You must log in or register to comment.
We had two choices among those who could get into power.
We took the least-worse one, by far.
Cool article.
This [public service cuts, government financial austerity and all the other stuff in the first bunch of paragraphs] is a descent into fascism. By defunding the state and over-funding the military, Canada is careening towards disaster. And unsurprisingly, the voices that are paid by the corporate class, are cheering this descent on.
Come on, let’s get specific. Call out our fascism where the descent into fascism is happening under Carney’s government: Bill C-2, Trump ass-kissing, parts of Bill C-5.
I am diametrically opposed to wanton public service cuts, but let’s be targeted and accurate at what we are calling the descent to fascism.
I mean it’s not an outright fascist policy, but it is a fascist-enabling policy, so I’d say the characterization tracks. When public services are cut, poor and vulnerable people become even poorer and more vulnerable, so when a fascist blames liberals and minorities for all their problems and promises to fix those problems, they listen. Economic uncertainty is the bedrock on which fascism is built.
The government took on debt the same as households, using low interest rates to lever themselves up. Now that rates are rising due to aging demographics we are forced to look at our debt burden.
This is why what Trudeau Sr did was stupid, and why what Trudeau Jr did was stupid, all that spending is future austerity. The only way its not is if you debase the currency further using QE, and you shift those bonds to the FX market via a depreciated currency, which ends up in even higher interest rates.
Trudeau Sr. was, as far as I know, the last PM to land a budgetary surplus, back in the early 1970s. Since then, every single PM regardless of name or party affiliation has added to the national debt. If you’re going to attempt to sling mud, please at least make sure that everyone involved gets their deserved level of coating. (As for whether your thesis is valid in the first place, everyone else seems to have that discussion well in hand.)
Taking on debt is normal in a government budget. In fact you have to take on debt to be able to develop your country. As long as it remains below a certain percentage of the IGP, we’re fine.
What this government fails to do, as all previous government failed to do for the past 40 years, is to tax the super wealthy and close tax loopholes.
That sounds like Keynesian ideology, which means investing in infrastructure. Which is not what we spent all that debt on.
What? Taxing the super wealthy?How does that sound like keynisean ideology???
I didn’t even mention infrastructure in my comment so how did you get to that conclusion ???
Well spending money to grow requires the money be spent on infrastructure, if you’re simply giving away money using borrowing then its obviously not going to have a yield greater than the input, and you’ll be paying interest in perpetuity.
I still. don’t see the link with having some normal debt levels and taking the super wealthy as a new source of revenue.
Not disagreeing the Trudeau jr years were awful financially, but not all spending is future austerity.
If spending results in higher revenue or higher income for Canadians, then that does pay a return. Infrastructure is expensive but it’s a great enabler of other commerce and economic activity.
But when the government takes on debt it does need to take that seriously for exactly the reasons you mention