Carney Is Failing

[I am Groot]

Gee, I wonder if the huge immigration numbers we've had could be at all related to this.

I wouldn't think that importing millions of poor, unskilled third-world people would decrease our national wealth, but what do I know?! 

[LinkSoul60]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Gee, I wonder if the huge immigration numbers we've had could be at all related to this.

I wouldn't think that importing millions of poor, unskilled third-world people would decrease our national wealth, but what do I know?! 

I'm not an economist but simple math isn't it....  lagging productivity, weaker investment, more people = lesser GDP per capital.

What's your solution. Deport them all, or get to the root of the issues to help improve our economy? 

 

[I am Groot]

23 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'm not an economist but simple math isn't it....  lagging productivity, weaker investment, more people = lesser GDP per capital.

What's your solution. Deport them all, or get to the root of the issues to help improve our economy? 

There is no one single answer. But if we start bringing in highly skilled immigrants who can command above-average wages instead of goat herders to work for Uber Eats, that will be a helluva good start.

If companies can't get dirt-cheap labour anymore, they're going to have to invest in better technology. That will help improve productivity, too.

If we stop growing our underclass, who use huge amounts of expensive government services but pay virtually nothing back, we can have lower taxes, and that will improve productivity.

If we stop pouring billions into corporate welfare to prop up loser companies, and stop dispensing billions more to Liberal party-linked cultural, ethnic, racial, poverty, environmental, gender, disability, and artistic organizations that will help too. 

Eliminate huge reams of time-wasting regulations to get business going, especially natural resources, to lessen delays and to lower the cost of maintaining the records and forms and reporting that goes with those regulations.

Get rid of DEI entirely, stop hiring and promoting people based on identity. Stop directing science and technology grants based on identity and DEI and do it on the basis of what such science or technology can do for our economy.

Stop all grants and money going to colleges and universities unless they clean up their act and start teaching courses needed for our economy, run by politically neutral teachers.

 

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

My pints were not who we sell the oil to but who the owners of the oil sands production are.

 

And your point makes you look dumb.  Currently 5 percent is owned by chinese interests, the majority is owned by the americans. 

Chinese interests owned approximately 5.2% to 5% of total oilsands production as of recent reports, with companies like CNOOC and PetroChina being significant players in the sector, according to The Georgia Straight. While foreign ownership of the oilsands has generally been high, with a total of over 70% of production owned by foreign entities, Chinese companies hold a substantial portion of that foreign investment. 

 

Key details about Chinese ownership:

• Significant Production Share: 

  Chinese state-owned companies accounted for nearly 5% of oilsands production in October 2024. 

   
• Major Investors: 

  CNOOC, PetroChina, and Sinopec are among the key Chinese state-owned enterprises with substantial investments in the oilsands. 

   
• Overall Foreign Ownership: 

  Chinese investment is a significant part of a larger trend, as over 70% of oilsands production is owned by foreign companies and shareholders. 

   
• Historical Context: 

  Chinese companies have made significant acquisitions in the Canadian oilsands, including CNOOC's purchase of Nexen and PetroChina's acquisition of projects like MacKay River. 

 

Yet you claimed that harper sold "The Oil Sands" to china because the shareholders of ONE company decided to sell to china, representing LESS than 5 percent by far.

FOREIGN companies, including the USA, control 70 percent.  NOT CHINA

If you're going to complain about foreign ownership complain about the americans they own most of it. 

I have no idea why you insist on looking like a twat but here we are. 

[LinkSoul60]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

There is no one single answer. But if we start bringing in highly skilled immigrants who can command above-average wages instead of goat herders to work for Uber Eats, that will be a helluva good start.

I'd bet that Uber Eats would disagree with you, unless you're mentoring your Canadian born children to be Uber Eats drivers.  

14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If companies can't get dirt-cheap labour anymore, they're going to have to invest in better technology. That will help improve productivity, too.

Companies have been investing in better technology since technology was introduced as a way to improve their productivity and business.

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If we stop growing our underclass, who use huge amounts of expensive government services but pay virtually nothing back, we can have lower taxes, and that will improve productivity.

What do you consider the 'underclass'.... the Uber Eats drivers, Amazon drivers, hotel cleaners, hospital and school cleaners, etc, etc?  I have no idea what wages are for any of those jobs, but can safely assume their paying their fair share of taxes.

24 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If we stop pouring billions into corporate welfare to prop up loser companies, and stop dispensing billions more to Liberal party-linked cultural, ethnic, racial, poverty, environmental, gender, disability, and artistic organizations that will help too. 

Small business thinks the government isn't doing enough. I'm all for funding wisely for the organizations you mention.

36 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Eliminate huge reams of time-wasting regulations to get business going, especially natural resources, to lessen delays and to lower the cost of maintaining the records and forms and reporting that goes with those regulations.

That's what they've been doing, and you guys have complaining about.

37 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Get rid of DEI entirely, stop hiring and promoting people based on identity. Stop directing science and technology grants based on identity and DEI and do it on the basis of what such science or technology can do for our economy.

So you're good with doing away DEI if it means companies don't recognize women, a persons age or disability?  It's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone.  

49 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Stop all grants and money going to colleges and universities unless they clean up their act and start teaching courses needed for our economy, run by politically neutral teachers.

That's just taking a page out of Trump. You're suggesting being political so they're not on the opposite side of the political fence.  No wonder you like angry Pierre.

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'd bet that Uber Eats would disagree with you, unless you're mentoring your Canadian born children to be Uber Eats drivers.  

Companies have been investing in better technology since technology was introduced as a way to improve their productivity and business.

What do you consider the 'underclass'.... the Uber Eats drivers, Amazon drivers, hotel cleaners, hospital and school cleaners, etc, etc?  I have no idea what wages are for any of those jobs, but can safely assume their paying their fair share of taxes.

Small business thinks the government isn't doing enough. I'm all for funding wisely for the organizations you mention.

That's what they've been doing, and you guys have complaining about.

So you're good with doing away DEI if it means companies don't recognize women, a persons age or disability?  It's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone.  

That's just taking a page out of Trump. You're suggesting being political so they're not on the opposite side of the political fence.  No wonder you like angry Pierre.

Seems like you think meritocracy is an illusion.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Seems like you think meritocracy is an illusion.

He also seems to think that our Canadian productivity is going up and that companies are investing in better technology.

Sadly report after report and study after study says the exact opposite. While other countries are massively improving their productivity through technology, we are barely keeping up in the slightest with even old technology never mind the best of the new technology

Today, the Competition Bureau published the findings of an in-depth study ꟷ Competition in Canada from 2000 to 2020: An Economy at a Crossroads ꟷ which tracks a decline in Canada’s competitive intensity over the last two decades.

Competition Bureau report finds Canada’s competitive intensity in decline - Canada.ca

Underequipped: How Weak Capital Investment Hurts Canadian Prosperity and What to Do about It – C.D. Howe Institute

Canada’s R&D Crisis: Bridging the Innovation Gap to Stay Competitive - Checkpoint Research

Canada lags other OECD countries in the adoption of advanced technologies, including information and communication technology (ICT), robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). For example, ICT investment as a percentage of GDP in 2021 was lower in Canada (2.5%) compared to the U.S. (3.7%).10 Investments in ICT are uniquely positioned to boost total factor productivity and enhance Canada's competitiveness.

[LinkSoul60]

12 hours ago, Legato said:

Seems like you think meritocracy is an illusion.

As with most of your posts, you make zero sense.  Curious where I said or inferred meritocracy is an illusion.

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

As with most of your posts, you make zero sense.  Curious where I said or inferred meritocracy is an illusion.

Your whole post champions DEI at the expense of meritocracy which in itself is non-sensical.

 

[LinkSoul60]

4 minutes ago, Legato said:

Your whole post champions DEI at the expense of meritocracy which in itself is non-sensical.

 

Whole post?  You're confirming yet again you have difficulty with comprehension.  I made one comment of DEI;

'So you're good with doing away DEI if it means companies don't recognize women, a persons age or disability?  It's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone.'  

Care to point out in that where 'meritocracy' is said or even inferred?  

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

It's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone.'  

Sounds good yet in practice it tends to result in hiring and promotion targets that are based on ethnicity (sometimes even exclusively on ethnicity) instead of competency. In other words, whether intended or not, merit in the form of competency becomes subordinate to skin colour, language, age or whatever. The most grievous examples of that are some university offerings where white people need not apply... they aren't even embarrassed to post those job ads.

In some cases, as with military, police and fire service recruiting, it's necessary to expand the normal recruiting band (that ready, willing, able thing) in order to find a sufficient number of the targeted intake group sufficient to form an quorum suitable for course serial loading. If the stated goal of military intake is 25% women by 2026, how else would you achieve a government mandated target if you happen to be in the recruiting business? 

Not surprisingly, when it comes to sons and daughters of serving members making component transfers to the regular force from the primary reserves, the daughters are enrolled long before their brothers are... that observation may be anecdotal but it's not without lots of examples showing it to be more than simple coincidence.

 There's a big difference between not excluding people based on age, sex, ethnicity, language etc. and deliberately targeting those individuals based on any parameter other than merit. 

If you're advocating for doing that I don't see how you can deny that meritocracy can easily become illusionary. When you ask about it you'll hear that standards are never lowered, they're either enhanced or modified to job performance criteria. Even that sounds cool until you consider a little thing called universality of service and see fat navy girls tromping through the bush to fight fires. Obesity in the military now exceeds equivalent age gender rates in civilian life... and we're just getting started here.

You can get away with it for a bit but like equipment rust out, it eventually takes a toll and that toll impacts operational tempo. Venture too far into that bottle and retention becomes an issue. Keep slurping the cool aid after that and the capacity to out train personnel deficits becomes a huge challenge.

We actually managed to accomplish that very thing without hiring and promoting to DEI targets... imagine the possibilities now. 

Edited October 6, 2025 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Sounds good yet in practice it tends to result in hiring and promotion targets that are based on ethnicity (sometimes even exclusively on ethnicity) instead of competency. In other words, whether intended or not, merit in the form of competency becomes subordinate to skin colour, language, age or whatever. The most grievous examples of that are some university offerings where white people need not apply... they aren't even embarrassed to post those job ads.

In some cases, as with military, police and fire service recruiting, it's necessary to expand the normal recruiting band (that ready, willing, able thing) in order to find a sufficient number of the targeted intake group sufficient to form an quorum suitable for course serial loading. If the stated goal of military intake is 25% women by 2026, how else would you achieve a government mandated target if you happen to be in the recruiting business? 

Not surprisingly, when it comes to sons and daughters of serving members making component transfers to the regular force from the primary reserves, the daughters are enrolled long before their brothers are... that observation may be anecdotal but it's not without lots of examples showing it to be more than simple coincidence.

 There's a big difference between not excluding people based on age, sex, ethnicity, language etc. and deliberately targeting those individuals based on any parameter other than merit. 

If you're advocating for doing that I don't see how you can deny that meritocracy can easily become illusionary. When you ask about it you'll hear that standards are never lowered, they're either enhanced or modified to job performance criteria. Even that sounds cool until you consider a little thing called universality of service and see fat navy girls tromping through the bush to fight fires. Obesity in the military now exceeds equivalent age gender rates in civilian life... and we're just getting started here.

You can get away with it for a bit but like equipment rust out, it eventually takes a toll and that toll impacts operational tempo. Venture too far into that bottle and retention becomes an issue. Keep slurping the cool aid after that and the capacity to out train personnel deficits becomes a huge challenge.

We actually managed to accomplish that very thing without hiring and promoting to DEI targets... imagine the possibilities now. 

True. 

DEI does not 'include' anyone. You cannot bring people together by dividing them. 

All it does is spread the impression that these groups are too incompetent and useless to get employed on their own. And it makes it look like people who were hired that are really good at their jobs actually only got hired because of the color of their skin or what's between their legs etc. That promotes prejudice; it doesn't resolve it.

And what about the people this place and told that they're not allowed to apply because of the color of their skin? You think they're going to be less racist? What happens is those people go away frustrated and then when they're online telling others about how angry they are that they couldn't even apply for a job groups that are more radical can take advantage of that and say "Yeah, those diversity groups hate people like you, you better join with us so that we can present to united front".

And just like that we've got people dividing even further. 

D e I is an exercise in hatred, division, bigotry, and exclusion. There is nothing inclusive about it

 

[Legato]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Whole post?  You're confirming yet again you have difficulty with comprehension.  I made one comment of DEI;

'So you're good with doing away DEI if it means companies don't recognize women, a persons age or disability?  It's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone.'  

Care to point out in that where 'meritocracy' is said or even inferred?  

That's the whole point meritocracy was never even mentioned. You are championing everything but.

Including those who are less able to perform a task at the expense of those who are? Darwin's rolling in his grave.

What about those who have been cast aside at the whim of DEI.

[CdnFox]

 

Even NANOS says Carney blew his 15 point lead over the summer

[taxme]

On 10/3/2025 at 5:02 PM, CdnFox said:

Well lets look at what they've been spending our money on, some of it may be good 

Project: Unidivercidade Nem Davida: Insurgent Geographies of Puta/Trans Activisms in Rio de Janeiro (why would we care?!?!)

 

Project: Partnering for the Planet: Co-Creating Gender-Just Climate Solutions through Sport for Development and Peace
(WTF does that even MEAN?!!?!)

Johanne Jean-Pierre, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies
Project: Inspiring adolescents to become first-generation university students through bilingual short films  (why would you do that? we already have a high percent of our kids going to university, why is it critical to talk the rest into it?)

Project: Sanctuaries of Hope: Co-Creating Knowledge, Policies, Workshops and Participatory Films on South-South Queer Migration with Bogotá’s LGBTQ+ Houses (That sounds like something i'd make up if i was trying to mock them by coming up with the dumbest possible project)

 Meanwhile:

New report finds wait times in B.C. emergency rooms continue to climb | Vancouver Sun

Manitoba schools scramble to create class space as all portable classrooms in use | CBC News

Long delays and collapsed cases are eroding faith in the justice system, lawyers warn | CBC News

 

Maybe our people and our provinces could use the money?

 

And these leftwing broken brain lieberals here enjoy watching their tax dollars go to stupid lieberal chit like that above. Lieberals are such a bunch of psycho heads, especially exflyer, the biggest Antifa activist ieberal troll dummy of them all here. Just saying. 🤣

I guess that i will be getting another arrows down for telling the truth. LOL.

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, taxme said:

And these leftwing broken brain lieberals here enjoy watching their tax dollars go to stupid lieberal chit like that above. Lieberals are such a bunch of psycho heads, especially exflyer, the biggest Antifa activist ieberal troll dummy of them all here. Just saying. 🤣

I guess that i will be getting another arrows down for telling the truth. LOL.

Awww, poor baby ....don't like the post rating.... Awww sucks to be you LOL

 

BTW...Carney is the PM and PP is not ....and is still whining like a baby too

Edited October 6, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

I see the flybaby's dropping bloodspots again, must be that time of the month.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Awww, poor baby ....don't like the post rating.... Awww sucks to be you LOL

LOL awww look at you, all proud of your emotional insecurities  

21 minutes ago, Legato said:

I see the flybaby's dropping bloodspots again, must be that time of the month.

Well it's not like he can make a good argument or anything. 

[LinkSoul60]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

That's the whole point meritocracy was never even mentioned. You are championing everything but.

Including those who are less able to perform a task at the expense of those who are? Darwin's rolling in his grave.

What about those who have been cast aside at the whim of DEI.

Because the thread is 'Carney is failing' and DEI was only a brief mention by both of us.  I was championing everything...?  It was a mention as to what DEI is about.  Go back to your cricket channel spoonman...

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Because the thread is 'Carney is failing' and DEI was only a brief mention by both of us.  I was championing everything...?  It was a mention as to what DEI is about.  Go back to your cricket channel spoonman...

As usual, you got busted for doing something you were absolutely doing and you wanted to be everyone else's fault.

I forget sometimes that you trained your skills by debating with six year olds. Then I read your posts and I remember   

[LinkSoul60]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

Sounds good yet in practice it tends to result in hiring and promotion targets that are based on ethnicity (sometimes even exclusively on ethnicity) instead of competency. In other words, whether intended or not, merit in the form of competency becomes subordinate to skin colour, language, age or whatever. The most grievous examples of that are some university offerings where white people need not apply... they aren't even embarrassed to post those job ads.

In some cases, as with military, police and fire service recruiting, it's necessary to expand the normal recruiting band (that ready, willing, able thing) in order to find a sufficient number of the targeted intake group sufficient to form an quorum suitable for course serial loading. If the stated goal of military intake is 25% women by 2026, how else would you achieve a government mandated target if you happen to be in the recruiting business? 

Not surprisingly, when it comes to sons and daughters of serving members making component transfers to the regular force from the primary reserves, the daughters are enrolled long before their brothers are... that observation may be anecdotal but it's not without lots of examples showing it to be more than simple coincidence.

 There's a big difference between not excluding people based on age, sex, ethnicity, language etc. and deliberately targeting those individuals based on any parameter other than merit. 

If you're advocating for doing that I don't see how you can deny that meritocracy can easily become illusionary. When you ask about it you'll hear that standards are never lowered, they're either enhanced or modified to job performance criteria. Even that sounds cool until you consider a little thing called universality of service and see fat navy girls tromping through the bush to fight fires. Obesity in the military now exceeds equivalent age gender rates in civilian life... and we're just getting started here.

You can get away with it for a bit but like equipment rust out, it eventually takes a toll and that toll impacts operational tempo. Venture too far into that bottle and retention becomes an issue. Keep slurping the cool aid after that and the capacity to out train personnel deficits becomes a huge challenge.

We actually managed to accomplish that very thing without hiring and promoting to DEI targets... imagine the possibilities now. 

I didn't and am not advocating anything other than what I briefly said in a 'Carney is failing' conversation.... 'it's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone'.  

I'm sure there are many examples of persons getting positions when they were not the best candidate, but I'm sure that also happens more often with the typical white male getting positions because of just that, being a white male. We all have our inherent biases don't we....   I sat through more DEI presentations and 'refreshers' than I care to remember and it was a basic principle in our organization.  To me it was just an acronym for common decency and how we should treat people, but in my exposure to hirings and/or promotions DEI didn't mean you got the job or promotion because of colour, gender, age, etc....it was about hiring the best candidate and promoting based on the persons performance.

I'm out of the business world now but if I wasn't it would be no different... hire and/or promote a person based on their ability or performance, not on their gender, colour, age, etc.  If there were two people with essentially the same skill sets and they differed in colour, or gender, or age, etc, I'd hire the person best suited to whom they would be working with and where I felt the best fit would would be.

Again, I didn't and am not advocating anything other than.... 'it's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone'.  DEI remains part of the culture of many of the top companies in the world and I think that's a good thing.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I didn't and am not advocating anything other than what I briefly said in a 'Carney is failing' conversation.... 'it's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone'.  

 

It's about promoting a person because of their identity. That's what makes it evil. It's deliberately excluding other people based on THEIR identity. 

It's racism with lipstick

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'd bet that Uber Eats would disagree with you, unless you're mentoring your Canadian born children to be Uber Eats drivers.  

This might shock you, but I couldn't care less what Uber Eats thinks. And if they can't find drivers and go bankrupt that will cause me not a second of sadness.

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Companies have been investing in better technology since technology was introduced as a way to improve their productivity and business.

Just not in Canada.

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

What do you consider the 'underclass'.... the Uber Eats drivers, Amazon drivers, hotel cleaners, hospital and school cleaners, etc, etc?  I have no idea what wages are for any of those jobs, but can safely assume their paying their fair share of taxes.

What is their fair share of taxes? From what even Trudeau said, just about half the population pays no income tax at all. They might pay sales tax, but they get GST refunds. They used to get carbon tax refunds, too. I guarantee you that none of these people is paying nearly as much as they take from the government in services and benefits.

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Small business thinks the government isn't doing enough. I'm all for funding wisely for the organizations you mention.

Small businesses, including those in big cities hiring foreign workers? If you want to fund activist and lobby groups, YOU fund them. I want to fund health care instead. 

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

That's what they've been doing, and you guys have complaining about.

Cite? Evidence?

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

So you're good with doing away DEI if it means companies don't recognize women, a persons age or disability?  It's not about promoting a person because of their identity, it's about including everyone.  

It's about hiring and promoting people who aren't good enough to make it on merit.

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

That's just taking a page out of Trump. You're suggesting being political so they're not on the opposite side of the political fence.  No wonder you like angry Pierre.

The problem with you people on the Left is you're so blind to what's been going on that the only time you ever hear of anything is when Trump talks about it. But Trump has no new ideas. He just takes what people have been complaining about and runs with it. He didn't invent the resentment about colleges and universities refusing to hire anyone but social justice activists or slanting their rules and courses to the far left. Nor are those talking about it here imitating Trump. We've been talking about it for years.

That you would suggest this is us 'being political' says to me that you think everything that's taught from the perspective of the far left is oky-doky, and only those who want to pull that narrative further to the centre are wrong.

You probably support freedom of speech too - as long as it's not speech you disagree with.

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

This might shock you, but I couldn't care less what Uber Eats thinks. And if they can't find drivers and go bankrupt that will cause me not a second of sadness.

Not many care if you use Uber Eats or not but Uber Eats and most every other business cares if they have people that want to work for them. Think about it for a minute... you're buying sh1t they're processing, packaging and delivering and if they're not there to do that you'll...go pick it up, or?

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Just not in Canada.

In Canada too. 

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

What is their fair share of taxes? From what even Trudeau said, just about half the population pays no income tax at all. They might pay sales tax, but they get GST refunds. They used to get carbon tax refunds, too. I guarantee you that none of these people is paying nearly as much as they take from the government in services and benefits.

What ever the federal and provincial income tax rates are is their fair share. Just like anyone else who earns taxable income in Canada. Also don't think they're getting any sales tax discounts on things they buy so they're paying that just like us.  What government services are they bilking?

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Small businesses, including those in big cities hiring foreign workers? If you want to fund activist and lobby groups, YOU fund them. I want to fund health care instead. 

What are you talking about funding activists...  Small business employs about 11M people. That's a big deal.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Cite? Evidence?

Read your posts.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It's about hiring and promoting people who aren't good enough to make it on merit.

No it's not. It's about including everyone regardless of...

 

You guys are just Trump's minions going with whatever the narrative is.  Yes I support free speech, even if I don't agree with it. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You guys are just Trump's minions going with whatever the narrative is.  Yes I support free speech, even if I don't agree with it. 

 

You literally block people you don't agree with