[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Traum

I can even see and acknowledge that Carney has continued to fail in providing a good, strong answer to his Brookfield tax heaven questions -- I have no doubts that what he did in Brookfield is entirely legal. I even think that as the vice chair of Brookfield, his decision to put the investment funds in Bermuda is entirely sensible. At the same time, I also agree that the Bermuda thing does not make Carney look good, and it raises the question of whose interest Carney will serve should he become PM.

https://open.substack.com/pub/axorc/...t-be-rightjust

re: Brookfield - someone pulled together the various discussions going on about Carney's involvement with Brookfield. The summary paragraph is below but there's a lot of other stuff that dives deeper into not just Carney but Brookfield itself. Before Carney I had never heard of them but they've got more than 100,000 employees in 30 countries. I (and likely most of you) have a good chunk of money invested in them through your ETFs.

So, as we digest these claims, let’s keep our cool and stick to the facts. Carney’s Brookfield stint was about mobilizing capital for green investments, not cooking up tax schemes. Brookfield’s tax minimization moves were legal and transparent, not secret dodges. Carney’s track record shows a bent toward reforming the system for fairness, not exploiting it for personal gain. In the grand scheme, if one is hunting for a Canadian tax bogeyman, there are bigger, more stationary targets—like decades-old tax policies and the governments that failed to change them—than Mark Carney.