Business
Economics professor offers grossly misleading analysis of inequality in Canada
From the Fraser Institute
By: Philip Cross
Dalhousie economics professor Lars Osberg’s The Scandalous Rise of Inequality in Canada was published just in time to be eligible for the always hotly-contested title of worst Canadian economics book of the year.
Osberg’s central theme is that inequality in Canada has been steadily increasing and this poses a threat to economic growth, financial stability, social mobility, limiting climate change and even democracy—at times, it seems every imaginable problem is blamed on inequality. This makes it even more important to get the facts about inequality right.
The most misleading chapter in the book concerns top-income earners. Osberg claims that “the income share of the top 1 per cent… is the aspect of inequality that has changed the most in recent years.” However, the chapter on inequality at the top of the income distribution exclusively features data for its increase in the United States, driven by the outrageous success of technology firms such as Facebook, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft and Nvidia. Nowhere is the data for Canada cited, but in fact the 1 per cent’s share of income in Canada has fallen since 2007, which probably explains why Osberg avoided it.
The real problem with Canada’s high-income earners over the last two decades is not that they’re gobbling up more income at the expense of everyone else, but that we do not have enough of them. Nor do the top 1 per cent in Canada earn nearly as much as in the U.S. Pretending that incomes in Canada are as skewed as in the U.S. is another example of importing narratives without examining whether they are applicable here. This might be forgivable for the average person, but it’s scandalous and disingenuous for a professor specializing in income distribution.
Raising taxes on the richest 1 per cent has a “populist” appeal. However, former finance minister Bill Morneau wrote in his memoire Where To From Here: A Path to Canadian Prosperity that he came to “regret supporting the idea of a tax increase on the 1 percent” because “it began a narrative that made it difficult to have a constructive dialogue with the people prepared to invest in research and development to benefit the country… our proposal’s biggest impact was to reduce business confidence in us.” Before becoming the Trudeau government’s current finance minister, Chrystia Freeland acknowledged that “many of the ultra-high net-worth individuals flourishing in today’s global economy are admirable entrepreneurs, and we would all be poorer without them.”
Another practical consideration for Morneau was that “Canada’s personal income tax rates are not competitive with the U.S. where highly skilled labour is concerned.” Finally, Morneau acknowledged that taxing the rich in Canada will not raise much money, because “the number of taxpayers affected will be quite small… the math just doesn’t work.” I calculate that confiscating all of the income the 1 per cent earn above $200,000 would fund total government spending in Canada for a paltry 44.2 days.
Besides misrepresenting the importance of Canada’s 1 per cent, Osberg twice makes the patently false claim in his book that “income from capital… is roughly half of GDP in Canada.” Just last week, Statistics Canada’s estimated labour income’s share of GDP was 51.3 per cent while corporate profits garnered 26.0 per cent (including profits reaped by government-owned businesses through their monopolies on utilities, gambling and alcohol sales). Another 12.6 per cent of GDP was mixed income earned by farmers and small businesses, which StatsCan cannot disentangle between labour and capital. The final 10.2 per cent of GDP went to government taxes on production and imports, which clearly is not a return on capital. I would expect undergraduate economic students to have a better grasp of the distribution of GDP than Osberg demonstrates.
Among the many evils generated by inequality, Osberg cites democracy as “threatened by the increasing concentration of wealth and economic power in Canada.” Osberg must believe Justin Trudeau’s decade-long tenure as prime minister reflects the choice of our economic elites. If so, they have much to answer for; besides steadily-degrading Canada’s economic performance and international standing, Trudeau attacked these same elites by raising income taxes on upper incomes, increasing the capital gains tax, and undercutting the fortunes of the oil and gas industry on which much wealth relies. If our economic elite really controls government, it seems they made an incredibly bad choice for prime minister.
Philip Cross
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Quick Hit:
President Trump on Thursday confirmed a sweeping new 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl trafficking and retaliatory trade actions.
Key Details:
- In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the new 35% levy is in response to Canada’s “financial retaliation” and its inability to stop fentanyl from reaching the U.S.
- Trump emphasized that Canadian businesses that relocate manufacturing to the U.S. will be exempt and promised expedited approvals for such moves.
- The administration has already notified 23 countries of impending tariffs following the expiration of a 90-day negotiation window under Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade policy.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump escalated his tariff strategy on Thursday, formally announcing a 35% duty on all Canadian imports effective August 1. The move follows what Trump described as a breakdown in trade cooperation and a failure by Canada to address its role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
“It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship,” Trump wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney. He added that the tariff response comes after Canada “financially retaliated” against the U.S. rather than working to resolve the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.
Trump’s letter made clear the tariff will apply broadly, separate from any existing sector-specific levies, and included a warning that “goods transshipped to evade this higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.” The president also hinted that further retaliation from Canada could push rates even higher.
However, Trump left the door open for possible revisions. “If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” he said, adding that tariffs “may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship.”
Canadian companies that move operations to the U.S. would be exempt, Trump said, noting his administration “will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.”
The U.S. traded over $762 billion in goods with Canada in 2024, with a trade deficit of $63.3 billion, a figure Trump called a “major threat” to both the economy and national security.
Speaking with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested even broader tariff hikes are coming, floating the idea of a 15% or 20% blanket rate on all imports. “We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay,” he told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, adding that “the tariffs have been very well-received” and noting that the stock market had hit new highs that day.
The Canadian announcement is part of a broader global tariff rollout. In recent days, Trump has notified at least 23 countries of new levies and revealed a separate 50% tariff on copper imports.
“Not everybody has to get a letter,” Trump said when asked if other leaders would be formally notified. “You know that. We’re just setting our tariffs.”
From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to “SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,” pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been “threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.”
Trump warns that these actions are “due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” and states: “starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.” He also adds that “Goods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.”
Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Rumble’s suspension for non‑compliance, saying it failed “to comply with court orders.”
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly ordered a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.
Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of “disinformation” and “online safety.”
With the EU’s Digital Services Act and proposed “hate speech” legislation expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
News Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list, nor did he kill himself, Trump DOJ, FBI claim
“This is a total fucking disaster”
-
Also Interesting2 days ago9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoThe Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Business2 days ago‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
Business2 days agoCannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea
-
Media2 days agoCBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship
-
Business2 days agoCarney government should recognize that private sector drives Canada’s economy
-
Alberta1 day agoFourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta
-
Automotive2 days agoAmerica’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field