Success has many fathers, the saying goes. If only there was a paternity test to sort out the claimants of credit for the Canadian economy.
Canadian author Stephen Marche is the latest to weigh in, with a short opinion piece published on Bloomberg.com. Marche argued two points: first, that Canadian household net worth had surpassed U.S. household net worth; and second, that this was due to Canada's uniquely "hardheaded socialism" -- a combination of fiscal discipline in the management of a magnanimous social welfare state.
Reihan Salam questioned the household income claim in a piece for National Review Online, noting that U.S. household net worth fell largely due to the housing crisis and Canada failed to fall rather than gain ground. Clive Crook agreed in a piece for The Atlantic.com and suggested that better regulated banks and a more conservative mortgage market were more important than socialist policies.
Marche's "hardheaded socialism" thesis is a contrarian interpretation of Canadian fiscal policy rather than banking or financial market regulation, and as such, it fits with other similar analyses such as Fred Barnes' April 2011 article in National Affairs which credited the Liberal Party of Canada -- which led in the establishment of Canada's social welfare programs -- for taking responsibility for their reform. Chris Edwards at the CATO Institute contends that Canadian fiscal reform resulted in cuts to the size of government.
All this may sound like the typical circular firing squad of academic debate. But for Americans, it matters tremendously. Canada's example is important in the context of an American debate about the role and financing of government in society that is marked by sharp polarization along ideological lines. The average voter looks at the theoretical claims of both sides, and craves the practical example of a country that is doing well as proof that solutions are possible.
Marche offers the beguiling hope that if Washington D.C. could act as a better steward of taxpayers' money, the social welfare system in the United States could be saved, and growth would return in the form of rising household net worth. In short, that the United States can have greater socialism if its leaders will just be more hardheaded about it.
This is a false hope. Canada's fiscal hardheadedness and pro-growth economic policies, along with its tremendous resource wealth, are the real examples that the United States can and should follow (the United States has great resource wealth too, thankfully). Then perhaps, like Canada, we can better afford some socialist policies that we have now, or that voters may desire in the future.
Socialism, based on economic redistribution, requires growth so that there is money to redistribute, just as philanthropy relies on prosperity.
Canada was hardheaded in promoting growth, not in simply managing redistribution, and this is why it has enjoyed better results than most countries since the 2008 recession began.
Socialism is not the father of Canada's success, but its progeny.
Follow Christopher Sands on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sandsathudson
Emily Kennedy: Will the Government Co-operate With Canada's Co-ops?
"Canada's fiscal hardheadedness and pro-growth economic policies, along with its tremendous resource wealth, are the real examples that the United States can and should follow" -- Could not be more wrong.
Talk of "pro-growth" policies smacks of Reaganomics and pseudo-free market rhetoric. Canada indeed took hard positions in the late 90s and made cuts where they had to, while also HEAVILY regulating the banks and preventing mergers that would have further centralized our banking industry.
"Pro-Growth" is just Neo-Con speak for Reaganomics and it's not the way Canada weathered the storm, in fact it is now what our PM is embracing and watching our economy slide down the toilet with his crappy economic policy.... Subsidies for the billionaires and less health-care for Immigrants!! That's the CON Way!
Read:
Socialism vs Capitalism
http://www.newworldparty.org/2011/08/socialism-versus-capitalism.html
Both American and Canadian economies and wealth are fake, because they have been fuelled by debt.
Americans are poorer now because their housing bubble collapsed. Canadians are richer because their housing bubble has surpassed the peak of the American bubble.
There are many myths in society:
- World is flat
- Mermaids exist
- House prices go up forever
Read:
Bubbles - Extreme Maker and Breaker of Wealth
http://www.newworldparty.org/2011/11/bubbles-extreme-maker-and-breaker-of.html
Ah! Here it is - the absolute refutation of socialism.
There's not enough money for socialism to work.
Just as there's not enough food in the world - so some must starve
There's not enough medicine, not enough doctors and nurses, not enough clean water, clean air or fertile soil - hence a third world of abject degradation.
There's just not enough - and but for the rich, the Buffetts and the Gates, there wouldn't be anything at all!
Only greed, exploitation and the frenetic consumption of worthless crap, that is, only through capitalism can anyone survive in this world of universal scarcity.
Too bad it's all a lie.
"Canada's Growth Owes no Debt To Socialism"
...? Which growth!? Where's the growth? The economic forecast is getting worse every year - not better. This article has no basis on actual facts.
Of course a neo-con author/agenda would still expect a disproportionate amount of 'growth' to trickle up to the job creators, so they could use their 'worked for' prosperity to altruistically manage social output along culturally conservative lines (defined by moral individualism which typically result in intolerance and paranoia).
Actually, only 40-60% of N. America's wealth comes from 'hard work', technological progress, and capital re-investment (and hardheaded socialism), the remaining 40-60% still comes from dispossession (of other's opportunity, via wealth-creation led public policy).
Free trade, foreign investment and the privatization ethos, leveraged by (a fetishized) investment-risk culture just makes it seem like we're 'working for our money'.
Socialist policies (which is still better than the free-market blather that has given 20% of Canadians 70% of the nation's wealth - statscan) will not settle the unsustainable wealth-hoarding that defines Western growth policies, no matter how much more stable Canada appears next to the US this year.
This is ridiculous. First, it's logically false. To redistribute money only requires that there be money to redistribute. We can trade dollar bills forever if we have even just one. I have it. Now you have it. Done.
What you're trying to imply is that socialism is unique in that it needs growth to thrive. But that seems just as true as pure free-market capitalism. Why is there any distinction made?
This just seems a case of where an author likes the sound of his own voice.
BTW for unemployment figures, the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-crunches other countries' data using its own formula and for Canada, its BLS unemployment would be 6.3%!
The parts of the US economy that are working, are working very, very, very well. The problem is that a big chunk of it is still offline.
The New Yorker has more tax to pay by the time they pay Federal State Local Police, Fire, School,etc and their own private Health care it turns out New York City is one of the highest taxed in the world and they still have socialized transport through their Port Authority which runs all of NYC transport network. All is not clear in how the US is run for example many States still have socialized liquor control boards just like Canada try buying a take away drink in many New England states after 9 oclock.
A good example of how an unregulated economy thrives is the USA during the latter part of the 18th and most of the 19th century. A country populated mostly by people with nothing but the shirts on their backs rises to become a world superpower in short order. The poor today in the U.S. live a life of luxury compared to the poor in 1910.
No offense but while there are things I admire about Canada (easier to business with, laudable cutbacks on govt. spending, etc.) where is the Canadian counterpart to Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Ford and all those other American companies that are innovating for our future?
I guess my message is that highly regulated/controlled economies stagnate over time but the effect is masked by time and the fact that you benefit from more enterprising countries that allow their citizens to freely trade amongst each other unburdended by misguided govt. oversight.
We have had a 100 years of govt. regulation of our economy. It brought us inflation (non-existent from 1780 to 1913), much deeper recessions and innumerable banking collapses. If it works so well why it is always a work in progress?
But most of your success occurred during the Twentieth century. Henry Ford would be classed as a socialist by yourself Gates is no raving tea party sort.
Canada has a different banking system much less bankruptcy friendly so Dell would have ceased to exist long ago as would have Ford GM and Navistar American Airlines etc the list would gone for a very long time. GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS ARE SOCIALISM FOR CORPORATIONS as is Chapter 11.
You also benefited greatly from two massive wars that if the British had not entered would likely have left still you a bunch of hick farmers.
Also are your advocating going back to a whole sub strata of your society still be enslaved or at best segregated.
Modern unregulated economies are paragon's of success Russia, Somalia and of course the Bush the Second experiment with trickle down economics that one worked especially well for you guys
Your "unregulated" american system has crashed and burned while those of us with a more balanced approach weathered the recession far better.
The thriving of the us is related to the world wars, and just like any country in a major conflict the artificial government spending on military has a major impact on reenergizing ones economy. Oh and apparently you forgot the whole robber baron thing, with just a small percentage controlling all the wealth, kind of like now.
It took 230 years .. but it is clear to me the US political experiment has failed its citizens. So instead of finding excuses perhaps political reform is a better idea. But that is never going happen as long as they continue to make their Founding Fathers godlike and "exceptional".
I get the feeling this writer is really just a GOP apologist who is faced with our success as a modern social democracy so he is making excuses.