What the Liberal Party did to Canada

Kitch · October 10, 2008

I hear a lot of talk about the Liberal party of Canada being the cause of a lot of financial problems. Did anyone see the news this week? Did you see how many countries are in financial trouble? Is it REALLY a government that can cause that? Is it a big coincidence that the governments of the past say, 10 years, have cause the world's stock markets to fall in late 2008?

OR

Is the discussion about the economy, in terms of election campaigns, REALLY nothing more than fear mongering... no matter which side you're on? Meaning, if the government really has little to do with economic cycles, they why do we believe politicians when they blame each other for bad times or take credit for good times?

Radsickle · October 10, 2008

What I heard today is that Canada is in the best shape to weather the economic storms around us BECAUSE of Liberal economic policies of the past and that, had Harper been in charge during that time, we would be $%&@-ed now.

capricorn · October 10, 2008

What I heard today is that Canada is in the best shape to weather the economic storms around us BECAUSE of Liberal economic policies of the past

If this is true, why are the Liberals spreading panic about the economy? On one hand they're telling us they put in place the guarantees to protect us against economic downturns and on the other they say our present system is leaving us open to disaster. Which is it?

had Harper been in charge during that time, we would be $%&@-ed now.

That's a load of BS. You have absolutely no way of knowing how Harper would have operated compared to the Liberals in a period of economic growth. With Harper at the controls for the last 33 months, nothing was done to hamper our financial sector and measures were taken to further strengthen our financial position. Because of Harper's steady course this, worldwide we remain the best equipped to pull through the financial storm with minimum damage.

August1991 · October 10, 2008

I hear a lot of talk about the Liberal party of Canada being the cause of a lot of financial problems. Did anyone see the news this week? Did you see how many countries are in financial trouble? Is it REALLY a government that can cause that? Is it a big coincidence that the governments of the past say, 10 years, have cause the world's stock markets to fall in late 2008?

Uh, do you mean that because the US had a Republican president for the past few years, they have a crisis but because we had a Liberal government until 2006, we don't have a crisis. WTF?

Kitch, at a very simplistic level, I don't disagree with you. I too think that: "If times are bad, toss the buggers out." Let us thank our lucky stars that we live in a society where we can toss the buggers out - whether they're at fault or not. In too many countries, the buggers stay in power, whether they're guilty or not.

Think of Zimbabwe, North Korea, the Soviet Union and Ceauşescu. Think of Putin.

Kitch · October 10, 2008

Uh, do you mean that because the US had a Republican president for the past few years, they have a crisis but because we had a Liberal government until 2006, we don't have a crisis. WTF?
Kitch, at a very simplistic level, I don't disagree with you. I too think that: "If times are bad, toss the buggers out." Let us thank our lucky stars that we live in a society where we can toss the buggers out - whether they're at fault or not. In too many countries, the buggers stay in power, whether they're guilty or not.

Think of Zimbabwe, North Korea, the Soviet Union and Ceauşescu. Think of Putin.

You've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I'm not one to jump in discussions about liberal and conservative parties. There's nothing between the lines in what I said.

I'm simply saying, around the world right now, there are governments that are conservative, socialist and everything in between. The economies around the world are suffering from the same/similar problems. So we can't really blame any government of any ideology for what's happening, can we?

I mean, I know that governments DO impact their own economies. But it seems that there are forces greater than those that governments apply to economies. No?

Edited October 10, 2008 by Kitch

August1991 · October 10, 2008

I mean, I know that governments DO impact their own economies. But it seems that there are forces greater than those that governments apply to economies. No?

Agreed.

And at this point, I suggest we all re-read the last chapter of Tolstoi's War and Peace.

Kitch · October 10, 2008

Agreed.
And at this point, I suggest we all re-read the last chapter of Tolstoi's War and Peace.

why?

August1991 · October 10, 2008

why?

Why?

As a first attempt at an answer, here's the link (in English):

From the time the law of Copernicus was discovered and proved, the mere recognition of the fact that it was not the sun but the earth that moves sufficed to destroy the whole cosmography of the ancients. By disproving that law it might have been possible to retain the old conception of the movements of the bodies, but without disproving it, it would seem impossible to continue studying the Ptolemaic worlds. But even after the discovery of the law of Copernicus the Ptolemaic worlds were still studied for a long time.
From the time the first person said and proved that the number of births or of crimes is subject to mathematical laws, and that this or that mode of government is determined by certain geographical and economic conditions, and that certain relations of population to soil produce migrations of peoples, the foundations on which history had been built were destroyed in their essence.

Tolstoi

----

Keep in mind the context of Tolstoi's novel, as posts above involve (and many people today wonder): How do the actions of one individual change anything? How do great events happen?

Are they predetermined - as Ptolemy/Copernicus argued?

Edited October 10, 2008 by August1991

peter_puck · October 10, 2008

What I heard today is that Canada is in the best shape to weather the economic storms around us BECAUSE of Liberal economic policies of the past and that, had Harper been in charge during that time, we would be $%&@-ed now.

I have probably mentioned this before, but the Liberals were able to do what they did because they had no opposition. If you look at what Martin did while he was finance minister, he did exactly what SHOULD have been done for the economy. He cut debt while resiting the urge for spending or tax cuts.

When Martin became Prime Minister, he did what he HAD to do to stay in power - spend like a drunken sailor (and give out similar tax cuts) Harper is in the same boat. He needs to buy votes to remain in power. The balanced budgets were a product of the time, not the ideology of the government.

Argus · October 10, 2008

I hear a lot of talk about the Liberal party of Canada being the cause of a lot of financial problems. Did anyone see the news this week? Did you see how many countries are in financial trouble? Is it REALLY a government that can cause that? Is it a big coincidence that the governments of the past say, 10 years, have cause the world's stock markets to fall in late 2008?

Government's don't operate in a vacuum in Canada. Whatever economic and regulatory moves they make are, in many ways, discussed with and agreed upon by various opposition parties, or sometimes instigated by them. Much of the Liberal "conservative" economic strategy which was formulated in the earlier years of Chretien's reign was, for example, designed to take the wind out of the opposition sails - particularly the up and coming populist Reform Party, by adopting many of the economic policies they had been calling for. And in any case, laws are not changed all that often. If you examine almost any group of laws and nationwide regulations you'll find that not many have had any significant changes during a ten year period.

Is the discussion about the economy, in terms of election campaigns, REALLY nothing more than fear mongering... no matter which side you're on? Meaning, if the government really has little to do with economic cycles, they why do we believe politicians when they blame each other for bad times or take credit for good times?

The sad fact is there is not a whole lot government's can often due, depending on circumstances, to combat an economic problem of this magnitude. However, there are a lot of things it can do to make it worse. Ramping up taxes on business would, in this case, make it worse.

Radsickle · October 10, 2008

I'm simply saying, around the world right now, there are governments that are conservative, socialist and everything in between. The economies around the world are suffering from the same/similar problems. So we can't really blame any government of any ideology for what's happening, can we?
I mean, I know that governments DO impact their own economies. But it seems that there are forces greater than those that governments apply to economies. No?

No. There are bad government policies like de-regulating markets. Policies which silly people think will be for the good of many... those same silly people think that cutting taxes is the answer to everything. Those people are actually just more selfish than the majority. The `invisible hand' simply takes what it can.

The markets around the world are catching the same virus that globalism brings every few years. Allow young, North American economists free reign in their `free market' and they will try new methods to get rich quick. They'll sell it to other countries banks before anyone knows the actual value.

Only some of the Canadian banks were stupid enough to buy into it. Most weren't allowed to go there, luckily.

... particularly the up and coming populist Reform Party

:wacko: Populist? :huh: Maybe in Alberta...

Edited October 10, 2008 by Radsickle

Bryan · October 10, 2008

Much of the Liberal "conservative" economic strategy which was formulated in the earlier years of Chretien's reign was, for example, designed to take the wind out of the opposition sails - particularly the up and coming populist Reform Party, by adopting many of the economic policies they had been calling for.

Bingo.

This "sound fiscal policy" was a brand new thing for the Liberals, plucked directly from the Reform Party policy manual. Reform was no longer just a western protest, and were growing frighteningly fast. Chretien and Martin has no choice but to change their tune on finances to take that plank away. They were afraid that if Reform's rise continued, they'd end up overtaking the Liberals. The Liberals had to make sure they had a leg to stand on fiscally so that they could keep up the "scary, scary" attacks on Manning instead (one of the least scary guys to ever run for office).

I'm still not convinced that the Liberals even understood what sound fiscal management was (especially because of their views on surplusses). I think they just looked at what Reform said they would do, and tried to do that. All the while telling their faithful that they would never do such things.

In a way, it was remarkably similar to the way that Trudeau mocked Standfield's ideas for improving the economy, only to implement them once in power.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Reformers now ARE in government, they have been even better stewards of our money than the Liberals were, and yet we're still hearing the constant bleating of "scary, scary".

Populist? Maybe in Alberta...

Reform policy was "one-member-one-vote". Their principles were dictated by the members, and began as a grassroots movement. They were a party for/of the people instead of the elites. That's populism by definition.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Bryan

Radsickle · October 11, 2008

Reform was no longer just a western protest, and were growing frighteningly fast.

You'd like to re-write history too, eh? Preston Manning for PM?

They took some good ideas from Preston's party ... kinda like the Conservatives trying to re-brand the Liberal's `Energuide Home Renovation Rebate Program" after cancelling it and realizing their mistake.

Doesn't mean Preston EVER had a chance of winning.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Radsickle

August1991 · October 11, 2008

This "sound fiscal policy" was a brand new thing for the Liberals, plucked directly from the Reform Party policy manual. Reform was no longer just a western protest, and were growing frighteningly fast. Chretien and Martin has no choice but to change their tune on finances to take that plank away. They were afraid that if Reform's rise continued, they'd end up overtaking the Liberals. The Liberals had to make sure they had a leg to stand on fiscally so that they could keep up the "scary, scary" attacks on Manning instead (one of the least scary guys to ever run for office).

Uh, Chretien/Martin had the benefit of a growing economy and they benefitted from all the basic changes made by Mulroney before. Chretien/Martin were also very savvy at accounting. They pushed government spending off the official books. I worked in Ottawa in the mid-1990s and I saw what they were doing. It was a comical way "to cut government spending".

----

I would somewhat like to revise my post above. Above, I implied that no individual (even Canada's federal PM) can make much difference in world events. To simplify terribly, that was Tolstoi's point in War and Peace. History is the culmulative result of billions of individuals making individual decisions.

Canada's current economic situation deserves greater thought. English-Canadians are typically described as risk averse. They don't take chances. The benefit of this approach is now apparent: when other countries are suffering from their risky choices, Canada is well-placed with its previous risk-averse choices.

If that view is true, that English-Canadians are risk averse, then it means Canada may now benefit from its cautious choices - but how much has Canada lost in the past from not taking risks?

It is fine for Canadians now to look smugly abroad and say: "We wisely never took those crazy risks." Yet, how many lost opportunities did Canada forego because of such a risk-averse attitude in the past?

If all people were risk averse, the world would never have had Mozart, Leibnitz, Galileo, Beethoven, Newton or Einstein. For whatever reason, they took a chance.

Pliny · October 11, 2008

Uh, Chretien/Martin had the benefit of a growing economy and they benefitted from all the basic changes made by Mulroney before. Chretien/Martin were also very savvy at accounting. They pushed government spending off the official books. I worked in Ottawa in the mid-1990s and I saw what they were doing. It was a comical way "to cut government spending".
----

I would somewhat like to revise my post above. Above, I implied that no individual (even Canada's federal PM) can make much difference in world events. To simplify terribly, that was Tolstoi's point in War and Peace. History is the culmulative result of billions of individuals making individual decisions.

Canada's current economic situation deserves greater thought. English-Canadians are typically described as risk averse. They don't take chances. The benefit of this approach is now apparent: when other countries are suffering from their risky choices, Canada is well-placed with its previous risk-averse choices.

If that view is true, that English-Canadians are risk averse, then it means Canada may now benefit from its cautious choices - but how much has Canada lost in the past from not taking risks?

It is fine for Canadians now to look smugly abroad and say: "We wisely never took those crazy risks." Yet, how many lost opportunities did Canada forego because of such a risk-averse attitude in the past?

If all people were risk averse, the world would never have had Mozart, Leibnitz, Galileo, Beethoven, Newton or Einstein. For whatever reason, they took a chance.

A rather risky post.

I agree that life is about challenges and risk. It is not about being safe in every endeavour. That is for children.

independent · October 11, 2008

If this is true, why are the Liberals spreading panic about the economy? On one hand they're telling us they put in place the guarantees to protect us against economic downturns and on the other they say our present system is leaving us open to disaster. Which is it?
That's a load of BS. You have absolutely no way of knowing how Harper would have operated compared to the Liberals in a period of economic growth. With Harper at the controls for the last 33 months, nothing was done to hamper our financial sector and measures were taken to further strengthen our financial position. Because of Harper's steady course this, worldwide we remain the best equipped to pull through the financial storm with minimum damage.

Canada was doing quite well back in 2004. Harper came in with the country in great shape.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget/

This is what the credit rating agency said in april of 2008

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/04/21/dbrscanada.html

whowhere · October 11, 2008

You've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I'm not one to jump in discussions about liberal and conservative parties. There's nothing between the lines in what I said.
I'm simply saying, around the world right now, there are governments that are conservative, socialist and everything in between. The economies around the world are suffering from the same/similar problems. So we can't really blame any government of any ideology for what's happening, can we?

I mean, I know that governments DO impact their own economies. But it seems that there are forces greater than those that governments apply to economies. No?

Yes, It's called the multinational corporation

whowhere · October 11, 2008

I have probably mentioned this before, but the Liberals were able to do what they did because they had no opposition. If you look at what Martin did while he was finance minister, he did exactly what SHOULD have been done for the economy. He cut debt while resiting the urge for spending or tax cuts.
When Martin became Prime Minister, he did what he HAD to do to stay in power - spend like a drunken sailor (and give out similar tax cuts) Harper is in the same boat. He needs to buy votes to remain in power. The balanced budgets were a product of the time, not the ideology of the government.

All Paul Martin established was that Chretian was in fact the driver behind the liberal surpluses.

whowhere · October 11, 2008

Government's don't operate in a vacuum in Canada. Whatever economic and regulatory moves they make are, in many ways, discussed with and agreed upon by various opposition parties, or sometimes instigated by them. Much of the Liberal "conservative" economic strategy which was formulated in the earlier years of Chretien's reign was, for example, designed to take the wind out of the opposition sails - particularly the up and coming populist Reform Party, by adopting many of the economic policies they had been calling for. And in any case, laws are not changed all that often. If you examine almost any group of laws and nationwide regulations you'll find that not many have had any significant changes during a ten year period.
The sad fact is there is not a whole lot government's can often due, depending on circumstances, to combat an economic problem of this magnitude. However, there are a lot of things it can do to make it worse. Ramping up taxes on business would, in this case, make it worse.

Economics is not rocket science. Governments require taxes from Incomes and taxes on purchasing and property. The middleman is the jerkoff corporation/business. If governments slipp into recession or deficit it is because corporations/businesses have gotten over greedy and exploitative in their practices. In their drive to pursue profits they pursue reduction of costs including wages. This pursuit and government is contrary to government income. The less an employee makes the less Income taxes they pay and the less taxes they pay on purchasing because they don't buy as much.

In times of Economic strain, Business taxes have to go up to compensate for what these greedy business/corporations have done to the economy. You don't reward these pricks with lower taxes.

Bryan · October 11, 2008

Doesn't mean Preston EVER had a chance of winning.

The strawman scary guy that the Liberals pretended to be running against sure didn't.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 11, 2008

Life is all about choices. Life is an experience to be realized through those choices made. In our modern times those choices have been determined to belong to the individual not the group and certainly not the government. Governments, that is organized administration for groups are the root cause of nearly all of our problems. The only solution to those self created and imposed problems is to reform governments in order to provide the empowerment of citizens through the exercise of free choice.

If we desire to advance the social evolution of mankind we need to realize the significance of the individual. The individual is the paramount consideration for the advanced society. It is the individual that makes the difference and we need to recognize that through constitutional means and design a means of administering the public that promotes and protects the individual. This is not a matter of political-economical disposition as in some ideological struggle between capitalism and communism, it is simply a matter of the right of individual verses the right of the state.

Our society needs to be predicated upon the individual and all of the rights that relate to the individual.

eyeball · October 11, 2008

Empowered individuals are, in effect, what should result in a reformed relationship between those who are governed and the government, but the way this solution is always phrased only seems to imply and reinforce the misconception its us individuals that are the problem. I think what we need to do is cleary phrase the solution is terms that better describe what needs to happen. We need to simply and clearly state 'we need to dis-empower the government' as opposed to 'we need to empower the individual'. By the same token the Accountability Act is a nice euphamism from the governments perspective whereas something like the Anti-secrecy Act would be more to the point of what we individuals need. Plain language would help clarify the problem. The philosophical sophism that usually dominates talk of reform isn't achieving anything, especially when it comes from politicians.

I think the real solution should be a physical one that's mostly technological in nature. If knowledge is power then ignorance isn't. The invention of the printing press is often cited as watershed moment in the empowerment of the individual in the face of organized power. Secrecy and the withholding of information or knowledge plays a huge role in the ability of the state to keep people ignorant and weak. Because of this I've long advocated that we turn the Telescreens around and monitor the government in the way that governments monitor people and for the same reason. We can't trust them. I think power and wealth are like reactive elements that produce dangerous effects when they are brought together. In this case they destroy human ethics and morals. Transparency should act like a dampening rod in a reactor.

If we could impose transparency at the very top of society I think we'd see honesty and decency trickle down throughout the rest, just like wealth is supposed to. Who knows, if power starts to flow in a downward direction wealth might too.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 11, 2008

I must agree with most of what you are saying. A physical political expression, which is what you appear to seek can be found in the governance of Switzerland. It is known as direct democracy.

Argus · October 11, 2008

Canada was doing quite well back in 2004. Harper came in with the country in great shape.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget/

This is what the credit rating agency said in april of 2008

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/04/21/dbrscanada.html

You realize how stupid your argument sounds? It's as if you pointed out that the weather was sunny and mild when the Liberals were in power in July, but now in December, with the Tories in power, it's cold and snowy. And you're blaming the Tories for the weather change.

independent · October 11, 2008

You realize how stupid your argument sounds? It's as if you pointed out that the weather was sunny and mild when the Liberals were in power in July, but now in December, with the Tories in power, it's cold and snowy. And you're blaming the Tories for the weather change.

What argument is that?