Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[lenaitch]

Prior to March of this year, Carney was the leader of no public entity; he made all of his money as a private, if not high profile and public -adjacent person. His wealth is now at arm's length/blind trust/firewalled from him. If we now want him to adjust his investments to be 'more Canadian', isn't that direct involvement with his assets?

We elected a 'captain of industry', but we seem to want him to have been limited to maple syrup futures or something.

Poilievre is on tv now saying Carney should sell all his assets. How about you first.

It seems so Canadian that we want the best-of-the-best so long as they are willing be shamed for it. Maybe our best candidate is this:

 

[Quirky]

We elected a 'captain of industry', but we seem to want him to have been limited to maple syrup futures or something.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Easy political strikes on PP's part, but I don't think Canadians will care all that much.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Jughead already resigned and a leadership race is underway.

I'm no big NDP supporter but they need to get back to their 'worker' roots and shed the Champagne Socialist image...

 

[Jarnhamar]

but I don't think Canadians will care all that much.

Nope, they won't. The messaging here is buy Canadian products, even it costs you a little more, to support Canadian companies and keep money out of the hands of Americna companies. Except invest in American companies when it gives you a bigger return than Canadian ones, because it's dumb not to.

Makes sense to me.

 

[The Bread Guy]

We elected a 'captain of industry', but we seem to want him to have been limited to maple syrup futures or something.

It seems so Canadian that we want the best-of-the-best so long as they are willing be shamed for it.

We seem to want ‘em good & successful, but not tooooooooo good or tooooo successful.

 

[Quirky]

want ‘em good & successful, but not tooooooooo good or tooooo successful.

Sorta like the status of the entire country.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Before joining cabinet, public safety minister wrote immigration support letters for terror group ‘member’

 

[Czech_pivo]

Before joining cabinet, public safety minister wrote immigration support letters for terror group ‘member’

Remember, one person's Terrorist is another person's Freedom Fighter.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Before joining cabinet, public safety minister wrote immigration support letters for terror group ‘member’

It's OK, LTTE were great innovators - they pretty much invented the suicide bomber

Suicide bombings in Sri Lanka - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IKnowNothing]

Nope, they won't. The messaging here is buy Canadian products, even it costs you a little more, to support Canadian companies and keep money out of the hands of Americna companies. Except invest in American companies when it gives you a bigger return than Canadian ones, because it's dumb not to.

Makes sense to me.

They might not be able to articulate it, but most Canadians that aren't petulantly seeking a partisan wedge can intuitively grasp the difference between passively holding assets acquired via the secondary market and supporting businesses via direct patronage. One of them props up demand in the face of lost US sales and puts money directly into Canadian companies bank accounts, which contributes to them paying Canadian paycheques. One of them does not.

 

[Jarnhamar]

They might not be able to articulate it, but most Canadians that aren't petulantly seeking a partisan wedge can intuitively grasp the difference between passively holding assets acquired via the secondary market and supporting businesses via direct patronage. One of them props up demand in the face of lost US sales and puts money directly into Canadian companies bank accounts, which contributes to them paying Canadian paycheques. One of them does not.

That distinction sounds nice in theory, but in practice it’s more than a little contradictory. If the goal is economic nationalism ,i.e supporting Canadian companies over American ones, then it should apply consistently across both consumer behavior AND investment choices.

When someone buys American stocks, even on the secondary market, they are still choosing to funnel capital into American companies. Sure the company doesn’t directly get that money like a direct product purchase, the increased demand for its shares raises its market value, lowers its cost of capital, and boosts investors' confidence. That does benefit the company, especially in the US where stockbased compensation is common and where value influence borrowing and growth decisions.

Choosing not to invest in Canadian businesses means you’re not giving them that same financial vote of confidence, even as you expect others to buy from them out of patriotism. You can't credibly advocate "Buy Canadian" and simultaneously profit off the success of foreign competitors, especially when Canadian firms are competing for that same investor attention and capital.

You're right there is a technical difference between consumption and investment. When someone is making nationalistic economic arguments, both matter. Otherwise, it comes across as telling others to make sacrifices you’re not willing to make yourself.

 

[GR66]

I think Pierre Poilievre should sell everything he owns that wasn't made in Canada using 100% Canadian raw materials.

That makes just as much logical sense as suggesting that Mark Carney should only invest in Canadian securities.

 

[YZT580]

That distinction sounds nice in theory, but in practice it’s more than a little contradictory. If the goal is economic nationalism ,i.e supporting Canadian companies over American ones, then it should apply consistently across both consumer behavior AND investment choices.

When someone buys American stocks, even on the secondary market, they are still choosing to funnel capital into American companies. Sure the company doesn’t directly get that money like a direct product purchase, the increased demand for its shares raises its market value, lowers its cost of capital, and boosts investors' confidence. That does benefit the company, especially in the US where stockbased compensation is common and where value influence borrowing and growth decisions.

Choosing not to invest in Canadian businesses means you’re not giving them that same financial vote of confidence, even as you expect others to buy from them out of patriotism. You can't credibly advocate "Buy Canadian" and simultaneously profit off the success of foreign competitors, especially when Canadian firms are competing for that same investor attention and capital.

You're right there is a technical difference between consumption and investment. When someone is making nationalistic economic arguments, both matter. Otherwise, it comes across as telling others to make sacrifices you’re not willing to make yourself.

If he hasn't gone out and actively purchased or left instructions with the people managing his portfolio to purchase additional stocks in his current one than folks should just lay off this issue: its a non-starter. What concerns me more is his favouring green investments and actively sabotaging oil/gas developments throughout his career. Most of Canada's economic future depends upon our developing and marketing our natural resources and Carney's on record as opposing said development. There is no definitive proof that he has, many of his cabinet choices are anti-development and nothing in his agreement will cause him to recuse himself from those issues.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That makes just as much logical sense as suggesting that Mark Carney should only invest in Canadian securities.

That was ridiculous for Poilievre to say.

I have alot of respect for Canadians "buying Canadian" but no one should be guilted into losing money whether it's investments or ketchup.

It looks like Poilievre sold off all of his foreign investments when this crap with the US started and openly disclosed his portfolio (unlike Carney), and allegedly only invests in Canadian companies. So at least he's practicing what he's preaching here.

At the same time I doubt he had as many foreign investments as Carney and didn't stand to lose nearly as much money.

 

[QV]

There is a certain level of hypocrisy achieved when you're leading the "elbows up" movement while quietly investing almost everything in the US.

Carney is intimately familiar with the fact that a strong US is way better for Canada and he certainly knows where he's going to put his money.

 

[PrairieFella]

Maybe we should be diversifying our pension holdings, doesnt look like American stocks are doing so hot haha.

 

[QV]

That was ridiculous for Poilievre to say.

I have alot of respect for Canadians "buying Canadian" but no one should be guilted into losing money whether it's investments or ketchup.

It looks like Poilievre sold off all of his foreign investments when this crap with the US started and openly disclosed his portfolio (unlike Carney), and allegedly only invests in Canadian companies. So at least he's practicing what he's preaching here.

At the same time I doubt he had as many foreign investments as Carney and didn't stand to lose nearly as much money.

I think PP is taking the wrong approach here going all-in on the "eff the USA" bandwagon. PP's shine with me was tarnished in his response to #47 over the whole 51st state trolling. Again wrong approach, wrong tone.

I actually think PMMC is doing the smarter thing, though I don't like how he is riding two horses (elbows up and $USD for me!).

 

[IKnowNothing]

You're right there is a technical difference between consumption and investment. When someone is making nationalistic economic arguments, both matter. Otherwise, it comes across as telling others to make sacrifices you’re not willing to make yourself.

It's apples and potatoes. From the individuals perspective- Consuming Canadian yields you an acceptable substitute to the product you want. Investing solely Canadian yields a massively inefficient portfolio that jeopardizes your financial future. From the market perspective- Retail level investment by Canadians is a drop in the bucket of the global securities market, but retail consumption choices are enough to make a material difference in making up for a Canadian firms lost export sales.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I think Pierre Poilievre should sell everything he owns that wasn't made in Canada using 100% Canadian raw materials.

That makes just as much logical sense as suggesting that Mark Carney should only invest in Canadian securities.

He should also sell his houses (massive conflict of interest having the majority of his net worth tied up in asset values born of the housing crisis) and investigate himself for championing a specific speculative investment product that he was holding to the membership of his party.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's apples and potatoes. From the individuals perspective- Consuming Canadian yields you an acceptable substitute to the product you want. Investing solely Canadian yields a massively inefficient portfolio that jeopardizes your financial future. From the market perspective- Retail level investment by Canadians is a drop in the bucket of the global securities market, but retail consumption choices are enough to make a material difference in making up for a Canadian firms lost export sales.

Yeah, scale and efficiency are important to consider.

If retail consumption can materially support domestic industry, isn't it reasonable to ask why the same patriotic logic shouldn't at least influence how we invest? Even a small shift in capital can support innovation and resilience in Canadian companies long term.