Canada

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

and the infrastructure isn’t growing enough to meet the growing need.

Source?

we need investment. So where is it going to come from?

So how exactly are we protecting ourselves from the mad neighbour when all Carney seems bent on doing is selling valuable parts of our house to that very neighbour? We will end up with a Canada that is even more of a copy of the dumpter fire Murica is right now... I'd rather see it all go down in flames

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

My source is that video I posted, which I'm assuming you didn't watch, where Carney states something to the effect of what I stated. This plan creates investment in all airports as the money collected from some private investment is in turn invested in the smaller airports to help Canadians get around the country easier.

There's money in more places than the US. Watch that video and learn from one of the best economists in the world and tell everyone Carney didn't think this is in the best interest of Canadians.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

My source is that video I posted, which I’m assuming you didn’t watch, where Carney states something to the effect of what I stated.

I did watch it, he does say the same line you posted but provides no backing for it. What are the growing needs? what is pending that has not been done?

This plan creates investment in all airports as the money collected from some private investment is in turn invested in the smaller airports to help Canadians get around the country easier.

Again, is that an actual problem? Do people in Gatineau complain they need to drive to Ottawa instead of using the tiny Gatineau landing strip?

I would argue that the real issue is the enormous cost of air travel and privatizing the airports is really not going to help with any of that

There’s money in more places than the US. Watch that video and learn from one of the best economists in the world and tell everyone Carney didn’t think this is in the best interest of Canadians.

Carney is a banker... look at what he is doing: selling Canadian assets to whomever will buy them, eliminate environmental regulation, cut tax for the rich... how is that ANY DIFFERENT from what the Orange rapist is doing down south? How will any of that lead to a better Canada for the regular people? I can tell you that it will push some numbers and make the rich richer but the only hope for ANY of this to improve regular Canadians is for the money to "trickle down" which has been debunked 100000x over

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I have been looking at what Carney is doing. Two years ago had this trade war started, we would be in a recession right now. Yet we're not. That's more or less thanks to Carney and his government.

Look, I understand praising a politician is never a popular take and I'm expecting to get further down voted for injecting into these echo chambers genuine counter opinions and arguments that should require some thought but often don't because politicians=bad.

Carney is not privatizing air travel. The Canadian government still owns everything - all the infrastructure. These investors get to lease and run, not own. He also gives great examples of how Canadian funds fund similar arrangements in other countries, and we will use that data of other instances of this to maximize the benefit to Canadians.

You understand Canada is fucked without investment right? America is being forced to pull out of our economy and we need to keep that money flowing in lest our society start to crumble. We don't have this money in Canada as if we did, we wouldn't be at such a high risk for a recession.

It's easy to say "no no no" when your belly is full, but what about for those who aren't in your predicament right now, who are worse off and hungrier? We need to stanch the flow of poverty as a society, and upgrading infrastructure is a wonderful way to create the growth we need through jobs.

Also FYI, yes the people in Gatineau complain about driving to the airport, everyone does.

And to your last point, this is not what the pedo-in-chief is doing down south. He is selling . We are leasing. Will it make the rich richer? Maybe, but it certainly won't make us poorer as there's a net influx of money. Will our airports start getting the updates they need? Yes. That's how the average consumer benefits.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I have been looking at what Carney is doing. Two years ago had this trade war started, we would be in a recession right now. Yet we’re not. That’s more or less thanks to Carney and his government.

You are giving Carney credit for not being in a recession brought over by a trade war that did not start 2 years ago? While you are at it, please thank me for not doing the rain dance yesterday which is why it's sunny today!

Look, I do not BLAME Carney for the trade war but, up until 3 weeks ago, there was nothing but speculation brought by the lunatic down south. Kudos to Carney for playing it patiently and, apparently, planning for it; but I cannot give him credit for something that was not happening

Look, I understand praising a politician is never a popular take and I’m expecting to get further down voted for injecting into these echo chambers genuine counter opinions and arguments that should require some thought but often don’t because politicians=bad.

May I suggest it it NOT just praising a politician; it's been unable to actually justify your stance in a way that seems logical and not just "I feel this is OK"

Carney is not privatizing air travel.

Nobody said that (at least not in "our" conversation) but undeniably, if the airports raise fees on airline, airlines will pass that on to us.

The Canadian government still owns everything - all the infrastructure. These investors get to lease and run, not own.

A difference with no distinction when we are talking about 50+ year leases with no strings attached.

He also gives great examples of how Canadian funds fund similar arrangements in other countries, and we will use that data of other instances of this to maximize the benefit to Canadians.

Are these great for the people in those countries? I am sure these are great for investors which, in turn, mean they are bad for consumers in our current late stage capitalism

You understand Canada is fucked without investment right? America is being forced to pull out of our economy and we need to keep that money flowing in lest our society start to crumble. We don’t have this money in Canada as if we did, we wouldn’t be at such a high risk for a recession.

Yes but I stand by the principle of "survival is insufficient"; if Canada is to "survive" by selling our infrastructure and making everything worse for regular Canadians in the long run (which is exactly what you see in the USA today), I rather not survive

It’s easy to say “no no no” when your belly is full, but what about for those who aren’t in your predicament right now, who are worse off and hungrier? We need to stanch the flow of poverty as a society, and upgrading infrastructure is a wonderful way to create the growth we need through jobs.

I'd concede this point in your favour if you explain to me how is privatizing everything (an OLD conservative fiscal strategy) going to take regular hungry Canadians to a full belly. Again, what jobs? where are the strings attached to these investments?

We constantly give tax cuts to the "investors" (currently cut our effective rate to 6.3% which is almost HALF of anyone in the G7 and what are the conditions for this? how many jobs have to be created or maintained to enjoy this benefit? NONE

And to your last point, this is not what the pedo-in-chief is doing down south. He is selling . We are leasing.

Again, 50+ years... another difference with no distinction

Will it make the rich richer? Maybe, but it certainly won’t make us poorer as there’s a net influx of money

Ok now you are hallucinating... greater fees will mean greater costs for Canadians, which means we are certainly NOT getting richer. The influx of money would go to the gov and if the gov spends it funding tax cuts for the rich (as they are already doing), there will be ZERO gain for a regular Canadian... maybe a few will get some shitty part time, no benefit, minimum wage jobs... huzzah!

Will our airports start getting the updates they need? Yes. That’s how the average consumer benefits.

Oh yes, a VIP lounge, THAT will solve our problems!

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

I find it amusing you want me to cite facts in an online post like I'm writing a paper.

If we had any other pm than Carney right now, Canada would be in a full recession. You cannot think Trudeau or Pollievre would have us still trading water. Carney did not start the trade war, but he sure has diversified our trading alliances and done what he can to keep Canadians working. You'll remember Carney called this nine months ago with his speech in Davis, and you can be assured he was already planning contingencies for when the trade war came to pass. He does deserve credit for that.

Here's why the decades long leases are good. The airports are updated and maintained for free during that time. The money from the leasees airports issues to maintain and update the other Canadian airports. Then, the leases are up and Canada owns updates infrastructure. It's a compromise that allows us to nation build. You gotta wait for satisfaction, but future Canada will really like this.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

I find it amusing you want me to cite facts in an online post like I’m writing a paper.

I ask that you justify the corner stone of your arguments; otherwise this is just a Fox News forum. The fact your resists any challenge to your statements makes me believe you even less.

If we had any other pm than Carney right now, Canada would be in a full recession. You cannot think Trudeau or Pollievre would have us still trading water. Carney did not start the trade war, but he sure has diversified our trading alliances and done what he can to keep Canadians working. You’ll remember Carney called this nine months ago with his speech in Davis, and you can be assured he was already planning contingencies for when the trade war came to pass. He does deserve credit for that.

Wow so many fallacies here. First off, we cannot really know what "would have happened" and much less take that as a fact of any kind.

Second, I never even hinted at the idea that Trudeau and much much much less Poilievre would have done better. I agree with you that they would not have.

Third, I agree that Carney has done a good job in some areas. The diversification and overall cooperative tone he has set between Canada and so many other countries is amazing and I do applaud him for that (not liking some of his actions does not imply I hate everything he is doing). Having said that, none of those alliances have yet rendered any tangible money. I do think they will in time but to pretend we were spared a recession by his hand is just uninformed.

The main reason Canada has not been hit super hard by the absolute stupidity of Trump's actions is that most of those have been just words. We were not paying significant tariffs on almost anything until very recently (when the new tariffs arrived a few weeks ago). The main exception I think was aluminum but Canada is rich enough to stopgap one industry from plummeting for a little while.

What Carney does from here on out would be a real test since we are NOW under financial duress due to the new tariffs plus the ones we are imposing to retaliate.

Here’s why the decades long leases are good. The airports are updated and maintained for free during that time.

I think you mean "free" as in, the gov does not have to pay directly but you are wrong in 2 ways: 1) the Airport Authorities do collect fees from airlines and do use that money for the airport upkeep so it is not like the feds are just dumping money on airports for 100% of the repairs 2) with the leases, these private entities will want every penny the put into the airport plus a juicy extra on top (that is where profit comes from). The fed gov may not have to pay anymore, but all traveling Canadians and all Canadians who buy stuff that was transported by air will pay for that...

The money from the leasees airports issues to maintain and update the other Canadian airports.

Again, every penny would have to be made back and then some. That is how private business works, do you really think a private company will get one of these leases to lose money and fix Canadian infrastructure for the sake of being nice?

Then, the leases are up and Canada owns updates infrastructure. It’s a compromise that allows us to nation build. You gotta wait for satisfaction, but future Canada will really like this.

Maybe I am just old and had the chance to see this in action while you have not. What would happen after a 50 year lease is that we will get a ruined airport that will have to be condemned and/or that will need a complete revamp.

These companies will spend the minimum money to be compliant with the law while charging the maximum they are allowed to get away with. This is capitalism 101. Do you normally pay to have your car repainted AFTER you sold it? just so the new owner starts with a fresh new paint job?

You recently commented on Gatineau/Ottawa so I assume you know the area. "Recently" (last few years) we have seen this structure with the LRT and Lansdowne Park in Ottawa. The LRT was an unmitigated disaster when it launched and the company given the monopoly on its maintenance barely had qualified techs to fix the bad trains we bought; to this day, the LRT is barely functional and completely unreliable ALMOST 8 YEARS after launching!

Lansdowne is the same; public paid to have it upgraded and gave a lease to a private company to rake in some money... what have they done? NOTHING but charge outrageous fees for parking. They have not built anything, they have not improved it in any way and never even saved enough money for the second phase which, you should guess by now, they are asking the public to fund once again

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago

Do you have sources for your information? Sounds like you just want to spout opinion here, and personal experience/anecdotes. Rules for thee but not for me makes you a waste of time to discuss with. Hold yourself to the same standards you're trying to hold me to and we can discuss. You also put too many words in my mouth and extrapolate to unreasonable conclusions, thinking I must be doing the same in my mind

parent

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago

So how is this money going to help Canada? I mean its investment that the government gets but is it going to lower fuel prices, lower groceries make more houses? Is the cost of living going to improve? Or are these investors going to want to make more money then they paid for the privilege of running the airport? Which means there is more money taken out of Canada then put in.

parent

[–] group_hug@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

That's a lot of word salad when the important point is that he is granting a monopoly to whichever company buys an airport.

There is no free market for airports. You can't choose the best deal or best service among 5 competitors.

You or Carney can spin it anyway you like but this will be bad for average Canadians.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 point 1 week ago

Yep, for now. But I believe Carney isn't looking at the now, but the future of Canada. Yes, these airports will probably get a little worse in some ways, better in others. If you don't like it, that's too bad. When you're older, and Canada has built up its independence, it will be back in Canada hands, upgraded for free, along with the many other airports the money generated from this privatisation will pay for. This is a reasonable compromise and it shows a vision for a future Canada, not just some four year turnaround to get votes.

parent

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago

Assumingly investments would come from siezed American assets.