Brian Stephenson🌻

Somewhat retired educator, lawyer, economist, socialpreneur, Prediction is hope or fear. Understand. Support what should happen. Oppose what shouldn’t. He/him

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@stephenfgordon @acoyne 💯I’ve been shouting at the TV “there’s no such thing as a ‘technical recession!!’”

It meets the bright-line definition or it doesn’t. Whether to worry more than yesterday, whether to change course because of it, those are fair questions and the answers aren’t automatic.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@acoyne And catarrhs of every kind.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

Authoritarianism exploits politesse.
The corrupter counts on the existing establishment normalizing her actions, hoping that they can work with her. She depends on people not noticing the plain reality and, if they do notice, politely looking the other way https://t.co/g6tr0DUKlj

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

Canadians, please read this.

The PM isn’t the issue. Rather, it’s our obligation to fellow Canadians to ensure their safety, respect their religious freedom, and defend every Canadian’s right to hold opinions, even opinions with which a majority or our government might disagree.

[Jason Cherniak @Cherniak]

Monday, I attended a speech by Prime Minister Carney on antisemitism. As one of only 150 people in the room, I felt honoured. I agreed with what he said but felt some points were missing. I wrote those thoughts down immediately afterward in an initial comment on Facebook and Twitter, and the reaction shocked me. On one hand, I have antisemites saying (or hinting) that Jews deserve antisemitism because of Israel’s actions. On the other, I have people calling me a self-hating Jew and, in one case, calling my office to harass my staff. I have written controversial comments before, but I have never seen such a vicious response from both directions.

The worst part is that I do not even consider what Mark Carney said or my initial take to be controversial. I’ve now had more time to process the speech and reaction, so I think it would be helpful to give more detail about what I meant and where I think this needs to go for the sake of all Canadians.

First, I continue to agree with what Mark Carney said. Antisemitism is a scourge that needs to be fought. Jews do not deserve to be harassed, intimidated or attacked for the actions of Israel. The Carney government has implemented many policies that are helpful to the Jewish community, even if some have not been. Mark Carney believes what he said and wants to help Jewish Canadians.

I know there are concerns about the membership of the new Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion, but you cannot discount the entire process because you do not like Omar Alghabra. I have always found him open to discussion even though I disagree with him on the Middle East. I am not prepared to judge the council before we see what it has to say, and I am glad it will start with antisemitism.

Second, to be frank, I minimized where I disagreed. I was not sure whether I was right, so I kept it to myself. Reactions from Jewish friends and acquaintances, messages I received on social media, and commentary in traditional media have convinced me that my concern was warranted. By not discussing Israel and Zionism, Mark Carney left a gaping hole for too many people to walk through. Those who believe antisemitism should be blamed on Israel are able to attack Carney’s thesis without any portion of his speech responding to them. Meanwhile, those who believe Mark Carney helped cause this problem through his Palestine policy refuse to believe he is being honest. Both sides have latched on to the one issue he did not mention.

This could have been avoided. I have written before about how the vast majority of Jewish Canadians view Israel. It comes from our history. Jews were expelled from our homeland 2,000 years ago. European Jews were never more than visitors, used as a trope by the church. We were regularly kicked out of countries, forced to convert, killed in pogroms, or pushed to emigrate until it finally led to the Holocaust. Jews outside Europe, mostly in Muslim countries, were second-class citizens but largely allowed to live Jewish lives until many were expelled after Israel’s creation.

With a Jewish state, Jews finally have a place to be a majority, run their own government, strengthen their own military and defend their own citizens. Those of us who live outside Israel have traditionally been proud of it. Even now, when many, if not most of us, no longer support the Israeli government, we still believe in the promise of what Israel can be. However, while we disagree with the Israeli government, it is almost certainly not to the same extent as most Canadians.

What Mark Carney needed to say is that Jews are allowed to feel that way. We are allowed to disagree with the federal government’s decision to recognize Palestine. We are allowed to believe that Israel had a right to invade Gaza after 1,200 people were murdered on October 7, 2023, even if many of us now agree Israel went too far. We were allowed to be hopeful when Israel and the United States attacked Iran, just as Mark Carney was. We are allowed to believe the Canadian government is wrong in its Middle Eastern policies. That is something Mark Carney needed to say.

Carney also needed to tell the Jewish community why he disagrees with many opinions commonly held among Jews. He needed to explain that he thinks Canada has a role in pushing Israel back toward a two-state solution. He needed to explain that he thinks Netanyahu wants to deny Palestinians the right to continue living in their homeland. He needed to tell the Jewish community that even though he disagrees with us, he hears us and understands our point of view. Not only should Jews not be punished for the actions of Israel, but we should not be punished for holding a different opinion about Israel’s actions than the majority of Canadians.

I am confident that Mark Carney believes these things to be true. The question is why he did not say them. I think I know. The Prime Minister started by telling us that he was not talking only to Jewish Canadians, but to all Canadians. If he had said the things I think he missed, perhaps the message would have been lost. Perhaps the average Canadian would have only heard the language about Israel and ignored the concerns about virulent antisemitism. Perhaps, instead of communicating that non-Jews need to be concerned about antisemitism, he would have only communicated that Jews support Israel. It might have made Canadian Jews feel better, but it also might have garbled the message.

I can understand that theory, but I think it was wrong. I thought it was wrong when I heard the speech, but I gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt and waited for the public response. In private discussions, I said I hoped this was part of a one-two punch where he would talk about Zionism in the future. That is still possible, but I worry it may be too late.

It is now clear to me that no matter what Mark Carney said, Israel remained the subtext for most listeners. It was the topic people wanted to hear about and they filled in the blanks. By choosing to avoid it, Carney allowed listeners to hear what they wanted, interpret it as they wished, and override the message with their own narrative about this government and Israel. That matters because 99% of Canadians will never hear or read this speech. They will only know what others say about it, and outside mainstream media it is all about Israel. It would have been better if he had dealt with the topic head on.

Despite those criticisms, I repeat that I agree with the parts the Prime Minister did say. He was very strong about combatting antisemitism and clear that he considers that fight a top priority. He missed the mark when it comes to Israel and its connection to Jewish life, but I view that as a strategic error more than anything. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Mark Carney’s words as Prime Minister must not be ignored by Jews who are upset with his policies on Israel and Palestine. You do not have to vote for the man, but you do have to respect his role and be convincing instead of scolding. If anything, we need to hope that non-Jews heard his edict against antisemitism and understood it as intended. If it did not work, we need to encourage him to try again instead of scaring him off. Otherwise, what hope do we have in Canada? #cdnpoli

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@KenBoessenkool @SteveBottoms One view is that the question is clumsy. Another is that it is plainly manipulative, finagling the best chance for a YES result. It scrapes together those who hope a referendum would put an end to separatism with those who support it outright.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@delong As we bow to the gods of productivity and the per capita income it provides, we might want to remember that we market productivity’s importance - to those who must suffer the sting of one side of its sword, on its ability to support higher wages.

[joseph francis @joefrancis505]

I looked today at why US output per hour has grown faster than in France and Germany. It's due to Big Tech, finance, real estate, and health care.

From a European perspective, these sectors can seem more like pathologies of American capitalism than something to emulate. 1/5

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@ojblanchard1 From my corner of the bleachers -

If Europe and USA value private, market goods differently versus non-market and public goods and pursue a different mix of goals, how do we expect to value the increase or any compounding effects of non-market/public goods so as to compare?

[Luis Garicano 🇪🇺🇺🇦 @lugaricano]

I will streamline the sources to help anyone who wants to go down this rabbit hole. Maybe yo u can give it to your (smart, not dumb!) LLM and make it a nice summary- place it below if you do and I will RT).
1. Two Europes post with @OlivierKooi : Core Europe is diverging from US, East is converging, and the war is helping a reformist reprioritization that will expand the gap between North and East and Core and South:
https://t.co/U04xw4aVOr
2. @paulkrugman "Is Europe in economic decline?" https://t.co/gaCsnTe6X1 plus his transparent model note, which he calls incomprehensible but is in fact clear and helpful for economists. https://t.co/lmIEnx3mtp. Key point: everyone in Europe shares in the gains from the IT revolution through lower prices, so Europe should not panic. "Don't worry, be happy". (My words, not his.)
3. Our reply (with @pietergaricano) "European Stagnation is real": tech-based returns to capital--spread through in 401Ks and reaching mostly US citizens and institutions, and agglomeration economies (centered in SV/Austin etc) benefit US disproportionately and set up an unequal future. Krugman pushes the walking around test, we argue do the driving around test and you will see: https://t.co/VOpQ32QxDI
4. Krugman's response to us argues standard productivity growth does not mean what people think for cross-country welfare comparisons, and that PPP/current-price comparisons do not show a widening gap. https://t.co/B54HkRw4WD
5. Our response, in Proj Syn, with @Ph_Aghion and @a_bergeaud (I link the one today, since it is ungated and contains the postscript rejoinder): Main point. chained PPPs are misleading for growth comparisons and the fact they do not show a growing gap is not meaningful. The flat line Krugman sees as parity is the change in the measuring stick, not a convergence of the economies. https://t.co/sH5H4346Lm
6. @paulkrugman response yesterday, basically agreeing that productivity growth diverges, but with the points in my main tweet above, and the agreements and disagreements we summarized:
https://t.co/KnW4cAxvCp
A lot of what follows is gated, so harder to follow:
@wsj @josephsternberg: Europeans may wish to choose welfare over growth, but at least politicians and analysts need to acknowledge the tradeoff --and voters need to be told there is one!
https://t.co/IGDGk8G9OZ
@washingtonpost @asymmetricinfo takes the driving around test and argues that inherited urban beauty can make Europe look richer on foot, while US abundance shows up more in space, housing, appliances, suburbs, and private consumption https://t.co/8k7y00h6Ep
@MESandbu argues to some extent all measures are wrong, and we are talking past each other, but we are both equally right and wrong: https://t.co/obAqWlPFXm
@Noahpinion https://t.co/XQUO4K0Mbs argues pleasent stagnation will not cut it in the current world, particularly given geopolitical environment.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@janignitiontank @johnarnold Were it a modern intervention, it might protect the public safety net under that social contract from having to catch those whose family wealth and pride might reasonably step up.

But another comment dates it to the Napoleonic period, forcing some diminution of dynastic wealth.

[Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA @michael_hoerger]

If you talk to someone who doesn't understand that people are still dying of COVlD, here I explain excess deaths in a way a 5 year old can understand. The key is understanding mortality displacement.

[Simon Maechling @simonmaechling]

Science didn’t lose because evidence failed.

It lost because scientists stayed cautious while nonsense went viral.

Fear became entertainment.
Confidence replaced expertise.

Scientists write careful paragraphs, influencers get millions of views with one emotional lie.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@realponcecito In the 1980s, I remember wondering why I hadn’t heard Hayek’s name from a professor I’d had in ‘79 who’d studied under Friedman in Chicago. It struck me then, that the conservative movement around Reagan and Thatcher seemed to want an eminence grise who predated Friedman.

[Patrick Ponce @realponcecito]

Paul Samuelson sobre Hayek (fragmentos):

Hayek fue el séptimo en recibir el nuevo Premio Nobel de economía del Banco de Sweden. A mi juicio, fue una elección merecida. Y, sin embargo, en las salas de profesores de Harvard y del MIT en 1974, la mayoría-

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@DavidMcLA This weaselly approach allows a Pyrrhic victory for democracy - adding those who seek a referendum on sovereignty to those who want a referendum to bury separation forever.

Any question leading to a referendum is a victory for those who would destabilize Canada AND Alberta.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@CarsonJerema Plea?

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

@VoiceOfFranky I’m glad you found the paper. Someone described it but only linked their own podcast.

It sounds hopeful. I’ll be looking for anything bearing on beliefs tied to identity. Skin in the game may matter. Also the importance of one-on-one conversation. Responding to every quibble.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

One’s “loophole” is another’s “deliberate feature of the tax code, enacted on a bipartisan basis.”

“A deliberate choice with trade-offs” can be a “rigged giveaway.”

Appreciating wealth acts like income when it brings incremental benefit in opportunity, consumption or quality.

[Jeff Bezos @JeffBezos]

Please do a quick read of this. It’s short, well written, and will remove a bit of wool from over your eyes.

[Brian Stephenson🌻 @BAStephenson60]

One’s “loophole” is another’s “deliberate feature of the tax code, enacted on a bipartisan basis.”

“A deliberate choice with trade-offs” can be a “rigged giveaway.”

When appreciating wealth brings incremental benefit in opportunity, consumption or quality, it acts like income.

[Jeff Bezos @JeffBezos]

Please do a quick read of this. It’s short, well written, and will remove a bit of wool from over your eyes.

[Ken Boessenkool @KenBoessenkool]

This is the most important, most brilliant, and most well written thing you could read today.

If you’re an Albertan, or a Canadian, and read nothing else, fine. Just read this.

Goodness me. Every word. https://t.co/TliiUbwj6H