认真的闲话一下我为什么反对卡尼。。。

[chatbot]

哈哈哈，屁屁只能算第250

没办法

这事250估计都轮不上

 

[ccc]

@chatbot 送你一个详细的，好好看

Fiscal Year	Budget Balance (CAD)	Notes
2006–2007	+$13.9 billion	Surplus 哈珀上台啦
2007–2008	+$9.6 billion	Surplus
2008–2009	-$5.8 billion	Deficit begins amid global financial crisis
2009–2010	-$55.6 billion	Largest deficit during recession
2010–2011	-$33.4 billion	Deficit narrows
2011–2012	-$26.3 billion	Continued deficit reduction
2012–2013	-$18.4 billion	Deficit continues to decrease
2013–2014	-$5.2 billion	Nearing balance
2014–2015	-$2.9 billion	Further reduction in deficit
2015–2016	-$1.0 billion	Slight deficit
2016–2017	-$17.8 billion	Deficit increases 自由党土豆上台啦, 2015 Oct, 烂土豆 赢了， 这是他领导的第一年业绩，直接比上一年多花了168亿加刀
2017–2018	-$19.0 billion	Stable deficit
2018–2019	-$14.0 billion	Deficit decreases
2019–2020	-$39.4 billion	Deficit widens 新冠还没开始吗？捅菊花开始了？花哪了？
2020–2021	-$327.7 billion	Record deficit due to COVID-19 pandemic
2021–2022	-$90.2 billion	Deficit decreases post-pandemic
2022–2023	-$35.3 billion	Continued deficit reduction
2023–2024	-$40.1 billion	Slight increase in deficit 为啥又增加？ 哦哦，捅菊花要钱的

the Canadian government's fiscal year starts on 1 April and ends 31 March of the following year.

 

[ltyyqjg]

类似多数加拿大人支持禁枪，保粉支持拥枪

所以保守党要上台要靠天上掉馅饼

你这就是无耻的谎言。加拿大的保粉有几人支持拥枪？俺可以有把握地说，加拿大保粉中支持拥枪的人数比自由党中支持毒品和变性的人数少多了。

 

[ltyyqjg]

这要感谢卡总啊，在卡总带领下，加拿大避开了2009大全球大衰退。

这种贪天功为己有的话也只有你的卡总之类的人才能说出来。

 

[chatbot]

你这就是无耻的谎言。加拿大的保粉有几人支持拥枪？俺可以有把握地说，加拿大保粉中支持拥枪的人数比自由党中支持毒品和变性的人数少多了。

from chatgpt
一项最新民意调查显示，大多数加拿大人贊成，在城市地区禁止拥有枪支。根据Ekos Research Associates为加通社进行的自动电话抽样调查显示，69%的受访者同意，应在城市地区严格禁止私人拥有枪支。
自2018年加拿大联邦政府通过《大麻法案》将大麻合法化以来，公众对该政策的支持持续增长。2023年的一项调查显示，约64%的加拿大人支持大麻合法化。支持率在不同年龄段和省份有所差异，例如安大略省的支持率高达72%，而55岁及以上人群的支持率为66%
自 2005 年同性婚姻合法化以来，加拿大社会对 LGBTQ+ 群体的基本权利支持度较高。一项调查显示，约 64% 的加拿大人支持同性婚姻合法化。此外，78% 的加拿大人认为跨性别者应在就业、住房和进入企业方面免受歧视，74% 的人支持同性伴侣拥有与异性恋伴侣相同的收养权利

 

[chatbot]

这种贪天功为己有的话也只有你的卡总之类的人才能说出来。

问问chatbot吧。两人旗鼓相当。Jim已经不在了，你要能把他找来当党魁，我就啥也不说了


Ooooh, spicy question! "Who made the bigger contribution?" is kind of like asking who’s more important in a heist movie — the mastermind or the getaway driver. Both are crucial. But let’s break it down fairly.


---

Mark Carney — The Central Bank Wizard

Pros:

Moved first and fast (interest rate cuts + liquidity support).

Maintained confidence in the financial system.

International credibility added trust to Canada’s stability.

Didn’t just avoid disaster — actually made Canada look smart globally.


Cons:

Had limited tools (mostly interest rates and communication).

Depended on a stable banking system and sound government fiscal policy.



---

Jim Flaherty — The Fiscal General

Pros:

Designed and delivered Canada’s Economic Action Plan (stimulus).

Backed up the financial system with the mortgage buyback program (IMPP).

Preserved regulatory strength, didn’t give in to populist pressures.

Protected jobs and demand on the ground — very real world effects.


Cons:

Stimulus decisions came a bit later (early 2009).

Had to work within political constraints, including opposition pressure.



---

So... Who Did More?

It depends on how you frame “contribution”:


---

Final Verdict (drumroll... )

They were a dream team. Seriously. If one had failed, the other’s success wouldn’t have mattered. It was their coordination, communication, and mutual respect that made Canada stand out globally during 2008–2009.

But if you forced me to pick who had the edge in terms of immediate impact during the crisis… I’d say Carney gets the slight edge — because financial confidence is everything in a panic. But Flaherty's work kept the engine running after the storm passed, and that’s just as important.

Wanna imagine how it would’ve gone down if only one of them had been around? Could be fun to do an alternate timeline

 

[chatbot]

from grok:
The 2008 financial crisis was a complex event, and both Mark Carney, as Governor of the Bank of Canada, and Jim Flaherty, as Canada’s Finance Minister, played critical roles in navigating Canada through it. Assigning "bigger" contribution depends on perspective, as their roles were distinct yet interdependent, and I’m skeptical of narratives that overly lionize one at the expense of the other.

Carney’s domain was monetary policy. He slashed interest rates aggressively, dropping the overnight rate by 50 basis points in March 2008—early compared to other central banks—and took it near zero by April 2009. He also introduced forward guidance, committing to keep rates low until mid-2010, which stabilized markets and encouraged lending. His coordination with global central banks, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, ensured liquidity didn’t dry up entirely. Canada’s banks, already conservative due to long-standing regulations, benefited from his steady hand, avoiding the collapses seen elsewhere. However, some argue his role was overstated since Canada’s banking system was structurally sound before he took over, and his tools were limited to monetary levers, not the broader economic strategy.

Flaherty, on the other hand, controlled fiscal policy. He rolled out a massive stimulus package in 2009—$40 billion in infrastructure and tax relief—which cushioned the economy against global shocks. His earlier move in 2008 to buy $25 billion in insured mortgages through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation kept credit flowing when markets froze. He also intervened to stabilize GM and Chrysler, preserving jobs in Ontario’s auto sector. Critics point out his initial misstep in November 2008, when he downplayed the crisis and resisted deficits, only to reverse course after political pressure. Still, his willingness to adapt and spend big when needed helped Canada recover faster than most G7 peers.

If I had to weigh it, Flaherty’s contribution edges out slightly because fiscal policy had a more direct, tangible impact on jobs, infrastructure, and industry bailouts—visible outcomes that shaped public perception of stability. Carney’s monetary moves were vital but less glamorous, working behind the scenes to grease the financial system. That said, both were part of a broader team, including Stephen Harper’s government, and Canada’s pre-existing banking regulations deserve credit too. Neither was a solo hero; the system worked because they meshed, even if tensions simmered. What do you think—does one stand out more to you?

 

[eclipse]

from grok:
The 2008 financial crisis was a complex event, and both Mark Carney, as Governor of the Bank of Canada, and Jim Flaherty, as Canada’s Finance Minister, played critical roles in navigating Canada through it. Assigning "bigger" contribution depends on perspective, as their roles were distinct yet interdependent, and I’m skeptical of narratives that overly lionize one at the expense of the other.

Carney’s domain was monetary policy. He slashed interest rates aggressively, dropping the overnight rate by 50 basis points in March 2008—early compared to other central banks—and took it near zero by April 2009. He also introduced forward guidance, committing to keep rates low until mid-2010, which stabilized markets and encouraged lending. His coordination with global central banks, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, ensured liquidity didn’t dry up entirely. Canada’s banks, already conservative due to long-standing regulations, benefited from his steady hand, avoiding the collapses seen elsewhere. However, some argue his role was overstated since Canada’s banking system was structurally sound before he took over, and his tools were limited to monetary levers, not the broader economic strategy.

Flaherty, on the other hand, controlled fiscal policy. He rolled out a massive stimulus package in 2009—$40 billion in infrastructure and tax relief—which cushioned the economy against global shocks. His earlier move in 2008 to buy $25 billion in insured mortgages through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation kept credit flowing when markets froze. He also intervened to stabilize GM and Chrysler, preserving jobs in Ontario’s auto sector. Critics point out his initial misstep in November 2008, when he downplayed the crisis and resisted deficits, only to reverse course after political pressure. Still, his willingness to adapt and spend big when needed helped Canada recover faster than most G7 peers.

If I had to weigh it, Flaherty’s contribution edges out slightly because fiscal policy had a more direct, tangible impact on jobs, infrastructure, and industry bailouts—visible outcomes that shaped public perception of stability. Carney’s monetary moves were vital but less glamorous, working behind the scenes to grease the financial system. That said, both were part of a broader team, including Stephen Harper’s government, and Canada’s pre-existing banking regulations deserve credit too. Neither was a solo hero; the system worked because they meshed, even if tensions simmered. What do you think—does one stand out more to you?

啊，你们自粉觉得，抗击金融风暴，最重要的是央行行长，而且是独立于政府之外运作。

央行具体政策运作是独立于政党的，不归财政部管辖。

所以这次大选在经济方面，屁屁还是卡尼，你们自粉来说不重要啦，重要是赶紧看看现在的央行行长要不要换一个？

 

[chatbot]

卡尼很重要,PP不重要。央行行长不是PM直接决定的

 

[eclipse]

卡尼很重要,PP不重要。央行行长不是PM直接决定的

你好好看看你说的，央行行长最重要是你说的，卡尼马上要继任总理，所以卡尼这个总理没有央行行长重要。没问题吧？ 哈哈哈。

 

[chatbot]

你好好看看你说的，央行行长最重要是你说的，卡尼马上要继任总理，所以卡尼这个总理没有央行行长重要。没问题吧？ 哈哈哈。

在一些像金融危机这样的特殊时期的确这样啊，PP和土豆这样没有专业知识的全抓瞎

 

[eclipse]

the Canadian government's fiscal year starts on 1 April and ends 31 March of the following year.

没错啊，哈珀 February 6, 2006上台，这个算哈珀没错吧

2006–2007

+$13.9 billion

Surplus 哈珀上台啦

烂土豆November 4, 2015 上台，这个是烂土豆的第一年，没错吧。上台就大撒币没冤枉他吧。上年 -1B，可以算是平衡预算了。

2016–2017

-$17.8 billion

Deficit increases 自由党土豆上台啦, 2015 Oct, 烂土豆 赢了， 这是他领导的第一年业绩，直接比上一年多花了168亿加刀

 

[eclipse]

在一些像金融危机这样的特殊时期的确这样啊，PP和土豆这样没有专业知识的全抓瞎

对呀，我们正面临大嘴造金融危机啊。

 

[chatbot]

对呀，我们正面临大嘴造金融危机啊。

需要一个懂行的行长，有领导力的pm，和有能力的财长一起行动。

 

[gocanoeing]

啊，你们自粉觉得，抗击金融风暴，最重要的是央行行长，而且是独立于政府之外运作。


所以这次大选在经济方面，屁屁还是卡尼，你们自粉来说不重要啦，重要是赶紧看看现在的央行行长要不要换一个？

只能怪你们保粉选了一个最多当部长的领导，想逼加拿大人吞下去当总理

加拿大人不吃这一套！

最近看多了中国的发言，学到了类似风格，哈哈