Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

[55+]

North Shore you might as well nuke this one too.

Conventional wisdom would make one ponder that it must be a slow news cycle that would get the AVCanada media correspondents to resurrect a thread that was what… initiated four and a half years ago especially when the topic in question falls a tad short of aviation. However I digress.

That is how the zero-credibility arguments work. They can't come up with a reasonable argument, so all they can do is point at the age of the thread.

Meanwhile, my resurrection of the thread was simply because time allowed for proof of how wrong they were.

Naw, I wasn’t making an “ argument “, just couldn’t be bothered tethering myself to a debate. You do just fine in that prospective of debate/arguments, you do you so to speak. You certainly spend quite a bit of time on AVCanada - your prerogative of course.

[CpnCrunch]

"with regret". Basically means the war is a dumb clusterfuck, but we have to be seen supporting the US (at least with words).

Hahahaha. First they lie and say that Carney did not support the war. Then when exposed, they come up with desperate excuses for why he supported the war.

Nobody other than Trump really supports this dumb war.

[pelmet]

"with regret". Basically means the war is a dumb clusterfuck, but we have to be seen supporting the US (at least with words).

Hahahaha. First they lie and say that Carney did not support the war. Then when exposed, they come up with desperate excuses for why he supported the war.

Nobody other than Trump really supports this dumb war.

Our PM has made his statement.

[CpnCrunch]

Our PM has made his statement.

Which you seem to have misinterpreted.

[pelmet]

Our PM has made his statement.

Which you seem to have misinterpreted.

I don't believe so, but I guess we will have to disagree. And I am not setting any different political standard than the other parties and their supporters apply in their criticism.

[BigQ]

"with regret". Basically means the war is a dumb clusterfuck, but we have to be seen supporting the US (at least with words).

Hahahaha. First they lie and say that Carney did not support the war. Then when exposed, they come up with desperate excuses for why he supported the war.

Nobody other than Trump really supports this dumb war.

Nobody except the Zionist [Redacted] support this war.
Because this war is exactly what the [Redacted] need for the creation of Greater [Redacted].
Carney is probably supporting this war because he needs inflation and his Masters at the City of [Redacted] are making massive bank on commodities.

[pelmet]

Just speaking to dairy prices, my wife had a recipe requiring two cups of heavy sour cream, we went to the store to get all the ingredients and when she went to make it we realized the BS these companies are pulling on their customers!
Exact same size container but less content, it was a 500ml container with 425ml in it, obviously we should have looked but for Christmas sake this shrinkflation has gone out of control. We even had another container in the fridge of the same brand that was not full, why we needed more but it was 450ml, so shrunk further since the last one, which btw was still before the best before date!
So, dairy farmers in Canada can kiss my ass, bring on the competition!

An interesting little tidbit of why the ten thousand farmers are willing to destroy our aerospace, forestry and auto industries....

"What started as a free permit turned into serious wealth. The total value of all supply management quotas reached nearly $50 billion in 2024, according to Statistics Canada. These were handed out at no cost when the system began decades ago. Today they act like valuable financial assets that get passed down through families."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/general ... J#image=11

[lostav8r]

Just speaking to dairy prices, my wife had a recipe requiring two cups of heavy sour cream, we went to the store to get all the ingredients and when she went to make it we realized the BS these companies are pulling on their customers!
Exact same size container but less content, it was a 500ml container with 425ml in it, obviously we should have looked but for Christmas sake this shrinkflation has gone out of control. We even had another container in the fridge of the same brand that was not full, why we needed more but it was 450ml, so shrunk further since the last one, which btw was still before the best before date!
So, dairy farmers in Canada can kiss my ass, bring on the competition!

An interesting little tidbit of why the ten thousand farmers are willing to destroy our aerospace, forestry and auto industries....

"What started as a free permit turned into serious wealth. The total value of all supply management quotas reached nearly $50 billion in 2024, according to Statistics Canada. These were handed out at no cost when the system began decades ago. Today they act like valuable financial assets that get passed down through families."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/general ... J#image=11

Are you trying to imply giving up supply management is the stumbling block when it comes to trade with the US?

Let me remind you of a few factors, 1. TRUMP HIMSELF signed Cusma! All the tariffs (most of which we've never actually imported enough to end up paying) were agreed by both party's a decade ago!



2. He said no exceptions no extensions to blanket tariffs last year, then extended them several times.

3. Despite the US being the richest country (The United States is the largest consumer market in the world, accounting for roughly 30% of global consumer spending) he expects a trade surplus which financially makes no sense. But the ONE COUNTRY THAT BOUGHT MORE FROM THE US (Australia) still got blanket tariffs applied.

This is not an honest man!

[pelmet]

Just speaking to dairy prices, my wife had a recipe requiring two cups of heavy sour cream, we went to the store to get all the ingredients and when she went to make it we realized the BS these companies are pulling on their customers!
Exact same size container but less content, it was a 500ml container with 425ml in it, obviously we should have looked but for Christmas sake this shrinkflation has gone out of control. We even had another container in the fridge of the same brand that was not full, why we needed more but it was 450ml, so shrunk further since the last one, which btw was still before the best before date!
So, dairy farmers in Canada can kiss my ass, bring on the competition!

An interesting little tidbit of why the ten thousand farmers are willing to destroy our aerospace, forestry and auto industries....

"What started as a free permit turned into serious wealth. The total value of all supply management quotas reached nearly $50 billion in 2024, according to Statistics Canada. These were handed out at no cost when the system began decades ago. Today they act like valuable financial assets that get passed down through families."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/general ... J#image=11

Are you trying to imply giving up supply management is the stumbling block when it comes to trade with the US?

Let me remind you of a few factors, 1. TRUMP HIMSELF signed Cusma! All the tariffs (most of which we've never actually imported enough to end up paying) were agreed by both party's a decade ago!



2. He said no exceptions no extensions to blanket tariffs last year, then extended them several times.

3. Despite the US being the richest country (The United States is the largest consumer market in the world, accounting for roughly 30% of global consumer spending) he expects a trade surplus which financially makes no sense. But the ONE COUNTRY THAT BOUGHT MORE FROM THE US (Australia) still got blanket tariffs applied.

This is not an honest man!

Actually, it turns out that Canada did not live up to the spirit of the CUSMA agreement. It signed a deal to increase the amount of tariff-free dairy imports and then set the system up intentionally so that the US could not actually do so. This was detailed in in a recent Globe and Mail article. And just to show you how bad the whole cartel thing is, we the Canadian taxpayers paid the greedy dairy farmers 1.2 billion for lost money to increased American imports that never happened because of the tactics intentionally used by Canada to stop that agreed-to increase. No wonder those farmers are living it high off the backs of Canadians struggling to make ends meet. And now the farmers and their foolish supporters are helping to destroy our industries so they can keep screwing over Canadians through higher prices and unwarranted subsidies.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... ry-quotas/

• The U.S. is right to be sour over dairy quotas

The Editorial Board
Published August 14, 2026

In November, 2018, U.S. trade officials walked out of trade negotiations with what they thought was a substantive victory. Ottawa had seemingly given ground on one of its most sacred files: Supply management for the dairy sector.

For half a century, the supply of Canadian dairy has been restricted to buoy farm incomes by keeping prices artificially high. As part of that system, any imports entering the country without a special license are subject to levies that can surpass 200 per cent.

Seven years ago, American negotiators had convinced Canada to issue more of these rare import licences, granting the U.S. dairy industry access to around 3.5 per cent of the domestic market. Ottawa paid out $1.2-billion over six years to dairy farmers to make up for any potential losses.

But Canadian farmers did not lose all of this market to southern competitors, and U.S. exporters did not get the access they had been promised. Regardless of intent, Canada pulled what amounted to a bait and switch. Ottawa honoured the deal with respect to the volume of dairy that could cross the border tariff-free, but by restricting who had access to the licences, demand was artificially suppressed.

The lion’s share of tariff-free import licences for dairy go to major Canadian processors. Distributors get a small amount, and retailers – the most likely to import products that consumers could purchase – receive none.

The end result: The U.S. dairy industry has consistently been unable to export the volume of dairy it was promised in 2018. In 2024, only 30 per cent of the total tariff-free import quota was used.

U.S. dairy exporters argue that this is because the entity with the most licences – processors – do not use their power. Why would they import competitive U.S. product? And the dairy they do import is typically the type used as ingredients. For example, in 2025, three types of cheese – cheddar, grated or powdered cheese, and mozzarella – accounted for 72 per cent of the tariff-free imports under the cheese category.

Washington has launched two disputes under the USMCA concerning this matter. Canada has made minor changes, but has thus far managed to avoid granting retailers access to the licences. This is because in strict lawyerly technicalities, Ottawa is abiding by the terms of USMCA. They never promised to allocate license to retailers.

But simply because something is legally defensible does not mean it honours the spirit of an agreement, and this bad faith action has only served to give the Trump administration pretext for more tariffs. In July, the White House used these “discriminatory practices” to justify 50-per-cent tariffs on US$97-million worth of Canadian exports.

Altering how dairy quotas are allocated is one of 10 key demands that U.S. negotiators are pressing, sources have told The Globe and Mail. Some of those demands are questionable, but the U.S. does have a point on the allocation of dairy quotas agreed upon in 2018.

The federal government should be under no illusion that that acceding to the dairy quota demand will earn lasting grace from the Trump administration. The President will undoubtedly find some other pretext to justify his trade wars.

Canada should concede the issue, but not as a favour or in a bid to somehow win goodwill with the Trump administration. If Ottawa wants to make the point (as it should), that trade treaties should be binding, then it should act accordingly. In doing so, the federal government will strengthen its position with political players outside of the White House, particularly the U.S. business community.

There is also the fact that the Canadian taxpayer has already paid the bill for this deal. A few thousand dairy farmers across the country have received a flat sum of cash every year for six years to compensate them for losses that have been forestalled, in part. It’s time for Ottawa to step aside.

Reforming import-licence rules would be a small (and overdue) step toward increasing competition in the dairy market. It’s understandable why the Dairy Farmers of Canada would worry about such a change: The cartel system of supply management is the antithesis of a free market. This space continues to believe that supply management should be scrapped.

But the notion that fully implementing the incremental changes of 2018 heralds the collapse of supply management is simply fearmongering. Canada should fulfill its promise.




It is a simple matter of now going to the US(before the mid-terms) and offer to end the dairy cartel and give Trump a win to campaign on, which also benefits Canadians. Trump is in a desperate mid-term situation. A competent negotiator for Canada would take advantage of it now. And based on history, Trump will likely lose out anyways in the election(although there have been some electoral changes).

If he turns it down, I can support the fight but there is no way protecting the cartel that screws over Canadians at the expense of out other industries is something I can support. But the fools seem determined to fight for their own hostage takers.

Now is our chance to give him a win, for removing the tariffs that give us a huge trade advantage over other countries. We have already benefitted from Trump by having a significant percentage of the population that was foolish enough to vote for Trudeau, change their minds and support Canada's return to oil and gas development. Plus there has been a significant change to internal trade barriers. All thanks to meaningless 51st state rhetoric. Thanks Trump, I appreciate the help in moving us towards Harper's(and Poilievre's and Pelmet's) vision of an energy superpower.

[EPR]

You nailed it Pelmet, and with several years ago foresight! Fortunately, I remained in a "essential service" position, and am thankful with my decision!

[pelmet]

This was in today's news and gives some technical detail which can add to the Globe and Mail story...

"The Dairy Trigger Is an Older Quota-Allocation Rule
The dairy dispute is even more clearly tied to rules that existed before September. Canada administers tariff-rate quotas, or TRQs, that allow specified amounts of dairy products to enter at lower tariff rates. Under Canada's CUSMA cheese quota-allocation policy, retailers are not eligible to receive quota allocations directly; allocations are instead divided among eligible processors and distributors. Under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, however, retailers can participate in the cheese quota system. Washington has focused heavily on that difference, arguing that U.S. exporters are treated less favourably than European suppliers in access to Canadian retail channels.

Crucially, Global Affairs Canada said in May 2026 that there were “no changes” to the existing ministerial allocation policies for the 2026-27 dairy year under both the WTO and CUSMA. That makes the current U.S. complaint a challenge to an established allocation structure, rather than a response to a brand-new September dairy rule. The scale of the quotas also provides context: Canada's published access quantities include about 6.313 million kilograms for all cheeses under CUSMA and 16 million kilograms under CETA. Canadian CETA quota-holder records show familiar retailers among eligible participants, illustrating the structural difference Washington has highlighted.

Dairy Access Has Already Been Through Two CUSMA Disputes
The current fight also comes with an important legal history. In the first CUSMA dairy dispute, a panel found that Canada violated the agreement by reserving most of the in-quota amounts within several dairy TRQs for processors. The United States announced the decision in early 2022 as a significant victory and Canada subsequently revised its allocation system. That earlier ruling is sometimes folded into discussion of today's dispute, but the Canadian rules did not remain frozen in their original form after that decision. Changes were made, which produced another round of litigation between the two countries.

The second panel reached a different result in 2023. Two of the three panelists concluded that Canada's revised measures did not violate the CUSMA provisions challenged by the United States, while one panelist dissented on part of the eligibility issue. U.S. officials openly expressed disappointment with the decision. That history matters because the 2026 Section 338 action should not be described as a new CUSMA panel finding that Canada is currently violating the trade agreement. The White House is instead using U.S. domestic trade law to characterize the retailer-eligibility difference and related policies as discriminatory for purposes of Section 338."

[lostav8r]

An interesting little tidbit of why the ten thousand farmers are willing to destroy our aerospace, forestry and auto industries....

"What started as a free permit turned into serious wealth. The total value of all supply management quotas reached nearly $50 billion in 2024, according to Statistics Canada. These were handed out at no cost when the system began decades ago. Today they act like valuable financial assets that get passed down through families."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/general ... J#image=11

Are you trying to imply giving up supply management is the stumbling block when it comes to trade with the US?

Let me remind you of a few factors, 1. TRUMP HIMSELF signed Cusma! All the tariffs (most of which we've never actually imported enough to end up paying) were agreed by both party's a decade ago!



2. He said no exceptions no extensions to blanket tariffs last year, then extended them several times.

3. Despite the US being the richest country (The United States is the largest consumer market in the world, accounting for roughly 30% of global consumer spending) he expects a trade surplus which financially makes no sense. But the ONE COUNTRY THAT BOUGHT MORE FROM THE US (Australia) still got blanket tariffs applied.

This is not an honest man!

Actually, it turns out that Canada did not live up to the spirit of the CUSMA agreement. It signed a deal to increase the amount of tariff-free dairy imports and then set the system up intentionally so that the US could not actually do so. This was detailed in in a recent Globe and Mail article. And just to show you how bad the whole cartel thing is, we the Canadian taxpayers paid the greedy dairy farmers 1.2 billion for lost money to increased American imports that never happened because of the tactics intentionally used by Canada to stop that agreed-to increase. No wonder those farmers are living it high off the backs of Canadians struggling to make ends meet. And now the farmers and their foolish supporters are helping to destroy our industries so they can keep screwing over Canadians through higher prices and unwarranted subsidies.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... ry-quotas/

• The U.S. is right to be sour over dairy quotas

The Editorial Board
Published August 14, 2026

In November, 2018, U.S. trade officials walked out of trade negotiations with what they thought was a substantive victory. Ottawa had seemingly given ground on one of its most sacred files: Supply management for the dairy sector.

For half a century, the supply of Canadian dairy has been restricted to buoy farm incomes by keeping prices artificially high. As part of that system, any imports entering the country without a special license are subject to levies that can surpass 200 per cent.

Seven years ago, American negotiators had convinced Canada to issue more of these rare import licences, granting the U.S. dairy industry access to around 3.5 per cent of the domestic market. Ottawa paid out $1.2-billion over six years to dairy farmers to make up for any potential losses.

But Canadian farmers did not lose all of this market to southern competitors, and U.S. exporters did not get the access they had been promised. Regardless of intent, Canada pulled what amounted to a bait and switch. Ottawa honoured the deal with respect to the volume of dairy that could cross the border tariff-free, but by restricting who had access to the licences, demand was artificially suppressed.

The lion’s share of tariff-free import licences for dairy go to major Canadian processors. Distributors get a small amount, and retailers – the most likely to import products that consumers could purchase – receive none.

The end result: The U.S. dairy industry has consistently been unable to export the volume of dairy it was promised in 2018. In 2024, only 30 per cent of the total tariff-free import quota was used.

U.S. dairy exporters argue that this is because the entity with the most licences – processors – do not use their power. Why would they import competitive U.S. product? And the dairy they do import is typically the type used as ingredients. For example, in 2025, three types of cheese – cheddar, grated or powdered cheese, and mozzarella – accounted for 72 per cent of the tariff-free imports under the cheese category.

Washington has launched two disputes under the USMCA concerning this matter. Canada has made minor changes, but has thus far managed to avoid granting retailers access to the licences. This is because in strict lawyerly technicalities, Ottawa is abiding by the terms of USMCA. They never promised to allocate license to retailers.

But simply because something is legally defensible does not mean it honours the spirit of an agreement, and this bad faith action has only served to give the Trump administration pretext for more tariffs. In July, the White House used these “discriminatory practices” to justify 50-per-cent tariffs on US$97-million worth of Canadian exports.

Altering how dairy quotas are allocated is one of 10 key demands that U.S. negotiators are pressing, sources have told The Globe and Mail. Some of those demands are questionable, but the U.S. does have a point on the allocation of dairy quotas agreed upon in 2018.

The federal government should be under no illusion that that acceding to the dairy quota demand will earn lasting grace from the Trump administration. The President will undoubtedly find some other pretext to justify his trade wars.

Canada should concede the issue, but not as a favour or in a bid to somehow win goodwill with the Trump administration. If Ottawa wants to make the point (as it should), that trade treaties should be binding, then it should act accordingly. In doing so, the federal government will strengthen its position with political players outside of the White House, particularly the U.S. business community.

There is also the fact that the Canadian taxpayer has already paid the bill for this deal. A few thousand dairy farmers across the country have received a flat sum of cash every year for six years to compensate them for losses that have been forestalled, in part. It’s time for Ottawa to step aside.

Reforming import-licence rules would be a small (and overdue) step toward increasing competition in the dairy market. It’s understandable why the Dairy Farmers of Canada would worry about such a change: The cartel system of supply management is the antithesis of a free market. This space continues to believe that supply management should be scrapped.

But the notion that fully implementing the incremental changes of 2018 heralds the collapse of supply management is simply fearmongering. Canada should fulfill its promise.




It is a simple matter of now going to the US(before the mid-terms) and offer to end the dairy cartel and give Trump a win to campaign on, which also benefits Canadians. Trump is in a desperate mid-term situation. A competent negotiator for Canada would take advantage of it now. And based on history, Trump will likely lose out anyways in the election(although there have been some electoral changes).

If he turns it down, I can support the fight but there is no way protecting the cartel that screws over Canadians at the expense of out other industries is something I can support. But the fools seem determined to fight for their own hostage takers.

Now is our chance to give him a win, for removing the tariffs that give us a huge trade advantage over other countries. We have already benefitted from Trump by having a significant percentage of the population that was foolish enough to vote for Trudeau, change their minds and support Canada's return to oil and gas development. Plus there has been a significant change to internal trade barriers. All thanks to meaningless 51st state rhetoric. Thanks Trump, I appreciate the help in moving us towards Harper's(and Poilievre's and Pelmet's) vision of an energy superpower.

Thank you for providing a source, there are two lenses you can look at this with IMO!

1. The US LOVES to pay games with our agreements, how many years have we had disputes over softwood lumber, remember the 300% Tariff threated on the CS series that led us to selling the program for $1 to Airbus? In that context what good will is there to gain?

2. Trump has basically lied about every ask he's made, The US is responsible for 30% of world wide consumer spending but has well under 10% of the population, they had the INSANE ask that every country buy more from them than they sell to the US (mathematically impossible)

One of the few counties that did buy more was Australia, but they had health regulations for their imports, and so the US gave them a 12.5% tariff!

You can do exactly what he says, and he will find another reason to screw you over. Anything we give up now, we're effectively giving up forever because more reasonable future administrations have no reason to let us undo it!

[pelmet]

Thank you for providing a source, there are two lenses you can look at this with IMO!

1. The US LOVES to pay games with our agreements, how many years have we had disputes over softwood lumber, remember the 300% Tariff threated on the CS series that led us to selling the program for $1 to Airbus? In that context what good will is there to gain?

2. Trump has basically lied about every ask he's made, The US is responsible for 30% of world wide consumer spending but has well under 10% of the population, they had the INSANE ask that every country buy more from them than they sell to the US (mathematically impossible)

One of the few counties that did buy more was Australia, but they had health regulations for their imports, and so the US gave them a 12.5% tariff!

You can do exactly what he says, and he will find another reason to screw you over. Anything we give up now, we're effectively giving up forever because more reasonable future administrations have no reason to let us undo it!

Classic fraud response. You accuse Trump of lying(which like all politicians, he has done) but when I show you what happened from Canada(screwing over the US and Canadians in the last negotiated agreement) you brush it away.

The US may very well be willing at this critical election time to agree to a deal which could benefit Canadians with regard to dairy products and saves our other industries and gives not much more but provides huge advantage over other nations who agreed to tariffs.

The real reason you are unwilling to at least the waters of simply going to the US and offering serious change to the dairy supply management system is that you are either willing to support the cartel at the expense of other industries(and sacrifice tens of thousands of good jobs and people's homes) or your derangement makes you willing to create the same sacrifice for others(but guaranteed not yourself).

All we need to do is publicly offer this(and perhaps a few other crumbs) at a time that he may actually accept it, and if he doesn't accept it, THEN you can honestly say that we tried to be reasonable and he was not.

I have never seen such a large number of self-sabotaging. Willing to protect their own economic hostage takers.

Meanwhile, the amount of money that could have been pouring into this country right now if we had continued Harper's energy policies(but was squandered) must be mind-boggling.

You are the living proof of how foolish so many Canadians are. With your 40% pay cut(and probably few options in your chosen field right now) and zero opportunity for the second career you dream of, squandered by bad economic policies you voted for, you support more self-sabotaging behaviour.

[lostav8r]

Thank you for providing a source, there are two lenses you can look at this with IMO!

1. The US LOVES to pay games with our agreements, how many years have we had disputes over softwood lumber, remember the 300% Tariff threated on the CS series that led us to selling the program for $1 to Airbus? In that context what good will is there to gain?

2. Trump has basically lied about every ask he's made, The US is responsible for 30% of world wide consumer spending but has well under 10% of the population, they had the INSANE ask that every country buy more from them than they sell to the US (mathematically impossible)

One of the few counties that did buy more was Australia, but they had health regulations for their imports, and so the US gave them a 12.5% tariff!

You can do exactly what he says, and he will find another reason to screw you over. Anything we give up now, we're effectively giving up forever because more reasonable future administrations have no reason to let us undo it!

Classic fraud response. You accuse Trump of lying(which like all politicians, he has done) but when I show you what happened from Canada(screwing over the US and Canadians in the last negotiated agreement) you brush it away.

The US may very well be willing at this critical election time to agree to a deal which could benefit Canadians with regard to dairy products and saves our other industries and gives not much more but provides huge advantage over other nations who agreed to tariffs.

The real reason you are unwilling to at least the waters of simply going to the US and offering serious change to the dairy supply management system is that you are either willing to support the cartel at the expense of other industries(and sacrifice tens of thousands of good jobs and people's homes) or your derangement makes you willing to create the same sacrifice for others(but guaranteed not yourself).

All we need to do is publicly offer this(and perhaps a few other crumbs) at a time that he may actually accept it, and if he doesn't accept it, THEN you can honestly say that we tried to be reasonable and he was not.

I have never seen such a large number of self-sabotaging. Willing to protect their own economic hostage takers.

Meanwhile, the amount of money that could have been pouring into this country right now if we had continued Harper's energy policies(but was squandered) must be mind-boggling.

You are the living proof of how foolish so many Canadians are. With your 40% pay cut(and probably few options in your chosen field right now) and zero opportunity for the second career you dream of, squandered by bad economic policies you voted for, you support more self-sabotaging behaviour.

For someone who says "fraud argument" a lot you should lookup what a strawman is.

A strawman (or straw man) is a logical error where someone changes or exaggerates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack

Saying "All politicians lie" is a strawman argument. Few lie as much as Trump has! Trump himself said Cusma was the fairest deal ever and a decade later he said what idiot signed this lmfao.

I'm not brushing anything away, I'm saying he is a serial liar, leagues ahead of everything else. And in THIS ROUND of negotiation, he's made tons of promises to countries he has not kept. If you think all politicians lie, why do you think he's telling the truth when it comes to Dairy?

"if he doesn't accept it, THEN you can honestly say that we tried to be reasonable and he was not.

"

We're 2 years past that point. 90%+ of gun crimes in Canada are committed with Firearms from the US diaper don ignores this point and started this whole tariff war originally because apparently Canada sends in 100% of all the fentynal in the US, and Mexico isn't even worth mentioning. He's the king of "fraud arguments" So why trust him? We've already made concessions to his made up demands and he hasn't given us an inch!

We stepped up border patrols, and he totally ignored all this because we were stupid and trusted his word!

Pelmet why bring my personal situation into this? I was vulnerable and shared some issues in my life and like the wonderful person you are, you try and turn this around to attack me lmao! I'll put the ball in your court and ask realistically, what would the cons have done differently? Are you going to talk about some magical pipeline that Quebec wouldn't oppose?

Trump does not believe in a mutually beneficial deal, so what would the cons have got for us that hundreds of other countries have not

[pelmet]

Saying "All politicians lie" is a strawman argument.

Once again, typica fraud arguments. It started off with Trump lies. Then when I point out that almost all politicians lie, to show that your argument is not credible, you change the goal posts to something different. Now the argument is that he lies more than most politicians.

For someone who says "fraud argument" a lot you should lookup what a strawman is.

A strawman (or straw man) is a logical error where someone changes or exaggerates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack

Meanwhile, you are changing your own argument, each time it gets shot down as not credible. "He lies"...."They all lie"...."Well, he lies more". Give us a break.

If you think all politicians lie, why do you think he's telling the truth when it comes to Dairy?

He said that Canada is ripping the US off when it comes to dairy. The Globe and Mail article I posted above gives the details of how it is being done.

[pelmet]

I'll put the ball in your court and ask realistically, what would the cons have done differently?

What Harper and the Conservatives would have done differently was to continue on the same general economic p[ath that they had us on in 2015. You can read what your vote did below.....

There is no great mystery behind why some nations are wealthy and others are not. The policy mix varies very little and is well understood. Countries with lower, neutral tax systems, minimal regulations, the rule of law and openness to international trade and foreign investment are wealthier than countries with higher taxes, more complicated regulations, and which are closed off to the world. Economies are the sum of the countless decisions made by people on what to buy or sell, where to invest, or where to work.

In Canada the last 10 years, the Liberal party, particularly when led by Justin Trudeau, reasoned that its judgment was not just better, but far superior, than the market’s judgment, by which we mean the countless decisions made by people every minute of every day. The damage done to Canada’s economy has never been clearer.

An RBC report released Tuesday confirmed that new investment in Canada has completely collapsed during the Liberals’ tenure in power. “Between 2015 and 2024, more than $1 trillion of investment exited Canada — the largest capital exodus in Canadian history,” the report says. “For every dollar of inward FDI, two dollars exited.” Partly as a result, GDP per capita growth, the best indicator we have of standard of living, has been less than one per cent the last decade, by far the lowest of any period since the Great Depression.

The reason for this, the same reason why another $1 trillion in corporate capital is sitting idle, is what the RBC report terms “burdensome regulatory, permitting and project delivery barriers.” In other words, the Liberals introduced regulations on top of regulations and endless processes, in the name of fighting climate change, thus choking off investment.

The clearest examples are the introduction of the Impact Assessment Act, the government’s cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, the carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations, and the constant atmosphere of uncertainty as Liberals kept promising new regulations, such as the emissions cap on the oilsands. If you want to achieve an environmental objective, the options are regulation or taxation. The Liberals opted for both, which was incoherent overkill, even from the perspective of centre-left environmentalism.

Some 10-20 years ago, Canada was teeming with proposals to build pipelines in every which direction, LNG terminals and oilsands mines. There was also tremendous investor enthusiasm in Ontario’s Ring of Fire mineral deposits. And then the Liberals came along and subjected everything to multiple reviews.

When for instance, the private owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion pulled out, the Liberals did not take that as evidence that project reviews needed to be streamlined. They took it as evidence they needed to buy the pipeline, expending taxpayer dollars that would have never been spent if Canada had a functioning infrastructure assessment regime. By 2020, in all, about $150 billion in energy projects were cancelled or delayed.

Similarly, the Liberals were dismissive of the Ring of Fire because of the peat moss in the area. Former environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson complained in 2023: “I actually bemoan the fact that everybody goes right to Ring of Fire.” After the project was subjected to a regional assessment by Wilkinson, his successor Steven Guilbeault launched another review, further duplicating processes already completed by the Ontario government.

The RBC report makes some useful suggestions around corporate tax reform and streamlining foreign investment approvals. But it is clearly a document written to appeal to the central planner currently in the prime minister’s office, Mark Carney. RBC devotes much of its recommendations to how the government itself should invest, encourage private investment or otherwise leverage “state capital.”

It even includes lines like this, which could have been written by Carney himself: “State capital could be deployed at scale, not to replace private capital but to catalyze it.” The recommendations are thus best left ignored because they do not properly address the severe capital shortage that the report so astutely observed, and the reasons behind that shortage.

Canadians are poorer than they otherwise would have been had the Liberals permitted business proposals to advance normally. These were choices made by Trudeau and his cabinet, choices driven by the belief that they were smarter and more wise than all Canadians put together. It is a mistake that will hold this country back for years.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carson ... 1-trillion

I see that you are one of the victims of a lot less opportunities out there. Interesting that your reaction is "LMAO". I really don't think I am having a discussion with a fully rational person.

[pelmet]

Trump does not believe in a mutually beneficial deal, so what would the cons have got for us that hundreds of other countries have not

We don't know and never will know. Meanwhile, until there is a deal, we will not know how well Carney has negotiated. But this idea that insulting someone with so much power to cause harm to our country, who is also a person that has stated he believes in revenge, is a completely foolish negotiating tactic that can only make things economically worse.

One might try doing a search at how well Meilei has done for Argentina(which of course, you have not done yet). According to an AI Search...

The primary ways Trump has benefitted Milei include:

1. Direct Economic Lifelines and Currency Stabilization
When Milei faced an impending currency crisis after his party suffered local election losses, the Trump administration provided massive financial interventions to keep Argentina's economy afloat:

$20 Billion Currency Swap: The U.S. Treasury established a crucial $20 billion credit swap line using the Exchange Stabilization Fund to back the volatile Argentine peso and reassure wary foreign investors.

Debt Support: The administration announced it was prepared to buy Argentine government bonds and deliver standby credit to lower the country's sovereign borrowing costs.IMF Backing: Washington used its massive leverage to back a separate $20 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) package for Argentina.

2. Massive Resource and Infrastructure Loans
The Trump administration set aside up to $7 billion in loans through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. This capital is specifically designed to help Milei expand Argentina's infrastructure—such as railways, pipelines, and ports—so the country can tap into its oil, gas, lithium, and copper reserves. This directly supports Milei's goal of using mineral and energy exports to solve Argentina's chronic dollar shortages.

3. Preferential Trade and Tariff Deals
The two nations signed a landmark trade and investment pact. This agreement reduced key tariffs on selective industries, making Argentina one of the first nations to receive specific tariff carve-outs under Trump's protectionist trade regime. While the deal has recently faced ratification delays in Argentina's congress, it was initially designed to quickly increase Argentine exports and stabilize domestic prices.

[lostav8r]

Trump does not believe in a mutually beneficial deal, so what would the cons have got for us that hundreds of other countries have not

We don't know and never will know. Meanwhile, until there is a deal, we will not know how well Carney has negotiated. But this idea that insulting someone with so much power to cause harm to our country, who is also a person that has stated he believes in revenge, is a completely foolish negotiating tactic that can only make things economically worse.

One might try doing a search at how well Meilei has done for Argentina(which of course, you have not done yet). According to an AI Search...

The primary ways Trump has benefitted Milei include:

1. Direct Economic Lifelines and Currency Stabilization
When Milei faced an impending currency crisis after his party suffered local election losses, the Trump administration provided massive financial interventions to keep Argentina's economy afloat:

$20 Billion Currency Swap: The U.S. Treasury established a crucial $20 billion credit swap line using the Exchange Stabilization Fund to back the volatile Argentine peso and reassure wary foreign investors.

Debt Support: The administration announced it was prepared to buy Argentine government bonds and deliver standby credit to lower the country's sovereign borrowing costs.IMF Backing: Washington used its massive leverage to back a separate $20 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) package for Argentina.

2. Massive Resource and Infrastructure Loans
The Trump administration set aside up to $7 billion in loans through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. This capital is specifically designed to help Milei expand Argentina's infrastructure—such as railways, pipelines, and ports—so the country can tap into its oil, gas, lithium, and copper reserves. This directly supports Milei's goal of using mineral and energy exports to solve Argentina's chronic dollar shortages.

3. Preferential Trade and Tariff Deals
The two nations signed a landmark trade and investment pact. This agreement reduced key tariffs on selective industries, making Argentina one of the first nations to receive specific tariff carve-outs under Trump's protectionist trade regime. While the deal has recently faced ratification delays in Argentina's congress, it was initially designed to quickly increase Argentine exports and stabilize domestic prices.

We don't know and never will know. Meanwhile, until there is a deal, we will not know how well Carney has negotiated

I don't buy your argument. You're suggesting we give up supply management in case he might keep his word?

One might try doing a search at how well Meilei has done for Argentina(which of course, you have not done yet)

Your tone makes no sense considering you'll copy paste entire articles and post AI summaries of topics.

We arrested the Hauwei CFO as requested by the US government, we put in Tariffs on Chinese cars (again at the request of the US) In exchange, China stopped buying our farmers soybeans costing us BILLONS.

What did the US give us in exchange for doing exactly what they said? Fool me once shame on you and all that jazz!

Massive Resource and Infrastructure Loans
The Trump administration set aside up to $7 billion in loans through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. This capital is specifically designed to help Milei expand Argentina's infrastructure—such as railways, pipelines, and ports—so the country can tap into its oil, gas, lithium, and copper reserves. This directly supports Milei's goal of using mineral and energy exports to solve Argentina's chronic dollar shortages.

Canada is basically forced to buy US equipment for most of of our infrastructure, this was so that Argentina wouldn't buy from China (a 2x win for the US) Our trains, cars, equipment, are mostly from US firms so they have no reason to dangle this carrot.

[lostav8r]

I'll put the ball in your court and ask realistically, what would the cons have done differently?

What Harper and the Conservatives would have done differently was to continue on the same general economic p[ath that they had us on in 2015. You can read what your vote did below.....

There is no great mystery behind why some nations are wealthy and others are not. The policy mix varies very little and is well understood. Countries with lower, neutral tax systems, minimal regulations, the rule of law and openness to international trade and foreign investment are wealthier than countries with higher taxes, more complicated regulations, and which are closed off to the world. Economies are the sum of the countless decisions made by people on what to buy or sell, where to invest, or where to work.

In Canada the last 10 years, the Liberal party, particularly when led by Justin Trudeau, reasoned that its judgment was not just better, but far superior, than the market’s judgment, by which we mean the countless decisions made by people every minute of every day. The damage done to Canada’s economy has never been clearer.

An RBC report released Tuesday confirmed that new investment in Canada has completely collapsed during the Liberals’ tenure in power. “Between 2015 and 2024, more than $1 trillion of investment exited Canada — the largest capital exodus in Canadian history,” the report says. “For every dollar of inward FDI, two dollars exited.” Partly as a result, GDP per capita growth, the best indicator we have of standard of living, has been less than one per cent the last decade, by far the lowest of any period since the Great Depression.

The reason for this, the same reason why another $1 trillion in corporate capital is sitting idle, is what the RBC report terms “burdensome regulatory, permitting and project delivery barriers.” In other words, the Liberals introduced regulations on top of regulations and endless processes, in the name of fighting climate change, thus choking off investment.

The clearest examples are the introduction of the Impact Assessment Act, the government’s cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, the carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations, and the constant atmosphere of uncertainty as Liberals kept promising new regulations, such as the emissions cap on the oilsands. If you want to achieve an environmental objective, the options are regulation or taxation. The Liberals opted for both, which was incoherent overkill, even from the perspective of centre-left environmentalism.

Some 10-20 years ago, Canada was teeming with proposals to build pipelines in every which direction, LNG terminals and oilsands mines. There was also tremendous investor enthusiasm in Ontario’s Ring of Fire mineral deposits. And then the Liberals came along and subjected everything to multiple reviews.

When for instance, the private owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion pulled out, the Liberals did not take that as evidence that project reviews needed to be streamlined. They took it as evidence they needed to buy the pipeline, expending taxpayer dollars that would have never been spent if Canada had a functioning infrastructure assessment regime. By 2020, in all, about $150 billion in energy projects were cancelled or delayed.

Similarly, the Liberals were dismissive of the Ring of Fire because of the peat moss in the area. Former environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson complained in 2023: “I actually bemoan the fact that everybody goes right to Ring of Fire.” After the project was subjected to a regional assessment by Wilkinson, his successor Steven Guilbeault launched another review, further duplicating processes already completed by the Ontario government.

The RBC report makes some useful suggestions around corporate tax reform and streamlining foreign investment approvals. But it is clearly a document written to appeal to the central planner currently in the prime minister’s office, Mark Carney. RBC devotes much of its recommendations to how the government itself should invest, encourage private investment or otherwise leverage “state capital.”

It even includes lines like this, which could have been written by Carney himself: “State capital could be deployed at scale, not to replace private capital but to catalyze it.” The recommendations are thus best left ignored because they do not properly address the severe capital shortage that the report so astutely observed, and the reasons behind that shortage.

Canadians are poorer than they otherwise would have been had the Liberals permitted business proposals to advance normally. These were choices made by Trudeau and his cabinet, choices driven by the belief that they were smarter and more wise than all Canadians put together. It is a mistake that will hold this country back for years.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carson ... 1-trillion

I see that you are one of the victims of a lot less opportunities out there. Interesting that your reaction is "LMAO". I really don't think I am having a discussion with a fully rational person.

Pelmet, instead of coming to the table with a concise list of points, you're posting entire opeds and AI generated summaries. that's very lazy imo so I'm going to straight up ask which points you want me to respond to because I'm not going to spend hours replying to a copy pasted article!

[pelmet]

Canada is basically forced to buy US equipment for most of of our infrastructure, this was so that Argentina wouldn't buy from China (a 2x win for the US) Our trains, cars, equipment, are mostly from US firms so they have no reason to dangle this carrot.

Folks.....Lost Aviator is a fraud. he is just making up BS arguments that can easily be proven wrong. Please do not take anything he says as credible.

Below is an AI search about whether or not Canada is forced to import American infrastructure......

"AI Overview

No, the United States does not force Canada to import American infrastructure.

- Trade and Independence: Canada and the U.S. run independent regulatory and economic systems.
- Canada chooses its own procurement, building, and sourcing policies for public works and utilities.
- Trade agreements like CUSMA (Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement) govern cross-border commerce, but neither nation has the legal authority to force the other to buy or install specific foreign infrastructure.
- Interconnected Systems: Both countries share integrated cross-border networks, such as oil and gas pipelines (like Enbridge lines) and electricity grids. These systems were built through commercial agreements and mutual benefit, not by legal coercion from Washington.
- Canada actually exports far more energy and infrastructure-related commodities (like crude oil, natural gas, and electricity) to the U.S. than it imports from south of the border."

[pelmet]

Pelmet, instead of coming to the table with a concise list of points, you're posting entire opeds and AI generated summaries. that's very lazy imo so I'm going to straight up ask which points you want me to respond to because I'm not going to spend hours replying to a copy pasted article!

Like I said folks....fraud. I give the answers he asks for(proving him wrong) and now he won't respond(because it would supposedly take him hours).

Meanwhile, in a different discussion we had recently, he posted news articles with long studies that I was expected to respond to.....FRAUD Alert.

How about....Don't reply to any points and thread closed.

[lostav8r]

Canada is basically forced to buy US equipment for most of of our infrastructure, this was so that Argentina wouldn't buy from China (a 2x win for the US) Our trains, cars, equipment, are mostly from US firms so they have no reason to dangle this carrot.

Folks.....Lost Aviator is a fraud. he is just making up BS arguments that can easily be proven wrong. Please do not take anything he says as credible.

Below is an AI search about whether or not Canada is forced to import American infrastructure......

"AI Overview

No, the United States does not force Canada to import American infrastructure.

- Trade and Independence: Canada and the U.S. run independent regulatory and economic systems.
- Canada chooses its own procurement, building, and sourcing policies for public works and utilities.
- Trade agreements like CUSMA (Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement) govern cross-border commerce, but neither nation has the legal authority to force the other to buy or install specific foreign infrastructure.
- Interconnected Systems: Both countries share integrated cross-border networks, such as oil and gas pipelines (like Enbridge lines) and electricity grids. These systems were built through commercial agreements and mutual benefit, not by legal coercion from Washington.
- Canada actually exports far more energy and infrastructure-related commodities (like crude oil, natural gas, and electricity) to the U.S. than it imports from south of the border."

Pelmet is it too much to ask you to use your own words and some critical thinking? I'm talking to you not some National post writer or google AI.
You come here, reagitate something from a new article, don't add any of your own thoughts aside from insults, and then call me a fraud?

A lot of our regulations are based around US standards and North American Geography, which is why most of our trucks, locomotives, etc are almost exclusively built by US companies. We realistically can't buy freight locomotives from EU firms, Euro style trucks etc because they aren't as suited for how things are here. Argentina can happily buy trains/trucks etc from the Chinese at subsidized prices.

You're clearly not here in good faith, I'm spending lots of my time responding to your posts and you're so damn lazy you won't even give distinct points anymore. You're lazily dumping AI summaries and ENTIRE opinion articles instead of having an actual discussion.

You basically ignore every point that disproves what you said.

I pointed out the US screwed us over on the Huawei situation, they screwed us over on the electric car tariffs, no response from you. Sounds like something a fraud would do?

Meanwhile, in a different discussion we had recently, he posted news articles with long studies

Can you show me the context? If this is about DEI, you stated DEI is bad because "minority" research chairs have less papers cited. Is that really the yardstick you want to use?

[pelmet]

Pelmet is it too much to ask you to use your own words and some critical thinking? I'm talking to you not some National post writer or google AI.
You come here, reagitate something from a new article, don't add any of your own thoughts aside from insults, and then call me a fraud?

Hahaha.

Lost Aviator expected me to read studies he provided links to instead of using his own words. It is ok for him to do that but how dare I post an Op-Ed with factual information.

Folks.....Zero credibility.

[lostav8r]

Pelmet is it too much to ask you to use your own words and some critical thinking? I'm talking to you not some National post writer or google AI.
You come here, reagitate something from a new article, don't add any of your own thoughts aside from insults, and then call me a fraud?

Hahaha.

Lost Aviator expected me to read studies he provided links to instead of using his own words. It is ok for him to do that but how dare I post an Op-Ed with factual information.

Folks.....Zero credibility.

A man with credibility would answer my questions?

You've proven my point bud, you ignored literally everything I wrote, including my DIRECT questions about the DEI chair, or linking to context (because you know I'm right lmao)

You can't even link to the post you're talking about!

But I'll be the bigger person and answer, if I remember right you wanted examples of DEI working. If I give you a single example you could say that company was successful by chance, I linked a study because it cited the factors that lead to success, as well as pointing out over 100 companies were in the list.

Your response was to say someone you dislike promoted the article so therefore the article is wrong. That sounds like a frauds way of thinking?

[pelmet]

I pointed out the US screwed us over on the Huawei situation, they screwed us over on the electric car tariffs, no response from you.

The US didn't screw us over....China did. Wake up to reality. And even if what you say is true, it does not justify sabotaging our industries to protect those in our country forcing all to pay more for essential food.

A high enough percentage of your arguments are total BS as proven by me over and over. I likely won't get to all of them and don't have time for electric car tariff discussions and all the other stuff you throw out there followed by demands to reply to every one of them.

Neither do you. You should be working at a second job, instead of sitting on your ass whining about a 40% pay cut and that you can't get a flying job. I just talked to a guy today who went up north and likely made contacts for his upcoming successful flying career. Another guy I met at at the fly-in retired as a 747 captain 25 years ago and told me he started as a dockhand and flew all kinds of cool things(DC-3, DC-4, C-46, DC-10, A310).

Quit social media(or cut way back) and focus your time on the pilot career or life in general. Some day you will thank me if you take my advice. Imagine what you could have done for your career in the time you have been debating me. You could be targeting specific companies, planning visits to only those ones, perhaps in YZF, studying for your commercial. Instead, you are wasting your life and career possibilities away again for social media stuff. Probably the best advice you will ever get.