People’s Party confronts economic crisis, Greens shy


When they break up at an obstacle and go far enough, they tend to bump into each other. The People’s Party and the Greens lack political influence, but they have a firm belief, especially in the areas of civil liberties and personal expression, and have more in common than they can see. For example, the Greens resisted the vaccine passport siren song, and the PPC violently opposed them.

In the economic arena, Greens is good at identifying shortcomings, focusing on the results they want, such as affordable housing. PPC focuses on policies that enable such results. In the case of housing, that means fewer immigrants, less supply disruptions, and tighter monetary policy.

This is where the parties diverge sharply, as the Greens have an ideological dislike of economics. This blind spot has proven deadly to their financial base and their ability to solve the problems they have identified. It’s a ridiculous recipe. “Achieving net zero emissions well before 2050 … aiming for a net negative in 2050” says many from Greens that do not consider the enormous costs associated with tedious interventions. It’s one of the promises.

Economics is where PPC shines. Perhaps this comes from the history of Maxime Bernier, founder and leader of the Montreal Institute for Economic Research, one of Canada’s few free market think tanks. At the top of the PPC platform is “Domestic Trade: Removing Interstate Trade Barriers.” If there is one problem that economists agree on, it is the benefit of free trade, which Bernier knows.

Honesty, injection of new ideas

In the economic arena, Greens has stated that federal grants and agricultural regulations “integrate agriculture at all levels, including a sharp decline in farm numbers, from family-owned mixed farms and local processing … to crops. I have accelerated it. ” Monoculture and intensive livestock business … [making Canada] The number one per capita food importer in the world. “

Similar candidness within the PPC is one of the reasons for the weakening of the election period, despite the 5% exclusion of Bernier from the leader’s debate, which is often much higher. PPC is the only major political party, for example, austerity campaigns that Canada urgently needs but Ottawa ignores.

After all, the establishment of the Conservative Party banished Bernier over his opposition to a state-licensed supply control cartel that enriched the minority and stripped Canadian consumers. This was the origin of PPC. A lobby of special interest finally prevented Bernier from leading the conservatives in 2017.

Market liberalization and PPC’s firm support for small government humiliate the Conservatives. The Tories’ proposed spending exceeded even the 2021 Liberal Party budget, causing anger for the Canadian Taxpayer Federation.

The firm beliefs of PPC and Greens make them a major source of Canadian populism in a positive sense. It identifies and advocates the end of political privileges. They rarely offer clones in a sponsored and gamemanship manner, and there is no place for them in the Ottawa Swamps. The Greens have only two parliamentarians, but the PPC has no.

Public Choice Economics, POWs of Regulation

The first head-on collision of utopian ideals with economic reality is in a field of study that has become known as public choice. One of its founding intellectuals, Nobel laureate James Buchanan, described it as “politics without romance.” If more greens listen to lessons from public choice economics, such as the selfish nature of politics, the gap with PPC will narrow. In particular, public choice emphasizes the importance of institutions and incentives rather than language and personality in determining policy outcomes.

For example, Greens platforms often advocate empowering state agencies. This shows a mysterious reluctance to think that the expanded state creates barriers to entry for outsiders and new entrants. It also creates more opportunities for regulated prisoners of war, who inevitably create regulations in order for the subject of regulation to benefit themselves.

Consider the case of the state-owned Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) and the Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB). These two sinkholes of waste, loss, and chronism symbolize the canyon between lofty rhetoric and earthly reality. The CIB, the promise of the 2015 Liberal Party campaign, has hung billions of dollars and is injecting itself into regional issues, but has not yet completed one project.

On the one hand, PPC wants to “eliminate all corporate subsidies and other inefficient government interventions that unfairly support some businesses and businesses.” In other words, there will be no BDC or CIB.

Greens, on the other hand, just wants the CIB to serve their lucrative interests and “lower interest rates on local governments for financing infrastructure projects.” Meanwhile, Greens also wants to “use the City Statute to give the city greater autonomy,” and seems unaware of how he pays Piper to call the song.

Greens facilitate discussions and offer new perspectives, but their economic naiveness sets them apart from PPC. Congressmen cannot choose the result. They can choose a policy. Statements about the former make little sense, but the right legal system means a lot from an economic point of view.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Fergus Hodgson

Fergus Hodgson is the founder and editor-in-chief of the Latin American intelligence publication Econ Americas. He is also a roving editor of the Gold Newsletter and a researcher at the Frontier Public Policy Center.

Posted on