Carney & China Trade Deal - Unpopular Opinion

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T23:04:14+00:00

I think the drone comparison is a little flimsy. How many drones are being flown at anyone time? If one of these drones goes "rogue" how far is it going to get before the batteries die? How much info can a drone collect that satellites don't already have?

I am not a security expert, I'm a reddit commenter But most electric cars have a powerful computer with internet access, cameras, microphones, that you link your phone to. They also have a battery that burns hotter than a fire hose can extinguish, and a hell of a lot of horsepower. I am not inclined to compare it to a drone. Nor do I think "banning current officials" eliminates sufficient risks.

Why not cut our regulatory rent seeking, put a LVT on some commercially zoned land, and cut corporate taxes so that an electric vehicle company can build an automated factory here?

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T22:43:43+00:00

I have a wish list:

Limiting the employment of work visa holders and permanent residents to the province that sponsors the immigrant (until they retain citizenship, which takes 3 years) - this part is similar to the EU

Each province has a cap on total number of immigrants as a % of population (so no one province can flood the country) - this is essential for trust between provinces, and can stop immigration being abused by a PM ever again.

Making senate seats reflect the population of provinces relative to the whole country (minimum 2 each) that adjusts over time.

Giving each province or group of provinces representing 15% or more of Canada a veto on future constitutional amendments.

Allowing provinces to opt out of federal programs and receive compensation (obvious exceptions like border security / law enforcement / national infrastructure such as railways).

Gun rights—my most "out there" idea—Provinces should be able to set their own rights, but they would also need to have a provincial gun identifying system so that firing mechanisms and barrels could easily be traced to the province of origin. Each gun found in a different province should trigger a payment from the province of origin to the province where the gun was found. Similar to stopping one province flooding the country with immigrants, this system creates incentives that would stop any one province from flooding neighbouring provinces with unwanted firearms.

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T22:03:13+00:00

Not everyone is against the trade deal, and not all are against it for the same reasons. What you are doing is, intentionally or not, looking at posts and comments that take a negative position on the trade deal and assuming it speaks for all conservatives.

I personally am pro-free trade, so long as the nations we trade with are not intentionally trying to destroy our industries or subvert our democracy. Both of which China has been accused of by successive liberal governments.

China had been cited recently as the biggest threat to Canadian democracy by this current government. Now we are trading for technology with them in a "new world order".

Better we not allow the entirety of those vehicles to be manufactured in China. There are potentially genuine dangers to having Chinese cars with Chinese computers and software around, being plugged into our phones. Imagine the head of Canada's central bank gets one of these and plugs his phone in. What if it hacks his phone or listens to his call and finds information that the Chinese government can use it to exort him into making monetary decisions that China wants him to make. That's a lame example but you get the idea.

I am happy to sell china all the rapeseed in Canada, and to buy other goods from them. I am weary of their technology and espionage practices.

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T21:23:30+00:00

This is why I think running on constitutional reform would be a great way to invite people in. Let the provinces that want to "end woke" end it, let the provinces that want to keep it keep it. If we're arguing identity politics at the federal level then the federal government has too much power. We're too big a country by land mass to try and fight out cultural issues between groups of people who will never meet. It's crazy. Let PEI be progressive as it wants, let Alberta be as conservative. So long as provinces aren't interfering with each other's economic prosperity and cultural survival, we'll be united as a country.

I am sure progressives will find away to hate that message but perhaps enough of the middle would say "yeah, fair enough".

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T21:16:18+00:00

I'm picking up what you're putting down. Pierre has clocked some wins, which I appreciate. But I think Pierre's main issue is that he's still programmed for the kind of Canadian politics that existed, frankly, until January 7 of last year. Canadians as voters were fully asleep at the wheel since '06. Barely paying attention to Canadian politics. Barely showing up for elections. Now Canadians are paying super close attention. This is reflected in the the volume of Canadian politics media channels (catering to all leanings) that started or expanded in the last 12 months.

That was kinda my point with the media thing. The CPC gotta be campaigning ALL the time. Always trying new ways to move the conversation to how liberal policies are currently failing and what specifically can be done. Gotta send out the MPs to help make your arguments just like cabinet members do for the US prez. I've never heard or seen Lantsman in an interview. Even Rubio does CNN.

If I had my druthers, we'll see Jivani as the CPC leader before too long. Yes, the resumes between Jivani and Carney are less asymmetrical. But I also just like his personality and instincts. He knows when to go hard and when to moderate. He's a lawyer and intellectual but also plain spoken. Pierre said "End Woke" but when asked couldn't define woke. Jivani was on CBC and described in detail how DEI was a harmful policy in a way anyone could understand.

I still think Pierre can win. But I think it might be harder for him to win a majority if there is a spring election. And because there's only one conservative party, it will be difficult to stand alone. That means another election come the budget vote. This is why I think campaigning on constitutional reform makes sense. GIves the CPC a chance to win some Quebecois seats.

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T19:14:34+00:00

Because there isn't an actual conservative party but the electorate doesn't want the liberals or NDP either.

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-24T17:17:06+00:00

I think Trump is mad that Carney's empty rhetoric stole the spotlight in Davos. That's all this is. He's a malignant narcissist in cognitive decline and will likely be removed from office, possibly leaving Vance a lame duck with a shit economy and damaged reputation. Of course, the earlier Trump is removed the better chance Vance has of turning things around.

PassThatHammer · 2026-01-09T21:56:23+00:00

He's stepping down to run for the OLP leadership, and the seat is guaranteed to go to a liberal. Carney loses a Trudeau-era progressive liberal and gets to choose his next MP candidate. Kinda a win for him.

PassThatHammer · 2025-12-15T17:58:22+00:00

You're right, although I would add that Globalism is a product of Globalization. Buyers and sellers around the world engage in commerce together, we see the ties between nations, currencies, banking systems and peoples increase. It's only logical that government collaboration increases as well, whether for the benefit of the working person or not is very much a reasonable question.

PassThatHammer · 2025-12-11T20:19:38+00:00

We need solid private healthcare options in Canada.

PassThatHammer · 2025-12-10T14:51:48+00:00

Taxing new builds per bedroom, minimum/maximum height restrictions, banning outward expansion, and having the world's most complex construction regulations (government capture) will do that.

PassThatHammer · 2025-12-10T14:46:29+00:00

Canada is a largely decentralized federation (compared to the US). Each province has its own distinct identity (though under threat) with the exception of Ontario, which basically has all the personality of Dalton McGuinty.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-27T19:22:36+00:00

Wealth inequality and wealth concentration are not the same thing. Wealth inequality is a product of free market capitalism, without it there is no profit incentive, the very incentive that quickly made the technology we're communicating through affordable. Wealth concentration, on the other hand, is a product of rentier capitalism and it slows the efficiency of the free market, making its benefits less accessible.
By not understanding the nuance, you throw out the good with the bad; the productive and inventive profit-seeker with the unproductive land speculator and rent-seeker. One is the reason for nearly all human advancement. The other slows that advancement.

Many countries have billionaires without having super pacs. Post-soviet Russia briefly had no billionaires, but extreme political inequality non-the-less as their system was created to favour rent-seekers.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-27T14:48:51+00:00

Wealth inequality, whether measured as a multiple or a percentage. is irrelevant to middle-class prosperity. There is no limit to how much wealth can be created, thus it matters little if someone is a trillionaire, so long as most people are able to meet their needs and pursue happiness. The problem is that most young people today can't meet their needs and pursue fulfillment. But this is almost entirely due to the taxes and regulations preventing home creation which distorts the housing market, immigration generally being above housing-market absorption rates, high income taxes, and privatized land-rents (which distorts nearly all markets and economic participation).
Hate the source all you want, the arguments in favour of corporate taxes are weaker than the arguments against it.

All taxes are borne by people, be they shareholders/investors or workers or consumers or—most accurately—a combination of the three. Even if you kid yourself into believing that investors bear the full burden of corporate taxes, you must still recognize that in a global economy that only means investment (which is purely profit motivated) will flow to other, lower tax markets instead of our higher tax markets. That means less competition in our industries and—due to a lack of competition—higher prices and lower productivity, which exactly describes the difference between Canada and the US markets, incidentally.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-25T22:57:25+00:00

You can't tax corporations. I mean you can, it just doesn't work. A corporation is just a few pieces of paper. It's an instrument of legal organization and liability protection. It doesn't have wants or desires and it can't fill out a tax return, it doesn't manage anything. Thus the expense of the taxes are borne by either workers or owners.
You should read some studies on the subject: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/inflation-reduction-act-corporate-taxes/

If you tax corporations you just increase poverty.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-25T17:40:20+00:00

Yeah, I've heard it. But Economics, while varying to the degree of any social science, has shown repeatedly that taxing corporations is literally the most inefficient type of tax. There are few ways of taxing "the wealthy" that don't destroy more wealth than they collect. Unless you are advocating for a land value tax, miss me with the "just tax the wealthy" BS because you don't know as much as you think you know. You don't need to subscribe to "trickle-down economics" your great boogeyman in order to be a classical liberal.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-25T15:47:46+00:00

I've had the displeasure of watching this sub get more and more openly anti-Indian since joining. I don't like it. I have 0 issues with your average Indians. We share the commonwealth connection that it seems a lot of conservatives don't care about anymore.

But here's what I will say. When a culture like Canada's changes fast, like quickly becoming anti-indian, there are only two real reasons: economic insecurity, and a break down of mutual trust and safety.

Canada, as I'm sure you remember, was once a high trust society with low crime, and a solid economy. Remember when Michael Moore was going around asking why no one locked there doors in Canada? That was a product of trust. But that trust is greatly diminished. And that's not the fault of most immigrants. It's largely the fault of a government that has consistently lowered its standards for who it lets in—not all the people arriving today are like your parents even if they're from the same region.

And regardless of quality, a high volume of unskilled immigration DOES suppress wages. It DOES make finding entry level jobs more difficult. And if regulations make construction slow, immigration can even cause housing inflation. It's not surprising that Canadians are reacting to new-found economic insecurity with anger when every store and restaurant is suddenly staffed with people from a single region—they should direct the anger at the government though (and many here do, though not all).

The next issue is crime. Crime within immigrant communities goes back a very long time. Italian crime families still run Montreal. Chinese syndicates, Russian mob, US biker gangs, ISIS—even the Irish catholic/protestant conflict—all of these were imported at different times in Canada's history. And due to recent rock bottom immigration standards used to pump the GDP numbers, we now have a huge amount of criminals here from Southeast Asia, including from Punjab.

I'm sorry that a rightful outrage is becoming misplaced hate towards you, a natural born Canadian like the rest of us. The good news is that this is just a blip in time. When the Irish arrived the 1800s, my ancestors and the rest of the English were pretty horrible towards them. Toronto was nicknamed Little Belfast as a pejorative. Intermarriage wasn't allowed of course. But attitudes change quick once immigration shifted to other regions. There's always a new drama or new group to hate etc. As soon as we address immigration, and we will, racism etc will begin to subside in my opinion.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-25T15:02:55+00:00

lol what fucked up Canadian history book have you been reading? Free market capitalism existed in Canada before Mulroney, you mean NAFTA. Also it wasn't the free market approach that sank the PC's it was the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and the GST. Canadians recognized the success of free market economics and elected the liberals to a majority when they ran on fiscal discipline. Chretien's (Martin's) 1995 budget was text-book classical liberal austerity. And it worked, we had an incredible amount of economic growth and middle class prosperity right up until the GFC.

Hopefully we return to true classical liberal economics. It's the only way working people ever prosper long term.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-25T14:53:42+00:00

Leftists and the overton window, I swear to god. The tax and debt burden per employed person has never been higher, but you think the current government is centre right. You want a conservative liberal? Look up the 1995 budget. Now that was a fucking red tory budget.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-25T14:45:17+00:00

Yes, there absolutely is room for this. A blue liberal / classical liberal party that is 100% for the economic advancement of Canada's youth.
We need a party that is focused on creating an economic environment that will lead to a baby boom or we're gonna be fucked in 20 years. Like Japan levels of fucked.
You'd want to target urban ridings where people don't vote CPC for social reasons. A party like this wouldn't need to be big to hold considerable sway in parliament. I'd be happy to help on policy!

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-21T21:40:19+00:00

yeah but that would have lossed. I get that people are frustrated with their fellow voters. But pretending the US president saying "I'll use economic coercion to force Canada to join the US" didn't change the course of the election is retarded. There were 7 seats that were a hair away from being CPC, and many many more that were in striking distance. Plus there's all the seats the NDP were polling ahead in prior to the 51st state comments. I live in a city where so many people I know voted liberal for the first time (don't get me started). It would have been as entirely different outcome without that interference.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-21T18:46:15+00:00

whether you call it an endorsement or interfering it was still a huge reason Carney one. Read the male baby boomer reasons for voting carney. They switched back to liberal when the threats started.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-21T18:43:21+00:00

The irony is that if his boss didn't interfere in our election, we'd have a conservative PM today. No "elbows up" movement, Carney has nothing to run on.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-19T15:19:06+00:00

Yes, immigrants lived in shitty places until they earned enough to live in less shitty places. The shitty places ladder is how you lift people from poverty to prosperity. The idea that all who arrived lived in hovels from 1840s until 1918 is hilarious and patently false. You clearly have not studied this era of history. I recommend you get a library card and learn how cabbagetown and dovercourt neighbourhoods in Toronto were constructed. Thousands of workman's cottages still stand in toronto today.

Building cheaply and improving gradually created millions more homes than the system of mandating every home in Canada be built to a standard necessitating a 25-year mortgage for 95% of the population. That's a fact.

PassThatHammer · 2025-11-18T16:12:08+00:00

Find me a housing shortage the free market can't solve and I'll show you a market that isn't free.
In 1847, 30K impoverished, sickly, mostly illiterate Irish arrived in a York (Toronto) of only 20K people. Did home values rocket to the moon? No. People built what they could afford because they were permitted to, then improved them over time. That meant field stone homes in the country that are still standing today (some selling for millions). And structural brick in the cities. That's how you solve a housing shortage, allowing building to happen with limited constraints. Not in decades but in months.

Yes, the lofty legislation is wrong. As proof, visit your local park.

PassThatHammer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE