The US is bankrupt; Canada is not.
August 12, 2010 9:57 am American Politics, Canadian Politics, Economics and FinanceThe US is bankrupt. Canada is not. Therein lies a remarkable possibility for this country in the next twenty years.
Two books should be part of the reading of Canadians of all political persuasions, especially conservatives. The first was Brian Lee Crowley’s “Fearful Symmetry”, which explained what went wrong in Canada under Trudeau and successive governments until Mulroney introduced North American free trade and then Chretien (yes, Chretien) fixed our public finances. The second is “The Canadian Century”, by the same Brian Lee Crowley, Jason Clemens, and Niels Veldhuis. Both are examinations of the public finances of Canada, and to read these books is to understand, at the highest level, what has gone right and wrong with our society. Crowley never ceases to set out the moral dimension of excessive public expenditure: the electorate drunk on government services, the cost of which is deferred to future generations; the creation of pseudo-jobs; the electoral blocs of state dependents which prevent the correction of the very problem that their existence creates, and so forth.
Crowley and his co-authors make it abundantly clear that:
1) Laurier, not MacDonald, should be attributed the credit for a low-tax, free-trade policy – the classic hallmarks of what we now call “conservatism”, and
2) Bill Clinton waged a successful campaign to get the US fiscal house in order, and that both Bush the elder and the younger, to say nothing of Obama, have run the US into massive debt. In other words, Bush the younger squandered the legacy that Clinton handed to him. (Canadian Century, at pp 116-117) Clinton: bastion of fiscal probity. We conservatives need to absorb that.
Now peace upon all those partizans of conservative government who think that mentioning any merit in any liberal, no matter how long dead, is akin to “deserting the cause, that gave us our freedom, religion and laws.” The points I am making here are twofold.
First, these two books are a rapid and painless education in the essential facts of politics: how we finance government is as much a moral as it is an immediately monetary question, and it gives insight behind the squabbles in Parliament, which are of little account in the history of nations. No wonder the people who really understand money are not fussed by whether the Liberals take over; they are only concerned with how public finances will affect the value of their investments. Conservatives do not have a better penchant for fixing them than Liberals, in both Canada and the United States, according to these writers.
Second, the Canadian Century establishes the current Conservative government in Canada is not doing a great job in sustaining the gains that Chretien and Martin made in fixing our public finances. Why conservatives should care about this issue is explained in The Canadian Century. It is a must read for the politically literate.
Dalwhinnie


Arran Gold :
Date: August 12, 2010 @ 10:04 AM
In the financial world there is a saying: the definition of a financial genius is a bull market.
Clinton presided during the great stock bubble of the 90s which made it easier to generate surpluses. By November ‘00, i.e. before Bush Jr was sworn in, the Nasdaq index was down 50% from its high. Yes, cracks were already starting to show in the Clinton “bastion of fiscal probity”.
Chretien-Martin team was similarly helped by the growth generated during that period. Of course the Harper team is having difficulty matching the fiscal probity – the growth is sub-standard.
The above analysis is very provincial in its view but then it is not surprising given that Crowley’s background is in economics and not history.
Luke :
Date: August 12, 2010 @ 12:32 PM
Dalwhinnie, I’m guessing you’ve read both books? I have, and you’re completely correct. Both are indispensable for Canadian political junkies.
real conservative :
Date: August 12, 2010 @ 1:50 PM
Canada is bankrupt too but not as bad. Each man, woman and child owes about $50k public debt and the private debt is also comparable. Some can cover their gambling debts but many cannot.
Fred from BC :
Date: August 12, 2010 @ 6:53 PM
Did either of the books happen to mention Bill Clinton forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer ’sub-prime’ mortgages to people clearly unable to afford them, and how this directly led to the collapse of the US housing market?
Maxwell Wolf :
Date: August 13, 2010 @ 8:29 AM
Did either of the books also mention that Glass–Steagall Act, which enforced the separation between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks, was repealed during the Clinton administration? This contributed to the financial crisis in 2008.
Dalwhinnie :
Date: August 13, 2010 @ 4:46 PM
All comments received and noted. However, friends, the reign of Bush the younger saw a worsening of US public finances despite his professed Republicanism. While much can be said against the rule of Mr Clinton, he did improve US public finances, and talking about all the other things that he did wrong is not going to change that fact. Considering the contrast to GW Bush, it leaves Bill Clinton in a somewhat better light. This is the basis, I surmize, of much of the comments so far received. We may all feel uncomfortable seeing any merit in the man whatever, but I am ready to tip the hat in acknowledgment,
real conservative :
Date: August 16, 2010 @ 2:27 AM
Clinton did shyte, he rode the waves generated by Reganomics, hell even a number of Democrats admit this. Yes Bush increased spending but the US had a bouyant economy in his first term. Also, Bush greatly expanded American influence in the world in his terms. Obama though being a socialist thinks he can spend the USA out of a major recession. Not gonna happen.
blair atholl :
Date: August 21, 2010 @ 3:03 PM
I say we buy them up while they’re cheap, then flip them to the Chinese, anex Bermuda and then basically retire on our profits.