Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Altair]

Just a question from the sidelines Altair. The liberals have been doing badly for 10 years as many will agree. So why weren't they punished at the polls 6 years ago?

10 years? You're saying the LPC has been doing badly from the moment they were elected? That they got nothing done? The LPC getting elected was a response to Harper's ten years. Harper had some successes,some failures, same as Trudeau.

As for why Trudeau never lost an election, it's because as always, Canadians are given choices. Canadians aren't blind to the failures of Trudeau and the LPC, but they were putting him up against his opponents. Trudeau, for all his faults, was always judged to be better than what the opposition offered as change.

Same reason Carney won. He didn't and doesn't need to be perfect. He just needed to better than PP, JS,EM, YFB.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Owning a (by your public admission) struggling hobby farm doesn't make you Warren Buffet.

UNLEASH IT

(But dont invest in the infrastructure to do so, or the military to secure it and our partnerships that secure markets)

We only have to look after the first part. If we ever get more O&G to tidewater, the companies that purchase it and ship it are highly likely to be foreign-owned and they'll be interested in securing their own lifelines. And countries that have to import oil will come seeking it whether we work at partnerships or not; pricing will be the determining factor.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Pumping more oil and gas only to have it sit without a market to sell it to or a way to get it there is nothing but folly.

In practice (meaning other than wishful thinking), supply usually creates its own demand. "But there doesn't seem to be a market" is a vacuous rhetorical objection. All we have to do is be price-competitive and someone else's oil will "sit without a market".

 

[Altair]

In practice (meaning other than wishful thinking), supply usually creates its own demand. "But there doesn't seem to be a market" is a vacuous rhetorical objection. All we have to do is be price-competitive and someone else's oil will "sit without a market".

Actually, no.

The more oil that is pumped can create a race to the bottom. Everyone starts undercutting everyone else. Add in that certain oil is in more demand than others, heavy crude only going to refineries that can handle heavy crude is one example. The USA creates a lot of light sweet crude, and exports it because a lot of refineries are geared towards heavy crude.

So it's not as simple as pump baby pump.

And that's still not taking into account infrastructure. Where does this extra crude, extra gas go? Europe? How is it getting there? Asia? Via what pipelines and who is buying it?

Lastly, and I avoided touching on this because the person I was replying to doesn't tend to cover what I say anyways, but, how does Carney force private enterprise to pump more? This isn't Saudi Aramco. Carney isn't MBS, he cannot just order Enbridge to pump more. There has to be a business case for that.

If Carney is out there, formulating those connections, ensuring that those who want the oil can handle it, and then creates the infrastructure to get the product from point A to point B, then I view that as a much better plan than pump more have it stuck, and being sold to the USA at a loss because that's where the bulk of our infrastructure is aimed at the moment.

 

[ArmyRick]

Semantics.

You still create a scenario where to even reply and comment on what I view as baseless is to be "losing"

Example.

Armyrick: Altair, I have evidence of you speeding. Going 100 in a 60 zone

Altair: Hey, my wife was in labour and I needed to get to the hospital

Armyrick: if you're explaining, you're losing.

Altair:....

Forgive me if I don't subscribe to that line of thinking.

When the hell did this conversation happen?

 

[ArmyRick]

Meh, CRA has their definitions, then there's reality. Hobby farm, side hustle, tax management plan, mortgage subsidy scheme, labour of love, lifestyle,- if it's not covering its debt servicing obligations and properly compensating for its input labour and has no prospect of doing so in a reasonable time frame... a spade is a spade

We've been down this road before. I work in the private sector. I'm not willing to dox myself, nor do I feel the need to float my posts with a resume.
And actually no, YOU opened the door by repeatedly trying to lean on your business ownership as an appeal to (self) authority. As I have in the past, I will give you final say as to whether we step right through it.

You seriously need to stop. You acted as though you know a thing about my business, and you don't.

If your going to come on and lecture me about the basics of business, don't and you have indicated that you don't own a business. Don't dox me. What? I didn't ask for your address or home phone or even your name.

Now, how about you take all this lecturing to me about basic business management principles and give it to the Liberal Party of Canada? They need to hear it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Actually, no.

The more oil that is pumped can create a race to the bottom. Everyone starts undercutting everyone else.

I don't often cackle out loud, but that one did it. Competition that reduces prices is emphatically a good thing - it frees up resources (money) for other things. Imagine if that happened with housing prices, rent, groceries...

I cannot emphasize enough how profoundly foolish and harmful your idea is.

And that's still not taking into account infrastructure. Where does this extra crude, extra gas go? Europe? How is it getting there? Asia? Via what pipelines and who is buying it?

I see one economically unsound idea wasn't enough. Markets solve these "safety concerns". Stuff doesn't all have to be centrally planned; Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" explains why the reverse is desirable, and it's empirically observable and confirmed.

There has to be a business case for that.

Correct. A necessary condition for most business cases, though, is absence of unnecessary impediments that are likely to place the revenue/cost imbalance in the negative. That is really all most governments have to do. Bind not the mouths of the kine that tread the grain.

 

[ArmyRick]

So for you die hard Liberal supporters (Yup you @Altair) and others, I don't think you see the storm on the horizon. I see it. Maybe its my old man eyes. Time will tell.

If the storm erupts the way I think it will, its going t be ugly for the Liberals. PM MC had a chance to take the ship in a whole new direction and he is not doing it.

 

[Altair]

When the hell did this conversation happen?

We've been having versions of this conversation since the election.

You say something like "Carney hasn't done ABCDEFGHIJK....

I say ABCDEFGHIJK takes time, and time to do it right, or doesn't need to be done the way you say.

You then say me explaining why things are happening the way they are is "losing".

It's intellectually dishonest.

You either want people to simply agree with whatever the hell you say, or if anyone says otherwise you spout out "if you're explaining, you're losing"

If you don't want a explanation, don't talk about what the LPC is or isn't doing. I know you will anyways, as is your right, but I refuse to subscribe to the "If you're explaining, you're losing". it's a rigged game with rigged rules created by you.

 

[ArmyRick]

We've been having versions of this conversation since the election.

You say something like "Carney hasn't done ABCDEFGHIJK....

I say ABCDEFGHIJK takes time, and time to do it right, or doesn't need to be done the way you say.

You then say me explaining why things are happening the way they are is "losing".

It's intellectually dishonest.

You either want people to simply agree with whatever the hell you say, or if anyone says otherwise you spout out "if you're explaining, you're losing"

If you don't want a explanation, don't talk about what the LPC is or isn't doing. I know you will anyways, as is your right, but I refuse to subscribe to the "If you're explaining, you're losing". it's a rigged game with rigged rules created by you.

You seriously need to get a grip. I am very direct with my conversation as maybe you should start being. Your rambling on about speeding while your wife is in labour while I apparently pulled you over for speeding.

I am not a cop. I quoted Warren Kinsella, a highly respected LIBERAL war room planner to you. Thats all. If you take any other meaning from it, then its on you.

 

[Altair]

So for you die hard Liberal supporters (Yup you @Altair) and others, I don't think you see the storm on the horizon.

We live in interesting times. Many, including myself, can see the storm ahead. Where I,personally,differ, is seeing that storm ahead and saying, let's see how we navigate this. You are seeing the storm ahead and assuming that we are already, today, screwed.

Might we be screwed? Perhaps. But that's not today. And it doesn't make you Nostradamus to see that the USA putting the screws to Canada can be a hard and bumpy road ahead.

I see it. Maybe its my old man eyes. Time will tell.

If you took this approach in what you write I don't even think I would take the time to respond because this is the most correct take on the current situation that anyone could take.

If the storm erupts the way I think it will, its going t be ugly for the Liberals.

Maybe. Perhaps. But we don't know, so we should stop pretending like we do and pretending that it's happening right now. We will see the fruits of Carney's labour in the future but the future is not now.

PM MC had a chance to take the ship in a whole new direction and he is not doing it.

As you said, time will tell.

 

[ArmyRick]

You either want people to simply agree with whatever the hell you say,

I don't give a shit if people agree with me or not.

You notice I don't defend certain things like Pierre dropping the ball on campaigning in his old riding? (And letting Bruce Fanjoy eat his lunch), thats because Pierre blew it.

I won't defend Jenni Byrne campaign strategy, it could have been much better.

 

[ArmyRick]

As you said, time will tell.

On this we agree. Lets revisit this in 6 months, a year maybe. I turned my crystal ball in when I released from the CAF, so I don't have one anymore. WOs and above get issued with an all seeing crystal ball.

 

[Altair]

You seriously need to get a grip. I am very direct with my conversation as maybe you should start being. Your rambling on about speeding while your wife is in labour while I apparently pulled you over for speeding.

I am not a cop. I quoted Warren Kinsella, a highly respected LIBERAL war room planner to you. Thats all. If you take any other meaning from it, then its on you.

Playing coy doesn't suit you. If you repeat,ad nauseam, if you're explaining, you're losing, to what I write in response to your posts, usually every single point out of respect for the time you took to write it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer the meaning.

 

[IKnowNothing]

If your going to come on and lecture me about the basics of business, don't and you have indicated that you don't own a business.

One doesn't have to own a business to correct obvious conceptual mistakes, and owning a business doesn't make you right about it. You're the one that tries to use your "business ownership" to simultaneously gatekeep the conversation and lend credibility to your points. That's you putting your personal CV on trial.

You seriously need to stop. You acted as though you know a thing about my business, and you don't.

Is that an invitation for a critique based on what I do know, or are you done gatekeeping and holding yourself up as an authority?

 

[Altair]

I don't often cackle out loud, but that one did it. Competition that reduces prices is emphatically a good thing - it frees up resources (money) for other things. Imagine if that happened with housing prices, rent, groceries...

Competition is a great thing. Until it isn't. If you pump so much as to flood the market and drop the price below your input costs, have you done something good? And if someone else out there can produce what you do cheaper, what benefit is it to yourself that you dropped the price? OPEC plays these games all the time, and they make up a lot of oil producing countries, so laugh all you want, but they aren't out there manipulating the price of oil to "increase competition" for the benifit of all.

I cannot emphasize enough how profoundly foolish and harmful your idea is.

Except everyone does it. If there is a demand for something, and it's profitable, supply will catch up to it. But you allow for too much supply, and there isn't enough demand, the price will drop and eventually drop to a point where it's no longer profitable

I see one economically unsound idea wasn't enough. Markets solve these "safety concerns". Stuff doesn't all have to be centrally planned; Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" explains why the reverse is desirable, and it's empirically observable and confirmed.

Except economics is often political. You know what oil is really cheap right now? Iranian. Russian. You know why those markets aren't having the easiest time selling their oil? Politics.

Hell, we tariffed chinese electric cars, they stopped buying our canola. They are buying Australian canola instead. Let's just pump out more canola then? Right? Right? The market will create itself, right?

Correct. A necessary condition for most business cases, though, is absence of unnecessary impediments that are likely to place the revenue/cost imbalance in the negative. That is really all most governments have to do. Bind not the mouths of the kine that tread the grain.

Unless you see the connection between politics and trade, and infrastructure and trade...

 

[Czech_pivo]

I politely and respectfully suggest that everyone goes off for a walk outside, a coffee break, whatever for the next 20-30mins.

 

[YZT580]

10 years? You're saying the LPC has been doing badly from the moment they were elected? That they got nothing done? The LPC getting elected was a response to Harper's ten years. Harper had some successes,some failures, same as Trudeau.

As for why Trudeau never lost an election, it's because as always, Canadians are given choices. Canadians aren't blind to the failures of Trudeau and the LPC, but they were putting him up against his opponents. Trudeau, for all his faults, was always judged to be better than what the opposition offered as change.

Same reason Carney won. He didn't and doesn't need to be perfect. He just needed to better than PP, JS,EM, YFB.

mediocre leadership notwithstanding, Trudeau's biggest asset was the media. He bought them off and they did his advertising for him. That and terror tactics. The cons could never live down the abortion issue regardless of the number of leaders that denied it. And for the last 6 years it was the NDP that ensured he continued to govern. He accomplished very little and left a divided country as his legacy along with a cannabis shop on every corner. Don't forget the people out on bail whilst out on parole and the million or so illegals that have overloaded every social system we have. Yes indeed, he accomplished a lot. Carney won the election for two reasons in my opinion. 1 was fear brought on by Trump and the other was his promise to follow the conservative platform thus people felt they were protecting themselves and the economy from Trump with a banker and getting rid of the liberal gasoline policies at the same time so why change? Carney stole PP's total platform and the press (bought and paid for) made sure we all ended up believing it was his. And his big 5 infrastructure things were all somebody else's work. He did nothing for them except provide publicity.

As for encouraging infrastructure, I have said previously that until he gets rid of the carbon tax completely no oil company is going to put the money into building a pipeline to anywhere. There is no profit for them with the government clawing back 100 dollars a ton is it?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Competition is a great thing. Until it isn't. If you pump so much as to flood the market and drop the price below your input costs, have you done something good?

Yes. Competition means winners and losers. We aren't assured of not being the loser. It would be ludicrous to allow that risk to intimidate us into not playing the game.

OPEC plays these games all the time, and they make up a lot of oil producing countries, so laugh all you want, but they aren't out there manipulating the price of oil to "increase competition" for the benifit of all.

That's an argument for more competition. The less the competition, the easier it is for wannabe monopolists and price-fixing cartels.

Except everyone does it. If there is a demand for something, and it's profitable, supply will catch up to it. But you allow for too much supply, and there isn't enough demand, the price will drop and eventually drop to a point where it's no longer profitable

Incomplete. "no longer profitable for particular competitors". They fail, and the resources they consumed (by definition less productively) are available for other uses. Do not reinforce economic failure.

Except economics is often political. You know what oil is really cheap right now? Iranian. Russian. You know why those markets aren't having the easiest time selling their oil? Politics.

Quit reaching so far. We're not about to declare war on anyone.

Hell, we tariffed chinese electric cars, they stopped buying our canola. They are buying Australian canola instead. Let's just pump out more canola then? Right? Right? The market will create itself, right?

No. My position is "end tariffs", which are among the government impediments I mentioned.

Unless you see the connection between politics and trade, and infrastructure and trade...

More hand-waving cloud-shaped "safety concerns". All weak excuses.

 

[Altair]

mediocre leadership notwithstanding, Trudeau's biggest asset was the media. He bought them off and they did his advertising for him.

I'm responding to you, but this is an open question for anyone who doesn't like the media subsides. What would you do instead? Let the national post, bell media, global, everyone collapse? Let all our news come from the USA and Russian troll farms? Who does local news? If they got rid of the subsidy, the only news left, in Canada, ironically, is the CBC.

I'm amazed actually, that they federal liberal government pays the national post to run hit pieces on them 7 days a week.

But seriously, how would you protect the media in Canada?

That and terror tactics. The cons could never live down the abortion issue regardless of the number of leaders that denied it. And for the last 6 years it was the NDP that ensured he continued to govern. He accomplished very little and left a divided country as his legacy along with a cannabis shop on every corner.

He got CUSMA done. The CCB was a great policy that even the CPC decided to leave alone. You touched on it, cannabis. CETA was done under his watch. TPP as well. Trans mountain was finished under his watch.

Don't forget the people out on bail whilst out on parole and the million or so illegals that have overloaded every social system we have. Yes indeed, he accomplished a lot. Carney won the election for two reasons in my opinion. 1 was fear brought on by Trump and the other was his promise to follow the conservative platform thus people felt they were protecting themselves and the economy from Trump with a banker and getting rid of the liberal gasoline policies at the same time so why change? Carney stole PP's total platform and the press (bought and paid for) made sure we all ended up believing it was his. And his big 5 infrastructure things were all somebody else's work. He did nothing for them except provide publicity.

I like how people say carney stole the CPC platform. The CPC was free to steal from the LPC platform as well, and they didn't.

As for encouraging infrastructure, I have said previously that until he gets rid of the carbon tax completely no oil company is going to put the money into building a pipeline to anywhere. There is no profit for them with the government clawing back 100 dollars a ton is it?

As Armyrick said, time will tell.