darwink
Senior Member
I don't think that is our choice.
|
|
|
US Politics
- Thread starter AJX
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
The bond market was pricing in deficit financing in the 10 when I last tuned into bloomberg, but the shorter terms weren't moving. I don't think the debt is the big issue for inflation - a big tariff would be. In which case, you end up with a fight between the President and the Fed, which
trtcttc
Active Member
It'll depend largely on who staffs his admin. There's a lot of focus on the crazies around Trump, but if you look at the R slate, other than Robinson and Kari Lake, most senate nominees were competent politicians.
Having some family in the US, most were reluctant Harris voters. Biden actually did a lot in his presidency, particularly for the working class (Build Back Better, IRA, bailing out unions) but he was a bad messenger, he couldn't sell his economic agenda, he couldn't give articulate interviews and use the presidential platform to sell his ideas. He dropped out too late, Harris had no time, and she herself is a pretty mediocre politician - case in point her terrible performance during the Democratic primary when race issues were at the forefront. She had two options for her campaign. The first to is to sell the Biden/Harris agenda, do what he couldn't do because of his age, and I think you see a version of this when you watch Pete Buttigieg's interviews, about how to sell the Biden agenda to a skeptical public. The second is to define her own vision for America, her own message, but it's pretty clear from following her politically that she's not particularly ideological. She'd be a great civil servant or a head of some department, but she doesn't have the conviction and ideas of what she is and what she wants to do.
Her message became muddled and the people skeptical she is just a younger version of the unpopular Biden agenda got that, and the people that could've been convinced of the impact of the Biden/Harris agenda never got that. As the election went on, she lost support because vibes just can't sustain a campaign. Trump is uniquely terrible, and his ability to turn previously genial people into hard right nuts is probably his greatest fault. But he was not unbeatable, he did not win because the hard right voted for him, those that could never be convinced to vote anything but Trump. He won because the working class, minorities, college educated suburbanites swung very marginally towards him and Biden/Harris are the ones that lost those voters.
Having some family in the US, most were reluctant Harris voters. Biden actually did a lot in his presidency, particularly for the working class (Build Back Better, IRA, bailing out unions) but he was a bad messenger, he couldn't sell his economic agenda, he couldn't give articulate interviews and use the presidential platform to sell his ideas. He dropped out too late, Harris had no time, and she herself is a pretty mediocre politician - case in point her terrible performance during the Democratic primary when race issues were at the forefront. She had two options for her campaign. The first to is to sell the Biden/Harris agenda, do what he couldn't do because of his age, and I think you see a version of this when you watch Pete Buttigieg's interviews, about how to sell the Biden agenda to a skeptical public. The second is to define her own vision for America, her own message, but it's pretty clear from following her politically that she's not particularly ideological. She'd be a great civil servant or a head of some department, but she doesn't have the conviction and ideas of what she is and what she wants to do.
Her message became muddled and the people skeptical she is just a younger version of the unpopular Biden agenda got that, and the people that could've been convinced of the impact of the Biden/Harris agenda never got that. As the election went on, she lost support because vibes just can't sustain a campaign. Trump is uniquely terrible, and his ability to turn previously genial people into hard right nuts is probably his greatest fault. But he was not unbeatable, he did not win because the hard right voted for him, those that could never be convinced to vote anything but Trump. He won because the working class, minorities, college educated suburbanites swung very marginally towards him and Biden/Harris are the ones that lost those voters.
DougB
Active Member
Most of the big producers have already signaled production increases without new pipeline capacity:
Canadian Natural Resources sees path to hike Horizon oilsands output by 76 per cent | Globalnews.ca
CNRL announces expansion plans one day after the commercial start-up of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
globalnews.ca
You are correct that they haven't commented on whether they would increase production even further with more pipeline capacity. My comment was that if they were to choose to do so, they could so in relatively short order with relatively little investment.
More money printing driven by continued US government deficits is likely bullish for commodities.
DougB
Active Member
Sure it is. Trump is transactional. He will want something like an end to supply managment and 2% defence spending and the Canadian government will give it to him.
I think she was in a tough position from the get go. She was tied to a Biden administration that was unpopular (rightly or wrong), making it hard to champion new ideas, when she was perceived as tied to the bad ideas. She could campaign on women's reproductive rights, which she did heavily, but there is a still a large amount of opposition to that ~40% nationally, iirc, and higher in some states.
darwink
Senior Member
Turns out it wasn't seen as ballot issue for President even when people agreed with them. A huge blind spot for the campaign.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Poilievre wants to cut defense spending, see how that works out...
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Sewer Biden or Sewer yourself, she chose herself.
DougB
Active Member
Canada is no longer in charge of its destiny as it will do whatever it takes to maintain a US trade agreement. This should be viewed as an opportunity to move away from at least some of supply management and protection of the telecom, media, commercial air travel and financial services industries.