turningrite

I believe the public debt issue is widely misunderstood. As an article published earlier this year in Forbes (a pro-business magazine) noted, debt is not as big a problem for major advanced economies as is often portrayed, although it can be more problematic for smaller ones. Also, although not discussed in the article, in comparison to Canada more of America's public debt is federalized, a situation that permits the American federal government to obtain much better credit terms than is the case in Canada, where provincial governments hold a significant proportion of the public debt. As for the speculation bubble, by which presumably you mean the bubble in equities and real property, if this bursts interest rates will most likely plummet as capital will seek safe haven. There is a surplus of capital in Western/advanced economies, a situation that serves to undermine the earning capacity of that capital if other options are taken off the table. This is what's happened in Japan over the past couple decades. https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#1a0103b3314f

Where military equipment is concerned, Canada just doesn't have enough of a stake in the international geopolitical game to justify the development and maintenance of a military-industrial complex. Even in high value-add industries like commercial aircraft production, when we develop high quality products we generally can't ramp up our efforts into world-beating enterprises. The Bombardier C-series fiasco, where a Canadian company basically and unceremoniously gave away a high quality product developed at a cost of $6B to a foreign company, was in the end precipitated by American action intended to protect its main commercial aircraft manufacturer, Boeing. Thus, real market rules didn't apply. Simply put, we can't beat the Americans, or the Europeans, or the Chinese or any other big economic entity at the mercantilist game, which forces us to become either niche or branch plant producers and trade agreements have largely ruled out the branch plant approach. Immigration can't and won't resolve Canada's small-market second-tier conundrum and it's a pipe dream to imagine that it can. I agree that we should limit population growth and instead focus on wage and productivity enhancement. I suspect that doing this will in the long run render ordinary Canadians much more prosperous than will be the case with any other strategy.

It's startling that they haven't yet figured this out. The most ardent critic of Islamism I've ever encountered was a highly-educated woman with whom I did volunteer work several years ago who'd fled Revolutionary Iran. A Muslim herself, she was utterly and equally disdainful both of Muslims who bought into fundamentalist beliefs and practices and of progressives in the West who in her view naively preached for accommodation of these beliefs and practices.

You know what, people understand where Trump came from and what he represents. He doesn't hide it, whereas progressives hide behind bromides while either blindly or dishonestly serving the cause of corporate globalism. Trump understands that the game of corporate globalism is rigged against American workers, and, logically, against workers in other Western countries, particularly where trade is concerned, and he's not afraid to loudly state his criticisms despite the fact that many in the corporate elite wish he wouldn't do so. Perhaps his biggest weakness is his failure to distance his presidency from his own private commercial interests but that doesn't negate the reality that his critique of corporate globalism is largely correct.

Thanks for that. I knew nothing about it. But now I wonder whether it's another example of what absent-minded progressivism has led us to?

Does the usual cast of "progressive" counter-protestors show up to undermine these rallies? My guess is that they don't.

A generalized piece that addresses the perspectives of an evolutionary psychologist adds little or nothing to this debate. I don't see any analysis of Canada's circumstances or of the broader impacts of corporate globalism. Instead, the article seems to extol the virtues of psychological positivity (sunny ways?) as though it will solve all our problems. Well, yes, we all know that budgets balance themselves, right? And pigs fly as well, I guess. Corporate globalism has helped people in the developing world as incremental increases in incomes and wealth there have produced growing middle classes in some places. And, of course, corporate bottom lines have been mightily enriched in the process, as corporate globalism largely amounts to a wage arbitrage scheme. You (and Pinker) forget to mention the deleterious impacts of corporate globalism, whereby at the same time living standards are marginally improving in the developing world the middle classes in the developed world, and particularly in some of the capitalist Anglo-Western countries, are shrinking. The link is causal rather than coincidental. Or, in today's lingo, it's a feature of globalism and not, as Trudeau would have it, a bug. The ability to buy gadgets and trinkets isn't particularly indicative of progress when increasingly people living in many of our largest cities can't afford decent housing. Our politicians have lost sight of the needs and struggles of ordinary citizens and, in Canada at least, masked the precipitous decline in the middle class with subsidy programs that most hurt those just above subsidy income cut-off levels. Voters do not, here or elsewhere, intentionally elect governments for the purposes of transferring their income, wealth and security abroad. Naive politicians like Trudeau and, apparently, Macron seem to believe there's some substance to the notion of cheery, let's all be happy, 'win-win' globalism, which has been anything but for a lot of people. They condescendingly thumb their noses at politicians like Trump who at least seem honest enough to tell us that for most ordinary citizens living in Western countries the globalism game is fixed and was always intended to be.

These 'Chamber of Commerce' style rankings prove very little. If you look more closely at academic analyses, Canada's rankings across a number of indices have been declining throughout much of the recent past, except perhaps during the 2008/09 recession when we had the benefit of a temporary reprieve as a result of high energy prices.

I believe Pinker is a psychologist rather than an economist. Much of his work focuses on the evolutionary improvement in human relations, although I suspect many would challenge his assertion that the world is now a much more peaceable place than was previously the case. Large wars have likely declined because technology has rendered them so utterly destructive rather than because human beings are more enlightened. You make broad generalizations about improvements in living conditions. Sure, these have improved in many developing countries over the past few decades but the opposite is true in many Western countries. Increasingly in this country many aren't properly fed, housed or clothed and a huge percentage of Canadian urban dwellers are paying inordinate percentages of their incomes on housing alone. Polls now suggest that the middle class has declined precipitously in a very short period of time as fewer than half of Canadian now classify themselves as belong to the middle class in comparison with 70% who did so less than two decades ago. (See link below.) Homelessness is now an acknowledged crisis in some of our largest cities. Toronto, our largest city, is the epicentre of child poverty in Canada and the 2016 census illustrates the growing prevalence of low income neighbourhoods where the middle class once prevailed. Discussing the number of people who own TV sets or have cellphones or computers amounts to a trivialization of the vast and growing economic problems that have emerged and are worsening in this country. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/middle-class-poll-1.4542903

I don't think you read my post. The new right in fact is far more non-ideological than many realize. Too many confuse its traits by trying to place it on the traditional left-right spectrum, which leads to a lot of confusion. Alternatively, because they don't understand it, they smear it as a form of far-right or alt-right extremism, which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I believe that only by deconstructing traditional ideologies can a useful form of democratic decision making re-emerge. I belong to no political party. Do you? I associate with no ideology. Do you? At this point, my plan at present for next year's election is to vote for Bernier's party. It's the only one that's apparently willing to break away from the cartel mentality that reigns in Ottawa.

Your opinion isn't apparently shared by many people. We're falling, and doing so quickly. And "progressive" policy is a big part of the problem. Among Western countries, the quality of our health care system ranks near the bottom. Wages are, by design, stagnant. Housing prices and rents, particularly in our largest cities (at least in English-speaking Canada), are beyond the reach of ordinary income earners. Our education system is in decline. Our infrastructure is inadequate and crumbling. Our social safety net no longer functions as a safety net but as a support system for a permanent subsidy class. Food bank use is soaring. Our educated young are leaving for opportunities elsewhere. Our middle class is withering, a fact illustrated by the fact that according fewer than half of Canadians now say they enjoy middle class status, down from 70% at the beginning of the century. I could go on. I just look around me and see decay and despair everywhere. There is little hope for this country. It's time to be realistic.

Although once left-leaning myself, my politics have evolved and I believe the Libs are servants are of the globalist elites. I believe our political parties are essentially all the same and form a cartel of sorts in order to ignore, suppress and minimize the impacts of popular discontent. They merely mask the decline globalism has wrought by means of promoting ever-burgeoning subsidy programs and other social engineering schemes. And the diversity/multicultural agenda is mainly intended to create social discord in order to distract the citizenry from recognizing the real game that's underway that has vastly and deliberately undermined middle class security. According to polling released last year, in Canada, which as recently as the beginning of this century was considered a solidly middle class country, fewer that half the population now considers itself to be middle class. I think a lot of people, particularly on the right, are willing to get rid of labels and traditional party affiliations and ditch the entire system. Perhaps this is why Bernier's rallies are generating considerable buzz, much to the consternation of mainstream media commentators, who, like John Ibbitson at the G&M, drone on about "dark places" and are dutifully appalled. They don't seem willing to acknowledge that globalist ideology itself has led us to this dark place. Let's tear the whole thing down and let the chips fall where they may. I think this attitude is characteristic of the new right but it terrifies the entire elitist political class, left, right and centre.

This, unfortunately, is the dichotomy preferred by self-styled progressives, including our own darling PM. They want you to believe that the only alternative to globalism is isolationist nationalism. They shill for an agenda the consequences of which they either don't understand or won't admit, but if it succeeds democracy will be lost.

I found your post to be quite reasonable. I can't figure out what bizarre response ("WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?") intends to address. As the person who posted the response also started this topic, I can only surmise that he or she wants to hear from those who agree with the idea of cutting all ties with the U.S. and not from those who challenge the logic of what appears to be a rather unrealistic notion. In any case, I wish the moderators on here would restrict what in many cases appear to amount to 'ad hominem' responses and attacks. Perhaps they don't have the time or resources to review every post?

The 19th century witnessed the apex of European colonialism, which in historical terms was very brief, but colonialism's eventual destruction was sealed by the reaction to it, which was nationalism. The era is referred to by historians as the Age of Nationalism because of the emergence of nationalism. The implications wouldn't fully be realized until well into the 20th century. The UN Charter, created after WWII, is grounded in the legitimacy of nation states and national self-determination. Globalism is essentially an opportunistic corporate concept that's largely been applied to cannibalize Western jobs and incomes. The vilification of the concept of nationalism by self-styled progressives is both highly selective and naive. The alternative to the nation state model, supposedly some form of global democracy, is so hypothetical and fatuous as to fall into the category of 'be careful what you wish for' because you'll probably get something much worse.

Given that I'm retired I'm basically stuck here. And I won't be alive at mid-century, at which point I suspect the futility of Canada's current policies will surely have reached fulfillment resulting from steep falls down multiple economic indices. But if I were young I'd likely think of going elsewhere. I recently saw an online article - although I didn't save the link - rating the 10 best countries in the world for young people. Canada didn't make the cut. I believe Australia was at the top and the U.S. and Germany were also in the top ten. Canada's ridiculous social engineering policies will surely push us further down as talented and educated young people leave for greener pastures and fairer treatment elsewhere. My relative says that her son, who grew up in the diversity generation, gets kidded by his 'diverse' mates, who seem aware that the fix is in, about being pushed to the back of the job line, a situation he now takes so seriously as to believe there may be no future for him here. How did we allow Canada to get to this point?

I've been feeling very pessimistic recently about this country's prospects. It seems to me that both by inclination and design we're headed in the wrong direction. Our politics is governed by a feckless cartel that seems unable to gauge or understand the concerns of ordinary Canadians and our economy, which is too dominated by various officially sanctioned oligopolies, is at best an unproductive second-tier entity. One of my relatives has told me that her son, who will soon graduate university with a STEM degree, is thinking of leaving the country for better opportunities elsewhere, probably in the U.S. or Australia. At the top of his list of his concerns about remaining is government policies that distinctly disadvantage young people like him. I believe that over the next 30 to 40 years Canada will simply become a 21st century version of Argentina, which slid from being the Western Hemisphere's second most prosperous country at the beginning of the 20th century to developing world status by the end. It can happen and this is the future we're apparently choosing. Can anybody or any political party prevent it?

Historically speaking, nationalism put an end to colonialism, so can it be all bad? The 19th century, the so-called Age of Nationalism, ushered in the modern system that for better or worse has characterized the world order ever since. The UN Charter, for instance, is grounded in the principle of the right to the "self-determination of peoples," thus recognizing the legitimacy of the assertion of national interests. The failure of the left is to limit, misunderstand and misrepresent the concept of nationalism in order to characterize it as menacing or threatening. Meanwhile, and contradictorily, progressives promote minority-based identitarianism while condemning majoritarian politics. Realistically, the first concept obviates the legitimacy of the latter. Interestingly, many of those who champion minority-based identitarianism in Canada promote the maintenance of cultural practices and outlooks within minority communities that are often inherently majoritarian in their places of origin. Multicultural or minoritarian chauvinism, often blended with victimhood ideology, is something we criticize too little while we've become obsessed about whether nationalism, which progressives wrongly and conveniently associate almost exclusively with majoritarian chauvinism, is inherently wrong because it can lead to negative outcomes. So can a lot of things, like free speech, which is also crucial to the functioning of democracy. But we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. The alternatives to transactional or interest-based nationalism can and very well might be far worse, a reality that's seldom considered.

You're digging your own hole even deeper. As such, I won't further respond to you as you apparently have nothing constructive to contribute to this debate.

'Argumentum ad hominem'... i.e. you've now lost the argument. In any case, I'm simply raising well-understood concepts. In Western capitalist societies, the understanding of the logic and benefits of economic (i.e. transactional) self-interest goes back to Adam Smith. As for the collective part, well, you only need to look to Marx, who was a great diagnostician at the very least, for an understanding of class-identified collective interests (an idea that was corrupted in practice under Communism but in practice became the basis of the post-WWII mixed-market economy model in the West) as well as evolutionary theorists who've noted the strong tendency of human beings to form and associate with groups based on shared characteristics and interests. These ideas aren't difficult to find if you're really looking for them. They only become dangerous when group psychology veers into chauvinism, a characteristic that requires the emotional fuel of patriotism and/or identitarianism to succeed. Transactional (i.e. economic) nationalism isn't in its own right dangerous, but the culturally-grounded and emotional variation known as "white nationalism" may well be. But so too are other emotionally identity-driven causes.

And you don't believe that patriotism leads to this very same place? I you don't, I think you're being naive. I think the main difference between patriotism and nationalism is that patriotism entails an overt emotional attachment to collective and place while nationalism, which can and generally does include patriotism, encapsulates the promotion of interests on grounds of collective and place. In this construct, patriotism serves to generate enthusiasm for the promotion of a people's or nation's self-interest, which definitionally amounts to nationalism. I'm not sure why self-styled progressives are so scared of the notion of self-interest as it's the basis of rational transactional behavior across a broad range of fields, not the least of which is neoclassical economics. In fact, identity politics is grounded in the assertion of collective self-interest, although progressives generally restrict application of the concept to promote the "disadvantaged" obtaining correctional and reparational concessions from what are broadly (and often inaccurately) cast as "privileged" communities and interests. So, everybody is essentially acting in one form or another on the basis of some form of collective self-interest. Why is it good for some and not for others? And how can emotional logic (patriotism) exclude transactional logic (nationalism) when from a collective perspective both are inextricably intertwined?

Good to note that the definition you link states that "patriotism is similar [to nationalism] insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority." The qualifying approach leaves open the possibility that patriotism too can involve an attitude of superiority, thus rendering debatable any substantial difference between the two words. This contrasts with Macron's overblown statement on the weekend that "nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism." How so, Mr. Macron? It's not as though the patriotic French never convey an attitude or impression of superiority, right? Who'd even imagine it?

A fascinating even if entirely cynical perspective. I believe Spengler also predicted that the Third Reich wouldn't survive. He seems to have been prescient in his understanding of the modern corporate-controlled media environment. I often cringe when I hear Trudeau espouse the virtues of the free press when at the same time he clearly dislikes actual free speech. His elitism can't accommodate the proposition that in a healthy democracy the general population might objectively reach its own conclusions on controversial matters. Noam Chomsky's views on "manufacturing consent" also come to mind where the traditional media environment is concerned. Clearly, the biggest potential challenge to the established order is technology, which permits access to alternative sources and perspectives. I wonder what Spengler would think of the internet?

1.) I think you're examining the issue through a faulty lens. All adult Canadians are legally obligated to file taxes and those potentially eligible for subsidies are logically incentivized to do so. Whether or not they are taxpayers isn't necessarily indicative of whether or not they enjoy middle class living standards as income levels are increasingly becoming disconnected from living standards. 2.) Actually, where subsidies are concerned, politicians get a far bigger electoral bang for their (i.e. taxpayers') buck by catering to those who are potentially subsidy eligible, particularly if they design policy objectives based on demographic characteristics, like family size and composition. There are a lot more people making $30K to $40K than there are tax filers or voters who earn $100K or $250K. If you believe this calculus isn't being applied to policy determination, I think you're being naive. My main argument here is that the steep decline in the middle class is being masked for political reasons by subsidy programs and that those who are paying the highest price for this are those with incomes just above subsidy eligible levels. You haven't addressed this argument at all. (By the way, Trudeau doesn't actually give a fig about those who are "working hard to join the middle class." His rhetoric is just window dressing.) And you haven't addressed the polling outcome reported in the CBC article, which suggests a huge decline in economic status and security in this country over the course of less than two decades. Further, in the more limited context of this string (i.e. whether or not the NDP remains relevant), I believe the NDP's approach is little different from that the Libs offer. The NDP appears to believe in ever more subsidies for those who for the most part are already subsidy recipients. Its leader in fact reportedly wants to transform the basic old age pension from a largely universal program to an explicitly means-tested and subsidy-based system, an action that would undoubtedly further erode middle class security.

I think Canadians often expect more from the relationship than do Americans.