The cult of neoclassical economics has created oligarchs, undermined democracy, driven massive concentration of wealth. It's not just a problem - it is THE problem.
However, the part where you say, "for 50 years, governments have been doing exactly what conservatives want," does confuse me.
For at least part of that time, at least at the Federal level, weren't the Liberals in power?
Trudeau, a Liberal, has been in power for 10 years and is the current PM. Jean Chrétien, also a Liberal was PM from 1993 until 2003. Paul Martin, another Liberal, was PM from 2003 - 2006.
To be fair to Trudeau, didn't he expand the role of government in the lives of Canadians?
Why are the conservatives to blame for everything?
If you are open to reason and evidence, why are you talking about “blame”?
Blame is about moralizing and punishment, and I am not interested in either.
I’m not just talking about Canada, I am talking about the U.S., the UK and other countries. Parties of all stripes adopted these policies, including UK Labour, Clinton Democrats and the NDP and Liberals in Canada.
These basic ideas are hard-core libertarian conservative. All these parties, to some degree, have cut, privatized, frozen social, cut taxes for the wealthy and tried to balance budgets, often using harsh austerity, with the result that we’ve had stagnant wages since the 1970s.
In Canada, the economy is not run by the elected officials of the federal government. Provincial governments’ combined budgets exceed that of the federal government, and they have more direct responsibilties, and the actions of the Bank of Canada have a bigger impact, and they are hard-core conservative no matter who is in power.
in the 1970s there was an intellectual revolution in economics that replaced economic policies for elected governments fiscal policies, for central banks’ monetary policies, for the finance, real estate and insurance sector, workers and real economy industry, as well as corporations.
It was a whole sale change in the economic model used by everyone, and it is far-right conservative. Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas and other economists, who actively advised military dictatorships who slaughtered their citizens in how to run their countries.
It replaced the centrist, liberal Keynesian economics that had driven shared growth and the golden age of industrial capitalism, and replaced it with financial capitalism that has been driving an upward transfer of wealth for 50 years until now, when we have massive concentrations of private wealth and income, as well as private monopolies.
That is not the consequence of keynesian economics, which is outlawed.
It is a consequence of the fact that in the 1970s, there was a deliberate political decision to find ways to prevent elected governments from playing a role in the economy.
Since 2008, people have been saying that this economic model is a complete and total failure, but everyone keeps operating on autopilot and doing the same things.
You blame the conservatives for the current economic situation. I disagree, since for large periods over the last 50 years, the Liberals were in power in Canada, not the conservatives.
Why were the Liberals, especially the most recent Trudeau government, "fooled" as you say, by the conservatives?
What specifically did the Trudeau Liberals do wrong? What specifically did the various provincial NDP provincial government's do wrong during their time in office over the last 50 years?
I'm from Manitoba. NDP leader Ed Schreyer was Premier when I was a kid. What did he do wrong?
Why were each and every one of them "fooled" by conservatives? Which government's are true to your ideals and your beliefs?
My entire substack is free. I just explained exactly what happened and why in the previous comment.
There was a fundamental change in economics in the 1970s. It abandoned Keynesian economics and brought back new versions of old ideas. Classical economics was called "neoclassical" and supposed 19th century "liberal" ideas about markets were called "neoliberal".
That was the change, and it included the false association of inflation with deficits, on the basis of a completely inaccurate description of the mechanics of the market and government. It's absolutely clear, from the evidence, that inflation is caused by uncertainty in a crisis, and that the private sector hikes its prices. Neoclassical economics as a theory is so crude that it doesn't model money or banks. So, debt, mortgages and the entire financial industry aren't modelled.
If you want a single example of the Schreyer and NDP governments in action, take a look at the wholesale destruction of Indigenous communities and their economies for Hydro projects without any compensation, as just one example, which has continued until this day, and NDP governments are more likely to run austerity. That was the finding of Toby Sanger, an economist for CUPE. In reality it means cutting corporate and personal income taxes for the wealthy while freezing funds for the poor
Canada's debates on policy and economics are abysmal because they are completely dominated by junk economics and propagandists, because people completely ignore what governments and political parties actually do, there is no debate whatsoever about actual economics, and all we ever hear is from political hacks or paid propagandists.
So the previous governments were all completely wrong and next time we'll get it right for sure?
Isn't that what the communists always used to say?
"The last time we tried (in China, Russia et all) wasn't true communism and that's why we failed. Next time for sure, we'll create a true communist utopia."
I'm sorry Dougald, but your arguments would have more force if you could provide even one example of a successful government operating under your principals.
You're asking me to repeat in the comments points I've made in article after article.
You are not making points. You are making stuff up.
"So, [insert completely invented position and pretend I've said it] "further massive generalization" and "Isn't that what communists used to say?"
No, it's not what communists used to say. Communists argued for violent revolution, killing capitalists and installing a centrally planned state - state capitalism that Marx specifically based on the model of the capitalist corporation. They did so promising that "the state would wither away" - just as libertarians do.
I have made it clear, over and over, that what I am proposing are policies that were successful HERE IN CANADA and IN THE UNITED STATES.
The kind of policies that Canada and the US enacted from 1935-1975, when fiscal and monetary policies not only pulled North America out of the Depression, it won the Second World War, established the middle class, created an mixed public private economy that was the golden age of capitalism where, when the economy grew, it grew for everyone, not just the top. Millions of jobs created, Canadian companies created, infrastructure built.
Liberal democracy with individual rights, and divisions of powers to ensure the protection of the individual from both private and government oppression.
And what I know, I know from more than three decades of personal and professional experience, working in policy, understanding the law, and economics, and business, and journalism from the inside.
You are contributing less than nothing to the debate here, because you can't be bothered to do the work. Either engage on the facts or get lost.
Then you explain that you have "more than three decades of personal and professional experience, working in policy, understanding the law, and economics, and business, and journalism from the inside."
Arguments from authority only intimidate the easily frightened.
My understanding is that you're an ex-Liberal MLA. You also edit a local magazine. The credentials are nice enough, but hardly overwhelming.
If you staying with the substance of your argument, your points would carry more weight.
I'm always open to reason and evidence, Dougald.
However, the part where you say, "for 50 years, governments have been doing exactly what conservatives want," does confuse me.
For at least part of that time, at least at the Federal level, weren't the Liberals in power?
Trudeau, a Liberal, has been in power for 10 years and is the current PM. Jean Chrétien, also a Liberal was PM from 1993 until 2003. Paul Martin, another Liberal, was PM from 2003 - 2006.
To be fair to Trudeau, didn't he expand the role of government in the lives of Canadians?
Why are the conservatives to blame for everything?
If you are open to reason and evidence, why are you talking about “blame”?
Blame is about moralizing and punishment, and I am not interested in either.
I’m not just talking about Canada, I am talking about the U.S., the UK and other countries. Parties of all stripes adopted these policies, including UK Labour, Clinton Democrats and the NDP and Liberals in Canada.
These basic ideas are hard-core libertarian conservative. All these parties, to some degree, have cut, privatized, frozen social, cut taxes for the wealthy and tried to balance budgets, often using harsh austerity, with the result that we’ve had stagnant wages since the 1970s.
In Canada, the economy is not run by the elected officials of the federal government. Provincial governments’ combined budgets exceed that of the federal government, and they have more direct responsibilties, and the actions of the Bank of Canada have a bigger impact, and they are hard-core conservative no matter who is in power.
in the 1970s there was an intellectual revolution in economics that replaced economic policies for elected governments fiscal policies, for central banks’ monetary policies, for the finance, real estate and insurance sector, workers and real economy industry, as well as corporations.
It was a whole sale change in the economic model used by everyone, and it is far-right conservative. Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas and other economists, who actively advised military dictatorships who slaughtered their citizens in how to run their countries.
It replaced the centrist, liberal Keynesian economics that had driven shared growth and the golden age of industrial capitalism, and replaced it with financial capitalism that has been driving an upward transfer of wealth for 50 years until now, when we have massive concentrations of private wealth and income, as well as private monopolies.
That is not the consequence of keynesian economics, which is outlawed.
It is a consequence of the fact that in the 1970s, there was a deliberate political decision to find ways to prevent elected governments from playing a role in the economy.
Since 2008, people have been saying that this economic model is a complete and total failure, but everyone keeps operating on autopilot and doing the same things.
Actions have consequences, Dougald.
You blame the conservatives for the current economic situation. I disagree, since for large periods over the last 50 years, the Liberals were in power in Canada, not the conservatives.
Why were the Liberals, especially the most recent Trudeau government, "fooled" as you say, by the conservatives?
What specifically did the Trudeau Liberals do wrong? What specifically did the various provincial NDP provincial government's do wrong during their time in office over the last 50 years?
I'm from Manitoba. NDP leader Ed Schreyer was Premier when I was a kid. What did he do wrong?
Why were each and every one of them "fooled" by conservatives? Which government's are true to your ideals and your beliefs?
My entire substack is free. I just explained exactly what happened and why in the previous comment.
There was a fundamental change in economics in the 1970s. It abandoned Keynesian economics and brought back new versions of old ideas. Classical economics was called "neoclassical" and supposed 19th century "liberal" ideas about markets were called "neoliberal".
That was the change, and it included the false association of inflation with deficits, on the basis of a completely inaccurate description of the mechanics of the market and government. It's absolutely clear, from the evidence, that inflation is caused by uncertainty in a crisis, and that the private sector hikes its prices. Neoclassical economics as a theory is so crude that it doesn't model money or banks. So, debt, mortgages and the entire financial industry aren't modelled.
If you want a single example of the Schreyer and NDP governments in action, take a look at the wholesale destruction of Indigenous communities and their economies for Hydro projects without any compensation, as just one example, which has continued until this day, and NDP governments are more likely to run austerity. That was the finding of Toby Sanger, an economist for CUPE. In reality it means cutting corporate and personal income taxes for the wealthy while freezing funds for the poor
Canada's debates on policy and economics are abysmal because they are completely dominated by junk economics and propagandists, because people completely ignore what governments and political parties actually do, there is no debate whatsoever about actual economics, and all we ever hear is from political hacks or paid propagandists.
https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/the-1970s-an-intellectual-and-economic?r=9gk0j
https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/milton-friedman-blaming-governments?r=9gk0j
https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/the-premiers-need-to-stop-misleading?r=9gk0j
https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/repost-the-single-most-important?r=9gk0j
https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/its-the-private-economy-thats-broken?r=9gk0j
https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/the-premiers-need-to-stop-misleading?r=9gk0j
I know your substack is free. What's that got to do with any of the points I made.
So the previous governments were all completely wrong and next time we'll get it right for sure?
Isn't that what the communists always used to say?
"The last time we tried (in China, Russia et all) wasn't true communism and that's why we failed. Next time for sure, we'll create a true communist utopia."
I'm sorry Dougald, but your arguments would have more force if you could provide even one example of a successful government operating under your principals.
You're asking me to repeat in the comments points I've made in article after article.
You are not making points. You are making stuff up.
"So, [insert completely invented position and pretend I've said it] "further massive generalization" and "Isn't that what communists used to say?"
No, it's not what communists used to say. Communists argued for violent revolution, killing capitalists and installing a centrally planned state - state capitalism that Marx specifically based on the model of the capitalist corporation. They did so promising that "the state would wither away" - just as libertarians do.
I have made it clear, over and over, that what I am proposing are policies that were successful HERE IN CANADA and IN THE UNITED STATES.
The kind of policies that Canada and the US enacted from 1935-1975, when fiscal and monetary policies not only pulled North America out of the Depression, it won the Second World War, established the middle class, created an mixed public private economy that was the golden age of capitalism where, when the economy grew, it grew for everyone, not just the top. Millions of jobs created, Canadian companies created, infrastructure built.
Liberal democracy with individual rights, and divisions of powers to ensure the protection of the individual from both private and government oppression.
And what I know, I know from more than three decades of personal and professional experience, working in policy, understanding the law, and economics, and business, and journalism from the inside.
You are contributing less than nothing to the debate here, because you can't be bothered to do the work. Either engage on the facts or get lost.
Mmm... You demonize those who disagree with you.
Then you explain that you have "more than three decades of personal and professional experience, working in policy, understanding the law, and economics, and business, and journalism from the inside."
Arguments from authority only intimidate the easily frightened.
My understanding is that you're an ex-Liberal MLA. You also edit a local magazine. The credentials are nice enough, but hardly overwhelming.
If you staying with the substance of your argument, your points would carry more weight.