What might have given him the inspiration for this, is The Economist magazine (based out of Europe). Every year, they do a "Big Mac Index" - comparing and ranking the world's major economies based upon the relative pricing of a McDonald's Big Mac -- using it as a simple means of expressing pricing parity -- they convert the local currency's price of a Big Mac to US$, then compare that value to the US price of a Big Mac. If your country's US$-equivalent hamburger costs more than the US burger, your currency is overvalued (and by extension, supposedly, everything is "inflated" in relative cost)
If your Big Mac is cheaper (Canada's is about 9% cheaper than a US Big Mac right now), then presumably your country's currency is undervalued.
This is too simplistic -- a Canadian Mac might be cheaper right now because BEEF is cheaper here (comparatively), due to issues happening in the US supply chain and herd health risk (screwworms).
This started off as a joke -- But it's one of their most popular articles.
Anyway, someone might have shown the article to PP (Harper? He probably has a subscription . . . .) and that inspired the story. But that's also why it falls apart -- the price of the burger doesn't properly capture all of the supply chain issues, general inflation issues, and numerous other things. Harper probably tried to explain it to him, but PP (who, is smarter than everyone else, right?) said "naw, let's just go with how more expensive a burger is now than x years ago (just make sure it only covers the Trudeau era, not earlier! ;-) ).
But I mention this in support of what Fred said: a burger might cost more now, but if ours is CHEAPER than USA . . . well, doesn't that imply that we're doing something right?? And of course, that's NOT what he wants to portray.
The Big Mac Index is actually a great example Grant... of the difference between a useful illustration and a complete explanation.
The Economist uses it as a rough shorthand for purchasing power and currency valuation... not as a comprehensive explanation of inflation, monetary policy, supply chains, labour costs, exchange rates, or agricultural markets.
That's where the burger video ran into trouble.
It took a complex economic issue and tried to squeeze it into a single visual.
Great for a social media clip.
Not so great if people start digging into the details.
And as you point out, if Canadian burgers are currently cheaper than their U.S. counterparts, that raises some awkward questions for a narrative built entirely around "Canada is failing."
Can Poilievre unite his party?
Can he move beyond grievance politics and present a governing vision?
Can he persuade Canadians he’s offering solutions instead of slogans?
Simple answer based on 20 years of observation? NOT A HOPE IN HELL!
He is nothing more than someone who suffers from arrested mental development and still has the mental maturity of a 14 year old!
Hilarious!
What might have given him the inspiration for this, is The Economist magazine (based out of Europe). Every year, they do a "Big Mac Index" - comparing and ranking the world's major economies based upon the relative pricing of a McDonald's Big Mac -- using it as a simple means of expressing pricing parity -- they convert the local currency's price of a Big Mac to US$, then compare that value to the US price of a Big Mac. If your country's US$-equivalent hamburger costs more than the US burger, your currency is overvalued (and by extension, supposedly, everything is "inflated" in relative cost)
If your Big Mac is cheaper (Canada's is about 9% cheaper than a US Big Mac right now), then presumably your country's currency is undervalued.
This is too simplistic -- a Canadian Mac might be cheaper right now because BEEF is cheaper here (comparatively), due to issues happening in the US supply chain and herd health risk (screwworms).
This started off as a joke -- But it's one of their most popular articles.
Anyway, someone might have shown the article to PP (Harper? He probably has a subscription . . . .) and that inspired the story. But that's also why it falls apart -- the price of the burger doesn't properly capture all of the supply chain issues, general inflation issues, and numerous other things. Harper probably tried to explain it to him, but PP (who, is smarter than everyone else, right?) said "naw, let's just go with how more expensive a burger is now than x years ago (just make sure it only covers the Trudeau era, not earlier! ;-) ).
But I mention this in support of what Fred said: a burger might cost more now, but if ours is CHEAPER than USA . . . well, doesn't that imply that we're doing something right?? And of course, that's NOT what he wants to portray.
The Big Mac Index is actually a great example Grant... of the difference between a useful illustration and a complete explanation.
The Economist uses it as a rough shorthand for purchasing power and currency valuation... not as a comprehensive explanation of inflation, monetary policy, supply chains, labour costs, exchange rates, or agricultural markets.
That's where the burger video ran into trouble.
It took a complex economic issue and tried to squeeze it into a single visual.
Great for a social media clip.
Not so great if people start digging into the details.
And as you point out, if Canadian burgers are currently cheaper than their U.S. counterparts, that raises some awkward questions for a narrative built entirely around "Canada is failing."
The burger wasn't the problem.
The oversimplification was.
Interesting Fred, as always. I couldn't watch the video of PP though. I find him just too annoying.
With everything happening in the world, I've had enough annoyance.