Today, the Carney government joined the Conservatives and the Bloc to defeat Jenny Kwan’s No More Loopholes Bill — legislation that would have stopped Canadian weapons sent to the U.S. from being used to fuel the genocide in Gaza.
It’s a deeply shameful vote that suggests they would rather appease Trump than protect vulnerable civilians.
But this moment also shows why voices like Jenny Kwan and her colleagues in the NDP caucus matter so much. They continue to champion human rights, peace, and international justice with courage and persistence, even when few others in Parliament will.
Millions of Canadians share that vision. They want Canada to be a force for peace, not a junior arms dealer.
This is exactly why our country needs the NDP.
#cdnpoli #gaza #NDP
They’re literally working in the industry of murder. Also, thought you just literally claimed that these skills were exclusive to people murdering industry. Turns out they could be applied to productive purposes that actually benefit people in Canada. Who knew!
They work in high-tech manufacturing. The majority of which is not exclusively defense tech. They make all kinds of stuff, including defense tech. The money made from those contracts, supports an entire industry that also makes everything else. Without it, there would be no Canadian domestic manufacturing industry left.
And seriously…where do you think the money for all that comes from? Do you honestly think that foreign countries that are currently buying Canadian armored vehicles are just going to switch over to investing in Canadian healthcare? Or housing? It’s weird that you think Canadians can just reallocate that money to other things. You want to stop the manufacturing industry from taking those contracts…that money doesn’t get used for other things. It simply disappears from our economy altogether, and all those workers that relied on it, lose their jobs.
There’s absolutely no reason why labour and resources allocated to filling military contracts couldn’t be directed towards productive purposes. And seriously, what do you think money is exactly? It’s just an allocator. We have a fiat currency last I checked, and our government can issue as much currency as it wants. That’s where money comes from in case you didn’t know. We don’t have to be selling armored vehicles to other countries at all. Our government could be creating crown corporations and hiring workers to build things people in Canada need.
The whole context of this discussion here is literally about using this industry for other things. 🤦
Ok. You clearly don’t understand how the economy works. Canada doesn’t have a central economy. The money comes from contracts paid by other countries that order goods from Canadian businesses. If you cancel those contracts, the money gets cancelled along with it. And that’s not even counting the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed by the countries that just got shafted.
The Canadian government can’t just “print money” to make up the difference, and then tell those private companies that they’re now making different things. Most of the technology involved is not transferable. Billions of dollars worth of equipment designed for making those things, would be wasted. And then on top of that billions more would need to be invested in new equipment designed for the new products you think they should be making instead.
This isn’t just some switch you flip, because the government has decided something. It takes years to make these kinds of changes…and in the meantime, all those companies that have agreed to deliver on their contracts are still legally obligated to deliver on those contracts.
It’s truly adorable that you skimmed a Wikipedia summary of capitalism and decided to bless us with this masterpiece of financial illiteracy. You are crying about wasted factory equipment as if the sunk cost fallacy is not literally the first concept taught in basic microeconomics.
Rational economic actors do not base future production on unrecoverable past investments because capital naturally depreciates and markets constantly undergo structural adjustments. And you evidently have no clue how international trade actually works. When a sovereign nation enacts export controls to legally ban the sale of a specific good, those terrifying breach of contract lawsuits you are hyperventilating about are entirely preempted by standard force majeure clauses and basic sovereign immunity.
Furthermore, a government does not need a literal command economy to force an industrial pivot. The state does not have to seize factories or print money to dictate production. Even under capitalism there are plenty of historical examples of driving industrial policy by altering the regulatory environment and targeted fiscal subsidies. Maybe you should actually take an economics class before aggressively lecturing people on the internet about concepts you completely fail to grasp.
Ok. I get that you’re maybe trying to salvage a poor argument, here…but your understanding of investments is seriously lacking.
I’ve worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, and I’ve watched companies go bankrupt simply by making investments in equipment, expecting certain contracts…only to have those contracts be awarded to other companies. No one can afford to pay for those kinds of investments in cash. That money is still owed, until the loans get paid off. And those loans can’t get paid off, unless that equipment is producing income. All the money spent to tool up a factory, would bankrupt the company that owns it, if it can no longer sell the product it was designed to produce.
Most manufacturers are in a constant cycle of investment. As soon as they’ve paid off the last round of purchases, they reinvest and upgrade their equipment again. If you don’t, then you fall behind on your capabilities, and fail to acquire new contracts. You either keep up with the latest technology, or your company begins to stagnate.
So, if the government steps in and declares that a company cannot finish its current cycle…that company will fold. If the government even declares that company needs to shift its production focus too quickly…that company will fold. And the downstream impacts that a large company has on the rest of the industry, is immense. Sub-contractors would also go under if there was no alternative to the revenue they just lost. How would the government be able to prevent those losses without “printing money”? They would have to wave a magic wand and create new customers for those shops, out of thin air, or watch them all close.
Which brings us to subsidies and other incentives. All the measures you stated for how the government can “pivot”, are voluntary. The government can’t force industries to “pivot” at all. Why do you think the investments that the federal government made into EV’s never materialized results, even after dumping billions of dollars into the effort? Unless you are willing to take full control of those industries, it is almost impossible to turn them towards other things, on demand. The cost is prohibitively high. The fact that you don’t seem to get that, tells me that you don’t understand economics as well as you think you do.
It is far more cost effective to invest in new companies to produce new products than it is to simply tell existing companies they can no longer sell the products they are tooled up for.
Bro really pulled the 30 years in manufacturing card just to confidently describe the sunk cost fallacy. If a company goes bankrupt because management financed a massive tooling upgrade on credit for a contract they did not actually secure yet, that is not some profound economic revelation lmfao.
That’s just complete garbage management. You are acting like taking on unhedged debt based on pure hope is a universal law of physics that makes industrial pivots impossible. Your weird claim that government EV investments never materialized is genuinely hilarious and proves you have not looked at global auto manufacturing or supply chain data in the last decade. Legacy automakers are actively pouring billions into retooling their existing plants right now precisely because leveraging established vendor networks, trained labor pools, and permitted industrial real estate is infinitely cheaper than trying to build greenfield factories from the dirt up.
Your entire thesis literally boils down to claiming that when a restaurant needs to update its menu it is more cost effective to bulldoze the building and start a new corporation than it is to just buy a different oven. Maybe stick to the shop floor and leave the capital allocation arguments to people who actually understand how depreciation and asset lifecycle management work.
Yeah, all those monsterous welders, machinists, fabricators, and foundry workers. They are literally the worst kinds of people. /s
They’re literally working in the industry of murder. Also, thought you just literally claimed that these skills were exclusive to people murdering industry. Turns out they could be applied to productive purposes that actually benefit people in Canada. Who knew!
They work in high-tech manufacturing. The majority of which is not exclusively defense tech. They make all kinds of stuff, including defense tech. The money made from those contracts, supports an entire industry that also makes everything else. Without it, there would be no Canadian domestic manufacturing industry left.
And seriously…where do you think the money for all that comes from? Do you honestly think that foreign countries that are currently buying Canadian armored vehicles are just going to switch over to investing in Canadian healthcare? Or housing? It’s weird that you think Canadians can just reallocate that money to other things. You want to stop the manufacturing industry from taking those contracts…that money doesn’t get used for other things. It simply disappears from our economy altogether, and all those workers that relied on it, lose their jobs.
There’s absolutely no reason why labour and resources allocated to filling military contracts couldn’t be directed towards productive purposes. And seriously, what do you think money is exactly? It’s just an allocator. We have a fiat currency last I checked, and our government can issue as much currency as it wants. That’s where money comes from in case you didn’t know. We don’t have to be selling armored vehicles to other countries at all. Our government could be creating crown corporations and hiring workers to build things people in Canada need.
The whole context of this discussion here is literally about using this industry for other things. 🤦
Ok. You clearly don’t understand how the economy works. Canada doesn’t have a central economy. The money comes from contracts paid by other countries that order goods from Canadian businesses. If you cancel those contracts, the money gets cancelled along with it. And that’s not even counting the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed by the countries that just got shafted.
The Canadian government can’t just “print money” to make up the difference, and then tell those private companies that they’re now making different things. Most of the technology involved is not transferable. Billions of dollars worth of equipment designed for making those things, would be wasted. And then on top of that billions more would need to be invested in new equipment designed for the new products you think they should be making instead.
This isn’t just some switch you flip, because the government has decided something. It takes years to make these kinds of changes…and in the meantime, all those companies that have agreed to deliver on their contracts are still legally obligated to deliver on those contracts.
It’s truly adorable that you skimmed a Wikipedia summary of capitalism and decided to bless us with this masterpiece of financial illiteracy. You are crying about wasted factory equipment as if the sunk cost fallacy is not literally the first concept taught in basic microeconomics.
Rational economic actors do not base future production on unrecoverable past investments because capital naturally depreciates and markets constantly undergo structural adjustments. And you evidently have no clue how international trade actually works. When a sovereign nation enacts export controls to legally ban the sale of a specific good, those terrifying breach of contract lawsuits you are hyperventilating about are entirely preempted by standard force majeure clauses and basic sovereign immunity.
Furthermore, a government does not need a literal command economy to force an industrial pivot. The state does not have to seize factories or print money to dictate production. Even under capitalism there are plenty of historical examples of driving industrial policy by altering the regulatory environment and targeted fiscal subsidies. Maybe you should actually take an economics class before aggressively lecturing people on the internet about concepts you completely fail to grasp.
Ok. I get that you’re maybe trying to salvage a poor argument, here…but your understanding of investments is seriously lacking.
I’ve worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, and I’ve watched companies go bankrupt simply by making investments in equipment, expecting certain contracts…only to have those contracts be awarded to other companies. No one can afford to pay for those kinds of investments in cash. That money is still owed, until the loans get paid off. And those loans can’t get paid off, unless that equipment is producing income. All the money spent to tool up a factory, would bankrupt the company that owns it, if it can no longer sell the product it was designed to produce.
Most manufacturers are in a constant cycle of investment. As soon as they’ve paid off the last round of purchases, they reinvest and upgrade their equipment again. If you don’t, then you fall behind on your capabilities, and fail to acquire new contracts. You either keep up with the latest technology, or your company begins to stagnate.
So, if the government steps in and declares that a company cannot finish its current cycle…that company will fold. If the government even declares that company needs to shift its production focus too quickly…that company will fold. And the downstream impacts that a large company has on the rest of the industry, is immense. Sub-contractors would also go under if there was no alternative to the revenue they just lost. How would the government be able to prevent those losses without “printing money”? They would have to wave a magic wand and create new customers for those shops, out of thin air, or watch them all close.
Which brings us to subsidies and other incentives. All the measures you stated for how the government can “pivot”, are voluntary. The government can’t force industries to “pivot” at all. Why do you think the investments that the federal government made into EV’s never materialized results, even after dumping billions of dollars into the effort? Unless you are willing to take full control of those industries, it is almost impossible to turn them towards other things, on demand. The cost is prohibitively high. The fact that you don’t seem to get that, tells me that you don’t understand economics as well as you think you do.
It is far more cost effective to invest in new companies to produce new products than it is to simply tell existing companies they can no longer sell the products they are tooled up for.
Bro really pulled the 30 years in manufacturing card just to confidently describe the sunk cost fallacy. If a company goes bankrupt because management financed a massive tooling upgrade on credit for a contract they did not actually secure yet, that is not some profound economic revelation lmfao.
That’s just complete garbage management. You are acting like taking on unhedged debt based on pure hope is a universal law of physics that makes industrial pivots impossible. Your weird claim that government EV investments never materialized is genuinely hilarious and proves you have not looked at global auto manufacturing or supply chain data in the last decade. Legacy automakers are actively pouring billions into retooling their existing plants right now precisely because leveraging established vendor networks, trained labor pools, and permitted industrial real estate is infinitely cheaper than trying to build greenfield factories from the dirt up.
Your entire thesis literally boils down to claiming that when a restaurant needs to update its menu it is more cost effective to bulldoze the building and start a new corporation than it is to just buy a different oven. Maybe stick to the shop floor and leave the capital allocation arguments to people who actually understand how depreciation and asset lifecycle management work.