Balancing the economy


Thomas Mulcair talks to the Toronto Star.

“We’re always going to have a resource-based economy. We always have had and always will have . . . We also had a very strong secondary sector. We built up manufacturing. Those were choices that were made,” Mulcair said in an interview Thursday. “We’re killing off that balanced economy and it’s really having devastating effects in regions like southwestern Ontario,” he said…

And he pinned the blame on a Conservative government he says hasn’t done enough to preserve manufacturing jobs. “Because of their belief that governments have no role in maintaining a balanced economy, they have completely ignored what is happening,” Mulcair said. “They can put out all the arguments they want but there’s a reality out there that since they came to power, we’ve lost several hundred thousand good-paying manufacturing jobs,” he said.


Balancing the economy

  1. Central planning of the economy has led to far more disasters than successes. The main problem is that in the main people generally know how to seek and preserve their best interests than bureaucrats do. Bureaucrats succeed once and awhile, but usually they cause more problems than if things had just been left alone in the first place.

    The second problem is that political influence on and within the government is not a more egalitarian solution to spreading wealth than the free market.

    The only real way the government can help is by providing non-profitable but essential services such as low cost health care and education, and providing competitive tax rates and infrastructure, and ensuring reasonable yet effective regulation.

    • One should certainly be wary of tampering with the free market, but obviously we’ve done so to the benefit of all in the past. I’m pretty conservative by nature so I’m skeptical about moving ahead with big changes, but the issue exists and we should be prepared to examine the content of a proposed plan, if not rush to implement it.

    • Given the issues around the 1% and the increasing concentration of wealth, I’m not sure how you can say the free market is a more egalitarian solution to spreading wealth than anything other than perhaps direct theft.

      • The 1% concentration of wealth isn’t nearly as large a problem as the economic disaster of socialism. Heck, if you think so you should be looking enviously at living on a Native reserve, where government stymies and crowds out private enterprise at every turn, redistributing all the wealth of the reserve by population. How is that working out?

        • Yes, because one bad example proves the whole lot, right? Just like how Argentina going bankrupt proves that all free markets are doomed?

          Get serious. There’s a huge range between successful and non, and the largest correlation between them comes not from whatever system of economic distribution they use, but rather how corrupt the system is.

          • One bad example? Most of the countries that are out and out hell holes in the world right now have been trying to recover from command economies. Much of eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and Africa were devastated by command economies. Here is the world map of that devastation, and almost all the failed states can be found in the areas coloured in by it.


            You just want to think otherwise because you flatter yourself that as long as people like you are in charge, a utopia is just around the corner. Meanwhile you feed millions of people into the maw of suffering, strife and starvation because you are too proud and vain to recognize what harm you are doing by holding your ideology.

          • Read the first paragraph in the article you cite.

            Then try thinking.

            For a change.

          • Of the countries shown in the Wiki map, which one, in your opinion, is the NDP most interested in mimicing?

            I’m trying to get a handle on exactly what the NDP would actually do if they were elected – I’m curious, but as yet unconvinced either way.

    • Even if your premise was correct (not, in my opinion) that doesn’t resolve the issue of this government exerting its influence within the natural resources segment ONLY; skewing the ability of all other industries to be effective in the free market.

  2. “We’re always going to have a resource-based economy. We always have had and always will have . . .”

    Well Mulcair just lost my vote….he knows nothing about this country. Or economics.

    • Sorry folks, but he doesn’t. He is out to lunch.

  3. The Harper government participated in the bailout of GM and Chrysler. How is that NOT going above and beyond to save manufacturing jobs?

    The Harmonized Sales Tax in Ontario is a signficant improvement over the previous tax regime for manufacturers in Ontario. The Harper government provided significant transitional funds for this effort.

    The Harper government is providing most of the funding for the new Detroit-Windsor bridge. How is that NOT good for Ontario manufacturing?

    • I’m not entirely sure that the government is doing enough to help out Ontario and other provinces hit by the problems Mulclair describes, but I agree that we should give credit where credit is due on those three points.

  4. Manufacturing jobs are dirty, not good for environment, if global warming is occurring shouldn’t we want to be rid of manufacturing? Government should let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, for instance, that would have helped Canada meet emissions targets. Mulcair should be delighted southwest ont is hollowed out of manufacturing jobs because the people there will now have a more pleasant environment to be unemployed in.

    Unions are the biggest enemy of work classes. I am not sure why it has happened but unions in North America are very class based, marxist in behaviour and it is bad for employees. Employees of actual unions do quite well but private sector workers who are represented by unions have done poorly. Unions in Europe and Japan/Korea behave differently, management and workers talk quite a bit and work together to build stronger companies while in North America it is much more adversarial. Canada would have more manufacturing if salaries were lower and union officials were less bolshie.

    • Government should let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, for instance, that would have helped Canada meet emissions targets.

      Mitt Romney thought that GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt too, but I’m pretty sure that his position wasn’t based on a concern over climate change.

    • Manufacturing jobs don’t have to be dirty or not good for the environment. And with proper incentives/disincentives in place.. they wouldn’t be.

      Your argument about wages is asinine. It justifies slavery as an economic benefit. It’s crap. Economies, and thus manufacturing, benefit when people have the money to meet their needs.

Sign in to comment.