What to cut public debt? Bring in the leftists.

[Partmanpartfish]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e25663385/

[maple leaf]

The full article here.It has been shown before that overall leftist governments faired better,but people insist on electing the righties.Will they learn this time and elect the NDP in Canada.Not getting my hopes up.Righties won't admit it.

DOUG SAUNDERS
Want to cut public debt? Bring in the leftists
DOUG SAUNDERS
The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jul. 25, 2015 3:00AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Jul. 25, 2015 5:59AM EDT
287 comments



In Greece, it took a very left-wing government to cut public spending, slash the size of the public service and reduce a government debt load that had begun to rise fast under conservatives a decade earlier. “We must all adapt ourselves to this new situation,” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras told the members of his far-left Syriza coalition as he successfully persuaded them to vote in a second round of reforms this week.

In France, it has taken a Socialist Party government to break open a paralyzed and overregulated economy in an effort to bring back growth and fiscal order. Prime Minister Manuel Valls, after an economically disappointing start, instructed Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, a former Wall Street banker, last year to redesign the economy. This month, after tortured debate, parliament passed the 400-article “Macron Bill,” which deregulates many sectors, allows competition, cuts public spending and even introduces Sunday shopping – things that two decades of mainly conservative governments were unable to touch.

In the United States, it has taken a Democratic president to get the fiscal house in order. After George W. Bush’s lofty spending and lavish tax cuts sent public debt soaring (even before the 2008 crisis), under Barack Obama the size of the debt began to fall in 2013 – in large part because under his watch government spending has risen by only 1.4 per cent (in part because new programs such as Obamacare cost taxpayers less), compared with an 8.1-per-cent increase under Mr. Bush and 8.7 per cent in Ronald Reagan’s first term.

We have entered the age of the austerity left.

Meanwhile, conservative governments are faring less well. Britain’s Tories have been unable to get public debt under control after triggering a second recession with their post-2011 policies.

Their Canadian counterparts, whose signature policies involve handing billions in cheques to voters and removing large tranches of revenue permanently from the public purse, have not managed to reduce the size of the public or private debt, despite some big program cuts.

Right-wing governments are simply not faring well as fiscal stewards.

Has the world turned upside down? Not really. It’s just more evidence of a well-established trend. Since the early 1980s, in much of the Western world, liberal and social-democratic parties have been entrusted to clean up the fiscal and spending messes created by conservative regimes.

In the United States, Mr. Reagan managed to increase debt, government spending and even (ironically) taxes; it took Bill Clinton’s less state-heavy economics to send debt plummeting, until Mr. Bush repeated the pattern.

In Britain, Conservative debt became a problem in the mid-1990s, when the Labour Party under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown used strict fiscal discipline to keep debt below 40 per cent of gross domestic product for a decade, until the 2008 crisis forced all governments to spend.

In Canada, Brian Mulroney’s Tories pushed spending and debt to record-breaking levels, precipitating a world-scale crisis that Liberals Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin finally faced down with aggressive program cuts. On top of this, analyses show that over the 30 years from 1981 to 2011, the Canadian governments most likely to have balanced budgets, and those with the lowest deficits, were provincial NDP regimes.

This has tangible effects: After analyzing 12 Western countries, economist Douglas A. Hibbs found that “the unemployment rate has been driven downward by Democratic and Labour administrations and upward by Republican and Conservative governments.”

This seems to go against not only our expectations, but against the stated values of many of these parties (Syriza was elected to end austerity and leading economists recommended it reject the European reforms). So why is the left repeatedly more fiscally sensible than the right?

One answer, in an analysis of 40 years of Western governments by economist Jose Tavares, is that this is how parties get elected, by playing against type: Right-wingers gain power only if they pledge both spending programs and tax cuts; voters won’t trust liberals unless they show fiscal restraint. This sort of triangulation has become core to the thinking of the more successful major political parties.

But there is a larger explanation, found in the balance sheets. “Tax-and-spend liberals” is a fair description of much of the centre-left. Right-wing parties generally scorn the tax half of this equation – but they can’t do much about the spending half. It is loss of tax revenues that has both sent debt soaring and choked off economic growth in the United States in the 2000s, and Canada and Britain now. To get the wheels of capitalism turning again, it may require another bunch of leftists.

[The Green Barbarian]

Will they learn this time and elect the NDP in Canada.Not getting my hopes up.

I hope no one learns this because it just isn't true. The time is never right to elect the NDP in Canada, or anywhere for that matter. The NDP is just plain awful.

And it's great to pick and choose countries when looking for examples of what works. For instance, there were several MLA's in the new NDP government elected in Alberta who seem to be huge Hugo Chavez fans, and have stated publically that they want Canada to be more like Venezuela. Really? Even federal NDP supporters have commented how much they love Chavez. How is this possible? Who in their right mind would EVER want these people anywhere near the public purse?

How Bad Is Venezuela's Economic Crisis?

Venezuela’s already struggling economy has been devastated by declining oil prices. In a recent article Jason Mitchell explained, “Venezuela has one of the worst managed economies on the planet and its bonds are trading at levels that suggest a default is priced in.” The country depends on oil revenues for more than 95% of its foreign income and its reserves have dwindled to $20 billion. Bondholders are increasingly worried that the country will fail to service its debt. According to Fernando Losada, an economist at AllianceBernstein, “the availability of macro and financial information on a timely basis is essential for figuring out where to put your money.” And in Venezuela, the challenges for investors and analysts are exacerbated by the reluctance of President Nicolas Maduro’s government to publish timely economic data.

Bank of America BAC -1.28% and Barclay’s have been forced to create their own ways of measuring Venezuela’s economic health. “We’ve had to build these series based on everything you can imagine,” Francisco Rodriguez, a Venezuela analyst at Bank of America, explained. “I feel like a private detective. You have to try to find the data. At least the police have power to gather evidence — I don’t have any,” he added.

It’s been five months since Venezuela published inflation data. The most recent figure of 68.5% is the highest in the world.

Barclays economist Alejandro Grisanti now estimates that Venezuelan inflation is over 100%. ”Now it seems that President Maduro has changed this into a state policy of not publishing data,” he explained.

Data from Deutsch Bank indicates that Venezuela cut down imports to $3 billion in January a drop from around $4.5 billion in the previous year, a reduction that possibly helps explain how the country was able to pay down a $1.1 billion bond payment in March.

In mid-April Maduro announced the implementation of additional capital controls, reducing the amount of dollars Venezuelan travelers can bring out of the country from US$2500 to US$750. The unofficial dollar exchange rate then fell to 260.7 on April 14.

According to a report from FocusEconomics, “The parallel dollar has lost just over half its value this year alone as recession, runaway inflation and the sharp fall in oil prices have combined to push Venezuela into its worst economic crisis since former President Hugo Chávez came into power.”

As I explained in a recent article, “In early 2014 after Ford and General Motors GM -0.52% reported combined write-offs of $710 million and Goodyear GT -1.08% and Energizer warned about concerns related to Venezuela’s exchange rate.” Colgate has also faced exchange rate problems in Venezuela.

Earlier this year Alejandro Werner, an economist from the International Monetary Fund, explained that in an environment of low oil prices:


“Venezuela’s economy will take the largest hit, and is now forecast to contract by 7% in 2015. Indeed, each $10 decline in oil prices worsens Venezuela’s trade balance by 3.5% of GDP, a bigger effect by far than for any other country in the region. The loss in export revenue causes mounting fiscal problems and a sharper economic downturn.

Squeezed by falling oil prices and extreme pressure on the official exchange rate, Maduro’s government has focused on addressing the symptoms of the crisis rather than addressing the root causes. Most recently he announced a plan to install 20,000 finger scanners at his country’s super markets to help eliminate hoarding and panic buying.

For residents in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, ongoing shortages are evidence of a severe economic crisis. But for economists and analysts trying to get a picture of just how serious Venezuela’s economic problems are, the lack of solid data makes the job extremely difficult. Venezuela’s economy is faltering but the absence of reliable and up-to-date information makes a precise diagnosis next to impossible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielpa ... aulting/2/

[FreeRights]

And it's great to pick and choose countries when looking for examples of what works. For instance, there were several MLA's in the new NDP government elected in Alberta who seem to be huge Hugo Chavez fans, and have stated publically that they want Canada to be more like Venezuela. Really? Even federal NDP supporters have commented how much they love Chavez. How is this possible? Who in their right mind would EVER want these people anywhere near the public purse?

I chuckled at this veiled attempt at making the Federal NDP look bad. Federal NDP supporters? So, the voters? I bet there's Federal Conservative supporters who think similar, silly things as well. It is important to note that, despite you attempting to disguise it otherwise, the Federal NDP members have not publicly said they are Hugo Chavez fans.

[The Green Barbarian]

It is important to note that, despite you attempting to disguise it otherwise, the Federal NDP members have not publicly said they are Hugo Chavez fans.

The question remains what effect Chavez’s death will have both on the future of Venezuela and the region. Now that the US has extricated itself from two Middle East wars it will turn its attention once again to its “back yard.” The empire will strike back. But the “good examples” (and there are many in Latin America including Bolivia and Ecuador) are robust and inspiring. Short of a return to concerted covert action or military intervention the Latin American spring seems secure. Viva Chavez!

Here is the entire crappy article from this staunch NDP supporter, and board member of the "Canadians for Tax Fairness" (guffaw) organization.

http://murraydobbin.ca/2013/03/26/this- ... look-like/

But wait, what about those newly elected Albertan NDP'ers....hmmmm....

Take Rod Loyola, for example. The head of the non-academic staff union at the University of Alberta is the new NDP MLA for Edmonton-Ellerslie – and a huge admirer of the late Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Loyola came to Canada from Chile in the 1970s. Got a degree, made a family and a successful life. Active in his community. Good Canadian story.

But then there’s this whole adoration for the colonel/dictator of Venezuela.

Put aside, Chavez’s nationalizing of key industries and his draconian land reforms. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized Chavez for locking up opponents, shutting down news organizations that dared disagree with him and expelling international rights workers.

Loyola’s willingness to make excuses for Chavez’s human rights abuses because he shared Chavez’s socialist dream says a lot about his political judgment.

And Notley’s caucus is full of folks with similarly out-there political views. The premier-elect may be a mostly moderate social democrat. But she is going to have a chore keeping a lid on her Pandora’s box of a caucus.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/05/06/l ... f-radicals

[Glacier]

Both the left and right get in financial trouble for different reasons. The right promises to cut taxes and cut spending. Then they get elected, and the real world hits. Cutting taxes is easy, but cutting spending is almost impossible because you're up against the bureaucracy.

The left tends to raise taxes to balance the budget, but forgets about the laffer curve, which leaves them short of expected revenues.

Of course, not all governments are created equal, so you can have fiscally responsible governments on either side of the isle.

[Donald G]

One example of the false information uses to support the opening comment is that leftists DID NOT choose to make the finacial changes that were made in Greece. The EU and the World Bank made it plain to the Greeks that their request for another loan WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED unless fiscal responsibility was clearly demonstrated. Including an even more stringent cutback on irresponsible leftist spending and irresponsible leftist government hiring policies that had one out of four Greeks working for the leftist government.

A complete distortion of reality in an effort to make the leftists that caused the financial problems in Greece into something they wee not.

Why would anyone post such false rubbish on a Canadian political string ?? To try to help the NDP in Canada turn Canada into the next Greece ??

STOP HARPER = STOP CANADA = GREECE

[The Green Barbarian]

It is important to note that, despite you attempting to disguise it otherwise, the Federal NDP members have not publicly said they are Hugo Chavez fans.

Keep the oil in the ground!! DOH!!!

[Logitack]

but it is ok for harper and his outlaws to sign a trade agreement that allows them to screw over canadians, allow them to sue canada if laws are passed that might hinder their business while in canada.... mmmmmmmmmmmkay

[Donald G]

To Logitack ...

That would be terrible if it was true. But since it is not true ...

[Donald G]

NAFTA, between Canada, the USA and Mexico came into being in 1974 under Mulroney. The additinal NAFTA Agreements were brought into being and signed by Liberal PM Chretian. The Conservative Party did not even exist at the time so how could Prime Minister Harper have had anything to do with it ??

Or are you referring to the fact that Prime Minister Harper has looked elsewhere in an effort to increase Canadian trade with other countries. Including. Asian countries. The largest potential consumer market that the world has ever known.

I would have thought that the NDP and Libs would support attempts to open up new trade. Or are the NDP still in a world inhabited by isolationists ??

I know that the world move to world trade has not been good for Canadian Unions but I did not think that the Unions had almost total control over the Federal NDP. Hopefully people keep that in mind when they vote.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Logitack wrote :
but it is ok for harper and his outlaws to sign a trade agreement that allows them to screw over canadians, allow them to sue canada if laws are passed that might hinder their business while in canada.... mmmmmmmmmmmkay

To Logitack ...
That would be terrible if it was true. But since it is not true ...

It's official: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has approved the controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) today.

In a short, two-paragraph news release, International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the deal was now ratified. It will come into force on October 1, 2014, and will be effective for 31 years, until 2045.

The original investment protection deal -- which treaty law expert Gus Van Harten said could be in violation of the Canadian Constitution -- was quietly signed in 2012 in Vladisvostok, Russia, but was delayed for two years due to public outcry.

As FIPA comes into force, it would have a major impact on projects such as Enbridge Northern Gateway and potentially some LNG proposals. The deal would allow Chinese investors to sue British Columbia if it changed course on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

"It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.

"More troubling, there is no requirement in the treaty for the federal government to make public the fact of a Chinese investor's lawsuit against Canada until an award has been issued by a tribunal. This means that the federal government could settle the lawsuit, including by varying its conduct in a way that many Canadians would oppose, or by paying out public money before an award is issued, and we would never know."

Van Harten said there was likely "little point" for constitutional challenges to the deal at this stage.

"Even if found unconstitutional by a court down the road...once the treaty has been ratified, none of the obligations assumed by Canada can be modified unless China agrees," he said.

Op-eds in publications such as The National Post said the China-Canada deal was too one-sided and gave too much power to China. Unlike NAFTA, the FIPA is not a trade deal and would not reduce tariffs for Canadian exports to the Chinese market.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/harper-oks-potentially-unconstitutional-china-canada-fipa-deal-coming-force-october-1

[steven lloyd]

To Logitack ...

That would be terrible if it was true. But since it is not true ...

oops

Chinese companies can sue Canada

It's official: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has approved the controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) today.

In a short, two-paragraph news release, International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the deal was now ratified. It will come into force on October 1, 2014, and will be effective for 31 years, until 2045.

The original investment protection deal -- which treaty law expert Gus Van Harten said could be in violation of the Canadian Constitution -- was quietly signed in 2012 in Vladisvostok, Russia, but was delayed for two years due to public outcry.

It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.

"More troubling, there is no requirement in the treaty for the federal government to make public the fact of a Chinese investor's lawsuit against Canada until an award has been issued by a tribunal. This means that the federal government could settle the lawsuit, including by varying its conduct in a way that many Canadians would oppose, or by paying out public money before an award is issued, and we would never know."

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/h ... -october-1

Sorry Smoke, but worth repeating.

The Canadian public and electorate needs to know that Harper is working to protect none of their interests.

(and how blinded by partisanship some of his supporters are)

[Donald G]

As usual the less than completely honest NDP supporters have left out the main reason for the Canadian Government signing the agreement with China.

"It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.

It is a standard "investor protection" agreement that is part of Canada obtaining the billions from China needed to build the pipeline that will be used to sell Canadian products to Europe and Asia. Nothing more. Except in the minds of those who want to make it look like the end of the world is near.

Another lying by omission by the NDP zealots who are desperate to discredit Prime Minister Harper and the Conservtives.