this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
49 points (93.0% liked)

Canada

11707 readers
437 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 minutes ago
[–] vogo13@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Friendly reminder (June 2025 article): Nearly half of national public pension plan is invested in U.S. β€” and only 12% in Canada

There has been no official update or scrutiny on this close to trillion dollar investment almost a year later, which is hundreds of billions in the US. This is just one of the Canadian government's investments that is heavily invested into the US. Hard to say that Canada is doing any actions rather than just talking with a big mouth?

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 3 points 16 hours ago

This could be the result of a smart, passive approach. I'd be hesitant to let anyone with strong ideological investment strategies run our pension.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Right, you'd think dumping US bonds and investing in Canada would be the obvious move here.

[–] ilickfrogs@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

US has been borrowing $50B a week for the last 5 months. You have to be an idiot to buy into that scheme.

https://news.y0.exchange/article/us-borrows-50b-weekly-for-5-months-cbo-reports-unsustainable-debt

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

Does seem weird to keep propping up a country that's actively fighting a trade war with us, encouraging separatism in Alberta, and openly discussing an invasion.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We sold our gold in 2018 to buy US bonds. We are idiots.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

March 2022 he said it, which would be a 45k. So a 55% profit versus the bonds that lost value due to rising interest rates.

The US then used its strong dollar to levy tariffs against the globe.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Why are we buying debt of a country headed into a recession/depression and massive inflation?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 10 points 1 day ago
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But isn't this also leverage?

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

You may be misunderstanding the data. This isn't government holdings of treasuries. It's public and private holdings, so it includes both the BoC holdings and the holdings of private investors. The government's holdings at the BoC stayed pretty much the same over the year. The increase basically all comes from private investors, and the government can't choose to sell their treasuries.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In what way, how could Canada practically threaten the US with this?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It gives us a "nuclear button" where we can threaten with massive sell-offs that could tank the value of US bonds. To counter it they would have to basically raise interest rates and/or print money. Sure it would hurt us too, but not before hurting them more. Now if you also place this in a context of coordination with other debt owners (Europeans, Chinese), we can really hurt them.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

First question is, massive sell off to whom? Second, it's obviously going to have a have a huge impact on our own economy. It's not going to hurt them more because the US is a much bigger economy than us. Can you show me a historical instance of this sort of threat actually working in practice?

If this gave any actual leverage then China would be keeping their bonds instead of doing a fire sale right now. The only countries buying up US bonds are the ones that are under the US thumb right now.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First question is, massive sell off to whom?

Any bonds that are at their due date are required to be paid out by the US treasury.

Most holders of US bonds have a revolving collection of them, so some are coming due on a regular and continual basis.

Admittedly, that's not a mass sell-off, but it still puts pressure on the US if everyone starts doing it .

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sure, if everybody started dumping US assets in a coordinated fashion that would hurt the US, we both know is not going to happen though. So, in reality Canada is simply making itself more dependent on the US. There's no need to do mental gymnastics to pretend that this is some 4D chess.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

in reality Canada is simply making itself more dependent on the US.

And doing so in a relatively carefully manner so as not to hurt ourselves unnecessarily.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Making ourselves more dependent on a hostile power is precisely what's hurting us unnecessarily. Incredible that people can't seem to understand this.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So what's your point here?

IIT you are both arguing it's bad Canada held onto these investments while saying Canada cannot actually dump them without hurting itself

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying Canada should not have continued increasing investments, which is what we did, and we should have been dumping them instead. And the sooner we start doing that the less pain we will be in long term. Let me know if any of that is still unclear to you.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Hmmm looks like Canada has increased that investment for the last 4-5 years. Without this year's report, it's hard to see if we still kept that 4-5 year old strategy going or not.

Keep in mind that, until the Orange Pedophile's second term (so early last year), Canada was only paying lip service to moving away from the USA

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

that's literally explained in the reply to the comment you screenshotted

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

yes, and you seemed to be arguing AGAINST that poster... hence my question

Also, letting bonds expire is not selling them so again, you are talking both ends here

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You seem to be utterly unable to actually engage with what's being said. Go read my reply to that comment. I'm not challenging that the bonds can be redeemed. Why don't you actually address what I said instead of accusing me of talking of both ends here?

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I posted a screenshot of what you said... and now you want me to find another of your post that contradicts it... that is exactly what I am pointing out here.

If you don't want to be called out, maybe be a bit clearer?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Once again, I ask you to specifically explain what part what my argument you disagree with. I've already addressed the screenshot you posted. You completely ignored the rest of what I said. And I strongly suspect that you either don't understand what I wrote, or you're intentionally trolling here. Which is it?

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Once again, I ask you to specifically explain what part what my argument you disagree with. I’ve already addressed the screenshot you posted.

You actually did not, you pointed me to someone ELSE who corrected you.. but whatever, it seemed very clear you just got defensive and started insulting people, not interested in your opinion anymore.

Have a nice day

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 hours ago

I've given you detailed explanations, and you simply ignored them. I asked you to point out what you disagreed with specifically, and you started dancing around that. Sounds like the answer to my question is that you are just trolling here, and you're not interested in having a good faith discussion.

Bye.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't pretend to know anything about international finance. I'm repeating what I've heard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let's not forget that the interest on this debt is all coming back to Canada, making Canada stronger.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That completely misses the destructive power of inflation and currency devaluation. The interest payments are nominally coming back to Canada, but their real value is what actually matters. If the US dollar is losing purchasing power faster than the bond's interest rate, then Canada is experiencing a negative real return. We are getting paid back in dollars that buy less which is the opposite of getting stronger. What we're seeing here is a classic transfer of wealth from the creditor to the debtor with Canada subsidizing US fiscal policy by accepting a steady erosion of its investment's true worth.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Then one would expect the bond rate to climb, but it is staying relatively constant between 4% and 5%, When it comes to paying for imports of American product, that interest cushions the blow. We end up buying American product with their own money.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Your focus on the current bond overlooks the market's forward looking nature. Yields are stable because they reflect a consensus that the Fed will eventually cut rates to avoid a recession which is a precarious assumption. The moment inflation proves stickier than expected or the US debt trajectory worsens, we could see a violent repricing happening. It would lead to a bond vigilante reaction where yields spike suddenly and crater the value of existing holdings.

The whole idea that interest payments cushion import costs only works if the Canadian dollar doesn't weaken alongside or faster than the USD in a crisis, and that is not at all guaranteed. When a crisis hits, all assets correlated with the US including our bond portfolio would suffer together. Meanwhile, the only sector of the US economy that's doing well are the tech stocks, and that's just a handful of companies passing IOU notes around in a circle. The rest of the economy is showing deep imbalances with weak consumer savings, shrinking industrial output, and persistent inflation in services.

The US is funding massive deficits in a high interest rate environment, and that can't go on forever. The war on Iran could act as a catalyst for the whole house of cards to come crashing down because it's driving the price of energy through the roof. The resulting economic crash in the US could be far worse than 2008, and at that point we'd be left holding the bag.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I am not sure who 'we' is that is 'holding the bag'. And I am not sure that you are not still stuck in the last century.

Most knowledgeable people acknowledge that the Chinese economy is closing in, if not already passing, the American economy. But then they assume it is somewhere around a 50-50 split of the world economy. Well, it is not a 50-50 split, it is not even a 40-40 split. It is more like a 25-25 split, with the other 50% divided among, as Carney called them, middle economies. But those middle economies, as Carney also pointed out, (although not directly) control around half of the global GDP, twice as large as either the American or the Chinese economy individually. That is the New World Order. At the end of last century, all of the economic indicator pie charts had America with 80% or better of the charts, the rest of the world 20% or less. Now, America has 30% or less of the same charts, rest of the world 70% or better. The previous 'Rules' were all about keeping America on top. Those rules are no longer keeping America on top, so America is ignoring them. America is trying to make the new rules, in order to stay on top, without realizing that America is now far, far from the top, and just is not in any position to enforce these new rules. The rest of the world is ignoring these new American rules just like America is ignoring the old rules. The more they ignore America's rules and make their own, the more America suffers by the non-enforcement of the American rules. Americans absolutely refuse to play by anyone else's rules, and so they are just being left out of the game. The rest of the world is getting away with it today, when they could not get away with it last century, because of that 70-30 reversal. America just does not have the economic clout it had last century. Instead, the rest of the world now has that clout. And it is not just about China, it is about every other country. America has no hope of ever being on top again.. The house of cards has been tumbling down in America for decades, it was just covered up by false propaganda while the really big money fled the US for greater pastures.

I am not sure if you are following what China is doing, but it is a lesson for all nations. Just a little while ago (20120-2016), it had around $1.3 trillion in American treasury bills. Now it has around half of that. Even Japan has more American debt that China does. In other words, China cashed in the debt holdings as it came due without buying more. That is a lot of money that America gave to China, that China used to offset the impact of American tariffs. Instead of Americans buying Chinese goods and sending money to China, Americans just sent China the money instead, no purchase necessary.

So as America falls, those countries that have driven up their share of the US debt can now follow China's lead. Take their money out of America by cashing in the bonds without buying more. That is around $3.8 trillion that is flowing out of America without them buying a single thing. At the turn of the century, Americans not buying anything from the rest of the world would have caused economic collapse in those countries. Today, those countries can sell to the rest of the 75% of world GDP without selling a thing to America. That is some cushion.

Carney was not the first, but he was certainly arguably the most influential, world statesman that finally pronounced 'The King has no Clothes'. When the dust settles, I suspect America will end up splitting in at least two, if not three or more, parts, if history has anything to say about it. Failed states inevitably end up in pieces. Then, countries that are holding US debt can take payment in assets (land), not money. After all, it is these other countries that are now making the rules.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

We as in the working class in Canada. That's who always pays the bill when there's an economic crash.

I generally agree with what you're saying regarding the US and China. However, I'd note that the actual split is between G7 and BRICS, and BRICS have already surpassed G7 in terms of PPP measure. BRICS represents the Global South, and it happens to be where majority of human population is, where the resources are, and where most of the industry is. Majority of Global South economies economies are aligned with China now.

What Carney appears to be focusing on are former vassal states that were under the tutelage of the US. Now that the hegemon is fading, the vassals are in trouble. What Carney seems to be trying to do is to rally Europe and Australia to form a bloc without the US, but one that's not directly aligned with the Global South.

And of course GDP alone is not useful measure of anything. The quality of development matters. Western economies are focused on stuff like software industry and service economy. They're not producing things people actually need to live. China is where all the manufacturing happens. They're the ones who build solar panels, EVs, and high speed rail that developing world needs. That's what makes China such a key economy for the world.

I also expect that the US is headed for collapse, and it's likely going to be far worse than what happened to USSR. That said, it's not at all clear that countries that hold US debt will be able to claw anything back once that happens. For one, the US is still full of nukes, so whatever states emerge out of it eventually will be nuclear powers.

The problem for Canada is more immediate though. Our economy is heavily dependent on the US right now. And unless we diversify and become more self sufficient, then we will be dragged down along with the US. Unless Canada takes steps to insulate itself then it will become one of these failed states itself when the western order finally collapses.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί