Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

lostav8r
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:54 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by lostav8r »

pelmet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:34 pm
lostav8r wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:05 pm
I pointed out the US screwed us over on the Huawei situation, they screwed us over on the electric car tariffs, no response from you.
The US didn't screw us over....China did. Wake up to reality. And even if what you say is true, it does not justify sabotaging our industries to protect those in our country forcing all to pay more for essential food.

A high enough percentage of your arguments are total BS as proven by me over and over. I likely won't get to all of them and don't have time for electric car tariff discussions and all the other stuff you throw out there.

Neither do you. You should be working at a second job, instead of sitting on your ass whining about a 40% pay cut and that you can't get a flying job. I just talked to a guy today who went up north and made contacts for his upcoming successful flying career.

Another guy I met at a small airport today retired as a 747 captain 25 years ago and told me he started as a dockhand and flew all kinds of cool things. Quit pilot forums and spend your time on the pilot career. Some day you will thank me of you take my advice.

Imagine what you could have done for your career in the time you have been debating me. You could be targeting specific companies, planning visits to only those ones, perhaps in YZF. Instead, you are wasting your life and career possibilities away.
Can you keep your responses to 1 post? Why keep bumping the thread?
The US didn't screw us over....China did.
Your entire argument is based around the US keeping up their end of the bargain which they've shown they're not willing to do. I don't know how else to explain this?
I likely won't get to all of them and don't have time for electric car tariff discussions and all the other stuff you throw out there.
You have hours to shitpost here, will happily throw me an entire National post article but you can't answer 2 or 3 of my questions? I've asked you like 4 times now what your DEI example of university chairs has to do with real life, and you've dodged the question every time. To me that sounds like you're admitting you're wrong.
You should be working at a second job, instead of sitting on your ass whining about a 40% pay cut
And because you know I'm right instead of discussing my points, you keep making cheap shots at me! One thing you're really good at is talking about things you have no knowledge of, I've accepted a new job offer recently so after I rebuild my savings money isn't a problem. But you know what they say about when you assume!
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

Congrats. What's the new job? How much back to where you were pay-wise? Is it in a field that you enjoy? Commute times? Hours? Holidays? Could be interesting for us to find out. After all, we have been giving advice to further your career on other threads(and it was good advice).
---------- ADS -----------
 
lostav8r
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:54 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by lostav8r »

pelmet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:54 pm Congrats. What's the new job? How much back to where you were pay-wise? Is it in a field that you enjoy? Commute times? Hours? Holidays? Could be interesting for us to find out. After all, we have been giving advice to further your career on other threads(and it was good advice).
I'm happy things took a positive turn, M-F 9-5 WFH healthcare job! It's a contract but lets see where it goes
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

lostav8r wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:56 pm
pelmet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:54 pm Congrats. What's the new job? How much back to where you were pay-wise? Is it in a field that you enjoy? Commute times? Hours? Holidays? Could be interesting for us to find out. After all, we have been giving advice to further your career on other threads(and it was good advice).
I'm happy things took a positive turn, M-F 9-5 WFH healthcare job! It's a contract but lets see where it goes
Good news.

I do honestly believe that smart negotiation with the US where we can give on something in one area that he has targeted could lead to much better economic times in Canada and much better opportunity for your next planned career. Sometimes, you just have to bite your tongue for a while and save the insults for later.

I guess we will see what Carney does in the next couple of months.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

viewtopic.php?t=231640

Off topic but….what the hell.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by 7ECA »

@pelmet:

If things were so much better under the Harper-era Conservatives, could you explain the apparent contradiction in which Mr. Harper has stated that if he were Prime Minister:
Stephen Harper told a crowd in Ottawa Tuesday that if he were still prime minister, he would accept “any level of damage” to Canada, rather than see it join the United States as the 51st state.

“I would be prepared to impoverish the country and not be annexed, if that was the option we’re facing,” Harper said.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/an ... ent-canada

And how about the fact that Harper made the closing address at Carney's recent investment summit?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper ... -9.7345557
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

7ECA wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 11:20 pm @pelmet:

If things were so much better under the Harper-era Conservatives, could you explain the apparent contradiction in which Mr. Harper has stated that if he were Prime Minister:
Stephen Harper told a crowd in Ottawa Tuesday that if he were still prime minister, he would accept “any level of damage” to Canada, rather than see it join the United States as the 51st state.

“I would be prepared to impoverish the country and not be annexed, if that was the option we’re facing,” Harper said.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/an ... ent-canada

And how about the fact that Harper made the closing address at Carney's recent investment summit?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper ... -9.7345557
Do you somehow not understand the difference between negotiating a trade deal and actual annexation to become an actual state of the US?

It is a totally different subject, more along the lines of Russia/Ukraine.

I suspect that many on the left are prepared to impoverish the country in order to save the dairy cartel and any political benefit that Trump could somehow get out of it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by 7ECA »

pelmet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 3:37 am Do you somehow not understand the difference between negotiating a trade deal and actual annexation to become an actual state of the US?

It is a totally different subject, more along the lines of Russia/Ukraine.

I suspect that many on the left are prepared to impoverish the country in order to save the dairy cartel and any political benefit that Trump could somehow get out of it.
Seeing how you're avoiding the question, let's try this again. Do you see any contradictions in Mr. Harper's support for Mark Carney, and his decision to walk away from trade talks with the US?
"This had to be a very difficult decision, but I do believe that our government had no choice but to take this path," Harper said.

"It is clear that the current U.S. administration views our level of economic integration as incompatible with our separate sovereignty," Harper said. "Thus to maintain that sovereignty, we must pursue diminished reliance on the United States."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper ... -9.7345557

Evidently I, and somehow Mr. Harper, see eye to eye on the threat posed by this US Administration vis-a-vis our sovereignty, especially when it relates to economic coercion.

But, apparently you (pelmet) cannot see past your continued railing about supply management cartels to see that this was never about "free trade" with Trump - it was always about ensuring Canada (and Mexico) ended up with diminished sovereignty if not becoming outright vassal states.

I would suggest you brush up on your North American history, starting with the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, if you wish to see past the bullshit and bluster being peddled by Trump and his ilk, as it relates to so-called "deal making." There never was a deal to be made, that is extending the free trade regime that underpinned the North American economy for decades - the deal was always being under the heel of a kleptocrat.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

7ECA wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 11:06 pm
pelmet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 3:37 am Do you somehow not understand the difference between negotiating a trade deal and actual annexation to become an actual state of the US?

It is a totally different subject, more along the lines of Russia/Ukraine.

I suspect that many on the left are prepared to impoverish the country in order to save the dairy cartel and any political benefit that Trump could somehow get out of it.
Seeing how you're avoiding the question, let's try this again. Do you see any contradictions in Mr. Harper's support for Mark Carney, and his decision to walk away from trade talks with the US?
You made a ridiculous question to begin with. We have been discussing the trade negotiations and then you started talking about annexation and how it relates to what Harper said he would do in such a far-fetched scenario and then somehow relating it to whether or not the conservatives might or might not have governed better in the past.

Your statement/question, had zero credibility. It is a sign of derangement and inability to think think logically.

Apparently, Harper said something about what he would do if the US were to try to annex us....fine. (By the way, I am willing to give anyone ten to one odds on a bet that this won't happen because it is just the derangement coming out). Trump talk is just wat it is...a negotiating tactic. All that BS about Greenland just ended with a signed deal with incremental improvement on terms that are a benefit for all of western civilization(keeping places like China and Russia out in terms of military basing or mineral extraction).

Meanwhile, on the trade negotiating front, Harper said he supported Carney walking away from whatever deal(that we have not seen) was proposed.
7ECA wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 11:06 pm But, apparently you (pelmet) cannot see past your continued railing about supply management cartels to see that this was never about "free trade" with Trump - it was always about ensuring Canada (and Mexico) ended up with diminished sovereignty if not becoming outright vassal states.
I have not criticized Carney one bit for walking away as I have seen some unofficial stuff(that cannot be confirmed to be accurate). Poilievre has demanded that the proposal be made public. Hoekstra said that he is fine with it being made public. How about they make it public. Minor issue but it would be nice.

The US can ask for anything they want and so can Canada. It is standard to ask for a lot and then be willing to accept a lot less. That is called negotiating. Extra stuff is thrown in. But the self-sabotaging people like you are willing to support our own people holding us economic hostage(dairy cartel) at the expense of our actual major legitimate industries due to your derangement. We have the most opportune time right now with the mid-term elections coming up. Nothing is stopping us from making a major concession(the dairy cartel) to give Trump a huge win that also gives 40 million Canadians(minus 10,000 farmers) a significant benefit. Post mid-terms, the opportunities decrease quickly.

I see 500 steel workers just got laid off yesterday. I guarantee you 7ECA doesn't have his whole livelihood dependent on steel. And you won't hear one bit of concern about it either from him. Too important to get a feel good but ineffective insult in.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by 7ECA »

pelmet wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 8:49 am You made a ridiculous question to begin with. We have been discussing the trade negotiations and then you started talking about annexation and how it relates to what Harper said he would do in such a far-fetched scenario and then somehow relating it to whether or not the conservatives might or might not have governed better in the past.

Your statement/question, had zero credibility. It is a sign of derangement and inability to think think logically.

Apparently, Harper said something about what he would do if the US were to try to annex us....fine. (By the way, I am willing to give anyone ten to one odds on a bet that this won't happen because it is just the derangement coming out). Trump talk is just wat it is...a negotiating tactic. All that BS about Greenland just ended with a signed deal with incremental improvement on terms that are a benefit for all of western civilization(keeping places like China and Russia out in terms of military basing or mineral extraction).

Meanwhile, on the trade negotiating front, Harper said he supported Carney walking away from whatever deal(that we have not seen) was proposed.
7ECA wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 11:06 pm But, apparently you (pelmet) cannot see past your continued railing about supply management cartels to see that this was never about "free trade" with Trump - it was always about ensuring Canada (and Mexico) ended up with diminished sovereignty if not becoming outright vassal states.
I have not criticized Carney one bit for walking away as I have seen some unofficial stuff(that cannot be confirmed to be accurate). Poilievre has demanded that the proposal be made public. Hoekstra said that he is fine with it being made public. How about they make it public. Minor issue but it would be nice.

The US can ask for anything they want and so can Canada. It is standard to ask for a lot and then be willing to accept a lot less. That is called negotiating. Extra stuff is thrown in. But the self-sabotaging people like you are willing to support our own people holding us economic hostage(dairy cartel) at the expense of our actual major legitimate industries due to your derangement. We have the most opportune time right now with the mid-term elections coming up. Nothing is stopping us from making a major concession(the dairy cartel) to give Trump a huge win that also gives 40 million Canadians(minus 10,000 farmers) a significant benefit. Post mid-terms, the opportunities decrease quickly.

I see 500 steel workers just got laid off yesterday. I guarantee you 7ECA doesn't have his whole livelihood dependent on steel. And you won't hear one bit of concern about it either from him. Too important to get a feel good but ineffective insult in.
Quite a bit to unpack here, but I'll go in order and quote the entire thing for posterity's sake...

The question is far from ridiculous, and even the grandfather of modern Canadian Conservatism (Stephen Harper) has clearly seen that the Trump administration's goal with these trade "negotiations" is not to bring about an extension on "free trade" in North America. The goal is clearly to undermine the sovereignty of both Canada and Mexico, pushing them towards becoming vassal states beholden to the whims of a narcissistic despot.

The reason Trump has rebranded the Monroe Doctrine into (arguably) an even bigger abomination called the "Donroe" Doctrine, is to put his own spin on an already idiotic and hegemonic vision of a hemisphere in which the US has total control. This isn't a "sphere of influence" a la the Cold War, this is Empire Building 101.

The Greenland deal is a red herring, and you would be wise to look at the reaction from European capitals rather than Fox News... This "deal" is barely worth speaking of, let alone touting as some brilliant negotiating tactic. The "Art of the Dumb" managed to get a nearly identical deal to the one the US signed with Denmark in 1951. The US already had broad powers to construct bases and station personnel on the island. Oh sure, there's language about veto power and what not - but only Trump seemed to believe that the "enemy was at the gates" and surrounding Greenland. Threats of annexation should never be taken lightly, though.

I'm not going to argue about supply management or protectionist trade policies with you, when you've clearly dug in. Name-calling and threats are below your supposed station as an airline pilot, and I will not dignify them with a response.

As for the steel workers, I'm actually quite abhorred by the continued destruction of the Canadian manufacturing and industrial base. Although it's hardly a surprise that this move was made, by a US owned steel corporation - whose owner has repeatedly touted the supposed benefits of Trump's trade "policies". Mind you, Trump seems to repeatedly be the poster child for the old adage of "cut of your nose to spite your face". Sure, he can claim to be returning manufacturing jobs to the US - but when the price of lumber, steel, and other base inputs continues to rise as a result of his nonsensical protectionist trade policies eventually the US public will come to grips with how idiotic these policies are.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

7ECA wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 2:08 pm
pelmet wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 8:49 am You made a ridiculous question to begin with. We have been discussing the trade negotiations and then you started talking about annexation and how it relates to what Harper said he would do in such a far-fetched scenario and then somehow relating it to whether or not the conservatives might or might not have governed better in the past.

Your statement/question, had zero credibility. It is a sign of derangement and inability to think think logically.

Apparently, Harper said something about what he would do if the US were to try to annex us....fine. (By the way, I am willing to give anyone ten to one odds on a bet that this won't happen because it is just the derangement coming out). Trump talk is just wat it is...a negotiating tactic. All that BS about Greenland just ended with a signed deal with incremental improvement on terms that are a benefit for all of western civilization(keeping places like China and Russia out in terms of military basing or mineral extraction).

Meanwhile, on the trade negotiating front, Harper said he supported Carney walking away from whatever deal(that we have not seen) was proposed.
7ECA wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 11:06 pm But, apparently you (pelmet) cannot see past your continued railing about supply management cartels to see that this was never about "free trade" with Trump - it was always about ensuring Canada (and Mexico) ended up with diminished sovereignty if not becoming outright vassal states.
I have not criticized Carney one bit for walking away as I have seen some unofficial stuff(that cannot be confirmed to be accurate). Poilievre has demanded that the proposal be made public. Hoekstra said that he is fine with it being made public. How about they make it public. Minor issue but it would be nice.

The US can ask for anything they want and so can Canada. It is standard to ask for a lot and then be willing to accept a lot less. That is called negotiating. Extra stuff is thrown in. But the self-sabotaging people like you are willing to support our own people holding us economic hostage(dairy cartel) at the expense of our actual major legitimate industries due to your derangement. We have the most opportune time right now with the mid-term elections coming up. Nothing is stopping us from making a major concession(the dairy cartel) to give Trump a huge win that also gives 40 million Canadians(minus 10,000 farmers) a significant benefit. Post mid-terms, the opportunities decrease quickly.

I see 500 steel workers just got laid off yesterday. I guarantee you 7ECA doesn't have his whole livelihood dependent on steel. And you won't hear one bit of concern about it either from him. Too important to get a feel good but ineffective insult in.
Quite a bit to unpack here, but I'll go in order and quote the entire thing for posterity's sake...

The question is far from ridiculous, and even the grandfather of modern Canadian Conservatism (Stephen Harper) has clearly seen that the Trump administration's goal with these trade "negotiations" is not to bring about an extension on "free trade" in North America. The goal is clearly to undermine the sovereignty of both Canada and Mexico, pushing them towards becoming vassal states beholden to the whims of a narcissistic despot.

The reason Trump has rebranded the Monroe Doctrine into (arguably) an even bigger abomination called the "Donroe" Doctrine, is to put his own spin on an already idiotic and hegemonic vision of a hemisphere in which the US has total control. This isn't a "sphere of influence" a la the Cold War, this is Empire Building 101.

The Greenland deal is a red herring, and you would be wise to look at the reaction from European capitals rather than Fox News... This "deal" is barely worth speaking of, let alone touting as some brilliant negotiating tactic. The "Art of the Dumb" managed to get a nearly identical deal to the one the US signed with Denmark in 1951. The US already had broad powers to construct bases and station personnel on the island. Oh sure, there's language about veto power and what not - but only Trump seemed to believe that the "enemy was at the gates" and surrounding Greenland. Threats of annexation should never be taken lightly, though.

I'm not going to argue about supply management or protectionist trade policies with you, when you've clearly dug in. Name-calling and threats are below your supposed station as an airline pilot, and I will not dignify them with a response.

As for the steel workers, I'm actually quite abhorred by the continued destruction of the Canadian manufacturing and industrial base. Although it's hardly a surprise that this move was made, by a US owned steel corporation - whose owner has repeatedly touted the supposed benefits of Trump's trade "policies". Mind you, Trump seems to repeatedly be the poster child for the old adage of "cut of your nose to spite your face". Sure, he can claim to be returning manufacturing jobs to the US - but when the price of lumber, steel, and other base inputs continues to rise as a result of his nonsensical protectionist trade policies eventually the US public will come to grips with how idiotic these policies are.
Bottom line, you are willing to sacrifice our major industries so you can protect the dairy industry to satisfy your derangement.

The European capitals had the same hysterical over-reaction as you. Military equipment sent to Greenland. Give me a break. It was all just negotiating bluster on the part of trump and he got what he wanted. Keep foreign adversaries out of Greenland.

For intelligent analysis(versus typical derangement), read here(and you will notice that even Canada has blocked China for Arctic access.......

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united- ... pe=article

Why US deal on Greenland could narrow China’s Arctic engagement
New security accord could make western Arctic states warier of working with China and draw Beijing closer to Moscow, Chinese observers say

Greenland sits atop some of the world’s largest undeveloped mineral deposits, including rare earth elements. The new US-Denmark-Greenland security agreement could narrow China’s room to engage in the Arctic – particularly in resource-rich Greenland – and potentially push Beijing closer to Russia, Chinese experts on the matter said.

According to observers, the deal – signed on Tuesday – could have the broader effect of accelerating the securitisation of the Arctic and making Western Arctic states more cautious about cooperation with China. But it would be unlikely to significantly disrupt China’s existing Arctic cooperation with Russia, which is largely centred far from Greenland.

The deal comes eight months after US President Donald Trump began pressuring Denmark and Greenland – an autonomous Danish territory – over the island’s future, including threats involving tariffs and military force. It expands the US military role on the island while leaving Greenland under Danish control.

The agreement comes at a time when the US and its allies are seeking to build their own rare earth supply chains to counter China’s near-monopoly on the critical minerals, a prime source of leverage that continues to loom over talks between Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping.
Greenland sits atop some of the world’s largest undeveloped mineral deposits, including rare earth elements, as well as iron ore, graphite, tungsten, palladium, vanadium, zinc, gold, uranium and copper.

Under the deal, non-Nato states cannot establish military installations or maintain a persistent military presence in Greenland without mutual agreement. Non-aligned foreign investment in resource extraction and critical infrastructure is also strictly limited.

Zhang Yao, a senior fellow at the Shanghai Centre for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, said the agreement appeared to have China in mind because Beijing was neither a US ally nor a Nato partner.

“The signing of this agreement will bring some negative factors for China’s future Arctic cooperation with Denmark and other Arctic states, particularly in and around Greenland,” Zhang said.

But Zhao Long, director and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Strategic and Security Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, said the agreement could not be described as a substantial setback to China’s Arctic interests.
“China’s commercial presence in Greenland was already extremely limited,” Zhao said, adding that Chinese companies did not “view the island as a priority” due to commercial and operational constraints.

The country’s 2018 Arctic policy white paper described China as a “near-Arctic state” and an “important stakeholder” in Arctic affairs, outlining interests in scientific research, environmental protection, shipping, resource development and Arctic governance. It also promoted the idea of a “Polar Silk Road”.

Western scrutiny of China’s activities in the Arctic has since intensified.

In 2019, then-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo challenged China’s description of itself as a “near-Arctic state”. In 2020, Ottawa blocked Shandong Gold Mining’s proposed acquisition of the Hope Bay gold mine in Nunavut, the remote territory in northern Canada that encompasses most of the Canadian Arctic.

However, Zhang stressed that China’s Arctic interests were primarily focused on “low politics” areas such as trade, shipping, scientific research, environmental cooperation and exchanges with indigenous communities.

“There are no military or geopolitical conflicts with Arctic states in these areas,” he said.

Zhao argued that the more significant long-term effect could therefore be indirect: the agreement could further embed the Arctic in Nato’s security framework and make other Arctic states more cautious about working with China.

Such a shift could affect Chinese participation in scientific research and Arctic governance, potentially adding to the fragmentation of Arctic cooperation, he added.

That security shift also has implications for Russia, the dominant Arctic power and China’s most significant partner in the region.

The atmosphere for international cooperation in the Arctic had deteriorated since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Zhang said.

Finland and Sweden’s accession to Nato has left Russia as the sole non-Nato member among the eight Arctic Council states, while Western sanctions and corporate withdrawals have disrupted cooperation with Moscow in areas including energy.

The Greenland agreement was unlikely to have a major immediate impact on China-Russia Arctic cooperation, experts said.
“The impact on Beijing is relatively limited,” said Liu Xu, a research fellow at the National Academy of Development and Strategy at Renmin University of China. “Its main cooperation with Russia in shipping routes and energy is concentrated on the Russian and European side of the Arctic.”

Liu argued that stronger US and Nato security involvement in the Arctic could, however, push China and Russia towards closer cooperation as competition over the region’s resources and shipping routes intensifies.

Zhao, however, cautioned against drawing a direct link between the Greenland agreement and closer China-Russia cooperation.

“Beijing’s Arctic drive with Moscow stems more from strategic and economic needs than from external pressure,” he said.



Derangement only weakens us. It is the antithesis of rational thought and common sense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

7ECA wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 2:08 pm The US already had broad powers to construct bases and station personnel on the island. Oh sure, there's language about veto power and what not - but only Trump seemed to believe that the "enemy was at the gates" and surrounding Greenland.
Unfortunately, your arguments prove over and over again to not be well thought out and naive(I suspect clouded by derangement). Your own government agency just in the last month has publicly called China the biggest threat in the Arctic.


CSIS officials say China is more of a concern in Canada’s Arctic than Russia

Lynd’s warning comes just a month after Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a new 'strategic partnership' with China


OTTAWA — While Russia remains a military threat in the Arctic, Canada’s security officials told a House of Commons committee this week that they remain primarily focused on China’s threats to economic security in the North.

“Russia has a tremendous interest and focus in the Arctic,” Paul Lynd, assistant director at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), told the foreign affairs committee on Thursday. “However, they are of less concern than, say, the activities of China and other hostile state actors at this time.”

Lynd told the committee CSIS has recently stepped up its engagement with Indigenous communities, territorial and municipal governments in northern Canada to help mitigate China’s foreign interference and economic espionage in the region.

“I would say now, our primary concern about the threat in the Arctic falls under economic security,” said Lynd. “It’s foreign interference in our economic sector.”

Lynd said this would include predatory investment, attempts at control in the critical minerals sector and China’s attempts to gain footholds in critical infrastructure.

“The concern we have would be with clandestine or deceptive investment practices or economic engagement in certain market sectors in the Arctic,” he said. “From a CSIS perspective, we investigate, collect information on that, and we advise government on the rest of the threat.”

Lynd said this is achieved through the Investment Canada Act (ICA), which is legislation that allows the federal government to conduct a national security review of any foreign investment.

The federal government has used the ICA before to protect Canada’s national security interests in commercial fields.

In 2020, the federal government blocked Shandong Gold Mining Company from purchasing a gold mine in Hope Bay, Nunavut.

In November 2022, then Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne ordered three Chinese firms to divest their interests in Canadian critical mineral companies. That same year, the federal government banned Chinese-owned technology company Huawei from working on Canada’s 5G networks over security concerns.

Lynd’s warning comes just a month after Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a new “strategic partnership” with President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping that encourages more two-way investment and trade between Canada and China. The agreement also allows 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into Canada’s car market at smaller tariff rate, in exchange for Chinese tariff relief on Canadian canola and seafood exports.

A recent report by Toronto-Dominion Bank estimates China’s foreign direct investment in Canada will grow to around $90-100 billion over the next five years, with $15-25 billion more investment thanks to the agreement.

While Carney’s government has signalled it would like to see more Chinese investment in the oil and gas sector, agri-food and technology, more sensitive sectors like critical minerals, artificial intelligence and telecommunications will likely be constrained under the ICA.

Arctic security has become more of a focus in recent months, following U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to take over Greenland, a Danish territory, due to what he says are increased threats posed by Russia and China near the strategically positioned island.

In response, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) this week launched the Arctic Sentry, a new initiative that coordinates allied activities in the North. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand told the Arctic 360 conference on Wednesday that Canada would like to see this initiative become permanent.

Anand is at the Munich Security Conference this week, meeting with counterparts, with a focus on advancing cooperation with allies in the Arctic.

NATO allies, including Canada, have committed to increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035, with 3.5 per cent for core military needs and 1.5 per cent for security-related infrastructure. Canada has typically spent below two per cent.

René Ouellette, director general at CSIS, emphasized to the committee that the lack of infrastructure in the North poses indirect risks to national security, because communities in this context are more likely to accept foreign investment that would make them even more vulnerable.

Lynd also acknowledged that despite the increased engagement by CSIS in the region, the agency has no permanent presence there.

“Like all government departments, we’ve had to allocate our resources across the country in a way that maximizes impact, and so it is a resource issue at the current time,” he told the committee. “What we have done is increase our travel from our offices that are not in the Arctic by sending employees much more regularly and much more frequently into the Arctic as often as possible, not just the territorial capitals, but also into the smaller cities as well.”
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8359
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Inflation is coming...in a big way. Part 3. DEBT CRISIS

Post by pelmet »

Opinion article written today about Dairy Supply Management.....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/op ... r-AA2de4kw

Canada becoming an associate member of the European Union would provide the sort of trade diversification this country sorely needs. But an agreement is unlikely as long as the dairy lobby dominates Canadian trade policy. To signal our commitment and good faith, Canada should immediately begin liberalizing supply-managed sectors for trade with Europe. And in 2029, when a new U.S. administration takes office, we should offer tariff-free access for American dairy, eggs and poultry in exchange for restoring a free trade agreement with Washington.

The prices of Canadian milk, eggs, and poultry are artificially elevated by official production quotas and minimum pricing. The Montreal Economic Institute recently estimated the cost to Canadian consumers at $244 per year, a burden that falls much more heavily on low-income families. Many similar Canadian studies — bearing punny titles about “ sacred cows ” and “ spilt milk ” — also support abolishing the costly and inefficient quota system. The non-partisan OECD concurs , arguing in 2017 that “a phasing-out of Canadian dairy supply management policies ” could “boost inclusive growth.” (Canada’s well-funded dairy and poultry lobbies naturally disagree.)

Supply management’s costs extend beyond Canada’s borders. Ottawa has consistently tried to force other countries to accept carve-outs for supply-managed sectors as the price of trading with Canada. Unsurprisingly, such requests do not go over well. Dairy concerns were recently responsible for holding up negotiations for the post-Brexit Canada-U.K. free trade agreement, while a decade ago, supply management nearly derailed the Canada-EU trade pact . The naïve belief that our dairy sector will now accept an even deeper agreement with Brussels is a case of hope trumping experience.

Our biggest problems are south of the border, of course. Supply-managed sectors had a leading role in the collapse of this summer’s trade negotiations with Washington. To be sure, Donald Trump’s temper tantrums have been disgraceful — poisoning relations so much it is unclear how any politically acceptable deal is possible with his administration.

But even while refusing to cower to Trump’s bluster, Canadians need to realize that supply management is damaging Canada’s national interests. This problem has persisted — churned, you might say — for decades and although future American presidents may be less unhinged than Trump, they will take a similarly dim view of our managed markets being largely closed to U.S. products.

As a first step toward a more sensible trade policy , Canada should demonstrate the seriousness of our desire for deeper economic integration by immediately liberalizing dairy trade with the European Union. Similar liberalization should proceed with the U.K. and members of Canada’s Pacific Rim trade pact ( the CPTPP ), including Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Following this strategy, by 2029 Canada would have begun opening supply-managed sectors to foreign competition, gaining valuable experience in managing the transition. Then, after the next presidential inauguration, we could offer similar liberalization to Washington — though only as part of a permanent, tariff-free, bilateral trade agreement (even if a trans-Atlantic multilateral agreement would be even better).

As economists have long argued, trade liberalization creates winners and losers. In the short run, those who are harmed can be compensated, while in the long run, the rising prosperity that trade generates improves everyone’s welfare. If supply management were phased out, Canadian shoppers would enjoy cheaper milk, eggs and poultry and a much wider range of choices. Although some Canadian farmers likely would go out of business, other, nimbler ones, would thrive, finding big new markets in Europe and the U.S.

Successful examples of liberalization abound. Australia liberalized its dairy industry between 2000 and 2009, while New Zealand did so from 1985 to 2003. Even more relevant, the Canadian Wheat Board was phased out almost 15 years ago. Yet there are still lots of cattle Down Under while the Canadian Prairie bursts with grain, suggesting that, despite some adjustment costs, the post-liberalization future can be bright.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”