Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Czech_pivo]

This is a distinction without a difference as far as procurement is concerned. We have projects they aren't getting calls and emails answered from the US. Or issues slow walked. You may not see that with your retiree hat on. But there are issues when we're dealing with political appointees in the US. I assume the Europeans, Koreans and Japanese have the same problems.

Like I said, this trend is going to be very hard to reverse. And every leader who comes in is going to get briefed about all the challenges.

This issue will eventually become similar to the lack of CDN tourists in Vegas, California, Vermont, Florida and the shutting down of Kentucky Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey - they'll be asking why aren't we spending our money in those states or on those products, having zero clue as to the reason why.

That's basically a path to weak productivity growth and stagnation - "creating jobs", especially "good-paying jobs". Eventually it takes everything we have and more (borrowing) just to stop slipping backward, and eventually the cost of borrowing drags us backward. We get a lift every decade or two from some kind of major innovation (eg. offshoring, dot.com, AI) which kicks productivity and postpones decline.

The main point of being against trade protectionism is that it makes things cost more. Fighting trade protectionism by being protectionist is just self-inflicted damage.

Tell that to Trump, he thinks that its the greatest thing since the ability to declare bankruptcy and walking away free and clear.

 

[Furniture]

That's basically a path to weak productivity growth and stagnation - "creating jobs", especially "good-paying jobs". Eventually it takes everything we have and more (borrowing) just to stop slipping backward, and eventually the cost of borrowing drags us backward. We get a lift every decade or two from some kind of major innovation (eg. offshoring, dot.com, AI) which kicks productivity and postpones decline.

The main point of being against trade protectionism is that it makes things cost more. Fighting trade protectionism by being protectionist is just self-inflicted damage.

Defense industries aren't Apple or General Mills, they are vital industries for the defense of the nation. If they require the government to pay a bit more to keep the industry alive, that's just part of the cost of being a sovereign nation.

We aren't talking about making all of our shoes, and toasters here, we are talking about making missiles, UAS, etc...

 

[ytz]

Defense industries aren't Apple or General Mills, they are vital industries for the defense of the nation. If they require the government to pay a bit more to keep the industry alive, that's just part of the cost of being a sovereign nation.

We aren't talking about making all of shoes, and toasters here, we are talking about making missiles, UAS, etc...

There's also no realistic pathway to sustain the type of spending that the government intends and this forum says they want, if the majority of it is not in country. Imagine telling an Ontario autoworker laid off because Trump wants all auto manfaucturing in the US that he's going to have to pay more in taxes so that we can do 5% on defence and that most of that will be spent in the US. The government is trying to map a pathway where increased defence spending sustains some jobs and industry. And that is a pathway to long term sustained spending.

 

[ytz]

The US is an ally - we share several defence arrangements. What I see is people mischaracterizing the situation. I don't care if it's supposed to be political manoeuvring or just emotional strain.

What I see is you mischaraterizing the situation out of ignorance.

Please actually read the document in question before making assumptions.