News:
R.I.P to the great Charlie Kirk!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by Shen Li
- November 16, 2025, 10:41:17 PMQuoteWhere Canada was once competitive with the U.S. in terms of economic growth, last year, according to figures from the World Bank, U.S. GDP per capita was $85,809.90, compared to $54,282.60 in Canada in constant U.S. dollars.In a normal country that doesn't have more than half the population with nothing but empty space between their ears, this would have people storming the seat of government.
This massive wealth gap used to be almost at par or even a slight edge to Canada. Most of this was due to the suicidal green horseshit and growing annual immigration 500%.
Posted by Herman
- November 16, 2025, 08:28:52 PM
Posted by Herman
- November 16, 2025, 08:15:56 PMQuote from: Brent on November 16, 2025, 04:24:38 PMDon't you wish we had a government that made lifting living standards and reducing current unsustainable immigration levels their primary focus instead of virtue signalling with C02 emission targets.Prog shills are still buying the elites bullshit about a bonanza of green new jobs. Tell them that each new job costs taxpayers $2.3 million and they are like a kid who finds out Santa aint real.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-three-myths-about-the-clean-economy
Posted by Thiel
- November 16, 2025, 05:44:38 PMWith 10 projects announced as of last Thursday, Carney's process has mostly been a political and public-relations exercise.
There is no pipeline on Carney's "nation-building" list, even though increasing Canada's oil exports markets would be a quick way to unleash major economic growth, raise tens of billions for federal and provincial treasuries, and reduce dependence on the States.
Consider that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, opened about a year and a half ago, has already added $2 billion to the federal government's income.
Since none of the 10 projects Carney has announced has a similar capacity to expand GDP and raise government revenues, it's a puzzle why a pipeline has not been announced.
When a government is as obsessed with appearing green as Mr Carney is, raising productivity and incomes takes a distant back seat. What am I saying, there is no room in a Liberal car for a back seat that he says is not green.
There is no pipeline on Carney's "nation-building" list, even though increasing Canada's oil exports markets would be a quick way to unleash major economic growth, raise tens of billions for federal and provincial treasuries, and reduce dependence on the States.
Consider that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, opened about a year and a half ago, has already added $2 billion to the federal government's income.
Since none of the 10 projects Carney has announced has a similar capacity to expand GDP and raise government revenues, it's a puzzle why a pipeline has not been announced.
When a government is as obsessed with appearing green as Mr Carney is, raising productivity and incomes takes a distant back seat. What am I saying, there is no room in a Liberal car for a back seat that he says is not green.
Posted by Thiel
- November 16, 2025, 05:38:21 PMAs Jo Jo and I were discussing after we had sex last night, the Liberal governments of the last ten years have had a narrow focus on income redistribution and climate zealotry.
The previous Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin focused on growing the economy that would lift people into the middle class. Mr Harper did the same once Canada was past the global financial crisis started by Bill Clinton.
University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe posted a chart on X earlier this year comparing GDP per capita growth over the past decade among the world's 38 developed nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Canada's record of 1.4% growth during the Trudeau era was second lowest – only Luxembourg did worse with 0.9% negative growth.
Where Canada was once competitive with the U.S. in terms of economic growth, last year, according to figures from the World Bank, U.S. GDP per capita was $85,809.90, compared to $54,282.60 in Canada in constant U.S. dollars.
That's 58% higher in the U.S. compared to Canada.
The problem of low productivity caused by a lack of investment is pushing Canada further down the global economic rungs on the ladder.
The previous Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin focused on growing the economy that would lift people into the middle class. Mr Harper did the same once Canada was past the global financial crisis started by Bill Clinton.
University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe posted a chart on X earlier this year comparing GDP per capita growth over the past decade among the world's 38 developed nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Canada's record of 1.4% growth during the Trudeau era was second lowest – only Luxembourg did worse with 0.9% negative growth.
Where Canada was once competitive with the U.S. in terms of economic growth, last year, according to figures from the World Bank, U.S. GDP per capita was $85,809.90, compared to $54,282.60 in Canada in constant U.S. dollars.
That's 58% higher in the U.S. compared to Canada.
The problem of low productivity caused by a lack of investment is pushing Canada further down the global economic rungs on the ladder.
Posted by Brent
- November 16, 2025, 04:24:38 PMDon't you wish we had a government that made lifting living standards and reducing current unsustainable immigration levels their primary focus instead of virtue signalling with C02 emission targets.
QuoteThe federal Liberals – starting with former prime minister Justin Trudeau and continuing under Mark Carney – sold their climate strategy to Canadians based on three myths.https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-three-myths-about-the-clean-economy
Second, that Canada would hit the government's industrial greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Third, that most Canadian households would be financially better off as a result.
To the contrary, a recent study by the fiscally conservative Fraser Institute estimates that over the past decade, the federal, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and B.C. governments have spent or foregone revenues of $158 billion in inflation-adjusted 2024 dollars to create a mere 68,000 "clean energy" jobs.
That's an estimated cost of $2.3 million per job.
"Governments, activists and special interests groups have been making a lot of claims about the opportunities of a clean economic transition, but after a decade of policy interventions and more than $150 billion in taxpayers' money, the results are underwhelming," said Elmira Aliakbari, co-author of the study titled The Fiscal Cost of Canada's Low-Carbon Economy.
A second Fraser Institute study – Sizing Canada's Clean Economy – concluded that after almost a decade of federal and provincial governments funnelling billions of dollars into the "clean economy" from 2014 to 2023, its percentage of Canada's total economy of $3.3 trillion barely moved from 3.1% of GDP to 3.6%.
As for meeting federal emission targets, the Canadian Climate Institute and the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montreal recently concluded the Liberals' target of reducing Canada's emissions by at least 40% compared to 2005 levels in 2030 is out of reach and that the government will achieve, at best, half of that.
The parliamentary budget office – a watchdog on federal spending – reported that before Carney cancelled the consumer carbon tax, most Canadian families were in fact paying more in carbon taxes than they received in rebates, when factoring in the negative impact of the carbon tax on the Canadian economy.
During the last election, Carney promised to replace the consumer carbon tax with an "improved and tightened" industrial carbon tax that would benefit both consumers and businesses. But his recent budget, while containing nine pages about his so-called climate competitiveness strategy, had no specifics on how it will work.
Call it a myth in the making.