Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
Mark Ch's avatar

The Bank of Canada had one goal: to keep inflation close to 2%, and neither too high nor too low. (I can't remember the exact specifics, as this is similar to the other big Western central banks). It has manifestly failed at this goal. Inflation is more than 3 times what it should be. Firing the governor would be an entirely appropriate accountability measure.

The purpose of central bank independence is to prevent politicians from grabbing the control wheels (interest rates and unorthodox policy like quantitative easing) and pursuing other (ie, electoral) goals, not to protect failures.

Chris Ragan's argument against firing the governor consists of two elements: conditions have been tough so it isn't fair to fire the governor; and the Bank made an appropriate emergency response to the pandemic (ie, pursued other goals than 2% inflation).

The first is ridiculous - firing leaders for failure is actually accountability, not interference, and would encourage future governors to pursue their mandate more assiduously.

The second is contradictory - the fact that the Bank pursued something other than the low and stable inflation it was supposed to is actually evidence that it has already been politicized. The fact that this happened through ruling class groupthink rather than a prime ministerial command only makes it worse.

Poilievre's goal of firing a failed leader and returning the Bank to its focus (notice he is not trying to dictate monetary policy, only saying that Macklem has failed) is entirely correct.

Expand full comment
J. Rock's avatar

I think what's missing from the criticisms of what Poilievre is doing here is the American angle. He is copying the Tea Party/MAGA approach. "Audit the Fed" is a war cry down there shouted, usually, by people who have no idea what "the Fed" is. PP knows that substance does not really matter here because it's all about riling up a certain portion of the population. The same is true with his support of trucker convoys. The cynicism comes from the fact that Poilievre knows these people are ignorant and misguided but passionate and can be easily manipulated. Just as Donald Trump would never hold a rally on the grounds of Mar-A-Lago because he wouldn't want any Trumpanzees near his home, PP is using the same energy to secure conservative leadership.

The problem is like The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Once you've got them all riled up what do you do with them? I would suggest this approach is not going well in the US right now. Their very democracy is on life support.

I guess my point is that this is the opposite of actual leadership. The people that PP is targeting need help - their (our) problems are real. They do not need to be used now and then tossed aside for the general election.

Expand full comment
59 more comments...

No posts