jimbostanford.bsky.social
Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work in Vancouver, Canada (https://centreforfuturework.ca/). He/him. Harold Innis Industry Professor, Economics Dept., McMaster University, and Honorary Prof. of Political-Economy, University of Sydney
202 posts
5,217 followers
484 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Chuffed this proposal made today's @theglobeandmail.com. My organization gets a modifier ('left-of-centre') but Goldy's doesn't. What SHOULD be noted is the biggest companies affected by the DST (Amazon, Meta, Google) are BCC members, so Goldy speaks for them. www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/artic...
comment in response to
post
Lucrative US services exports to Canada are largely uncounted, largely unregulated & largely untaxed. Our 3% DST is a baby step toward closing that effective SUBSIDY (another fave Trump word) we pay to the most wealthy people in the world and their companies. Don't give it up!
comment in response to
post
Trump loves to complain about merchandise trade balances. But he NEVER discusses services trade balances. Why? Cuz the US has huge advantages in services trade thanks to dominant finance, tech & consulting firms. See our
@futurework_cda
report for deets centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/u... /3
comment in response to
post
Many thanks to the unionists and professors who continue to support this important collaboration. 🙏✊
comment in response to
post
In any event, the opportunity to connect aspiring trade union activists & leaders with continuing education resources at labour studies programs at any university is one of the most useful contributions labour studies scholars can make to strengthening the movement they study. /6
comment in response to
post
Given such successful joint work with Canadian unions, it's surprising to see the McMaster program now recruiting students with images from a U.S. union with no presence in Canada. I sure hope Mac's labour movement history course covers why Canadian workers wanted Canadian unions🤔/5
comment in response to
post
Fun fact: My book Economics for Everyone economicsforeveryone.ca evolved from curriculum we developed for a video version of an early CAW-McMaster course. Both courses are a great example of the lasting benefits of mutual collaboration between labour studies programs & unions. /4
comment in response to
post
This program started life as the CAW-McMaster Labour Studies Certificate 20yrs ago based on a tuition benefit CAW negotiated with automakers. That became the Unifor-McMaster Labour Studies Certificate with @unifor.org. Then a parallel track was started for students from other unions. /3
comment in response to
post
We must also focus on connecting with all workers (incl. blue-collar workers targeted by this manipulation) around real-world problems (not woke students, pro or con), who's to blame for them, and what's required to solve them. That will help innoculate against these diversions.
comment in response to
post
This view is arbitrary and unfounded, but conservatives have stuck to their guns, and it's made a difference over time in working class political views. The left & labour movement's response must not only show why these right-wing crusades are not actually about worker issues. /5
comment in response to
post
The gratuitous complaint that 'blue-collar' workers are being dissed by students mirrors Conservatives' ongoing effort to cultivate working class support through culture-war strategies. It exposes their assumption that non-male non-industrial workers aren't 'real' workers. /4
comment in response to
post
Literally nothing in the article's content or logic is unique to 'blue-collar workers.' The far-fetched claim that 'woke' students are subsidized and hence should shut up is equally applicable regarding anyone else who pays taxes: incl. white-collar, pink-collar, professional. /3
comment in response to
post
The letter was co-sponsored by 5 authors, and launched today by Centre for Future Work & @cfnu.bsky.social. See also our full-page ad in today's @theglobeandmail.com, reminding PM Carney & the G7 leaders about the importance of universal health care & other human services to future growth. #canlab
comment in response to
post
The letter highlights many economic benefits generated by public health care:
· Job-creation & growth
· Indirect jobs & supply chains
· Innovation & research
· Labour market advantages (lower labour costs, better labour mobility)
· Fiscal savings
· Social equality & inclusion /3
comment in response to
post
For details on how oil futures markets work, how much it cost Canadians last time, and how to get off this pointless roller-coaster, see our Centre for Future Work Canada 'False Profits' research: falseprofits.ca/reports.
comment in response to
post
Please also see our 'False Profits' report that shows oil company profits, not the carbon tax, were the biggest driver of peak inflation in the post-COVID period: falseprofits.ca/reports.
comment in response to
post
Far from proving the carbon price was the source of all evil, today's data confirms it had virtually nothing to do with recent inflation. For more on the genuine causes of affordability problems (and more relevant solutions), see our @cntrfuturework-cda.bsky.social video: t.co/Vs4NTfBo4w
comment in response to
post
Don't forget, of course, the other half of axing the carbon price: families will now lose the rebate cheques, worth up to $1800/yr for a family of 4. How does that help with affordability challenges? /6
comment in response to
post
Both on the way up, and the way down, there was no relationship between the carbon price & economy-wide inflation. Those who thought axing it would solve Canada's affordability challenges were misled (as badly as those who believed Trump would bring down the price of eggs). /5
comment in response to
post
Larger carbon price increases in 2023 and 2024 were then accompanied by slowing inflation. Now its complete removal (a huge $80/t price cut) is causing a modest one-time fall in the price level of 0.6%-pts. The impact on ongoing inflation will be non-existent. /4
comment in response to
post
Here's the chart extended to April 2025, carbon price change on left, trailing year/year inflation on right, zeroes of both axes aligned (to preserve comparison to the previous chart). Inflation slowed when the carbon price was introduced, peaked when increases were smaller. /3
comment in response to
post
Here's video from my conversation with Roger Petersen for CTV on manufacturing job losses from Trump's tariff mania: www.cp24.com/video/2025/0.... Responsibility for the slowdown in Canada's labour market rests solely on the shoulders of the US President. #cdnecon
comment in response to
post
For more background on measuring and understanding trade imbalances, and a catalogue of the ways Canada in fact subsidizes the U.S. (through unusually lucrative trade arrangements), please see the
@futurework_cda
report, "Who's Subsidizing Whom?": centreforfuturework.ca/2025/01/12/w....
comment in response to
post
In sum Trump's complaints about trade deficits are no more real than phony complaints about fentanyl, defense spending, or supply management. Structural U.S. deficits reflect huge ongoing capital inflows, not "unfair" treatment. And the U.S. benefits hugely from trade with Canada. /8
comment in response to
post
The Canada-U.S. trade flow is both large ($916b two-way in 2024, biggest in the world) & relatively balanced. The U.S. sold 92.5¢ of exports to Canada for every $1 they bought from us. That's up from previous years & much better than the 75.7¢ per $ they sell to other countries. /7
comment in response to
post
Canadian purchases of U.S. services grew significantly last year, and the U.S. bilateral trade surplus in services with Canada is now $35b (U.S.). That offsets half of the bilateral trade deficit in goods. Moreover, many imports of U.S. services are not counted in this total. /6
comment in response to
post
Canada retained its crown last year as the biggest market for U.S. exports. We bought $440b of U.S. goods and services last year, more than twice as much as China. Curtailing bilateral trade, and using "economic force" to extract concessions from us, will hurt U.S firms. /5
comment in response to
post
Relative to U.S. GDP, which has been growing quickly in nominal terms, that bilateral deficit has been halved since 2022 (largely due to lower oil prices), falling to 0.12% in 2024. Even the U.S. global deficit is a much smaller share of GDP (3.1% in 2024) than in the 2000s. /4
comment in response to
post
The U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Canada shrank 12% in 2024, to just $35.7b (U.S.). That's a small fraction of the inflated numbers ("$100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion") that Trump just makes up. /3