As a postscript to this thread, let me note that I wrote it as part of my larger concerns about the direction Canada is heading in. For years, we've been hearing about how the market is the solution to just about all our woes. If we cut corporate taxes, sign free trade deals, and open more and more of our economy to foreign ownership, then the rising tide will lift all our boats. This has been our mantra for the last 20-plus years, and as Canadian writer Rudyard Griffiths, it's become a pretty broad consensus not just in Canada but elsewhere.
However, based on everything I see the results of this consensus have been very mixed. Many of the jobs that have been created are more uncertain and part-time, and the implicit message has often been that Canadian wages are too high, and that they should be reduced so that we can better compete. The implication almost seems to be as though Canadians are lazy, ought to work longer hours for less benefits, and be thankful for it. In the "dead money" article I cited in the first post, Canadian businesses stated that they were hedging their bets because they don't think there's enough demand out there to warrant more investment. What I'm left wondering is what all the lower-paying, more precarious jobs that are now being created will do to demand.
And labour isn't the only issue-as I noted before, we continue to be reliant on natural resources above all else, which are themselves dependent on commodity prices. Even the likes of J.J. McCullough have noted it, and he's not exactly a devoted NDPer. This in spite of all the tax cuts and trade deals, which don't seem to have done much for our productivity.
The irony of it all is that I'm now hearing things coming from ostensibly conservative businesspeople, politicians and columnists that you'd normally associate with the political left. Pundits like
Diane Francis and John Manley (the Canadian Council of Chief Executives leader who I cited before) are talking about the problems of foreign ownership and the need for national champions, channelling their inner Mel Hurtig. The late great Conservative Peter Lougheed was quoted in one of Hurtig's books in saying that NAFTA ought to be reviewed.
Oilsands executives are urging Ottawa to "protect" Canadian ownership of the oilsands. Preston Manning has been a strong advocate of green conservatism, and has been on record as saying that Albertans need a "wakeup call" on the environment when it comes to energy development (I was in the audience at the 2009 forum in Cochrane where he said it, and I'd post a link, but I can't seem to find one).
So, because of all this, I'm really wondering whether Canada needs to shift gears somehow, particularly considering just how mixed the results of this consensus have been. The reason I've been hesitant to really mention it before now is that I often get the impression that daring to question this so-called consensus will get the questioner pilloried as some Che Guevara-wannabe who advocates jacking every tax rate up to 75%, nationalizing all our industries and implementing some sort of modern-day Politburo. To my mind, that would be pure insanity-I'm not really a fan of Milton Friedman, but I absolutely loathe the likes of Guevara, Mao and Lenin. Marxism just plain doesn't work, as the global collapse of Communism has shown.
Besides, the last thing I'd want to do is demonize businesspeople or the wealthy as a homogenous bloc, particularly when many companies can and should be applauded for such things as green initiatives and corporate social responsibility, to say nothing of the charitable donations various wealthy individuals have made. Not to mention that I'm also a staunch admirer of Preston Manning and many elements of the original Reform movement. Any change we make has to recognize the need for profit-making, individual initiative and risk-taking.
But Manning and other people on the right are now making many of the same points I'm describing here. My own view is that governments and markets, as well as individual effort and collective action, can often play to each other's strengths and cover each other's weaknesses. In a healthy balance, they can accomplish much more than either one can by themselves. There is, I suspect, much more common ground than anyone realizes.
I just wish I knew how we could get there, particularly when Canadian politics seems all the more polarized these days.
CKA Uber 
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Moderator 
