Capitalist Rant And Denial: The C.D. Howe Institute

Posted on Friday, January 02 at 08:52 by Robin Mathews

Capitalist Rant and Denial: The C.D. Howe Institute

Press and media are full of “expert” comment – from spokespeople of the Right and the Far Right.  The absence of anyone left of centre in the press is so total, it is unnoticed by many.  Panels of “experts” on the media, however, boldly employ Liberals and New Democrats – sometimes.  Nevertheless, no serious critic of Capitalism is allowed space or time.  Those who believe Capitalism has failed and must be replaced (and there are many) are – for the press and media – nonexistent.

Canadians are buried in an avalanche of falsehood, hokey analysis, and misrepresentation presented by “experts” on the Right.

It is as if the recent deaths of eight snowmobilers in Sparwood, B.C. should be considered part of a successful outing because three of the eleven men who set out returned alive.  In the hands of William Robson, President, the C.D. Howe Institute, that would most likely be how the Sparwood story would be told.

It would be told with “Right Speak” - a way of writing out the most important aspects of a matter as if they don’t exist.  That’s what Stephen Harper did in the middle of the Stock Market crash when – to avoid talking about the economic emergency – he casually suggested it was a good time to buy stocks.

Right Speak avoids the idea of fairness at all costs and without speaking plainly (in fact, taking care not to do so) it suggests all support, all assistance, all favourable treatment should be directed to one group – the wealthy of the banks and industry.

William Robson is a Stephen Harper clone, except being in a (still) democratic Parliament, Harper had his idiot economics  (if only temporarily) squashed under the heel of the parliamentary majority.  No such luck with William Robson.  His rant and denial go unchecked. (Globe and Mail, Dec 30 08 A11)

What are the objects of Robson’s attack?  Payments to the unemployed whose huge savings in Employment Insurance funds have been filched by government.  Let the unemployed starve. 

He attacks Japan’s “massive infrastructure programs” after the crash there in the 1990s.  None of the Right will grant what a Japanese expert has reported: the Japanese strategy kept wages being paid, employment levels up, and a relatively contented population.  But who cares about that?  For CEOs didn’t get multi-million dollar bonuses.  The Japanese program, for Robson, failed.

And – of course – Robson attacks the Straw Man he creates and calls John Maynard Keynes.  To begin, if something like the plan Keynes put forward in 1944-45 for an international bank and world trade had been created, the crash we are living in would very likely never have happened.  But the people William Robson approves of, mostly in the U.S.A., put their boots through the Keynes plan so that the U.S. could dominate and, incidentally, create the mess we are in.

So what does a far-Right William Robson capitalist write about the present situation?  He writes nonsense.  Pure nonsense. 

He employs the loaded Right Speak “if”.  If people believe government expenditures will hurt them, they will refuse to spend.  If…if…if.  Then he reports that the U.S. (Franklin Roosevelt’s) government spent more in the 1930s than in 1929 before the Crash, without significant effect.  So?  Using Right Speak to hide his huge contradiction, he tells us that what broke the log-jam was “the imperative of war finance”.  That’s a great phrase – to hide meaning behind.

What, in fact, was “the imperative of war finance”?  It was government spending on a scale never tried in the 1930s.  It was, quite simply, the U.S. pumping enormous amounts into infrastructure, industry, and armaments.  It was what we might call  “economic stimulus” – which William Robson is dead against.

I remember sitting on a B.C. coastal wharf with two recent Canadian war veterans in 1950.  “You go to university”, one of them said.  “Explain this to us.  On August 15, 1939, we couldn’t get a job anywhere, not for fifty cents a day.  We had shabby clothes, and little to eat.  No hope.  Then on September 15, 1939,” a month later,” he went on, “we were hired at thirty dollars a month, given new clothes, and free room and board, all of us.  Now”, he said, “how come we couldn’t get those things on August 15, 1939?  Only after war was declared all those things became immediately available.  How could that happen?  You go to university.  You answer that?”

What the Roosevelt government tried in the Depression and what “the imperative of war finance” effected William Robson calls “manic government spending … more red ink”.  Is it manic to renew highways, to expand rail services, to develop ports, to construct decent low income housing, to build third level industries that manufacture Canadian raw materials instead of shipping them out raw, to train medical personnel and develop health care facilities?

Robson starts out with The Reactionary Myth (shared by Stephen Harper).  To look after people is wasted welfare.  He continues  with the Parrot-call of the Right: government spending and participation in the economy, he writes, “will stifle innovation and promising industries of tomorrow.”  Is there proof for that allegation?  None whatever.  Not a shred.  In fact the opposite is true.

After the end on the Second World War, there existed highly successful industries created by Canadian government that arose out of innovative ideas and entrepreneurship.  They weren’t created by private “free” enterprise.  Private corporations, however, lusted after them, and, in time, government allowed them to take over the people-owned industries.  In fact, government ownership in the economy increased innovation.

What is needed right now, for instance, is a federal/provincial pharmaceuticals industry – a way of lowering medical costs, opening innovation, and pouring money into governments’ general revenues.  Many wholly private, shameless industries in operation now desperately need competition from people-owned operations.

The key strategy of Right Speak is the care it takes never to admit that the people are part of the significant economy.  Where the people are mentioned, they exist as a labour problem to be cut down to size, or wasters of government revenue through pensions and employment insurance, or people unwilling to deliver their savings into the hands of William Robson and his friends (to invest as they have so successfully done recently). Right Speak, through Robson, urges policy “that evenhandedly rewards work, investment, and innovation” (meaning “that rewards the Capitalist Class” for dragging the country and the world into economic chaos.)

As a Stephen Harper clone, William Robson does a marvelous sleight-of-hand trick when he deals directly (?) with the present Crash (using, of course, Right Speak).  Look, he says, at Canada now.  Look how from 1992 to 2007 Canada paid off debt (partly by stealing Unemployment Insurance funds) and “with accommodative monetary policy” [meaning removal of regulation and removal of oversight from the activities of the economic crooks] the Gross Domestic Product expanded wonderfully.  And then?

And then William Robson stops.  No mention of dirty money. No mention of stolen EI funds. No mention of mortgage madness.  No mention of stock market and  private corporate greed gone mad.  No mention of what ended the marvelous “expansion”.  Robson just stops. 

Well, what happened Willliam?  His only bridge to his next argument is that the “abrupt end of that boom has prompted a desperate search for fixes”.  He doesn’t say why the boom ended or why “fixes” are needed.  Strange.

But he has a “fix” – we might call it the Robson Fix.  It goes like this.  Do nothing by government.  Do nothing for the people.  Think nothing of the structure of the larger economy and necessary infrastructure.  Instead, let Canada’s Central Bank (the Bank of Canada) make money available to the people who got us into this mess.  Pay them “evenhandedly”, the people who have brought chaos down on Canadians and their economic system, give them the money they want and everything will be fine. 

Then CEOs of rotten private corporations can then pay themselves multi-millions in annual bonuses.  What could be better?  Doing that will make a grand boom and – guess what?  It will make an even worse bust to follow.

Maybe that’s what will have to happen.  Maybe we have to have a few more busts.  Maybe the very worst will happen in 2009-10, worse than anyone expects (if so that will be “normal”).  Then, maybe, the Rant of the Right and its flow of Denial will be erased as a whole new politics is created that knows what Capitalism is and pushes it (manacled) into a small, dark, distant corner (beside William Robson and the C. D. Howe Institute).

 




 

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by RickW
    Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:13 am
    It's just too bad (and lucky for him!) that the likes of William Robson isn't to debate the likes of Robin Matthews.

    But of course, that is the beauty of our "system" -- no one in power is actually accountable. Say! Didn't Stevo mention something about correcting this "accountability" deficit just prior to his first term in office.........??

    I wonder how he is doing in this regard...........

  2. Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:05 am
    Poor old gasbag. He still doesn't get it.

    "Those who believe Capitalism has failed and must be replaced (and there are many) are ? for the press and media ? nonexistent."

    They are not nonexistent - just not numerous enough to constitute a significant segment of Canadian opinion. There may be plenty who believe in a big welfare state and in undisciplined Keynesian spending sprees, but *very* few who want to kill outright the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    And this is the very reason that the Keynesians and welfare staters have fared so much better than the unreformed commie dinosaurs like Mathews. The former are like parasites. They understand the need to keep the host alive. They may bite the hand of the system that feeds them, but they won't bite its throat. Mathews and his ilk, who wish to destroy all private enterprise, are not parasites, but rather carrion-feeders. They want to kill the system, and live off its carcass as long as they can get away with it.

    This is what lies at the core of the popular leftist theory that the Soviet Union failed because its economy wasn't ready (i.e. sufficiently developed) for socialism. The communists couldn't build successful industries. They could only confiscate those that others built. If Russia had a more industrialized economy, the Soviets would have better spoils to take and live off of.

    If "the workers" couldn't have created these factories, institutions and infrastructres themselves, what does that say about the "labour value" theories of the left, which held the capitalist as the unnecessary parasite?

    "But the people William Robson approves of, mostly in the U.S.A., put their boots through the Keynes plan so that the U.S. could dominate and, incidentally, create the mess we are in."

    Of course, Mathews being Mathews, he couldn't make it through an article without venting his spleen at the primary object of his hatred - the US.

    "Is it manic to renew highways, to expand rail services, to develop ports, to construct decent low income housing, to build third level industries that manufacture Canadian raw materials instead of shipping them out raw, to train medical personnel and develop health care facilities?"

    If the spending is well planned and not driven by crass politics (e.g. regional favouritism or personal cronyism), then no, it's not manic. Engineering domestic monopolies through protectionism and propping up failed companies is not a good use of public funds. Rewarding "friends of the party" is a particularly bad use of same.

    Of course, Robin believes that private enterprise is always and and state ownered enterprise is always good. His relentless belief in a planned economy and in authoritarian government is so hardwired into his neurons that he'll never see the folly of his ways. Fortunately, however, his views do not represent those of even a significant minority of Canadian voters. The rest of us find it somewhat odd to hear "entrepreneurship" and "government" in the same sentence.

    What exactly is wrong with evenhandedly rewarding work, investment, and innovation?

    I'll admit this is a little OT, but I've often wondered why the Canadian left is so hostile towards religion, and then an idea occurred to me. Socialists do believe in a supreme being of sorts - the "collective". They ascribe this abstraction a will, which they attempt to follow, and rights, as it were a singular being. They display reverence towards the aggregation of humanity or a nation that they would never dream of showing to individuals or a traditional spiritual entity.

    They promote rigid doctrines, which often conflict with those of their fellow believers. Each faction believes it has the true faith, and occasionally they have willing to kill each other over minor doctrinal differences. Sound familiar?

    The state or party (for authoritarian socialists anyway) is the equivalent of the church. It reserves the right to interpret the relevant scriptures and claims to execute the will of the deity (collective).

    To return to the subject at hand, with specific regard to RickW's comments, I think it would be very good (for William Robson) anyway, to debate Mathews, so that people can see cool reason contrasted with hysterical outrage and paranoid fantasy.

  3. by RickW
    Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:01 am
    "Individualist":
    To return to the subject at hand, with specific regard to RickW's comments, I think it would be very good (for William Robson) anyway, to debate Mathews, so that people can see cool reason contrasted with hysterical outrage and paranoid fantasy.


    Yes, it would. Robson wouldn't stand a chance, given that he is part of an organization that has to create fantasies in order to present even a single example of successful capitalism.

    As for "hysterical outrage", you present a plethora of examples in your mindless tirade above. But it's what rightistas are adept at doing............

    Capitalism at work (or is it play?):
    http://www.alternet.org/workplace/115768/
    http://www.alivemindmedia.com/culture/j ... f-babylon/

  4. Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:20 am
    Communism and capitalism are brothers under the skin, both out to destroy real private enterprise and hand it over to gangs of self appointed collectivizers.

    But what's the point in arguing with the propagandists who call themselves "individualists", while promoting the multinational corporates' takeover the whole economy.

    What is the US Cargill company doing in Canada, controlling the beef markets and trying to control all the grains, while fixing prices and ruining the basis of all private enterprise, the family farm system.

    Let's hear a few praises and excuses in favour of Monsanto and the rest of the corporate mafia, now controlling the world's food supply, killing suppliers while stealing consumers blind. The PR agency hacks of the CD Howe and the Fraser just love it.

    "Charitable institutions" at $25,000 yearly memberships to pile more into the laps of the biggest thieves.

    Some "individualism" ain't it?

    Ed Deak.

  5. by RickW
    Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:54 am
    You somehow think this is just some kind of "hit and run" tactic on "individualists" part? Methinks he won't be back to answer any of your queries, Ed -- except to lump it into the "hysterical outrage" category. That way, like his mentors, he doesn't actually have to provide coherent responses, while maintaining thr shallow pretense of doing so..........

  6. Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:52 pm
    You're right, Rick. What the guy is using is an old propaganda gimmick, by repeating the same empty slogans, just as these phony PR agencies, like the CD Howe and Fraser, are doing, while calling themselves "prestigious, conservative economic think thanks".

    Millions of Germans died in WW2 fighting for "Freedom, Christianity and Western Civilization". On the Soviet side "Freedom and democracy". In history, as in Palestine right now and on the Indian subcontinent, not to mention Ireland "In the defence of the true faith".

    These slogans are repeated all the time, until people lose track of realities. Like Goebbels said: "If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it".

    The funniest part of their lies is the promoting of the destruction of private enterprise and world takeover by a few multinational corporations, in the name of "wealth creating free enterprise" of course, and calling those who dare to object "commies".

    All around here ranches, some in the families for up to 150 years, are going broke because of the criminal price fixing by the multinational corporate mafia, stealing from both ends. But this is called "free enterprise" and "free trade, smilingly endorsed by our governments. To be "more competitive" of course.

    I would like to know how "individualist" our friend really is ? What has he ever done? Has he ever started, managed and run a business, while paying decent wages to his employees?

    Ed Deak.

  7. by RickW
    Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:03 pm
    It's been a long time since I've actually heard the "commie" used - probably about the time that Peter Sellers made "Dr. Strangelove"

    run a business, while paying decent wages

    Isn't this an 'oxymoron' in the private enterprise biz, Ed?

  8. by Rural
    Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:51 pm
    run a business, while paying decent wages

    Isn't this an 'oxymoron' in the private enterprise biz, Ed?

    It depends upon your definition of decent wages! The unionized push for always getting MORE is not perhaps unreasonable compared against the obscene amounts taken by the "corporate bosses" but has no connection with the operations of a typical private small business. I know of more than one small enterprise whose owner has personally gone without in order to meet a modest payroll, it is not easy to employ folks and meet all the government ?rules? whilst still maintaining good relationship with your workers. Far too many folks seem to think that they have a ?right? to that job and that the employer is making money hand over fist. That is rarely the case with small businesses who according to at least some reports create the most new jobs.
    We must all expect a little less in return for the efforts to sustain our LOCAL economy that our small business folk try to do, a pox on the big corporations, and for that matter the public sector and their overpaid executives and workers who are constantly demanding MORE despite receiving well above the average wage and benefits at the detriment of the consumer.

    There, I feel better now, not your fault Rick I mostly agree with your point of view!!

  9. Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:06 pm
    Rural,

    I was in the custom furniture mfg. business for 35 years, 22 in Vancouver as an employer of tradesmen.

    Many times we had to survive, pay the mortgage and feed the kids on my wife's part time job, on account of bad debts, or jobs gone sour, but my guys always received the best possible wages, and still think it was the best place they even worked in.

    I made the final decisions on bids, on how to organize contracts, and equipment purchases, but we always had meetings, where even the apprentices had equal say. The way I looked at it, happy workers are the best producers and they were, because they felt being part of the business and not exploited .

    The vast majority of labour problems and unrest are caused by incompetent and stupid management, who are pushing their weight around just to look important and how to steal.

    The mistakes and idiotic decisions I have seen at major outfits have cost them millions in some cases. The labour force is cut out and treated like shit. No wonder all they have on their minds is how to screw the company.

    The productivity of many businesses could be increased if the management would treat the workers as intelligent human beings and listen to their ideas, then get the hell out of their way so they can do their jobs.

    On our way home from our biweekly shopping trips to town we usually stop at Tim Horton's to go to the washrooms, wash our hands and get a snack. At least the place doesn't stink of burned grease and the food is acceptable. There's always a sign out in the window "Help wanted", but we hardly ever see the same faces serving us, or stumbling with the cash registers, twice in a row, within 2 weeks.

    I've asked people who have worked there for the reason of this ridiculous turnover and they told me.................

    WalMart may be the biggest employer in the world, but it is also always voted as the worst.

    I've never been a member of a union, or ran a union shop, but if I'd start again in this age, and employed by some major corporation, I would be the biggest unionist ever.

    Ed Deak.

  10. Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:22 pm
    "If the spending is well planned and not driven by crass politics (e.g. regional favouritism or personal cronyism), then no, it's not manic. What exactly is wrong with evenhandedly rewarding work, investment, and innovation?"

    What do these things have to do with capitalism if you DON'T live in a fantasy world?

    "But what's the point in arguing with the propagandists who call themselves "individualists", while promoting the multinational corporates' takeover the whole economy."

    To make them look like the moronic self-serving pieces of shit they are.

  11. Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:54 pm
    "SphinxMontreal" said

    To make them look like the moronic self-serving pieces of shit they are.



    Play nice! /wags finger

  12. Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:35 pm
    All this fuss over little ol' me. Shucks.

    "Communism and capitalism are brothers under the skin, both out to destroy real private enterprise and hand it over to gangs of self appointed collectivizers."

    Ed's favourite example of "real private enterprise" seems to be the "family farm", a waning institution that has defiantly clung to pre-industrial modes of operation and has been subsidized and bossed around in Canada by two levels of government for many years. I know that heavy-handed government isn't a problem for Ed or for most of the rest of you. You choose to wring your hands and gnash your teeth about how the corporations are being all corporation-y. Some of us, on the other hand, don't believe that letting governments decide who will succeed and who will fail in business is that smart an idea. For one thing, they often bet on the wrong horse. For another, they choose winners based on factors that have nothing to do with efficiency, economic viability, customer satisfaction or the merit principle. To the contrary - they often defy the verdict of the marketplace in order to secure loyal supplicants and prop up weak (and thus easily controlled) players.

    Imagine a scenario in which a Liberal government uses subsidies and regulation to ensure the success of a company based in Calgary, which happens to be competing against a company based in Montreal. Pure fantasy, right? The reverse scenario, however, is far from such.

    Ed likes private enterprise, as long as a company doesn't have to be well run or compete with anyone to survive. As with individuals, merit doesn't matter. There's enough room in the pool for everyone, right? Ed should be able to run his company like some noblesse oblige Santa Claus and not go out of business, right?

    Although I should at least give him points for not being some lefty Waffle throwback like Mathews (or I suppose RickW, based on some of his comments above), for at least Ed doesn't believe that the state should own everything.

  13. Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:05 am
    Although I should at least give him points for not being some lefty Waffle throwback like Mathews (or I suppose RickW, based on some of his comments above), for at least Ed doesn't believe that the state should own everything.


    Actually, outside of the old style Communists/Socialists, whose historic role I don't belittle, despite the later shipwreck of their initial good intentions and ideas, and outside the current corporate ruling class State, most of the new "left" thinking currently emerging out of the present travails of capitalist, so-called "free market" collapse, and beginning to take on the herd following "wingnut" apologists for the status quo, do not favour either State or Corporate Enterpriser control of the economy. What has been made clear out of the collective global experience of the last 90 years or so, since the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution and the last major "free market" collapse of Capitalism in the 1930s is, that neither regulated or current laissez faire capitalism favoured in the West or the, what I would describe, the bureaucratic State Capitalism of the old USSR and current Red China, is satisfactory or sustainable to the material, spiritual/cultural and democracy needs of the "the masses" of the working class. Both have and are again being proven abysmal failures to the real needs of the real mass of the world's citizenry AND the health/long term viability of the planet. Rather, they are both being demonstrated to be either outright anti-democratic or ruling class manipulated sham democracies and criminal ponzi schemes, as both despoil the essential natural planetary systems as sustain all life forms.

    The battle here, for the future, as the system in all its model forms collapses, State and Corporate Capitalism, is still in its early stages, but already we are beginning to hear ideas and demands calling (a) for democratization of the economy; to bring in the development of co-operative models of working class and local community ownership, control and management over enterprises, especially at the larger and corporate level, and (b) the development of more truly proportional representation systems of political structure democracy, with or without vanguard parties, built upon and supported by the new co-operative economic base changes society needs. (I would prefer a partyless democracy, myself. Too much for you herd followers to grasp? Again, though you would think of yourselves as "individualists", you are really too much victims of your own "herd think". :D )

    So, the reality is, it is not just a matter of either western model Corporate, ruling class manipulated and dominated Capitalism or State/Vanguard Party Capitalism. And the current right wing attempt to narrow people's choices down to just these two choices, is but an attempt to save current capitalism's status quo ass, out of a sense of hopeless options and choices for the working class masses.

    Stand by, you herd following, self-fancying "individualists". Bigger changes and different choices are taking shape, as we speak, than your narrow minds could possibly imagine, let alone even get your up-butt heads around.

    Coyote

  14. by RickW
    Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:20 am
    Well, I must confess that I erred in thinking that "individualist" wouldn't respond. He, she, or it, did.

    However, I note that he, she, or it, didn't actually anything, so I am redeemed.

    "The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called corporatiosm, because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
    "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity eiyth nature's plans....If classical liberalims spells individualism, fascism spells government."

    - Benito Mussolini

    The personification of Mussolini's thoughts:
    http://www.alternet.org/workplace/117219/



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news