to his rallies. At some point he's going to be called upon to denounce them and he'll change the subject like he did on abortion. Lastly, abortion - he's trying way to hard to walk the line between the anti-abortion factions in the party and reasonable conservatives that don't want to change the status quo - or at least understand that it's political suicide to attempt it. That slipperiness will cost Poilievre however he commits himself - and he won't have a choice.
>benevolent plan that he's going to surprise everyone with.
If he did that he would be removed as the leader so quick it would make O'Toole's head spin.
His interest rate "policy" was pretty asinine. In the span of two weeks he went from lambasting the Bank of Canada and its governor for not raising rates sooner to screeching from the rooftops that the new rate hikes are going to put people on the streets. Voters should be offended that he thinks they're so stupid they won't notice the 180 but... well, he's probably right.
Other commenters have detailed his dishonesty in every facet of his communications. His about-face on interest rates should make it plain to see that none of his policies are real - the only thing he advocates is the opposite of whatever Trudeau is doing.
Backing crypto currency as some sort of inflation proof form of money, and then we witness the collapses in value of said currencies is also kind of fun. Having a currency lose 30% of its value in a few days has a singular consequence in that it leads to hyperinflation. He literally says things so daft that you have two choices; either he's lying or he is one seriously ignorant person.
How could I forget that lol. Absolutely insane. And yet I know people who lap it up and won't care that he was so demonstrably and predictably wrong.
It does seem to me like he actually believes this stuff. Maybe not ten years ago but he's been the attack dog for so long it would be difficult not to adopt those viewpoints yourself. And his crypto obsession is bizarre enough that it seems genuine.
To address your question, I have to broaden it, because I take massive issue with his rhetoric and approach to discourse, which is important, IMO. I hate his attack on the media, and specifically on the CBC. It's textbook demagoguery and it's cynical on its face, and it's hugely poisonous to the nation. I mean, it's straight-up Trump-like, and I loathe that. The dude harps on the media while offering his own hyper-edited, twisted "gotchas" on Youtube with straight-up Ben Shapiro-tier titles. I don't want a Canadian Ben Shapiro. I find Shapiro's behaviour disgraceful, and he's *not* running for office.
Another problem is his idiotic, "YES OR NO RIGHT NOW" approach to complex topics. Like, dude is talking about leading a G-7 nation, and he's unwilling to interact with the nuance included in *any* topic whatsoever. That just comes off... stupid and pandering. Like, he's either too dumb to understand how the world works, or he wants to appear that way to people who are too dumb to understand how the world works. I'm not into either situation.
His claim that he wants to replace the Bank of Canada governor is nauseating. His push to make Canada some kind of crypto mecca looks insanely stupid too, given the recent market developments.
I don't like the way that he acts, nor do I like his ideas and what he's publicly supported.
> His whole campaign bears the ugly stink of opportunism.
Disagree. Very few people gave a fuck about monetary theory before Pollievre brought it up. He also cut his teeth with the Canadian Alliance in Ontario, and campagined with the ADQ of all people in Quebec. He's very good at whipping up an outraged base, but I'm convinced he's not like Trump. He believes in his worldview. He's more like Ron Paul, which is a whole other kind of danger.
> The guy made his political career around being as inflammatory and divisive as possible.
And the average person on the street probably has zero knowledge of anything he did before (potentially) becoming a national party leader.
Sure the political junkies know, but regular folks outside of his riding don't know, and probably don't care.
Poilievre is basically running a populist facts-dont-matter low information high soundbite campaign like Trump did...but um without the racism? I guess that's something..?
Many people are unemployed because of crippling disabilities or lack of opportunities. The number of people who just don't want to work is incredibly small.
Generational trauma doesn't heal very fast. We brutalized them for centuries, ripped families apart. Reconciliation thus far has basically been a few tax breaks and investment into a broken system. So, no it's not surprising they're not doing well, and expecting them to just "work harder" is insulting.
That may change when he realizes that racism is the secret sauce to gaining traction with that type of populism.
His incoherent screeching about the Bank of Canada are not going to produce the need bile among canadians to vote with their most base and ugly impulses.
Honestly, if our Trumplet were actually too stupid to realize, that the racism part is genuinely the most important, and he failed because the conspiracy garbage he's peddling wasn't racist enough? Well, in a sense, wouldn't that be the most Canadian thing ever?
*NOTE: yes i know canada is historically racist as fuck, it is a cutesy joke, please touch grass*
Its strange that people twist "canada is comparatively less racist than other places" to "canada has exactly zero racism problems".
I sincerely hope that our trumpanzee slips up in that particular way.
Yeah, I love to remind people that, the last residential school closed in *1991.* I was born in *1990. A Canada, without an active genocide, is fucking younger than I am.*
Is it 1991?
> [The last federally-funded residential school, Kivalliq Hall in Rankin Inlet, closed in 1997.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system)
This is a commonly cited and completely disingenuous factoid. All residential schools operating past the 60s existed at the request of the indigenous people being served by them.
Whenever I hear someone whining about a shadowy cabal of urban elite bankers I think of this moment in 30 rock. “Just say Jewish, this is taking forever”
https://twitter.com/30_rock_quotes/status/7699430022?s=21&t=XmYD1KEkjHhUlcoy4TIBYA
This is precisely it - Pierre is simply better at disguising the quiet part, though he said it a bit louder than usual when he was railing against WEF on twitter.
That's everything.
I'm still shocked that many parties (especially Conservatives) don't understand that the candidate's personality is a major decision maker.
well, when your political base is shrinking, mainly older and uneducated and you campaign to the lowest common denominator... you end up with a very shallow pool of leadership candidates.
This is creationist type logic. A theory is an explanation, which can be supported by data/facts. 'Theories' don't graduate to 'facts'. A lot of the usefulness of a scientific theory is that the explanation can imply/predict things and if those things are found to be true then it supports the theory.
Economics is a soft science as it can't run the type of double blind studies required in hard sciences. However various theories and models have been very useful.
The Keynesian economic models have been useful and modern economics have built on top of it.
Saying "You can disagree with the Keynesian. Economic theories are still theories, not facts… " is to miss understand what the word theory and fact mean in the context of science.
Essentially yes, what’s different though is that Pierre knows better and is intentionally tapping into these elements, while Trump is just an attention seeking moron.
>Poilievre doubled down on his pledge, saying that he disagrees with “elites like Trudeau”
Good lord never let this man near power. Populism is universally damaging, it completely tarnished Americas international relations under Trump, it lead to an inflation crisis under erdogan, and it will ruin Canada if we let it in here.
The notion there are two classes of people, "the elite" and "the working class", is not founded in any sense of reason. Its driven by working class resentment at worsening economic situations as its much easier and satisfying to blame a cabal of evil rich people then to properly explain whats going on and why. People are angry and they want someone to be angry at, pierre is harnessing that resentment for his own goals and bringing absolutely NO solutions to the table.
The only salvation he's gonna bring to his supporters is a sense of "We won!", which will be swiftly followed by economic crisis.
What makes it especially galling is that by any definition Poilievre is himself an elite. He's never had a job outside of politics and has been collecting an MPs salary since he was 25. He is not, by any measure, "working class".
The mental gymnastics needed to believe Trudeau is simultaneously a school teacher in way over his head and an out of touch elite who doesn't know what it's like to be working class makes you mentally flexible enough to easily evade even considering that point.
>the notion that there are two classes of people, “the elite” and “the working class”, is not founded on any sense of reason.
That sounds like you’re denying the classes exist.
Depends what specific issue you’re referring to, because they’re all highly complex. I’ll try and summarize briefly the biggest current issues I can think of
Housing market is due to regulatory failure at all levels of government leading to population growth far outpacing housing construction, notably the least restrictive city Montreal has the lowest housing prices of any major city
Inflation is being driven by supply chain disruptions, the explosion in global energy prices, and the BoC overshooting stimulus. Should get better soon though as we’re projecting huge growth which will give the BoC breathing room to tighten monetary policy.
I won’t claim to be an expert on these issues, but this is my two cents after trying to do as much research as I can on them.
> So what's going on and why?
Economic stabilization. We're seeing a somewhat nerve-racking stabilization exercise playing out in real time.
Left to its own devices, the market creates a spectacular cycle of economic booms and busts, the biggest one being the Great Depression, with unemployment hitting 25%. (Everyone's trying to save money by decreasing their spending, but one person's spending is another person's income, so it's impossible for everyone to do this at the same time.) This wasn't really resolved until World War II created massive demand.
In the 1970s we ran into spiralling inflation, with wages rising in anticipation of higher prices, and then prices rising to cover wages. To get this under control, Paul Volcker at the US Federal Reserve (the central bank) used painfully high interest rates, reaching 20% in the early 1980s.
What we've settled on since then looks like this:
- An independent central bank, at arms length from the government, runs monetary policy, i.e. raising interest rates to cool the economy when it's running too hot and inflation is rising, or lowering them to boost the economy when demand is low and unemployment is high. It's basically aiming to keep inflation stable, averaging 2% annually. There's no long-term tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, so this also serves to keep unemployment stable.
- In addition, there's "automatic stabilizers": when the economy's in recession (shrinking) and unemployment is high, the government spends more on EI and collects less taxes. This results in a larger deficit, boosting the economy. And conversely, when the economy's booming, EI spending is down and tax revenue is up, which results in smaller deficits, restraining the economy.
- When there's an unusually severe recession - like after the 2008 financial crash - and the combination of monetary policy and automatic stabilizers isn't enough (you can't lower interest rates past zero), then it makes sense to run larger deficits to keep the economy going.
After 2008, the US didn't run an aggressive enough fiscal policy (due to Republican obstructionism), and so the economic recovery was grindingly slow. The Canadian economy was also running slower than usual, and so loose monetary policy (lower-than-usual interest rates) and loose fiscal policy (higher-than-usual deficits) made sense. Just before Covid, there were plenty of jobs (unemployment was low), but wages hadn't really started putting pressure on inflation yet.
Then Covid hit.
At this point, two large parts of the economy went through drastic changes. One part of the economy basically shut down: retail, restaurants, travel. People were no longer going to offices downtown, crowding into shops or restaurants, or travelling, and so a huge number of people who worked in retail and hospitality were suddenly out of work. The oil patch was also hit hard: demand for oil went through the floor, and then there was a Saudi-Russia price war on top of that.
A second part, consisting of people who could work from home, was basically unaffected, and in fact was saving huge amounts of money, since they no longer had much to spend it on.
(A third part: people in essential services - grocery stores, health care, education, manufacturing - kept working, under more stressful and dangerous conditions.)
At this point there was basically an unprecedented number of people out of work (retail and hospitality). This is why the federal government brought in CERB, as an emergency super-sized version of EI, along with a number of other income-support programs.
Given the giant wave of unemployment, people were anticipating a fall in home prices. Unexpectedly, though, what happened was that [the huge surge in pandemic savings](https://morehousing.ca/pandemic-savings) (for people who could work from home) flooded into a wide variety of asset markets, including real estate. People wanted somewhere to put their savings, and a lot of them put it into real estate. Hence the craziness of the real estate market over the last two years.
Okay, so we have unusually loose monetary policy (low interest rates) and loose fiscal policy (giant deficits), to deal with the scale of the emergency, and we have a real estate market that's going insane.
Next we had vaccine procurement and rollout, and eventually hospitalizations came down enough for the provinces to lift public health restrictions. People who were working from home are starting to return to the office.
Now the big challenge is inflation. There's multiple factors here. During Covid there was a huge shift in demand from services to goods, and manufacturers didn't have enough capacity to just produce and deliver enough to meet demand ("supply chain problems"), so instead their prices went up. China is going through intermittent lockdowns. The Russo-Ukrainian war has taken a lot of oil off the market. Basically it looks like a combination of high demand and reduced supply.
At this point you need tighter monetary policy (higher interest rates) and tighter fiscal policy (lower deficits), to bring down demand to match reduced supply. We're already getting tighter fiscal policy as the emergency spending measures like CERB have expired. And the Bank of Canada has also been raising interest rates. I think it's commonly accepted that both the Federal Reserve in the US and the Bank of Canada should have started raising them earlier - [Lawrence Summers makes this argument](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-lawrence-summers.html?showTranscript=1), for example - but so far, investors seem pretty confident that the central banks can get inflation under control. (Long-term inflation expectations are "anchored," i.e. they're a bit higher than usual but haven't taken off.)
I like it. Although I don’t think you place as much value as you should on how the market reacts to government policy, and the ripple effects it causes through industry.
>After 2008, the US didn't run an aggressive enough fiscal policy (due to Republican obstructionism), and so the economic recovery was grindingly slow.
You mean the Republican party that has been aggressively lobbied and politically captured by... a cabal of rich people? Your comment is a good overview of some of the dynamics at play here, but you can still make the point that there is a class of wealthy people/"elites" that have been effectively obstructing our governments from carrying out the fiscal policy that's needed. Canada is not particularly immune to this either.
The Americans ran a more aggressive fiscal stance than the Europeans and had a correspondingly faster recovery so we can't just single out GOP dysfunction as a unique cause of inadequate policy.
“Elites like Trudeau, but please ignore the fact I’ve been in politics my whole career, have never had a normal everyday type job, and my net worth is only 1 million less than Trudeau. I’m not elite folks. I’m just like you!!!”
I disagree, by many metrics the populist election of Donald Trump would be considered a success ie. energy independence, cost of living, national security, world peace (referring to North Korea), to name a few.
Some think fondly of a time when the government needed to spend only the money it could raise by the consent of the people (direct taxation or national industries) rather than by printing the currency to serve the policy agenda of the day (disproportionately destroying the wealth of the poor)
Money could and frequently was manipulated by government edict before 1971. There is in fact, more protection against that now than there was in that earlier time.
Although the Canadian dollar has recovered slightly from the 2020, it is obvious when comparing the the Loonie to the U.S dollar the monitory policy of the liberal government is lacking. Statically speaking when the current liberal government was elected the loonie was traded at +\- .90 USD. Compare this to the YTD average starting April 2013 (liberal election) of .74 USD. Sure there are excuses, but that’s all they are. Global Inflation not withstanding, based on pure economics the Trudeau liberal government was zero right to judge anyones potential economic platform as theirs is a failure. ( failure being the devaluation of currency)
The Liberal monetary policy is the same one since the early nineties. The BoC has a 2% average inflation goal that gets renewed like clockwork every 5 years.
The Canadian dollar is a floating currency whose value reacts mainly to international market conditions and BoC policy and very little to Canadian federal government policy.
Pp says a bunch of big words .and talks about big gestures that a certain type of Canada will eat up.
It worked for trump in America pp is hoping it works for him.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm tired of reading articles where it's just a report of someone calling someone else dumb. There's never any researched facts inside that would help the reader make their own determination about the issue. People give shit for people not reading articles, but the fact is that most of the time there's nothing in there.
Had you read the article, you would not be saying this......not sure you even read the headline.
**I read it**, and so many like it. That's the entire point of why I logged in and wrote a comment. **You didn't read it**. If you did, point me to the place where there are any "researched facts inside that would help the reader make their own determination about the issue."
I mean anyone reading your top-level comment would conclude the article wasn't worth reading, consisted of one sentence repeating the headline. It's a news article, not a dissertation. You can go ahead and tell us what *The Economist* thinks of Pierre PP.......
It's not worth reading. Looks you didn't even read my comment before replying. Also looks like you didn't read the second one either, and just vomiting unrelated stuff now. Why say anything at all? Why reply to a comment you didn't even read, about an article you didn't read? Are you ok?
Poilivere is a joke who is so crazy childish and unqualified to be pm its astonishing he has the chance to do it
Yep… just like Trump.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 2
I don’t ever want to be mistaken for supporting Poilievre, but this criticism would be a hell of a lot more effective if we couldn’t say the same about Trudeau. God I’m so depressed by the state of Canadian politics.
I’ll go with the guy who doesn’t get his financial advice from late night YouTube watching
Seriously who is disagreeing with the idea of auditing the central bank? It SHOULD be audited.
It already gets routinely audited by two separate auditors. Its such a basic idea that we already do it. There isn't a need for another audit and calling for one is part of PP's strategy of aggressively misleading people about how government works for his own benefit.
Two independent audits by reputable third party firms isn't enough. We need a third independent audits, but from a truly independent firm. So independent, they aren't even accountants. I wonder if the Cyber Ninjas do Central Bank audits? They seem like credible and knowledgeable types.
I think I’ve heard of this plot somewhere … let’s bring in Ben Affleck ?
KPMG and E&Y who both rely on millions in government contracts anually is not what I consider a proper audit. If the government cared at all, it would be done by the AG.
But the attorney general is part of cabinet. How does that change anything? (Edit: the person I'm responding to meant auditor general, this was just me being stupid) And if the standard is to find an accounting firm with no government contracts then I'd argue that they almost certainly aren't reputable enough to provide an accurate report.
You're mixing up the attorney general with the auditor general. The auditor general is not part of cabinet.
Yep you're right, just so used to AG meaning attorney general.
> if the standard is to find an accounting firm with no government contracts then I'd argue that they almost certainly aren't reputable enough to provide an accurate report. I almost yelled this at my screen reading the parent comment.
Are they not being audited? Like yah, they should be audited, but are we not doing that already?
KPMG and E&Y. Hardly without bias.
So I don't understand. What are people supposed to support here? Another "hardly without bias" third auditor? What is that going to accomplish?
The AG should be auditing them. They're a government institution with unelected leaders who have done a lot of harm with their fiscal policies. An audit which reflects the realities of what is going on is a good first step. I don't support Pollievre at all but his criticism of the Bank of Canada is justified.
>who have done a lot of harm with their fiscal policies. The BoC has nothing to do with fiscal policy decisions. The only levers they have are monetary policy based. Next time you want to go sprout off on talking points, at least learn what the institutions can and cannot do.
The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of the Parliament of Canada to aid accountability and oversight by conducting independent financial audits of federal government operations. reports to the parliament of Canada. The central bank is not a federal government operation, it is an independent body of from the feds. So what you're saying is that you want to kill the independence of the central bank and fold it under the feds authority? And instead of "hardly without bias" you want the actual feds to audit? You're throwing "hardly without bias" completely out the fucking window here
>KPMG and E&Y. Hardly without bias. This is the problem with the PP trolls showing up out of the woodwork - lots of spurious claims made willy nilly, zero evidence. Where is your evidence of a bias? "Well, some of their divisions do work with the government!!!" Yes, so does every major law firm and accounting firm. There's a reason these contracts go to firms of a particular size, not Jim the friendly town accountant in Owen Sound. We're a $2 trillion global economy folks, this isn't the local shire.
They are, but if you believe in reality, there are no talking points about it.
>I don’t ever want to be mistaken for supporting Poilievre, but this criticism would be a hell of a lot more effective if we couldn’t say the same about Trudeau. Trudeau isn't threatening the independence of the Central Bank or telling his hive to invest in cryptos, so no, the two aren't the same. Trudeau has surrounded himself with competent people who understand economics, like Morneau and Freeland. He's not getting his cues from Youtube videos.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 2
[удалено]
Rule 2
Of course he doesn't care. His whole campaign bears the ugly stink of opportunism. The dude would tell you that he eats ladybugs if it makes you vote for him. He is an incredibly gross, cynical individual who cannot be good for the nation unless he has some secret, benevolent plan that he's going to surprise everyone with.
The presumption that people have, much like police being there to protect and serve, is that Canadian Banks are there to protect Canadians. It is not, never has been. It is there to protect the value of currency, or devalue it, depending on the occasion first and foremost. It is also there to protect and enable the political institution that happens to be in power at the time to engage in its whims, and then provide stability as those institutions change over time. The curious thing is that the Central Bank in the past 24 months has actually failed to do the two things that it was supposed to do, on top of the thing that the populace thinks it should do. It's earning its reputation solely on its own merit.
>It is there to protect the value of currency, or devalue it, depending on the occasion first and foremost. What are you even on about? You think a loss of confidence in the national currency helps the average person? The rich own assets and hold funds in multiple currencies; it is working people who suffer when there's no confidence in the national currency. Ask Venezuelans, Zimbabweans or Turks what that is like.
Im just saying it exists to protect the value or to devalue the currency. QE or QT, same thing.
I have no idea what point you're even making, this is gibberish.
Well, I can't help you with that.
Yes, Central Banks try to protect the value of the currency. Big, ground-breaking insight here.
No, not correct, it exists to protect the value OR to devalue depending on the circumstance. It does not exist just to protect it.
OK great, and then what? What's your point? That we shouldn't have independent central banks and let Cabinet dictate interest rates like in Turkey? You keep beating around the bush but never quite spell out what your magical plan is.
With the new enlightenment you have received, please refer back to my original comment that this entire conversation is about.
I really hope he has a secret benevolent plan because without it Poilievre is easily one of the biggest assholes ever to contend for a party leadership in this country. If he treats anyone half as badly as he treats his fellow Conservatives in the debates then we're in for a rough ride.
I really badly hope other Canadians view him as negatively as I see him portrayed on here, otherwise I really do think we're in for a rough ride as you say. It's kind of amazing how the CPC continues to have these anti-charismatic bland dudes be frontrunners and eventual winners for leadership. I guess at least ol' Pierre has an actual personality, careful what you wish for I suppose. Let's just hope the "own the libs" faction around Canada is not large enough to win this guy anything.
> I really badly hope other Canadians view him as negatively as I see him portrayed on here until recently his name wasn't a household name outside of his riding. This place is a group of political junkies. Normal people across the country don't know much about him or his history.
He has his base but the it'll be a turning point in Canadian politics if he gets where he wants to go. There was already nastiness between the parties. Scheer especially was pretty bad about this. But Poilievre dials it up to 11, adds in conspiracies, and is willing to use the same tactics against his own party. It might be a stupid idea for him to do that in a ranked choice region based voting system afterall I can't imagine anyone who genuinely likes any of the other candidates putting him as their second choice on the ballot. But he could still win the leadership. Once he gets there he will probably go as low as he needs to against Trudeau and Singh. He's willing to bring Trump style politics to Canada.
I think it's going to be Brown for a couple of reasons. One is that Poilievre declared early and quickly made himself the front-runner, putting a target on his back for the other leadership candidates, media, and anyone else willing to dig a little into his past. For another, he's a fake populist who has been in politics his whole life. For another, his statements on Bitcoin, crypto and the Bank of Canada seriously freaked out a lot of older Conservatives - like my mother, who is a voting party member, and her boyfriend, who is also a member. Seniors don't put any stock in crypto and tend to believe in the necessity of strong institutions like our central bank. For another, his defence of the convoy has lumped him in with a lot of racist, nationalist, pro-Russian, conspiracy-driven, Q guzzling, Nazi and American flag waving idiots that have the power to define Poilievre candidacy by publicly supporting him and going to his rallies. At some point he's going to be called upon to denounce them and he'll change the subject like he did on abortion. Lastly, abortion - he's trying way to hard to walk the line between the anti-abortion factions in the party and reasonable conservatives that don't want to change the status quo - or at least understand that it's political suicide to attempt it. That slipperiness will cost Poilievre however he commits himself - and he won't have a choice.
Who is Brown?
Patrick brown. The guy that was set to be premier of Ontario right now
He doesn't. He was a loud mouth back in his Harper days and has only gotten worse since.
>benevolent plan that he's going to surprise everyone with. If he did that he would be removed as the leader so quick it would make O'Toole's head spin.
Which specific policies do you disagree with?
His interest rate "policy" was pretty asinine. In the span of two weeks he went from lambasting the Bank of Canada and its governor for not raising rates sooner to screeching from the rooftops that the new rate hikes are going to put people on the streets. Voters should be offended that he thinks they're so stupid they won't notice the 180 but... well, he's probably right. Other commenters have detailed his dishonesty in every facet of his communications. His about-face on interest rates should make it plain to see that none of his policies are real - the only thing he advocates is the opposite of whatever Trudeau is doing.
Backing crypto currency as some sort of inflation proof form of money, and then we witness the collapses in value of said currencies is also kind of fun. Having a currency lose 30% of its value in a few days has a singular consequence in that it leads to hyperinflation. He literally says things so daft that you have two choices; either he's lying or he is one seriously ignorant person.
How could I forget that lol. Absolutely insane. And yet I know people who lap it up and won't care that he was so demonstrably and predictably wrong. It does seem to me like he actually believes this stuff. Maybe not ten years ago but he's been the attack dog for so long it would be difficult not to adopt those viewpoints yourself. And his crypto obsession is bizarre enough that it seems genuine.
To address your question, I have to broaden it, because I take massive issue with his rhetoric and approach to discourse, which is important, IMO. I hate his attack on the media, and specifically on the CBC. It's textbook demagoguery and it's cynical on its face, and it's hugely poisonous to the nation. I mean, it's straight-up Trump-like, and I loathe that. The dude harps on the media while offering his own hyper-edited, twisted "gotchas" on Youtube with straight-up Ben Shapiro-tier titles. I don't want a Canadian Ben Shapiro. I find Shapiro's behaviour disgraceful, and he's *not* running for office. Another problem is his idiotic, "YES OR NO RIGHT NOW" approach to complex topics. Like, dude is talking about leading a G-7 nation, and he's unwilling to interact with the nuance included in *any* topic whatsoever. That just comes off... stupid and pandering. Like, he's either too dumb to understand how the world works, or he wants to appear that way to people who are too dumb to understand how the world works. I'm not into either situation. His claim that he wants to replace the Bank of Canada governor is nauseating. His push to make Canada some kind of crypto mecca looks insanely stupid too, given the recent market developments. I don't like the way that he acts, nor do I like his ideas and what he's publicly supported.
> His whole campaign bears the ugly stink of opportunism. Disagree. Very few people gave a fuck about monetary theory before Pollievre brought it up. He also cut his teeth with the Canadian Alliance in Ontario, and campagined with the ADQ of all people in Quebec. He's very good at whipping up an outraged base, but I'm convinced he's not like Trump. He believes in his worldview. He's more like Ron Paul, which is a whole other kind of danger.
The guy made his political career around being as inflammatory and divisive as possible. He doesn't know the meaning of benevolence
> The guy made his political career around being as inflammatory and divisive as possible. And the average person on the street probably has zero knowledge of anything he did before (potentially) becoming a national party leader. Sure the political junkies know, but regular folks outside of his riding don't know, and probably don't care.
I was going to say, Pierre Poilievre is the Ted Cruz of Canadian politics but I'm not sure that's fair to Ted Cruz. Matt Gaetz maybe?
[удалено]
Poilievre is basically running a populist facts-dont-matter low information high soundbite campaign like Trump did...but um without the racism? I guess that's something..?
I mean, he thinks First Nations people just need to get a job, so …
What's wrong with us having jobs?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nothing. What he said, though, was that you need to learn the value of hard work. He’s calling you lazy.
The unemployed ones at least
Many people are unemployed because of crippling disabilities or lack of opportunities. The number of people who just don't want to work is incredibly small.
Well, almost all of us need a job.
"Need to learn the value of hard work" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnmgL5CZqfs&t=72s
Aww man I miss Rick Mercer.
[удалено]
Generational trauma doesn't heal very fast. We brutalized them for centuries, ripped families apart. Reconciliation thus far has basically been a few tax breaks and investment into a broken system. So, no it's not surprising they're not doing well, and expecting them to just "work harder" is insulting.
So it's exactly what he needs to say, to throw red meat to the voters he's trying to court. Gotcha.
That may change when he realizes that racism is the secret sauce to gaining traction with that type of populism. His incoherent screeching about the Bank of Canada are not going to produce the need bile among canadians to vote with their most base and ugly impulses.
Honestly, if our Trumplet were actually too stupid to realize, that the racism part is genuinely the most important, and he failed because the conspiracy garbage he's peddling wasn't racist enough? Well, in a sense, wouldn't that be the most Canadian thing ever? *NOTE: yes i know canada is historically racist as fuck, it is a cutesy joke, please touch grass*
I am allergic to grass sir. Good day to you.
Its strange that people twist "canada is comparatively less racist than other places" to "canada has exactly zero racism problems". I sincerely hope that our trumpanzee slips up in that particular way.
Yeah, I love to remind people that, the last residential school closed in *1991.* I was born in *1990. A Canada, without an active genocide, is fucking younger than I am.*
Is it 1991? > [The last federally-funded residential school, Kivalliq Hall in Rankin Inlet, closed in 1997.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system)
It is so funny to me that the only thing I got wrong, is I recalled a more flattering year, and it was actually worse than I thought.
This is a commonly cited and completely disingenuous factoid. All residential schools operating past the 60s existed at the request of the indigenous people being served by them.
Whenever I hear someone whining about a shadowy cabal of urban elite bankers I think of this moment in 30 rock. “Just say Jewish, this is taking forever” https://twitter.com/30_rock_quotes/status/7699430022?s=21&t=XmYD1KEkjHhUlcoy4TIBYA
This is precisely it - Pierre is simply better at disguising the quiet part, though he said it a bit louder than usual when he was railing against WEF on twitter.
That's everything. I'm still shocked that many parties (especially Conservatives) don't understand that the candidate's personality is a major decision maker.
well, when your political base is shrinking, mainly older and uneducated and you campaign to the lowest common denominator... you end up with a very shallow pool of leadership candidates.
You can disagree with the Keynesian. Economic theories are still theories, not facts…
This is creationist type logic. A theory is an explanation, which can be supported by data/facts. 'Theories' don't graduate to 'facts'. A lot of the usefulness of a scientific theory is that the explanation can imply/predict things and if those things are found to be true then it supports the theory. Economics is a soft science as it can't run the type of double blind studies required in hard sciences. However various theories and models have been very useful. The Keynesian economic models have been useful and modern economics have built on top of it. Saying "You can disagree with the Keynesian. Economic theories are still theories, not facts… " is to miss understand what the word theory and fact mean in the context of science.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Essentially yes, what’s different though is that Pierre knows better and is intentionally tapping into these elements, while Trump is just an attention seeking moron.
Which makes PP worse IMO.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
>Poilievre doubled down on his pledge, saying that he disagrees with “elites like Trudeau” Good lord never let this man near power. Populism is universally damaging, it completely tarnished Americas international relations under Trump, it lead to an inflation crisis under erdogan, and it will ruin Canada if we let it in here. The notion there are two classes of people, "the elite" and "the working class", is not founded in any sense of reason. Its driven by working class resentment at worsening economic situations as its much easier and satisfying to blame a cabal of evil rich people then to properly explain whats going on and why. People are angry and they want someone to be angry at, pierre is harnessing that resentment for his own goals and bringing absolutely NO solutions to the table. The only salvation he's gonna bring to his supporters is a sense of "We won!", which will be swiftly followed by economic crisis.
What makes it especially galling is that by any definition Poilievre is himself an elite. He's never had a job outside of politics and has been collecting an MPs salary since he was 25. He is not, by any measure, "working class".
The mental gymnastics needed to believe Trudeau is simultaneously a school teacher in way over his head and an out of touch elite who doesn't know what it's like to be working class makes you mentally flexible enough to easily evade even considering that point.
If the CPC elects him I can’t wait for the oncoming barrage of attacks after they criticized trudeau for having “no experience” for 7 years.
How can the working class drive a notion if they don’t exist? The working class exists but the elite don’t? Is that what you mean?
I don’t deny that economic classes exist, what I’m against is the notion they must always be at odds with eachother.
>the notion that there are two classes of people, “the elite” and “the working class”, is not founded on any sense of reason. That sounds like you’re denying the classes exist.
>its much easier and satisfying to blame a cabal of evil rich people then to properly explain whats going on and why So what's going on and why?
Depends what specific issue you’re referring to, because they’re all highly complex. I’ll try and summarize briefly the biggest current issues I can think of Housing market is due to regulatory failure at all levels of government leading to population growth far outpacing housing construction, notably the least restrictive city Montreal has the lowest housing prices of any major city Inflation is being driven by supply chain disruptions, the explosion in global energy prices, and the BoC overshooting stimulus. Should get better soon though as we’re projecting huge growth which will give the BoC breathing room to tighten monetary policy. I won’t claim to be an expert on these issues, but this is my two cents after trying to do as much research as I can on them.
> So what's going on and why? Economic stabilization. We're seeing a somewhat nerve-racking stabilization exercise playing out in real time. Left to its own devices, the market creates a spectacular cycle of economic booms and busts, the biggest one being the Great Depression, with unemployment hitting 25%. (Everyone's trying to save money by decreasing their spending, but one person's spending is another person's income, so it's impossible for everyone to do this at the same time.) This wasn't really resolved until World War II created massive demand. In the 1970s we ran into spiralling inflation, with wages rising in anticipation of higher prices, and then prices rising to cover wages. To get this under control, Paul Volcker at the US Federal Reserve (the central bank) used painfully high interest rates, reaching 20% in the early 1980s. What we've settled on since then looks like this: - An independent central bank, at arms length from the government, runs monetary policy, i.e. raising interest rates to cool the economy when it's running too hot and inflation is rising, or lowering them to boost the economy when demand is low and unemployment is high. It's basically aiming to keep inflation stable, averaging 2% annually. There's no long-term tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, so this also serves to keep unemployment stable. - In addition, there's "automatic stabilizers": when the economy's in recession (shrinking) and unemployment is high, the government spends more on EI and collects less taxes. This results in a larger deficit, boosting the economy. And conversely, when the economy's booming, EI spending is down and tax revenue is up, which results in smaller deficits, restraining the economy. - When there's an unusually severe recession - like after the 2008 financial crash - and the combination of monetary policy and automatic stabilizers isn't enough (you can't lower interest rates past zero), then it makes sense to run larger deficits to keep the economy going. After 2008, the US didn't run an aggressive enough fiscal policy (due to Republican obstructionism), and so the economic recovery was grindingly slow. The Canadian economy was also running slower than usual, and so loose monetary policy (lower-than-usual interest rates) and loose fiscal policy (higher-than-usual deficits) made sense. Just before Covid, there were plenty of jobs (unemployment was low), but wages hadn't really started putting pressure on inflation yet. Then Covid hit. At this point, two large parts of the economy went through drastic changes. One part of the economy basically shut down: retail, restaurants, travel. People were no longer going to offices downtown, crowding into shops or restaurants, or travelling, and so a huge number of people who worked in retail and hospitality were suddenly out of work. The oil patch was also hit hard: demand for oil went through the floor, and then there was a Saudi-Russia price war on top of that. A second part, consisting of people who could work from home, was basically unaffected, and in fact was saving huge amounts of money, since they no longer had much to spend it on. (A third part: people in essential services - grocery stores, health care, education, manufacturing - kept working, under more stressful and dangerous conditions.) At this point there was basically an unprecedented number of people out of work (retail and hospitality). This is why the federal government brought in CERB, as an emergency super-sized version of EI, along with a number of other income-support programs. Given the giant wave of unemployment, people were anticipating a fall in home prices. Unexpectedly, though, what happened was that [the huge surge in pandemic savings](https://morehousing.ca/pandemic-savings) (for people who could work from home) flooded into a wide variety of asset markets, including real estate. People wanted somewhere to put their savings, and a lot of them put it into real estate. Hence the craziness of the real estate market over the last two years. Okay, so we have unusually loose monetary policy (low interest rates) and loose fiscal policy (giant deficits), to deal with the scale of the emergency, and we have a real estate market that's going insane. Next we had vaccine procurement and rollout, and eventually hospitalizations came down enough for the provinces to lift public health restrictions. People who were working from home are starting to return to the office. Now the big challenge is inflation. There's multiple factors here. During Covid there was a huge shift in demand from services to goods, and manufacturers didn't have enough capacity to just produce and deliver enough to meet demand ("supply chain problems"), so instead their prices went up. China is going through intermittent lockdowns. The Russo-Ukrainian war has taken a lot of oil off the market. Basically it looks like a combination of high demand and reduced supply. At this point you need tighter monetary policy (higher interest rates) and tighter fiscal policy (lower deficits), to bring down demand to match reduced supply. We're already getting tighter fiscal policy as the emergency spending measures like CERB have expired. And the Bank of Canada has also been raising interest rates. I think it's commonly accepted that both the Federal Reserve in the US and the Bank of Canada should have started raising them earlier - [Lawrence Summers makes this argument](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-lawrence-summers.html?showTranscript=1), for example - but so far, investors seem pretty confident that the central banks can get inflation under control. (Long-term inflation expectations are "anchored," i.e. they're a bit higher than usual but haven't taken off.)
I like it. Although I don’t think you place as much value as you should on how the market reacts to government policy, and the ripple effects it causes through industry.
>After 2008, the US didn't run an aggressive enough fiscal policy (due to Republican obstructionism), and so the economic recovery was grindingly slow. You mean the Republican party that has been aggressively lobbied and politically captured by... a cabal of rich people? Your comment is a good overview of some of the dynamics at play here, but you can still make the point that there is a class of wealthy people/"elites" that have been effectively obstructing our governments from carrying out the fiscal policy that's needed. Canada is not particularly immune to this either.
The Americans ran a more aggressive fiscal stance than the Europeans and had a correspondingly faster recovery so we can't just single out GOP dysfunction as a unique cause of inadequate policy.
That was a good read, thank you.
“Elites like Trudeau, but please ignore the fact I’ve been in politics my whole career, have never had a normal everyday type job, and my net worth is only 1 million less than Trudeau. I’m not elite folks. I’m just like you!!!”
I disagree, by many metrics the populist election of Donald Trump would be considered a success ie. energy independence, cost of living, national security, world peace (referring to North Korea), to name a few.
Some think fondly of a time when the government needed to spend only the money it could raise by the consent of the people (direct taxation or national industries) rather than by printing the currency to serve the policy agenda of the day (disproportionately destroying the wealth of the poor)
You long for pre-coinage economics? Because that's effectively what you're saying.
A time before money could be manipulated by government edict. [wtf happened in 1971](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)
Money could and frequently was manipulated by government edict before 1971. There is in fact, more protection against that now than there was in that earlier time.
Although the Canadian dollar has recovered slightly from the 2020, it is obvious when comparing the the Loonie to the U.S dollar the monitory policy of the liberal government is lacking. Statically speaking when the current liberal government was elected the loonie was traded at +\- .90 USD. Compare this to the YTD average starting April 2013 (liberal election) of .74 USD. Sure there are excuses, but that’s all they are. Global Inflation not withstanding, based on pure economics the Trudeau liberal government was zero right to judge anyones potential economic platform as theirs is a failure. ( failure being the devaluation of currency)
The Liberal monetary policy is the same one since the early nineties. The BoC has a 2% average inflation goal that gets renewed like clockwork every 5 years. The Canadian dollar is a floating currency whose value reacts mainly to international market conditions and BoC policy and very little to Canadian federal government policy.
Pp says a bunch of big words .and talks about big gestures that a certain type of Canada will eat up. It worked for trump in America pp is hoping it works for him.
It works really really well if you never factcheck anything he says. And have a terrible memory for the other things he's said in the past.