BeaverFever

The Orange Id1ot is backing down AGAIN Trump deploys abrupt tone shift amid market slump President Trump got a scare from CEOs and markets on Monday. On Tuesday, he blunted some of his sharpest threats — signaling a softer stance on China and retreating from fiery rhetoric targeting the Fed. Why it matters: The president is resolute in his goal of reshaping the economy. But he's sensitive to the movement of the markets and the pleas of powerful corporate leaders and investors who fear the worst from his sweeping efforts. Zoom in: Monday was a tough day for Trump's goal of reshaping the global economy. The CEOs of three of the nation's biggest retailers — Walmart, Target and Home Depot — privately warned him that his tariff and trade policy could disrupt supply chains, raise prices and empty shelves, according to sources familiar with the meeting. "The big box CEOs flat out told him [Trump] the prices aren't going up, they're steady right now, but they will go up. And this wasn't about food. But he was told that shelves will be empty," an administration official familiar with the meeting told Axios. Another official briefed on the meeting said the CEOs told Trump disruptions could become noticeable in two weeks. While that was happening, financial markets were slumping — stocks, bonds, the dollar — as investors panicked about Trump's latest threats to oust Fed chair Jerome Powell and step on the central bank's independence. Then on Tuesday, he turned the dial down. His Treasury secretary, and then his press secretary, and then Trump himself all indicated that trade talks with China were imminent, starting on a good foot, and would result in a deal with much lower tariffs than the current 145%. Trump then told reporters in the Oval Office that he had "no intention" of firing Powell, even …. Between the lines: Trump's shift in tone comes at the same time as a shift in Trump's orbit. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been exerting more influence in recent weeks, reportedly getting in Trump's ear — to the point of rushing the Oval Office when other advisers aren't around — to get him to ease off for the sake of markets. The big picture: For the first time since he entered political life, polls show most voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy. Inflation — which he claims is nonexistent — is still a little hot, growth is slowing, and manufacturers are losing confidence. Recession isn't inevitable, but it looks a lot more likely now than it did even a couple of months ago. Around the world, the "sell America" trade is taking hold, as investors start to realize decades of orthodoxy about U.S. assets as safe havens may no longer be the case. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/23/trump-economy-tariffs-china-powell

As point of fact an election platform is not “an actual budget” And Ive already posted one article and one video explaining how his “the budget will almost balance itself” magic numbers aren’t realistic. His numbers project without any basis in reality that the economy will grow so massively under his stewardship that even though he’s massively cut taxes and there’s a global trade war likely to cause recession somehow the budget will balance itself. Exactly who are these “economists” verifying his flimsy numbers? Some no -name Fraser Institute hacks no doubt. Meanwhile Carney actually is a world-renowned economist. I am sure he had a team and Inam sure he was closely involved because unlike PP this is Carney’s area of expertise and the only reason people are voting for him. Being an globally renowned expert economist is his whole brand and most of his career, and its the centrepiece of his platform. No way he’s just leaving it up to others to work on.

PP’s economic numbers are completely made up, he’s has no expertise in economics and has never so much as managed a McDonalds in his career. he’s a nobody on the world stage and in the business community, just another career politician passing through trying to sell some crazy idea. The “platform” he released at the last minute is more of pamphlet than anything else, it contains more pictures of him and his wife than it does policy details or verifiable numbers. It a glossy brochure for the right wing simpletons who just like to look at pictures and aren’t capable of serious inquisitive thought. No surprise it appeals to you Its carney who will and already is building an export economy that will include some pipelines And no party “got caught colluding with Chine” you conspiracy kook.

So the day it was released - which was days before the conservatives put out their fantasy brochure which they call a platform - the link was down for what? A couple hours? A day? Over Easter weekend no less. And you think that means something? What “minor changes” did they make to their platform? I think the only change was webpage design and layout itself not the content

Here is what Chat GPT said: How it worked: 1. Government funding Dalhousie’s battery research has been supported for decades by Canadian taxpayer money. The key funding agency is NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada). In 2016, Tesla co-funded a new NSERC/Tesla Industrial Research Chair at Dalhousie. Meaning: Canadian taxpayers and Tesla both put money into the research program. (But Canadian public money covered a big chunk.) 2. Industrial Research Chair rules When NSERC funds an Industrial Research Chair like this, the private company (Tesla) usually gets: First rights to license or use the technology. Exclusive access for a certain period (often 2–5 years). After that period, the research often becomes open or available to others — unless Tesla pays for ongoing exclusivity. Translation: Tesla didn’t “steal” it — they paid part of the costs and got a temporary exclusive deal because of that. But the foundation of the research (lab infrastructure, Canadian salaries, basic science) was mostly funded by taxpayers. 3. Intellectual Property (IP) Ownership In many of these agreements: The university technically owns the IP. But Tesla often has the first option to license or commercialize it. Dalhousie can still use the research for academic purposes and future public benefit later. Argument it’s bad Argument it’s good Canadian taxpayers paid to invent tech that profits Tesla. Canadian researchers got funding, good salaries, and world-class R&D opportunities. No Canadian battery manufacturing industry built from it (Tesla builds mostly in U.S. and Germany). Helped keep Canadian science at the global cutting edge (prestige, future investments). Public money, private corporate gain. Tesla is also helping fund Canadian innovation, not just taking from it. Bottom line: Yes, Tesla benefits from taxpayer-funded Canadian research. No, it wasn’t a total giveaway — they co-funded it and got legal, time-limited rights to use it. But it definitely highlights how Canada sometimes subsidizes innovation that ends up creating wealth abroad, rather than building domestic industries.

But as Balsille pointed out even when the research is done here, we give away the IP anyways or allow it to be privately sold for peanuts For example Tesla battery technology was developed at Dalhousie U with a large taxpayer funded endowment but we allowed tesla who also contributed funds to walk away with the IP

Teo can play that game

It’s right here: https://liberal.ca/cstrong/ Maybe conservatives don’t know how to use a computer?

Poilievre counts on the budget (almost) balancing itself Pierre Poilievre is counting on the budget balancing itself. Almost. There are some mostly vague plans for spending cuts in the Conservative election platform Mr. Poilievre released Tuesday, but it’s not enough to pay for all the party’s promises. So instead, the Conservative platform relies on the hope that their policies would cause a big economic boom, mostly in the oil and gas sector. They are counting on that boom raining tens of billions of dollars into Ottawa’s coffers. This is happy thinking, even magical thinking, especially at a time when a trade war with the U.S. has clouded economic forecasts with fears of a recession. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals promise their policies will lead to economic growth. But it’s the Conservatives, in a break from usual practice, who are already counting the cash. And they are counting big: By the fourth year, according to the Conservatives, their hypothetical Canadian economic boom would bring in $24.7-billion more in annual revenues than current projections. “They are basically forecasting that their economic policies will nearly double economic growth,” said economist Mike Moffatt of the Smart Prosperity Institute. “That’s exceptionally optimistic.” Once upon a time, in 2014, Conservatives ridiculed then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau for arguing that if the government committed to growing the economy, “the budget will balance itself.” Mr. Poilievre is now embracing the same idea to reduce the deficit – although to be fair, he’s not actually committing to balancing the budget. If you cut those hopeful “revenue gains” out, the Conservative platform would actually increase the annual budget deficit, starting next year, by roughly $10-billion a year. That’s the only apples-to-apples way to compare the bottom line in each party’s platform, and by that measure, the amount of red ink in the Conservative platform is not a whole lot less than the Liberals’. Mr. Poilievre, who spent 2½ years attacking Liberal deficits, isn’t planning to slay them. It’s pretty obvious why the Conservatives built their platform this way. It’s a political document, and the job at hand was balancing political objectives. Mr. Poilievre wanted to promise big tax cuts and lower deficits, but without also planning for spending cuts, that doesn’t add up. And in a tight election campaign in which the Conservatives are trailing, he doesn’t want talk of Conservative cuts on the lips of voters. The party’s platform did book some proposed spending trims and savings measures, but the total wasn’t that much different from the Liberals, and the descriptions of what is to be cut are just as vague. The largest is the plan to eventually cut $10.5-billion on payments that Mr. Poilievre likes to say are for “consultants,” but are actually for professional services. That rubric includes lawyers, engineers, security guards and training programs, among others. Proposing to cut that category in half is not much more specific than promising to save a lot of money by spending less on stuff. The Conservatives also promised to cut some spending through slashing foreign aid, the size of the civil service and the funding of the CBC. But given the disruption caused in the U.S. by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year, the Conservatives probably fear that promises of more vaguely identified cuts could summon thoughts of Mr. Musk with a chainsaw. Perhaps none of the fiscal details will make a difference to the outcome of the election, anyway. Political strategists for the major parties tend to view platforms as required but unlikely to sway voters, and assume that most don’t get deep into the numbers. But the costing plans are a test of each party’s fiscal credibility. And overall, this year’s suggest wide differences not just in economic policy but outlook. Mr. Carney’s Liberals pledge to spend on infrastructure and industry supports to get through a trade war and stave off recession. Mr. Poilievre’s Conservatives propose tax cuts and energy-sector deregulation to make the economy boom, don’t bother much with industrial strategy and don’t worry that the economy could be in danger. The Conservatives’ numbers don’t include wiggle room or a recession. Their platform doesn’t just base their figures on the economy avoiding recession for the next four years, but banks on a boom. The Conservatives count on their policies being surprising game-changers and going exactly as predicted, so the deficit shrinks by itself. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opinion/article-poilievre-counts-on-the-budget-almost-balancing-itself/

CARNEY DERANGEMENT SYNDROME MAKES ITS FORUM DEBUT

TL;DR: Balsille points out that for the last 30 years, most wealth has been created not by making and selling things but by owning and controlling the Intellectual Property (patents, copyrights, terms of use, etc) of things. Design or invent something then let others pay you a licence fee to produce and sell it, you keep the vast majority of the profit as well as controlling how its used and any data gathered from It. In this paradigm, production moves to the country (or segment of society) with the lowest labour cost while profit goes to the places with elite IP talent. While nearly all advanced economies have learned this lesson, Canada and political parties on both sides continue to follow outdated analog policy that is still obsessed with creating foreign owned subsidiary branch-plant factory and office jobs that simply help foreign IP owners sell in.Canada. In many cases taxpayer-funded IP created in Canada by Canadians is allowed to be privately sold or given away to foreign companies for a fraction of its value in exchange for a token gesture of a few mediocre-level jobs. As such Canadian productivity lags peer countries by many economic measures Official description: ….As Balsillie has pointed out, our GDP per capita is currently about 70% of what it is in the U.S., our productivity growth has been abysmal for years, and our high cost of living means that 1 in 4 Canadians are now food insecure. But, according to Balsillie, none of this can be blamed on Trump. He thinks that over the last thirty years we’ve clung to an outdated economic model and have allowed our politics to be captured by corporate interests.

A lot smarter than electing the liar and Trump stooge who will save us from paper straws! We should have a tariff on importing toxic MAGA ideas to put an end to this nonsense

Dumbass. Thats Ratification. A Canadian-U.S. free-trade agreement was concluded in 1988, and NAFTA basically extended that agreement’s provisions to Mexico. NAFTA was negotiated by the administrations of U.S. Pres. George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Mexican Pres. Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Preliminary agreement on the pact was reached in August1992, and it was signed by the three leaders on December 17. NAFTA was ratified by the three countries’ national legislatures in 1993 and went into effect on January 1, 1994 Here’s actual footage of Reagan signing the first free trade agreement:

Lol Trump is not trying to make that happen as you can see in real time he is wiping out people’s savings and driving up prices. He could care least about the middle class Every society needs a social safety net because hard times happen no matter what. Americas unique problems have a lot to do with the fact that they uniquely don’t have a social safety net that helps people get back on their feet. Instead it has a predatory system that preys on people when they are more vulnerable.

No it was not Clinton. He just happened to be president when it took off. NAFTA was signed under Bush but based on Reagan policies for example. Oh and more to the topic of this thread here’s all the “made in China” Donald Trump merch at Trump’s own Trump merch store (yes the grifter jn chief has his own store selling MAGA merch)