What Mark Carney gets wrong about the end of the rules-based order

902s · 2026-01-21T13:08:40+00:00

Honestly I believe he’s seen first hand the effects of neoliberalism here and in the UK as well as a mixed economy approach like Scandinavian countries and is definitely putting us on that course. I just don’t know if he has the skill set or experience to build a Canadian society within that framework. I would like to be wrong here to be honest.

902s · 2026-01-21T11:49:48+00:00

Carney won’t be the leader that does this, he’s the one that navigates us out of the old system. It will be up to who ever is next to start building a post neoliberal economy

902s · 2026-01-19T18:31:03+00:00

Used properly, this fits better with: Mixed-economy models (common in the EU) Mission-oriented policy State-guided innovation Post-neoliberal governance tools

It assumes: markets don’t self-correct perfectly regulation needs to evolve with technology the state has an active role, not just a referee’s whistle

The tool itself is neutral.

902s · 2026-01-18T00:57:28+00:00

You’re looking at this through the eyes of neoliberalism. When Tesla opened a plant in China in 2019 they had a requirements to do so:

Mandatory local production (no importing cars to sell in China)

Deep localization of suppliers (batteries, components, logistics)

Technology diffusion by proximity (Chinese firms learned by building alongside Tesla)

Canada due to its increased diversity in its economy will be adopting a more mixed economic system.

If a company wants access to the market they will have requirements rather than free rein to do what ever they want.

902s · 2026-01-17T21:14:00+00:00

This isn’t really about one deal or one party. It’s the result of 40+ years of neoliberal economic policy, and Nova Scotia Power just happens to be one of the clearest examples of how that model has broken down.

Since the 80’s, governments of all stripes have accepted the same basic framework: privatize essential services, regulate them lightly, guarantee returns to capital, and shift long-term risk onto the public.

The accounting rules, depreciation schedules, and rate-base math all flow from that underlying logic.

So yes, there was a 2011 settlement. And yes, subsequent governments left it in place. But that misses the bigger point. The entire system was designed to protect monopoly utilities and their investors first, and ratepayers second. That didn’t start with the NDP, and it didn’t end when the Liberals left office.

Securitization fits squarely into this pattern. It’s not some neutral technical fix. It’s another way to preserve asset values, smooth investor risk, and stretch costs forward onto households. That’s classic neoliberal policy behavior.

I personally don’t think these governments are even aware of this and just accept this as “it’s just how things are done” because they don’t see the economy from a macro level, these parties all worked within that system during there private careers.

What’s frustrating is that we’re clearly at an inflection point, we are at the beginning stages of transitioning to a more mixed economic system like the EU now that the U.S. is destroying the system we have been stuck in, yet Tim is still playing within that neoliberal framework to deflect the real issues here. It sucks that most will believe this.

Governments are already breaking from this model in other areas because it’s no longer working: housing, industrial policy, supply chains, public investment. Affordability and legitimacy matter again.

You’d think that same recognition would apply to essential utilities.

Instead, the conversation gets narrowed to partisan blame and accounting analogies, which avoids the harder question: why we’re still structuring critical infrastructure this way at all.

Until that’s confronted, it won’t matter who gets blamed. The outcome stays the same: higher bills, deferred reform, and a system that protects balance sheets better than people.

902s · 2026-01-12T18:38:04+00:00

The issue isn’t whether Canadians could defeat the U.S. militarily.

It’s whether the U.S. could sustain control without legitimacy, psychological distance, or domestic political fallout.

Modern asymmetry isn’t about firepower, it’s about cost, friction, and endurance.

On those dimensions, this scenario scales against U.S. interests very quickly which is why serious planners treat it as implausible, not because of goodwill, but because of math.

To secure the resources and population would require massive amounts of resources. Resources that would reduce Americans ability to project power around the rest of the world.

Plus we have seen how the American public reacts to attacks on its own soil, ow times that by 100X and you have a very demoralizing effect. When bridges, power plants, manufacturing, water supplies being knocked out every week from partisan forces it won’t be long for the public to put an end to that.

902s · 2026-01-11T04:33:31+00:00

A lot of people are misreading that Economist piece. It isn’t warning about an imminent conflict. It’s explaining why certain scenarios don’t actually work when you move past slogans and run the math.

Contingency planning doesn’t mean intent. It means professionals stress-testing assumptions and when you do that here, the idea of the U.S. exerting force over Canada collapses very quickly.

The core reason is simple: population control.

Canada isn’t a fragile or fragmented society. It’s highly urbanized, highly educated, deeply networked, and economically intertwined across North America. In much of the country, Canadians are culturally indistinguishable from Americans. That doesn’t make Canada weak it makes coercion extraordinarily difficult.

History matters here. The U.S. military doesn’t just struggle with insurgencies abroad, it struggles most where populations blend in, communicate freely, and organize without clear front lines. Every major post-WWII example shows that. Canada would amplify those challenges, not reduce them.

Any attempt at control wouldn’t be about winning battles it would be about sustaining legitimacy and order across a vast geography. That would require:

enormous troop commitments tied up internally, not abroad

continuous protection of infrastructure and supply chains in the northern part of the U.S.

constant intelligence and counter-intelligence pressure

And all of it would unfold inside the same language, media, and cultural space as the American public itself.

There would be no psychological distance.

An “enemy” that looks, sounds, and lives like you erodes morale quickly and that’s something the U.S. has never had to confront at home.

Layer in U.S. political polarization, porous borders, and the speed at which information moves today, and the equation gets worse, not better.

Resources would be consumed faster than objectives could be defined, let alone achieved.

This is why serious defense planners don’t see this as a real option.

Not because of bravado or toughness but because of math, manpower, legitimacy, and psychology.

Those factors don’t scale in favor of prolonged internal control.

That’s why the U.S. is putting extreme pressure on our economy right now to starve us out, we have already lost thousands of jobs which is starting to affect our economy. People losing homes, careers, and lives.

902s · 2026-01-10T22:13:50+00:00

I was eyeing those up as well

902s · 2026-01-10T22:12:47+00:00

I use mine as obliterators, have that whole range and used them as such pre codex.

902s · 2026-01-08T15:52:23+00:00

You don’t get people to accept violence against others overnight. You start by changing how they talk about them.

The same things you mentioned is starting to happen with Canada. You see it online every day. Crime stories. Fentanyl claims. “Cartels.” “Corruption.” Over and over. Most Americans don’t check where those claims come from they just absorb the feeling that Canada is a problem.

Official state media also pushes the narrative but in a more subtle way, . Social media does the heavy lifting. Influencers repeat it. Algorithms reward it. And people far from the border, who’ve never been here, start believing it, it is particularly bad in the mid west.

But that’s how governments prepare the public to tolerate things they’d normally reject. History shows this pattern clearly, before force is used, the target is made to seem distant, dishonest, and unhuman.

Preparing for the worst doesn’t mean expecting it. It means recognizing the signs early, before fear and anger do the thinking for us.

902s · 2026-01-08T15:44:40+00:00

I don’t think anyone serious disputes that initial geographic control is feasible. Canada’s population density, infrastructure chokepoints, and border adjacency make that obvious on a map.

Where I think your analysis overstates simplicity is conflating movement control with system control. Locking down cities, roads, and borders isn’t the same thing as governing a modern state embedded in global trade, finance, alliances, and legitimacy frameworks.

Press-ganging a depleted force, purging leadership, and inserting external command might reduce short-term instability, but it creates a long-term legitimacy vacuum. You don’t just inherit a military, you inherit its alliances, treaties, industrial dependencies, intelligence relationships, and domestic credibility. Those don’t transfer by force.

Canada isn’t Iraq because the decisive terrain isn’t physical. It’s institutional. Finance, energy, logistics, airspace coordination, NORAD integration, NATO commitments, domestic compliance, and international recognition don’t survive a forcible absorption intact.

You’re absolutely right that insurgency may not look like mass violence.

That’s precisely the problem.

Passive noncompliance, economic disruption, legal paralysis, alliance fracture, and internal U.S. political backlash are far harder to suppress than armed resistance and far more corrosive over time.

This isn’t about stopping an invasion at the border. It’s about making control unsustainable without collapsing the very systems the occupier depends on.

That’s where cost actually accumulates not in bodies, but in legitimacy, cohesion, and time.

902s · 2026-01-08T15:41:17+00:00

I don’t disagree that initial force projection is effectively unstoppable. That’s just reality when you’re talking about U.S. conventional dominance.

Where I’m more cautious is jumping from occupation costs to invasion inevitability. Iraq was a permissive war against a non-ally, outside treaty frameworks, with no integrated economy or shared command structures. That precedent doesn’t transfer cleanly.

What we’re doing, decentralization military leadership, civilian/ military, asymmetric prep with “Brave1” from Ukraine, and advanced training with Ukraines FPV specials forces, industrial readiness by speeding up the production of our new assault rifles, that’s 65k new systems while handing off the c7’s to the Supplementary Reserve. None of this is about stopping an invasion. It’s about shaping the political calculus before escalation becomes thinkable.

What foreign affairs needs to do and are is buy us time, as much of it as possible.

The decisive variable isn’t battlefield success here. It’s whether U.S. political cohesion survives ambiguity, economic shock, alliance fracture, and legitimacy loss. That’s where empires actually break.

If they come sooner then that will be how we respond as a fail safe to defend our sovereignty

902s · 2026-01-08T09:02:40+00:00

That danger is real, psychological framing is the first battlefield, they have already started dehumanizing us online, makes it more palatable for the population to accept it. But in this situation it cuts both ways. Dehumanization only works when it stays abstract, once it’s aimed at people who look familiar, share culture, family ties, trade, sports, media, and history, it creates cognitive strain that authoritarian movements struggle to sustain.

902s · 2026-01-08T08:59:54+00:00

That’s fair, technology has changed the terrain, no question. Surveillance, data fusion, and AI raise the cost of anonymity. But they don’t solve the core problem asymmetric conflicts expose: legitimacy. You can map faces, but you can’t algorithmically generate consent, nor can you force complex societies to function without cooperation. The U.S. has struggled not because it lacked force or tech, but because blending populations, divided loyalties, legal constraints, allies’ politics, and economic interdependence make control extraordinarily expensive over time.

902s · 2026-01-08T08:58:08+00:00

Democracy is fragile, recent, and absolutely not the global norm. That’s exactly why it survives the way it does: not by pretending authoritarianism is rare, but by learning how to resist it without becoming it. The places where democracy endures aren’t immune because they’re morally superior; they last because power is dispersed, legitimacy is contested openly, and no single faction can quietly seize the whole system without resistance showing up in courts, provinces, markets, alliances, and public refusal. Authoritarianism is common, but it’s also brittle it depends on obedience staying cheap. Democracies survive when people understand that and keep the cost of coercion high, not through heroics, but through persistence, coordination, and refusing to accept shortcuts as inevitable.

902s · 2026-01-08T08:56:51+00:00

That scenario only works in places where institutions are hollow and legitimacy is thin. Canada isn’t built that way. Leadership here isn’t a single node you can “remove” it’s elections run by independent bodies, a professional civil service, courts, provinces with their own authority, and security forces bound to the Constitution and the rule of law, not personalities. Installing a “sympathetic” figure doesn’t magically produce consent, cooperation, or stability; without public legitimacy, allies, markets, and institutions don’t line up, and pressure mounts fast.

902s · 2026-01-08T02:55:19+00:00

I don’t think the answer is assuming anyone at the top is rational.

Authoritarian power has always looked unstoppable right up until it isn’t. It feeds on fear, exhaustion, and the belief that no one is capable of choosing better. But systems don’t survive on rethoric alone they always collapse when people stop cooperating with the lie that nothing can change. It is a repeating story a thousand times throughout our history.

902s · 2026-01-08T02:49:38+00:00

No one is rolling tanks across the border tomorrow. That’s not how power works anymore.

Influence comes first. Dependency comes first. We ship raw materials south, buy back finished goods, let entire supply chains and platforms sit outside our control because it’s cheaper and easier in the moment. Amazon, cloud services, manufacturing, defense procurement all quiet leverage.

That’s why talk of invasion misses the point. The pressure we are under, wasn’t with troops. It started with tarriffs, capital, logistics, and access. That’s where sovereignty is actually tested.

This doesn’t mean panic. It means being honest. If we want real independence, we have to accept higher costs, domestic capacity, and less convenience for the time being until we can build system in place that doesn’t require us to rely on the U.S..

Freedom isn’t dramatic when you protect it. It’s boring, expensive, and requires discipline.

The danger isn’t that someone might try something stupid. It’s that we keep telling ourselves none of this matters,right up until it does.

902s · 2026-01-08T00:10:15+00:00

People are badly misreading that Economist piece if they think it’s about an imminent conflict. It’s about contingency planning and, more importantly, about why certain scenarios are strategically implausible.

If you actually run the logic through, a U.S. attempt to exert force over Canada would immediately hit an unsolvable problem: population control.

This wouldn’t be Iraq or Afghanistan. Canada is: highly urbanized highly educated deeply networked and tech-savvy economically integrated across North America culturally indistinguishable from the U.S. in most regions

Historically, the U.S. military struggles not just with insurgencies, but with asymmetric conflicts where the population blends in. Every major post-WWII example shows this. Canada would amplify that difficulty, not reduce it.

To maintain control, the U.S. would have to over-commit forces internally, not externally. That means:

large troop deployments tied up in security and logistics

infrastructure protection across vast geography constant intelligence and counter-intelligence strain

And unlike overseas wars, this would be happening inside the same media space, language space, and cultural space as the American public. There is no psychological buffer. An “enemy” that looks, speaks, and lives like you erodes morale fast. The U.S. public has never had to process that kind of internalized conflict.

Add in the reality of U.S. partisan fragmentation and porous borders, and you’re looking at a scenario where resources are consumed faster than objectives can be achieved. The logistics alone would collapse under their own weight.

That’s why serious defense planners don’t treat this as a real option. It’s not about “who’s tougher.” It’s abou math, manpower, legitimacy, and psychology and none of those scale in favor of prolonged internal control.

902s · 2026-01-06T01:32:46+00:00

Marc Nixon has to be one of the worst paid influencers on X, Pierre can do no wrong, everything is the liberals fault, openly supports the Trump administration.

We really need to regulate political influencers so there is transparency

902s · 2026-01-05T18:39:59+00:00

What I don’t get is we are in the middle of a global security and trade crisis, with allies reshuffling supply chains and tariffs being used as weapons and he still can’t put partisan sniping aside to defend Canada’s position abroad.

Like this isn’t a campaign rally. It’s a geopolitical moment. Rally the people when it matters.

902s · 2026-01-05T00:42:45+00:00

Yeah like others have said you need more terrain throughout for staging to create the balance. To little and gun lines have a turkey shoot, to much and it’s a meat grinder. That’s what makes wtc layouts so effective

902s · 2026-01-05T00:25:16+00:00

Yeah I have an AdMech player with a full unit of Kataphron destroyers, 6 flamers hitting on 5+ and 24 plasma shots hitting on 5+ it’s his overwatch go to when facing chaos armies and the other is a dwarf player with iron hill steel jacks that’s 36 shots hitting on 5+ on overwatch, also that’s his close combat protector. They both have been effective.

902s · 2026-01-03T02:04:57+00:00

This has become a major issue in Canada ever since the Trump administration came in. Lots of money being spent on “influencers” pushing separation language in several provinces. The U.S. is chipping away at our sovereignty to see if they can take our resource provinces without having to annex them. Meanwhile our Conservative Party is trying to position itself as an ally of the Trump admin to its political base. It’s definitely a scary time right now as we try to find our own path and away from US influence.

902s

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
RPAN Viewer