3 ms·

This lack of competition isn't an accident - the (very very corrupt) government has essentially been supporting and enforcing monopolistic practices and collusi

by wubrr 2y ago

This lack of competition isn't an accident - the (very very corrupt) government has essentially been supporting and enforcing monopolistic practices and collusion for decades (all parties).

chongli 2y ago
Yes, it seems to be a “made in Canada” economic theory: better to have a regulated domestic oligopoly than a market dominated by foreign competition. Of course the downside is regulatory capture leading to a ratchet effect depressing the economy while extracting more and more rents.
- b112 2y ago
  I wish everyone would pay attention to what the government is doing, instead of finding out from youtube or tiktok. As all governments, the liberals are imperfect. However, The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (FINA) spent several years grilling banks, and some change has happened. One example? Prior to now you could escalate issues to first a bank ombudsman, then a provincal one. Such complaints where handled by an "independent" body, which of course the banks sneakily bought controlling interest in. New legislation now prevents this, with the government instead vetting companies which will then act as an ombudsman. A response of the perpetually cranky and disillusioned is "oh sure, but..." with a variety of concocted reasons as to why it's all hopeless and corrupt. Thing is, change in a democratic government takes time, because in a democracy you cannot issue edicts on many things. Oh I know, upcoming sourpuss response, but but but! This guy did that and that guy did that, so edicts happen that's not the point and a whataboutism and exceeding rare that's why it's news. What the point is, change does happen, and yes for the better (I can hear the disillusioned starting to type already), and we do infact fix things in Canada. We do have a different market than the US. This is of course a good thing. We also have the second largest country on the planet, yet with only the population of California. We also have a neighbour to the south who, while good folks, would literally control every aspect of our country via economic means without some balances in place. This isn't malign, just how it works when an economy 20x your size, with megacorps that can buy companies which are behemoths in Canada, as an afterthought. So again, things are and must be different unless we intend to allow another country to control how we do business with one another, communicate, interact and so on. I'm sure some will want to respond here with loads of "who cares", and that's fine. Such folk can live in a world of simple solutions, disregarding consequences, but that's folly.
  - chongli 2y ago
    Thing is, change in a democratic government takes time, because in a democracy you cannot issue edicts on many things. When we vote at the ballot box and you vote for a red tie and I vote for a blue tie, one of us gets the tie we want and the other is forced to wear the wrong tie. When we vote with our wallets I can get a green tie and you can get a yellow tie and someone else can have a purple tie. Everyone gets the tie they want, as long as there’s enough competition in the tie business. The original point of my complaint was not that I want a better regulator. I want competition so that I can get what I want, at a lower price, and I’m not beholden to the ballot box.
    - b112 2y ago
      And mine, was that you should want better regulation, as better competition is an end to our societal control. If foreign corporations control all aspects of your economy, you become a puppet.
      - wubrr 2y ago
        Corporations already control all aspects of our economy. Whether they are foreign or 'benevolent domestic corporations' - as you seem to think they are, doesn't really matter. The insane flood of immigration and TFWs, which destroyed our housing, healthcare, justice systems, and lowered per-capita GDP was 100% at the behest of the benevolent domestic corporations, and all of the negative knock-on effects were known by our government and PM ahead of time, and they went ahead anyway.
        _aavaa_ 2y ago
        Doesn’t this make the case specifically for better government and regulations rather than more “competition”? Won’t all of that competition simply do the same thing vis a vis TFW? Which by the way seems like a crazy program they got going on up there. It seems like the companies there are using them as scabs for non-unionized jobs.
        2y ago
voisin 2y ago
It might just be my take, but by saying “the government” it sounds to me like you are implying it is the current government, which isn’t wholly correct. To be clear, this corruption includes the current government and essentially every government (among all parties) since the 60s. They’ve all been complicit in this particular corruption.
- wubrr 2y ago
  Interesting how you interpreted 'current government' even though I specifically said 'decades' and 'all parties'.

by wubrr 2y ago

This lack of competition isn't an accident - the (very very corrupt) government has essentially been supporting and enforcing monopolistic practices and collusion for decades (all parties).

chongli 2y ago

Yes, it seems to be a “made in Canada” economic theory: better to have a regulated domestic oligopoly than a market dominated by foreign competition. Of course the downside is regulatory capture leading to a ratchet effect depressing the economy while extracting more and more rents.

b112 2y ago
I wish everyone would pay attention to what the government is doing, instead of finding out from youtube or tiktok. As all governments, the liberals are imperfect. However, The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (FINA) spent several years grilling banks, and some change has happened. One example? Prior to now you could escalate issues to first a bank ombudsman, then a provincal one. Such complaints where handled by an "independent" body, which of course the banks sneakily bought controlling interest in. New legislation now prevents this, with the government instead vetting companies which will then act as an ombudsman. A response of the perpetually cranky and disillusioned is "oh sure, but..." with a variety of concocted reasons as to why it's all hopeless and corrupt. Thing is, change in a democratic government takes time, because in a democracy you cannot issue edicts on many things. Oh I know, upcoming sourpuss response, but but but! This guy did that and that guy did that, so edicts happen that's not the point and a whataboutism and exceeding rare that's why it's news. What the point is, change does happen, and yes for the better (I can hear the disillusioned starting to type already), and we do infact fix things in Canada. We do have a different market than the US. This is of course a good thing. We also have the second largest country on the planet, yet with only the population of California. We also have a neighbour to the south who, while good folks, would literally control every aspect of our country via economic means without some balances in place. This isn't malign, just how it works when an economy 20x your size, with megacorps that can buy companies which are behemoths in Canada, as an afterthought. So again, things are and must be different unless we intend to allow another country to control how we do business with one another, communicate, interact and so on. I'm sure some will want to respond here with loads of "who cares", and that's fine. Such folk can live in a world of simple solutions, disregarding consequences, but that's folly.
- chongli 2y ago
  Thing is, change in a democratic government takes time, because in a democracy you cannot issue edicts on many things. When we vote at the ballot box and you vote for a red tie and I vote for a blue tie, one of us gets the tie we want and the other is forced to wear the wrong tie. When we vote with our wallets I can get a green tie and you can get a yellow tie and someone else can have a purple tie. Everyone gets the tie they want, as long as there’s enough competition in the tie business. The original point of my complaint was not that I want a better regulator. I want competition so that I can get what I want, at a lower price, and I’m not beholden to the ballot box.
  - b112 2y ago
    And mine, was that you should want better regulation, as better competition is an end to our societal control. If foreign corporations control all aspects of your economy, you become a puppet.
    - wubrr 2y ago
      Corporations already control all aspects of our economy. Whether they are foreign or 'benevolent domestic corporations' - as you seem to think they are, doesn't really matter. The insane flood of immigration and TFWs, which destroyed our housing, healthcare, justice systems, and lowered per-capita GDP was 100% at the behest of the benevolent domestic corporations, and all of the negative knock-on effects were known by our government and PM ahead of time, and they went ahead anyway.
      - _aavaa_ 2y ago
        Doesn’t this make the case specifically for better government and regulations rather than more “competition”? Won’t all of that competition simply do the same thing vis a vis TFW? Which by the way seems like a crazy program they got going on up there. It seems like the companies there are using them as scabs for non-unionized jobs.
        2y ago

voisin 2y ago

It might just be my take, but by saying “the government” it sounds to me like you are implying it is the current government, which isn’t wholly correct. To be clear, this corruption includes the current government and essentially every government (among all parties) since the 60s. They’ve all been complicit in this particular corruption.

wubrr 2y ago
Interesting how you interpreted 'current government' even though I specifically said 'decades' and 'all parties'.