No, "if these trends progress, Canadians in 2025 will [NOT] be poorer, higher taxed, suffering from diminished economic growth, and have relatively less freedom than they did before this all started."
The notion that higher deficits and debt lead to these dire consequences, for a country like Canada which issues its own currency and assumes debt in that currency, has no merit, whatsoever.
Yes, there are limits on debt and deficits, but they are indicated by inflation and unemployment, nor the debt/GDP ratio. In Canada, the former is set low by the Bank of Canada and the latter is high, indicating the best fiscal and monetary approach is increasing debt, as the Bank of Canada and federal government are now doing. Increasing debt or 'quantitative easing' is actually printing money, which Canada can do up to a point. Money should be 'invested' in the economy as long as there is 'slack' in it as indicated by high unemployment.
The idea that for a country like Canada low debt and balanced federal budgets are 'good' is pure ideology not sound fiscal or monetary policy.
Canada's is far below where it can safely go (and should go) in the debt/GDP ratio. Canada's debt/GDP is about 50%, Japan's is over 200% and the fears Fraser Macdonald raises have not been seen in Japan.
The 'time to panic' or take fiscal and monetary economy-cooling measures is when inflation rises above 3% and unemployment is at 0%.
Lastly, I have no idea what "have relatively less freedom" means. Is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in danger of being repealed?
I cannot imagine a major newspaper carrying this article in one of their columns - and that's a compliment. Thank you for providing a platform for those ideas and perspectives that will typically never be given a chance in the regular media - esp where the content is sensible.
This article may have a conservative "tilt", but it rightly points out O' Toole's lack of putting forward a policy platform that offers solutions to the very issues he (rightly) points out in Parliament. I hope he moves beyond the "interrogation" aspect of his position and starts proposing solutions instead. Otherwise the voters (and more likely the Liberal party) will simply brand him as the "guy who asks awesome questions, but doesn't seem to have any answers himself". There is definitely a void to fill in, and the sooner O' Toole jumps in, he will still be able to create his own brand and image. Else, someone else will do it for him.
Hmmm, I subscribed to The Line to get a variety of quality journalism and opinions, but lately I seem to get more conservative think tank blogs than I am getting journalism. Should I expect more of the same?
This has echoes of Jen's piece from September 23rd titled, "An embarrassing display." Stephen, in disagreeing with this article's economic and policy analyses, has contributed to its primary thesis: talking about public policy matters. Making generational decisions about government spending is worth greater democratic scrutiny and citizen engagement -- not less.
The sentiment is spot-on, but I disagree with Fraser's closing thought: "I’m tired of a lot of aspects of pandemic life, but the thing I’m most tired of is sanctimonious moralizing over small-ball politics while the decisions that matter are being made in the dark." For better or worse (okay, probably worse), the Canadian media spotlight on Trump-rally goers doing something reprehensible or which multi-oppressed-intersectionality is the most aggrieved today pre-dates the pandemic. Granted, it has been uncanny to see this gulf widen when the decisions are more consequential than they've been in a generation -- between what we're told matters and what will actually affect our day-to-day lives now and for years to come (employment status, income, taxation, when we will again have the government's blessing to peacefully assemble indoors with our full families and/or religious communities). It reminds me of the important talks my parents used to have in the kitchen, when, as a child, I was appropriately told to butt out and go play Sega Genesis. Except now its one politician, Rasputin (okay, I think it’s spelled Butts), and a small cabal of other unelected officials telling us to be really, really good while we watch Netflix and they make the important decisions on behalf of the family...oops, I mean country.
A friend of mine, a family doctor, studied the former Soviet Union in graduate school in a past life. When the lockdown measures started to drop in March and April, he couldn’t believe the similarity between 2020 and the Bolshevik Revolution: his patients were overwhelmingly supportive of measures that were materially increasing their suffering (replace “the greatest good for the greatest number” with “we have to flatten the curve”, or “we’re all doing this for our health.”) People who had never had mental health problems before were taking stress leave and booking appointments to get counsel from him: their finances were strained or underwater; they were at their spouse's throat; they couldn't blame their kids' misbehaviour on their teachers any longer. And then in the next breath they would parrot one of the phrases above. Given this level of cognitive dissonance, I’m less optimistic than Fraser that there will be broad engagement anytime soon with the issues he is raising. And the Bolsheviks didn’t even have 5G.
Takeaway: if lockdowns can’t interest citizens in the fundamentals of their own government, what will? Corollary: If politicians can wield this much power with this little accountability, why stop now?
No, "if these trends progress, Canadians in 2025 will [NOT] be poorer, higher taxed, suffering from diminished economic growth, and have relatively less freedom than they did before this all started."
The notion that higher deficits and debt lead to these dire consequences, for a country like Canada which issues its own currency and assumes debt in that currency, has no merit, whatsoever.
Yes, there are limits on debt and deficits, but they are indicated by inflation and unemployment, nor the debt/GDP ratio. In Canada, the former is set low by the Bank of Canada and the latter is high, indicating the best fiscal and monetary approach is increasing debt, as the Bank of Canada and federal government are now doing. Increasing debt or 'quantitative easing' is actually printing money, which Canada can do up to a point. Money should be 'invested' in the economy as long as there is 'slack' in it as indicated by high unemployment.
The idea that for a country like Canada low debt and balanced federal budgets are 'good' is pure ideology not sound fiscal or monetary policy.
Canada's is far below where it can safely go (and should go) in the debt/GDP ratio. Canada's debt/GDP is about 50%, Japan's is over 200% and the fears Fraser Macdonald raises have not been seen in Japan.
The 'time to panic' or take fiscal and monetary economy-cooling measures is when inflation rises above 3% and unemployment is at 0%.
Lastly, I have no idea what "have relatively less freedom" means. Is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in danger of being repealed?
I cannot imagine a major newspaper carrying this article in one of their columns - and that's a compliment. Thank you for providing a platform for those ideas and perspectives that will typically never be given a chance in the regular media - esp where the content is sensible.
This article may have a conservative "tilt", but it rightly points out O' Toole's lack of putting forward a policy platform that offers solutions to the very issues he (rightly) points out in Parliament. I hope he moves beyond the "interrogation" aspect of his position and starts proposing solutions instead. Otherwise the voters (and more likely the Liberal party) will simply brand him as the "guy who asks awesome questions, but doesn't seem to have any answers himself". There is definitely a void to fill in, and the sooner O' Toole jumps in, he will still be able to create his own brand and image. Else, someone else will do it for him.
Hmmm, I subscribed to The Line to get a variety of quality journalism and opinions, but lately I seem to get more conservative think tank blogs than I am getting journalism. Should I expect more of the same?
This has echoes of Jen's piece from September 23rd titled, "An embarrassing display." Stephen, in disagreeing with this article's economic and policy analyses, has contributed to its primary thesis: talking about public policy matters. Making generational decisions about government spending is worth greater democratic scrutiny and citizen engagement -- not less.
The sentiment is spot-on, but I disagree with Fraser's closing thought: "I’m tired of a lot of aspects of pandemic life, but the thing I’m most tired of is sanctimonious moralizing over small-ball politics while the decisions that matter are being made in the dark." For better or worse (okay, probably worse), the Canadian media spotlight on Trump-rally goers doing something reprehensible or which multi-oppressed-intersectionality is the most aggrieved today pre-dates the pandemic. Granted, it has been uncanny to see this gulf widen when the decisions are more consequential than they've been in a generation -- between what we're told matters and what will actually affect our day-to-day lives now and for years to come (employment status, income, taxation, when we will again have the government's blessing to peacefully assemble indoors with our full families and/or religious communities). It reminds me of the important talks my parents used to have in the kitchen, when, as a child, I was appropriately told to butt out and go play Sega Genesis. Except now its one politician, Rasputin (okay, I think it’s spelled Butts), and a small cabal of other unelected officials telling us to be really, really good while we watch Netflix and they make the important decisions on behalf of the family...oops, I mean country.
A friend of mine, a family doctor, studied the former Soviet Union in graduate school in a past life. When the lockdown measures started to drop in March and April, he couldn’t believe the similarity between 2020 and the Bolshevik Revolution: his patients were overwhelmingly supportive of measures that were materially increasing their suffering (replace “the greatest good for the greatest number” with “we have to flatten the curve”, or “we’re all doing this for our health.”) People who had never had mental health problems before were taking stress leave and booking appointments to get counsel from him: their finances were strained or underwater; they were at their spouse's throat; they couldn't blame their kids' misbehaviour on their teachers any longer. And then in the next breath they would parrot one of the phrases above. Given this level of cognitive dissonance, I’m less optimistic than Fraser that there will be broad engagement anytime soon with the issues he is raising. And the Bolsheviks didn’t even have 5G.
Takeaway: if lockdowns can’t interest citizens in the fundamentals of their own government, what will? Corollary: If politicians can wield this much power with this little accountability, why stop now?