this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
145 points (90.5% liked)

Canada

9602 readers
2052 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

C'mon guys this is such an easy win for us as a country. Justin went a little too far with his style of governing for a lot of you and now the liberals have voted this guy to be it's leader and new PM. This is who we want to lead us into the second half of the 20th century, this guy is so fucking smart. Pierre just sings slogans and simple pretty things that sound nice but in reality he's just going to sell us off to American interests and cut the things that help working people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (31 children)

“If you're a fan of the established order of capitalism Carney's your guy for sure…”

I think both Pierre and Carney fit this description.
However one will cheer on the 51st state and one will lead a stable economy

[–] ninthant 59 points 1 week ago (29 children)

No, it doesn’t. There are two important differences.

PP is a devotee of the cult of the free market, that markets are best and all we need to do is remove restrictions on them. Carney believes markets should serve to people, that the end goal isn’t just naked efficiency but they we need market forces directed to get human-centric outcomes.

This is extensively covered in Carney’s 2021 book “Values” which I encourage everyone to read in order to understand the important differences in these approaches. Carney’s approach is an explicit rejection of the idiotic free market cultism of PP and his ilk.

Another critical difference is in competence. Carney is an experienced leader who was so well-regarded in his field that the UK selected him as the first ever non-local to run the Bank of England. Whereas PP can’t even manage to handle questions from friendly press, let alone lead something.

So no, they are not the same. You might still want to prefer an explicitly socialist approach that rejects markets entirely, which is a legitimate perspective for sure. But aside from the revolution party no one is really advocating that at the federal level.

[–] Kichae 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The difference, fundamentally, is that Carney studies markets, while Milhouse worships them.

[–] ninthant 2 points 1 week ago

The nuance I’d add is that while free markets are efficient, serving the public good is more important than the purest efficiency.

As an example, an unrestricted free market incentivizes the development of monopolies. This can be efficient and in the extremely long term these monopolies may fall to disruptive new entrants — but we humans live in the present and take little solace in the idea that the monopolist will someday get too bloated and fall. We just want to afford groceries!

So using competition bureau powers, we can restrict those markets. This may subtract from some extreme market efficiency but that’s an efficiency only the monopolist benefits from in a useful time frame.

The same principles are true in many other areas of the economy.

load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)