The government needs to come clean: the COVID response, especially lockdowns, made us all much poorer (although not equally - the laptop class was protected). The government printed money on a grand scale to disguise this fact and keep support for extreme COVID restrictions high.
If the government admitted this, they could convince people that the burst of inflation is a one off, that real wages must fall, and that the pain will be distributed widely over the population.
Pretending this is being caused by other factors raises inflation expectations and encourages people to fight for protection - as described in the article.
We also should recall that the arguments against lockdowns were solid by May 2020, and against vax mandates by July 2021. The decision makers (ie the TV doctors like Theresa Tam) can't plead ignorance - if they didn't know they should have.
When we tally up the costs, these people should be held accountable.
It would be helpful if The Line offered a brief synopsis of featured writers. I thought Mr. Heimpel was an economist but turns out he works as a Conservative strategist. I should have known from the sprinkling of “elite”.
Agree 100%. There is a whole industry of folks who write op-eds supporting various policies, but who appear 'non-partisan'. As in yesterday's piece, they may work for think tanks, be part of network of people who provide campaign support ('strategists') or other parts of the intellectual framework for party politics. I have no issue that this framework exists -- it's actually a really important element of policy development and party politics.
But, I really, really feel like those who exist in that universe should at least provide some context as to who they are and why they may believe what they do. Of course, the reason they don't is to create an impression that a desired policy is erupting naturally from a bunch of different sources, which is often a bit disingenuous. It's part of a communications campaign. Just own it.
And, to be clear, *all* parties do this as part of their communications and campaign plans. I think it ultimately erodes trust in the system to not be upfront about this process.
You can't get elected by telling people the truth, so they don't. "Everything is fine," they say, and we're ready for anything...until we aren't. The reality is, I believe, that our elected leaders have so completely capitulated from the demands of businesses who simply threaten to leave if they don't get their subsidy, that the wishes of the electorate are lost.
The North American supply chain has collapsed because of the greed and appeasement of Wall Street. Railroading used to be a good career. People are now leaving it in droves because senior management; in their fear of losing their cushy jobs through a board overthrow, answer only to investors and have abandoned the concept of service completely in the name of cost-cutting. Worker morale spins in the toilet, and people are quitting faster than they can be hired and trained. If this pandemic has shown us one thing, it's the people who actually do the work matter far more than they get credit or compensation for. The railroads are just one example, but when corporate profits and compensation are at all-time highs, while minimum wage requires a 200 hour work week to survive, the pendulum has swung too far.
Business always says "trust us, we can do it cheaper". But they've cut so much, now they can't deliver, and we're all going to suffer for that for years...for that's what it will take to catch up...once they accept that the way they operate is wrong. I don't see that happening any time soon.
No one ever gets 100% of the blame....except maybe Putin. Look how many businesses have up and moved out of Canada due to the loss of subsidy. Look how many in the US have moved to "right to work" states. Labour has a value; it isn't getting it.
Agree. Regulations, cost increases, taxes, fuel costs, as everything rises it cuts profits. No one goes into business to lose money. The railroads will be booming as the supply chain is destructive to the truckers who actually move the majority of the supplies. Cost increases will make it unviable along with the lack of parts for the trucks that break down. Bill Gates did not buy into a railway in Canada to lose money. He did not get into the pharmaceutical industry or buying up farm land in the US to become the largest farmland holder to lose money. He will make billions upon billions more while the little people starve.. Let’s put the shadow of doubt where it belongs, the wealthy elites running the show.
The profits aren't dropping, but the service is. The railroads so their biggest fear is autonomous trucks that they can't compete with. We keep engineering ourselves out of existence, but profits seem to keep going up. CN is the only modestly functional railroad in North America at the moment. The others are being called to hearings in Washington to explain what they're going to do...and since railroaders can't strike, they're also 2 years without a contract. Service has to come before the dividend. It doesn't.
To me, the heart of the matter across multiple policy issues: "can be distilled down to the fact that our leaders have no faith in the ability of the citizenry to either understand complex problems or act with common purpose."
My conundrum: can we collectively understand complex problems? I look around, and I fear we cannot, or at least tend to choose the emotionally satisfying simple answer over the more nuanced solution time and time again. That leads to poorer policy decisions and really dumbed down debate.
My take on inflation was it was obvious inflation was a risk when pouring money into the economy. But the alternatives: high unemployment, capacity destruction as many businesses went under, and deflation were worse. At least we know how to handle inflation even if it's politically unpleasant.
But, to Mitch's point, the honest thing would have been to lay out the risks and unknowns and set expectations: if inflation persisted as the economy recovered, we'd raise interest rates even if that meant a recession as that was still a less-worse outcome than the alternatives.
Ultimately, I think the path we took was probably the right choice. Interest rates will rise, we'll probably hit a recession which will allow the supply chain to catch up and commodity prices to settle down. We should have started to address inflation earlier, but I'm sympathetic to the fact there was a *lot* of uncertainty in the economy last year as we opened and locked down which made forecasting a bit of a mug's game.
We'll agree to disagree on that too. There are several rather intelligent commentators there, as there are here. Both suffer from the odd dullard once in a while; FB being far more common. No one is a genius all the time.
Another vote for not shutting down the comment section. I find them just as interesting as the posts. Shut down the repeat violators, or at least give them a significant time out.
I enjoy the comments and I'd be disappointed should you shut them down.
I'd suggest looking at the notice The Tyee (thetyee.ca) puts before their comments. It's a good example. Their setup is different but you could post rules at the end of the article, after the blurb on who wrote it. Mostly I think people just need a reminder now and then about good behaviour.
The Tyee uses an up tic and a down tic which is a nice option when you want to disagree but not enough to comment.
Think about how weird it is for either Jen or I to actually need to give people a reminder now and then to behave while on our website. I am not naive about human nature but y’all realize how nuts it is to see people literally spending all day here arguing with each other, often about things only loosely related to the article, until someone loses their temper and starts throwing insults around?
Take a minute and actually imagine how bizarre that must be. “Oh, they’re at it again.”
Are you simply attacking someone's character -- whether that's another poster or public figure? Of so -- edit required!
Are you adding something constructive to the discussion? If not, maybe just keep it to yourself.
Are you posting in the spirit of lively discussion and debate? Or are you just repeating some partisan points your read somewhere and sharing to be part of the tribe? If the latter, maybe keep it to yourself.
I post a lot (maybe too much) but I try and ask myself these kinds of questions before hitting post.
I'll miss this if/when it's gone; amid the crankiness there are some insightful posts. But, I get it.
Aw, Marylou -- both you and David are very passionate in your positions and frequent posters. And, I get it -- online forums tend to be formats where people might be more aggressive with the rhetoric than they might be in-person. But ad hominem attacks are only effective in rallying the people who already agree with you -- they aren't terribly effective at changing anybody's mind.
My wish is for more commentors to stick to the arguments and avoid personal attacks and sweeping accusations against "the other side". If we can't collectively do that, I think that this sandbox may eventually go by the wayside.
Wow...It's so nice to see my biography on paper. I believe this is the kind of comment Matt was referring to yesterday. Simply put, you're not worth the time or effort. Have a nice life.
I guess the power of democracy is, if politicians get elected on solutions that aren't viable, we all get some 'experiential learning' and ideally bad ideas ultimately get rejected. My frustration is we then seem to move to a different set of equally superficial solutions. In the end, we seem to have a belief that government's job is to make our lives easy and risk free, which is impossible to deliver. Maybe we need to confront that belief, and recognize how government can help but also what its limitations are.
PP is not completely off base, but he did not articulate his argument well.
Cryptocurrencies could potentially provide protection from inflation as their supply is not determined by a central bank, as is the case with fiat currency. Of course other factors can determine the supply (ex. BTC has a fixed supply of 21M coins, ETH expands its float by 18M coins per year).
Crypto is still in its infancy. It lacks liquidity to be useful to an average citizen or even average investor, leading to liquidity risk that exceeds fiat currency devaluation risk. Someday liquidity will improve and a "stable coin" will peg against something like a basket of commodities. At that point, crypto could pose a competitive threat to fiat currency. PP's message should have been:
1) Yet another reason why any semblance of Modern Monetary Theory is nonsense is that individuals and corporations will have alternatives to fiat currency
2) Government needs to balance budgets ASAP and severely restrain growth in program spending, payroll and transfers to individuals as the Central Bank Put may be dead forever
We're seeing this big time in the trades in Ontario with all the strikes. Union reps are saying this has nothing to do with employers, it's the cost of living that forced their hands. This is exactly what happened in the 70's then PET brought in "Wage and Price Controls" which only made things worse. It's what economists have been saying for over a year. the lack of action creates stagflation. We have governments at all levels running up massive deficits and making promises that cannot be filled ( 12 years to convert to EVs, doubling housing construction in Ont. starting today and for the next 10 years etc.). We have repeated the past and are making the same mistakes as our fathers...
Wage and price controls for the public and quasi public sector could help. A bunch of civil servants working from home aren't very likely to go out and picket.
Politicians have come to understand that many people believe that they can enjoy a higher standard of living than they can afford at the expense of other people.
Elections have become bidding wars in support of this notion.
Politicians know, however, that the revenue to be had from ‘other people’ cannot cover the cost of the standard of living expectations that have become key to their election ambitions.
The ‘other people’ are the ones that make the economy tick and that, in spite of the the constant refrain of ‘make the rich pay more’, a loss of their productivity and investment would be fatal to the standard of living that can be afforded.
This is why politicians have turned evermore energetically to deficit spending financed by borrowing and, more recently, by money created by central bankers.
The latter source has the effect of diluting the value of a currency which inevitably causes inflation.
Until a greater part of the population realizes their artificially high standard of living comes at the expense of increasing inflation they cannot avoid, politicians will continue to make promises funded by hollowing out the value of their income.
The current mindset that one can live well without picking up the tab for it is the expectation that needs to be altered but there are few politicians of any stripe willing to bell this fiscal cat.
There are no 'other people'. Some benefit much more from government services than others, but who are these mythical 'givers'?
There's a marketing prof, Scott Gallaway, who (and I'm paraphrasing) says that we've created competition among working people and reduced risk for companies, where a capitalist economy actually thrives with the reverse: hard nosed competition among businesses but a safety net for people. That rings true for me -- we're spending billions de-risking business investment while not helping workers navigate serious shifts in the labour market. That's not smart policy.
If that's what you mean -- agreed. But governments of all stripes are promising too much to everybody (and then not delivering) and we're all to blame allowing ourselves to believe it!
I assume the "financial elite" referenced includes published commentators stuffing Canuck airways with, ah, 'expectations'!
In other words, it's not so clear the 'elite' being referenced is not just a populist framing of 'those guys' by another gang of wannabes competing for a bigger share of the 'street'. The term 'elite' suggests a vertical relationship between us-vs-them, when what actually appears to be in play is a horizontal relationship of us-vs-them.
Which raises the question of how public expectations can be influenced by competing elite media management campaigns. Spinning and massaging messages to direct the public into states of collective belief and action from which one might hope to profit. Like selling products or politicians. Pandemic responses or conspiracy theories! Pick a target! Then fire away!
Ah, the world of expectations, a veritable whorehouse of cravings requiring the stringent schoolmarmish discipline of gangs of masturbating celibate priests.
Expectations management? Let's see, we can adjust interest rates? Or just say the word 'transitory' out loud? Or perhaps, bomb Mariupol into dust?
Somewhere on the other side of all that information, misinformation, disinformation, lies the salacious seductress called 'reality'! Seemingly indifferent to our 'expectations' to win her over!
Claim you know more about the economy than the generals! Then leap to the podium to gather the applause if things go well! Or run for cover and blame 'them', if they don't. It's all just a matter of managing public expectations!
By 2030, 23% of our population will be retired, sitting on a mountain of cash, living in their urban, six bedroom homes while the rest of the country struggles to support them. And we want to keep wages down? Seriously?
Wages need to either go way up or we need to forcefully relieve the boomers of their cash.
The latter. Retirement benefits should certainly be cut for boomers with assets. This is 100% fair, as the interests of everyone in the country were sacrificed for 2 years in order to protect the boomers from a disease which was not significantly dangerous for anyone under 60.
Speaking of "older people", if I remember correctly people could earn over 15% interest in a GIC in the 1980's. Many years ago I purchased a building in a small town in Central Ontario. Besides getting the building I also was given all the deeds and mortgages on the property going back to the 1880's. Interesting to note that a mortgage in the 1890's for $1500.00 earned interest at 4.5%. There was another one in the early 1900's for over 5%. Back in the day (1880's early 1900's) the property in question was sold in the $1500.00- $2200.00 range, about 2 years ago the same property sold for close to $750,000.00 with a mortgage rate of 5%. Yep, the building is still standing and in daily use and in solid shape. Interest rates and inflation fluctuate. Its been going on for years. I don't get overly excited about rising inflation or declining inflation or higher mortgage rates or low mortgage rates. Don't think there is some evil cabal located in Ottawa or Washington or God forbid in Brussels planning all of this in secret. Tides go in and tides go out.
I think we've done the major damage in the last 50, haven't we? This insanity of deficit financing started with Pierre, and it was so easy, they all just kept going with it. Fiscal insanity with no end in sight.
I think Chretien and Martin should also answer for the cancelled helicopter deal, and the downloading of their costs to the provinces to balance their books. A shell game if there ever was one.
At this point, I'd love to hear some ideas on how we get out of the well, as Lassie does not appear to be coming anytime soon. I don't hear a lot of things that people are willing to give up, as they complain that their taxes are too high. Any thoughts on where we start?
You are absolutely right. It is a good first step. Class warfare, just like it was throughout history, will be a necessary evil, though. It's simple really, if the working class can't afford to live in the city or commute to work, then the retired upper middle class will be SOL, quite frankly. There won't be any solution for them that won't cause them considerable discomfort.
So classs warfare on those retired types sitting on a mountain of cash, living in their urban, six bedroom homes while the rest of the country struggles to support them? You may need to forcefully relieve those boomers of their cash, no?
Had to skip this one. New policy: if an article has "inflation" In the headline, but a page search turns up zero mentions of "profit" or a synonym, I skip the article as only telling part of a story, the part I've read over and over.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Tiff Macklem's counterpart at the Federal Reserve is Jerome Powell. Janet Yellen is the current Secretary of the Treasury and left her role as Chair of the Federal Reserve in 2018. Now, on to reading the rest of the article.
The problem with Central Banks is that they drive our economy forward by looking in the rearview mirror. They're always late for the party as a result. But this time it would appear that they've driven us into a ditch and the vehicle is now on it's roof, with the engine on fire.
I was never under the impression that inflation was transitory as I don’t watch mainstream news. I have listened to the same Money Talks for years and never once did it suggest inflation was transitory. Quite the opposite. Perhaps people need to stop listening to the news, “experts” (so called), and rely on better information. Mikes Money Talks has been a staple on Canadian Radio until it was cancelled by the station in 2021. I listen to the Pod Cast now as they have been right on the money every time. They must have cancelled the show due to the spreading of good information and the worst thing that can happen for those wanting control is to have an informed public.
I don't believe anyone can force you into anything you don't care to listen to, say, or participate in. Its called freedom. Something that would be obvious to most but seems dismally lacking in our culture today.
Oh ML, of course, you are free to listen to any crackpot you want. That's your right. I don't believe that you were forcing me to tune into the podcast. But it was you who suggested we get our money advice from Mike Campbell who I consider one of the least trustworthy of a lot of flaky radio guys.
You seem to be struggling with "freedom" again. Was it because I was stating my freedom to not listen to Gordon Campbell's brother on a radio show, giving tips on what I should do with my money?
Are a lot of people being forced to listen to talk radio? Is it really so obvious? Are you sure it's the 4th estate and experts that are letting you down?
The government needs to come clean: the COVID response, especially lockdowns, made us all much poorer (although not equally - the laptop class was protected). The government printed money on a grand scale to disguise this fact and keep support for extreme COVID restrictions high.
If the government admitted this, they could convince people that the burst of inflation is a one off, that real wages must fall, and that the pain will be distributed widely over the population.
Pretending this is being caused by other factors raises inflation expectations and encourages people to fight for protection - as described in the article.
We also should recall that the arguments against lockdowns were solid by May 2020, and against vax mandates by July 2021. The decision makers (ie the TV doctors like Theresa Tam) can't plead ignorance - if they didn't know they should have.
When we tally up the costs, these people should be held accountable.
It would be helpful if The Line offered a brief synopsis of featured writers. I thought Mr. Heimpel was an economist but turns out he works as a Conservative strategist. I should have known from the sprinkling of “elite”.
Agree 100%. There is a whole industry of folks who write op-eds supporting various policies, but who appear 'non-partisan'. As in yesterday's piece, they may work for think tanks, be part of network of people who provide campaign support ('strategists') or other parts of the intellectual framework for party politics. I have no issue that this framework exists -- it's actually a really important element of policy development and party politics.
But, I really, really feel like those who exist in that universe should at least provide some context as to who they are and why they may believe what they do. Of course, the reason they don't is to create an impression that a desired policy is erupting naturally from a bunch of different sources, which is often a bit disingenuous. It's part of a communications campaign. Just own it.
And, to be clear, *all* parties do this as part of their communications and campaign plans. I think it ultimately erodes trust in the system to not be upfront about this process.
Very thoughtfully written. I have no problem that a strategist weighs in - but identify background so readers can place the arguments in context.
The Line Editors - readers should not have to google names. Please provide a brief intro.
Quite a reasonable request, Stella.
You can't get elected by telling people the truth, so they don't. "Everything is fine," they say, and we're ready for anything...until we aren't. The reality is, I believe, that our elected leaders have so completely capitulated from the demands of businesses who simply threaten to leave if they don't get their subsidy, that the wishes of the electorate are lost.
The North American supply chain has collapsed because of the greed and appeasement of Wall Street. Railroading used to be a good career. People are now leaving it in droves because senior management; in their fear of losing their cushy jobs through a board overthrow, answer only to investors and have abandoned the concept of service completely in the name of cost-cutting. Worker morale spins in the toilet, and people are quitting faster than they can be hired and trained. If this pandemic has shown us one thing, it's the people who actually do the work matter far more than they get credit or compensation for. The railroads are just one example, but when corporate profits and compensation are at all-time highs, while minimum wage requires a 200 hour work week to survive, the pendulum has swung too far.
Business always says "trust us, we can do it cheaper". But they've cut so much, now they can't deliver, and we're all going to suffer for that for years...for that's what it will take to catch up...once they accept that the way they operate is wrong. I don't see that happening any time soon.
No one ever gets 100% of the blame....except maybe Putin. Look how many businesses have up and moved out of Canada due to the loss of subsidy. Look how many in the US have moved to "right to work" states. Labour has a value; it isn't getting it.
Agree. Regulations, cost increases, taxes, fuel costs, as everything rises it cuts profits. No one goes into business to lose money. The railroads will be booming as the supply chain is destructive to the truckers who actually move the majority of the supplies. Cost increases will make it unviable along with the lack of parts for the trucks that break down. Bill Gates did not buy into a railway in Canada to lose money. He did not get into the pharmaceutical industry or buying up farm land in the US to become the largest farmland holder to lose money. He will make billions upon billions more while the little people starve.. Let’s put the shadow of doubt where it belongs, the wealthy elites running the show.
The profits aren't dropping, but the service is. The railroads so their biggest fear is autonomous trucks that they can't compete with. We keep engineering ourselves out of existence, but profits seem to keep going up. CN is the only modestly functional railroad in North America at the moment. The others are being called to hearings in Washington to explain what they're going to do...and since railroaders can't strike, they're also 2 years without a contract. Service has to come before the dividend. It doesn't.
To me, the heart of the matter across multiple policy issues: "can be distilled down to the fact that our leaders have no faith in the ability of the citizenry to either understand complex problems or act with common purpose."
My conundrum: can we collectively understand complex problems? I look around, and I fear we cannot, or at least tend to choose the emotionally satisfying simple answer over the more nuanced solution time and time again. That leads to poorer policy decisions and really dumbed down debate.
My take on inflation was it was obvious inflation was a risk when pouring money into the economy. But the alternatives: high unemployment, capacity destruction as many businesses went under, and deflation were worse. At least we know how to handle inflation even if it's politically unpleasant.
But, to Mitch's point, the honest thing would have been to lay out the risks and unknowns and set expectations: if inflation persisted as the economy recovered, we'd raise interest rates even if that meant a recession as that was still a less-worse outcome than the alternatives.
Ultimately, I think the path we took was probably the right choice. Interest rates will rise, we'll probably hit a recession which will allow the supply chain to catch up and commodity prices to settle down. We should have started to address inflation earlier, but I'm sympathetic to the fact there was a *lot* of uncertainty in the economy last year as we opened and locked down which made forecasting a bit of a mug's game.
The comments section on Facebook supports the theory that the average citizen is a complete moron.
We'll agree to disagree on that too. There are several rather intelligent commentators there, as there are here. Both suffer from the odd dullard once in a while; FB being far more common. No one is a genius all the time.
Deleted Marylou's comment for repeated personal attacks on David.
Definitely starting to think we should just shut comments down here, folks. Not gonna lie. You're all adults, in theory, right?
Another vote for not shutting down the comment section. I find them just as interesting as the posts. Shut down the repeat violators, or at least give them a significant time out.
Please don’t shut comments down! I love reading them
I enjoy the comments and I'd be disappointed should you shut them down.
I'd suggest looking at the notice The Tyee (thetyee.ca) puts before their comments. It's a good example. Their setup is different but you could post rules at the end of the article, after the blurb on who wrote it. Mostly I think people just need a reminder now and then about good behaviour.
The Tyee uses an up tic and a down tic which is a nice option when you want to disagree but not enough to comment.
Think about how weird it is for either Jen or I to actually need to give people a reminder now and then to behave while on our website. I am not naive about human nature but y’all realize how nuts it is to see people literally spending all day here arguing with each other, often about things only loosely related to the article, until someone loses their temper and starts throwing insults around?
Take a minute and actually imagine how bizarre that must be. “Oh, they’re at it again.”
Maybe a drop down check box before posting:
Are you simply attacking someone's character -- whether that's another poster or public figure? Of so -- edit required!
Are you adding something constructive to the discussion? If not, maybe just keep it to yourself.
Are you posting in the spirit of lively discussion and debate? Or are you just repeating some partisan points your read somewhere and sharing to be part of the tribe? If the latter, maybe keep it to yourself.
I post a lot (maybe too much) but I try and ask myself these kinds of questions before hitting post.
I'll miss this if/when it's gone; amid the crankiness there are some insightful posts. But, I get it.
Aw, Marylou -- both you and David are very passionate in your positions and frequent posters. And, I get it -- online forums tend to be formats where people might be more aggressive with the rhetoric than they might be in-person. But ad hominem attacks are only effective in rallying the people who already agree with you -- they aren't terribly effective at changing anybody's mind.
My wish is for more commentors to stick to the arguments and avoid personal attacks and sweeping accusations against "the other side". If we can't collectively do that, I think that this sandbox may eventually go by the wayside.
Wow...It's so nice to see my biography on paper. I believe this is the kind of comment Matt was referring to yesterday. Simply put, you're not worth the time or effort. Have a nice life.
Sorry I missed your bio. But I can use my imagination.
I guess the power of democracy is, if politicians get elected on solutions that aren't viable, we all get some 'experiential learning' and ideally bad ideas ultimately get rejected. My frustration is we then seem to move to a different set of equally superficial solutions. In the end, we seem to have a belief that government's job is to make our lives easy and risk free, which is impossible to deliver. Maybe we need to confront that belief, and recognize how government can help but also what its limitations are.
PP is not completely off base, but he did not articulate his argument well.
Cryptocurrencies could potentially provide protection from inflation as their supply is not determined by a central bank, as is the case with fiat currency. Of course other factors can determine the supply (ex. BTC has a fixed supply of 21M coins, ETH expands its float by 18M coins per year).
Crypto is still in its infancy. It lacks liquidity to be useful to an average citizen or even average investor, leading to liquidity risk that exceeds fiat currency devaluation risk. Someday liquidity will improve and a "stable coin" will peg against something like a basket of commodities. At that point, crypto could pose a competitive threat to fiat currency. PP's message should have been:
1) Yet another reason why any semblance of Modern Monetary Theory is nonsense is that individuals and corporations will have alternatives to fiat currency
2) Government needs to balance budgets ASAP and severely restrain growth in program spending, payroll and transfers to individuals as the Central Bank Put may be dead forever
We're seeing this big time in the trades in Ontario with all the strikes. Union reps are saying this has nothing to do with employers, it's the cost of living that forced their hands. This is exactly what happened in the 70's then PET brought in "Wage and Price Controls" which only made things worse. It's what economists have been saying for over a year. the lack of action creates stagflation. We have governments at all levels running up massive deficits and making promises that cannot be filled ( 12 years to convert to EVs, doubling housing construction in Ont. starting today and for the next 10 years etc.). We have repeated the past and are making the same mistakes as our fathers...
Wage and price controls for the public and quasi public sector could help. A bunch of civil servants working from home aren't very likely to go out and picket.
Yes...and hiring freezes. The Federal Public Service has exploded under Trudeau with no discernable benefits from that hiring
Politicians have come to understand that many people believe that they can enjoy a higher standard of living than they can afford at the expense of other people.
Elections have become bidding wars in support of this notion.
Politicians know, however, that the revenue to be had from ‘other people’ cannot cover the cost of the standard of living expectations that have become key to their election ambitions.
The ‘other people’ are the ones that make the economy tick and that, in spite of the the constant refrain of ‘make the rich pay more’, a loss of their productivity and investment would be fatal to the standard of living that can be afforded.
This is why politicians have turned evermore energetically to deficit spending financed by borrowing and, more recently, by money created by central bankers.
The latter source has the effect of diluting the value of a currency which inevitably causes inflation.
Until a greater part of the population realizes their artificially high standard of living comes at the expense of increasing inflation they cannot avoid, politicians will continue to make promises funded by hollowing out the value of their income.
The current mindset that one can live well without picking up the tab for it is the expectation that needs to be altered but there are few politicians of any stripe willing to bell this fiscal cat.
There are no 'other people'. Some benefit much more from government services than others, but who are these mythical 'givers'?
There's a marketing prof, Scott Gallaway, who (and I'm paraphrasing) says that we've created competition among working people and reduced risk for companies, where a capitalist economy actually thrives with the reverse: hard nosed competition among businesses but a safety net for people. That rings true for me -- we're spending billions de-risking business investment while not helping workers navigate serious shifts in the labour market. That's not smart policy.
If that's what you mean -- agreed. But governments of all stripes are promising too much to everybody (and then not delivering) and we're all to blame allowing ourselves to believe it!
I assume the "financial elite" referenced includes published commentators stuffing Canuck airways with, ah, 'expectations'!
In other words, it's not so clear the 'elite' being referenced is not just a populist framing of 'those guys' by another gang of wannabes competing for a bigger share of the 'street'. The term 'elite' suggests a vertical relationship between us-vs-them, when what actually appears to be in play is a horizontal relationship of us-vs-them.
Which raises the question of how public expectations can be influenced by competing elite media management campaigns. Spinning and massaging messages to direct the public into states of collective belief and action from which one might hope to profit. Like selling products or politicians. Pandemic responses or conspiracy theories! Pick a target! Then fire away!
Ah, the world of expectations, a veritable whorehouse of cravings requiring the stringent schoolmarmish discipline of gangs of masturbating celibate priests.
Expectations management? Let's see, we can adjust interest rates? Or just say the word 'transitory' out loud? Or perhaps, bomb Mariupol into dust?
Somewhere on the other side of all that information, misinformation, disinformation, lies the salacious seductress called 'reality'! Seemingly indifferent to our 'expectations' to win her over!
Claim you know more about the economy than the generals! Then leap to the podium to gather the applause if things go well! Or run for cover and blame 'them', if they don't. It's all just a matter of managing public expectations!
Hey! We was just foolin' around!
By 2030, 23% of our population will be retired, sitting on a mountain of cash, living in their urban, six bedroom homes while the rest of the country struggles to support them. And we want to keep wages down? Seriously?
Wages need to either go way up or we need to forcefully relieve the boomers of their cash.
The latter. Retirement benefits should certainly be cut for boomers with assets. This is 100% fair, as the interests of everyone in the country were sacrificed for 2 years in order to protect the boomers from a disease which was not significantly dangerous for anyone under 60.
How many under the age of 60 died from covid? How many are over the age of 60? What is significantly dangerous? How many deaths are enough?
Speaking of "older people", if I remember correctly people could earn over 15% interest in a GIC in the 1980's. Many years ago I purchased a building in a small town in Central Ontario. Besides getting the building I also was given all the deeds and mortgages on the property going back to the 1880's. Interesting to note that a mortgage in the 1890's for $1500.00 earned interest at 4.5%. There was another one in the early 1900's for over 5%. Back in the day (1880's early 1900's) the property in question was sold in the $1500.00- $2200.00 range, about 2 years ago the same property sold for close to $750,000.00 with a mortgage rate of 5%. Yep, the building is still standing and in daily use and in solid shape. Interest rates and inflation fluctuate. Its been going on for years. I don't get overly excited about rising inflation or declining inflation or higher mortgage rates or low mortgage rates. Don't think there is some evil cabal located in Ottawa or Washington or God forbid in Brussels planning all of this in secret. Tides go in and tides go out.
Doubled in 6 years(while ignoring how the entire world addressed COVID) ? You'll have to explain that math. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt
I think we've done the major damage in the last 50, haven't we? This insanity of deficit financing started with Pierre, and it was so easy, they all just kept going with it. Fiscal insanity with no end in sight.
I think Chretien and Martin should also answer for the cancelled helicopter deal, and the downloading of their costs to the provinces to balance their books. A shell game if there ever was one.
At this point, I'd love to hear some ideas on how we get out of the well, as Lassie does not appear to be coming anytime soon. I don't hear a lot of things that people are willing to give up, as they complain that their taxes are too high. Any thoughts on where we start?
You are absolutely right. It is a good first step. Class warfare, just like it was throughout history, will be a necessary evil, though. It's simple really, if the working class can't afford to live in the city or commute to work, then the retired upper middle class will be SOL, quite frankly. There won't be any solution for them that won't cause them considerable discomfort.
So classs warfare on those retired types sitting on a mountain of cash, living in their urban, six bedroom homes while the rest of the country struggles to support them? You may need to forcefully relieve those boomers of their cash, no?
Is this a joke?
Had to skip this one. New policy: if an article has "inflation" In the headline, but a page search turns up zero mentions of "profit" or a synonym, I skip the article as only telling part of a story, the part I've read over and over.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Tiff Macklem's counterpart at the Federal Reserve is Jerome Powell. Janet Yellen is the current Secretary of the Treasury and left her role as Chair of the Federal Reserve in 2018. Now, on to reading the rest of the article.
I got only as far as, "It's hard to get past elite failure in the creation of this mess".
I have no need to read pure Conservative hyperbole from a partisan.
The problem with Central Banks is that they drive our economy forward by looking in the rearview mirror. They're always late for the party as a result. But this time it would appear that they've driven us into a ditch and the vehicle is now on it's roof, with the engine on fire.
LOL!
I was never under the impression that inflation was transitory as I don’t watch mainstream news. I have listened to the same Money Talks for years and never once did it suggest inflation was transitory. Quite the opposite. Perhaps people need to stop listening to the news, “experts” (so called), and rely on better information. Mikes Money Talks has been a staple on Canadian Radio until it was cancelled by the station in 2021. I listen to the Pod Cast now as they have been right on the money every time. They must have cancelled the show due to the spreading of good information and the worst thing that can happen for those wanting control is to have an informed public.
Mike Campbell? Brother of Gordon Campbell? I wouldn't listen to either even if they paid me. NOT to be trusted ever!
I don't believe anyone can force you into anything you don't care to listen to, say, or participate in. Its called freedom. Something that would be obvious to most but seems dismally lacking in our culture today.
Oh ML, of course, you are free to listen to any crackpot you want. That's your right. I don't believe that you were forcing me to tune into the podcast. But it was you who suggested we get our money advice from Mike Campbell who I consider one of the least trustworthy of a lot of flaky radio guys.
You seem to be struggling with "freedom" again. Was it because I was stating my freedom to not listen to Gordon Campbell's brother on a radio show, giving tips on what I should do with my money?
Are a lot of people being forced to listen to talk radio? Is it really so obvious? Are you sure it's the 4th estate and experts that are letting you down?