A list of newspaper articles demonstrates Stephen Harper’s prescience one year ago.
Stephen Harper was right. This week Harper has been maintained and explained in detail what his Government has been doing over the last year to protect Canada from an economic disaster. The opposition parties all state he should have done “more” or things “differently”. When prodded, they are unable to explain exactly what they mean.
In fact a year ago opposition parties were decrying the notion that Canada could face an international economic disaster, Harper was fearmongering, and that Canada was predicted to only do well.
Here’s what they said:
“Harper ready to give us the squeeze. Tells Canadians to tighten their belts as U.S. financial collapse looms” (Ottawa Sun, December 21, 2007).
“In CTV’s year-end interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he says he’s concerned about the slowdown in the American economy and how it could impact businesses north of the border” (Canadian Press, December 20, 2007).
“After almost two years of ‘don’t worry, be happy’, the PM has been raising a caution flag, if not an alarm, about the Canadian economy in the year ahead. ‘I think 2008 will be a more challenging year for the country and for the government,’ he predicted during a recent chat with us at 24 Sussex Dr.” (Greg Weston. Whitehouse Star, December 31, 2007).
“Harper said he’ll be keeping watch on the looming storm on Canada’s economic horizon. ‘We know there is considerable uncertainty in the world economy, in the American economy, and we’ve seen very strong performance from our economy so far,’ he said Monday. ‘So obviously, our wish for the year is we’re able to sustain that momentum and shelter as best we can Canadians from any fallout of global economic problems’” (Canadian Press, December 31, 2007).
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper expects Canada’s economy to suffer next year, buffeted by turmoil south of the border [...]. In a calculated signal to Canadians, Harper said that 2008 will be “more challenging” for his government and the country. “There remains very serious economic uncertainty in the United States and in other parts of the world, and it’s impossible for me to see how Canada can be entirely immune from those developments,” he said in a year-end interview with the Star.” (Toronto Star, December 21, 2007)
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning Canadians to brace for fiscal belt-tightening as a looming economic collapse in the U.S. threatens to make waves north of the border. Looking to an uncertain 2008, [his] government will save for rainy days ahead by foregoing sizeable tax cuts and keeping a tight grip on federal purse-strings in the next spring budget. “[...] We didn’t wait for the spring. We were concerned about the American economy and we thought we had to act quickly,” Harper said.” (CN News, December 20, 2007)
““The [2008] budget will be a stand-pat budget,” he said. “We will be doing what households and businesses do in a time of uncertainty—concentrating on stability and paying down our debt.” And he is braced for unsettling economic times. “It’s hard for me to see,” he said, “how we can continue to have the kind of uncertainty and potential slowdown in the United States and elsewhere without that having some impact on the Canadian economy.”” (MacCleans, December 28, 2007)
ROBERT FIFE (Reporter): As the Prime Minister sat down with CTV to reflect on the past year, he has worries about the next. Top of mind, a threatening downturn in the American economy that will be felt north of the border.
STEPHEN HARPER (Canadian Prime Minister): I believe that 2008 is likely to be a challenging year in terms of the economy… There’s no way we can be completely insulated from what’s going on in the United States or in the global economy (CTV National News, December 20, 2007).
The Liberals and the NDP in December 2007
“[John] McCallum said the government is overstating the risks because many experts expect the Canadian economy to grow by up to 2.5 per cent this year, which would leave room for spending and tax initiatives” (Toronto Star, January 1, 2008).
“McCallum accused Harper of sending a confusing message to consumers by combining talk of a tax cut with a warning the economy could be headed for trouble. ‘This is clearly a triumph of gimmickry over good public policy to announce the GST cut in a store and tell us the cupboard is bare,’ said McCallum. ’I think they’re trying to downplay expectations and then people will be positively surprised’” (Toronto Star, January 1, 2008).
Stéphane Dion recently admitted that ‘It was difficult for us to write a chapter on a U.S. economic crisis when we were preparing our platform’ (Stéphane Dion, Le téléjournal, October 6, 2008).
“NDP leader Jack Layton accused Mr. Harper of trying to ‘create a climate of fear’ to justify government plans for the economy, as he said the government has done to gain support for the war in Afghanistan and to avoid joining the global fight against climate change. ‘If the economy is getting into some trouble and the government’s finances are in some trouble, it’s because Mr. Harper has paid no attention to that issue (climate change) at all,’ Mr. Layton said, adding that his party will continue to vote against the government on no-confidence motions” (Ottawa Citizen, December 24, 2007).
JACK LAYTON: “Well I think he is trying to create a climate of fear, and, you know, that’s been his approach unfortunately on some issues, whether it was the way in which we have gone to war in Afghanistan” (CTV, Question Period, December 23, 2007).
Anyone else have anymore examples to aid this project? I’ll add them to the collection.
The Conservatives should use these newspaper articles to make an advertisement. I think it would ring truth in the minds of voters at the current time. Pointing out the other guy’s faults, your forewarning, and then a few of your prudent actions: that is the stuff killer election advertisments are made of.
(Some Oracles are More Substance, Others are Not Leaders)
Now that it looks like the Liberals have a chance…
Stephane Dion states that “Stephen Harper squandered the surplus on.” Then he goes on to insert either tax cuts, innovation spending, the GST or whatever is appropriate for the moment. This leaves me to ask, what exactly would Dion do with the surplus’ which, if I may remind him, come from you and I, and not some magic place. There is no macro economic plan I know of which proposes government keep surpluses accruing over years. Wait, actually there is a plan, its’ one where a dictator puts all that money in his Swiss Bank Account, but I digress. Even companies will invest profits or provide dividends while keeping a small amount to use as a contingency plan - something Paul Martin borrowed from the business world. So what did Harper do with the cash? Three billion spent on the military, which even the outgoing Liberals were planning on doing to refurbish a dying Canadian institution. Four billion spent on Health Care, on which has actually resulted in a reduction in waiting lists according to surgeons I have spoken with (we’ll see the big numbers). Six billion was used to lower the GST, while not the favorite of Economists, Harper was correct in stating that this is a regressive tax which harms the poor more than the rich - something every Economist knows, but the media won’t report (Harper has done more for the poor than the Liberals in 10 years so far).
So what would the Liberals have done? Probably nearly the same thing if in that situation. Or do they suggest not spending on Health Care or the desperate military, which was launched into Afghanistan by the Liberals in the first place?
What depresses me the most is not that Dion can say these things, in fact its what every opposition member would do. It is that the Mainstream Media isn’t all over Dion about this every time he opens his pie hole. Why don’t they ask about the Health Care spending, like “Hey Dion would you not have spent on Health Care, old boy?” There is a bias.
I think it is time to review these articles on the Green Shift, and how it will not reduce emissions but is likely to increase emissions, and moreover how even Jack Mintz, the Economist who helped write the plan, thinks it isn’t necessarily going to work.
Secondly let’s consider the NDP’s plan to increase corporate taxes. During a time when it is even more necessary to reduce taxes to make us more competitive against other leading countries (Stephen Harper plans to reduce our corporate taxes to the lowest in the G-7), Jack Layton wants to raise them. The OECD summarized the findings of the harmful effects of corporate taxes which I describe briefly in this article. In an open economy, Layton will only succeed in helping the blue collar workers lose their jobs. Right now Canada is rated to lead the G-7 in growth, albeit slow growth.
Yes, many economists describe a Keynsian style system of government spending through recessions, but Harper is correct in saying that once you go down that path it is hard to come back. Keynsianism is easy to understand, and lefties like that, but Robert Lucas and Milton Freidman have rightly critisized it and many have pointed out its failures. As both an economist and a politician I think he has good insight into the problems of Keynsian economics, what do you fund? Who gets funding? Are you picking winners and losers? Once a subsidy is given, it is not easy to take it away. Are you pouring money down the drain? Will the public go for it? It is easy as an economist to describe the best methods of targeted subsidies, but the public is as likely not to agree! You are constrained by public foolishness and corporate greed or seeking legalized monopoly establishment. Soon I will describe the critical paper that demonstrated government action extended the Great Depression.
Its not really useful if you read these, get your lefty friends to read the evidence. Or let them know the evidence. They believe in fairy tales.
An interesting tidbit in the Prime Minister’s discussion with Amanda Lang at Business News Network regarding the direction he is taking with Canada’s economy . He plans to reduce federal and corporate business taxes to the lowest level in the G-7 by 2010. (It is worth watching this interview as opposed to the stupidity of the usual media, ie: CTV, when it comes to discussing economics, this is a refreshing discussion).
Reduction in corporate taxes has proven overall benefits, and something Canada could learn from the Nordic countries like Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc. Canada has been making steady progress over the last several years in the right direction and we are reaping the benefits of it in terms of stability. In a large part this is due to the work of the Reform party, giving the Liberals no real stress in regards to doing what they inherently know is correct. Imagine if the NDP was the official opposition during the deficit crisis.
A recent OECD article discusses the evidence for lower taxes equating to higher economic growth. In particular corporate taxes:
Increases in productivity: A second option is to reform corporate taxes, as they influence productivity in several ways. Evidence in this study suggests that lowering statutory corporate tax rates can lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth. It also appears that corporate taxes adversely influence productivity in all firms except in young and small firms since these firms are often not very profitable. One possible implication is that tax exemptions or reduced statutory corporate tax rates for small firms might be much less effective in raising productivity than a generalised reduction in the overall statutory corporate tax rate. This reduction could be financed by scaling down exemptions granted on firm size as they may only waste resources without any substantial positive growth effects.
Investment: Corporate income taxes appear to have a particularly negative impact on GDP per capita. This is consistent with the previously reviewed evidence and empirical findings that lowering corporate taxes raises Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth and investment. Reducing the corporate tax rate also appears to be particularly beneficial for TFP growth of the most dynamic and innovative firms.
I supposed I should have known more about his economic goal, but it has been flying under the radar for some time, except that is, those times it has raised the ire of Premier McGuinty who cannot comprehend such economic logic. However the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) is horrible when it comes to getting its message across. While they bear a considerable amount of blame, much can also be attributed to the Mainstream Media which is relentless in its mission to frame the CPC in as bad light as possible. The MSM still has not explained that a reduction in the GST benefits poor people.
(When the Pharisees objected to Jesus’ meeting with tax collectors rather than the righteous, Jesus replied that it was the sick who need a physician, not the healthy (Matthew 9:9–13) )
Can anyone honestly imagine any other party leader in this race saying anything this intelligent? Dion? I don’t even expect Ignatieff or Rae to say anything this intelligent. They might be able to make it up, but I would doubt the understanding beneath it all.
I’ve always been impressed with this guy. Not many others, I’m no syncophant.
Stay tuned. Sunday night I plan to show how the Green Shift increases the use of greenhouse gasses. Using economic evidence published in real peer reviewed journals of course.
The English language is one of connotation, and some words like “stupid” should be applied carefully, but when warranted, applied definitively. What Dan Gardner tries to imply in this recent article is that Stephen Harper is stupid, even though he has a degree in Economics, by flogging him with an interview with the renouned Economist, Dr. Greg Mankiw.
Stupid is defined by Websters as acting in an unintelligent or careless manner, or lacking intelligence or reason.
As the old adage suggests, “While leaving the house to call someone stupid, be sure you don’t bang your head into a mirror along the way.”
The MSM is as Stupid as it is Vain
I’m sure no one in this country has missed out on the Liberal Party’s proposed carbon tax, the Green Shift™. While Stephane Dion has been unable to even pronounce it in English, let alone explain it, the mainstream media has done a bang on job of praising this thing whenever or however it can. Still I have yet to hear on the news a basic Economics discussion of the subject, and I have yet to hear from any published peer reviewed literature as well. So when the mainstream media fails us, like it usually does it is time to turn to the blogosphere. And so we being The Green Shift - The Economics Lesson - in Basic for Dan Gardner™. Oh and we’ll include some peer reviewed journal articles as well.
The basic principle of the Green Shift is that by increasing a tax one artificially increases the cost of carbon producing substances or greenhouse gas substances (GGS) so that people consider purchasing substitute goods instead thus lowering the release of greenhouse gasses. Moreover by reducing people’s income taxes by replacing it with the increased tax revenue from GGS one avoids harming people along the way, or causing the much dreaded stagflation. It is worth pausing here, for those of you unfamiliar with economics, in order to read the wikipedia definition of stagflation and note in particular that :
First, stagflation can result when an economy is slowed by an unfavorable supply shock, such as an increase in the price of oil in an oil importing country, which tends to raise prices at the same time that it slows the economy by making production less profitable.[5][6][7] This type of stagflation presents a policy dilemma because most actions to assist with fighting inflation worsen economic stagnation and vice versa. Second, both stagnation and inflation can result from inappropriate macroeconomic policies. For example, central banks can cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply,[8] and the government can cause stagnation by excessive regulation of goods markets and labor markets.
Yep.
Anyway so let us set up a basic economics argument for the Green part of the plan as follows. Here is a supply and demand curve with price (P) increasing to (P’) as we increase or shift the cost or supply curve (S) of gasoline by adding a tax (S’). As you will see the quantity of gasoline demanded decreases from (Q) to (Q’) and the ticker tape ticks, the adding machines add, and all is well in economic pre Christmas land. (D is the demand for gasoline curve)
Ok now let us add the “Shift” into the plan. We’ll give back Canadians this extra revenue in the form of an income tax reduction. So without going into a lot of detail, suffice to state that when one increases the income of a group of people one also shifts up the aggregate demand curve. This is generally because as one has more money in one’s budget one is less constrained by costs. In other words, if we all get an extra $2000 a year in income tax rebates, some of us are going to drive to New York for the weekend like we always wanted to do.
Let’s see the curves shifting.
Whoops! As the demand curve shifts up from (D) to (D’) the quantity of gas consumed increases from (Q’) to (Q). We’re right back where we started! What we have done is simply artificially raised the price of things, but not done a thing to reduce consumption of gasoline or GGS for that matter.
What’s worse is that one has no real idea how these supply and demand curves are going to shift. They could in fact shift in a worse direction than one intended. For example as seen in this graph one could seen the consumption of GGS increase to (Q”) instead. More GGS consumed than before one played God-onomics.
The question comes down to the shape of the real demand curve for GGS. If the demand curve is “inelastic” it is a vertical curve, and this would mean no matter how much you increased the tax, the quantity consumed of GGS will not change as seen below.
Inelastic demand curves are seen when a good has no substitute goods, that is no readily available good with the same function that you can purchase in it’s place. Gasoline is a likely inelastic good as there really is no substitute for your Honda Civic you just bought. It cost $20,000, and unless you are Bill Gates, replacing it with a fusion powered vehicle isn’t going to happen anytime in the near future. Also as North American electricity generation is primarily from GGS, changing to non GGS generation will be a costly step with no immediate realistic substitutes other than Nuclear and Hydro power.
So what does the scientific peer reviewed literature demonstrate in regards to the elasticity of gasoline, the number one GGS? Hughes et. al state that:
We find the short run price elasticity of gasoline demand is significantly more inelastic today than in previous decades.
and
consumers have not significantly altered their gasoline consumption in response to higher gasoline prices.
interestingly
at lower income levels, the amount of travel has already been reduced to the minimum leaving little room for adjustment to higher prices.
In other words the evidence suggests that we’re pretty much locked into buying the gas we need. West et. al suggest that the cross-price elasticity between gasoline and leisure (the optimal tax rate on gasoline without causing external damage) is 35%. This happens to be the current tax rate on gasoline in Canada in most cities already, therefore taxing it more will cause significant burden.
And just how effective is the tax on gasoline at reducing air pollution? Sipes and Mendelsohn demonstrate that:
Our results indicate that if an environmental surcharge is added to gasoline taxes, then the additional tax will decrease gasoline consumption only slightly and, therefore, will have little effect on air pollution.
and more drastically
The results suggest that people with twice the income buy only 10–20% more gasoline. Of course, governments could use the revenues from gas taxes to address equity issues by lowering taxes on poor people or subsidizing services for them. However, in practice, it is not clear that current subsidies for transport actually benefit poor people more than others. Even if the income elasticity estimates in this paper are low, a tax on gasoline would most likely fall most heavily on the poor.
When it is all said and done, the people likely to suffer from the Green Shift are the poor themselves.
Dr. Mankiw is a proponent of the Pigovian Tax, that is a tax on things like GGS which have externalities such as pollution which are proposed to not be included in the price of the good itself. Dan Gardner seems to think that externalities are simply basic economics. They are not. In fact the theory of externalities is extremely complicated, and made more complicated by the question of whether externalities really exist.
At the end of the day, Stephen Harper has to decide a course to take. He doesn’t have the luxury of sitting in an Ivory Tower playing tiddly winks or black board what if’s. We have this Green Shift theory which sounds interesting, but what we don’t have at our finger-tips is the shapes of those curves I drew above. We also don’t really know how much they will shift and where they will equilibriate. The only way to know for sure is to experiment, and the most prudent way would be to experiment slowly, because we really have no idea how things will change - contrary to the apparent thoughts of Dion who thinks we need to act fast to save the planet.
Stephane Dion Uses Sign Language to Describe His Knowledge of Economics
We could easily make greenhouse gas output worse, we could have no effect at all. We could cause a depression, we could cause the worst outcome possible: stagflation. Many of the Canadian banks suggest that Canada is on the brink of a recession, recessions tend to mostly harm the poor, and the journal articles suggest the poor will bear the brunt of a Green Shift.
Therefore seems it would be stupid, Dan, to manipulate the Canadian economy so drastically at this time, that is when one considers the peer reviewed Economic evidence.
* The Green Shift plan has no immediate consumer gasoline taxes. However if the plan is to actually reduce GGS it will have to target gasoline in some manner. Gasoline is the number one and major contributor to Canadian GGS. For now they will target producers, who will have to pass some of these taxes onto the consumer, some will be taken out of profits, and some will be taken from the employees of the firms. Once again there are graphs to explain all that, of which we have no idea the slopes etc. In the end gasoline prices will rise, anyone who thinks they won’t is selling you a bridge to nowheresville.
** It is likely that the effect of Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by GGS on global climate change is low or non-existant as no definitive proof exists, and many peer reviewed articles state there is no evidence. Moreover it is likely that the current land based data is corrupt.
*** While many economists including myself support a pure consumption tax rather than income tax, all taxes do have harmful effects on the economy and the poor specifically. Consumption taxes have their own side effects and have not been entirely studied.
Watching the recent frenzy over the Climate Conference in Bali I am very happy that we finally have a Prime Minister who is able to blow the cold air of reality into the environmental maelstrom of something that looks like a big-hot-back-slapping doldrum. Canada’s position, Japan’s, (and Australia’s, no thanks to the brainwashing organization, CBC, everyone thinks that the position in Oz has changed because of the new Labour government, but really it hasn’t) and the position of the United States is that there is no point in setting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) when the world’s largest emittor won’t join in, and I refer to China. India’s emissions are projected to overtake the United States as well. The emissions from the US are going down each year under GW Bush, and not due to a recession either as the United States economy is better than ever, while Chinese emissions are increasing rapidly. If you’re one of those people who believes that anthropogenic GHG emissions (AGHG) is causing a disaster then by AlGlorey, why aren’t you concerned? It’s not going to matter one iota how much Canada does or even the United States for that matter, when the fat kids on the teeter-totter are all sitting on one end. Why isn’t this a bigger concern?
It’s comparable to a disarmament treaty during the Cold War that restricts the United States from building missiles but mandates the Soviet Union to build even more.
But does the media care? They’d rather follow the likes of Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio. After all, it should concern us greatly when the dogs of Hollywood fly in on Lear Jets led by Al-Goreacle, and start yapping that perhaps things are getting blown way out of proportion.
Recently a new journal article* published in 2007 by a Canadian climate researcher and external IPCC reviewer, Dr. Ross McKitrik, in the Journal of Geophysical Research has demonstrated that the increase in surface temperature is in large part due to non-GHG anthropogenic reasons, ie: urbanization - in layman’s terms our cities are warm and temperature stations near cities are recording that. Moreover the methodology used by current science to screen out this background effect isn’t doing an effective job. His work reveals that the increase in temperature is half of that which the current United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is estimating, thereby reducing their estimates even lower than their own reduction in estimates from the latest report.
A group of Dutch scientists have independently confirmed McKitrik’s work. Dr. Jos DeLaat and Dr. A.N. Maurellis at the Royal Netherlands Meterological Institute and National Institute for Space Research Netherlands respectively showed something very interesting indeed in two recent papers. Their latest in the International Journal of Climatology, 2006, states:
Our analysis of climate model simulations of GHG warming confirms our earlier results, namely, that they do not show any kind of CO2 emission–temperature trend correlation. In fact, the modeled temperature trends are quite insensitive to the magnitude of the industrial CO2 emissions. It is possible that the response of the climate system to enhanced GHG radiative forcing is much more localized than expected in that it occurs only in specific regions and mainly in the lower troposphere, although this runs contrary to the current understanding of GHG-related processes (cf Hansen et al., 1997; IPCC, 2001; Hansen et al., 2005; Santer et al., 2005).
This confirms an earlier work of theirs in 2004 that points out that surface stations situated in regions of low economic output show relatively little change in mean surface temperatures compared to surface stations in areas of high economic output as seen in this graph:
(star = high CO2 area, cross = low CO2 area)
In other words, AGHG is not causing global climate change, only a local effect is seen.
Although the exact mechanisms have yet to be determined our findings show that a significant part of the observed surface warming is related to processes other than enhanced greenhouse warming.
Its interesting to see other scientists dispute the current mainstream thinking just for the sake of a challenge. Stephen McIntyre just cannot leave the Dr. Michael Mann et. al. famous hockey stick graph alone, and for good reason. With its projection heavily weighted by the Graybill tree ring data, McIntyre spends some time in the same Sheep Mountain woods doing core sampling to update the data and demonstrates that according to the forest, the planet has been getting colder lately.
And this brings me to my main point. I’m really concerned when science gets manipulated by politicians. Take for instance hurricane researcher and IPCC member Dr. Chris Landsea who points that fact out as he resigns from the IPCC. There is also no doubt that certain countries eye Kyoto as the holy grail of economic subsidies, a diversion of money to their coffers. It is now currently the world’s largest welfare scam. Kyoto has not much to do with saving the planet from AGHG because it’s reductions are meaningless. Kyoto is all about transplanting more factories to China and India.
(In 1614 Galileo challenged mainstream thinking about the sun revolving around the earth leading to an Inquisition where he was soundly chastized)
It disturbs me as a scientist to see things get so manipulated by certain people with certain agendas. Like for instance what happened with Dr. Paul Reiter, a leading expert on malaria and other diseases carried by the mosquito vector. His testamony in front of the British House of Parliament reveals how the lead writers of the IPCC report on the Impact on Human Health are chosen. It is worth reading the whole thing. After not being chosen as a lead author in IPCC 4, largely due to his suspicion that he is not alarmist enough because he states the research doesn’t support an increase in malaria due to Global Warming, he retorts that the people chosen are basically laymen with agendas chosen by politicians:
34. I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been selected: “It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered “Lead authors” with experience, representative of the world’s top scientists and specialists in human health?”
35. I also pointed out that one Lead Author is a “hygienist”, the other is a specialist in fossil faeces, and both have been co-authors on publications by environmental activists.
Imagine that, the lead authors of part of a document that is due to set world policy and massive interference by governments at all levels was written by a group of people with no scientific publications at all.
The list of climate scientists disillusioned with the political manipulation of the IPCC grows longer, however when they try and make their voices heard they are soundly run out of town. That’s partly the fierce nature of the whole argument which involves scientific blows from both sides, however this fight is now one sided because the media, the politicians, and the hollywood hound-dogs have chosen the side they like - the socialist side that says global warming is cause by us bad humans but we should feel sorry for China and let them emit GHG because they’re poor. So in essence lets do nothing but feel good about it. Modern Liberal policy in progress, something Jean Chretien who did nothing about Canada’s GHG emissions over the last 10 years would have been proud of.
* Note: McKitrik’s work is sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, not industry.
This thread is dedicated to fellow blogger Carlo because, well he’ll understand.
Oh also to My Fellow Americans, Happy Bday.
Decima Research groups has come out with another poll:
The Canadian Press-Decima Research survey suggests that 60 per cent of Canadians believe God had either a direct or indirect role in creating mankind, shattering the myth that Canadians had long ago put their faith strictly behind the scientific explanation for creation.
(Amen)
Now economists will tell you that polls are only as good as the price you’ll pay. In other words while 91% of Canadians have been told to believe that Global Warming is the next Global Disaster and that money should be spent doing something about it, when it comes down to it not many people are actually willing to pay anything out of their pockets. Which means they don’t really believe it. Polls really just measure what people would like, not what they are willing to do or would do.
(Noah, like St. Al Goreacle saved the world)
However what I just loved from this poll is this pricey comment:
Conservatives were more likely than Liberals to say that God had no part in the process, and Alberta, regarded as the birthplace of social conservatism, had one of the lowest levels of beliefs for strict creationism at 22 per cent.
As has been well documented, this is because conservatives are more intellectual, often basing their actions on evidence rather than liberals who tend to base their actions on how much they can steal for themselves.
But as I have always said, their just isn’t much difference between Americans and Canadians, except most Canadians have an irrational hatred of Americans and most Americans think Canada is funny. Sometimes just saying “Canada” in the US makes people laugh. Likely because of what these guys started:
(Canadian Humour When it was Funny)
Unfortunately, but predictably in this nation of government institutionalized divisiveness and labelling (so much so that we have an apartheid system of separating people into reserves) another poll finds that most Canadians don’t even feel like they are Canadian.
But seriously, in the month of June, when “Two Nations of a Common Mother” celebrate their respective birthdays, is one much richer, successful and flamboyant brother heading into bankruptcy while the other brother living a simpler life is dulling his brain on the BBQ of mediocrity?
When I heard this woman: Andrea Mandel-Campbell on CBC, none-the-less, state that “Maude Barlow is part of the problem.” I almost fell out of the shower. For the first time in a long time, someone has actually said it like it is. The Emperor has no clothes. And the stupid interviewer on CBC was speechless.
Mandel-Campbell just published her book, “Why Mexicans Don’t Drink Molson”. It was a good read. This should be required reading in all high schools, rather than Al Goreacle’s movie. Her thesis, after interviewing multiple Canadian business leaders and politicians, is that Canada is mediocre because of Subsidies to business, Protectionism of our industries, and a failure to enter the Multinational stage. It has bred a generation of mediocre businessmen who cannot compete in the world market. And a government (namely Chretien’s) that made us with out “Team Canada” expeditions a laughing stock amongst players in the world market.
This is not a remarkable. Back in the old days the Reform Party used to often mention to the reception of glazed stares and dull interviewers, the fact that Canada has a productivity problem. Scott Brison, a Liberal who often seems out of place since he really isn’t a Liberal, mentioned this in his speech or debate (I cannot remember, the whole 48 hours was a blur to me at most times) at the past Liberal convention and was also met with dull stares. Stephen Harper has said it multiple times in his past but no longer says it now because he’d be labelled as hating Canada again.
The Conference Board of Canada, using OECD data, rates Canada as mediocre with extremely poor ratings in the areas of innovation. Report Card is here. (Now I have some issues with the Report Card, especially on the use of certain markers such as infant mortality as benchmarks for health.)
The problem is serious. It is much more serious than any other of the so-called problems because this problem will actually affect our ability to pay for the things we like. Such as jobs.
But no-one cares.
Or do they? The Harper government has been secretly making several free trade deals with other countries. This is something Mandel-Campbell points out as one of Canada’s failures on the world stage and the inept nature of previous governments - so much so that businessmen from other countries are actually laughing when they hear “Canada”. But not because we export humor.
Note: Clicking the Links is important to understand my rambling)
The New Government of Canada released its federal budget this week with much fanfare and progressive words like “achieving our country’s full potential“™ and other such big word terminology.
(Why are they smiling? Conservatives are so green they’re now hitch-hiking.)
The ides of March rolled on, and Imperator Harper managed to wriggle away from the steely knives and duck his way out of something nobody wanted at the moment: a repeat of the 2006 civil war. Many libertarian conservatives watching their blood-money swirl clockwise down the toilet are left thinking Et Tu Brute? But libertarians will always feel that way (more on this later) since from the beginning of time we’ve always been bullied by what enterprising politicians manage to call “What Society Wants”.
(Tower of Babel: What Society Wanted)
Canada’s conscience, CTV newsmedia, seemed to be so bored with this complicated budget that, like a college student sweeping dirt under the couch in preparation for his girlfriend’s visit, they quickly swept it off into a hard to find area on their web page (I challenge you to find it). Then they filled the section with a variety of opinion from people who are usually totally against everything in general. The only memorial moment in CTV’s reporting is from the old weasel, Craig Oliver who is so stunned by the copiousity (word I made up to describe silliness) of the shiny presents that he must have had a hallucination that he was living in the glory days of P.E.T. again and randomly challenged anyone to find anything wrong with the big bonanza (paraphrase).
When respondents were asked what they thought to be the most important issue for the budget to address, social programs were the clear favourite:
Increasing spending on social programs: 50 per cent
Cutting taxes: 19 per cent
Transferring funds to the provinces for their use: 15 per cent
Reducing debt: 13 per cent.
AND
When respondents were asked whether they thought the claim of a so-called fiscal imbalance was believable, the majority said yes:
Very believable: 31 per cent
Somewhat believable: 43 per cent
Total believable: 74 per cent
Not too believable: 11 per cent
Not believable at all: 6 per cent
Total not believable: 17 per cent
So the CTF just reiterates this truth: “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” - Alexander Tytler
(I smell sulfur and it ain’t GW Bush)
Anyhow there are quite a few analysis out there on the budget and I’ll get to my point in a minute. First though I have to say that one thing the Conservatives have been doing that the Liberals seem to have a pretty crappy track record on is funding disabled people. However this is something conservatives generally favor strongly. Moreover the Status of Women has its funding back, but it appears that the Conservatives are actually trying to fund real things like shelters rather than silly university professors and other wastes of money.
So anyhow back to my point.
Stephen Harper is probably the most intelligent politician we have had in Canadian politics since P.E.T. and also likely one of the most elegant schemers we have had for a long time. (I do think he is a decent guy with a genuine personality). I guess that basically Harper looked at the way the country was feeling (look up at those polls) and he also pondered on the new Religion of the Kyoto:
And Harper knew that he had to “head em off at the pass”, to borrow a stereotypical Western phrase (from Westerns not Western Canada).
And so we have a budget that basically fixes the fiscal imbalance, whatever that is, as well as handing out a bunch of money to mystical feel good targets such as the Holy Grail of Global Warming and other fuzzy stuff. Once again the Conservative party of Canada does the real environmental work that the Liberals are always talking about.
(The Greenest Chin Ever: The Leprachaun who laughs last, laughs…
and gets the pot of our gold)
Enraged they are, the Liberals. Deep down inside that particular and peculiar socialist waste of space, Stephane Dion, wishes he could have come out with the exact same budget except with more spending (from where the pot is dry?) and perhaps a lower rate tax cut of 0.5%. However they are so angry that they cannot get any play that they just decide they ain’t playing at all and bail out without even reading the budget.
Guys like Dion plagued the halls of every university I went to, wasting both taxpayer money and tonnes of CO2 credits along their way to social justice - whatever that is… Because for these guys equality of opportunity isn’t the classical meaning, but rather the equality of some being more equal than others. Its equality of outcome they are after. In other words no matter how much evidence that the unintended consequences of their actions are hurtful, or how BS their schemes they will decide who gets what and how; they are going to make us all pay for it. You’ll see what I mean when I write next about the minimum wage Ontario is considering. However the rats are jumping the ship, because if there really is one thing American that Harper brought to Canadian politics it is the ability to buy out and collude with the other side. And so Cormuzzi (Lib) drawn to the musky odor of the well cooked golden pork promise, burns out like a fly in one of those electic patio zappers as Dion punts him from caucus.
Because Harper knows that for some reason his party cannot break the 40 percent mark that makes a majority in these parts. Conservatives of all stripes have wandered in the wilderness for so long now that it seems they just aren’t willing to wander in the wilderness anymore. They’ve watched the Liberals feasting in Sodom forever, perched on their high place and enjoying the fat of the land while the Conservatives have had to quench their thirst by beating their heads against the stone of balanced budgets and tax cuts taking whatever scraps that fell from the sky from a stupid media that wouldn’t know the difference between basic economics from NeverNeverLand.
And so they re-forged that old idol, the Paternalistic fatted milk-cow god of Conservative old and towed it out in front of the people to see if perhaps the foolish ones would eat it.
(Party like it’s 1999 B.C.)
But think about it. Can you blame Harper? Lets pretend he came out with a sensible prudent budget. It would be like injecting the Liberals with amphetamines and bringing them a Timmies strong caf. to boot.
Because right now there is so much freaking largesse everyone wants a place at the table or they’ll shriek so loud that Hades will seem like just your average day dull roar.
(There’s enough pork for everyone!)
Stephen Taylor at Blogging Tories, himself an independent journalist, has a series of interviews with several groups, many of whom are not happy with their slice of the pork.
The interesting thing is that the pork got ate all up and still no one is happy. Obviously the alternative would have been to bleed us serfs dryer than Liberal money at the laundromat.
And at last this brings me to my point. No matter what they’ll complain and complain and complain…
Tim Robbins made a low budget movie a while ago called Bob Roberts. For those of you who have not seen it, you should. Basically it is about this right wing guy running as a Senator who rewrites all the folk music protest songs of the 60’s in a sort of counter-culture reversal. All of the songs are clever in that they do have an ounce of truth to them. According to Wikipedia, Robbins’ intentions for the film seem to be less partisan, and more about the political system in general (Roberge 1992).
One of the songs:
Complain
Some people will have / Some simply will not / But they’ll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain / Some people will work / Some never will / But they’ll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain / Like this: / It’s society’s fault I don’t have a job / It’s society’s fault I’m a slob / I’m a drunk, I don’t have a brain / Give me a pamphlet while I complain / Hey pal you’re living in the land of the free No-one’s gonna hand you opportunity.
Except in this case, the people complaining are the ones who are getting grants to fund their complaining.
I’ll examine one part of the budget, the equalization strategy part. Equalization payments are like a mini-cosmos economic study as to why subsidies don’t work. We’ve been funding Quebec for years and they don’t seem to be getting any more equal, in fact it appears they just get less equal all the time - sucking up money like a sponge.
Right now everyone has their nuts in a knot about the next round of equalization payments. Here’s a summary:
Following are the 2007-08 per-capita equalization payments for the receiving provinces with the 2006-07 payments in brackets. (All figures in millions):
N.L.: $477 ($632)
P.E.I.: $294 ($291)
N.S.: $1,308 (1,386)
N.B.: $1,477 ($1,451)
Que.: $7,160 ($5,539)
Man.: $1,826 ($1,709)
Sask.: $226 ($13)
B.C.: N/A ($260)
Basically the formula is meant to bring those up to the 10 province average. Danny Williams is as pissed as ever because he doesn’t get to write off 100% of natural resources, and here Guinty is pissed because Danny Williams gets to write off 50%. Saskatchewan is pissed because basically they’re getting more money.
Anyhow this convoluted mess proves one thing. When it comes to “equalization” or social transfers or basically robbing one guy to pay another, you end up pissing everyone off.
Here’s how it should work: No equalization payments. Let people move to where the jobs are. Equalization payments just prop up failure, like any other subsidy. Its been that way since the beginning of time and no one has ever made it work without hurting someone else and enabling people to do unsuccessful things. No one.
In fact what subsidies do is prop up the very people socialists hate: rich fat influential businessmen - because it props up their business.
For example the other day that Jack Layton guy railed on CHRA radio about how we should be both forcing and paying North American car companies to produce efficient cars instead of those crappy heaps they make now.
Excuse me? We should give taxpayer money to Detroit to prop up their failing businesses because they’re too stupid to make cars people want? And the Unions who are too stupid to realize the realities of global trade? (Anyone who wants to learn the theory of how subsidies always result in negative outcomes click here and scroll down to the Impact of Subsidy.)
And you can be sure that Stephen Harper, a trained economist, believes in subsidies about as much as Stockwell Day believes in fossils.
So then what would have been the ideal budget for those budding libertarians?
Andrew Coyne has a great summary of this which has been discussed amongst those who both:
a) care about what happens to people and,
b) are educated in economic theory
I mean would you trust your health to some guy at a store or would you trust a trained doctor more? Why are people so eager to trust politicians who have never read a simple macro/microeconomic theory text? Maybe for the same reason a certain bunch of moonbats only trust witch doctors and quacks.
With half of all the money spent in the last two budgets (11 billion), you could reduce all the income tax rates to 20%. In other words two rates, 15.5% and 20%. Also you could increase the bottom allowable deductable so that poor people aren’t taxed on money they don’t really have.
Yes folks, now ask me, what does more? Letting people spend their own money or having the government do it for them?
To Those Moonbats who are worried that the Government isn’t spending enough:
(StatsCan, compiled by langmann)
(One good thing about the conservative budget is the working income supplement or a “negative tax”which was originally proposed by the genius, Milton Friedman and which I may discuss in greater detail at some point later.)
Update:
(Like I said)
And even after all this, “poll numbers show the majority (55 per cent) of Canadians thought Quebec benefited most from the transfer of funds under equalization, a majority of Quebecers (51 per cent) believe they received less than their fair share.”
Hmmm. Remember what I said about equalization payments? Sure you do.
