Lashing Ourselves To Sinking Ships: Canada-EU Discussions Today

Hey, Europe! Take our resources, dirt cheap! Next to nuthin, I tell ya! We gave the good ol` USA corporate cartel a good deal! In fact, we gave it all away! No reason you can`t have the scraps!

Socialists like Susan are jumping on this lamentably popular notion that the credit crunch has somehow invalidated capitalism as a system and made the kind of statist economic authoritarianism she and other Vive regulars promote credible. Here's the key difference. Unrestrained capitalism does occasionally result in disasters. Socialism, on the other hand, *is* a disaster. It's like arguing that chronic pain is better than acute pain.

Considering that most of Europe operates quite successfully on some sort of "socialist" blueprint, I'd say you're full of hooey. But then, we all know that anyway.

I`d say that we don`t want an extreme of anything. I think that the model Canada followed from 1939 to 1974 whereby sociopathic capitalism was kept somewhat in check by government intervention into the marketplace, allowing counterweights and safeguards for people who would otherwise get hurt by big banks and corporations. Just look at America right now. Do you really need any more evidence of how harmful it is just to 'let the market take care of itself?' And that`s assuming that the marketplace is naturally run by some invisible cycle. No, it is all fixed, by the rich, for the rich. So if we don`t want responsible government to protect people and help to improve their lives, then let`s just allow CIBC, or Wal-Mart, or Exxon-Mobil, or J.P. Morgan to run the show. Wait! I guess that`s exactly what`s happening now!

"I`d say that we don`t want an extreme of anything. I think that the model Canada followed from 1939 to 1974 whereby sociopathic capitalism was kept somewhat in check by government intervention into the marketplace, allowing counterweights and safeguards for people who would otherwise get hurt by big banks and corporations."

You start out by saying you don't want an extreme, but then you go on a highly unbalanced rant about the sins of capitalism and the virtues of government. Do you not see yourself as part of the problem you cite?

Sometimes it seems like Canada consists largely of two groups - one that considers private enterprise a necessary evil, and the other considers government to be such. The former group seems more numerous in this country than the latter, but the key word in both cases is "necessary". Few people actually want to shrink the state to nothing or eliminate all private enterprise. But the debate often becomes so polarized that we forget that what we're both talking about is a mixed economy - we simple disagree on the ratio of private to public. Harper and his supporters aren't out to drown government in a bathtub, and in fairness, I have to admit that I don't really believe that Susan wants to turn Canada into a Trotskyite paradise.

As for RickW's blathering about Europe and its statist excesses, all I have to say is, I suppose being part of a huge trading bloc gives you the luxury of running your economy sub-optimally. And I guess in the end, it's all about trade-offs. How much suppression of wealth generating commerce are you willing to live with in exchange for more equal distribution of what wealth is already there? I suppose that's a personal decision.

However, what is not part of that equation is the kind of favourtism and cronyism perfected by the federal Liberal Party, which flies in the face of the values of meritocracy and basic fairness that I always though of as being just as Canadian as inclusiveness and diversity (although certainly not values held by Pierre Trudeau and his followers). For me, that's the danger of too much government regulation - the power it gives a ruling party to fix the game in favour of its loyal supplicants.

Blathering? Well, you would be familiar with that term, being so practiced at it and all.

Norway comes to mind of a prudent way to handle oil profits. But because they insist and a rainy day fund, I do suppose that is "sub-optimal". Imagine -- creating some sort of future security! How radical can one get?

But then, you would cheer on the excesses of the Wall Street robber barons.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/0082199
I can imagine you thinking that 35,000 dispossessed people in one US state, per month, is "just good business", or "optimal". Tell me, do you cackle at the thought?

Well, keep in mind there were tens of thousands of dispossessed people in France as well, some 200+ years ago.......or on second thought, don't bother. Just let them surprise you......

Individualist, what we are seeing is simply socialism for the rich, and capitalism for everyone else. If socialism is so terrible then why is it OK when it's to fix the mistakes made by the banks and Wall Street? It's just corporate welfare, and it shoots the argument that government interference is so wrong and terrible all to hell. Apparently, it's all fine and dandy when its for those in control of the money, but when we talk about doing the same for the vast majority of working people, socialism is still the bogeyman.

That is called obvious hypocrisy.

Also, it's quite funny you point out the cronyism in the Liberal party but completely ignore it in the Conservative party, where it runs rampant, as does corruption.

But back to the point. Remember I said above that we'd see Harper et al pushing deep integration with the EU as a prescription for economic turbulence? Well, hate to say I told you so, but latest report is that Canada and the EU are still working toward a deep integration agreement, and Harper said:

"Without question, these times call for closer economic co-operation among key players in the global economy."

See: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... ation-deal

Unfortunately, no one who is a member of the Canadian public has seen this deal yet, and there is no parliamentary oversight of it either. In other words, it's completely undemocratic.

I don't support the bailout, and agree that it's hypocrisy.



I focus on the Liberals because they are the "natural governing party" and because the Conservatives are demonized enough on this forum by others. But this kind of cronyism and corruption spans electoral politics in Canada, and that's actually kind of my point. Government cannot be trusted as the neutral referee.

Say two companies in different regions are competing for the same contract or market. One company offers a clearly better product for a lower price (and let's say with a smaller environmental footprint to sweeten the deal). But the lesser company just paid off the appropriate cabinet minister in the government, and gets preferential treatment (subsidies, contracts, favourable regulation) as a result which tips the balance in favour of that company. Corruption right?

But how is it any different when a government makes the same decision based on the fact that the region where the lesser company resides elects more MPs from the governing party. In one case it's bribery with money. In the other it's bribery with votes. In either case, the fastest runner doesn't win the race, and we all suffer as a result.



I wouldn't worry about that. RickW says that Europe is okay because they're socialists.

At least they leave some crumbs for the average citizen:
http://www.emb-norway.ca/policy/economy/pf.htm
rather than his:
http://www.finance.alberta.ca/business/ahstf/index.html
or this:
"...one has to wonder about the long-term prospects of an economy increasingly tied to resource development – where prices are historically volatile – and rapidly less on manufacturing.
http://www.canadians.org/energy/issues/ ... index.html

You condemn so-called "socialism" (which you erroneously think is embodied by the NDP), then out-of-hand condemn as well the Libs and Cons. I suppose one can make the assumption you must therefore be a Green Party supporter, what with their policy of a guaranteeed wage and all. Allow me to congratulate your wise choice!

The EU currently has some mechanisms in place to ensure some democratic oversight of the union, including elected representatives for the entire EU, etc. The current US-Canada-Mexico agreements contain no such democratic mechanisms at all and are all about corporate rights.

But we can't assume that Canada will get a good deal or even be part of those mechanisms in the EU yet. We don't know anything until we see the draft agreement, and it hardly bodes well that there is currently no parliamentary oversight of that either. What concerns me is that it may well be more of the same, an agreement that gives the EU and EU corporations rights to our resources etc and rights to operate freely in Canada, without Canadians in turn getting access to any of that lovely democracy.

It may be an antidote to US domination of our economy. I hope it doesn't include free access to European hoards wanting to move here and undermine Canadian success at reducing out population growth and the benefits, that immigration threatens to sabotage for the short term benefit of the cortporations.
Brent

As was so amply demonstrated by all the so-called "free trade agreements" Canada entered into. About the only thing "free" were the prices paid for our resources.....