Der Canada Strong Fund ist kein Staatsfonds – es ist eine defizitfinanzierte Subvention im patriotischen Gewand
Der Canada Strong Fund ist kein Staatsfonds – es ist eine defizitfinanzierte Subvention im patriotischen Gewand
15 Kommentare
Coming from a news channel that was a proponent of defunding the CBC, I don’t expect much.
True, usually a „sovereign“ fund (like the one of Norway) is created when a country has a surplus of money and not a debt, but the world is currently in uncharted territory in terms of geopolitics and geoeconomics so thinking OUTSIDE of the box might actually be what Canada needs right now.
Also, come on, this was written by the two founders of The Hub, both strong proponents of free markets and governmental hands-off economy.
Maybe they should list their credentials in terms of managing countries‘ economies before criticizing that. I mean, criticism is good and important but it’s only valid if you can show that you’ve done your homework.
[removed]
[removed]
Putting tax money into anything increases the deficit. The only place Conservative want that money put is tax breaks for business and the rich.
The use of the term sovereign wealth fund was ill advised. Did they not think that people would quickly discover it was nothing of the sort? I’m supportive of what they are doing, but let’s not pretend this is anything like a SWF.
Gotta love how we got years of
complaining about lack of investment and falling behind on productivity and now we are getting endless complaining about trying to increase investment and productivity.
The definition of a Sovereign Wealth Fund:
_A sovereign wealth fund (SWF), or sovereign investment fund, is a state-owned investment fund that invests in real and financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, or in alternative investments such as private equity funds or hedge funds._
I’m struggling to see where ours is not meeting that definition in its totality. Arguing whether this is a good idea or not is valid, imo, but arguing the semantics is in bad faith.
What’s wrong with that? We need deficit spending to get out of this recession, and then when the economy starts growing again, Canada Strong can be converted into a more conventional SWF.
I think it’s the return of the [Canadian Development Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Development_Corporation).
I’m kind of sour on the idea after watching the About That segment but (as Andrew pointed out) we don’t have details to really critique this.
They should not have announced it without full details and a misleading name but oh well.
A bit premature to get all worked up over something we don’t know much about.
In this country, we only run deficits to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and to multinational corporations god damn it!
>:(
Everyone seems to be hung up on the comparison to Norway, when Canada’s fund is more similar to Ireland’s Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF).
ISIF is classified as a kind of sovereign investment fund by the [International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds](https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/ireland-strategic-investment-fund-isif).
Key comparisons:
– ✔️ ISIF was initially funded when Ireland was running a deficit. So all the pearl clutching that Canada’s SWF can’t be a SWF since Canada doesn’t have a budget surplus really only holds water if you think the only SWF in the world is Norway’s.
– ✔️ ISIF has a domestic focus, just like Canada’s stated purpose for its SWF.
– ❌ Perhaps one differentiator is that ISIF does have a portion of its investments in foreign assets, although its primary focus is domestic. Canada’s initial stated goal was for its SWF to invest entirely within Canada.
We know nothing about this fund yet, except the name. Whether people like the idea or not is one thing and completely fine, but I think choosing this name was a bad idea with the little information we have about it and pretty much all sources of media agree on that.
Comparing it to Norway’s was also a bad move in my opinion. It seems obvious it was done as an attempt to give it credibility when nothing we know about it makes those 2 similar so far. It looks a lot more like the Canada Infrastructure Bank than a „standard“ sovereign fund.
I personally don’t understand how people can argue for this name of the fund, even if it technically fits the definition someone has posted multiple times in the comments. The fund might fit the definition but it definitely wasn’t explained as that definition and compared to funds that are loved for that general definition.
Either way, I advise anyone to watch the „About that“ on youtube from CBC on the matter. Even the host is confused.
Far be it from me to play the contrarian but the way that the globe and mail, the national post, the hub, etc have all linked arms to absolutely spam the hell out of the public discourse with „What Is The Point of the Sovereign Wealth Fund“ has bolstered my faith in the project where I previously had my reservations about it with regards to how it would work with private investors.
I listened to The Hub’s podcast on this. Their argument was that this was not a sovereign wealth fund because it wasn’t funded by a surplus somewhere, and also it was focused on investing inside the country (as opposed to outside the country, as Norway’s fund does). They claimed it was a confusing and pointless financial vehicle and decidedly not a sovereign wealth fund. Then, in literally the same 15-minute conversation, they attacked the Canada Pension Plan for investing outside the country and took the position that this fund should instead be dropped in favour of getting the CCP to direct some of their „unweildy“ wealth inwards—so… they are criticizing the CPP for not doing exactly what they feel the Canada Strong fund is actually doing. They seemed even more disturbed by the notion that the government would request a seat at the table of private businesses in which it invested.
Whatever criticisms there are for the project, I think what’s increasingly clear to me is that these publications fear a government that can build and exercise leverage against private enterprise in order to push it to move in the interests of Canadians whenever shareholder interests are in direct conflict with those of the public.
That doesn’t scare me, it encourages me.
I think we are missing a lot of key details to assess this new measure but I guess some will always prefer massive deregulation and corporate tax cut. They should also look a Quebec current economic performance before bashing them. I think the have a far more balance economy compared to some provinces.
It should have a goal, either funding the government to eliminate income tax or providing its citizens UBI. There is no other legitimate purpose I can see.