2019 Election thread

[rlock]

In addition to the fact that manufacturing jobs will not come back, due to much more "favourable" conditions overseas there is also the niggling fact that the US will never allow it.

Consider NAFTA, it was essentially designed to destroy manufacturing and ensure that nations like Canada are "allowed" to produce raw materials ONLY which can then be exported to a nation like the US or Mexico where it the raw materials can be manufactured into a finished product and then sold at a massive profit back to the nation that produced the raw goods. Soft wood lumber is harvested in BC, shipped to the US where it is fashioned into lumber and used - or exported back to Canada. Metals mined in Canada, refined in Canada/smelted and then sent to the US and eventually back to Canada... Etc...

Did a hell of a job, destroyed the mills, broke tons of unions - made sure the US became completely dominant over the North American market. Manifest Destiny baby!

As an "olive branch" as it were, to the impatient Albertans who feel they must have "Sovereignty" over their own affairs (probably should consider why Quebec backed out at the eleventh hour - it's a shitty idea, logistics are a fucking nightmare) consider the lifespan of a minority government. Never in Canadian history has a minority government (Federally anyhow) survived a full four year term. The shortest serving was 3 days. The longest serving was a bit over two years (Harper's, can't remember offhand if it was his first or second minority). The average life span is shy of a year and a half. So, the odds are pretty good we'll be back to the polls by about mid-2021, if not sooner.

This is why I was always against Mulroney and the trade agreements he created (FTA and NAFTA). At the time, critics said exactly this - Canada would watch itself become nothing but a very dependent provider of raw materials / natural resources to other nations, and our industrial and technological edge would decline; it would also degrade our national unity and our sovereignty. Beyond NATFA, there was the WTO, and a lot of rules that treated foreign corporations as if they had more rights in Canada than the Canadian people do.

Well, all of this is exactly what took place. The critics were right. We became a much degraded, Americanized Canada. That also came with two attempts to weaken Canada constitutionally (Meech and Charlottetown). And Quebec shortly afterwards nearly left in a referendum.
This was the legacy of 8 years of Conservative rule, under Mulroney. Growing up, I saw the outright betrayal and then near-death of Canada, and that is why I never vote Conservative.

 

[rlock]

For the life of me I can't understand why Canada refuses to be Energy Independent, the energy east pipeline is a nobrainer. Why are they tankering in Saudi oil, the pollution those massive ships create is not good for climate change let alone the profits that are leaving the country.

Well, I'll say this: of all the proposed pipelines, this was the only one that might have actually been in the national interest (TMX really isn't). If Kenney were wise, he should go sweet talk Quebec, and see if he can use a positive approach to convince them, rather than negativity and threats. Perhaps cut a deal where the Cons pledge to support bill 21 and carbon pricing in exchange for Energy East.

But instead, he is too much of a rabid partisan. He rails against Quebec and Quebecers, and attacks the idea of any environmental action whatsoever. Does it work? Clearly from this election result, NO.

The fact that Scheer still could not defeat scandal-plagued Trudeau should tell the Tories something about how much their current policy approach is a failure.

 

[Sifupoon]

To top it all off Trudeau has put a westcoast tanker moratorium killing northern gateway, the shortest global route to the asian markets 5 days by tanker. No one could compete with Canada in this market, that same crude takes 3 weeks to ship from the gulf coast, how much extra geenhouse gas is produced by this method. Big oil is calling the shots here!

You guys better watch this doc about being over a barrel on oil. It will open your eyes.
No Canadian tankers goin by Haida Gwai but around 278 american tankers, from Alaska to the lower 48
goin right past it every year to the states.

Something is truly FUCKED UP here and this DIPSHIT you folks, whoever you are, that voted for True blow, knows the answer to this mystery.

A massive congratulations to the folks of Alberta and Saskatchewan who cleaned their
slate of Liberals from their land. Way to go you guys. The only SMART voters in the entire land.
I thought Canada was doomed but there is a glimmer of hope for people with brains in this country
of who not to vote for. :yo::thumb:

 

[CanineCowboy]

You guys better watch this doc about being over a barrel on oil. It will open your eyes.
No Canadian tankers goin by Haida Gwai but around 278 american tankers, from Alaska to the lower 48
goin right past it every year to the states.

Something is truly FUCKED UP here and this DIPSHIT you folks, whoever you are, that voted for True blow, knows the answer to this mystery.

A massive congratulations to the folks of Alberta and Saskatchewan who cleaned their
slate of Liberals from their land. Way to go you guys. The only SMART voters in the entire land.
I thought Canada was doomed but there is a glimmer of hope for people with brains in this country
of who not to vote for. :yo::thumb:

I'll take the competence of the two thirds of Canadians that voted in favour of evidence based policy then the less educated sheep that voted Conservative. Amazingly the Conservatives positioned themselves so fringe and isolationist that they couldn't win seats in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal and still somehow expected to win government. Too bad they struggle with both math and science.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Why are we not refining that black gold ourselves and keep more job on this side of the border instead of shipping not only the raw product but the jobs that could come with it ??? Rhetorical question ...we all know the answers

Exactly. Rabid environmentalists would never allow it to even be discussed, let alone built. It's the same argument about oil extraction under strict laws, regulations and monitoring, versus ignoring how oil is produced and distributed all over the rest of the world.

 

[licks2nite]

I see, and the transnational corporations are going to allow a Federal Government of any stripe to tear up so-called "free trade" agreements?

Jason Kenny on radio news Tuesday after the election says that Albertans have lost homes while paying $20 billion to the federal government. Canadian Constitution is virtually verbatim copy of a UK document, the British North America Act, created at the time of Canadian confederation over 150 years ago. I've read the Canadian Constitution, not recently and I wasn't specifically looking for the part where residual powers go to the Canadian federal government. Unlike the U.S. Constitution where residual powers go to the State. For Canada that has meant, unknown to the whole world when the British North American Act was written, that crude oil as a residual discovery in Canada is the purview of the Canadian federal government. The National Energy Policy of Pierre Elliot Trudeau and signed onto by an Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, testifies to that assumption.

So then Alberta, as virtually the sole source or the principal source of resource revenue in Canada, watches as $20 billion or more produced in Alberta is divided up amongst 10 provinces and 3 territories as well as foreign aid packages that includes military and diplomatic spending both in Canada and overseas and ex-patriots of any number of nations sending money out of Canada. Meanwhile, descendants of ex-patriot Americans who came to Alberta for the oil and got some of the best paying jobs in Canada, are now loosing homes. That's another testimony that an undiversified resource based economy has to fall on hard times when customers quit buying. Can't stress how important a diversified economy and an export manufacturing sector is for Canada.

The implications are far reaching. How many gun toting youths in Surrey BC do you suppose join gangs and a life of crime knowing that an alternative is homelessness, sleeping shivering in the rain at best in a business doorway or bus shelter or bank foyer with the ATM machines? How many home owners will get their mortgage payments reduced to a life time of debt? How many youths drop out of sedentary school classes knowing that the available jobs really require nothing more than grade school. How much money do you want to spend in your shaky resource based economy on upgraded roads, bridges and tunnels for commuters to travel further to work for cheaper rent and real estate furnished with imports that don't provide jobs for the Canadian economy ? How much more do you want to spend on a car or truck, that doesn't provide any jobs for your economy beyond shipping clerks, to go that extra distance on a frequent bases? And on fuel and replacement parts that weren't produced in your economy either? Products produced where the oligarchs got rich off marginalized labour. Oligarchs that polluted an overseas environment for you that affects the whole world, that you didn't want to perform with your own environmental standards and came to price you out of your own home and heritage.

 

[overdone]

The Tories only won the popular vote because they won by Enver Hoxha margins in many Prairie ridings.

lol, the West combined doesn't even have the population of Ont

haha, so try again, we couldn't out vote Ont-east if we wanted to

This #wexit thing is immature.

Albertans don't want to seperate, it's a fringe amount of simpletons

it's as realistic as Que separating

Wawawa! The electorate voted yesterday and two thirds of Canadians voted for a carbon tax. Quebec doesn't want a pipeline. Canadian's aren't interested in Conservative austerity. Alberta and Saskatchewan voted themselves into isolation. The Conservatives promoted division and lies and Canada didn't buy it.

Scheer couldn't even resist lying in defeat claiming a million more people voted for the Conservative Party than ever before (the real number is 300,000). More people voted Conservative in Alberta and Saskatchewan than in Quebec, Atlantic Canada and the North combined.

Overdone, stop being a sore loser. The Conservatives lost and without a leadership change and a change in direction your party won't be able to expand beyond their regional base and will lose again.

Another thread cynically asked 'How could Trudeau win the election?" - he just did. Get use to our Prime Minister because there won't be another election anytime soon.

that's a political line, you could say the same thing is opposite

afterall, you have Ont-west to AB along with New Brunswick who voted in Provincial gov'ts all opposed to Trudeau's Carbon tax

he didn't win the election, he didn't get the majority, that's not a win, anymore than the NDP losing seats is

Canada didn't win either, as long as he is leader of the Liberals, we all lose

can't believe I'm saying this, but he is worse than his Father, for our Country, far worse

any other Liberal would be a step up

Why are we not refining that black gold ourselves and keep more job on this side of the border instead of shipping not only the raw product but the jobs that could come with it ??? Rhetorical question ...we all know the answers

we don't have the pipelines to ship those refined products even if we did have the capacity to do it here

Well, I'll say this: of all the proposed pipelines, this was the only one that might have actually been in the national interest (TMX really isn't). If Kenney were wise, he should go sweet talk Quebec, and see if he can use a positive approach to convince them, rather than negativity and threats. Perhaps cut a deal where the Cons pledge to support bill 21 and carbon pricing in exchange for Energy East.

But instead, he is too much of a rabid partisan. He rails against Quebec and Quebecers, and attacks the idea of any environmental action whatsoever. Does it work? Clearly from this election result, NO.

The fact that Scheer still could not defeat scandal-plagued Trudeau should tell the Tories something about how much their current policy approach is a failure.

you haven't paid enough attention to Kenney, he's a ultimate politician

he's only partisan until he thinks it won't be what wins, he's nothing but a politician

you really think he isn't thinking PM eventually, he'll do anything to win, even compromising

he's more talk than action

in otherwords, a true politician

I'll take the competence of the two thirds of Canadians that voted in favour of evidence based policy then the less educated sheep that voted Conservative. Amazingly the Conservatives positioned themselves so fringe and isolationist that they couldn't win seats in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal and still somehow expected to win government. Too bad they struggle with both math and science.

evidence? really?

like the fact that oil consumption went up by 1.3% last yr?

that BC's carbon tax isn't reducing emissions?

the Provinces own numbers confirm that, last 7yrs, 5 of those have seen increases, BC has had a carbon tax for a decade, if it was going to work, it would have already
once the small little LNG plant is built, it will be completely blown out of the water, emissions reductions



that green energy isn't a major factor in the world?

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-dat...sis/energy-facts/renewable-energy-facts/20069

yeah, math is hard

Canada's emissions aren't going down

and no one with any cred thinks they will with Trudeau's plan

not without bankrupting us

and even if we did

based on Math, Science, it won't make a bit of difference

while INDIA, CHINA, RUSSIA, KEEP SPEWING EMISSIONS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE

WHICH THEY'VE SAID THEY WILL KEEP DOING UNTIL, AT LEAST CHINA AND INDIA, UNTIL THEY ARE AS RICH AS THE WEST

reducing our emissions, sure, where it makes sense

but a carbon tax is just the lazy, superficial way to do it for politicians

Turdeau has exempted all the major emitters, where the meat is

why? cause he knows it will crater our economy

so instead he goes after the low hanging fruit, you and me

and not even at a rate that could change behaviour

it would need to be 3-5 times the max he's proposed, maybe more

which again, anyone with cred has said

which won't happen, cause he'd lose support

facts, yeah, who needs em layball:

 

[nightswhisper]

lol,

that green energy isn't a major factor in the world?

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-dat...sis/energy-facts/renewable-energy-facts/20069

yeah, math is hard

Canada's emissions aren't going down

and no one with any cred thinks they will with Trudeau's plan

not without bankrupting us

and even if we did

based on Math, Science, it won't make a bit of difference

while INDIA, CHINA, RUSSIA, KEEP SPEWING EMISSIONS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE

WHICH THEY'VE SAID THEY WILL KEEP DOING UNTIL, AT LEAST CHINA AND INDIA, UNTIL THEY ARE AS RICH AS THE WEST

reducing our emissions, sure, where it makes sense

but a carbon tax is just the lazy, superficial way to do it for politicians

Turdeau has exempted all the major emitters, where the meat is

why? cause he knows it will crater our economy

so instead he goes after the low hanging fruit, you and me

and not even at a rate that could change behaviour

it would need to be 3-5 times the max he's proposed, maybe more

which again, anyone with cred has said

which won't happen, cause he'd lose support

facts, yeah, who needs em layball:

You should also look into Washington state's fuel sales. Since the taxes we slapped on fuel, their fuel sales have skyrocketed, especially in the bordertowns like Bellingham and Point Roberts.

Fuel tax is creating a massive outflow of capital in BC. But no one talks about it because it's the ultimate admission of guilt.

 

[marsvolta]

Exactly. Rabid environmentalists would never allow it to even be discussed, let alone built. It's the same argument about oil extraction under strict laws, regulations and monitoring, versus ignoring how oil is produced and distributed all over the rest of the world.

come on! this is exactly what oil companies want you to say. the problem is that BIG OIL has an agenda and its not necessarily the best agenda for Canada. Alberta should be doing what refinement we can here and create energy sector jobs. Alberta should be meeting the rest of Canada half way on environment issues because green is happening and its not getting stopped because profits and cost savings and growth are happening in the green energy sector. and most of all Alberta should finally start to diversify its economy. and what really is the current economic value to subjecting to BIG OIL wants at the moment? is that really going to offset $50/barrel of oil? not likely.

BIG OIL has had such a tight grip on Alberta for so long and its always the same story, BIG OIL wants to dig it up and ship it out. period. its non negotiable. and they've done everything they can, like they do all over the world, to distort economies and politics to squeeze every cent for foreign corporate profits.

 

[rlock]

Exactly. Rabid environmentalists would never allow it to even be discussed, let alone built. It's the same argument about oil extraction under strict laws, regulations and monitoring, versus ignoring how oil is produced and distributed all over the rest of the world.

Elizabeth May actually did discuss it, and her plan was that Canadian domestic oil should be what supplies Canada's domestic needs as we wind down carbon fuel usage. And yes, Canadian refineries were part of that.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5320262/green-party-alberta-foreign-oil/

 

[rlock]

Jason Kenny on radio news Tuesday after the election says that Albertans have lost homes while paying $20 billion to the federal government. Canadian Constitution is virtually verbatim copy of a UK document, the British North America Act, created at the time of Canadian confederation over 150 years ago. I've read the Canadian Constitution, not recently and I wasn't specifically looking for the part where residual powers go to the Canadian federal government. Unlike the U.S. Constitution where residual powers go to the State. For Canada that has meant, unknown to the whole world when the British North American Act was written, that crude oil as a residual discovery in Canada is the purview of the Canadian federal government.

True, although it should be pointed out that the UK was never a federal system, while Canada was since confederation.

I much prefer our federal system to the US one. They have a different criminal code for each state, plus a lot more state power to gerrymander and set different voting rules even in what are supposed to be national contests.

 

[80watts]

Took some time to watch the video. It was interesting. With enough public support the Great Bear Rain-forest area can be reduced in size for economic reasons. There will always be outside influence, we just have to stop and ask who is supplying the kool-aid.

Funny thing, facts are boring and don't sell news.

Its funny though too, that government agencies/departments tell their workers to keep their mouth shut during election time, so as not to influence the election. Maybe the Supreme Court of Canada could do the same thing.

To get a law through years ago a company had to bribe the leaders of the majority government, today all you have to do is buy the 7 of the 12 judges sitting on the supreme court...If you don't like the law, take it to court. And he with the most money can buy his law through the courts....

 

[80watts]

I think it was Teddy Roosevelt that made the national parks to prevent modern (1920s ) industrialist from raping the land in the US. Trump reversed some of that.

I like the idea of conservation, leaving the land for future generations. Laws made to ensure that the land is kept intact and pristine after economic mining. With out the technology we have today, we would be stripping away the eco system to the point where it could no longer support humans. Look at historical Easter Island, and the culture of the Polynesians who had strict environmental/cultural laws that governed their people, before modern times.

The problem is that the environmental forces have forced the economy (oil in Alberta case) to be limited to inland Canada. If so then Albertans should think outside the box and say, what can we do? Cut off the oil to outside Canada, produce plastics and petroleum products to meet Canadian needs. Export the finished product. An automated plastic factory producing polyethlene, acrylic, lexan, pvc,pva, nylon etc. Alberta does have a heavy industry for the oilfields and that can be expanded. On the coast Canada can get back into shipbuilding, build our own ships for trade. Make our citizens register their ships under Canadian law or they can't dock here in Canada ( the US has this law and its what keeps its shipbuilding up). We allow foreign ships to go into the Great Lakes

If you are looking for steel, northern Ontario...

Across Canada in WW2 shipbuilding factories to make corvettes (heavy industry) included Saint John NB, Quebec City, Lauzon QC, Sorel QC, Montreal, Kingston ON, Collingwood ON. Port Arthur (Thunder Bay) ON, North Vancouver, Victoria, Esquimalt BC, Midland On.
Lauzon, Saint John, and north vancouver exist today. Victoria, Esquimalt and Thunder Bay don't exist anymore, not sure about the other ones.

About 20 years ago I saw that some industries started a "no hold material" on shelves policy to save on money. So off the shelf parts were no longer there. Now you have to wait for parts to come in or preorder before working on things.

 

[MB Mod]

I think it was Teddy Roosevelt that made the national parks to prevent modern (1920s ) industrialist from raping the land in the US. Trump reversed some of that.

I like the idea of conservation, leaving the land for future generations. Laws made to ensure that the land is kept intact and pristine after economic mining. With out the technology we have today, we would be stripping away the eco system to the point where it could no longer support humans. Look at historical Easter Island, and the culture of the Polynesians who had strict environmental/cultural laws that governed their people, before modern times.

The problem is that the environmental forces have forced the economy (oil in Alberta case) to be limited to inland Canada. If so then Albertans should think outside the box and say, what can we do? Cut off the oil to outside Canada, produce plastics and petroleum products to meet Canadian needs. Export the finished product. An automated plastic factory producing polyethlene, acrylic, lexan, pvc,pva, nylon etc. Alberta does have a heavy industry for the oilfields and that can be expanded. On the coast Canada can get back into shipbuilding, build our own ships for trade. Make our citizens register their ships under Canadian law or they can't dock here in Canada ( the US has this law and its what keeps its shipbuilding up). We allow foreign ships to go into the Great Lakes

If you are looking for steel, northern Ontario...

Across Canada in WW2 shipbuilding factories to make corvettes (heavy industry) included Saint John NB, Quebec City, Lauzon QC, Sorel QC, Montreal, Kingston ON, Collingwood ON. Port Arthur (Thunder Bay) ON, North Vancouver, Victoria, Esquimalt BC, Midland On.
Lauzon, Saint John, and north vancouver exist today. Victoria, Esquimalt and Thunder Bay don't exist anymore, not sure about the other ones.

About 20 years ago I saw that some industries started a "no hold material" on shelves policy to save on money. So off the shelf parts were no longer there. Now you have to wait for parts to come in or preorder before working on things.

Colingwood shut down in the 80’s the shipyard is condominiums for yuppies now.

 

[testicles]

A good article detailing where and how the Tories lost.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elec...s-lost/ar-AAJqb1l?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

Among the 60 electoral districts with the highest population density in Canada, the Conservative won a grand total of zero of them (Liberals 50, NDP 8, BQ 1, IND 1).

 

[CanineCowboy]

A good article detailing where and how the Tories lost.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elec...s-lost/ar-AAJqb1l?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

Absolutely! No socially progressive urban financier who picks up their morning coffee from an independent roaster can identify with socially repressed Andrew 'Timbit' Scheer's politics.

 

[licks2nite]

In the view of MMT [Modern Monetary Theory] advocates, a blindingly obvious source of funding is already available: the federal government can issue however much new currency it wants, and so the government could fund large-scale socially useful projects if the political will to do so was present.

In the current model, the federal government sells Treasury bonds and uses the proceeds to fund government spending. The Treasury pays interest on the bonds, and this mechanism — interest due on borrowed money — creates a “governor” on spending: as borrowing rises, so do interest payments, and as interest payments rise, this crimps other government spending.

The other mechanism in the current model is the central bank can create currency out of thin air and buy Treasury bonds. This is a form of monetary stimulus, i.e. a way to inject new money into the financial system.

The basic idea of MMT bypasses both paying interest on newly issued money and the artifice of central bank monetization: instead, the Treasury issues new currency directly.

This removes the “governor” of interest payments, freeing the Treasury to issue cost-free currency in virtually unlimited quantities.

Various historical studies have concluded that hyperinflation does not occur when governments must pay interest on their debt; the danger with rising interest and debt is default, not hyperinflation.

MMT advocates claim that since MMT generates goods and services, it won’t generate inflation. But rebuilding a bridge doesn’t actually create any new goods and services, or increase productivity: it generates wages and consumes materials and energy. Since it doesn’t generate more consumable goods and services, the expansion of wages and demand for materials will drive prices higher.

Much of the spending people want — repairing bridges, supplanting natural gas electrical generation with solar or wind, and so on — are not necessarily increasing productivity: the repaired bridge carries the same number of vehicles as it did before, so there is no increase in productivity.

In other words, efficiency and productivity are core dynamics, yet the MMT process is fundamentally political, and politics has little interest in efficiency or productivity. It is, as noted above, politically expedient, with a default setting to put off tough decisions into the future.

This is a fatal flaw in MMT. Relying on politicians to impose limits on their own desire to win re-election is to deny human nature.

In the private sector, return on capital and the productivity of labor and processes are the core dynamics. These rationalize decisions to prioritize efficient use of capital, labor and resources. Absent this rationalization, resources can be squandered for politically expedient reasons. In other words, capital, resources and labor can be mal-invested, which brings up the opportunity cost: all the capital, labor and resources squandered on “bridges to nowhere” and other pork-barrel projects are no longer available for truly productive use.



Complete article:
Could Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Actually Save Us?
Friday, October 25, 2019
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith, PeakProsperity.com
https://www.peakprosperity.com/could-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-actually-save-us/

 

[storm rider]

In the view of MMT [Modern Monetary Theory] advocates, a blindingly obvious source of funding is already available: the federal government can issue however much new currency it wants, and so the government could fund large-scale socially useful projects if the political will to do so was present.

In the current model, the federal government sells Treasury bonds and uses the proceeds to fund government spending. The Treasury pays interest on the bonds, and this mechanism — interest due on borrowed money — creates a “governor” on spending: as borrowing rises, so do interest payments, and as interest payments rise, this crimps other government spending.

The other mechanism in the current model is the central bank can create currency out of thin air and buy Treasury bonds. This is a form of monetary stimulus, i.e. a way to inject new money into the financial system.

The basic idea of MMT bypasses both paying interest on newly issued money and the artifice of central bank monetization: instead, the Treasury issues new currency directly.

This removes the “governor” of interest payments, freeing the Treasury to issue cost-free currency in virtually unlimited quantities.

Various historical studies have concluded that hyperinflation does not occur when governments must pay interest on their debt; the danger with rising interest and debt is default, not hyperinflation.

MMT advocates claim that since MMT generates goods and services, it won’t generate inflation. But rebuilding a bridge doesn’t actually create any new goods and services, or increase productivity: it generates wages and consumes materials and energy. Since it doesn’t generate more consumable goods and services, the expansion of wages and demand for materials will drive prices higher.

Much of the spending people want — repairing bridges, supplanting natural gas electrical generation with solar or wind, and so on — are not necessarily increasing productivity: the repaired bridge carries the same number of vehicles as it did before, so there is no increase in productivity.

In other words, efficiency and productivity are core dynamics, yet the MMT process is fundamentally political, and politics has little interest in efficiency or productivity. It is, as noted above, politically expedient, with a default setting to put off tough decisions into the future.

This is a fatal flaw in MMT. Relying on politicians to impose limits on their own desire to win re-election is to deny human nature.

In the private sector, return on capital and the productivity of labor and processes are the core dynamics. These rationalize decisions to prioritize efficient use of capital, labor and resources. Absent this rationalization, resources can be squandered for politically expedient reasons. In other words, capital, resources and labor can be mal-invested, which brings up the opportunity cost: all the capital, labor and resources squandered on “bridges to nowhere” and other pork-barrel projects are no longer available for truly productive use.



Complete article:
Could Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Actually Save Us?
Friday, October 25, 2019
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith, PeakProsperity.com
https://www.peakprosperity.com/could-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-actually-save-us/

What you speak of is the system in place in the USA as controlled by the Federal Reserve.Canada does not have the same system though it is close to it.

When it comes down to brass tacks the USA is on a collision course to "Destination Fucked" and truth be told Canada under Trudeau is next in line.I have no intention of even thinking of retiring in Canada as it would just be too expensive not to mention miserable in general.

SR

 

[JimDandy]

I have no intention of even thinking of retiring in Canada as it would just be too expensive not to mention miserable in general.

SR

Those of us here on Perb will definitely miss you when you have moved to Bolivia. When are you retiring btw?

JD

 

[storm rider]

Those of us here on Perb will definitely miss you when you have moved to Bolivia. When are you retiring btw?

JD

I have no intention to retire to Bolivia or for that matter in any Latin country.Why you care about where I retire to seems kind of strange.....why would you have any concern about it?And more importantly why would you selectively cherry pick a single sentence from my entire statement?

You obviously have an AXE to grind.Dont GRIND it on me!

SR