Even with my turn to right-wing conservatism, I'm still a fan of Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Chretien because he said no to Iraq and had a quick wit. Martin because he gave the Canadian government budget surpluses that were the envy of the world. He then responsibly used this cash to pay down the national debt.
Les Perreaux of the Globe and Mail wrote this article on Martin describing his regrets of a conservative government. If Martin was on the ticket this past election, I probably would have voted liberal (not that it mattered in my riding).
In the article Martin criticizes Harper for erasing the government's surplus (in August the feds ran a deficit), and also takes credit for regulating Canadian banks which have not been suffering the same woes as our American, European and Japanese counterparts.
Also, its nice to see Martin taking a roll as a private citizen to help people less fortunate. The article talks briefly about his endeavors preserving the Congo river basin and his launching of an aboriginal equity fund that will be used to help provide support and finance to aboriginal business endeavors.
13 comments:
Surpluses to pay down the national debt? Boy, taxes can be handy, can't they?
Not to mention strict government regulation of banks. Cretien also noted in a speech the other day that our banks are the envy of the world because his government denied the big banks in merger requests a decade ago. I see why you like those guys so much!
Yes, they are decent examples of those in power making smart decisions, which I think was my point.
Yes, Chretien denied the government supported oligarchy of banks in Canada to turn into a government supported monopoly of banks.
Government should regulate banks, as government has a large roll to play in the creation of currency. I'm not an anarchist.
"Surpluses to pay down the national debt? Boy, taxes can be handy, can't they?"
We really shouldn't have a national debt to pay off in the first place, however, once again this is an example of those in power making wise decisions. I'm against those having power because the wise doesn't always get the power. If the government didn't have the authority to borrow on behalf of the public, the income tax wouldn't be needed. AND its need is not what I argue, I argue that its immoral.
"Yes, they are decent examples of those in power making smart decisions, which I think was my point."
Which is contradictory, because you have been attacking fiat monetary systems.
"Government should regulate banks, as government has a large roll to play in the creation of currency. I'm not an anarchist. "
I can see a little bit of light at the end of this long tunnel I've been in for a couple of months!
"We really shouldn't have a national debt to pay off in the first place,"
Wrong. There is nothing wrong with a national debt as long as the government has the means to pay off what it has borrowed. In this respect, the government is just like a citizen borrowing money.
"however, once again this is an example of those in power making wise decisions. I'm against those having power because the wise doesn't always get the power."
Your only other option is anarchism, because there has to be some sort of authority. You still haven't conceded this obvious point.
"If the government didn't have the authority to borrow on behalf of the public, the income tax wouldn't be needed. AND its need is not what I argue, I argue that its immoral."
Borrowing is not immoral, Josh. Borrowing beyond one's means is.
"Which is contradictory, because you have been attacking fiat monetary systems."
I don't think its contradictory to state that sometimes people in power make smart decisions.
"I can see a little bit of light at the end of this long tunnel I've been in for a couple of months!"
This is not a position I've changed...
"Wrong. There is nothing wrong with a national debt as long as the government has the means to pay off what it has borrowed. In this respect, the government is just like a citizen borrowing money."
Yes, and look how well it has paid off for citizens borrowing money in the US. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money, but the market should set the cost of doing so. In the system we have right now, the banks set the cost, not the market, which is the whole problem with the fiat monetary system. Before 1971, the US dollar was still tied to gold, when the US couldn't pay back France in the gold it was owed, Nixon took the dollar off of the gold standard so that he could just print the dollars to pay back France. Gold anchored the dollar and the cost of borrowing dollars was anchored by the gold market.
"Your only other option is anarchism, because there has to be some sort of authority. You still haven't conceded this obvious point."
No, the option I choose is to change the role of government.
"Borrowing is not immoral, Josh. Borrowing beyond one's means is."
Who determines what one's means are? Borrowing is not immoral. Borrowing on behalf of an individual without consent it, and borrowing on behalf of an unborn generation is also immoral. Thomas Jefferson would never allow the government to issue debt for longer than 19 years as to not transfer debt onto an unborn generation.
"I don't think its contradictory to state that sometimes people in power make smart decisions."
It is when you rail against fiat money systems, yet ignore that all money systems are inherently fiat.
"Yes, and look how well it has paid off for citizens borrowing money in the US. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money, but the market should set the cost of doing so. In the system we have right now, the banks set the cost, not the market, which is the whole problem with the fiat monetary system. Before 1971, the US dollar was still tied to gold, when the US couldn't pay back France in the gold it was owed, Nixon took the dollar off of the gold standard so that he could just print the dollars to pay back France. Gold anchored the dollar and the cost of borrowing dollars was anchored by the gold market. "
You mean inflated by the gold market. Gold inflates the cost of products and debt, because, as you said, there is a market for gold. Therefore, if the price of gold increases, the price of debt increases. It's called gold inflation of the real price of products.
I'm sorry, but wasn't Nixon a Republican?
"No, the option I choose is to change the role of government."
I don't see how that negates the role of authority in government?
"Who determines what one's means are? Borrowing is not immoral. Borrowing on behalf of an individual without consent it, and borrowing on behalf of an unborn generation is also immoral. Thomas Jefferson would never allow the government to issue debt for longer than 19 years as to not transfer debt onto an unborn generation."
Thomas Jefferson lived in a time where the average lifespan was about 50 years!
Again, people consent to it through the democratic process.
"It is when you rail against fiat money systems, yet ignore that all money systems are inherently fiat."
There's a difference between a currency that has a value tied to a commodity, and a currency who's value can be manipulated by a printing press.
"I'm sorry, but wasn't Nixon a Republican?"
So is Bush. Republicrat is a better word.
"I don't see how that negates the role of authority in government?"
Government should not have authority, it should only have responsibility.
"Again, people consent to it through the democratic process."
No they don't. The people have no control of the government borrowing and printing money, which is why the government should not have the ability to do so.
"Thomas Jefferson lived in a time where the average lifespan was about 50 years!"
These averages are pulled down by higher infant mortality rates.
"There's a difference between a currency that has a value tied to a commodity, and a currency who's value can be manipulated by a printing press."
And that difference is? They print more dollars, there is inflation. There is a shortage of gold, there is inflation. At least with paper money and a fiat system can be controlled a bit. The gold system is tied to a limited resource and the demand for it.
Take a look at this linke
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/laird/2006/0213.html
The real price of gold is constant, but the real price fluctuates significantly from 75 to 07. Why? Because gold is a very valuable commodity in modern industrial society. Therefore, if we were to revert to the gold standard, the real cost of products would inflate with the demand for gold, hence creating the same sort of inflation that happens today.
"So is Bush. Republicrat is a better word."
Is that an allusion to democrats or bureaucrats?
"Government should not have authority, it should only have responsibility."
Okay Mr. Idealist! You just go on believing that those who are given responsiblities can fufill them without exercising authority!
LOL>> Dumb dumb dumb.
"No they don't. The people have no control of the government borrowing and printing money, which is why the government should not have the ability to do so."
Gold nuggets?
You misunderstand inflation. Inflation isn't the rise in prices, inflation is the increase in money supply. Rise in prices is a symptom of inflation.
If prices go up because of the demand in gold going up, then the value of a dollar also goes up because it is linked to gold, hence no inflation. Also, silver can be used as well.
"Is that an allusion to democrats or bureaucrats?"
Democrat
"You misunderstand inflation."
No, you misunderstand inflation. There is more than one type.
"Inflation isn't the rise in prices, inflation is the increase in money supply. Rise in prices is a symptom of inflation."
No. There is inflation in prices due to a reduction in the supply of a product and deflation in prices due to more efficient production processes, downsizing, or innovation.
Then there is the inflation of the value of money through an increase in the money supply. We've already argued this one to death, so I won't say any more.
"If prices go up because of the demand in gold going up, then the value of a dollar also goes up because it is linked to gold, hence no inflation. Also, silver can be used as well."
You don't seem to be understanding what I am getting at. There is the real price of a product, right? There is the value of gold as a commodity, right? And finally there is the demand for gold as a currency, right? It is these three in tandem that would a unnatural skew in the real value of products if implemented.
Moreover, when the price of gold goes up it does cause inflation. It is not the real price of the commodity that is increasing, but the price of gold. An increase in the value hence creates inflated prices in relation to the current salary or wage, which is why inflation is such a problem in the first place. If I make 2000 gold nuggets a year, and if the price of gold increases without a corresponding increase in my salary, then I am making less money, hence being hurt by an inflation in prices due to gold.
Couple this with the limited nature of gold, silver, and copper (my god, do you really want to argue about copper! It is the most useful traditional currency medium for modern products!), and you have an even higher potential for inflation, because the very demand for gold as a currency would create an increase in the cost of gold, hence creating astronomical inflation in relation to wages and salaries!
"Democrat"
That's idiotic.
"There is inflation in prices due to a reduction in the supply of a product and deflation in prices due to more efficient production processes, downsizing, or innovation."
These are market changes; economists never use "inflation" to describe this. Thats why they calculate inflation based on the rising prices of a cross-section of goods.
"If I make 2000 gold nuggets a year, and if the price of gold increases without a corresponding increase in my salary, then I am making less money"
I don't understand this logic. If you're making 2000 gold nuggets, and the value of gold goes up, the value of your salary goes up by association, no?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287700/inflation
Inflation^
"These are market changes; economists never use "inflation" to describe this. Thats why they calculate inflation based on the rising prices of a cross-section of goods."
A cross-section of goods at any one time. Over time, however, any one price for one product is affected by money-supply inflation, wage increse inflation, production efficiency increase inflation, etcetera. You need to update your definition. Economists have not been using "inflation" to mean only money supply inflation for decades.
Post a Comment