My recent online interactions have highlighted a clear trend

My recent online interactions have highlighted a clear trend: when I criticize the actions or statements of Pierre Poilievre or Danielle Smith, I often receive a warm reception. Many people agree, share my thoughts, or celebrate my observations. In contrast, even a mild critique of Mark Carney tends to provoke hostility and silence, as if it's a betrayal to suggest anything other than his status as the nation's greatest savior. 

Nevertheless, I must express my opinions honestly, and I find Carney's initial economic decisions troubling because they reveal much about his overall approach. To clarify, his early economic policy announcements align perfectly with what we can expect from a banker: significant benefits for the wealthy, limited relief for what remains of the dwindling middle class, and merely token assistance for the poor, if they are considered at all. For the affluent, a proposed increase in the capital gains tax has been canceled. This change would have primarily impacted those selling a second home or a large business—who, let's be honest, can afford it. While it could have been adjusted to target the truly wealthy more effectively, this was the first serious attempt in ages to make the rich contribute their fair share. Cancelling this adjustment is a significant windfall for CEOs and billionaires, who stand to gain the most. As for the middle class, there's a GST break on home sales up to a million dollars. 

This is beneficial for the small percentage of Canadians who can afford such properties; if you're in that bracket, this policy could result in an additional $50,000 in your pocket. While not monumental in the grand scheme, it's certainly a nice bonus. However, what if you can't afford to buy a house? What if you're struggling with soaring rents or the cost of groceries, perhaps among the two million Canadians who now find themselves relying on food banks, often for the first time? The government's planned response to U.S. tariffs, which is expected to involve counter-tariffs, will likely hit vulnerable individuals the hardest, especially now that the carbon tax rebate—an essential aid for low-income households—has been eliminated. 

This pattern reflects how the banking sector has influenced our economy for generations: the greater your need, the less support you receive; conversely, the less you need, the more assistance you get. Inequality in Canada is at an unprecedented high and is set to continue its upward trajectory. While I trust that Carney aims to assist Canada's economy despite external pressures stemming from Trump-era policies, we must scrutinize the definition of success that has often been misrepresented. Rising GDP figures don't benefit those waiting in food banks; instead, the wealth generated tends to enrich only the elite, who continually seek more at the expense of those in need. For millions struggling to make ends meet after over four decades of stagnant wages against steep cost-of-living increases, the current measures come off as tone-deaf. Carney has yet to reach out to these individuals, while Poilievre merely feigns concern for the poor, providing them with the illusion of being heard. This dynamic is part of the frightening reality: economic instability breeds fertile ground for the rise of fascism.
Source@ Michael's Nabert

[attachment deleted by admin]