Posted on 10/26/2015 7:31:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As is well known now, left-leaning Canadian politician Justin Trudeau registered a big win last week over long-serving Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Media and pundit consensus was that a lagging Canadian economy – most notably in the commodity sector – sealed Harper’s fate. With any country anywhere in the world, elections are nearly always about the economy.
But to understand the real story behind the incomplete story being reported (Steve Forbes’ account a notable exception), it’s worth traveling back in time to the late 1990s when oil was trading at $10/barrel, and Canada was seen by an American right wing as kind of our joke of an economic neighbor up north. Those supposedly in the know – and in particular those on the right – mocked this semi-statist country for its lagging economy relative to an American economy that was roaring.
Then George W. Bush was sworn into office as the 43rd President of the United States in 2001. This is important for the purposes of a column about Canada simply because Presidents always get the dollar they want. The U.S. Treasury is the dollar’s mouthpiece, and with various Bush Treasury secretaries questioning the strong dollar policies that had mostly been the norm during the Reagan/Clinton boom era, the dollar began a sad decline.
Of greatest importance for the purpose of explaining Canada’s present troubles is that oil and other commodities are priced in dollars. When Bush reached the White House in 2001, a dollar bought roughly 1/260th of an ounce gold. By 2007 it bought less than 1/1000th of an ounce, and by 2011 (Tim Geithner, President Obama’s first Treasury secretary, talked down the dollar as his predecessors at Treasury under Bush did), a greatly shrunken dollar bought 1/1900th of a gold ounce.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Canada will regret this.
Assuming they have a conscience left.
W’s term wheezed out almost a decade ago. He has faults to answer for, but Canadian mass stupidity isn’t one of them.
Mark for later comment.
This is in my top 5 stupidest Monday articles of the day.
Only commonality I can find is that Harper’s TV ads were so bad, he must have hired Karl Rove & Co. to produce them.
Harper has been a good PM — and he’s been in power about a decade. They cycle of politics got him.
Trudeau will be in power for five years because he won’t dare call an election and he won’t get re-elected.
A bartender? He’s about as qualified as 0bama.
Deserved or no, W's narrative is to be the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century; maybe also the James Buchanan, except that only historians think that far back.
Obama wanted to be the FDR (Hillary wanted to be Eleanor, but that's a separate issue), but even with all the historical rewriting of the Obamalegend, it won't happen; he'll be our Neville Chamberlain and Clement Atlee rolled into one.
Agreed. W is a mixed ticket. I think he will ultimately be known as the last president who could have averted dissolution, and lost that chance. Perhaps this is too pessimistic. This election perhaps is derailing the decline train.
What with Pierre’s little boy ready to import millions of muzzies into Canadastan, looks like Trump will have to build TWO WALLS.
Yes, this was very much an Obama election. The swing voter went for Trudeau based on a love affair for his looks, his hair, and the fact he won a boxing match against Brazeau. How else do you explain the election of this child? I am still in shock, and am still coming to grips with ousting a capable statesman with a part time drama teacher. I mean he makes Obama looks accomplished.
I’m not convinced this was an economic election as Forbes think it was. Most Canadians are still in a deluded relationship vis a vis the economy. There hasn’t been a mass acceptance that we are in real trouble. In fact most people believe the economy is fairing quite well. In any case, the province and regions most affected by commodity deflation, Saskatchewan and Alberta, firmly voted for Stephen Harper. I know Forbes is giving Canadians the benefit of the doubt being a shrewd and thoughtful electorate. We are not.
So, how’s the healthcare system in Canada working today?
Do you recommend that we scrap Obamacare and go full bore with a Canadian style “Universal” healthcare system?
Abdul happily comps me a Toronto paper without asking. Last week, the day after the election, I told him "no paper today". I didn't want to read or think about the election. Abdul said: "Why not? It was the greatest day yesterday." I just shook my head and told him I lived through one Trudeau and that was more than enough.
I went in Saturday to buy stamps and Abdul's son was manning the store. He couldn't find the stamps so I told him I would come back in a day or so. Today (Monday) I dropped back in and Abdul was there as was his wife and some others.
Abdul apologized profusely, "the stamps were right here, my boy didn't know."
I replied, "Abdul, see what happens when you let the kids run the store, everything goes to hell. And that's exactly what Canadians did last week, they put the kids in charge."
Abdul, his wife and the other people all laughed. Even though they voted for the pretty boy, they knew I was right.
True story. Freepmail me if you want to know the reaction of my Chaldean (Christian Iraqi) tobacconist. Hint, his sister had to flee Mosul when it fell to ISIS, she is with the Kurds now.
Canada has a health care system that will not bankrupt you if you need care. Canadians are not concerned if American's think their system is substandard. Think what you want, by and large Canadians are quite satisfied with the system.
Personally, I would never suggest to an American what kind of health care system they should have. That is entirely up to you. That said, it is my opinion that the "Canadian system" might work in some of the smaller states. In the larger states with large immigrant or illegal populations, or just large populations, it would be a disaster.
No I don't recommend it. The most obvious reason is demographics. When Canada set up its system ages ago there was 13 workers per retiree. It was an obvious pyramid scheme to those that understood it. 13 relatively healthy people taking care of a few of their elders. I can only assume the ratio was and is similar in the US. So setting it up now doesn't even make demographic sense. There is no future generation to load the problem to and the costs to American taxpayers will be much more immediate.
The second reason is about 48% (or more) of provincial budgets revolve around healthcare. Fiscally unsustainable.
Thirdly, rationed care. Very few will admit to that, but our care is rationed. There is only so much money for family doctors, hospital wings, and expensive equipment. That means large lines for detection of problems and situations where medical staff are reluctant to invest time and money on people who have a low chance of success from the procedure.
Nope. Those two dolts did not fit my definition of "adult". Both hypocritical a--holes. One had a French passport, the other fancied himself an American or Russian royalty, depending on the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.