oh boy. aren't we lucky!
Another Economic Update Coming from Government
Mon, 2010-10-11 07:45
#1
Another Economic Update Coming from Government
Mon, 2010-10-11 07:47
#2
So one of the things is that they are fudging that maybe there might have to be more stimulus after all.
But of course, that and already $100billion plus deficits for 2 years, the corporate tax cuts are going ahead.
Mon, 2010-10-11 20:39
#3
And about those tax cuts. You may remember that the Liberals would not oppose them, but Iggy proposed delaying them to pay for modest recovery spending targetted directly at individuals- primarily through EI.
Now they are opposing the same spending they said they would fight an election over. Imprudent. Even unecessary.... which is interesting with even Harper hinting that maybe we havent done enough yet.
But as expected, the Liberals will just accept those cuts now- and their paltry elder care program reflects that acceptance.
Anyway, heres Liberal finance criticScott Brison on those tax cuts. albeit, obliquely as hell.
"Canadians are barely struggling to get by right now," says the Liberals' Brison.
"We need to do more to help average Canadians now, and to do further tax cuts on borrowed money while we're running budget deficits is not as important as helping Canadians get through this difficult time."
Scotty is smart, articulate, and quick on the up take. But sometimes it is just too much of a challenge talking out from both sides of your mouth at once.
Mon, 2010-10-11 21:42
#4
This is the important macroeconomic backstory to the current economic conditions here and this upcoming economic update thread.
Why the US Launched a New Financial World War -- And How the Rest of the World Will Fight Back - by Michael Hudson
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson10112010.html
"Who needs an army when you can obtain the usual objective - monetary wealth and asset appropriation simply by financial means...
What is to stop US banks and their customers from creating $1 Trillion, $10 Trillion, or even $50 Trillion on their computer keyboards to buy up all the bonds and stocks in the world, along with all the land and other assets for sale in the hope of making capital gains and pocketing the arbitrage spreads by debt leveraging at less than 1 per cent interest cost?
This is the game that is being played today...Finance is the new form of warfare."
Tue, 2010-10-12 13:07
#5
This update is scheduled for today- may have happened by now. And they must have wanted people to know about, because though the weekend, and even on Thanksgiving, they were getting the media to do stories. Now it'll be lost in being humiliated by Portugol. Maybe that was the point- setting up some distraction from the expected humiliation?
Makes sense, except that its predictable that it wont work.
Maybe they are just kind of lost?
That would be nice.
Tue, 2010-10-12 14:41
#6
Or consider the alternative -- the loss to Portugal might be the intended distraction (working) from the budget update.
The budget update is the next step in the Conservative approach to governance and the finances of the country. They do not expect to govern for ever and nor do they want to. Their legacy can be found in this approach. As I have said in other places the prime theme of this government is to remove the capacity for the government to be a player in the economy of the country or to provide social programs-- to get it out of the way of private business.
The spending we have seen looks incompetent-- and that is what the Cons will rely on in future years once this is clear rather than admit the truth about the Harper government. Their purpose is one of sabotage. These tax cuts that are enduring in spite of an economy that cannot afford them are not a mistake. Nor was the incredibly wasteful type of stimulus spending a mistake just as the overkill on military spending is not a mistake. These decisions are central to making sure that no future government will have the sovereign power to fix these policies-- they are in the money-burning business.
The goal is to make long term enough the damage to the fiscal situation of the government of Canada that no government of any stripe to follow the Cons will have any ability to play a role in the economy. The idea is that the Cons will destroy the federal government understanding they will be out of power for a while after. In that period the government will simply need to find a way to recover its fiscal position and will not be able to spend and once this is achieved the Cons hope to have power again and repeat the process. As long as this alternation can remain the federal government will never be a serious player in the social economy of the country.
I called this previously a coup over future democratically elected governments. The intention is also to break the Liberals so they will not be able to come back and reign for too long and to introduce measures damaging the opposition parties so the introduction of additional media voices on the right and damaging of any alternative as well as party financing changes are essential.
In this context this economic update is the main event not the distraction. Proper analysis of the update with the tax cuts going ahead would have to conclude that there is no intention that the Federal Government's finances would ever be restored to one where a future government could make economic choices of its own. Any distraction that allows analysts just to say this is unwise and move on is helpful since this is not unwise -- it is calculated sabotage designed to fulfill an ideological goal of the party in power. These are not people who want or relish the role of governing Canada. They disrespect that role. Even the kingly attitude of Harper is a distraction. The real purpose is not to take and control for use the government but to break it if not for all time at least for a long time.
I am not a defender of McGuinty but a look there is instructive. The Liberals are indeed incompetent but if you look at the cards they inherited you can see the burned terrain the Cons left them. The province of Ontario no longer had the capacity to make economic choices. The Liberals in Ontario combined huge tax increases (they lied and called it a health premium) and they ran huge deficits but still have been unable, even if they wished to, to make significant economic decisions. The Cons seek to replace them, blaming them for economic mismanagement but the truth is a little different than that. The Liberals with two terms actually in spite of deficits and tax increases have not returned the province to a state of economic sovereignty and the Cons are ready to take over again. McGuinty was not honest enough to have a chance at reversing this. He calculated that he could not afford to tell the truth-- that he did not know how to take over power from a system that had wrecked the government with enough tax cuts that it could not recover in two terms. Perhaps McGuinty was right and even honesty would not help.
The fundamental realization is this: modern Canadian right wing parties have understood that it is not a wrestle for policies and public relations in the current government they control that is at stake in government decisions but about what a future government will be able to do. They take away choice from future governments. As such they have been able to fully render elections and any notions of democratic electoral choice as irrelevant.
People need to stop considering them incompetent and look at what the real intentions were and how their real goals are being met. Only then is there a chance at defeating them because it will take more than a 2-term election cycle to restore governance to any government they have held.
Tue, 2010-10-12 14:53
#7
Catchfire
Duncan Cameron: Ten points in Canada's real economic update
When the minister of finance makes his Fall Economic Update we want to hear what he has to say about government spending -- but we won't. Why? Because the real story is one of austerity.In the next few days, the federal finance minister promises Canadians a look at what is happening with the economy: the Fall Economic Update. On the surface, the job is fairly straightforward. James Flaherty has to say whether the economy is growing, or not; and he has to say what he intends to do about it.
Expect the minister to fudge the first question. The economy is not accelerating along nicely, but he cannot admit it, so he will say the Canadian economy is improving. Compared to what, you ask? The minister will say: compared to others, who are not doing as well as Canada.
The real economic update would measure the current economic performance against the potential performance. What interests the vast majority of Canadians is first jobs and then incomes. Canada has an eight per cent unemployment rate: it should be three per cent.
Murray Dobbin: The essential fight against Harper's economics
What are the key issues that progressives need to be fighting to rid the country of Stephen Harper's wrecking crew? Two issues are the tar sands and the Enbridge pipeline which would see giant oil tankers plying the waters off the B.C. coast. Another is the Harper government's oft-announced plan to begin its so-called budgetary austerity program starting with the spring 2011 Budget. That, combined with the government's inept economic policies, should be the target of a concerted campaign.
Unlike much of the Harper regime's actions, this one is not a surprise shot from the blue. It is well known, it has been announced repeatedly and framed as the next necessary step in dealing the economic crisis.
Of course, it is no such thing. Harper and Flaherty are taking advantage of the useful crisis they created. Anyone who cares about social programs and a functioning economy should be scared silly about the consequences.
There is almost no resistance yet to this draconian plan to diminish the country, allowing Harper to stay far ahead in the polls as the best economic manager of all the federal leaders. But in fact Harper is extremely vulnerable on the economy. The Conservatives only claim to fame is that our financial system did not melt down the way others did. Ironically, the only reason it didn't is our banks remained regulated so they could not take the kind of risks that their counterparts in the U.S. and E.U. did. Even here, Harper and Co. played with financial deregulation in the mortgage industry (allowing 40-year, no down-payment mortgages) and created a bubble that has yet to burst.
Tue, 2010-10-12 14:57
#8
Canada's federal deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year is a record $55.6 billion, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Tuesday.
That figure is almost $2 billion higher than the $53.8-billion deficit projected in the federal budget last March, and was largely prompted by a one-time transfer of $5.6 billion to Ontario and British Columbia to help them make the transition to the harmonized sales tax.
But thanks to more robust growth earlier this year, the deficit for the current 2010-11 fiscal year will likely come in $3.7 billion lower than the $49.2-billion figure projected earlier, Flaherty told a business luncheon in Mississauga, Ont.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/10/12/flaherty-fiscal-update.html#ixzz12AktPqMN
Tue, 2010-10-12 14:57
#9
I don't buy any of this. the Cons are not that stupid. As I said above the purpose the Cons have is not to govern but to destroy the government. When Tony Clement said about the Census that he was the most anti establishment person he knew this ought to have been instructive. The captain of this ship wants to sink it.
Tue, 2010-10-12 15:38
#10
The goal is to make long term enough the damage to the fiscal situation of the government of Canada that no government of any stripe to follow the Cons will have any ability to play a role in the economy. The idea is that the Cons will destroy the federal government understanding they will be out of power for a while after. In that period the government will simply need to find a way to recover its fiscal position and will not be able to spend and once this is achieved the Cons hope to have power again and repeat the process. As long as this alternation can remain the federal government will never be a serious player in the social economy of the country.
I called this previously a coup over future democratically elected governments.
This phenomena actually has it's own wikipedia entry:
Tue, 2010-10-12 15:47
#11
They will hold out till 2011 on an election. Then should the left elements form part of the government, they will say look how they bungled it. Like you mentioned sean, this is exactly what flaherty did in Ontario as finance minister. To wit it makes all government look unresponsive to peoples needs. Ergo less government is better. Rinse and repeat until business runs everything.
The worst part is Iggy being an enabler. The libs could have changed the EI(they walked out before the vote) they could have changed the war reisisters(see EI) they could have ammended the budget to pull out at the very least the omnibus nature of it. They choose not to. We have a coup at the top with the alternative being the same damn party.
Just like how martin destroyed much of our country's ability to care for the working class. To Wrestle the deficit. It has been pointed out the huge surpluses could have been used for education and healthcare and would have went further to expanding our economy than paying down the debt ever would. But we don't want that. So with minorities in the headlights business changed tactics and moved to derugulation under goodale of foreign investment limits and 50% reduction in capital gains. Along with tax cuts for business, those never stopped despite evidence pointing out they created less jobs during that time period(90's on) than the previous 20 years(including 2 major recessions) Not withstandihng the type of jobs we now have with decreased benefits/wages/ hours.
So you are caught in a run down. Vote for those hurting you openly, or those that do it through the backdoor.
Sean is right, this update was timed for today because it is hidden by the anger at us losing the security seat. This is why no one ever sees a timetable for any of the governments business. EVER. It lets stuff like this go un noticed. Like the shit they pushed through during the hockey playoffs when the national isn't on TV - less reporting.
Tue, 2010-10-12 16:31
#12
I think you underestimate how widely understood this is Sean.
Tue, 2010-10-12 17:05
#13
Or maybe not. We know it, but does the general public understand it. Tax cuts is a lot easier to understand than saying what sean or I or anyone at babble writes. But yes I think most of us do understand the concept of starving the beast.
Tue, 2010-10-12 17:48
#14
I am sorry but I do not agree that this is widely understood.
That the Cons want smaller government is. The reference to US conservatives wanting to starve the beast is-- but that is limited compared to what I am saying which is in effect a conspiracy to destroy the government from within. (I think the left has been saying some of this for years about governments that ideologically were opposed to governing but not about a real conspiracy to take down the capacity to govern in a coordinated way rather than merely an ideological tendency. We cried wolf but now the wolf is here nobody can see the difference.
Most people here and in the more left friendly of the media observers keep pointing to so-called Conservative mistakes.
Most keep talking about the preference for military as disgusting and behind this.
Please show me others speaking about the contracts as a purposeful drain on the federal money rather than spending in the direction the Cons like.
I would be grateful to know others are talking about this and I do believe it is easy to see and understand once pointed out. I certainly agree that Cons in general don't like the size of government.
What happened in Ontario -- people may be somewhat open to but that also is not being discussed.
The situation with the stimulus spending -- the desire to shovel it out the door is not being discussed-- there is a debate over whether it has been appropriated for political purposes or whether they were forced to do it has been discussed-- but the irrelevance of where it went -- so long as it did not go to real public infrastructure such as mass transit -- is not being discussed -- in fact it is being seen as either incompetence or political graft.
The fact that the Cons did not see the recession coming is being spoken of as incompetence not a desire to break the fiscal capacity of government with the wrong policies.
Sorry I would need to see some evidence to presume that this is actually being discussed and something beyond the Bush Doctrine writ large would have to be presented. My impression is this is being done in the wide open-- nobody is identifying this and nobody is talking about it except when I have brought it up lately. I do think I am on to something and that this is bigger than the more general starve the beast arguments that speak to a tendency of right wing politicians. I think this is a real present coordinated plan to smash the fiscal capacity of a government without any desire to use the government for any long-term purpose. They were elected to destroy-- and in this case I don't mean that rhetorically-- I think this is a coordinated, planned attack on the long-term capacity of the federal government to make independent economic decisions. It is possible someone else is talking about this but I have not come across it and it has not been a theme of discussion here even when we are talking about the policies bringing this about directly.
I always am okay with being proven wrong -- please show me that this is really being discussed openly as a popular theory for explaining this government's economic policy linking the stimulus spending to military spending to tax cuts.... I have never seen it I am not stealing the idea from anyone and claiming it -- I did come up with this without seeing it anywhere else. So if it is so popular and out there -- someone please find it.
ETA-- I wanted to get this thought out quickly so have not edited it as I do most other posts -- hope it is still somewhat accessible.
Tue, 2010-10-12 20:04
#15
Sean did make the point that he wished people on Babble understood this more. I meant that it is more widely understood here than he appears to think.
Some of us have been talking about it since before the 2008 election- and thats bound to percolate through. I think people dont mention it often, largely because its tkaen for granted. I bring it up often because I think it bears reminding and taking seriously. Among other things- while people here go wild about Harpers latest hot button social issue, the bandits are making off with the safe.
I think thats a general problem with the oppositional sub-culture aspect that keeps us in the civil society ghetto- but not a specific lack of understanding of this issue per se.
As to a broader understanding in society as a whole- that is a problem, to say the least. Even the best of the mainstream media reporters never mention it- though I'm sure some of them are well aware of it.
And its not something you can lead in with. The problem there is the NDP. for example, spending all its time on straight up simple 'pocketbook issues'. Now we pay for that. We shouldnt be having to start from scratch 'updating' even our supporters. IE, you shouldnt have to be left oriented and a political junkie to have the basic knowledge of the Cons long term government fiscal wrecking project that has been unfolding for years now.
Tue, 2010-10-12 20:07
#16
I am genuinely interested-- can you point to any example where this has been discussed?
I still don't think this is being discussed here or anywhere else.
I mean specifically the intent not a general philosophical bend-- that the intent is to break the finances on purpose so that the next government has no fiscal choices.
Have any columnists discussed this theory?
Who here has mentioned it before I did a couple weeks ago or so?
And -- apart from that if one example could be found does that make it a general understanding? How about all the contradictions people make here where they advance the theory that Harper is dumb, misplaying this etc.
Tue, 2010-10-12 20:14
#17
I've done it lots of times Sean. And I know others have, even if I cant remember when.
Including even the apparently departed Stephen Gordon.
Like I said, I've talked about it at least as far back as the inauguration of Dion's Green Shift in May of 2007... how that would be a Trojan Horse to help seal what the Conservtaives had already then done to the long term fiscal situation.
Id say I have brought it up in relation to at least a dozen issues of the moment. And I dont have the impression I'm the only one. Like you are in there too. 
Tue, 2010-10-12 20:21
#18
I dont remember seeing a columnist in the mainstream media who has written about it. I can think of a couple who I would bet are well aware of it. And there would be others I dont know about. [Wouldnt be the most widely read ones- but ones who are respected.]
Its not exactly rocket science.
I suspect we've probably missed some instance[s] it has been mentioned. But that wouldnt change the basic assessment.
They probably dont talk about it because it would be difficult to do so without being labeled a crank. You'd have to wrire a whole series of articles- and battling editors to do it.
Tue, 2010-10-12 20:26
#19
Like I said I'd like to read it. You said it is out there so much that it does not bear mentioning. Please point me to an example that has been around a while. If there are that many it can't be hard to find one-- and please link to one of yours as well.
Tue, 2010-10-12 21:21
#20
Starve the beast as I've understood it refers to starving social spending. Economic conservatism fell into disgrace after 1929 in North America. US Conservatives were forced to bow to US version of Keynesian economics known as New Deal liberalism and some even referring to it as New Deal socialism that lasted from the 1930s and still prevalent under Kennedy and Johnson by the late 1960s. We had Trudeau mania from the late 60s forward.
The long-short of it was a "misunderstanding" that few people mention today, and which was that conservatives made a lot of racket about rising inflation in the 1970s. They blamed lavish spending on social welfare programs. As well, they said that too much government bureaucracy was standing in the way of free market prosperity. Milton Friedman's army of conservative economists fanned out around the world to explain to various governments how their economies could be made more efficient by removing the dead hand of government bureaucracy. By unleashing full force of the market, everyone would live happily ever after. The truth was that it was not lavish social spending that caused inflation of the 70s - it was the result of the US Government printing money to finance an immoral war in VietNam and one-time price shocks of the energy crises. Economists realize today what happened, and that one-time price shocks are less serious and tend to be self-correcting. Flooding the world with US dollars was not so self-correcting.
But part of that agenda for the "new" liberal capitalism was to create "flexible labour markets." IOW's, workers should be less reliant on overly generous welfare programs, like EI and welfare etc. Conservatives said workers should be totally reliant on market forces to earn their way in the world. Different countries around the world experimented with flexible labour markets to varying degrees over the last three decades, and some more than others. They did a real job on Russians in the 1990s with pauperizing about 60 million of them. Thatcher the snatcher did everything to make the peons flexible in their lives except to steal hot lunches from school children. I think she tried to cut out free milk in schools or something along those lines in order to prepare Britons for further spending cuts on their children, who were basically being taught to free load off the taxpayers if we were to have paid attention to those on the right. Workers' levels of desperation needed increasing in order to extract more productivity, "creative destruction" of the market place should be allowed to reign freely and all that mumbo jumbo that's supposed to lead to unprecedented "wealth creation."
Anyway it's all hogwash by today. Starving the beast is ideologically driven baloney - pseudo intellectual bullshit that was really meant to boost corporate welfare payments to rich people while thieving from the poor and increasing misery. The time hath come to get the rich off welfare - because they just don't have any incentive to create wealth when they are loaded down with all those stacks and stacks of money, unprecedented wealth up the wazoo etc. Their so-called economic theories amount to so much Hogwarts sorting hat baloney to take from the poor and give generously to those who don't need it. No insult to Harry Potter fans intended.
Tue, 2010-10-12 21:53
#21
Nice but none of this is relevant.
The issue is not a macro-economic one or Keynsian economics etc.
It is simply a question of removing the ability for governments to control their finances such that new and even current social spending may not be undertaken.
This is beyond ideology in fact although that is how it is inspired.
If you allow so many tax cuts and commit to so much spending that the gap is huge, then the government will either have to bring in massive tax increases, record more massive spending, sell off assets and become smaller and even with all this, there will neither be the fiscal room to govern nor any ability to undertake any measures that would satisfy the base that elects the government. Unless you are right wing and run on smaller government, there is no political or economic room left for the government to succeed or survive and defeating it becomes fairly easy and allows the same to continue. It creates the impression government as an institution is broken. The same with social programs -- by breaking the fiscal capacity for them, you can discredit them as unaffordable no matter how essential and popular they actually are-- this is how health-care is being destroyed in Canada.
Again, I would like to know who else if anyone is talking about this-- the fact that this damage is orchestrated and intentional and the best explanation for the policies of the current government. The alternative explanation, the only one that exists is mistake and incompetence, stupidity. And that latter explanation, while convenient is not credible for a government of master tacticians that can afford to seek the advice of experts. The government is being wrecked systematically and, no, people are not talking about this-- if anyone else is I would like to see references showing who and where. I am not being mean or playing a game here-- I think this is critical both to understanding what is going on now and how to deal with it.
Tue, 2010-10-12 21:58
#22
If you need the full Monty on neoliberal ideology, I recommend Michael Hudson and Greg Palast.
Tue, 2010-10-12 21:58
#23
The key is that the right wing have moved beyond current government battles as most see them to battles over future economy viability of government and people are not talking about this-- the many people who are observing the danger ascribe it to incompetence, accident or even international crisis not an orchestrated attempt to strip the government of future decision-making power.
These Cons are not concerned with their own government's ability to make economic decisions-- they are obsessed with taking away power from future governments. The closest they come to declaring this overtly is when they seek to enact laws preventing deficits or the raising of taxes. Even then people take them at face value not understanding how all the pieces fit together. It is not the ability or not for the govenrment to run a deficit they are concerned with it is the ability for government to spend money essentially in competition with private interests. It is those interests driving this.
Tue, 2010-10-12 22:01
#24
Fidel, I don't -- it is not about the ideology-- it is the policy in practice of stripping the government of its power.
They have moved beyond arguing political ideology and having understood they cannot move the culture completely, they are going after the ability for government to reflect any alternative ideology than their own and that is what is behind these moves. You are still arguing the ideology itself and pointing to the thinking behind it rather than the specific tactic that is rendering even the feeble democracy we have, redundant. Yes they are related and the ideology is the starting point but this is something beyond that.
Tue, 2010-10-12 22:20
#25
That's neoliberal ideology. It's all in there. You're not telling us anything new here, Sean.
I think it's possible that you may be gobsmacked with how deliberately destroying the fiscal ability of governments to control and regulate the economy begins to resemble fascism. And that's because it is.
Neoliberal ideology is all about undermining physical labour economy and creating a rentier class, asset stripping and offshoring jobs to low wage zones. It's financializing economies and letting "money create wealth."
IOWs, debt is wealth creation!!
Sound like bullshit? That's because it is. It's Orwellian doublespeak for noueveau fascist ideology referred to sometimes as 'liberal democracy' and "the new liberal capitalism." And it's based on lies from day one, ie. 9/11/73 Chile.
Tue, 2010-10-12 22:20
#26
This is a game plan in practice that is much more comprehensive than the ideology itself.
And the facts may not be new but people here and in other places are not addressing this.
If they had-- then more attneiton would have been spent on talking about what the stimulus was being spent on or the macro effect of these long-term military contracts other than just the fact that that is a lot of war machine being bought.
People keep saying Harper is making mistakes-- my explanation suggests he has not been. We have many people in the media and here explainign g the whole thing as a series or errors of economic mismanagement.
Tue, 2010-10-12 22:40
#27
The "stimulus" is channeled into the hands of a few military contractors where the multiplier effect is de-multiplied and loses momentum as fast as possible. What they don't want to do, as ideologues in the right often don't do, is to actually practice Keynesian macroeconomics.
Debt is good. Under the ideology, banking and finance are no longer parasitic and now considered part of the real economy disguised as "industrial capital" and “wealth creation” while the actual industrial capitalism end of things is laid waste to. They can't have EVERYbody working. Because that would work to provide the feds with revenues to actually pay down the massive debts owed to bankers and rich people ie. the same people buying governments who owe them favors in return once elected. Debt is good. Debt is wealth creation. And public debt/government debt is considered the highest quality debt today. The new business plan says that debt is wealth creation. They want to enslave us all and make us renters in our own land.
Tue, 2010-10-12 22:43
#28
Well I know I have posted on this many times sean, but I may not have been extremely active(one tend to notice posts of those that post often more than those that don't) so you may not have noticed the posts.
I think I started after Iggy was proclaimed leader and scuttled the Coalition. I had a deep seated fear he was nothing more a stalking horse back them. Remind and I have often made referance to May being around as nothing more than splitting the vote. Which is different but is about their general strategy to destroy all options.
My family has talked about the intentional destruction and hollwing out of our institutions form the inside. I know there have been articles about the senate and judges apoointed by harper. Parts have all been discussed, just not as an over arching strategy to completely cripple governance. I know I have read(or heard) chomsky on it, so I don't think its entirely glossed over. But it most certainly is being taken far too lightly.
I think its the occam razor, people won't believe it because it requires a much more devious plan than simple mismanagement. Just look at any conspiracy theory. That is why no one says as much. It make you look tin foil hat if you think the government is out to destory our ability to do any governing because why would someone destroy exactly what empowers them.
I would say its exactly that reason why they are doing it. It is too convulted to state as matter of fact and easy to dismiss without gathering in all the edges to see the pattern that forms. And if it comes from his political masters such as our media owners, I highly doubt you will see this make it past any editor as even an idea never mind a whole story.
I posted about our local canwest paper having journalist saying they had stories pulled that were critical of our mayor(who is very rightwing) over the past 7 years. So it took a scandal to even bring a few stories to light because even our local CBC was reluctant to broadcast about the Stars bias. Media that critisizes other media is there after look at as bias themselves. Just look to the US and fox news. CNN says they lie and somehow becomes a pariah because it says the truth.
Why does it work in mostly the rights favour? Simple messages that are easy to grasp. Critical thought is certainly required to see the whole picture you are painting. The we circle back to occrams razor. Why should this be true it seems too impractical to implement, even if it is true.
Which I do believe is happening.
Wow there are a ton of edits needed on my post
Tue, 2010-10-12 22:54
#29
I agree with your general post Thorin -- although I want to make a distinction between apparent simplicity and actual simplicity. People do not want to see design here and assume it is complicated and they assume accidents are simple. But in fact such a series of accidents is in fact more complicated and less plausible than a single plan.
Occram's razor of course deals with actual simplicity: the explanation of a series of accidents is in fact more complicated an explanation than a single plan and as such the razor supports planning and design over accident here.
I am not claiming that I made up the theory-- indeed, it is the Cons who have made it up and put it in practice if I am correct.
What I am disputing is the notion presented here that it is well discussed, that there is general awareness of it and that it is so much a given that it does not warrant mentioning. I think the opposite is true and most are missing this and are satisfied pointing to the fallibility of Conservative economics assuming this is an indication that they are no better than Liberals or perhaps even worse. Few assume intent or look at it that way. That is what I wanted to, at least in this community, address.
Tue, 2010-10-12 23:00
#30
The "stimulus" is channeled into the hands of a few military contractors where the multiplier effect is de-multiplied and loses momentum as fast as possible. What they don't want to do, as ideologues in the right often don't do, is to actually practice Keynesian macroeconomics.
Debt is good. Under the ideology, banking and finance are no longer parasitic and now considered part of the real economy disguised as "industrial capital" and “wealth creation” while the actual industrial capitalism end of things is laid waste to. They can't have EVERYbody working. Because that would work to provide the feds with revenues to actually pay down the massive debts owed to bankers and rich people ie. the same people buying governments who owe them favors in return once elected. Debt is good. Debt is wealth creation. And public debt/government debt is considered the highest quality debt today. The new business plan says that debt is wealth creation. They want to enslave us all and make us renters in our own land.
Exactly. We use to have control over BoC to buy our own debt without interest. There is a problem here and that means the rich would have no where to put their money-unless say ralph goodale gets rid of any caps on moving capital out of the country. So now they get to have us as slaves to secure debt while moving companies offshore to either play regions against each other to lower standars and wages or have over capacity to eliminate jobs at home. All the while gettin governments elected that give them tax breaks and such.
I believe the recession was intentional. Lets flex our muscle and have the small companies bought out, consolidated, or eliminated. More people needing work is very good for lowering the cost per unit to produce at home. Though they may have reached too far this time and it is spiraling out of control becasue they always expect some other sector or company or the public to pay good enough to buy hwat they are selling.
However their own idiology has resulted in a shrinking of the public sector so much that it can't sustain things(even they are cutting back) while the private sector is shedding jobs in an every man for himself mentality. So we are left with not enough peopel in good jobs to sustain any kind of lift.
This bring us back to stimulas. EI borrowing from the wealthy while at the same time giving them tax break and money pumped back into the economy to help their own businesses. Like the bank bailout, which was suppose to allow liquidity so small firms could borrow, something the banks aren't doing. Yet we are seeing how we are borrowing from the rich to fund prisons which we will sell back to them for pennies and the military(consumables) while giving tax breaks to companies already getting bailouts such as banks and the oil companies(who are subsidised).
Its a racket.
Tue, 2010-10-12 23:06
#31
"Starving the beast" is a fraud perpetrated on the public. The public should be made aware of it. It's reminds me of Münchausen by proxy syndrome.
I think the NDP could run on this issue by showing people how the the Cons purposely sabotage the economy in order to cut social programs like medicare and education.
This explains why right-wing parties run on deficit control but usually have huge deficits from cutting taxes too much.
This starving the beast is based on lies and deceit. People should be aware that huge government deficits and debt haven't happened by accident, that they have been run up on purpose by politicians trying to dupe the public. If the voters found out about this, they might well turn on the parties that engage in it.
Maybe some creative folk could come up with a YouTube video to convey this issue to the public.
(The next election may be the first one where the internet makes a huge difference. Effectively using things like social media and YouTube might be the difference between winning or losing the next election.)
Tue, 2010-10-12 23:06
#32
Sean perhaps I think your frustration lies in that we aren't talking about it as whole often (or at all) enough. I think many here realize it to one degree or another. But pointing it out and making others aware is certainly helpful. You should actually start a tread about it and give it a roman numeral because I believe it will have many parts to it 
Tue, 2010-10-12 23:16
#33
This starving the beast is based on lies and deceit. People should be aware that huge government deficits and debt haven't happened by accident, that they have been run up on purpose by politicians trying to dupe the public. If the voters found out about this, they might well turn on the parties that engage in it.
JKR The problem is the muddy waters effects. I have seen this a lot in recent years. The NDP get tarred with the same brush on all things, even when we take a principled stand. To me the biggets problem in Canada, bar none is media. They aren't doing theor job as journalist(they are as big business) and have been allowed to get too big to smother any disident voices that could have risen. They shape discourse far more than public policy does.
If a story gets axed or thrown to the 1 inch section on g27 who cares, while something of little practical importance gets 1 inch headlines. So we get a lot of fluff while the real criminals are given a pass. Why in Canada are white collar crimes almost not reported yet break in or muggings etc get the headlines. White collar crime sometimes hurt a lot more people than a mugging. I guess that is the unreported crime stock day was talking about.
Yesterday some country(TV was on in the background) was charging some ceo and throwing him in jail. Why didn't this happen here or in the states? Its not like the public doesn't have animositty to banks. If the papers called for it people would call MPs and demand Tough on CEO legislation.
Oh just remembered. Its the CEO of the comapny in Hungary for the chemical spill.
Tue, 2010-10-12 23:27
#34
JKR The problem is the muddy waters effects. I have seen this a lot in recent years. The NDP get tarred with the same brush on all things, even when we take a principled stand. To me the biggets problem in Canada, bar none is media. They aren't doing theor job as journalist(they are as big business) and have been allowed to get too big to smother any disident voices that could have risen. They shape discourse far more than public policy does.
Maybe the left should try to go around the MSM?
A lot of creative people are suffering in this economy. Creative lefties could produce YouTube videos and distribute them through social media and other friendly outlets like Babble.
Babble is part of the solution. Maybe people here should figure out more ways to get the progressive message out there.
Does Babble/Rabble have a strong presence on social media?
Tue, 2010-10-12 23:50
#35
Sean perhaps I think your frustration lies in that we aren't talking about it as whole often (or at all) enough. I think many here realize it to one degree or another. But pointing it out and making others aware is certainly helpful. You should actually start a tread about it and give it a roman numeral because I believe it will have many parts to it
Exactly in part but also I see people here falling for the distractions and interpretations-- assumign the Cons are doing things by accident and incompetence when they are by design. And of course my deep frustration has been for many years with large numbers of people who identify with the left who refuse to discuss any economic issues at all-- speaking in terms of social justice as if it is in a vacuume. At least that does not often happen here-- several: Thorin, George, Ken, Remind, Ottawa Observer, Catchfire, North Report, Fidel and Unionist to name a few do actually engage in the economic issues (even though they don't all agree) and that is why I stay herer even though it can get frustrating at times. But still, I look for macro visions of these things and am very interested in systems behind these trends rather than just political posturing. I also am keenly aware that the left is being played often by the right on these-- falling in to many traps.
Wed, 2010-10-13 01:15
#36
,,,,,,(even though they don't all agree) and that is why I stay herer even though it can get frustrating at times. But still, I look for macro visions of these things and am very interested in systems behind these trends rather than just political posturing. I also am keenly aware that the left is being played often by the right on these-- falling in to many traps.
- not sure if you have seen this yet, I put out a link every now and then, but it is what I see as the 'macro vision' of what has been going on in Canada the last 30 years of necon ascendency - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html .
Wed, 2010-10-13 03:14
#37
I am lucky(so to speak) I got time because the system has put me on layoff right now. SO I can speak to economics conditions at least from my perspective and from what I learned in grade 12 along with extensive reading online. And yes we need ot be discussing economic perhaps moreso than social justice(though that is important) because until we have a more fair general economic system it won't matter if you are a minority of some sort because we are all caught in the big deception.
So while I talk to people who will and sometimes don't want to listen about immigration , bigotry or racism etc, I still have to explain how taxation or other economic factors have more of an effect on them then how many "of them foreigners" we let in. Social Justice actually flows nicely from economic justice.
Wed, 2010-10-13 03:50
#38
Sean speakin to your theory one should also include in the discussion something I forgot to mention. Fire in the Belly. That is con voters always vote more so than any other base. No matter how much people get turned off by politics cons always go to the polls. This also serves them well. Esp in the long game. Make your base rock solid(by playing to them) and have them ready to go to war no matter what and what you get is a higher percentage of votes just by having your people make it to the polls while everyone else gets fed up and stay at home from atrophy and apathy. So even if the number of voters is stagnant as the % of voters drop it just means they get a larger share of those that make it to the polls,.
Wed, 2010-10-13 11:14
#39
I'm going to follow up and pobe Sean's theme of 'why arent people more up in arms about the Harper Cons deliberately starving the beast'... hobbling the fiscal capacity of future governments on program spending.
First point, although of less than secondary importance... sort of a 'houskeeping detail': I'm sure you are wrong Sean, that this has been discussed here more than you think. As noted, I've been saying it since before May 2007- whenever Flaherty or Harper announced that the second point was coming off the HST. But we agree that it isnt discussed much. If it is not virtually none as you think, then for the purposes of your point, thats even worse. Because it means that people have been hearing it, and not up in arms.
And here's what I think about that.
Siamdave started a thread on the topic of what the neocon agenda has been for years and what it is doing to us. Without getting into details, it looks at a broader range of fiscal and monetary agendas. Thats too sweeping for me, and I'm guessing for you as well Sean. While I disagree with some of the analysis of what has been done over the last X years and decades.... saying it is too sweeping is primarily a point about the politics that you aspire to put into play. I think that such a broad sweeping agenda is not just daunting, it is guaranteed to drown... flooded before it could [hypotheticaly] start. Nor do I think its necessary for people to have anywhere near such a comprehensive analysis before they will be sufficiently motivated and capable.
But lets not get into whether that is or is not true- its not the point here. I bring up siamdaves concerns as an example of something.
You, Sean, are frustrated because people arent waking up to what you think it is absolutely vital they understand. Siamdave feels the same way about something that is even bigger- where what troubles you is just part of the picture.
And other people have totally different absolutely essential issues: knowing full well how many important issues are out there, still, this one really should be seizing peoples' attention.
And so it goes. Its part of the nature of progressive politics. Getting ahead of myself a bit: I think our politics are pretty immature. Infantile a lot of the time. But I think this aspect of people seeing very different things as rightfully being the top priority is something that would / will be with us even if our politics was more developed.
That said. Sean's concern about this and mine overlap. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that I've been ringing this bell for longer, but Seans the one that is more disturbed. Am I just resigned? I dont know. But part of it would be that bottom I accept the priorities that others set. If I think its unfortunate... well, thats just my opinion.
And who does really know what is most likely to get people moving? What is most 'necessary' might seem like its more conducive to disciplined debate; but in practice, I think its just as ceaselessly debateable, and just as driven in practice by unacknowledged political agendas.
With that caveat in mind, I think its true that even politicaly active progressives tend to mentally glaze over when it turns to discussing economic issues. Even more so, when it comes to issues of government finances.
"Capitalism is bad. More social spending is good. Neocons [and others] dont want that. So what else is new?"
And I think thats operative when people hear the alarm bells being rung about the specifically longer term wrecking being done by the Harper Crew [who by the way were able to build upon the nifty start by Chretien and Martin].
I dont think most people even here on Babble could point to what was done and how. And the audacity of some of the details, or the fact they hadnt heard anything about it, may surprise them. But only a bit. "Thats what they are all about anyway."
And it ends there.
Thats what I meant when I was referring upthread to the unfortunate sub-cultural phenomena of the left. Before our very eyes a situation is being arranged where the obstacles we face in the near future will be even more daunting. The Liberals, for example, will not even consider challenging the limits being constructed now by Harper and Co.
But if you see yourself as definitionaly oppositional- what difference does it make, eh?
Wed, 2010-10-13 12:50
#40
You can forget about the Liberals doing anything on this front.
And I open in principle to hopes of common ground with the Liberals.
But on the tax and fiscal front- they are hopeless. Chretien and Martin set this situation up.
They didnt have in mind the extreme version of Harper and friends. Their idea was that you download responsibility to the provincial government and lower overall spending, but in setting up the overall fiscal structure you leave room for a little bit of discretionary spending.... the kind of programs which the Liberals buy votes every few years.
The Liberal version is highly cost effective. Most of the time you just promise programs- like in the Red Books waved around before and during each election. And what is really cool, you get to reapeat some of those pomises across multiple elections.
But eventually, you do have to throw out a few bones in actual program spending. No sweat- it isnt much, and it leveraged all those recycled promises you bait left of centre voters with.
Cheap, but you still need some fiscal room for it. So you have tax cuts, but you keep the surpluses coming.
Harper and Company come along, and they werent at all above using the cookie jar to buy votes. But they are more into the longer term of ending this practice of discretionary fiscal capacity available for the odd bit of new or enhanced program spending.
So starve the beast to make sure that even when you arent governing, the successors have to live with smaller government. Starve the beast by lowering revenues and by eliminating surpluses or the capability to produce a surplus. Since so much government spending cannot be pushed down over the near term even by conservatives, structurally lowering revenues in increments of 1 and 2% has a MANY fold eeffect on capacity to elect for and support discretionary spending.
Getting back to the Liberals: the Liberals will consider program spending improvements when there is 'slack' designed in the budget. But thats gone now, and so is their willingness to even make promises. Now promises of any amount at all will have to be covered by tax increases- and the Liberals just will not go there.
It already had an effect on them. Last year they talked about delaying the corporate tax cuts. Which meant they were willing to promote several billion in new spending.
This year and next those tax cuts are in. So the Liberals are promising chump change, and saying that EI enhancements they would have fought an election over last year are 'not necessary' because the economy has improved.
This is just the beginning. And if you want to fool yourselves that it will be different if they are governing- thats willful delusion. Becasue they'll be looking over their shoulders at the Conservatives in opposition.
And the NDP- they are going to have to be more creative and up front than they have been. Its too late to be doing more than beginning to nip at the big questions before the coming election. But it cant be put off forever. Its a bit bizarre to be always talking about focused little pocketbook issues while the thiefs are blowing up the safe.
Wed, 2010-10-13 12:58
#41
I think the Obama's campaign figured out the antidote to "starve the beast."
It's very simple: campaign on raising taxes on the super elite, the very rich and on the biggest corporations. The multi-millionaires and billionaires who have driven the world's economy into the ditch.
Wed, 2010-10-13 13:18
#42
I dont think they did. Or at least, not what might work for us.
Tax increases on the wealthiest is just scratching the surface. If anything, more so in the US.
We have to go beyond the easy stuff that can be pulled off with existing populist sentiments out there. Let alone that those sentiments are stronger in the US than here.
Wed, 2010-10-13 13:50
#43
We have to go beyond the easy stuff that can be pulled off with existing populist sentiments out there. Let alone that those sentiments are stronger in the US than here.
How far beyond the "easy stuff"?
What kind of tax increases and by how much and on who? Income taxes, business taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes etc....
The answer to "starve the beast" is probably "nourish the beast." How much nourishing does the beast require?
(It would probably be a good idea to get away from the pejorative word "beast" that right-wingers have come up with to frame the issue and disparage government.)
Wed, 2010-10-13 14:21
#44
Tax cuts on the 'middle classes' [down into the working class] will ultimately have to be rolled back.
We cant start out going there. But there does need to be an awareness of where we are headed.
Wed, 2010-10-13 14:42
#45
First the issue of taxing the rich:
The NDP walked away from tax increases on the rich after the 2004 election when they proposed an inheritance tax-- Canada does not have one and the US does. that is a wealth tax.
The closest thing we have to a wealth tax in Canada are municipal property taxes but they tax housing without considering if the house is free and clear and also tax rental property (apartments etc.) at a higher rate than houses.
The tax people confuse with a tax on the rich is a tax on high income earners (who usually are rich). Of course there are many very wealthy people who avoid taxable income and have their wealth untaxed in Canada and can pass it on to their children untaxed.
Second the so-called "starve the beast" discussion:
"Starve the beast" refers to the removal of money through indexing and other increases to social programs. I have not seen it used as consistently to refer to government itself and certainyl not to deliberately damaging the fiscal position of the government.
When "starve the beast" comes up there is this fiction that increased activity and a bigger tax base to make up for the difference will in the end leave a healthier, leaner government, not one that is chronically broke. It has never included spending in the mix-- getting rid of money through overspending in other areas.
Again if I am not new to linking these then please show me who else has brought it up. I raised it quite a while ago with defence spending and nobody seemed that interested. I raised it again when the stimulus money was announced and few seemed interested. I would like to see some kind of link regarding this since people are saying this is a popular notion but I don't think it is. This is not about spending cuts and fiscal conservatism as was the older notions of "starve the beast" which applied to the welfare state not the state itself, and goes beyond shrinking government. This is about the deliberate undermining of the nation's finances through a combination of long-term commitments and massive spending as well as capacity reduction through tax cuts. The object is not to just hobble social spending but to effectively bankrupt the government as a means to that end. Yes they are similar but this is a different charge because by any ideology, this is destructive (even if excused for the wider benefit of nipping that socialism bud).
The linking of the Liberals is a part of the problem. Their approach may have helped but it was different and more traditional. In fairness to the Liberals this is not the strategy they have been a part of. They did cut spending -- in a ham-fisted, short-sighted and irresponsible way. However, they were not trying to damage the capacity of government. In fact they argued that the improvement to the nation's finances would allow future expenditure and in fact, it did. At the time Harper was elected, the country could have easily afforded all the spending it had and to support cities and a national child care program. The NDP proved that it could with a balanced budget.
The Liberals are bad, but they were not actually trying to destroy the nation's finances or to make future programs impossible. Their strategy was to fix federal problems on the backs of the provinces and return the country to surplus. They did it in a costly way on the backs of provinces and social programs. The Con plan is to break the federal bank in every way possible-- through spending, long-term commitments, and tax cuts as well as cultural shifts in political discourse. There is an important distinction here. I don't believe that any party prior to this one has come in to office with a desire to break the budget before. Each party had its own ideas of priorities and its own ideas of what deficits could be tolerated but only this current incarnation wants the federal budget to fail in my view. Yes, I mean in a way that could be described as treason as that is what we are talking about. These people do not believe their ideology will work to fix the federal finances-- they don't want those finances fixed. Indeed that is the fundamental difference between this Con government and previous right wing Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. those governments thought additional activity, growth and other things would fix the budget and aimed at those. Their ideas are partly discredited. The current government cares little about fixing the budget-- it wants to break forever if possible the ability for the government to interfere in the economy. This sounds like the definition for the "starve the beast" term but it isn't. This is new and it is different than what has come before. It is not only different in degrees, it is different in intent and in method including the use of spending even if necessary to get rid of capital from the economy. The only precedent for this was the government of Mike Harris that also wanted to wreck the institution itself. These are also incidentally the only two governments that made no attempt to reach out at any time to the wider citizenry content to serve only their supporters. They share many of the same people including the philosophy of creating a crisis to sell a specific solution. They also believed in heavy public manipulation. Other governments of the right wing persuasion have devastated the public finances, some have stolen from them. But this objective of damaging the finances as a goal in itself is new. It is reflective of a change-- giving up on the notion that lower taxes pay for themselves and going after the health of government itself.
You are right Ken in that I am indeed frustrated about the inability of most people to grasp this-- and it is not a single issue in my view -- the economic capacity of government is a prerequisite to almost anything else it may consider doing-- if we disregard this, what can we address? And very few people on the left seem willing to engage in debates surrounding taxation and economics-- a huge exception to that is of course unions, the CLC in particular. To their credit the Canadian Labour Congress has been focusing on economic issues for a long time and remains a credible, responsible and well-considered voice even though so many are led to disregard union voices. Still far too many people explain away the stimulus spending as a mistake/something the Cons were forced to do/for partisan purposes only/ as a victory of the opposition etc. rather than the tool it was to further this agenda.
Specifically, can someone point me to another person arguing that the stimulus spending has been hijacked as a tool to damage government deliberately-- making sure little value is delivered in to public hands in terms of addressing important infrastructure needs but making a lot of money go away as an end in itself.
Wed, 2010-10-13 14:56
#46
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
This is the important macroeconomic backstory to the current economic conditions here and this upcoming economic update thread.
"Who needs an army when you can obtain the usual objective - monetary wealth and asset appropriation simply by financial means...
What is to stop US banks and their customers from creating $1 Trillion, $10 Trillion, or even $50 Trillion on their computer keyboards to buy up all the bonds and stocks in the world, along with all the land and other assets for sale in the hope of making capital gains and pocketing the arbitrage spreads by debt leveraging at less than 1 per cent interest cost?
This is the game that is being played today...Finance is the new form of warfare."
Of course, as Canadians we should be rioting in the streets and forming lynch mobs, as our own Quizling banksters create money out of thin air for loans that allow foreign corporations to control our major industries and natural resources.
Loans that they would never in a million years grant to their hard-working fellow Canadians.
Wed, 2010-10-13 18:01
#47
Specifically, can someone point me to another person arguing that the stimulus spending has been hijacked as a tool to damage government deliberately-- making sure little value is delivered in to public hands in terms of addressing important infrastructure needs but making a lot of money go away as an end in itself.
If you mean that thesis specifically, no I dont know of anyone else advancing it here.
And the reason I didnt respond is because I dont think that it is the case. And because I dont think my difference of opinion is politically material. I see your thesis as a sort of 'sub-species' of the general understanding that it is the unprecedented in Canada goal of the Harper government not just to do the overt thing of cutting taxes and spending, but also by stealth to structure the future fiscal situation so that no Liberal government even has the option of initiating spending without touching the third rail of raising taxes.
I thing that people broadly understanding that is necessary and sufficient.
If you or anyone else think that what the Cons are doing is substantially more pernicious than that, I dont see any reason to argue the point. But I dont agree.
Where I believe we get into territory where it is necessary to explore such differences is if you are arguing that it it is necessary for people to understand and accept your thesis. That I think, is fundamentally politicaly mistaken- and becomes a distraction when proponents of such a thesis insist that subscribing to it is a minimum condition for sustained political action. More than a distraction- its a well worn route for activists to become terminally discouraged.
Why I do not subscribe to your thesis is I beleive not the primary concern. Its the political reality of the mere fact I and other politically astute progressives do not and will not agree. Because if we dont buy it, what chance does it have of becoming a broad popular understanding?
Not only would such a political education task be very daunting... it isnt necessary.
Because we can take action in concert with the minimum shared understanding that the Cons are out not just pushing this and that cut, but to hobble democratic choices in the future.
What does it matter, precisely what is and what is not part of the Cons master plan?
For this to even have a shot at percolating down through the popular concious its going to have to be boiled down to something really basic anyway. Like, "They are out to get us." Etc.
And people will necessarily have all manner of ideas of what that does and doesnt extend to.
Wed, 2010-10-13 18:03
#48
This is not about spending cuts and fiscal conservatism as was the older notions of "starve the beast" which applied to the welfare state not the state itself, and goes beyond shrinking government. This is about the deliberate undermining of the nation's finances through a combination of long-term commitments and massive spending as well as capacity reduction through tax cuts. The object is not to just hobble social spending but to effectively bankrupt the government as a means to that end. Yes they are similar but this is a different charge because by any ideology, this is destructive (even if excused for the wider benefit of nipping that socialism bud).
Try as they might, the Conservatives are a long way away from bankrupting the government. The national debt now is something like $550 billion. It's been growing lately but it's actually less now then it was in 1997. And the economy is much bigger now so debt as a % of GDP is much lower now then in 1997. And compared to the rest of the world our debt levels are not so bad.
I think the next government after the Conservatives will still have the fiscal wherewithal to implement programs such as national day care, a green economy, pharmacare, home care, early childhood education, infrastructure improvements, the Kelowna Accord part 2, etc....
If the Conservatives were bankrupting the Canadian government the dollar would be showing weakness. There's no evidence of that happening but there is a lot of evidence that is what is happening in the US.
Wed, 2010-10-13 19:29
#49
Canada's national debt was $543,022,147,241.02 at 11 a.m today. Or according to the Economist Magazine, $32,506 US for every man, woman and child in this country. Ottawa posted the largest federal deficit in Canadian history last year.
We're right behind Greece. And bananas don't grow too well in our Northern Puerto Rico. DAY-O!
Wed, 2010-10-13 19:30
#50
Ken, there are two points being made here and two different related arguments--
I am arguing that we do need to all understand that this government has moved from a battle over the current government to a future one. I don't think that is widely understood or believed. I do believe that it is essential to understand this since people will not understand otherwise what is at stake.
The second point was the issue that you had said all I was arguing had been said before and was old hat. I don't think that is the case and I have linked the quick turnaround and willingness to go with massive stimulus spending as connected to a desire to damage the government into the future with the objective of making the kind of spending that is practically possible but the Cons disapprove of no longer practically possible-- in other words take the decision out of the realm of ideology (even though it is sourced there) and force it in to a practical impossibility.
I am arguing that the governemnt does not want the government to be economically successful -- which I believe is unprecedented.
Wed, 2010-10-13 19:31
#51
Ken, there are two points being made here and two different related arguments--
I am arguing that we do need to all understand that this government has moved from a battle over the current government to a future one. I don't think that is widely understood or believed. I do believe that it is essential to understand this since people will not understand otherwise what is at stake.
The second point was the issue that you had said all I was arguing had been said before and was old hat. I don't think that is the case and I have linked the quick turnaround and willingness to go with massive stimulus spending as connected to a desire to damage the government into the future with the objective of making the kind of spending that is practically possible but the Cons disapprove of no longer practically possible-- in other words take the decision out of the realm of ideology (even though it is sourced there) and force it in to a practical impossibility.
I am arguing that the governemnt does not want the government to be economically successful -- which I believe is unprecedented.