🍁 League Discussion — Printing Money as the Strategy 🍁

1. The Core Strategy: Printing Money

The Carney strategy is centered on printing money — but do the Conservatives have an alternative where all the pieces fit together? Or is it simply an opposition contrast: cut personal taxes immediately to appeal to a specific voter segment?

D. Hird is the person to consult on the evolving dynamics of the Conservative caucus. What can the party do to perform better? Do the Conservatives also need a coherent spending plan, similar to how the Liberals are expanding energy?

-----------------------------------------------------

2. Deficit and U. S. Trade Leverage

The question is leverage: how do you negotiate stronger trade deals with the U.S. when you have very little?

One approach is to prop up affected industries temporarily — effectively printing money or subsidizing — while simultaneously developing emerging sectors. This cycles between immediate support and long-term growth. 

From this starting point, is printing money a necessary tool?

Wharton graduate A. Ugarte is someone to consult on Carney’s strategy; he can comment on unintended monetary outcomes. Could we face inflation that cannot be controlled?

Another angle: J. Mintz notes that recently Swiss corporations negotiated directly with Trump, suggesting the Canadian business community could do the same. The option exists — so what barriers are stopping action? 

Carney is focused on new markets, but nothing prevents Canadian industries that are heavily dependent on U.S. trade from acting independently. Yet some sectors — auto, for example — remain persistently troubled; perhaps no one can fully fix them.

Long-term, the priority must be developing new industries and locking the value chain domestically. Do we have anyone who can shed light on the UAE speech and its outcome?

----------------------------------------------------

3. Deferring Housing: Is It the Right Move?

Cost-of-living issues operate on a separate timeline and require a different order of attack. Once the budget passes, striking international deals should be the first priority. Only then can forecasts be aligned with domestic labour requirements.

Without clarity on labour, immigration planning fails. Without immigration planning, housing planning fails. And without anticipating which sectors will flourish from upcoming agreements, monetary policy cannot be calibrated effectively. 

Housing should be deferred — too many supply- and demand-side variables remain uncertain.

M. Gill would be a person to ask, but he objected to supporting The League. He didn’t like being put on the spot; I thought he could provide input given his board experience in the sector.

With so many variables on both the supply and demand side, is the federal government now the major player in determining outcomes?

4. Foreign Investment, Monetary Levers, and Strategic Positioning

If I ever played with M. Dickinson, I’d wait until the back nine — but I’d ask him this directly, knowing he wasn’t a supporter of Carney’s spending plan.

When both foreign capital and government spending decline, a country loses monetary flexibility because the central bank becomes the lone instrument sustaining liquidity and demand. With fewer fiscal injections and weaker capital inflows, the Bank of Canada must shoulder both the money-supply burden and the responsibility for stabilizing economic activity. But if overall economic volume grows while key ratios hold — then a Carney government gains room to manoeuvre.

It can subsidize strategic industries, manage currency pressures, and maintain credibility in global markets.

I would ask Mark what he has seen in other nations — maybe in the seven seconds between tee shots.

Carney’s spending approach functions as a pitch: point to the budget, attract capital. Countries hedging against U.S. exposure, seeking supply-chain reliability, or positioning within North America may see Canada as a strategic partner. Is that Canada’s niche?