Also from Joly in the article: “Our goal is also to double our non-U.S. exports and so you see the prime minister going around and signing new trade deals across the world,”.

The title isn’t a lie, but “an open door” seems to be about as far as it goes. They’d have to send a non-insane offer though that door.

Hell yes!

We were going to have to slum it with the other two meatless meat brands Yves Potvin founded.

Ah yes, when the US does things it’s the US. When other countries do things, it’s also the US. /s

I know that’s rhetorical, but we’re still tight with Europe, basically, and hope they’d have our back if a neighbor invaded too. Under the Trump administration it’s not even America’s proxy war anymore.

Wow, I’ve never had this problem. The tricky one is Australia vs. NZ.

I mean, every dialect is just a bastardised version of an older dialect, including your own.

Unfortunately, nobody else manufactures anti-air equipment that’s as good. At least not in significant quantities. AFAIK that’s what Ukraine buys from them these days

They have Mecca. Otherwise, basically no, AFAIK it’s a one-trick pony. And there’s a bit of a problem getting that trick to market ATM.

(We also have a somewhat larger population than them)

Ooh that would be nice.

Carney’s been ignoring the nonsense in Alberta, probably because there’s existential threats from outside, but eventually shit will hit the fan one way or another.

Hmm. Most of the basic industries would probably pass that margin no problem. I think production vehicles even fall under 10%.

Anything bespoke, from machine tools to Etsy stores, is going to implode overnight, though.

We’re not, basically because none (?) of our resources are Persian Gulf-style money printers. Like, we have oil, but it needs a whole lot of work to get from tar sand to gas tank. Down there it gets close to just sticking a straw in the ground.

The end result is that we’re still one of the richest countries per capita, we just spend a lot of man hours on farming. mining and drilling, instead of on manufacturing like they do in Germany or Japan.

Technically, you do need the provinces to agree if it’s a constitutional issue.

But sure, getting rid of the NWC and bringing in fixed terms+proportional rep would make our long-term stability a lot more guaranteed. Maybe a different federal model where the 8 or 9 Anglo provinces don’t all get equal power to Quebec, as well.

Failing that, basic income.

That Russian сок birch sap drink. It’s super hard to find in Canada but nothing hits me quite the same way.

It’s not really surprising in the short run. Competition takes a while to work (or not work).

Of course, in the long run prices are going to go up at least through the US midterms. If anything comes out of the removal of the gas tax it’s just a lull in the increases.

Yup. Income taxes are just a better way to collect funding.

If you want to add externalities back into the price of something, or literally just fund a government service the buyer is about to use like roads, it’s a different story.

Sure, and looking back on this exchange, there’s no suggestion anyone should vote one way or another.

That was the basic gist of the reply back to OP at the beginning of this thread, too. OOP was a purely statistical/strategic kind of statement, but the internet is full of opinions, so I guess it comes across as a moral suggestion anyway.

True, it’s actually a far right position here and now. There’s two things going on and it was my mistake to conflate them. There’s a middle ground and the political centre, and they aren’t necessarily the same.

Do people still do that? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it IRL.

That’s not just specific, though, it’s charged. You’ll get an answer, but in a moment so nobody is misunderstood.

If what you’re getting at is something like “further left is always better”, well, which left wing? Again, they’re highly specific to a time and place.

An example: The laissez faire free market was considered a left-wing policy from the appearance of liberalism, until socialism really got going. That’s over a century, and it’s the opposite today. Partisan labels are just labels; they have at most a vague correlation with morality or well-conception of the policies inside.

If what you’re getting at is that middle-of-the-road kind of policies aren’t always or even usually the best, then nobody is disagreeing.

What is the “centre” between the statements “white people are a superior race” and “race is a social construct and racism must be opposed”?

Sure, there’s middle ground. The whole “separate but equal” thing was a lie in practice, but on paper it’s logically self-consistent. (Obviously, it’s not a centre any of us approve of)

Also, that’s the British spelling of centre, if it looks wrong to you.

It sounds like maybe air-defense is less about “defending” any particular asset (e.g. keeping Canadian tanks safe from enemy bombs - which might be a battle we simply cannot win) than making air-superiority very expensive?

Expensive, risky and maybe not totally complete. For example, they might no longer have the option of flying a helicopter over an urban area on a clear day.

Completely stopping the Americans from flying at all seems impossible without a WWIII kind of response from allies, yes. IIRC they have both the largest and second largest air forces (because of the navy).

'cause that’s what I envision, when we buy military hardware…like…the US (or Russia, or China) could just blast all our expensive toys to bits before we get to use them.

Survivability is all down to how well the expensive things are hidden, which is itself partly down to moving them around a lot (like with a fast jet). In another era of warfare making them indestructible would have been an option, but not so much now.

At the other end of the cost curve, there’s at least minimal efforts to get our own drone capabilities going.

But you’re saying [Gripens] actually serve a different role strategically

Extremely different. Honestly that they both get called “fighters” is down to history. Like sure, they both turn fast, and have a similar-ish shape to accomplish that, but it means little from a strategic perspective. (At an individual-ish aka tactical level, that’s still good for dodging certain kinds of threats)

It’s made out of basic, off-the-shelf kinds of parts, and it literally does just need the pilot, a dirt runway and six mostly-untrained conscripts that can follow orders and carry heavy things in order to operate. The downside is that it has no stealth whatsoever. To be survivable, it would have to take off, do whatever of mission, land, and be towed away before the enemy can respond. Maybe that’s doable, maybe not. It’s untested.

We’ll see what the government decides. Getting the F-35’s we’ve already bought and nothing else would be one option, and then the money could go elsewhere.

I really appreciate your insights.

You’re welcome!

Since you’re interested, there’s CanadaBuys for an unskewed view of what tenders are out there, and you can filter for the DND. There’s also Perun on YouTube, which comes recommended for (global) military news and analysis in granular detail.