BeaverFever

Mark Carney is running the economy like a conservative. And that’s okay Kevin Yin is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail and an economics doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley. Imagine waking up again in early 2025, before the April election. A candidate who you do not recognize steps to the podium and lays out his platform: axe the carbon tax, drop countertariffs on the United States in adherence to free-market doctrine, foster rapprochement with the oil and gas industry, and cancel the capital gains tax hike. Without knowing which party he stands for, you might be forgiven for thinking he is running for the Conservative Party. Alas, this is exactly the approach Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney has taken. That the Prime Minister has now also paused the federal EV mandate only strengthens the case; Mark Carney could just as easily have run as a Conservative. The mandate, which once required Canadian automakers to guarantee that 20 per cent of their sales were electric by 2027, was a hallmark Trudeau-era policy meant to reduce carbon emissions. However, with the automotive sector under tariff pressure from the United States, the Carney government has decided that economic relief is more important at present. It is one more amongst a slew of decisions that make Mr. Carney an ideological blur. Story continues below advertisement LNG Canada expansion among first five major projects to be identified for fast-tracking, sources say Shannon Proudfoot: Carney was elected on a wave of tariff panic. Now he has other problems In fact, many of Mr. Carney’s actions in the first year of his premiership echo the spirit of proposals from the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre. Mr. Poilievre’s Conservatives also promised to eliminate taxes on carbon and a deal where Canada would remove tariffs on the U.S. They also stressed the need for cutting red tape on energy projects and infrastructure, as well as advocating for tax cuts for the middle class. And on issues where Mr. Carney came from the left, for example on deficits, the Conservatives were forced to converge to his stance. Of course, there are still reasons that Mr. Carney fits better within the large-tent Liberal Party, which has historically been home to a diverse leadership ranging from fiscal hawks to advocates of nationalized oil. He is a technocrat first and foremost, which the party leadership loves, and means circumstances determine policy direction more than ideology. His intention to recognize Palestine is an example where party values coincided with shifting global opinion and geopolitical realism. The Liberal label also gave him more flexibility on deficit spending, which he has made extensive use of – although this election also saw large deficits proposed by the Conservative Party. And while cutting the carbon tax was strategic, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Carney, an economist and former climate envoy to the United Nations, does not himself believe in their efficacy. Does this mean the Conservative Party was “right” in April? To some extent. Trudeau-ism, which was content to “let the bankers worry about the economy”and argued there was little “business case” for exporting liquefied natural gas, was rankling even moderate Liberals by the end, including his own cabinet. And as tariffs and wars now dominate the agendas of Western capitals, more classically right-wing notions like emphasis on the economy and military build-up are naturally in vogue. In that sense, Mr. Carney is simply responding to the times, and the Conservative Party deserves some credit for its foresight. Yet the manner and enthusiasm with which one embarks on this is also important. Whether one endorses tariff concessions to the United States because the costs of retaliation are perceived to be fundamentally too high, or simply as a conditional token of goodwill to reset talks, matters for how our negotiations with the U.S. ultimately play out. Whether one pauses EV sales requirements because of short-run economic realities, or a general failure to accurately weigh the risks of climate change, matters for how we should expect the government to deal more broadly with a rapidly warming planet. While I do worry about the long-run preservation of our green initiatives, it is perhaps a feature, not a bug, of the Canadian political system that a Conservative candidate can propose large deficits while Liberals can compromise on net-zero objectives. That parties are often not too far apart in actuality and that dogma can give way to rational policy (or at least what is perceived internally to be) when circumstances change is something to be celebrated. In fact it is probably this feature, that Canadians are in greater agreement than we think, that has protected Canada for decades from the worst excesses of U.S. polarization on social issues. Thus, while reasonable people can disagree on whether Mark Carney should govern as conservatively as he has, it at least says something of the quality of our politics that he does. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-mark-carney-is-running-the-economy-like-a-conservative-and-thats-okay/

The office does exist, the projects are going to receive needed help from the government and whether it is funding or other support will come from the office which does in fact now exist. And given that Poilievre is supporting Carney’s initiatives in parliament while telling you otherwise in public I think you ought to really consider who is convincing who that left is right and up is down. As for your rhetoric please explain how Justin “filled his pockets”

That’s a lie Because it is true. There are racist police. And even the police who aren’t consciously racist operate under such a culture impunity that they unnecessarily use excess force without consequences. There’s a reason the cops who killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Atatiana Jefferson, Walter Scott, and others went to prison. You want to know how bad it is in USA with their trigger happy keystone cops, watch these 2 clueless buffoons both empty their clips at an unarmed black man who was already handcuffed in the backseat of a patrol vehicle because one was spooked by the sound of a nearby falling acorn which he mistook for gunfire and also somehow imagined he’d been shot Does it make it better or worse that despite the large number of bullets fired from relatively close range they missed him with every shot? And yet he was an outspoken Trump supporter that is an established fact so by definition not left wing even if he was obsessed with the single issue of Palestine for whatever reason. Trump supporters are not exactly know for coherent and consistent beliefs And he was know to be mentally ill so so probably had all kinds of incompatible nonsensical gibberish beliefs that don’t fit into left wing or right wing I repeat: the most GENEROUS count of trans killers is 5 out of more than 5,000 mass shootings including domestic violence and gang/crime-related activity. If you think you have proof to the contrary, show it. Secondly being trans doesn’t mean you have a left wing motive. If a disgruntled employee shoots up their workplace it doesn’t automatically make it a left wing attack if that disgruntled worker is trans. So you will have to prove that also. I gave you 3 different ways of measuring it in 3 different reports, none of them support your claims. But at least you’re willing to admit when it comes to actual acts of terrorism the right is worse. That’s progress!

“Random person says something offensive on the internet”proves what exactly? You think there aren’t hundreds of thousands of right wingers on the internet saying vile and hateful things? The difference is when it’s right wing you minimize it, excuse it and then delete it from your memory. Riots are protests against government. Floyd was killed by the state. That’s the difference.

USA is the most right wing country in the western world and the only one with political violence problem. What political violence does exist in Europe other than Islamist terrorism (islamism is itself a conservative movement) come from right wing groups and radicals. In Canada the people driving their truck full of guns through the PMs gate, chasing politicians and their families down the street, throwing rocks at them, spray-painting obscenities on their offices, calling foe the prime minister to be lynched, are all right wing. Yea there are indigenous protesters, BLM protesters, Palestine protesters, SOME of whom are left wing but many of whom are single-issue or anti-government so not partisan.

The first 5 are already in the most advanced stages which is why they are in the first tranche but they still have hurdles ahead of them, for example they don’t have all the necessary funding lined up. . They’re having funding and project timetables accelerated. Carney also read a list of projects that will be part of the next tranche which he expects will be ready for referral to the national project office by end of November, with more to come in spring and summer. Natural and expected. Still winning.

So as I just mentioned “2020 BLM riots” aren’t necessarily left wing. Also the PA governor was DEMOCRAT and the firebomber was a mentally ill TRUMP SUPPORTER. The “various mass shootings by transgender folks” is a maximum of 5 shootings out of more than 5,000 possibly being committed by trans people amd even if they were trans doesn’t prove it eas a “left wing attack”. Even if we count BLM as left wing already posted 2 separate reports from US DOJ and the Jewish ADL showing right wing violence far exceeds left wing violence, here’s a third from right-leaning CATO institute: Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975 (Table 1). Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies. Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total. Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies. https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states

Given that we’re also trying to get in on the rearm Europe project I bet we’ll go with German. The Korean missile capability and extra torpedoes would be cool but not high on our priorities AFAIK. Too bad the German sub has more limited special operations capabilities though, that’s probably something we would actually want and use.

From US DOJ: What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20250911012550/https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

Thank you for the example of more right wing violent mobs attacking people who say things they don’t like.

The weather underground is one example you mentioned and is not recent to the last decade. You mentioned the few examples that are recent and most were from decades past. And even then some have only limited connection to “the left”. Most of the people rioting over George Floyd and similar killings were not politically left or political at all they were protesting that one specific issue. So you admit you can’t even fathom any alternative meaning for what he said but we should assume he meant something different than what he actually said. That’s hilarious.

And then just a couple days later: Prime Minister Carney announces first projects to be reviewed by the new Major Projects Office September 11, 2025 https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2025/09/11/prime-minister-carney-announces-first-projects-be-reviewed-new Mark Carney's 5 national projects 'a big net positive' for Canada's economy: Desjardins https://financialpost.com/news/economy/mark-carneys-national-projects-net-positive-canada-economy-desjardins Alberta premier praises national-interest projects — even if a pipeline isn't on the list Oil and gas industry experts happy to see government fast-tracking complex projects https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-premier-praises-national-interest-projects-even-if-a-pipeline-isn-t-on-the-list-1.7631463

Meanwhile back in reality Ipsos poll: With MPs returning, Carney government has decade-high approval Posted September 13, 2025 4:00 am EST Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government will face the House of Commons next week for the first time since June. It begins the fall sitting of Parliament with an approval rating among Canadians that no government has seen in nearly a decade, according to new polling done exclusively for Global News by Ipsos. https://globalnews.ca/news/11417373/ipsos-poll-with-mps-returning-carney-government-has-decade-high-approval/amp/ Carney gets passing grade on dealing with Trump, poll shows Published Yesterday Mark Carney gets a passing grade from Canadians when it comes to handling Donald Trump on trade matters, despite the Prime Minister’s lack of success so far in persuading the U.S. President to cut punitive tariffs on goods such as steel, aluminum and autos, a new poll suggests. Fifty-six per cent of respondents to a survey by Nanos Research rated Mr. Carney’s performance in dealing with Mr. Trump as very good or good. Nineteen per cent said it’s been average and 18 per cent said it’s been poor or very poor. Another 3 per cent were unsure. In all, Canadians were more than twice as likely to rate the Prime Minister’s performance as good or very good instead of poor or very poor. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-carney-trump-poll-trade-deal-economy-tariffs/ Canadian growth forecasts beating the U.S. despite tariffs: Bloomberg And from last year: Why Canada’s Economy Is Just Fine https://macleans.ca/economy/why-canadas-economy-is-just-fine/

The 2 subs on offer have very interesting differences. It’s definitely a distinct choice. The German/Norwegian sub is smaller, more stealthy and allegedly more technologically advanced. It is also more maneuverable in shallow waters and under arctic ice and requires less crew. The Korean sub being larger can stay at sea for up to 2 weeks longer, making it more effective at blue water operations and open ocean control. It allegedly carries almost twice as many torpedoes and special forces teams, and has ballistic missile silos that can theoretically be modified for cruise or anti-ship missiles or drones and offers proven existing tech Both seem to have similar submerged endurance.

The fact that drones are relatively cheap to produce should hopefully be an advantage. At the cost of $13 billion for a single aircraft carrier, that costs $1 billion annually to operate, US could blacken the sky with cheap drones. The western defence industry doesn’t return your phone calls for anything less than a billion so we’ll still spend the same amount of money but for massive swarms of product. South Korean shipyard sweetens its submarine sales pitch to Canada OTTAWA -- One of two finalists in the competition to build the Royal Canadian Navy's next fleet of submarines is pitching multiple industrial partnerships and economic benefits in the hopes of sealing the deal. Hanwha Oceans is floating various industrial-technological benefit collaborations that could involve investments in Canadian lithium-ion battery production, liquefied natural gas, aerospace, steel, critical minerals mining and sustainable energy. Although the firm is keeping its cards to its chest on the specifics -- part of an unsolicited proposal it made to the Canadian government in July -- the company promises more details in the coming weeks and insists the investments would be significant. "We've talked about everything from energy co-operation to battery co-operation to ... other areas where Hanwha is particularly strong, like infantry-fighting vehicles and howitzers," said Hanwha Global Defense CEO Michael Coulter in an interview with The Canadian Press. "We know that there's a requirement in the Canadian military for howitzers. The offering has evolved beyond submarines because what the Canadian government is looking for is beyond submarines. It's true industrial capacity in Canada." The company points to what it calls a "friend-shoring" initiative which saw it open an armoured vehicle plant in Geelong, Australia a year ago. The company says roughly 1,000 employees now work there building fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers. It's angling for something similar in Canada. Hanwha has offered to construct two submarine "sustainment" facilities on both coasts and also envisions a manufacturing facility in Canada to build tanks, rockets, howitzers and resupply vehicles. "On a submarine program, it is a decades-long endeavour to maintain and support that," Coulter said. He said Hanwha wants "to have the entire life cycle" of the subs, "support, maintenance, all of that," operated "in Canada by Canadians" for "decades to come." "That is the framework of how we're thinking as a company right now," he said. Hanwha hosted a delegation from Canada earlier this week that included Stefanie Beck, deputy minister of defence. The Canadians toured the company's Geoje shipyard in South Korea and took a close-up look at the submarine model Hanwha vows is Canada's best option. Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to visit the yard next month. On Aug. 26, he visited a submarine facility in Kiel, Germany owned by a rival bidder. Every time Hanwha has a meeting with Canadian officials, it appears to update its game plan for selling Canada on the KSS-III, its lithium-ion powered sub model. The South Korean navy currently has three of them in the water. Hanwha, which touts itself as South Korea's seventh-largest business group, is known for its aggressive marketing and sales and is pursuing a global expansion strategy. It's a regular fixture at the annual CANSEC defence expo in Ottawa, where it has advertised the subs for several years now. South Korea is hungry to grow its domestic defence industry and has pushed hard to expand exports. The country has been on a war footing for decades because of its menacing neighbour to the north, and is seeking to move itself away from overreliance on the U.S. for defence materiel. The country, which was the eighth-largest arms exporter in the world in 2023, wants to become the fourth-largest by 2027, according to an internal National Defence review obtained through access to information law. The top four arms exporters currently are the U.S., France, Russia and China. "Successive (Korean) governments have relied on a mix of financial inducements, flexible joint-production arrangements in host countries, 'package deals' that include non-military products and co-ordinated diplomatic support to boost sales," the National Defence document said. The other contender for the sub contract is the German firm ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, or TKMS. It's pitching Canada on its track record as one of the world's longest-established sub builders, having supplied some 70 per cent of NATO's conventional sub fleet. TKMS is also attempting to sell Canada on interoperability with allies -- the same argument used by supporters of Canada's purchase of American F-35 fighter jets. Germany and Norway have together ordered a dozen of TKMS's 212 CD (Common Design) submarines, the model the firm is trying to sell to Canada. TKMS also says it can beat Canada's tight 2035 deadline for its first sub delivery. Hanwha, meanwhile, is also focusing its sales pitch on Ottawa's need for speed. The Canadian navy's four Victoria Class subs will be out of commission within a decade. Carney has pointed out that only one of them is currently in working order. Hanwha says that if Canada signs a contract next year, it can leverage its massive shipyard capacity -- totalling five kilometres square -- to build four KSS-III submarines by 2035, with the first to be delivered 2032. It says it could send Canada a new sub every year after the initial four are delivered, giving it a full fleet of 12 by 2043. The company claims this could allow Canada to avoid $1 billion on repairs by retiring the Victoria subs early. Hanwha says the 12 subs would cost in the ballpark of $20-24 billion, which does not include the infrastructure to service them. The Carney government is moving fast on the sub file. It only announced the procurement a year ago and has already ruled out most of the competition. Procurement projects this massive tend to move very slowly through the Canadian bureaucracy. Navy Commander Admiral Angus Topshee even suggested in a recent television interview that it's possible for Ottawa to arrive at a decision by the end of the year. "It appears that the Canadian government is very intent on moving quickly and moving differently," Coulter said. "We're a little bit in uncharted waters, so our intent is just to stay very close to the customer, understand as best we can what they are looking for and to be committed to that." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2025. https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/09/11/south-korean-shipyard-sweetens-its-submarine-sales-pitch-to-canada

LOL you had to resort to citing antiwar protests from the 1960s and things that were barely associated with the left to compare to the violence that right wingers increasingly advocate and called BS on that. To imply that anyone who rioted in response to George Floyd or Rodney King etc is a “leftist” and card-carrying Democrat supporter and that Obama, Biden and Democrat politicians are ideologically 100% the same as those rioters is ridiculous. What else could he be saying? Pretend an islamist said that exact same statement about Jews instead of gays. You wouldn’t be arguing that there was a hypothetical non-violet meaning He routinely railed against homosexuality and advocated for marginalizing them in public life he maybhave only rarely suggested wink-wink-dog-whistle that it be taken to such extremes doesn’t make it any less true Maybe he didn’t truly believe it but just was attempting to appeal to a particular audience but that’s always how these hateful ideas start before they spread Secondly if you’re going to attribute every one-off incident statement and actions of an individual person to the entire left then you can take a dose of your own medicine

Trump is going to destroy that free trade agreement next year. We gotta make hay while the sun’s still shining. Time is of the essence And he has batted the steel, auto and other sectors with his so-called “strategic sector” tariffs. GDP per capita is a misleading number. Look at the southern shithole states a lot of them have higher GDP per capita than anywhere in Canada but the people who live there have much lower average income and way more people living in poverty or near poverty. In reality those are poor states where corporations and billionaires hoard money on paper for tax reasons officially boosting GDP but the wealth doesn’t circulate in the local economy.

What a load of absolute opposite of reality bullshit. The people inundating politicians with death threats are largely from the right. The violent militia groups are all right wing. The neo nazi and kk groups endorse Trump and Republicans. The people calling for Trudeau to be “lynched for treason” are obviously not liberals. The people plotting to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer and the people who stormed the Capitol with the intent of abducting and/or executing Democrats were Republican. They’re all welcomed at Trump rallies Let me remind you Kirk was famous for hateful statements like citing when he said the bible verse calling for gay people to be put to death was “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters”

The relevant part in bold. You cannot easily kill someone with a 12 gauge at 300m

Funny, when the shooter potentially has even remotely left-leaning beliefs or is Muslim, their mental illness is irrelevant. Pretty convenient. Spoiler alert: EVERYONE who decides to assassinate someone over politics is mentally unwell. They guy who targeted them sure did, he was a local right wing nutjob. It doesn’t matter that YOU didn’t knew who they were I don’t even understand the point you’re trying to make. I haven’t seen any celebrations, certainly not by Democrats or their media personalities. Of course random anonymous people online are going to be awful, conservatives are no different. Again, look at how conservatives responded to the Paul Pelosi attack or Heather Heyer’s death or even when the toddler Alan Kurdi drowned in the Mediterranean. Trolls will be trolls. The right wing troll army is a lot bigger than the left wing troll army That sounds like quite the exaggeration but whatever I get that he’s was a prominent apostle

Where can you even find the video?

Can’t wait to see how Trump will use this as an excuse for his next dictator move. I see some on the right are now calling for the Democratic party to be classified as a terrorist organization and declaring this an act of civil war. But when we have republican nutjobs murder Democrats like we did in Minnesota earlier this year or when Gabby Giffords was shot or all the right wing terrorist attacks that have happened in recent years its “oh these things happen it’s a mental health issue not much can be done about it, let’s nmot discuss this anymore”

Density in communities is what matters here because that’s where crimes happen. The criminals don’t evenly disperse across the arctic looking for random victims. If I am standing in a crowded elevator are you suggesting it’s not actually crowded because Canada’s vast arctic is uninhabited? If 1% of people are criminals and thousands more people live in my densely packed neighbourhood compared to your sparsely populated neighbourhood what difference does it make that Canada’s vast arctic is uninhabited giving the country a low NATIONAL population density? The relevant fact is that I am surrounded by more potential criminals than you Yes NYC has high density and higher crime as a result, as do most large cities compared to smaller towns and suburbs. However most Americans don’t live in NYC. They live in suburbs and those suburbs have more sprawl and are less dense that the communities where Canadians live..That’s just a fact.

Actually the communities where people live actually have higher population densities in Canada than in USA. It doesn’t matter how sparsely populated the high arctic is, people live more closely together in Canada than USA. Americans are more likely to live in massively sprawling suburbs with way lower density than Canadian communities. Americans are only denser intellectually 😉 So I don’t think population is relevant, unless someone can show that lower density contributes to more shootings, perhaps it causes people to be more estranged and fearful of others or causes more road rage or something I tried unsuccessfully to explain this to people during covid as some were trying to claim out lower population density explains our better survival and infection rates compared to USA, as if you can stand in an elevator getting coughed on and not get sick just because the arctic is mostly uninhabited or something.