Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Is PM angling for election?
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TheStar.com | Opinion |
Is PM angling for election?
Jan 23, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Liberals won't back tax cuts,
Ignatieff warns PM, Jan. 19
Interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is right to oppose across-the-board tax cuts. At a time when Canadians are leveraged to excess, they are not likely to go out and spend the added income on capital goods or even added consumption goods. More likely, the money will go to pay down debt, which is good for the individual, but does little for the economy in the short run.
With a huge deficit planned, the money should be used on targeted areas in infrastructure projects, roads, bridges and urban transit – capital projects that will have benefits for a long time to come. With the demand destruction we are going to have in our economy, cutting taxes and even reducing interest rates, is like pushing on a rope – a wrong approach to the current situation.
Stephen Harper is a monetarist of the Friedman/Chicago school, and while monetary policy has its place, in particular where inflation is a problem, lowering interest rates when they are already close to zero will have little effect, at least in the short run. Cutting taxes for people who face job losses is also rather moot, and the recent U.S. experience with a general tax cut was rather dismal.
Of course, tax cuts are popular, especially for the selfish and short-sighted, and will likely play well in an election campaign. Could it be that Mr. Harper is, again, planning a political stand-off in the parliamentary OK Corral, in order to face off with Ignatieff in an election and dangle the carrot of tax cuts for the voters?
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
TheStar.com | Opinion |
Is PM angling for election?
Jan 23, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Liberals won't back tax cuts,
Ignatieff warns PM, Jan. 19
Interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is right to oppose across-the-board tax cuts. At a time when Canadians are leveraged to excess, they are not likely to go out and spend the added income on capital goods or even added consumption goods. More likely, the money will go to pay down debt, which is good for the individual, but does little for the economy in the short run.
With a huge deficit planned, the money should be used on targeted areas in infrastructure projects, roads, bridges and urban transit – capital projects that will have benefits for a long time to come. With the demand destruction we are going to have in our economy, cutting taxes and even reducing interest rates, is like pushing on a rope – a wrong approach to the current situation.
Stephen Harper is a monetarist of the Friedman/Chicago school, and while monetary policy has its place, in particular where inflation is a problem, lowering interest rates when they are already close to zero will have little effect, at least in the short run. Cutting taxes for people who face job losses is also rather moot, and the recent U.S. experience with a general tax cut was rather dismal.
Of course, tax cuts are popular, especially for the selfish and short-sighted, and will likely play well in an election campaign. Could it be that Mr. Harper is, again, planning a political stand-off in the parliamentary OK Corral, in order to face off with Ignatieff in an election and dangle the carrot of tax cuts for the voters?
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Obama inauguration - Jan 20th,2009
In watching the Obama inauguration,and listening to his speech,I was a little surprised how low key it was. I had half expected some superlatives or Kennedyesque quotations, but he stayed close to message.
Possibly he avoided such hyperbole just because he knew people expected it from someone that eloquent; had he engaged in highfaluting phrases and statements, he might be accused of being a copy-cat or worse. He soon will face the sombre task of leading his country out of the abyss created by his predecessor; for as the priest said to the farmer who was imploring him to pray for his withering crops: here you need more than prayers, you need manure.
One thing struck me as rather profound and telling: he talked about coming together as a people and as citizens of this world, and to get away from the petty provincialism and tribalism that so often divide us –into them and us. There was another phrase that belongs with the word tribalism, and that is religious fundamentalism of all hues –be it the fanatics of the Christian or Islamist variety.
When used in such exclusory, tribal ways, I think one must question if religion, on the balance, has been a benefit and a blessing to humanity, or a “millstone around our neck”.
Possibly he avoided such hyperbole just because he knew people expected it from someone that eloquent; had he engaged in highfaluting phrases and statements, he might be accused of being a copy-cat or worse. He soon will face the sombre task of leading his country out of the abyss created by his predecessor; for as the priest said to the farmer who was imploring him to pray for his withering crops: here you need more than prayers, you need manure.
One thing struck me as rather profound and telling: he talked about coming together as a people and as citizens of this world, and to get away from the petty provincialism and tribalism that so often divide us –into them and us. There was another phrase that belongs with the word tribalism, and that is religious fundamentalism of all hues –be it the fanatics of the Christian or Islamist variety.
When used in such exclusory, tribal ways, I think one must question if religion, on the balance, has been a benefit and a blessing to humanity, or a “millstone around our neck”.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Liberals won't back tax cuts, Ingnatieff warns PM" - Star Jan 19th.
Ignatieff is right in opposing an across-the-board tax cuts. In a time when Canadians are leveraged to excess, they are not likely to go out and spend the added income on capital goods or even added consumption goods. More likely, the money will go to pay down debt, which is good for the individual, but does little for the economy, at least in the short run. With a huge deficit planned, the money should be used on targeted areas in infrastructure projects, roads, bridges and urban transit –capital projects that will have benefits for a long time to come.
With the demand destruction we are going to have in our economy, cutting taxes and even reducing interest rates, is like pushing on a rope; it’s the wrong approach to the current situation.
Harper is a monetarist in the Friedman/Chicago school, and while monetary policy has its place, in particular where inflation is a problem, lowering interest rates when they are close to zero all ready will have little effect, at least in the short run. Cutting taxes for people who face job losses is also rather moot, and the recent US experience with a general tax cut was rather dismal.
Of course, tax cuts are popular, especially for the selfish and short-sighted, and will likely play well in an election campaign. Could it be that Mr. Harper is, again, planning a political stand-off in the parliamentary OK corral, facing off with Ingatieff in an election and dangling the carrot of tax cuts for the voters? Just a thought.
With the demand destruction we are going to have in our economy, cutting taxes and even reducing interest rates, is like pushing on a rope; it’s the wrong approach to the current situation.
Harper is a monetarist in the Friedman/Chicago school, and while monetary policy has its place, in particular where inflation is a problem, lowering interest rates when they are close to zero all ready will have little effect, at least in the short run. Cutting taxes for people who face job losses is also rather moot, and the recent US experience with a general tax cut was rather dismal.
Of course, tax cuts are popular, especially for the selfish and short-sighted, and will likely play well in an election campaign. Could it be that Mr. Harper is, again, planning a political stand-off in the parliamentary OK corral, facing off with Ingatieff in an election and dangling the carrot of tax cuts for the voters? Just a thought.
Friday, January 16, 2009
“Can we really spend our way out of this mess?” –Andrew Coyne, Maclean's Jan. 26th issue
Again, a well reasoned and informative article by Mr. Coyne. I do have a couple of related points to make: Fiscal stimuli in the form of infrastructure capital projects are more efficacious than using monetary stimulus, in particular when the interest rates are all ready very low. When there is all ready a depressed demand for loans in the economy, lowering interest rates is like pushing on the proverbial rope (as Japan found out with zero interest rates over more than a decade of stagnation), and printing money is a sure way to future inflation and the ultimately higher interest rateds needed to reduce demand, and so we go around and around.
Then there is the “paradox of thrift” to consider: if I save my money, I am thrifty and wise, and gain over my non-saving neighbour. However, if all my neighbours do the same, there is not enough liquidity or capital to go around in the economy, and ultimately, we all will be worse of.
Furthermore, when the government stimulate by creating work by building roads, bridges, subways, and other infrastructures, they are doing several things: they are putting money into the pockets of the average working man, who will spend most of it (and save the rest), at a ratio of about 75/25, on average. He might buy a new car and other capital goods, or just spend it on a good time. The important point is that he will spend most of it, and so will the people with which he shares his largesse, and the economy as a whole will gain more than if the interest was lowered; especially when there is the demand destruction present as in a recession. A further benefit from infrastructure spending is that its benefits last a long time, and helps to increase productivity and econimic activity in the future.
Ultimately, we are captive of the US economy, and nothing we do domestically can replace the loss of demand from our main trading partner who takes two third of our products. It might be just as well, as Mr. Coyne intimates; that we just apply some economic band-aid while waiting for the American body to heal. But then, that would be politically untenable.
Then there is the “paradox of thrift” to consider: if I save my money, I am thrifty and wise, and gain over my non-saving neighbour. However, if all my neighbours do the same, there is not enough liquidity or capital to go around in the economy, and ultimately, we all will be worse of.
Furthermore, when the government stimulate by creating work by building roads, bridges, subways, and other infrastructures, they are doing several things: they are putting money into the pockets of the average working man, who will spend most of it (and save the rest), at a ratio of about 75/25, on average. He might buy a new car and other capital goods, or just spend it on a good time. The important point is that he will spend most of it, and so will the people with which he shares his largesse, and the economy as a whole will gain more than if the interest was lowered; especially when there is the demand destruction present as in a recession. A further benefit from infrastructure spending is that its benefits last a long time, and helps to increase productivity and econimic activity in the future.
Ultimately, we are captive of the US economy, and nothing we do domestically can replace the loss of demand from our main trading partner who takes two third of our products. It might be just as well, as Mr. Coyne intimates; that we just apply some economic band-aid while waiting for the American body to heal. But then, that would be politically untenable.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
“Sid Ryan’s foreign policy includes only Israel”– Andrew Potter in Maclean’s Jan.26th issue.
I could not help chuckle at Andrew Potter’s take on Sid Ryan of CUPE, thought the subject is rather sombre. Comparing Jews to Nazis seems to be in vogue these days, especially amongst the historically challenged. Blaming the victim now extends to Israel and its reaction to the murderous jihadists lobbing rockets at their civilian population –adults and children –
Indiscriminately.
I wonder if Mr Ryan considered there might be a few Jewish employees within his Union rolls; but, of course, they would not count. They are biased.
If Palestinians have achieved one thing in their anti-Israel campaign of murder and mayhem, it is to achieve an acceptance of neo-anti-Semitic vitriol among people so inclined in other parts of the world, including Canada. The fact that Israel now can defend its people is seen as justification for bigoted behaviour by wing-nuts like Mr Ryan and others of the same ilk.
Then again, perhaps it is Potter’s second hypothesis that is the case: that Sid Ryan is an Israel sleeper agent, sent to hold out to ridicule the absurdities of such people; their beliefs and their fantasies.
Sigmund Roseth
Indiscriminately.
I wonder if Mr Ryan considered there might be a few Jewish employees within his Union rolls; but, of course, they would not count. They are biased.
If Palestinians have achieved one thing in their anti-Israel campaign of murder and mayhem, it is to achieve an acceptance of neo-anti-Semitic vitriol among people so inclined in other parts of the world, including Canada. The fact that Israel now can defend its people is seen as justification for bigoted behaviour by wing-nuts like Mr Ryan and others of the same ilk.
Then again, perhaps it is Potter’s second hypothesis that is the case: that Sid Ryan is an Israel sleeper agent, sent to hold out to ridicule the absurdities of such people; their beliefs and their fantasies.
Sigmund Roseth
Friday, January 9, 2009
“Our myopic view of Gaza conflict” – Haroon Siddiqui Star Jan.8/09
Change the “our” to “my”, and you have it correctly. Your Islamist columnist is practicing his obfuscation and tribal myopia again on your comment page soapbox. His statement that “Israel lives matter, Arab ones don’t”, couched in neutral language, blaming “our political and media establishment”, is as cowardly as it is untrue. This is not an Arab, or even Islamist issue –it is a power struggle between various factions in Palestine, or more specifically, Gaza and environs.
It is regrettable and sad that innocent people, children especially, are caught up in the conflict, on both sides, but the inescapable fact remains that the Hamas rockets keep falling on Israel, and they are often fired from within the civilian population and even in close proximity to school and mosques. No one has forced Hamas to hide within the Gaza population while they lobby rockets at Israeli civilians indiscriminately. That is not war; it is terrorism and intentional murder of civilians!
Your columnist, Rosie Dimanno has a more sensible view, saying that “since Palestinians made the fatal error of electing a radical Islamist organization over the corrupt devil that they knew, they doomed themselves to lives of crushing wretchedness. These are the consequences.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Rosie.
The poor Palestinian population is caught between “the devil and the deep blue sea”. This cancer must be excised permanently, or it will metastasize and spread its malevolent philosophy throughout Palestine, and ensure that peace will have no chance ever. Hamas is a terrorist organization, period. Haroon Siddiqui need not soft-pedal or obfuscate these facts.
I have on several occasions taken issue with Mr Siddiqui’s writings in your pages, in letters to the Star editors. While you quite often publish my various comments and pontifications, and thus must see some value in them, you have so far refused to publish anything I write in response to Mr. Siddiqi’s musings, no matter how measured and diplomatically I write. Your Editorial today seems to criticize the Government and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for stating what is an unequivocal fact: that “Hamas is a terrorist organization, that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Hamas is [mainly] to blame for the conflict.”
Could it be that Mr. Siddiqui reflects your editorial point of view? Just asking.
It is regrettable and sad that innocent people, children especially, are caught up in the conflict, on both sides, but the inescapable fact remains that the Hamas rockets keep falling on Israel, and they are often fired from within the civilian population and even in close proximity to school and mosques. No one has forced Hamas to hide within the Gaza population while they lobby rockets at Israeli civilians indiscriminately. That is not war; it is terrorism and intentional murder of civilians!
Your columnist, Rosie Dimanno has a more sensible view, saying that “since Palestinians made the fatal error of electing a radical Islamist organization over the corrupt devil that they knew, they doomed themselves to lives of crushing wretchedness. These are the consequences.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Rosie.
The poor Palestinian population is caught between “the devil and the deep blue sea”. This cancer must be excised permanently, or it will metastasize and spread its malevolent philosophy throughout Palestine, and ensure that peace will have no chance ever. Hamas is a terrorist organization, period. Haroon Siddiqui need not soft-pedal or obfuscate these facts.
I have on several occasions taken issue with Mr Siddiqui’s writings in your pages, in letters to the Star editors. While you quite often publish my various comments and pontifications, and thus must see some value in them, you have so far refused to publish anything I write in response to Mr. Siddiqi’s musings, no matter how measured and diplomatically I write. Your Editorial today seems to criticize the Government and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for stating what is an unequivocal fact: that “Hamas is a terrorist organization, that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Hamas is [mainly] to blame for the conflict.”
Could it be that Mr. Siddiqui reflects your editorial point of view? Just asking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)