G7 Kananaskis 2025

[Brad Sallows]

I wasn't thinking so much my personal investments but more the concept of a nation wide means to buy into a common bond/fund that helps fund things that are important. Debt held by Canadians with the interest paid by the Government back to Canada is better than the Government of Canada sending interest money to a possible hostile nation/non-aligned nation.

War Bonds, Victory Bonds, Canada Savings Bonds all sort of fill this niche. Maybe it's more appropriate to have infrastructure bonds, green bonds and ??? instead of a generic version but small dollar amounts add up if many people participate. I'd much rather be dealing with ads for a campaign like that then the crazy charity payroll deduction option for a charity that only deals with things in the capital and is badly subsidized by staff time.

The government is going to pay for X. It sets aside general revenues for X, at the expense of Y.

But wait! The government can issue bonds to pay for X, and then use the money it might otherwise have set aside for X to pay for Y.

So this would just amount to a marketing device to convince people to pony up more money, which is ultimately indistinguishable from any other source of revenue because it's all 100% fungible. Pretending that any kind of money is "set aside for X" is meaningless. The only exception would be something stand-alone that is truly self-funded: if it doesn't get enough public buy-in to pay the fees that support it, it folds and is denied other governmental support.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The beauty and real utility of savings bonds is to pull money out of circulation and thus lower inflation.

If a government is borrowing to firehose money into an economy (especially a wartime economy), savings bonds are a useful way of soaking up some of those excess wages that are chasing scarce consumer goods.

 

[FJAG]

So this would just amount to a marketing device to convince people to pony up more money, which is ultimately indistinguishable from any other source of revenue because it's all 100% fungible. Pretending that any kind of money is "set aside for X" is meaningless. The only exception would be something stand-alone that is truly self-funded: if it doesn't get enough public buy-in to pay the fees that support it, it folds and is denied other governmental support.

With the exception that taxed money is lost to the individual citizen while a bond is a debt that the government needs to repay to the citizen (or foreign investor) - from other revenue - down the road. It's a bit of a shell game more akin to deficit financing than anything else.

 

[Brad Sallows]

With the exception that taxed money is lost to the individual citizen while a bond is a debt that the government needs to repay to the citizen (or foreign investor) - from other revenue - down the road. It's a bit of a shell game more akin to deficit financing than anything else.

Almost all bonds - as with almost all borrowing - are repaid from tax revenues.

Imagine there was exactly one taxpayer. I buy a $500 bond today, and later the government taxes me $500 (plus interest) to repay me. I set aside the opportunity to do something else with that $500 for some length of time, and government decides what the "best use" of it is.

People who want to "invest" in Canada should consider accepting the additional cost of "buying Canadian", and make that their contribution. That will at least take governments out of the loop, and probably increase the velocity of money.

 

[FJAG]

Almost all bonds - as with almost all borrowing - are repaid from tax revenues.

Imagine there was exactly one taxpayer. I buy a $500 bond today, and later the government taxes me $500 (plus interest) to repay me. I set aside the opportunity to do something else with that $500 for some length of time, and government decides what the "best use" of it is.

People who want to "invest" in Canada should consider accepting the additional cost of "buying Canadian", and make that their contribution. That will at least take governments out of the loop, and probably increase the velocity of money.

Government bonds are a good thing if the rates are above comparable rates and/or you want a secure investment (assuming you invest with a secure government).

War bonds are a good thing as they leverage patriotism and wanting to feel like you are doing your part. Bonds for peacetime military spending are meaningless.

I have trouble distinguishing joining ReArm Europe from any other form of deficit spending. It will depend on rates and terms as to whether or not its favourable and to a large extent the terms and actions taken under the EU Canada Security and Defence partnership Agreement. If there is one very positive thing that I can say about this is that it looks like we're actually doing something and we're weaning ourselves off dependency on the US. We'll still need to ante up on continental defence with the US regardless. Time will tell.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or "nudge" a political race here or there, not to mention other shenanigans

That seems reasonable - not let's see how reasonable all sides will be.

People are known for being reasonable. /sarcasm.

 

[The Bread Guy]

People are known for being reasonable. /sarcasm.

Allegedly, as the police say ...

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Point of order...

As I understand it, it's MI6 that needs special permission (double nought) being responsible for 'out of UK' covert operations

MI5 is internal so, luckily, needs no such special policy

MI5 officers are not armed.

 

[Blackadder1916]

MI5 officers are not armed.

They have other ways to arm themselves.

 

[Kirkhill]

If Canada plays its cards right, and doesn't get hung up on principle, it can make a lot of money as the lynchpin between the CPTPP Group (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Chile) and the EU and the UK. The UK and France include a bunch of microstate islands as well. Parts of the Commonwealth might still be worth something.