Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Canada’s Financial Freefall: When Rosy Rhetoric Meets Hard Reality

Published

7 minute read

This article is from The Opposition With Dan Knight substack.  

The Trudeau Government’s Economic Alchemy: Turning Gold Hopes Into Lead Numbers

Good morning, my fellow Canadians. It’s September 3, 2023, and if you’re expecting to wake up to a bright, financially secure Canada, well, I have some sobering news for you. The latest figures from Statistics Canada are in, and they confirm what many of us have suspected: the Canadian economy is not on the up-and-up. Despite the rosy pictures painted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minster Chrystia Freeland, the real numbers don’t lie, and they point to an economic landscape in turmoil. Allow me to break it down for you.

The new Statistics Canada data is in, and it paints a rather bleak picture of the Canadian economy under the watchful eyes of the federal government and Justin Trudeau. Let’s delve into some numbers, shall we? A staggering $16.5 billion in debt was added by Canadian households in the first quarter of this year alone, with $11.2 billion being in mortgage debt. In an environment of 5% interest rates, a rate we haven’t seen for over a decade, this is a financial bomb waiting to explode.

And let’s not forget inflation. Since 2021, we’ve seen a cumulative inflation rate of around 16.5%. Now, remember, these aren’t just abstract numbers on a ledger somewhere; these are realities hitting your grocery bills, your gas prices, your rents, and slowly emptying your wallets. But it’s not just households feeling the pinch. The economy as a whole is stalling, with real GDP nearly unchanged in the second quarter of 2023, following a measly 0.6% rise in the first quarter.

Amidst all this, Justin Trudeau and the federal government seem content piling on debt like there’s no tomorrow. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s March 2023 report shows Canada’s deficit is expected to rise to $43.1 billion in 2023-24, up from $36.5 billion in 2022-23. And let’s not forget that 1 out of every 5 dollars in this debt spree didn’t even exist pre-pandemic. Essentially, we’re spending money we don’t have, to solve problems we’re not solving, all while making new ones.

So, where has all this spending gone? Not into securing a robust future for Canadians, I can tell you that. Despite the monumental deficits and the reckless spending, housing investment fell 2.1% in the second quarter,marking its fifth consecutive quarterly decrease. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and the government’s financial imprudence is exacerbating, not alleviating, the situation.

But here’s a twist to the story: while investments in housing decline, Justin Trudeau decided it was prime time to open the floodgates of immigration. There’s an aspect of governance called planning, something that seems foreign to this administration. How does one justify allowing over a million immigrants into Canada without even hinting at a solution for housing them? The result is basic economics – demand outstrips supply, and prices soar.

Remember the days before Trudeau’s reign, when the average home in Canada cost around $400,000? Eight years under his watch and that figure has doubled. Trudeau’s policies seem like a cruel jest to young families, professionals, and, frankly, anyone aspiring to own a piece of the Canadian dream. It’s almost as if he expected the housing market to “balance itself”.

And before you think this is just a ‘rough patch,’ let me remind you that household spending is also slowing. So not only are Canadians going into debt, but they’re also cutting back on spending. They’re being hit from both sides, and there’s no end in sight. The government’s promises of prosperity seem increasingly hollow when we see that per capita household spending has declined in three of the last four quarters.

The Trudeau administration’s approach to governing appears to be in a parallel universe, one where debt is limitless, and financial responsibilities are for the next government or even the next generation to sort out. And don’t even get me started on the higher taxes lurking around the corner to pay off this bonanza of spending. This isn’t governance; it’s financial negligence.

When Canadians were told that this level of inflationary spending could turn our country into something akin to Venezuela, many scoffed at the idea. But let’s face it: the signs are becoming hard to ignore. The truth is, many Canadians have been led to believe they can have gold-plated social services without paying an ounce of gold in taxes. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seemed more than happy to sell that narrative. He promised a utopia, a social safety net woven from dreams and aspirations. But what has that net caught? Rising costs, crippling debt, and a harder life for everyday Canadians.

Trudeau has turned out to be less a responsible steward of the economy and more of a Pied Piper, leading us all off a fiscal cliff while playing a cheerful tune. Or perhaps he’s more like the Cheshire Cat from “Alice in Wonderland,” grinning broadly as he disappears, leaving behind only his grin and a trail of false promises.

As we approach the pivotal year of 2025, don’t forget who sold you this bill of goods. Remember the skyrocketing costs of living, the unmanageable debt, and the empty words that were supposed to make everything better. I, for one, certainly won’t forget. And I suspect, come election time, neither will you.

Click here to see more from The Opposition with Dan Knight.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

To become a paid subscriber

Before Post

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

Fraser Institute

U.S. election should focus or what works and what doesn’t work

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

As Republicans and Democrats make their final pitch to voters, they’ve converged on some common themes. Kamala Harris wants to regulate the price of food. Donald Trump wants to regulate the price of credit. Harris wants the tax code to favour the 2.5 per cent of workers who earn tips. So does Trump. Harris wants the government to steer more labour and capital into manufacturing. And so does Trump.

With each of these proposals, the candidates think the United States would be better off if the government made more economic decisions and—by implication—if individual citizens made fewer economic decisions. Both should pay closer attention to Zimbabwe. Yes, Zimbabwe.

Why does a country with abundant natural resources, rich culture and unparalleled beauty have one-sixth the average income of neighbouring Botswana? While we’re at it, why do twice as many children die in infancy in Azerbaijan as across the border in Georgia? Why do Hungarians work 20 per cent longer than their Austrian neighbours but earn 45 per cent less? Why is extreme poverty 200 times more common in Laos than across the Mekong River in Thailand?

Or how about this one: Why were more than one-quarter of Estonians formerly exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution when the country was socialist while today nearly every Estonian breathes clean air in what is ranked the cleanest country in the world.

These are anecdotes. However, the plural of anecdote is data, and through careful and systematic study of the data, we can learn what works and what doesn’t. Unfortunately, the populist economic policies in vogue among Democrats and Republicans do not work.

What does work is economic freedom.

Economic freedoms are a subset of human freedoms. When people have more economic freedom, they are allowed to make more of their own economic choices—choices about work, about buying and selling goods and services, about acquiring and using property, and about forming contracts with others.

For nearly 30 years, the Fraser Institute has been measuring economic freedom across countries. On one hand, governments can stop people from making their own economic choices through taxes, regulations, barriers to trade and manipulation of the value of money (see the proposals of Harris and Trump above). On the other hand, governments can enable individual economic choice by protecting people and their property.

The index published in Fraser’s annual Economic Freedom of the World report incorporates 45 indicators to measure how governments either prevent or enable individual economic choice. The result reveals the degree of economic freedom in 165 countries and territories worldwide, with data going back to 1970.

According to the latest report, comparatively wealthy Botswanans rank 84 places ahead of Zimbabweans in terms of the economic freedom their government permits them. Georgians rank 107 places ahead of Azerbaijanis, Thais rank 60 places ahead of Laotians, and Austrians are 32 places ahead of Hungarians.

The benefits of economic freedom go far beyond anecdotes and rankings. As Estonia—once one of the least economically free places in the world and now among the freest—dramatically shows, freer countries tend not only to be more prosperous but greener and healthier.

In fact, economists and other social scientists have conducted nearly 1,000 studies using the index to assess the effect of economic freedom on different aspects of human wellbeing. Their statistical comparisons include hundreds and sometimes thousands of data points and carefully control for other factors like geography, natural resources and disease environment.

Their results overwhelmingly support the idea that when people are permitted more economic freedom, they prosper. Those who live in freer places enjoy higher and faster-growing incomes, better health, longer life, cleaner environments, more tolerance, less violence, lower infant mortality and less poverty.

Economic freedom isn’t the only thing that matters for prosperity. Research suggests that culture and geography matter as well. While policymakers can’t always change people’s attitudes or move mountains, they can permit their citizens more economic freedom. If more did so, more people would enjoy the living standards of Botswana or Estonia and fewer people would be stuck in poverty.

As for the U.S., it remains relatively free and prosperous. Whatever its problems, decades of research cast doubt on the notion that America would be better off with policies that chip away at the ability of Americans to make their own economic choices.

Continue Reading

Business

EU Tightens Social Media Censorship Screw With Upcoming Mandatory “Disinformation” Rules

Published on

From Reclaim The Net

By

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.

The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.

The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.

The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).

Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.

In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.

But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.

“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.

It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.

Continue Reading

Trending

X