Trudeau does a masterful job capturing the collective ignorance
of the masses. With the help of a wildly
biased and determined left wing media, we are witnessing the withdrawal of
reason and the impending emergence of a tired, tested and failed Keynesian model
of economics. In Trudeau’s naiveté we
are beholding the “change” and billions this change costs without
any mention of cost; other than Trudeau telling the reporter to whip out his
calculator and do the math himself. Sadly,
no intelligent discussion is possible when the leader has no clue of
the systemic damages caused by Keynesian economics.
The basic flaw of Trudeau’s economic model is he presupposes
he and his team are smart enough to manage and strengthen the economy through debt based investment. The idea that the free market
is either too evil, stupid or a breeding ground for tax cheats like those sneaky
small business owners, Trudeau has a fundamental distrust in the choices of
Canadians and therefore he proclaims a need to intervene in the economy and do
the building himself (no wonder he likes China dictatorship; because they can turn their economy around on a dime). This will invariably
result in the malinvestments, cost over runs, nepotism in issuing bids and jobs
to contractors (which Liberals have always been experts at) and misguided
direction of investments that come with
central planning. An inevitable
fallout from the nature of his investments will be:
capital exiting our country, increased trade deficits (we will export
less and be less competitive), sustained budget deficits that compile our debt
and therefore damage our debt to GDP ratio; likely resulting in a downgrade of
our AAA credit (as we have seen with the Ontario Liberals) which will result in
higher borrowing costs and the opposite effect of the Liberals benevolent heart:
a shrinking middle class. Do you notice
how Mr. Trudeau never compares his plan against a debt to GDP ratio or any set
of economic key indicators? Are the
voters to stupid to process the data? Or, would voters then see the economic
damage and be less interested in a spending frenzy that Trudeau heralds as the
coming change? I suspect a bit of
both. If you look at the economies of
Greece and Ontario we can see what an unmeasured Keynesian approach to
economics does to a region.
Make no mistake, Greece like damage
wont hit right away; even Greece took decades for the wick to run out and the country to
blow up. My argument is that Trudeau’s
promises of today will contribute to your children’s debt load, credit
downgrade and smaller middle class of tomorrow. All his promises will cost a lot of money. All his promises will need a slew of bureaucrats
to manage. Who will pay for these
promises? The promises will be paid for in part via bonds that our kids will eventually
have called due, by large corporations, the tax cheating business owners and
those rich people who have way too much money.
As frustrated as several Canadians are (and some bitter and jealous) with those who do well,
there will be great damage if we manipulate the markets to the degree Trudeau
is proposing. Trudeau controlling, monitoring, selecting which industries do well, regulating beyond measure and having his team decide how the economy
will grow is likely going to result in the exit of many earners. Earners produce
a return on their capital and time.
Trudeau will make this a very unwelcome place for those earners to get
their return and they will eventually stop filling the piggy bank with tax
revenue from their exploits. And when they do, who is going to pay for all the
promises? This is when things spiral out
of control and the saying is more obvious than when times are good: socialism is
great until you run out of other people’s money. Alberta is learning this the
hard way. Pressing change by electing a central planning government isn't so cool now, eh? A centrally planned Keynesian economy is at
the heart of the Liberal plan and NOT the change Canada needs or can afford. Don’t be fooled by the Obama mantra of change
redux that Trudeau is recycling. We already got an idea of what that change meant in the
USA: $7 trillion in new debt and an unstable currency.
A vote for Justin Trudeau Liberals is a vote for a perpetual deficit, He personally has no grasp or interest in fiscal matters, why "The budget will balance itself". All he knows is to promise every special interest group whatever they desire, whatever the cost, the payment can come from the wealthy 1%.
ReplyDeleteHis father also was indifferent to fiscal matters running deficits 15 out of 16 years in power though one was shared with Joe Clark. It is a mistake to even call these policies Keynesian, running deficits in good times, bad times and indifferent is something else, maybe Trudeau economics.
Can someone please let people know to spend 10,000,000,000 in one year of deficit spending you need to burn more then 330 a second... Thats from a calculator that unfortunately the millionaire trust fund baby man doesn't own because he's never needed to work to put food on the table or a roof over his head
ReplyDeleteFrom 1960 to 1975 the Canadian debt was very, very small and very stable - slightly declining, actually. From 1975 to 1982 it was still small but rising. From 1983 to 1994 it was rising rapidly and had grown significantly. The next two years saw the increase halted. Then it's continuous reductions until 2009, after which we saw continuous increases until just recently. So the worst government in Canadian history for managing the debt was certainly Brian Mulroney.
ReplyDeletethat would be from the forced political "blackmail" spending the NDP, Liebrals, and Bloc forced in stimulous spending "or else" we vote a no confidence and colapse the minority gov't and force another election immediately after that changing of the Liberals to Conservatives... And it wasn't hard to reduce debit at the expense of Familys, elimination of our middle class and given Liberal military spending cuts...and the huge surpluss the Canada/USA Free Trade agreement brought to Canada... but lets continue to ignore documented facts...
ReplyDeleteWhile not quite as dire, his policies if in place for 10 to 15 years will definitely do a lot of damage. If only in for 2 or 3 years it would probably be minimal and can easily be fixed by the next government, but that assumes that he will get turfed after one term as a minority which is highly questionable. The case the left often make for such policies is the major post WWII growth when government also expanded rapidly, but they forget that since then the results haven't gone so well and we are a very different world than 50 years ago as capital is far more mobile and more importantly if every country is doing it, that is one thing, but if only a few others are that puts as at a disadvantage, which is the case now. Add to the fact, we have mostly left of centre provincial governments so that compounds the problem. At least if we had mostly right of centre provincial ones that might help balance things out a bit.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the reason for growing government is GDP is C + I + G + X so many wrongly assume if you grow G, those people working in the government will have more disposable income thus increasing C and I when in fact the crowding out effect has the opposite impact. Also our slow growth is likely to persist no matter who wins on October 19th due to our demographics as we have an aging population so this will hamper growth no matter who is in power so we would be better to make the best of it than try and pretend we can spend our way into prosperity which we cannot.
Forced the government into stimulus spending? The same spending that the government bragged about by spent $15 million of the taxpayers own money on ads promoting that same spending, lol.
ReplyDeleteTonight I see the media back peddling on the polls...I think it's going to be a Conservative win and the lefties will be getting medical attention.
ReplyDelete