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.

Norway's SWF as of April 2026 has $2 Trillion in assets. Can you believe that?

So basically, tax payers are going to be paying for this one way or another. Norway, and Kuwait for example, do it the proper way by funding it with a percentage or amount taken from oil and gas export revenues. So it's an SDF and not an SWF. I sort of figured something like that.

So how does this new wealth fund work exactly? Will the government be asking Canadians and business to invest in the fund and get paid interest? If that's the case it's just simply another form of borrowing money. Or what other way is there when the government has run continuous deficits for the last 11 years?

Right on! Then the next time someone claims their floor crossing was decided after consultation with their constituents..... they'll have to prove it. And democracy wins.

Net zero is a big picture but hardly the whole picture. Consider that in the name of climate change and saving the planet, the Liberals made it difficult for big business to operate (with their laws and regulations) and new investment dried up (moving elsewhere) to the tune of $1 Trillion. Our economy took a hit because of it, as well as GDP per capita which is a somewhat fairly accurate indicator of a country's living standards. Also consider that this country hasn't had one balanced budget since the Harper years. The Liberals then decide to open the doors to mass immigration to kickstart the economy and raise GDP. So we end up with inflation, housing shortages, doctor shortages, and a hell of a lot of added debt. We should all realize by now, that poor government policy (even though made with the best of intentions) can lead to very serious social and economical consequences. A country becomes wealthy and has high living standards by exporting its products and resources to other countries. If we're going to accomplish net zero by 2050 or anywhere near to it, we're going to require a well run economy. And that should be rule #1. So what's your plan, or the Liberal's plan, besides shutting anything down associated with oil or gas? Please, somebody have a plan before we totally destroy this country.

The 'growth project' put forward by RBC suggests we do both. I get it that you have a problem with oil and gas. I for one, do not have a problem with alternatives such as nuclear, hydro electric, or renewables. We can't just shut off dominant energy sources such as oil and gas until we have the means to replace it. We also have to double our energy capacity by 2050 or our economy and living standards suffer. There are other real important things to consider than just achieving net zero emissions. One can't just concentrate on net zero without looking at the whole picture. And the longer we fuk around with political concerns, the more it's going to cost.

From the Royal Bank of Canada link on energy growth that I provided above...... 'Canada’s oil and gas industry sits at a strategic crossroads. Canadian producers appear poised for growth: the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that under current policy, global oil and natural gas demand will continue to increase through 2050.5 The demand for oil is driven in part by growth in developing markets, aviation, and petrochemicals. LNG capacity is surging to unprecedented levels—300 billion cubic metres of new export capacity is scheduled to hit the market by 2030—bolstering global LNG supply by about 50%, some two-thirds of which originate in the U.S. and Qatar.' *** The IEA (International Energy Agency) are the people who keep an eye on the entire global energy system to ensure it keeps running smoothly. I don't know of anyone else who does that. Where do you get your information from?

They say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. There is this thing called the 'Oakes Test' that our courts use to determine if a government's actions involving limitations on certain Charter rights is reasonable or not. Maybe those in government should bear that in mind, or maybe they did and there was just disagreement. Politicians often tend to do things that defy logic for political reasons. Personally, I believe our system works fairly well.

Thanks for the chart on how much investment has plummeted since 2015. Sure, there was covid, but most of the damage was done between 2015 and 2020.

Here's a link for an investment report by the Royal Bank of Canada. Trudeau's term in office resulted in a record of $1 T of investment money fleeing the country. It did turn around somewhat in 2025 so you can't blame everything on Trump's tariffs. It was absolutely on Trudeau's anti business policies. But, according to the RBC, all is not lost if we begin doing things in the right way and encourage investment money to stay and increase economic growth. Such as, in order of priority..... 1) big investments in oil pipelines and LNG terminals 2) new electric power generation in the form of nuclear, hydro electric, renewables, and grid modernization 3) increased agriculture and food processing 4) mining of metals and minerals required to build new energy infrastructure and off of fossil fuels 5) defence spending to broaden arctic surveillance and space based defence systems 6) space and satellite communications. The cost they estimate would be around $1.8 T over the next 10 years and would propel Canada into becoming the G7's growth leader. A lot of this stuff has been repeated time after time, and if we keep on repeating it, it might start to sink in. Carney does seem to have big plans, let's see if he's able to carry them out. Very important ....... no mention of blowing untold billions on freaking high speed rail 😉 https://www.rbc.com/en/thought-leadership/the-growth-project/capital-gains-how-canada-can-unlock-the-1-8-trillion-it-needs-for-growth/