suds

I can see that now. My apologies. Carry on then. 🙂

Capitalism is at least regulated in most cases, and as such has a certain amount of government oversight. It's not quite the same as the communist system which controls every aspect of the economy, every aspect of people's lives, and has a fair degree of unlimited power. So how can it suffer the same fate? And if the state was to control everything where would the oversight lie? Why would anyone want to give up on an economic system that has worked adequately well for centuries and replace it with a system which is far more intrusive in our lives and has a far worse track record? Please explain.

You don't see the humour in Galbraith's quote do you? Try reading it again slowly and let it sink in. 😏 Did you know that oligarchies are just as common in socialist/communist countries as they are with capitalism? Do you think it's right that taxi drivers in cuba make multiple times the amount of money that doctors do? You don't believe that communist/socialist governments ever exploit their workers. Or have no hierarchies? Hah!

Perhaps some Communists had good intentions. But what usually happens when things start to go wrong (as it always does) the state is forced to use coercion, force, threats, or whatever, on its people to hold everything together. It wasn't meant to be that way though, eventually the state was supposed to wither away which of course never does. Who'd want to give up all that power? As I've said... it was a failed ideology.

Communism/Socialism, Marx used the two words interchangeably. Many don't, and is why I used the term 'pure Socialism' to avoid confusion. Pure Capitalism would be Laissez-faire Capitalism and I doubt anyone really wants to go back to those long gone days. And it's a good thing Capitalism works as well as it does, because it's the golden goose that pays for all those social programs.

Let's try and not confuse pure Socialism (which I consider to be a failed man made ideology) with socialist policies which serve Capitalist economies with social safety nets. Capitalism on the other hand, emerged spontaneously and has evolved over the centuries because it works. Even China has realized that. What either one has to do with the bible I have no idea.

Can't say I haven't had similar thoughts. 2000 km and at 1 AM does sound a little extreme. Be a trooper and just grin and bear it. 😏

The only equal treatment I'm aware of between government and business is if government ran a business in direct competition with other similar businesses. The government run business would have to abide by the same rules and regulations as everyone else. As for the lobbyists, all I can say is..... make lobbying illegal.

That's a little extreme isn't it? Define 'interfere'. Economic freedom implies that rule of law exists and that all market participants are treated equally under the law. It doesn't suggest no government action. Who makes the laws and regulations in the first place? Government of course. It helps though if governments were more pro business, and tried to make the markets run as efficiently as possible. If the economy sucks then you know where to look first.

I don't hate Justin. He's probably a good guy. But he was a terrible PM, who maybe should have stuck with his drama teaching. And you people talk about Poilievre???

That is true to some extent, but then there's the question of it being 'truly independent if politically motivated priorities are enshrined in the fund’s charter, as it currently appears. The sovereign wealth fund is connected to federal support for what Ottawa says is nation-building work, such as ports and natural resources projects' (from the Globe and Mail). Personally, I think it's a good idea to start looking into these types of things, but the devil is always in the details, and there's a host of other questions that have to be answered as well. Maybe at this early point in time he's just fishing and trying to get some kind of public and media reaction. Because he seems to be woefully unprepared to answer basic questions.

The world price for oil can be quite volatile and oil companies can go thru long periods of boom and bust. Petro-Can was created during a time of oil shortages and inflation, and was sold off during times of oil gluts and low commodity prices, and of course for political considerations. I wish they hadn't, it's not as if they had nationalized the whole oil and gas industry. We've sold off all of our gold bullion as well, which I thought was rather stupid. We're the only G7 country with no gold inventory.

It's confusing because you read stuff and find out that people have different opinions on what a SWF actually is. If Carney's plan is to do something along the same lines as Japan, then he shouldn't have compared his idea of a SWF to Norway. I'll agree with that. There are even some who believe that the money held and invested in our CPP is a SWF. It's not because it's not administered by government but by people who are supposed to be at arms length from government. Personally, this topic on SWF's has forced me to change my mind on a number of different issues. My past criticism's on how those who administer the CPP favour investing in the U.S. is one of them.

Japan also has a SWF which has surpassed Norway's as world's largest. The difference is that Japan's is funded with borrowed money (mostly from the Bank of Japan and other domestic sources) with ridiculously low interest rates. The government then uses these borrowed funds to buy foreign equities and bonds. Like the trader who buys on margin to gain leverage, it's risky business, because leverage can act as a two way street. It can result in immense gains or immense losses. And in Japan's case, the risk is ultimately borne by its taxpayers, bondholders, and bank depositors. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20251452

I wouldn't exactly equate it to communism. It sounds more like economic fascism. Either way, not good.