Carney sagt, dass durch den Verkauf öffentlicher Vermögenswerte wie Flughäfen die Infrastruktur finanziert werden könnte

Short term gain for his government, long term pain for Canadians. It’s a stupid move that will just cost us more in the long run. Moves like these are so incredibly short sighted.

I’m a Carney Stan with a capital S (see my post/comment history – I’m not shy about it).

This is an atrocious idea. For the love of all things Canadian, don’t do this.

Airports ARE infrastructure.

This is one of the most bonehead short term thinking that could ever come out of a supposedly rational government.

Didn’t we already go through this with selling off Crown corporations in the 80s? It’s like selling the family heirlooms to pay the gas bill.

Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Only in this case more like stealing Canadian assets for billionaire hedge funds to then fund billionaires to develop infrastructure that only services them.

Think about what your last experience in Pearson International looked like. Now think about how a private equity company will „Need to extract wealth for the shareholders“.They definitely won’t invest in making it look nice unless you have there subscription service, food will be more expensive flights with out a doubt cost more money as airline cost increases as well as issues with people who work there likely getting treated like amazon employees. Want to get smuggled goods in to Canada well the people working there for peanuts would definitely be more tempted.

I know this subs default position is that privatization almost always equals bad, but[ there’s generally a good amount of literature](https://www.nber.org/digest/20231/privatizing-infrastructure-evidence-airports?page=1&perPage=50) in terms of both policies if implemented correctly. For Airports, both Australia and The EU have had a lot of success with privatization of airports seeing improved customer satisfaction, better infrastructure investment, more low cost carriers, less reliance on government mandated airport fees and increased routes and service capacity rates etc. Whereas for Ports, generally from what I understand, the government wants more private investment and co-ownership of ports rather than completely giving up public ownership etc. (which is generally the norm in most countries where the EU for instance has much more public-private partnerships and public equity involved in their ports than Canada does etc.)

With Airports though, there’s not really a one size fits all approach since the U.S style of airport subsidies alongside a more liberalized airline sector generally also produces strong infrastructure investment and customer satisfaction rates etc. So I think that both U.S, EU and Australian models all serve as potential solutions for our beleaguered airports and airline sectors etc.

Generally though, I think that systemic and more market oriented reforms in both sectors are more important than whether the ownership is public or private:

**For Airlines**, we need to create a more liberalized airline sector where airports are less reliant on government mandated fees and restrictions on cabotage and foreign ownership are either removed or significantly reduced to around the level of peer countries.

**For ports and the shipping industry**, we need to phase out our restrictions on coasting trade by abolishing/replacing Canada’s Coasting Trade Act (which acts similarly to the Jones Act in the U.S) to boost coastal trade in Canada and boost port activity to get more money to improve port infrastructure etc.

Maybe a bad opinion but personally I disagree with selling critical infrastructure to fund critical infrastructure however, I’m not a policy expert.

Here’s where I disagree 100% with Carney.
Time for some petitions to send the message to him we don’t want this.

I guarantee that if the government goes through with this, they will use the proceeds for non-equity funding (i.e. gifts) for privately-owned infrastructure like rail and pipelines. Double the corporate giveaways!

We hired a banker to liquidate our toxic asset of a country. He’s doing his job. Wealth awaits, but not for us.

At best, we are revenue streams for foreign companies who will strip the country bare.

I’ve looked into this a bit and I’m pretty torn because it can go either way. Although I do see it not working out as that’s typically what happens here. However, There’s evidence of it going well and there’s evidence of it going horribly. It all comes down to how it’s done.

To start off, the thing people miss here in Canada is that our current model isn’t some clean public alternative. These airports are already run by private not for profit authorities and airport fees already eat up something like 30 cents of every dollar spent on airfare.

One of the biggest study ever done on this pulled data from 2,000+ airports across 217 countries. Privatization by itself doesn’t really move the needle. What matters is how you structure it. Private equity backed long term lease deals with actual competition built in saw passenger traffic nearly double, more routes, more low cost carriers, fewer cancellations.

Vienna privatized their airports in 1992 and is consistently held up as a model case. The CEO of Vienna Airport basically called it a clear success, saying many parties benefited including airlines, and that it led to higher service and quality standards. No monopoly problem because it was structured properly from the start and didn’t bundle a bunch of airports together under one owner.

Gold Coast Airport in Australia is another one people point to. Nearly $300 million in investment went in after Queensland Airport Limited took it over in 1998 , and it’s been a consistently well run regional airport since.

UK is the classic cautionary tale. They privatized Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted all under one company in 1987. Obviously one company controlling 90% of passenger traffic in southeast England with zero competition is just a monopoly with a new logo(which Canada seems to LOVE lol)

After the UK eventually broke up the BAA monopoly and sold off Gatwick, Edinburgh and Stansted separately, the Competition and Markets Authority found greater passenger growth, more competitive airport charging, and increases in capital investment, operational efficiency and service quality at all three.

If Carney can do this right, and follow some of the examples that have worked globally, it can genuinely benefit passengers.

This is a good move. Selling a minority share to sovereign wealth funds who operate the global port supply chains at maximum efficiency is a huge benefit.

We raise money for other projects, while maximizing facility operations.

This is not selling out, this is buying in, at advantages prices.

Yes, because asset recycling is a smart idea amirite? The same tried, tested, and failed neoliberal policy that has done nothing to improve our economic prosperity and contributed to our declining state capacity.

Sheer economic illiteracy

It could, maybe, maybe not. But what we know for sure is whatever we’re selling now, we’re never getting back, and those are already important public infrastructure

Yeah, because with the affordability crisis and inexcusable wage gap bending the average Canadian over the counter, we’re all really in the mood to sell public assets so more companies can nickle and dime us to death.

Banker politician doing the thing that advantages bankers and sets up Canadians for long-term losses? Y’don’t say?

This is a very conservative move, but nonetheless an expected one.

This is what happens when you give Liberals an unchecked majority.

This country is still reeling from the waves of privatizations from the 80s and 90s and the economic policy of that era is where a lot of the root causes of today’s problems comes from – the same school of thought Carney adheres to. I’ve always been uneasy about him, and more and more my gut is proven right and I’m starting to outright disdain him.

It’s nauseating seeing the most disingenuous people try to bill an election that was a referendum on Trump distorted into „well he won the election which is a sweeping mandate for more austere neoliberalism“ or the people saying „what did you think you were getting?“ as a defense of him (?) . He has a dyed in the wool fanbase, especially online, that is really obnoxious and borders on Stan territory.