Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Forget identity politics — growth and investment must be Canada’s top priorities: Jack Mintz

Published

12 months ago

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

Canadians’ real per capita incomes have stalled in the past five years, but that hasn’t been the case in other rich countries

By Jack Mintz

Last week, I wrote about Canada’s poor economic performance over the past five years compared to the United States and other industrialized countries. To recap, Canada’s standard of living has been becalmed, “as a painted ship upon a paint ocean.” Sure, we went through a bad year with the pandemic in 2020. So did other countries. Yet, we fell behind. Over the last five years, as our growth stalled, U.S. per capita GDP grew 9.3 per cent, the OECD average 5.6 per cent, resource-rich Australia 4.8 per cent and Ireland an astonishing 31 per cent.

According to IMF statistics, our share of world GDP (in purchasing-power-parity dollars), has fallen six per cent, from 1.44 per cent in 2018 to 1.36 per cent in 2023. We shouldn’t even be a G7 country anymore: in PPP dollars our economy is only the world’s 16th biggest, right behind Spain.

But that’s the past. What about the future? In 2021, the OECD projected that our economy would perform worse this decade than all other member countries, with per capita real GDP  growing only 0.7 per cent annually — though at least that would be an improvement over the past five years. The big question is why Canada is at the bottom of the heap. There are several reasons:

• The demographic time bomb: Economic growth will be more challenging this decade as many boomers retire and begin supporting their consumption by cashing in pension and other assets. Many other high-income countries, no different than Canada, are also aging rapidly, with retirees rising from roughly 25 per cent of the working population in 2020 to 40 per cent in 2035. With fewer people working and saving, GDP per capita will naturally decline (even if GDP per worker rises). Canada traditionally has been able to attract younger immigrants to make up for the output loss but international markets for skilled labour are increasingly competitive as workers, including ones born in Canada, pick and choose the country they feel offers them the best opportunities.

• Indebtedness: With interest rates higher than they have been, indebtedness also hurts economic growth. To cope with higher payments on mortgages and consumer debt, households, corporations and governments will deleverage by consuming fewer goods and services. Canada’s governments may be carrying less debt than their U.S. and G7 counterparts, but Canadian households and corporations are carrying more — fully 216 per cent of GDP in 2022, compared to 186 in Japan, 153 in the U.S., 150 in the U.K., 127 in German and just 110 per cent in Italy.  Only France, with private debts equal to 228 per cent of its GDP, will experience a greater debt drag on growth than we will.

• Shrinking world trade: Growing protectionism will especially hurt countries that rely, as we do, on trade as a source of economic growth. We currently export 33 per cent of GDP, primarily to the U.S. Geo-political tensions and decoupling from China will hit us harder than other places, like the U.S., where trade matters less.

• A costly energy transition: The extraordinary cost of building new transportation, heating and industrial energy systems over the next few years won’t realize benefits for decades, if at all.  The highest value-added per working hour in 2022 was earned in non-conventional oil extraction at $997 — more than 16 times the average of all industries ($61) and almost five times more than in mining ($205). Shifting labour out of an activity where value-added is that high means GDP will surely fall.

Energy is our largest source of export earnings so any reduction in exports will push the Canadian dollar down. With the federal government hell-bent on stopping new fossil-fuel development, especially of liquified natural gas, we will spend the next couple of decades throwing away wealth that could provide income to Canadians and taxes for governments. Our ideologically driven energy transition will cause us to lag countries like the U.S., Norway and Australia, which continue to develop and export energy while also working on clean technologies.

New technologies: The coming decade does offer the growth-friendly promise of new technologies. AI, continuing digitization and any number of innovations we can’t anticipate will allow us to produce more with the resources we have. On the other hand, adopting new technologies requires investing in new capital. And this is where Canada is weak. Since 2018 Canadian corporate investment has been about 10 per cent of GDP — almost a fifth below the United States and the OECD in general. The OECD says our poor investment performance will cost us 0.4 percentage points in per capita GDP growth every year this decade, more than in any other OECD country.

Why is our standard of living slipping compared to other industrialized economies? Demographics aside, we impose higher barriers to economic growth than our major trading partners do, especially the U.S. Innovation continues to generate great opportunities for us but if business investment remains moribund, we will miss out on many of them. Forget identity politics — growth and investment are now our top priorities.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
conflict / 1 hour ago

Biden Caves, Allows Ukraine To Use US Missiles For Long-Range Strikes Inside Russia

Daily Caller / 2 hours ago

Smugglers Reportedly Telling Migrants To Hoof It Toward Border Before Trump Takes Office

Alberta / 5 hours ago

On gender, Alberta is following the science

Business

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Published on November 17, 2024

By

The Audit

 David Clinton

Javier Milei in Argentina, Musk and Ramaswamy in the US.. What does DOGE in Canada look like?

Under their new(ish) president Javier Milei, Argentina cut deeply and painfully into their program spending to address a catastrophic economic crisis. And they seem to have enjoyed some early success. With Elon Musk now primed to play a similar role in the coming Trump administration in the U.S., the obvious question is: how might such an approach play out in Canada?

Sure. We’re not suffering from headaches on anything like the scale of Argentina’s – the debt we’ve run up so far isn’t in the same league as the long-term spending going on in South America. But ignoring the problems we do face can’t be an option. Given that the annual interest payments on our existing national debt are $11.7 billion (which equals seven percent of total expenditures), simply balancing the budget won’t be enough.

The underlying assumption powering the question is that we live in a world of constraints. There just isn’t enough money to buy everything we might want, so we need to both prioritize and become more efficient. It’s about figuring out what can no longer be justified – even if it does provide some value – and what’s just plain wasteful.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume?

Apparently not everyone sees things that way. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and chaos-driven incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack the self-awareness and capacity to easily change direction.

And some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I’ve written, there’s a real possibility that all the money in the world won’t buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And “all the money in the world” is obviously not on the table. So the well-meaning bureaucrat might conclude that if you’re not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while investing in other areas, too.

Still, I think it’s worth imagining how things might look if we could launch a comprehensive whole-of-government program review.

How Emergency Cuts Might Play Out

Imagine the federal government defaulted on its debt servicing payments and lost access to capital markets. That’s not such an unlikely scenario. There would suddenly be a lot less money available to spend, and some programs would have to be shut down. Protecting emergency and core services would require making fast – and smart – decisions.

We would need to take a long, hard look at this important enumeration of government expenditures. There probably wouldn’t be enough time to bridge the gap by looking for dozens of less-critical million-dollar programs. We would need to find some big-ticket items fast.

Our first step might be to pause or restructure larger ongoing payments, like projects funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank (total annual budget: $3.45 billion). Private investors might pick up some of the slack, or some projects could simply go into hibernation. “Other interest costs” (total annual budget: $4.6 billion) could also be restructured.

Reducing equalization payments (total annual budget: $25.2 billion) and territorial financing (total budget: $5.2 billion) might also be necessary. This would, of course, spark parallel crises at lower levels of government. Similarly, grants to settle First Nations claims (total budget: $6 billion) managed by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada would also be at least temporarily cut.

All that would be deeply painful and trigger long-term negative consequences.

But there’s a far better approach that could be just as effective and a whole lot less painful:

What an All-of-Government Review Might Discover

Planning ahead would allow you the luxury of targeting spending that – in some cases at least – wouldn’t even be missed. Think about programs that were announced five, ten, even thirty years ago, perhaps to satisfy some passing fad or political need. They might even have made sense decades ago when they were created…but that was decades ago when they were created.

Here’s how that’ll work. When you read through the program and transfer spending items on that government expenditures page (and there are around 1,200 of those items), the descriptions all point to goals that seem reasonable enough. But there are some important questions that should be asked about each of them:

  • When did these programs begin?
  • What specific activities do they involve?
  • What have they accomplished over the past 12 months?
  • Is their effectiveness trending up or down?
  • Are they employing efficiency best-practices used in the private sector?
  • Who’s tasked with monitoring changes?
  • Where are their reports published?

To show you what I mean, here are some specific transfer or program line items and their descriptions:

Department of Employment and Social Development

  • Workforce Development Agreements ($722 million)
  • Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Transformation Initiative ($374 million)
  • Payments to provinces, territories, municipalities, other public bodies, organizations, groups, communities, employers and individuals for the provision of training and/or work experience, the mobilization of community resources, and human resource planning and adjustment measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market ($856 million)

Department of Industry

  • Contributions under the Strategic Innovation Fund ($2.4 billion)

Department of Citizenship and Immigration

  • Settlement Program ($1.13 billion)

Department of Indigenous Services

  • Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person).

Each one of those (and many, many others like them) could be case studies in operational efficiency and effectiveness. Or not. But there’s no way we could know that without serious research.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share The Audit

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

 

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

DOGE seeks ‘super high-IQ’ people willing to work 80 hours a week for free

Published on November 17, 2024

By

From The Center Square

By 

President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency is seeking “super high-IQ” people to work more than 80 hours a week for free.

DOGE co-leader Elon Musk, who is the CEO of Tesla and is one of the richest people in the world, is working with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to find top talent to cut wasteful spending, overburdensome regulations and re-structure federal agencies. Neither Musk or Ramaswamy will be paid for their work.

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE,” the new advisery group said in a social media post. “We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting.”

Candidates can send their resumes to the DOGE account on X.

“Elon & Vivek will review the top 1% of applicants,” according to the post.

In a separate post, Musk said the work will be challenging and won’t be paid.

“Indeed, this will be tedious work, make lots of enemies & compensation is zero,” Musk wrote.

The department’s acronym, DOGE, is a nod to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Trump laid out lofty goals for DOGE in his announcement this week.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhatten Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the group welcomes DOGE to the challenge.

“Given our cumbersome bureaucracy and large fiscal imbalances, the effort is long overdue,” she said. “Regardless of political views, we should all want the federal government to spend scarce dollars wisely.”

MacGuineas said the outside group’s work could help restore trust in the government.

“An aggressive effort to reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies could save billions or even trillions of dollars over a decade and could help improve the public’s faith in government,” she said.

MacGuineas urged DOGE to look at the full budget.

“Such an effort should look at all parts of the budget, especially in the areas of health care, national defense, and spending through the tax code, and it should look beyond just cutting fraud and reducing bureaucracy to also identify places where the taxpayer is not getting the best value for their dollar,” she said. “Federal health care spending, in particular, is rife with overpayments and inefficiencies that offer the opportunity to substantially lower costs without meaningfully reducing quality or access to care.”

Social Security and federal health care programs, specifically Medicare, deserve special attention, MacGuineas said.

Since fiscal year 2003, improper payment estimates by executive branch agencies have totaled about $2.7 trillion, including $236 billion for fiscal year 2023. Improper payments have declined in recent years, but remain a stubborn challenge for many federal agencies. Improper payments are payments that shouldn’t have been made or were made in the wrong amount.

Most of the improper payments come from five federal programs: Medicare, comprising three programs ($51 billion); Medicaid ($50 billion); the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance – Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ($44 billion); the Department of the Treasury’s Earned Income Tax Credit ($22 billion); the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness ($19 billion).

MacGuineas said DOGE should take a bipartisan outlook.

“Importantly, the process will need to be as bipartisan as possible in order to help with the deliverability and implementation of ideas,” she said. “The recommendations will need Congressional buy-in, further emphasizing the need for this to be an effort reaching across the aisle and leaving all options on the table to address our fiscal imbalances.”

Congress has run a deficit every year since 2001. In the past 50 years, the federal government has ended with a fiscal year-end budget surplus four times, most recently in 2001.

DOGE also plans to go after fraud at the federal level. The Government Accountability Office, which serves as the research arm of Congress, estimated fraud losses cost taxpayers between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, in a report in April. The fraud estimate’s range represents 3% to 7% of average federal obligations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X