“The loonie requires urgent inaction” –Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s Nov. 9th issue.
Andrew Coyne’s column is at once funny and serious. I am impressed with his polymathic ability to deal with complex and obtuse subjects, like the economy and monetary policy, as he does in your current issue. He manages to delineate the rather obscure subject of money in a simple and straight-forward way. Guess he comes by it honestly; his father was James Coyne, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1957 to 1961.The C$ was worth as much as $1.14 in 1961, due mainly to heavy foreign investment in Canada, mainly by the US. This brought pressure on the Government from exporters to do something (Coyne’s “Do Something lobby”). Printing money would debase the currency, but would also be highly inflationary, so the Government chose to fix the dollar. Fixing the dollar’s value is called a peg. This was done by John Diefenbaker`s Government in 1961, to the chagrin and eventually demise of Andrew Coyne`s father, Bank of Canada governor James Coyne, who resigned that year. The dollar was initially pegged at 92 cents US (and given the facetious appellation Diefenbuck), but in the seventies, the peg became too expensive for the government to maintain (i.e. The Bank of Canada had to buy US dollars or treasury notes to relieve the pressure on the dollar), and we went to a more flexible, floating exchange rate (a managed rate, or `dirty float`).
There are always two sides to every coyne (pardon the pun). With a strong dollar, importers gain, and consumers are happy. Exporters are sad. At least in the short run. But, as Mr. Coyne points out; importers can buy productive inputs at a lower price abroad, and their lower costs will trickle down (at least theoretically) through the economy, and both consumers and producers will gain –in the long run. The reverse is true for a weak Canadian dollar. It is the frequent fluctuation in value that causes most stress, because it does not give the economy enough time to adjust. It also leaves room for speculators to play their arbitrage game, and further destabilise the currency.
Andrew Coyne is correct in saying that maintaining a fixed rate would negate the need for a C$. It would also emasculate the Bank of Canada and destroy Canadian independent (or rather, semi-independent) monetary policy. The best the Bank can do is to ``lean against the wind``; to smooth the vagaries of economic life, and minimize the stress caused by a fluctuating dollar value.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The new National loses reality ... Star Oct.28/09
After all the hype; the “new National “was a disappointment. It seemed contrived and artificial. Mansbridge looked uncomfortable standing behind his glass desk and Wendy Mesley did not deliver what she promised.
It seems the CBC is trying to emulate CNN. If so, they have failed. I want my old National back, or I will watch CTV News in the future.
It seems the CBC is trying to emulate CNN. If so, they have failed. I want my old National back, or I will watch CTV News in the future.
FIXING THE REFUGEE MESS –STAR EDITORIAL OCT.28/09
You are totally correct in saying that the refugee system is broken and needs fixing. In fact, I have heard that tune now for decades, but it is only getting worse.
I have nothing against immigrants, I was one myself once, and I can understand our obligation to protect true refugees. The fact is, however, that a large portion of refuge claims are spurious claims from economic migrants, and only clogs up the system for real refugees.
I have personal experiences in this regard. In the eighties, one “refugee” family from Panama was working for me while awaiting a decision on their claim. They were “refugees” from Noriega’s regime, or so they claimed, except by then Noriega was a guest of the US government in a Florida jail. They had a subsidized town home and got economic support from the government, even a $ 100.00 cheque for each of their four children at Christmas. Another employee, a native Canadian, complained that she earned the same money, also had children, and lived in the same town home complex, but paid her own rent. The “refugee” claimant asked me to sign a form as guarantor for her mother to come and visit from Panama. I asked her why, if she was a “refugee”, her mother could come to visit. I don’t remember exactly the answer she gave me, but shortly thereafter she quit.
You, again, bring up the matter of Grise, the woman who, after having been hiding from the immigration authorities for years, got caught and sent home. In between, she managed to "go back to visit her sick grandmother," but after finally being deported; like Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf got her. I find it incredible, beyond belief, that Mexican drug gangs would target her out of “revenge”. Revenge for what? Was she involved in the Mexican drug trade?
Just asking.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just aint't so.
-Mark Twain.
I have nothing against immigrants, I was one myself once, and I can understand our obligation to protect true refugees. The fact is, however, that a large portion of refuge claims are spurious claims from economic migrants, and only clogs up the system for real refugees.
I have personal experiences in this regard. In the eighties, one “refugee” family from Panama was working for me while awaiting a decision on their claim. They were “refugees” from Noriega’s regime, or so they claimed, except by then Noriega was a guest of the US government in a Florida jail. They had a subsidized town home and got economic support from the government, even a $ 100.00 cheque for each of their four children at Christmas. Another employee, a native Canadian, complained that she earned the same money, also had children, and lived in the same town home complex, but paid her own rent. The “refugee” claimant asked me to sign a form as guarantor for her mother to come and visit from Panama. I asked her why, if she was a “refugee”, her mother could come to visit. I don’t remember exactly the answer she gave me, but shortly thereafter she quit.
You, again, bring up the matter of Grise, the woman who, after having been hiding from the immigration authorities for years, got caught and sent home. In between, she managed to "go back to visit her sick grandmother," but after finally being deported; like Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf got her. I find it incredible, beyond belief, that Mexican drug gangs would target her out of “revenge”. Revenge for what? Was she involved in the Mexican drug trade?
Just asking.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just aint't so.
-Mark Twain.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)