Love everything about this piece...but what I really want to know is: what mark did you get on that public sector finance project, and what was the feedback?
Thanks for the performance review. Carney isn't even a politician: he's a career central banker who seemed like he had an electable personality and a wisp of climate concern. He's doing a great job for Cdn capitalism, bien sur.
We're descending into a lot of destructive government, but calling it fascism is becoming as meaningless as "Zionism." We need to organize on every level to save our democracy with leadership that rejects the next Mamdani/Jagmeet/Bernie saviour. Such leadership must possess class-struggle politics that are beyond the NDP.
Rember that our Bernie, Tommy Douglas, was just another scrawny Baptist street preacher in the 1930s until he realized that he could outhustle the success of Communist organizers by pitching left. All our welfare state came from movements that kept our rulers scared of crossing us. Whenever workers build and keep growing those movements, then we have a chance. Don't keep wishing for the next Tommy Douglas: join the class-struggle organizers and the socialists. If they're useful, help build'em. If you outgrow'em, go start your own group and keep organizing with comrades who want to smash Carney and his capitalist system, and make sure socialism has answers for everyone who asks.
I occasionally trip over right wing posts and have the feeling that the normal rules of logic and argument don’t apply. I had rather the same response to Nora’s article.
I’m altogether on board with a focus on income inequality as a worldwide scourge. However, the idea that borrowing from banks and other members of the investor class somehow serves the interests of increasing income equality boggles. As is the idea that having a weak and ineffectual military somehow serves the long-term interests of Canada as a distinct, sovereign and more equal polity than the United States.
To me, this is historically illiterate. Rich countries with weak militaries are inevitably annexed. Are there precedents to the contrary?
If you want to argue that I've been historically illiterate, perhaps remind us when Canada has been annexed due to our weak military because I can't think of when that was.
It is pure (and embarssing) folly to imagine that we are going to fight our biggest foreign threat to defend our borders, especially when our PM is looking to get in on a completely insane defense pact with them.
I apologize for being sharp with my comments - rereading them this morning I don't like them as well - but the thrust of the critique stands. The point of military investment isn't to withstand an all-out invasion. It's to raise the cost of that invasion to the point where the invader questions whether it is worth it.
You bring up Canada not being annexed by the US as if it were some kind of dunk. Except - gack - we were invaded. In 1812! The reason we were not annexed is that our military in combination with the UK was strong enough to raise the cost of invading to the point where the Americans thought better of it and changed their minds.
My knowledge of history - which is, granted, limited - is that there are no examples of rich countries with weak militaries where things over time went swimmingly well. Can I think of rich countries that were under the protection of another country with a strong military? Of course. However - I'll throw this challenge out to you, if you can think of exceptions - I'm pretty sure the number of countries as rich, weak and friendless as Canada where things have gone awesome is zero. And I think to argue against reinvesting in our military is the equivalent of suggesting Canada accept annexation or vassalage under the USA.
Knock it off with the black and white thinking. If I say it is unsafe policy for a rich country to have an inadequate military, it does not suggest the position on the far end of the policy spectrum - I.e. spending 100% of GDP on defence - is therefore fantastic. Rich countries need to spend enough on their military to deter aggression. However, spending significantly more than what is necessary to reach this threshold is also a bad idea.
Maybe you’d like to spend a little time talking about how Trump is strong-arming us (and many other countries) to raise our military spending and he is doing so on behalf of the US military manufacturers. You may also wish to talk about military procurement in the US, Canada, and Europe. They are the most corrupt and ill-managed wasters of public funds.
Also, for the sake of transparency you may wish to declare your own personal stake in this issue as a member of the military.
Gloria, I agree with all your points. Military procurement in Canada - as
In much of the western world - is badly broken. Trump, a reflection and exemplar of a deep vacuity in American culture, is pushing the western world to increase military spending and it would be galling to give him any sort of a win.
However, that does not mean it is a good idea to maintain Canada’s military at its current low level. We need to fix procurement and develop a competitive domestic industry, and source where we can from non-American allies, despite the costs associated with this (I.e. Trump will almost certainly try to punish us).
We don’t have the luxury now of indulging in avoidance. The Nordic countries understand at a fundamental level that social democracy doesn’t come for free and must be paid for in part by having a credible military.
Regarding your last comment on my military commitments, I know it’s unusual in Canada to have anyone support military spending who isn’t military themselves or a right wing crank. However, I am neither. I’m a regular guy who is deeply worried about fascism next door and feels like Canadians who argue against military spending now are like Danes who argued against military spending in 1939. Their country became food for Hitler, just as ours may be for the Americans if we don’t get our house in order.
Hi Tim, I agree with your post, minus the first bit. Prior to World War I, Canada was under constant threat of invasion and annexation, and this threat - versus the obvious benefits of economic integration - was the fundamental tension in Canadian politics during those years.
Seeing the US as an ally and friend is a relatively new phenomenon.
I know there were members of congress and the business elite who mused about annexation, but I wasn't sure if there was the constant drumbeat of annexation coming from the White House.
My understanding is that it was a steady drumbeat of aggressive threats, mostly from congress but also directly from some US administrations. Not every administration supported annexation but even those that didn’t were very willing to use economic coercion, very similar to Trump’s use of tariffs, to try to have their way with us.
After World War I this level of threat receded, but it was only after World War II that Canada and the USA considered themselves allies.
Carney studied at Oxford University, it would appear he has more in common with the UK Tory MP’s who are a product of the privileged/private Public School system.
That is some incredible Liberal partisanship you've got there. Carney's gov't isn't any worse than those guys, he's a logical continuation of the neoliberalism eroding our country.
This is deranged and full of conspiracy. China poses no threat to Canada and indeed it is a conspiracy theory that they are fuelling the opioid crisis. They have been very transparent and responsive to all requests that the US government has made.
If they truly cared about human trafficking, something again that China is not even close to the top the list of offenders, they would be singling out militarism and intervention which is the greatest facilitator of human trafficking.
Marcus, I agree with all your points. However, I also agree with your critics that using AI to write your post is inappropriate and unhelpful for making the points you hope to convey. My advice would be to write much less, write it imperfectly but nevertheless have it reflect what I guess is your passion for the subject at hand.
Love everything about this piece...but what I really want to know is: what mark did you get on that public sector finance project, and what was the feedback?
Income inequality, can easily solve a multitude of social issues in Canada! Elbow the extremely wealthy!!
Thanks for the performance review. Carney isn't even a politician: he's a career central banker who seemed like he had an electable personality and a wisp of climate concern. He's doing a great job for Cdn capitalism, bien sur.
We're descending into a lot of destructive government, but calling it fascism is becoming as meaningless as "Zionism." We need to organize on every level to save our democracy with leadership that rejects the next Mamdani/Jagmeet/Bernie saviour. Such leadership must possess class-struggle politics that are beyond the NDP.
Rember that our Bernie, Tommy Douglas, was just another scrawny Baptist street preacher in the 1930s until he realized that he could outhustle the success of Communist organizers by pitching left. All our welfare state came from movements that kept our rulers scared of crossing us. Whenever workers build and keep growing those movements, then we have a chance. Don't keep wishing for the next Tommy Douglas: join the class-struggle organizers and the socialists. If they're useful, help build'em. If you outgrow'em, go start your own group and keep organizing with comrades who want to smash Carney and his capitalist system, and make sure socialism has answers for everyone who asks.
I occasionally trip over right wing posts and have the feeling that the normal rules of logic and argument don’t apply. I had rather the same response to Nora’s article.
I’m altogether on board with a focus on income inequality as a worldwide scourge. However, the idea that borrowing from banks and other members of the investor class somehow serves the interests of increasing income equality boggles. As is the idea that having a weak and ineffectual military somehow serves the long-term interests of Canada as a distinct, sovereign and more equal polity than the United States.
To me, this is historically illiterate. Rich countries with weak militaries are inevitably annexed. Are there precedents to the contrary?
If you want to argue that I've been historically illiterate, perhaps remind us when Canada has been annexed due to our weak military because I can't think of when that was.
It is pure (and embarssing) folly to imagine that we are going to fight our biggest foreign threat to defend our borders, especially when our PM is looking to get in on a completely insane defense pact with them.
I apologize for being sharp with my comments - rereading them this morning I don't like them as well - but the thrust of the critique stands. The point of military investment isn't to withstand an all-out invasion. It's to raise the cost of that invasion to the point where the invader questions whether it is worth it.
You bring up Canada not being annexed by the US as if it were some kind of dunk. Except - gack - we were invaded. In 1812! The reason we were not annexed is that our military in combination with the UK was strong enough to raise the cost of invading to the point where the Americans thought better of it and changed their minds.
My knowledge of history - which is, granted, limited - is that there are no examples of rich countries with weak militaries where things over time went swimmingly well. Can I think of rich countries that were under the protection of another country with a strong military? Of course. However - I'll throw this challenge out to you, if you can think of exceptions - I'm pretty sure the number of countries as rich, weak and friendless as Canada where things have gone awesome is zero. And I think to argue against reinvesting in our military is the equivalent of suggesting Canada accept annexation or vassalage under the USA.
Following your logic, the US, with military spending greater than the next ten countries combined, is going ”swimmingly well”. Try again!
Knock it off with the black and white thinking. If I say it is unsafe policy for a rich country to have an inadequate military, it does not suggest the position on the far end of the policy spectrum - I.e. spending 100% of GDP on defence - is therefore fantastic. Rich countries need to spend enough on their military to deter aggression. However, spending significantly more than what is necessary to reach this threshold is also a bad idea.
Maybe you’d like to spend a little time talking about how Trump is strong-arming us (and many other countries) to raise our military spending and he is doing so on behalf of the US military manufacturers. You may also wish to talk about military procurement in the US, Canada, and Europe. They are the most corrupt and ill-managed wasters of public funds.
Also, for the sake of transparency you may wish to declare your own personal stake in this issue as a member of the military.
Gloria, I agree with all your points. Military procurement in Canada - as
In much of the western world - is badly broken. Trump, a reflection and exemplar of a deep vacuity in American culture, is pushing the western world to increase military spending and it would be galling to give him any sort of a win.
However, that does not mean it is a good idea to maintain Canada’s military at its current low level. We need to fix procurement and develop a competitive domestic industry, and source where we can from non-American allies, despite the costs associated with this (I.e. Trump will almost certainly try to punish us).
We don’t have the luxury now of indulging in avoidance. The Nordic countries understand at a fundamental level that social democracy doesn’t come for free and must be paid for in part by having a credible military.
Regarding your last comment on my military commitments, I know it’s unusual in Canada to have anyone support military spending who isn’t military themselves or a right wing crank. However, I am neither. I’m a regular guy who is deeply worried about fascism next door and feels like Canadians who argue against military spending now are like Danes who argued against military spending in 1939. Their country became food for Hitler, just as ours may be for the Americans if we don’t get our house in order.
Since Confederation, Canada's existence has never been threatened by its southern neighbour.
I think PMMC, like any other sane observer, knows that trump's golden dome idea is just more ramblings from a old man who's lost his grip on reality.
Where PMMC has taken concrete steps is in the realignment of our trade and security arrangements with Europe.
Hi Tim, I agree with your post, minus the first bit. Prior to World War I, Canada was under constant threat of invasion and annexation, and this threat - versus the obvious benefits of economic integration - was the fundamental tension in Canadian politics during those years.
Seeing the US as an ally and friend is a relatively new phenomenon.
I know there were members of congress and the business elite who mused about annexation, but I wasn't sure if there was the constant drumbeat of annexation coming from the White House.
My understanding is that it was a steady drumbeat of aggressive threats, mostly from congress but also directly from some US administrations. Not every administration supported annexation but even those that didn’t were very willing to use economic coercion, very similar to Trump’s use of tariffs, to try to have their way with us.
After World War I this level of threat receded, but it was only after World War II that Canada and the USA considered themselves allies.
Well said, Nora!
Carney studied at Oxford University, it would appear he has more in common with the UK Tory MP’s who are a product of the privileged/private Public School system.
He would have paid for that education via scholarship.
Absolutely depressing.
And given that I live in Hellberta, this will just make the UCP accelerate their privatization plans.
Spot on. 😞
I just did a fact check on this article... while I get what the message is, but for some reason, I only got 15% factual. Hmmmmmm
The fuck is that supposed to mean? I'd be happy to correct anything that is factually incorrect.
Cut costs OR Hike Taxes
Has anyone ever done a report on how high Taxes must Rise to
- keep programmes
- keep people
- fix healthcare
- quadruple Cdn Armed Forces to 5% of GDP
???!!!!???
That is some incredible Liberal partisanship you've got there. Carney's gov't isn't any worse than those guys, he's a logical continuation of the neoliberalism eroding our country.
Mulroney came to office in 1984 saying NoFreeTrade with USA.
Then he saw them create a
tax-crefit scheme to bring Cdn jobs home to USA.
1988, he tried to get them tied to a TREATY (FTA) so that they would stop cheating us.
1992, Chrétien negotiated NAFTA which added Mexico.
2022, Pres45 forced a revised NAFTA2.
2025, Pres47 has arbitrarily abrogated 45's TREATY !!!
47 has just proven USA is quite Untrustworthy.
This is LLM, AI slop. It must've taken you a whole 3 minutes to generate it! Wow, we are all so proud of you.
Deciding to put in the time to write something coherent might convince others to read what you've written.
Right now, I'm only going to put slightly less time into reading your words than you put into "writing" them.
Which is none.
Enlighten yourself
You're a fucking bozo mate. Go to bed.
This is deranged and full of conspiracy. China poses no threat to Canada and indeed it is a conspiracy theory that they are fuelling the opioid crisis. They have been very transparent and responsive to all requests that the US government has made.
If they truly cared about human trafficking, something again that China is not even close to the top the list of offenders, they would be singling out militarism and intervention which is the greatest facilitator of human trafficking.
"If we truly believe that Canada deserves to exist...." Deserves? Settle much?
Marcus, I agree with all your points. However, I also agree with your critics that using AI to write your post is inappropriate and unhelpful for making the points you hope to convey. My advice would be to write much less, write it imperfectly but nevertheless have it reflect what I guess is your passion for the subject at hand.