Glenco
Senior Member
He seems intent on promoting the interests of felons and mob bosses. I wonder how he makes his living
|
|
|
- Thread starter TAS
- Start date
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
Reagan would be rolling in his grave if he could see the modern GOP.
Glenco
Senior Member
Reagan started the movement in the US that led to the situation we have today. Probably not what he intended but one policy he amended was to not require news agencies to be unbiased in their reporting. Now where are we ?.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Ignore, ban, block all AI chat bots.
erudyk_29
Active Member
Reaganomics also absolutely exploded the national debt by privatizing government assets for a quick buck, and exploded inequality by massively cutting taxes for the rich.
Trump is now doing the same thing again, but to an even more insidious degree. Anyone making 300 000$ or more is getting a huge tax cut, with even higher tax brackets getting bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, literally everyone else (the entire middle and lower class) is having their taxes increased.
He's declared class warfare on the average American in service of the ultra wealthy. Much like Reagan, but to an even greater degree. The "Golden Age" of prosperity that the MAGA folks want to return to during the 50-60s had a top marginal tax rate of over 70% for the ultra wealthy, who've seen their taxes plummet, while for the average person they've stayed the same or increased.
The Conservatives will do the same if they come into power, privatize by selling off government assets to their friends (with generous subsidies of course) which will increase the deficit, decrease tax rates for the ultra wealthy while increasing or leaving rates the same for the average person, which will increase the deficit and economic activity even further, hyper charging inflation.
The myth that Conservatives are fiscally responsible needs to die, they're the biggest contributors to the deficit if you consider the amount of money making industries for the government they've privatized.
On top of this they have absolutely zero plan to reduce Canada's reliance on fossil fuels, which is not just killing the planet, but killing the economy.
O&G creates a fraction of the jobs it used to thanks to automation, and from an economic perspective it makes absolutely no sense.
Solar and wind and both substantially cheaper than oil and gas for electricity production. Canada poured roughly 28 billion dollars into oil and gas subsidies in 2024 just to keep it costs affordable to the average person, and that's what's directly trackable. I know that battery storage is an issue, but this can be mitigated, and nuclear expansion should solve this in time.
I don't know about you but basic economics tells me that is a market inefficiency.
Oil and gas is an industry being kept alive by path dependency and government subsidies.
It's time to cut the cord and let it die. For everyone's sake, I'm 20 years old right now, and I'd rather not live on a dying planet for the rest of my life. It's easy for older folks to brush climate issues aside (though I know some do care), but for someone like me, it's about ensuring I, and my whole generation, and generations to follow after that have any sort a of decent future without a collapsed food system, rampant water scarcity, natural disasters, wars, etc, etc, etc.
The Liberals also don't really have too much of a great record in terms of climate, Canada's emissions have only increased over Justin Trudeau's time as Prime Minister, but they will at least increase slower than they would under oil shill Poilievre.
Don't bother @ting me @Whatup , I have you blocked, have a great time licking billionaire boot and supporting politicians and policies that ensure future generations have no future on this planet, economic or otherwise : )
Trump is now doing the same thing again, but to an even more insidious degree. Anyone making 300 000$ or more is getting a huge tax cut, with even higher tax brackets getting bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, literally everyone else (the entire middle and lower class) is having their taxes increased.
He's declared class warfare on the average American in service of the ultra wealthy. Much like Reagan, but to an even greater degree. The "Golden Age" of prosperity that the MAGA folks want to return to during the 50-60s had a top marginal tax rate of over 70% for the ultra wealthy, who've seen their taxes plummet, while for the average person they've stayed the same or increased.
The Conservatives will do the same if they come into power, privatize by selling off government assets to their friends (with generous subsidies of course) which will increase the deficit, decrease tax rates for the ultra wealthy while increasing or leaving rates the same for the average person, which will increase the deficit and economic activity even further, hyper charging inflation.
The myth that Conservatives are fiscally responsible needs to die, they're the biggest contributors to the deficit if you consider the amount of money making industries for the government they've privatized.
On top of this they have absolutely zero plan to reduce Canada's reliance on fossil fuels, which is not just killing the planet, but killing the economy.
O&G creates a fraction of the jobs it used to thanks to automation, and from an economic perspective it makes absolutely no sense.
Solar and wind and both substantially cheaper than oil and gas for electricity production. Canada poured roughly 28 billion dollars into oil and gas subsidies in 2024 just to keep it costs affordable to the average person, and that's what's directly trackable. I know that battery storage is an issue, but this can be mitigated, and nuclear expansion should solve this in time.
I don't know about you but basic economics tells me that is a market inefficiency.
Oil and gas is an industry being kept alive by path dependency and government subsidies.
It's time to cut the cord and let it die. For everyone's sake, I'm 20 years old right now, and I'd rather not live on a dying planet for the rest of my life. It's easy for older folks to brush climate issues aside (though I know some do care), but for someone like me, it's about ensuring I, and my whole generation, and generations to follow after that have any sort a of decent future without a collapsed food system, rampant water scarcity, natural disasters, wars, etc, etc, etc.
The Liberals also don't really have too much of a great record in terms of climate, Canada's emissions have only increased over Justin Trudeau's time as Prime Minister, but they will at least increase slower than they would under oil shill Poilievre.
Don't bother @ting me @Whatup , I have you blocked, have a great time licking billionaire boot and supporting politicians and policies that ensure future generations have no future on this planet, economic or otherwise : )
erudyk_29
Active Member
Honestly I feel like half comments you see in Instagram comments sections are Russian bots trying to spread Putin's neo-fascism. They've been extremely effective unfortunately.
constance_chlore
Active Member
Nobody is ever going to 'win' against someone who's just Gish gallop-ing his way through every argument he can get his hands on. As soon as one of Whatup's arguments is debunked, he'll come up with two more, like the heads of a hydra. He'll never admit that he was wrong about something because there's no sincere search for truth there; he's just looking to sow doubt and confusion.
Remember the Sartre passage that was making the rounds a few years ago:
Remember the Sartre passage that was making the rounds a few years ago:
erudyk_29
Active Member
Yes, instead of engaging with comments he just deflects to something different, usually some new brand of conspiracy theory involving Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney and China and/or Fidel Castro. He has not responded to hardly any comments with any form of rebuttle, just a deflection to some new (usually demonstrably false) conspiracy theory.
Gronk!
Senior Member
archited
Senior Member
I have been a little hesitant to share this article from the Kyev Independent due to length but the views expressed re last Friday's unhinged meeting at the White House need to be heard and digested by all...
"On Friday night, the Kyiv Independent team published an editorial, “A president just disrespected America in the Oval Office. It wasn’t Zelensky.”
It’s time to say it plainly. America’s leadership has switched sides in the war. The American people have not, and they should speak up.
In the past several weeks, the U.S. leadership has demonstrated explicit hostility towards Ukraine and aligned its rhetoric and policy with Russia.
The animosity culminated [Friday] when U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky at a meeting in the Oval Office."
"After a hostile meeting, Zelensky left the White House. Trump reportedly ordered the Ukrainian delegation out."
"Let this sink in. The president of a battered Ukraine, an ally of the U.S., became the first world leader in history to be kicked out of the White House. Not a dictator, not a disgraced politician — the president of Ukraine, a country suffering from the worst invasion in the 21st century. The country that the U.S. administration swore to bring peace to."
"In an ugly exchange, the president and vice president joined forces to admonish Zelensky for “not being grateful” enough for the help Ukraine was getting."
"To that, Zelensky reminded them that he had thanked the American people multiple times, including earlier that day. But it appears that gratitude to the American people isn’t what Trump and Vance were looking for — they wanted him to grovel and prostrate himself in front of Trump. Kiss the ring.
For sure, Zelensky could have done a better job composing himself and restraining his reactions, but it’s fair to say that he was put in a situation he couldn’t win. If he let Trump and Vance — and apparently, it takes two of them to win a verbal argument against one non-native English speaker — continue their line of attack on Ukraine, unchecked, he would be seen as weak both at home and abroad. Weakness is something a country at war can’t afford to project.
Trump didn’t get into the same kind of arguments with other world leaders who publicly disagreed with him during recent meetings. He smiled and shrugged when French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer corrected him and Vance on their provocative and false statements about Europe."
"Will Trump and Vance hit Vladimir Putin with the same attitude they showed towards Zelensky and scold the Russian leader for attacking Ukraine? [rhetorical question] By now, we’ve seen enough to know for sure that they won’t. If any ring-kissing happens in their meeting with Putin, the ring will be Russian."
"During the heated exchange in the Oval Office, Trump even complained that Zelensky has “hatred” for Putin — the man who ordered an invasion of his country, killing thousands of civilians — saying it would be “tough” for him to “make a deal with that kind of hate.”
After the meeting, Trump claimed that Zelensky didn’t want peace. That’s a dangerous lie.
Let’s be clear. There is only one force in the world that can bring peace unilaterally, at any moment: Russia. Putin can order his troops to leave Ukraine and end the war any minute he wants. But Putin doesn’t want peace, he wants Ukraine.
Zelensky, and Ukraine, want a fair peace — one that would bring security to the embattled country and pay honor to the enormous price that it paid, losing the best of its people in a bloody fight against the invader."
"What happened in the Oval Office is unprecedented, but it’s not entirely a surprise. Throughout the weeks leading up to it, Trump has demonstrated hostility towards Zelensky and Ukraine, while embracing Russia.
We’ve seen it in the things he has said and done. At every turn, there were people that stayed optimistic and tried to interpret it in a way that isn’t so bad for Ukraine — saying it’s part of a strategy, or that it’s different from what goes on behind the scenes. It appears it’s much simpler than that.
[Friday], Trump said that he is both “for Ukraine and Russia” in the talks. Then, he kicked Ukraine’s delegation out of the White House. There is only one simple way to understand what happened:
Donald Trump is for Russia.
The president of the United States picked Russia’s side in the war it started against its democratic neighbor — whose only fault was that it wanted to stay a democracy. Trump is choosing to side with a murderous tyrant over a democratically elected leader.
Trump and his government are now making sure Ukraine will lose this war. They are also choking their other allies in the process. But most importantly, they are betraying the interests of America, and making it weaker.
The tragedy is that Trump is doing it all in the name of millions of Americans who completely disagree with that and are disgusted with Trump’s line."
"The Kyiv Independent’s emails have been overflowing with words of support, embarrassment, disgust, and apologies from our American readers who support Ukraine and disagree with Trump’s actions.
But the U.S. remains a democracy, whether its leadership cherishes it or not — and in a democracy, the people’s voices can and must be heard.
If you disagree with America’s current trajectory, with the idea that emboldening tyrants is the path to sustainable peace and prosperity, you have the power to make a difference: Call and email your representatives. Demand support for Ukraine. Organize and go to pro-Ukraine rallies. Write, post, speak, advocate. Donate to Ukrainian causes. Disagree. You are America — make your voice heard.
Americans should stand up and send their political leadership a clear message: We don’t support what you’re doing, so stop doing it in our name. We don’t want an alliance with Russia, and we don’t want a betrayal of Ukraine. And frankly, we are embarrassed."
"Speak up now, before it’s too late.
America’s president may have chosen his side of history. The American people are still free to choose theirs."
"On Friday night, the Kyiv Independent team published an editorial, “A president just disrespected America in the Oval Office. It wasn’t Zelensky.”
It’s time to say it plainly. America’s leadership has switched sides in the war. The American people have not, and they should speak up.
In the past several weeks, the U.S. leadership has demonstrated explicit hostility towards Ukraine and aligned its rhetoric and policy with Russia.
The animosity culminated [Friday] when U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky at a meeting in the Oval Office."
"After a hostile meeting, Zelensky left the White House. Trump reportedly ordered the Ukrainian delegation out."
"Let this sink in. The president of a battered Ukraine, an ally of the U.S., became the first world leader in history to be kicked out of the White House. Not a dictator, not a disgraced politician — the president of Ukraine, a country suffering from the worst invasion in the 21st century. The country that the U.S. administration swore to bring peace to."
"In an ugly exchange, the president and vice president joined forces to admonish Zelensky for “not being grateful” enough for the help Ukraine was getting."
"To that, Zelensky reminded them that he had thanked the American people multiple times, including earlier that day. But it appears that gratitude to the American people isn’t what Trump and Vance were looking for — they wanted him to grovel and prostrate himself in front of Trump. Kiss the ring.
For sure, Zelensky could have done a better job composing himself and restraining his reactions, but it’s fair to say that he was put in a situation he couldn’t win. If he let Trump and Vance — and apparently, it takes two of them to win a verbal argument against one non-native English speaker — continue their line of attack on Ukraine, unchecked, he would be seen as weak both at home and abroad. Weakness is something a country at war can’t afford to project.
Trump didn’t get into the same kind of arguments with other world leaders who publicly disagreed with him during recent meetings. He smiled and shrugged when French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer corrected him and Vance on their provocative and false statements about Europe."
"Will Trump and Vance hit Vladimir Putin with the same attitude they showed towards Zelensky and scold the Russian leader for attacking Ukraine? [rhetorical question] By now, we’ve seen enough to know for sure that they won’t. If any ring-kissing happens in their meeting with Putin, the ring will be Russian."
"During the heated exchange in the Oval Office, Trump even complained that Zelensky has “hatred” for Putin — the man who ordered an invasion of his country, killing thousands of civilians — saying it would be “tough” for him to “make a deal with that kind of hate.”
After the meeting, Trump claimed that Zelensky didn’t want peace. That’s a dangerous lie.
Let’s be clear. There is only one force in the world that can bring peace unilaterally, at any moment: Russia. Putin can order his troops to leave Ukraine and end the war any minute he wants. But Putin doesn’t want peace, he wants Ukraine.
Zelensky, and Ukraine, want a fair peace — one that would bring security to the embattled country and pay honor to the enormous price that it paid, losing the best of its people in a bloody fight against the invader."
"What happened in the Oval Office is unprecedented, but it’s not entirely a surprise. Throughout the weeks leading up to it, Trump has demonstrated hostility towards Zelensky and Ukraine, while embracing Russia.
We’ve seen it in the things he has said and done. At every turn, there were people that stayed optimistic and tried to interpret it in a way that isn’t so bad for Ukraine — saying it’s part of a strategy, or that it’s different from what goes on behind the scenes. It appears it’s much simpler than that.
[Friday], Trump said that he is both “for Ukraine and Russia” in the talks. Then, he kicked Ukraine’s delegation out of the White House. There is only one simple way to understand what happened:
Donald Trump is for Russia.
The president of the United States picked Russia’s side in the war it started against its democratic neighbor — whose only fault was that it wanted to stay a democracy. Trump is choosing to side with a murderous tyrant over a democratically elected leader.
Trump and his government are now making sure Ukraine will lose this war. They are also choking their other allies in the process. But most importantly, they are betraying the interests of America, and making it weaker.
The tragedy is that Trump is doing it all in the name of millions of Americans who completely disagree with that and are disgusted with Trump’s line."
"The Kyiv Independent’s emails have been overflowing with words of support, embarrassment, disgust, and apologies from our American readers who support Ukraine and disagree with Trump’s actions.
But the U.S. remains a democracy, whether its leadership cherishes it or not — and in a democracy, the people’s voices can and must be heard.
If you disagree with America’s current trajectory, with the idea that emboldening tyrants is the path to sustainable peace and prosperity, you have the power to make a difference: Call and email your representatives. Demand support for Ukraine. Organize and go to pro-Ukraine rallies. Write, post, speak, advocate. Donate to Ukrainian causes. Disagree. You are America — make your voice heard.
Americans should stand up and send their political leadership a clear message: We don’t support what you’re doing, so stop doing it in our name. We don’t want an alliance with Russia, and we don’t want a betrayal of Ukraine. And frankly, we are embarrassed."
"Speak up now, before it’s too late.
America’s president may have chosen his side of history. The American people are still free to choose theirs."
Gronk!
Senior Member
Live updates from the tariff war
kcantor
Senior Member
Sooo...
How should Canada respond to US Tarrifs in a manner that would be productive for Canada over the long term and not simply in a manner that would inflict yet more pain on Canadian individuals ans businesses and government? Perhaps we should consideer leveraging our pensions fund assets and capital allocations. With a little help from ChatGPT (apologies for some of the formatting and the lack of links to the referenced bracketed sources - if anyone wants them please PM me):
1. Executive Summary
In the context of escalating global trade tensions, Canada is exploring strategic alternatives to traditional tariff-based retaliations. With Canadian public pension funds managing approximately C$2.1 trillion in assets (Fitch Ratings), reallocating a portion of these investments could serve as a potent economic lever. This paper examines the feasibility, potential impacts, and risks of utilizing capital reallocation as a strategic tool in trade disputes, and discusses the necessary fiscal and monetary support to ensure its success.
2. Background & Motivation
Canada's major public pension funds hold substantial assets, with significant investments in U.S. markets:
- Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB): Manages over C$646.8 billion as of June 30, 2024 (CPP Investments).
- Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ): Manages over C$450 billion globally, with significant investments in the UK and Europe (Financial Times).
- Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP): Manages approximately C$249.8 billion as of June 30, 2023 (Wikipedia).
- Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments): Manages CAD $264.9 billion as of fiscal year 2024 (Wikipedia).
Collectively, these and other Canadian institutional investors manage over C$2.1 trillion in assets (Fitch Ratings)). Reallocating even 5-10% (C$105B–C$210B) could disrupt U.S. financial markets (the only thing Trump cares about) by applying economic pressure on the US while potentially benefiting Canada's domestic economy.
3. Capital Reallocation vs. Tariff Retaliation
3.1 Limitations of Tariff Retaliation
- Domestic Economic Impact: Tariffs can lead to higher prices for Canadian consumers and businesses, particularly for imported goods.
- Limited Influence: Given the size disparity between the U.S. and Canadian economies, tariffs may have a muted effect on U.S. policy decisions.
3.2 Advantages of Capital Reallocation
- Targeted Economic Pressure: Strategic divestment from U.S. assets can increase borrowing costs and reduce liquidity in specific sectors.
- Domestic Investment Opportunities: Redirected funds can be invested in Canadian infrastructure, technology, and other growth areas, stimulating the domestic economy.
- Flexibility: Financial markets can respond swiftly to capital flows, potentially yielding quicker results than tariffs.
4. Potential Economic Impacts on the U.S.
4.1 Liquidity Constraints
- Increased Borrowing Costs: Divestment from U.S. corporate bonds and real estate can lead to higher interest rates in these markets.
- Reduced Investment in Key Sectors: Sectors heavily reliant on external capital, such as technology and infrastructure, may face funding challenges.
4.2 Market Volatility
- Asset Price Fluctuations: Significant sell-offs can lead to declines in asset prices, affecting investor confidence.
- Exchange Rate Impacts: Large-scale currency transactions could influence the USD/CAD exchange rate, affecting trade competitiveness.
5. Financial Gains for Canada
5.1 Profitable Trading Strategies
- Anticipate Market Movements: By strategically timing the divestment, Canadian funds could capitalize on market reactions.
- Currency Hedging: Managing currency exposure can mitigate risks associated with large-scale capital movements. A portion of this hedging could potentially utilize BitCoin (which my friend Chris LaBossiere would surely approve of).
5.2 Domestic Reinvestment Opportunities
- Infrastructure Development: Investing in domestic projects can yield long-term economic benefits.
- Technology and Innovation: Supporting emerging sectors can enhance Canada's competitive position globally.
6. Required Fiscal and Monetary Support
To ensure the success of this strategy, coordinated support from the Bank of Canada and federal fiscal policies is essential:
- Bank of Canada: The central bank should be prepared to provide liquidity support to stabilize domestic financial markets if needed.
- Federal Government: Fiscal measures, such as tax incentives or direct investments, can facilitate the redeployment of capital into strategic domestic sectors.
The scale of the backstop required would depend on market conditions and the extent of capital reallocation but should be sufficient to maintain financial stability and investor confidence.
7. Risks and Considerations
- Market Volatility: Rapid capital movements can contribute to instability in financial markets (something that including some reallocation to Bitcoin may mitigate in terms of consequences to Canada).
- Political Repercussions: Such actions may strain diplomatic relations with the US (asssuming the US hasn't already irreperably damaged those relations).
- Domestic Economic Impact: Ensuring that redirected investments are productive and do not lead to asset bubbles is crucial. This is where reinvesting in infrastructure, additional reserves, and areas like education and healthcare might mitigate contributing to asset inflation.
8. Conclusion
Leveraging Canada's substantial pension fund assets offers a strategic alternative to traditional trade retaliations. While this approach carries risks, with careful planning and coordinated support from monetary and fiscal authorities, it could serve as an effective tool to advance Canada's economic interests in the context of global trade disputes.
How should Canada respond to US Tarrifs in a manner that would be productive for Canada over the long term and not simply in a manner that would inflict yet more pain on Canadian individuals ans businesses and government? Perhaps we should consideer leveraging our pensions fund assets and capital allocations. With a little help from ChatGPT (apologies for some of the formatting and the lack of links to the referenced bracketed sources - if anyone wants them please PM me):
1. Executive Summary
In the context of escalating global trade tensions, Canada is exploring strategic alternatives to traditional tariff-based retaliations. With Canadian public pension funds managing approximately C$2.1 trillion in assets (Fitch Ratings), reallocating a portion of these investments could serve as a potent economic lever. This paper examines the feasibility, potential impacts, and risks of utilizing capital reallocation as a strategic tool in trade disputes, and discusses the necessary fiscal and monetary support to ensure its success.
2. Background & Motivation
Canada's major public pension funds hold substantial assets, with significant investments in U.S. markets:
- Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB): Manages over C$646.8 billion as of June 30, 2024 (CPP Investments).
- Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ): Manages over C$450 billion globally, with significant investments in the UK and Europe (Financial Times).
- Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP): Manages approximately C$249.8 billion as of June 30, 2023 (Wikipedia).
- Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments): Manages CAD $264.9 billion as of fiscal year 2024 (Wikipedia).
Collectively, these and other Canadian institutional investors manage over C$2.1 trillion in assets (Fitch Ratings)). Reallocating even 5-10% (C$105B–C$210B) could disrupt U.S. financial markets (the only thing Trump cares about) by applying economic pressure on the US while potentially benefiting Canada's domestic economy.
3. Capital Reallocation vs. Tariff Retaliation
3.1 Limitations of Tariff Retaliation
- Domestic Economic Impact: Tariffs can lead to higher prices for Canadian consumers and businesses, particularly for imported goods.
- Limited Influence: Given the size disparity between the U.S. and Canadian economies, tariffs may have a muted effect on U.S. policy decisions.
3.2 Advantages of Capital Reallocation
- Targeted Economic Pressure: Strategic divestment from U.S. assets can increase borrowing costs and reduce liquidity in specific sectors.
- Domestic Investment Opportunities: Redirected funds can be invested in Canadian infrastructure, technology, and other growth areas, stimulating the domestic economy.
- Flexibility: Financial markets can respond swiftly to capital flows, potentially yielding quicker results than tariffs.
4. Potential Economic Impacts on the U.S.
4.1 Liquidity Constraints
- Increased Borrowing Costs: Divestment from U.S. corporate bonds and real estate can lead to higher interest rates in these markets.
- Reduced Investment in Key Sectors: Sectors heavily reliant on external capital, such as technology and infrastructure, may face funding challenges.
4.2 Market Volatility
- Asset Price Fluctuations: Significant sell-offs can lead to declines in asset prices, affecting investor confidence.
- Exchange Rate Impacts: Large-scale currency transactions could influence the USD/CAD exchange rate, affecting trade competitiveness.
5. Financial Gains for Canada
5.1 Profitable Trading Strategies
- Anticipate Market Movements: By strategically timing the divestment, Canadian funds could capitalize on market reactions.
- Currency Hedging: Managing currency exposure can mitigate risks associated with large-scale capital movements. A portion of this hedging could potentially utilize BitCoin (which my friend Chris LaBossiere would surely approve of).
5.2 Domestic Reinvestment Opportunities
- Infrastructure Development: Investing in domestic projects can yield long-term economic benefits.
- Technology and Innovation: Supporting emerging sectors can enhance Canada's competitive position globally.
6. Required Fiscal and Monetary Support
To ensure the success of this strategy, coordinated support from the Bank of Canada and federal fiscal policies is essential:
- Bank of Canada: The central bank should be prepared to provide liquidity support to stabilize domestic financial markets if needed.
- Federal Government: Fiscal measures, such as tax incentives or direct investments, can facilitate the redeployment of capital into strategic domestic sectors.
The scale of the backstop required would depend on market conditions and the extent of capital reallocation but should be sufficient to maintain financial stability and investor confidence.
7. Risks and Considerations
- Market Volatility: Rapid capital movements can contribute to instability in financial markets (something that including some reallocation to Bitcoin may mitigate in terms of consequences to Canada).
- Political Repercussions: Such actions may strain diplomatic relations with the US (asssuming the US hasn't already irreperably damaged those relations).
- Domestic Economic Impact: Ensuring that redirected investments are productive and do not lead to asset bubbles is crucial. This is where reinvesting in infrastructure, additional reserves, and areas like education and healthcare might mitigate contributing to asset inflation.
8. Conclusion
Leveraging Canada's substantial pension fund assets offers a strategic alternative to traditional trade retaliations. While this approach carries risks, with careful planning and coordinated support from monetary and fiscal authorities, it could serve as an effective tool to advance Canada's economic interests in the context of global trade disputes.
Whattagame
Active Member
I don't think it's either/or. I think the retaliatory tariffs need to happen to shock the US population into action while they still have the ability to act (their options for recourse are dwindling fast).
BUT, your suggestion is kind of brilliant. Have you heard about this elsewhere? I'm curious how practicable it would be. If it is, this should be on the table at higher levels immediately.
Do you mind if I re-post this? I'd like to see this idea get some traction.
policyenthusiast
Active Member
The pension fund isn't a 2T savings fund, it is a massive, inefficient ponzi scheme that props up the Canadian retirement structure. This isn't a Red Dawn situation, 25% tariffs on select Canadian goods is not worth risking something as brittle as Canadian pensions.
My two cents.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
Sounds like Trump is already balking and may pull the tariffs back as early as tomorrow.