2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[ArmyRick]

Of course they would. If Singh, PP, or Santa Claus was the PM during the past few years, they would be blamed too because they are the leader of the govt.

Indulge me in some light whataboutism:

Say the roles were reversed and the CPC, headed by PP or Harper, was in power. Trudeau, as opposition leader, uses the same strategy to bring up the CPC Govt's issues with handling Covid, inflation, etc. Would the effect be the same?

Have you not read my previous post? I will enlighten you. I vote for the best. Hell, I almost voted Liberal once. I have voted NDP, Greens, Conservatives and Independants.

If PP gets in, fails to turn this ship around or completely blind sides with BS, I'll turn my back on the CPC as fast as I turned my back on Harper's brand.

The federal government should be held to REALLY high standards. We should treat them like CSOR selection, keep standards high and toss 'em fast if they don't meet the cut.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Bold A being true does not make bold B true, because assuming an ironclad causal reality between them neglects three huge factors

1. That the electorate chooses who governs us - from the pool of available candidates/parties
2. That the directions of said candidates/parties - are disproportionately influenced by a very small (proportionally) of number partisans - party members and sponsors
3. That 1st past the post encourages both strategic voting on the part of the electorate, and "tent making" on the part of the parties

The overall result is a distorted political landscape that makes it almost impossible to infer the "wants" of the electorate from voting records.

In general, and I wouldn't include members of this forum as I think regardless of our differences I think people on this forum make educated voting choices; the voting public is largely complacent and disinterested.

Its up to the electorate to decide who we want to run this country and where we go. If we let ourselves be duped or distracted that's also on us.

 

[ArmyRick]

Any economist ignoring the supply side factors of inflation to focus solely on M2 is an ideological theoretician ignoring the empirical reality of the last 2.5 years. Lazily falling back on the conventional wisdom of supply side shocks only effecting prices relative to each other rather than causing across the board increase doesn't hold water when you look at how pervasive the supply side shocks were
Plastics
International Freight
If you look carefully at those dates you'll notice that they lead consumer side inflation reporting significantly.

That's before getting into the US losing 5% of it's fuel refining capacity, the impact of Russia's invasion on global fossil fuel and food markets, chip shortages causing equipment backlogs, multi-year California drought etc.

Lets talk about one aspect of SUPPLY I am very familiar with. Food. Not just my little rinky dink farm. I am good friends with the bioggest cattle producer in my area and the largest cash croppers.

We are hindered big time on limited market access and transportation. On market access that comes down to a lot of stupid and some logical rules. And greedy bastards like Galen Weston who cozy right on up to govt, get free handouts like brand new freezers and pay suppliers next to nothing for their product.

Also on transportation do you think carbon tax and then more carbon tax is helping? Its fucking us big time.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Lets talk about one aspect

Why not talk about what I posted?

 

[Quirky]

Also on transportation do you think carbon tax and then more carbon tax is helping? Its fucking us big time.

It's unlikely people realize this is happening under their noses. Media doesn't report that carbon taxes help fuel inflation resulting in higher fuel, food and home heating costs. If the environmental criminal minister has full reign expect gas prices to rise above $2-$2.5/L and stay there. Taxes help reduce emissions! /facepalm.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's unlikely people realize this is happening under their noses. Media doesn't report that carbon taxes help fuel inflation resulting in higher fuel, food and home heating costs. If the environmental criminal minister has full reign expect gas prices to rise above $2-$2.5/L and stay there. Taxes help reduce emissions! /facepalm.

I do believe this was part of the LPC platform. The people get what they vote for.

I stand to be corrected.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It's unlikely people realize this is happening under their noses. Media doesn't report that carbon taxes help fuel inflation resulting in higher fuel, food and home heating costs.

"Justinflation" was caused by government spending introducing too much money supply, creating too much demand for goods, causing prices to be bid up and creating an untenable deficit situation.

Clearly the answer is to reduce taxes, reducing government incomes, further exacerbating the debt situation and injecting more money into the economy to create more demand for goods that there is a shortage of. Surely this will reduce consumer expense and not result in more money padding O&G profit margins when the market finds an equilibrium point at essentially the same price.

 

[QV]

Middle of the road moderate voters are exactly the ones that can be convinced. You’ll never convince the people entrenched at both ends regardless but the undecided middle is where you can make a pitch. If your pitch sucks then that’s on you, not them.

This just shows a misunderstanding of the electorate if you think that is the case with the undecided.

It’s a job application. If you decide to use crayon to write up your resume you aren’t likely going to be getting the job anytime soon.

A large portion of the voting public are wildly un/misinformed about Trudeau. There is a lot of nuance in media reporting. Yes, the media (some reluctantly) covered the CCP scandal. But more importantly Johnston came to the rescue. The beloved by all former GG looked at this and in his untainted wisdom said this was not a big deal and the real problems are with CSIS... That kind of stick handling will satisfy a great number of voters to the issue.

 

[Halifax Tar]

"Justinflation" was caused by government spending introducing too much money supply, creating too much demand for goods, causing prices to be bid up and creating an untenable deficit situation.

Clearly the answer is to reduce taxes, reducing government incomes, further exacerbating the debt situation and injecting more money into the economy to create more demand for goods that there is a shortage of. Surely this will reduce consumer expense and not result in more money padding O&G profit margins when the market finds an equilibrium point at essentially the same price.

Agreed, because if there is one thing we can all agree on further taxation will fix what ails you.

 

[Good2Golf]

Why not talk about what I posted?

Because he’s adding another data point in a subject of which he is extremely informed.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Agreed, because if there is one thing we can all agree on further taxation will fix what ails you.

Who said anything about further taxation?
I was just pointing out the inarguable, fundamental inconsistencies in those two positions/ policy statements. If we're going to wax about things the electorate doesn't care about/ understand - blatant BS like that should not be excluded even if it's ideologically inconvenient

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why not talk about what I posted?

Because you don't decide the direction of a conversation with multiple people ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Who said anything about further taxation?
I was just pointing out the inarguable, fundamental inconsistencies in those two positions/ policy statements. If we're going to wax about things the electorate doesn't care about/ understand - blatant BS like that should not be excluded even if it's ideologically inconvenient

I read your whole post as sarcasm, was I incorrect ?

 

[Remius]

A large portion of the voting public are wildly un/misinformed about Trudeau.

And yet a recent poll said that over 80% of the population thinks it’s time for a change. Clearly there is an effect especially with recent events. The LPC is projecting incompetence and people are noticing.

Yet…

50% don’t like the alternatives. That’s on the alternatives for not showing they can do better. Your post below is one example. The opposition focused on Johnson and whether he went skiing with JTs family and not the actual issue of election interference or the systemic issues that exist in our machinery of government. All it showed me is that the opposition cares more about the same political stick handling as the party in power.

There is a lot of nuance in media reporting. Yes, the media (some reluctantly) covered the CCP scandal. But more importantly Johnston came to the rescue. The beloved by all former GG looked at this and in his untainted wisdom said this was not a big deal and the real problems are with CSIS... That kind of stick handling will satisfy a great number of voters to the issue.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I read your whole post as sarcasm, was I incorrect ?

Nono. Very much sarcasm.
The economic illiteracy I was lampooning is probably the biggest thing I have against Pierre.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Nono. Very much sarcasm.
The economic illiteracy I was lampooning is probably the biggest thing I have against Pierre.

Mine was very much sarcasm too

Well I mean there is 'economic illiteracy' that you suspect exists but have no proof of (PP); and then there is 'the budget will balance itself' (JT).

If PP bungles our finances as much or more than the LPC then he needs to go too, but so far he hasn't had that chance.

And yes we should reduce taxes and public services/government. Put peoples money back in their pockets; as for the O&G profit margins, that's capitalism. Make a product people want and they will pay you for it.

 

[Remius]

Mine was very much sarcasm too

Well I mean there is 'economic illiteracy' that you suspect exists but have no proof of (PP); and then there is 'the budget will balance

bitcoin being the way out of inflation was not exactly his best moment. He’s also kept his mouth shut about that since then amongst a bunch of not so great ideas that plenty here supported. The budget will balance itself was part of a bigger discussion and when O’Toole said pretty much the same thing no one seemed too worried.

itself' (JT).

If PP bungles our finances as much or more than the LPC then he needs to go too, but so far he hasn't had that chance.

Depends on what his economic policy will look like. Sept 2023, I will be interested to see what comes out of the policy convention.

And yes we should reduce taxes and public services/government. Put peoples money back in their pockets; as for the O&G profit margins, that's capitalism. Make a product people want and they will pay you for it.

Reduction in Gvt and services is coming. Won’t matter who is in power but it will matter how they go about doing it. PP was on the team that brought us DRAP, Phoenix, SSC etc and I hold no hope that under him it would be much better.

Neither party will campaign on that though. But expect it.

 

[QV]

50% don’t like the alternatives.

I'm not going to vote for a right wing extremist either. So I can't blame them.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Mine was very much sarcasm too

Well I mean there is 'economic illiteracy' that you suspect exists but have no proof of (PP); and then there is 'the budget will balance itself' (JT).

If PP bungles our finances as much or more than the LPC then he needs to go too, but so far he hasn't had that chance.

And yes we should reduce taxes and public services/government. Put peoples money back in their pockets; as for the O&G profit margins, that's capitalism. Make a product people want and they will pay you for it.

The proof is his "common cents" plan, highlighted (again) by the two fundamentally contradictory concepts in my sarcastic post. You/ he can't have it both ways. Cutting the carbon tax would be an inflationary move -no different than printing more cheques- and would likely only yield a very short run break at the pumps before increased demand and willingness to pay sees the prices go back up.

The bolded is a long run ideological position. It doesn't address the short run issues impacting the country, nor change the economic concepts underpinning them.

 

[Quirky]

Clearly the answer is to reduce taxes, reducing government incomes, further exacerbating the debt situation and injecting more money into the economy to create more demand for goods that there is a shortage of.

Cutting the bloated public sector is a good start.