firehawk12
Subete no aware
Hah, yeah, they can't even blame it on "Activist Liberal judges" now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
gutter_trash
Banned
Harper has done a bang up job veering the political barometer more towards the Right forcing Liberals to cross the Right-of-Center line.
I blame suburban Ontarians who voted Conservative and Mike Harris and who will probably vote for Hudak. Harper's win in 2011 was Ontario's fault
But the Liberals have always been a big tent party with left and right wings.
gutter_trash
Banned
The party, yeah. But to win elections, there is not much choice
ProfessorMoran
Member
Will never vote liberals, too corrupt at every level from Peterson to Chretien to McGuinty, and NDP is just toxic for the economy. Bloc is always going to fail for the fact that sovereignty does not make sense even for Quebecers.
All three parties have moved their centers substantially to the right in the last 3 decades on fiscal policy. Left and right wing don't mean what they used to anymore. Even the NDP campaign on balancing budgets over the welfare state.
ProfessorMoran
Member
You would trust the Ontario liberals to plan your pension over yourself? The same government that has squandered billions to take more money out of every single one of your paycheques before you even get a hold of it to pay rent, buy food and gas?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
This is what the left means when they say that neoliberalism has become the dominant political rationality.
It does seem like there is only one ideology in Canadian politics, liberalism. Of course there are different interpretations of this, ranging from neoliberalism all the way to social liberalism. Especially now that the NDP seems to have moved towards the centre.
This is in sharp contrast to Europe where they seem to have a greater variety of political ideologies and parties, what with fascist parties and socialist parties and the lot.
If we're speaking to fiscal policy, then yes every single political movement shifted post-Thatcher but I don't think that's necessarily a right-left thing. Fiscal responsibility with respect to deficit and debt is a legitimate concern, given the state of some world economies in the late 80s and early 90s.
That Thatcher-esque shift is what caused the problems in the first place.
I'm not so sure. Controlling currency is one thing, but printing money and taking on debt to service existing debts while the economy is suffering is asking for trouble. I mean, Canada was at risk of having their rating downgraded during the early 90s (possibly earlier too?) if they didn't get their finances in check.
I used to be in the print/borrow money camp until I realized that it only works if economic growth is guaranteed. Otherwise, stagflation happens and you're in a worse-off situation than before.
gutter_trash
Banned
LOL Federal Conservatives piling on Wynne. Harris Boys club in Ottawa are at it.
When it was Quebec's provincial election, Harper told his troops to stay mum and not interfere (for obvious reasons of having an opposite effect)
But for Ontario, there is no separatist threat so it is okay for Federal Conservatives to weigh in on Ontario's provincial election race.. LOL
When it was Quebec's provincial election, Harper told his troops to stay mum and not interfere (for obvious reasons of having an opposite effect)
But for Ontario, there is no separatist threat so it is okay for Federal Conservatives to weigh in on Ontario's provincial election race.. LOL
At this point I don't think it's about printing money. It's about making the current wealth of the nation flow. Rich people/corporations are just sitting on it an if they're not going to use it then the government should tax it and use it. God knows there are enough infrastructure deficiencies and repair backlogs that we need addressed. Hell everytime good public transit is built land value shoots up next to it so the private sector should be encouraging it.
Yes, I would agree with this too.
All in all, there were massive problems in how the bulk of the bailout (asset swaps and loan guarantees) were carried out, simply because the money didn't flow to the greater economy. There were a handful of infrastructure projects around -- I saw lots in Alberta -- but truth be told most of these projects were so tiny and inconsequential that I didn't even see the point.
The money should've been focused and targeted with firm objectives instead of saying 'Infrastructure projects, go!'
Harper didn't believe in it and it showed. He was pushed to do it against all of his conservative instincts. Hell they wouldn't let Toronto use that money to fast track transit plans. I believe Toronto resorted to fixing up Steeles with the money they were allocated. (Much needed sure, but still). All the projects had to be short term.
So CBC has their vote compass thing for the Ontario election up.
http://www.cbc.ca/elections/ontariovotes2014/votecompass
http://www.cbc.ca/elections/ontariovotes2014/votecompass
IIRC Flaherty has been getting pissed about this for a while.
edit: a lack of cash reserves is in part as to why corporations needed bailing out- maintaining strong war chests is a good measure if the economy were to tank.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I don't get why corporations should be encouraged to save when consumers are supposedly encouraged to spend when trying to stimulate economies.
Apparently I should be voting Green, though I am, according to the compass more socially liberal/economically left than even they are.
Let's be clear here, Raeganism policy is the print/borrow money policy. Before them the expected way to balance a budget was to match taxes to spending and use a much more heavily scaled form of progressive taxation (in 1960 in the US the top marginal rate was 90%). While the budgets were rarely balanced even so, there had *never* been anything like the kinds of deficits run in the 80s and 90s by neoliberal policy outside of wartime. I don't think even the New Deal compared.
There's no doubt there are problems with the dominant form of Keynesian policy that was enacted in the 70s, but austerity has been a complete disaster in terms of its impact on the opportunities an average person has. It's been great for pure productivity growth, but most of the benefit of that has been seen by the most wealthy, with the trickle down mostly consisting of the fact that automation and globalization (both basically forms of cheap exported labour) has made the cost of just barely subsisting much cheaper. Which leads to the irony of fewer people being under the poverty line but the the most wealthy being further ahead of everyone else than they've been in a century.
And now, because of the slashing of social program budgets done by both dominant streams of political thought, the cost of getting an education (one of the most important preconditions for breaking down economic walls) has absolutely ballooned, even in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/university-tuition-rising-to-record-levels-in-canada-1.1699103). The long term effects of this will definitely be less movement between economic strata.
And all the parties we can currently vote for are, mostly or completely, in favour of this.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Given the increasing numbers of commuters it's a good idea to get those roads fixed rather than put more money in transit, as least it is coming from my view as a commuter. The city just isn't evenly dense enough for this to work, suburban living makes driving a necessity.
The Bank of Canada has been encouraging people to save.
Fixing roads isn't going to help congestion. It'll just make it a smoother experience to be stuck in traffic. Busways, and light rail in less dense areas and a relief line for the subway will on the other hand.
That will never fly with people who need to justify their SUV for their commute into the city
ProfessorMoran
Member
Fixing roads is going to get rid of those potholes so people's cars don't get fucked up, having light rail isn't going to help in the suburbs where a lot of people are moving, because it's not like the Scarborough lrt where there's density and condos are there in significant numbers, north of Steeles and east of mccowan basically there's no real benefit to a light rail or a subway extension, there's still a continuous migration out of the city into areas like Brooklyn, Ajax and northern suburbs like innisfil and new market, people still like to live in houses. The city on the whole isn't filling up with condos fast enough, it would work if we're looking at a super dense city like hong Kong. As a driver I don't really give a shit about building another subway line, I certainly don't want to pay for it, I would like to see another east-west expressway though, if I want to go anywhere I'll drive there, in a hybrid if I have to.
If people from Ajax, Pickering, and Whitby and Scarborough get to work on transit then that gives more space for people from Brooklyn to drive in. It's really good for everyone. Nit to mention the economic benefit from increasing productivity by reducing congestion. Plus busways are a great option for lower density suburbs like Mississauga and Beampton that would help drivers from places like Milton.
And really I don't understand the hate for paying for infrastructure in other areas. By that logic why should people from Toronto pay for potholes to be fixed in Barrie?
And really I don't understand the hate for paying for infrastructure in other areas. By that logic why should people from Toronto pay for potholes to be fixed in Barrie?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
So literally "fuck you, I've got mine" is your approach to transit issues?
ProfessorMoran
Member
It's not really a "fuck you". Everybody have different priorities, it's not like I have anything against people who don't drive but fixing potholes and a new expressway would certainly make the lives of people like myself a little easier (I commute from the city to the suburbs), you can't expect other people to simply prioritize something that doesn't have an immediate impact over something that would address their immediate needs.
Greater investment in public transit doesn't mean you can't work on improving the roads as well. More public transit would be good for the roads too as it would lead to less congestion and wear and tear.
ProfessorMoran
Member
They can take the go train, which they already do, I would like to see better roads coming in from the east.
ProfessorMoran
Member
That's great and all but there's only so much tax revenue and better roads would benefit commuters like myself more, also don't want tax to go up anymore, tax+CPP is already quite brutal on my payroll. That said everybody is free to vote for what's best for themselves. Like I said everybody's priorities are different, sometimes people can agree to disagree. My wife uses public transit and she's certainly free to vote for what she thinks would work for her.
equippedwithtowel
Member
Go train only works for people who live near go train stations in the burbs and work in the downtown core. Everyone else has shit options. And how would better roads help if they feed into the daily traffic jam as soon as you get anywhere close to the city?
ProfessorMoran
Member
Would you argue for better roads for people like me over your transit plans?
Good transit plans make roads less congested for drivers.
ProfessorMoran
Member
They can drive, and if they live in the burbs they probably do. I don't work in the downtown core and taking transit doesn't really work for me.
ProfessorMoran
Member
More highways would be better for drivers though...
Which is why we have the worst congestion in North America. Busways and light rail will reduce the need for cars without needing core level density.
There is no space for more highways in the GTA.
equippedwithtowel
Member
I would argue for a development plan that is an efficient allocation of resources both in terms general utility and other considerations like environmental impact.
So yeah, 99% of the time more mass transit.
I've been thinking recently that we should move to a 4 day work week, with that extra day off spread out such that about a fifth of people would be off each day of the work week. (This would have to be organized municipally by a committee of city councillors and major employers, or something along those lines). It would reduce congestion for everyone and reduce pollution by getting rid of a fifth of everyone's commutes. And you'd have a 4 day work week!
ProfessorMoran
Member
They can probably put one north of 16, just need a wider east-west highway to take some traffic off of 7. A lot of people like to drive.
ProfessorMoran
Member
You can argue for that for sure but it doesn't mean other people are obligated to support the idea, they have their own priorities.
More roads don't lead to less congestion, they just lead to more people driving more often. There have been a bunch of studies on this, and I'm not sure that any done in the last 50 years have come back saying that adding roads does anything but temporarily relief congestion. Roads always reach an equilibrium of significant congestion because people who drive, and are being subsidized to drive by the road building, are willing to put up with a significant amount of congestion before they'll switch to public transit.
Building more roads is just chasing a utopia that will never exist. There are two ways to decrease congestion: toll roads and a functional public transit system. Nothing else is known to work.
Which is why you, as a driver, should be in favour of public transit. Because the alternative is paying a toll every morning when you go to work.
ProfessorMoran
Member
I don't think we should even try to chase any kind of utopia, public transit or otherwise, roads need fixing after this brutal winter, I don't mind if my taxes goes to improving the highways. Right now my commute isn't too bad even without using the 407.
gutter_trash
Banned
Toronto's subway is a disgrace to Canada. How can TO call itself's Canada's city when it has a substandard public transit system? The subway lines are nothing but a meaker V shape.
Traffic and congestion will keep get worse in TO
Traffic and congestion will keep get worse in TO
ProfessorMoran
Member
Have you even seen the piece of shit subway system in Vancouver? Toronto has the best subway system in Canada by far.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I remember during the "crisis" that the Bank of England was trying to get people to spend. And hell, Canada took forever to get rid of what were essentially super low interest mortgages. Economists are silly.
I'd love a London-esque tax on drivers in Toronto - then put all that money back into the TTC. But given how super conservative the suburbs are, that'll never happen. Ford more years and all that.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Super low interest mortgages are still rampant, this 2.99% 5 yr fixed rate mortgages are still available, if interest rates go up, lots of people are going to feel the pain, many people are over-leveraged, rates won't go up until we see rising inflation.I remember during the "crisis" that the Bank of England was trying to get people to spend. And hell, Canada took forever to get rid of what were essentially super low interest mortgages. Economists are silly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked