Another superb report. How do you research and articulately report so much information, so rapidly after such misleading comments like those of Harper??
I used to teach about the GFC as a lecturer and I volunteered in communications during the 2008 election while working on policy. So I some of the information was to hand. I have lots of old essays, articles, unpublished manuscripts, a college course in government business relations and everything I did over five years of being elected. Gives me lots to work with.
Harper stands in a long line of deceitful reformer/conservatives along with their current actor PeePee. These power-seeking people rely on the public’s stupidity and lack of memory to spin disinformation and outright lies. Wake up my fellow citizens and seek the truth. Denounce those who wish to divide us.
Thanks for more insight into history. Economics is really not well understood. Your articles help to enlighten - and explain the theories. It is especially important to understand the different roles the Bank of Canada holds versus the political role of Minister of Finance.
To be fair to all involved, Jim Flaherty was finance minister during the 2008 financial crisis.
While we should certainly damn those in charge for the mistakes they made, and while you do that acceptably well, we must also acknowledge that Flaherty was in charge of the portfolio, not Carney.
So Carney should fairly receive both blame for the mistakes and credit for the successes. Anything else is simply petty partisanship.
The headline in your story reads "Stephen Harper's Revisionist History of the Great Financial Crisis in Canada."
The subhead reads, "The Conservative Prime Minister wants to credit his own Finance Minister for "saving" the Canadian Economy, not Mark Carney. He shouldn't."
I was reacting to the headline and the subhead of the piece. I accept that the actual post doesn't say much about Carney.
"After the 2008 financial meltdown, Greenspan testified before congress and basically said that the world didn’t work the way he thought he did: “I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”
A key realisation that I recall dismayed him at the time. But then he seemed to forget again.
The perennial request: explain the most complex financial crisis in history with the headline "you won't believe these three facts about Alan Greenspan's decision making during the Great Financial Crisis." Friend, you have an ideological tickle in your bonnet. That's fine. But this article is one of the most succinct and clear histories of that time period I've ever read. Doesn't seem to be much good faith in your comments if you're asking for Dougald to recommend a book, but you want a summary of what he has just written here becasue a book is too long. ChatGPT is probably your friend.
He was making excuses, because a Canadian economist, William White, who was an economic advisor to the Bank for International Settlements, started warning him to his face that he faced a crisis in 2003.
What? Gov interference? You mean a regulation or an action of some kind? So you don’t see any connection between lax regulation and the crisis? That bizarre statement needs much more explanation please because you’re out to lunch.
Lots of great ideas. Some parallels with Steve Keen. But it’s too long for most I’m sure. Even policy geeks like me get tired. Have you read Slow Down? The last writings of Marx were better and of course, agriculture focused. Marx reversed himself.
Consider writing about one topic focused in with lots of editing and please consider housing. Of course I should be paying by now….The recent history of Canadian housing prices and if they really are an asset bubble. Jacky Kuk makes a good case that there’s not so much of that, and if we should consider a Singapore model like a CPP.
Why don’t you recommend a book? And make sure it’s an actual book not just think tank propaganda. Here’s one for you, have you read Ultra Processed People by Chris Van Tullien? It’s a great example of how capitalism works and you should read it for your health anyways so it accomplishes two things for you!
These aren't socialistic rules and values. It's about the rule of law and enforcement of regulations against ripping people off - stealing and swindling and fraud, which I detailed in this article.
What you don't understand is that I am a small l- liberal who recognizes that in order to preserve freedom of the individual, you have to protect people against the incursions from the private sector as well as the state. Government exists to write and enforce the law, not run the economy, and it needs to be powerful enough to break up monopolies and enforce the law against everyone.
Are you a Conservative or a Libertarian? Becasue I have sat in right wing policy forums where both are in the room and that is some nasty cat fighting that goes on between them. If push came to shove, which side would you choose?
Another superb report. How do you research and articulately report so much information, so rapidly after such misleading comments like those of Harper??
Well done!!
I used to teach about the GFC as a lecturer and I volunteered in communications during the 2008 election while working on policy. So I some of the information was to hand. I have lots of old essays, articles, unpublished manuscripts, a college course in government business relations and everything I did over five years of being elected. Gives me lots to work with.
It's much appreciated. I find myself sharing everything you write. Timely and important and gives me lots of rabbit holes to travel down. THANK YOU.
Harper….. He's the guy that sold the Canadian Wheat Board along with all its assets to a Saudi oil billionaire for one (1) dollar.
Dougald, thank you for this piece. I will be re-reading it and sharing with friends. I especially enjoyed:
“If money had intrinsic value, other species would compete with us for it. They don’t. We don’t have money-eating bacteria.”
Harper stands in a long line of deceitful reformer/conservatives along with their current actor PeePee. These power-seeking people rely on the public’s stupidity and lack of memory to spin disinformation and outright lies. Wake up my fellow citizens and seek the truth. Denounce those who wish to divide us.
Thanks for more insight into history. Economics is really not well understood. Your articles help to enlighten - and explain the theories. It is especially important to understand the different roles the Bank of Canada holds versus the political role of Minister of Finance.
Important topic though ... the world runs on $$.
To be fair to all involved, Jim Flaherty was finance minister during the 2008 financial crisis.
While we should certainly damn those in charge for the mistakes they made, and while you do that acceptably well, we must also acknowledge that Flaherty was in charge of the portfolio, not Carney.
So Carney should fairly receive both blame for the mistakes and credit for the successes. Anything else is simply petty partisanship.
The bank of Canada is independent of political influence and the two have completely different roles.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
The headline in your story reads "Stephen Harper's Revisionist History of the Great Financial Crisis in Canada."
The subhead reads, "The Conservative Prime Minister wants to credit his own Finance Minister for "saving" the Canadian Economy, not Mark Carney. He shouldn't."
I was reacting to the headline and the subhead of the piece. I accept that the actual post doesn't say much about Carney.
"After the 2008 financial meltdown, Greenspan testified before congress and basically said that the world didn’t work the way he thought he did: “I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”
A key realisation that I recall dismayed him at the time. But then he seemed to forget again.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The perennial request: explain the most complex financial crisis in history with the headline "you won't believe these three facts about Alan Greenspan's decision making during the Great Financial Crisis." Friend, you have an ideological tickle in your bonnet. That's fine. But this article is one of the most succinct and clear histories of that time period I've ever read. Doesn't seem to be much good faith in your comments if you're asking for Dougald to recommend a book, but you want a summary of what he has just written here becasue a book is too long. ChatGPT is probably your friend.
Thank you.
He was making excuses, because a Canadian economist, William White, who was an economic advisor to the Bank for International Settlements, started warning him to his face that he faced a crisis in 2003.
What? Gov interference? You mean a regulation or an action of some kind? So you don’t see any connection between lax regulation and the crisis? That bizarre statement needs much more explanation please because you’re out to lunch.
Lots of great ideas. Some parallels with Steve Keen. But it’s too long for most I’m sure. Even policy geeks like me get tired. Have you read Slow Down? The last writings of Marx were better and of course, agriculture focused. Marx reversed himself.
Consider writing about one topic focused in with lots of editing and please consider housing. Of course I should be paying by now….The recent history of Canadian housing prices and if they really are an asset bubble. Jacky Kuk makes a good case that there’s not so much of that, and if we should consider a Singapore model like a CPP.
Thank you.
Another great article, Dougald!
Mediocre.
Why don’t you recommend a book? And make sure it’s an actual book not just think tank propaganda. Here’s one for you, have you read Ultra Processed People by Chris Van Tullien? It’s a great example of how capitalism works and you should read it for your health anyways so it accomplishes two things for you!
These aren't socialistic rules and values. It's about the rule of law and enforcement of regulations against ripping people off - stealing and swindling and fraud, which I detailed in this article.
What you don't understand is that I am a small l- liberal who recognizes that in order to preserve freedom of the individual, you have to protect people against the incursions from the private sector as well as the state. Government exists to write and enforce the law, not run the economy, and it needs to be powerful enough to break up monopolies and enforce the law against everyone.
What socialist rule would be an example? Child labour or building codes or reserve requirements? What rule do you think is wrong?
Are you a Conservative or a Libertarian? Becasue I have sat in right wing policy forums where both are in the room and that is some nasty cat fighting that goes on between them. If push came to shove, which side would you choose?
Like in Norway?