NDP Leadership Forum 29

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Howard

duncan cameron wrote:

Howard maybe we could do a sit down. Are you anywhere near Vancouver? Let me know. We are pretty far apart, it seems we don't read the same stuff.

We both are pretty far apart but we both like Nash. That is a good sign for her campaign. Like you, I also have an interest in Saganash, although I bet we differ on Mulcair.

duncan cameron wrote:

Thw World Bank was founded on government guarantees to back bonds issued in New York capital markets. The first presidents until McNamara were all from Wall St. for that reason.

The World Bank lent to Europe at a slightly higher rate than its borrowing costs. Borrowing costs were low because of government guarantees. Safe stuff, you pay less.The difference was its profit, which covered its operating costs

The World Bank still does this, but the Europeans have since joined the US (and other developed countries) as creditors, and now they lend to current day developing countries. The rates they offer to most developing countries are lower than the rates that those same countries are able to obtain from private credit sources.

duncan cameron wrote:

The IMF was doing short term re-lending of foreign exchange allocated to it by governments. The first 25 percent of the borrowing quota, so called first tranche money, was what the country put in itself. it could borrow its own money back without trouble. Canada actually provided gold for some Aftican countries who joined the Fund after Independance, and had started out life without any foreign exchange or gold. 

This short term balance of payments lending which was what the IMF was supposed to do under Bretton Woods did not go through capital markets.IMF money is provided directly by governments or created in very small amounts by SDR allocations.

Well, regardless of what the IMF did historically (e.g. we are no longer on the gold standard), its role still remains to ensure macroeconomic stability, mostly through monetary regimes and financial systems. It does that by offering advice to countries and providing them with emergency credit when they face default (i.e. balance of payments crises).

Gaian

Gaian wrote:
duncan cameron wrote:

On trade I cannot speak for what Peggy Nash will do. We know that Canada is negotiating a bunch more bilateral deals that will cover some 40 countries. We already have a trade framework under the WTO. It makes more sense to trade and negotiate with the U.S. and any other country under a multilateral framework.

The WTO needs to be reformed. It needs to promote employment like the ill-fated ITO negotiated multilaterally, and then killed by Congress after the war. Instead the WTO protects predatory practices by corporations. But multiateral means Canada gets every concession every other country negotiates with the U.S. Bilateral means you give to get. A large number of countries don't like the WTO and are blocking further negotiaitions untill they get changes, Canada needs to engage. Instead it is doing secret agreements all over the place without parliamentary supervision.

The new Canadian stratey is much like the Mulroney Cufta/Nafta deals: corporate rights agreement that over-ride the Canadian constitution. Under Cufta and Nafta remember the deal did not over-ride the American constituion since the U.S. signed them as Admistrative agreements and Congressional laws pasted subsequently take precedence. That is why Mulcair has gotten himself in a strange position of advocating for something than makes no sense for a Canadian to accept, let alone defend.

Axworthy wanted Canada to dump Nafta and use the WTO. That should be Canada's trade policy. Work for major changes to the WTO to take out provisions that protect corporate rights, and run over human rights.

I'll bet, Duncan, you missed this question in the following post: " Shouldn't there be some concern for the petrodollar and monetary policy so that we don't have to work at minimum wage to be able to export anything actually manufactured or at least upgraded?"

It's one that Thomas Mulcair is posing, apparently the only one to talk reality when it comes to the political economy of Canada.

What do you think?

"Gaian the floating dollar policy is at best defensive. Foreign control of industry, and resources, the stuctural problem identified in the 1960s persists and is the origin of our problems with capital flows, and the dollar. The CAW has called for a new industrial policy, the CCPA alternative budget has done the work on what needs to be changed to promote more balanced economic development.

Saying that Alberta energy is sinking the manufacturing sector in Quebec and Ontario is at best a half-truth. It is heard often in Quebec and not just from the PQ or its allies.

We have been promoting Canadian investment abroad, and letting foreign investors in Canada do what they want. Neither makes sense. Our banks are allowed to use their privileges granted under charters from parliament to go abroad and lose money.
Capital flows determine the value of the dollar. We need capital controls, rules over capital movements, and ways to control speculative short term flows through a Tobin tax."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Duncan, Canada was among the first to go to a floating exchange rate (and I'm not about to defend it...in fact I don't know why you would call it a defensive measure. Loss of control over the exchange rate is what bothered the late Joan Robinson - it meant that social democracy no longer had the controls that you are talking about. I recall talking to her about it not long before her death 30 years back.)

AS for that "half truth" about investment in Alberta - that is believed in Quebec - about investment in the Tar patch raising the loonie to par with the greenback...?????? Hell, if it is responsible for taking the loonie even halfway from 70 cents to more than $1 U.S. in so short a time...does that make it a "half-truth?"

And of course we need those controls and a Tobin tax, etc.

I asked ONLY about the effect of the Tar Patch on the exchange rate, and you wrote it off as a half truth that is believed in Quebec. And I call that playing politics with economic truth - because it is Mulcair who has brought the petro-loonie forward. It is a mark of the fear that the old order feel for him, and it demonstrates the copout of Canadian social democrats that is letting Steve and wee Jimmie call the shots.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Howard wrote:

I'm looking forward to listening to the Q&A in French. Do you have a link?

I watched it at her website (www.peggynash.ca), which seems to be down at the moment. But when it comes back up, have a look to see whether it's still up there. They basically filmed the launch and then the Q&A after.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Malcolm wrote:

Yes, yes.  We get what you're against.  What are you FOR?

I'm not against trade deals.  I'm against trade deals which priorize the rights of capital over the rights of citizens.  (Which, of course, describes most ?all? of the existing trade agrements Canada is party to.)

Likewise, I'm against electric tea kettles that short circuit and cause fires.  But I'm not against electric tea kettles.

Our trade deals are short circuiting and burning down economies around the world and causing immense harm to the marginalized on a global basis.  

I thought you were against tea kettles with short circuits?  Time to throw out the faulty tea kettle and replace it with one that works.  The status quo is a fire hazard and even a pot on the stove works better.

Gaian

I'll stick with chicken entrails.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CBC poll, still open:

Who should replace Layton as NDP leader?

1. Paul Dewar 35.72% (603 votes)

2. Peggy Nash 23.22% (392 votes)

3. Nathan Cullen 12.44% (210 votes)

4. Thomas Mulcair 9.83% (166 votes)

5. Brian Topp 8.71% (147 votes)

6. Roméo Saganash 8.59% (145 votes)

7. Martin Singh 1.48% (25 votes)

Total Votes: 1,688

(apparently the CBC public is not buying the koolaid that Topp and Mulcair are the two front runners)

(only her second day in the campaign, and Peggy is at second in this poll)

dacckon dacckon's picture

I don't think CBC online polls are a true indicator of anything. Anyways...
Une économie durable, selon Thomas Mulcair

ottawaobserver

Malcolm wrote:

Candidate Announcements

  • Topp - Ottawa
  • Saganash - Constituency
  • Cullen - Home Province
  • Dewar - Constituency (which happens to be Ottawa)
  • Singh - Home Province
  • Mulcair - Home City
  • Nash - Home City
  • Chisholm - Home City
  • Ashton - ?

I believe you're wrong on Singh, Malcolm. As I understand it, he may have come from Ontario, but he is Peter Stoffer's riding president in Sackville-Eastern Shore-Musquodoboit Valley. He announced in Brampton, because of his adherence to the Sikh faith.

KenS

Martin Singh announced in Mississauga. [Same idea.] Born and raised and lives in Musq Harbour.

What Martin said was that he announced in Mississauga because he wanted to show he could get support outside NS. While it ius no coincidence that he did that where there are a lot of Sikhs- and therefore a lot of hoped for support- I am pretty suere he would not say and would not want it said that he announced there because of his adherance to the Sikh faith.

Howard

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Yes, yes.  We get what you're against.  What are you FOR?

I'm not against trade deals.  I'm against trade deals which priorize the rights of capital over the rights of citizens.  (Which, of course, describes most ?all? of the existing trade agrements Canada is party to.)

Likewise, I'm against electric tea kettles that short circuit and cause fires.  But I'm not against electric tea kettles.

Our trade deals are short circuiting and burning down economies around the world and causing immense harm to the marginalized on a global basis.  

Yes, emerging (aka developing) economies are doing SO terribly :rolleyes:

Unionist

KenS wrote:

While it ius no coincidence that he did that where there are a lot of Sikhs- and therefore a lot of hoped for support- I am pretty suere he would not say and would not want it said that he announced there because of his adherance to the Sikh faith.

Well, I believe this dude was [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/09/29/ns-martin-sin... open[/url] about his decision to mix religion and politics and to declare in front of his co-religionists:

Quote:

He was born Martin Hill, but is now Martin Singh after changing his name as part of his conversion to the Sikh faith.

The turbaned Sikh said while he, his wife and three children stand out, they are accepted on the Eastern shore where he owns and runs a local pharmacy.

But it's in Brampton, Ont., where thousands of Sikh families live, that Singh will launch his campaign.

Last weekend, he told a group gathered outside a temple there that he is going to run, in part, to showcase the Sikh faith.

"This campaign that will start on Oct. 2, and this campaign that will travel right across this great nation will teach Canadians about who we are and that our values, Sikh values, are the same as Canadian values and that Canadian values are the same as Sikh values and that we care so very deeply for this country and we want to play a part. This, this is what I want to bring to this election race," he told the crowd.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................

 

dacckon dacckon's picture

Its good to bring those with NDP values who should have been in the party.

Anyways... Conservatives bring back political loan issue 

Topp (loan from where he is chair of the board) & Singh (from himself it appears)

Howard

And some more statistics.

Unionist

dacckon wrote:

Topp (loan from where he is chair of the board) & Singh (from himself it appears)

Singh is charging himself 5.5% interest on a $35,000 loan. Hmmm....

ottawaobserver

KenS wrote:

Martin Singh announced in Mississauga. [Same idea.] Born and raised and lives in Musq Harbour.

What Martin said was that he announced in Mississauga because he wanted to show he could get support outside NS. While it ius no coincidence that he did that where there are a lot of Sikhs- and therefore a lot of hoped for support- I am pretty suere he would not say and would not want it said that he announced there because of his adherance to the Sikh faith.

Fair enough.

ottawaobserver

Singh is creating an issue for himself and others by financing his campaign in away that is currently allowable under the Elections Act, but would not be if legislation similar to that which we've supported earlier is reintroduced and passes the Commons.

So, it's hardly surprising that the government has chosen to put notice on the Order Paper of its intent to reintroduce that very piece of legislation.

Stockholm

Even if they reintroduce and pass that legislation, i assume it could not be retroactive - so there would be nothng to stop candidates from lending money to themselves for the time being until a law forbissing it gets royal assent.

MegB

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked