Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Economics professor offers grossly misleading analysis of inequality in Canada

Published

6 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By: Philip Cross

Dalhousie economics professor Lars Osberg’s The Scandalous Rise of Inequality in Canada was published just in time to be eligible for the always hotly-contested title of worst Canadian economics book of the year.

Osberg’s central theme is that inequality in Canada has been steadily increasing and this poses a threat to economic growth, financial stability, social mobility, limiting climate change and even democracy—at times, it seems every imaginable problem is blamed on inequality. This makes it even more important to get the facts about inequality right.

The most misleading chapter in the book concerns top-income earners. Osberg claims that “the income share of the top 1 per cent… is the aspect of inequality that has changed the most in recent years.” However, the chapter on inequality at the top of the income distribution exclusively features data for its increase in the United States, driven by the outrageous success of technology firms such as Facebook, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft and Nvidia. Nowhere is the data for Canada cited, but in fact the 1 per cent’s share of income in Canada has fallen since 2007, which probably explains why Osberg avoided it.

The real problem with Canada’s high-income earners over the last two decades is not that they’re gobbling up more income at the expense of everyone else, but that we do not have enough of them. Nor do the top 1 per cent in Canada earn nearly as much as in the U.S. Pretending that incomes in Canada are as skewed as in the U.S. is another example of importing narratives without examining whether they are applicable here. This might be forgivable for the average person, but it’s scandalous and disingenuous for a professor specializing in income distribution.

Raising taxes on the richest 1 per cent has a “populist” appeal. However, former finance minister Bill Morneau wrote in his memoire Where To From Here: A Path to Canadian Prosperity that he came to “regret supporting the idea of a tax increase on the 1 percent” because “it began a narrative that made it difficult to have a constructive dialogue with the people prepared to invest in research and development to benefit the country… our proposal’s biggest impact was to reduce business confidence in us.” Before becoming the Trudeau government’s current finance minister, Chrystia Freeland acknowledged that “many of the ultra-high net-worth individuals flourishing in today’s global economy are admirable entrepreneurs, and we would all be poorer without them.”

Another practical consideration for Morneau was that “Canada’s personal income tax rates are not competitive with the U.S. where highly skilled labour is concerned.” Finally, Morneau acknowledged that taxing the rich in Canada will not raise much money, because “the number of taxpayers affected will be quite small… the math just doesn’t work.” I calculate that confiscating all of the income the 1 per cent earn above $200,000 would fund total government spending in Canada for a paltry 44.2 days.

Besides misrepresenting the importance of Canada’s 1 per cent, Osberg twice makes the patently false claim in his book that “income from capital… is roughly half of GDP in Canada.” Just last week,  Statistics Canada’s estimated labour income’s share of GDP was 51.3 per cent while corporate profits garnered 26.0 per cent (including profits reaped by government-owned businesses through their monopolies on utilities, gambling and alcohol sales). Another 12.6 per cent of GDP was mixed income earned by farmers and small businesses, which StatsCan cannot disentangle between labour and capital. The final 10.2 per cent of GDP went to government taxes on production and imports, which clearly is not a return on capital. I would expect undergraduate economic students to have a better grasp of the distribution of GDP than Osberg demonstrates.

Among the many evils generated by inequality, Osberg cites democracy as “threatened by the increasing concentration of wealth and economic power in Canada.” Osberg must believe Justin Trudeau’s decade-long tenure as prime minister reflects the choice of our economic elites. If so, they have much to answer for; besides steadily-degrading Canada’s economic performance and international standing, Trudeau attacked these same elites by raising income taxes on upper incomes, increasing the capital gains tax, and undercutting the fortunes of the oil and gas industry on which much wealth relies. If our economic elite really controls government, it seems they made an incredibly bad choice for prime minister.

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Business

Greenland Is A Strategic Goldmine

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By John Teichert

President-elect Donald Trump recently snapped the gaze of the national security establishment to an often-overlooked geographical feature — Greenland.

Trump’s comments have been enough to start a long-overdue conversation about the semi-autonomous territory owned by Denmark, a landmass that retired Admiral James Stavridis, who served as the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO, has called “a strategic goldmine for the United States.” Stavridis was speaking both literally and figuratively.

Trump has likely done something that many of the so-called national security experts have never considered: He has looked down on a globe from the top. The traditional U.S.-centric view does not tell the full story nor provide the proper perspective. A top-down glance unveils key observations that reveal the wisdom of focusing on a geographic feature that has been brushed aside for far too long. 

Greenland and the entire Arctic region are typically considered simply rugged and quaint. Yet, their significance must be properly elevated as a fundamental component of U.S. national security and economic interests. Trump has done just that.

A North-Pole-centered perspective reveals that Greenland is the largest geographical feature in the Arctic region. As a result, it holds oversized strategic significance in controlling land, sea, air, undersea and space domains for a substantial part of the planet. Proper utilization of the Greenland landmass creates opportunities for multi-faceted dominance of the entire region.

This same perspective reveals a massive trade route, given the right climatic conditions and ice-breaking capabilities. It provides a maritime shortcut between the East Coast and the West Coast of the United States, and similarly for trade between Europe and Asia.

The Houthis in Yemen have reminded the world of an important economic truth — the ability to shut down transit through a key trade route can have ripple effects on the global economy. Suffocating transit through the Red Sea has tripled the cost of shipping from Asia to the East Coast of the United States, enacting huge global inflationary pressures. These negative impacts would be dwarfed by a nation that could control and restrict transit through the Arctic Ocean.

The view from the North Pole also enlightens the viewer about the closer-than-expected proximity between Russia and North America. The protective buffer of the Atlantic Ocean does not tell the full story, and the distances between the United States and Canada and their Russian adversary are much shorter than would otherwise be understood.

Through this literal worldview, Greenland looms large in its significance. This is especially true when it is properly viewed as the primary barrier between Russia and the east coast of the United States. Such positioning provides the rationale for the United States Space Force’s posture on the island with its early warning radars and space control systems – situated to protect against strategic surprise.

Trump’s strong statements about proper economic and strategic utilization of Greenland have been informed by such strategic orientation. These statements are also a natural extension of his rightful insistence that European NATO members pay their fair share to meet collective defense requirements.

While the United States has a commendable 75-year history of supporting European and collective security, fair share also means that America’s European allies must support North American security. That starts with Greenland and continues with a robust strategic focus on the Arctic region.

None of this addresses the largely untapped and abundant natural resources in the Arctic region, from oil and natural gas to precious metals and rare earth minerals, which are desperately needed to sustain a thriving modern global economy. Calling it a goldmine is not hyperbole.

Not only have Trump’s comments gained our attention, but they have also captured the attention of Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede. Egede has eagerly proclaimed that his territory is poised to enhance its collaboration with the United States regarding natural resources and security efforts.

Thus, with just a few words informed by a properly oriented security perspective, Trump has already motivated and cultivated a collaboration that could strike gold for American interests.

United States Air Force Brigadier General John Teichert (ret) is a prolific author and leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force, international affairs. General Teichert maintains a robust schedule of media engagements, and his activities can best be followed at johnteichert.com and on LinkedIn. General Teichert can be reached at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Trending

X