Mark Carney World Economic Forum speech

[ZeldaStar]

 

 

Inspiring, look at the contrast with Trump 

[LordFall]

I thought it was indeed a phenomenal speech, made me proud that this is our leader. 

[Rigel]

Thank God Trump probably can’t understand any of it lol. Carney is being quite blunt here.

It grabbed me when he said that we need to stop pretending & name reality while reaching out to middle nations.

[oldhandle]

Of course Trump responded like an infant to it

[Jannes]

Is this stage orange at his best or partially stage yellow? 

There is a lot of systems thinking there but still for the benefit of oneself. 

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, Jannes said:

Is this stage orange at his best or partially stage yellow? 

There is a lot of systems thinking there but still for the benefit of oneself. 

Whatever level you pin him at, Carney is perhaps still quite advanced compared to the rest of the world.

Edited Thursday at 03:09 PM by enchanted

[zazen]

From: https://x.com/benjaminnorton/status/2014003774751449228?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

“It is perhaps understandable that most observers are focusing on Carney's response to Donald Trump's threats and his announcement that Canada will "fundamentally shift our strategic posture" and "diversify" away from the US. This is significant and historic.

Nevertheless, an even more important part of the speech was when Canada's prime minister admitted that the so-called "rules-based international order" was always deeply hypocritical and biased, serving the interests of the imperialist West.

He said, "We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim".

"This fiction was useful" for Western imperialist countries, Carney added. Which is why, "We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality".

However, "This bargain no longer works", he stressed.

In other words, Carney was admitting that Western "middle powers" (like Canada or European countries) willingly went along with US hegemony and supported the US-led imperialist system -- which is predicated on the systematic subjugation and exploitation of Global South countries in the periphery -- because these Western middle powers also benefited from this pillage of the Global South.

But now that the US empire has turned against these Western imperialist middle powers that it previously called its "allies", and now that they are getting just a glimpse of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of what they have been doing to the Global South for centuries, they are (ostensibly) turning against the exploitative system that they had helped to sustain for so long.

They supported imperialism as long as it benefited them. Now that it doesn't, they pretend to be acting in a principled way, supposedly to uphold international law and defend sovereignty. But Canada's prime minister has publicly acknowledged that they never truly cared about that. It was just the public relations narrative.”

 

[Jannes]

Its worth it to watch it a second time, now I feel like I really understand everything he is saying. 

So when middle powers choose their trading partners they practice power because they can make countries weaker or stronger with their choices. When rules based values dictate which partners they choose they channel the force of the international based order in that direction with their economic power. 

Just because some countries are military and economic bullies doesnt force you into your own shelf if you want to keep integrity to your rules, the answer is to find a wide range of partners. You take those with the same values as yours but are pragmatic when when that isnt fully possible. 

This creates a network of partners which makes countries more resilient, they cant be pushed around by bullies. When they get bullied economically from one country they have a backbone of a lot of other partners. This is their strength. And with that they win the self confidence to select the right countries they want to partner with. 

Thats exactly what I am seeing in Germany right now, with the EU wanting to do a trade deal with South America, a trade deal between Germany and India and now I am hearing Africa. 

[voxun]

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

Its worth it to watch it a second time, now I feel like I really understand everything he is saying. 

So when middle powers choose their trading partners they practice power because they can make countries weaker or stronger with their choices. When rules based values dictate which partners they choose they channel the force of the international based order in that direction with their economic power. 

Just because some countries are military and economic bullies doesnt force you into your own shelf if you want to keep integrity to your rules, the answer is to find a wide range of partners. You take those with the same values as yours but are pragmatic when when that isnt fully possible. 

This creates a network of partners which makes countries more resilient, they cant be pushed around by bullies. When they get bullied economically from one country they have a backbone of a lot of other partners. This is their strength. And with that they win the self confidence to select the right countries they want to partner with. 

Thats exactly what I am seeing in Germany right now, with the EU wanting to do a trade deal with South America, a trade deal between Germany and India and now I am hearing Africa. 

It remains to be seen. Europe has so many different countries that it's hard to get them all pointed in the same direction. Imagine a hypothetical US where each state is patriotic to their own state and not to the USA. 

Even though the EU is acting like a trading block, there are still a lot of internal differences which probably would trump any trade deal if we got rid of them.

Perhaps it will happen now. If it doesn't happen now not sure if it will ever happen. Perhaps a smaller core of countries that will integrate completely first. Our Belgian PM talked about this. Since Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg are pioneering members of the EU (out of necessity since we are so small) we can and are allowed to move at a different speed. So it's possible that full integration will start here first and if that goes well others will follow. Like they did in the past. The cultural differences between those 3 countries are not that big which makes things easier.

An EU without it's own internal barriers could be a real powerhouse.

[Jannes]

22 hours ago, voxun said:

It remains to be seen. Europe has so many different countries that it's hard to get them all pointed in the same direction. Imagine a hypothetical US where each state is patriotic to their own state and not to the USA. 

Even though the EU is acting like a trading block, there are still a lot of internal differences which probably would trump any trade deal if we got rid of them.

On point. The european parlament voted with a small majority that the EU and Mercosur trade deal should be examined by the european court of justice.

Damnit, thats tragic in these times. On the other hand inner conflict in the EU because of a trade deal that feels unfair to some countries would be terrible as EU needs to stick together. 

[voxun]

10 hours ago, Jannes said:

On point. The european parlament voted with a small majority that the EU and Mercosur trade deal should be examined by the european court of justice.

Damnit, thats tragic in these times. On the other hand inner conflict in the EU because of a trade deal that feels unfair to some countries would be terrible as EU needs to stick together. 

All they have to do is loosen the co² rules for EU farmers and this will easily get accepted but I think they are still stuck in to much ideology. 

The EU farmers think it's unfair they are submitted to strict cowshit rules while the South-American farmers aren't.