![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyesetz(On this post, but Google keeps telling me that my browser is sending a malformed request, so I'll post it here instead.)
With all due respect to your valid complaints, Harper does have a point about "back-room deals". Immediately after the election, Dion said he wouldn't form a coalition because "the voters have spoken" and they gave Harper's party an increase in seats, so clearly they are happy with him and his policies. That's just as true now as it was then, so either Dion was BSing then or he's BSing now.
While I don't like Harper's social-conservative policies, and I would be really concerned about plutocratic sell-outs like C-61 if he actually had an actual majority to pass them with, the fact remains that Harper is an excellent economist and his handling of the banking mess has been the envy of the world, or of the IMF at least (which ranks Canada's banks as #1 most stable). All Canadians should be proud of how Harper handled the CIBC mess last year, quietly and effectively, so this year CIBC did not go belly-up—unlike a few American banks I could name.
Canada does not have the problems of the USA and does not need Depression-era programs to get going again. Its neighbour and major trading partner has a national hangover from eight years of partying like there's no tomorrow, but *Canada* don't actually have the hangover. The claim that Dion can do a better job than Harper is already doing on the recession recovery is an extraordinary one and would require extraordinary proof—but such proof has not been offered.
The coalition seems to be forming now because it can, not because it should. The coalition is in the best interests of the MP's involved, but not in the best interests of the Canadians they are supposed to serve. I am very disappointed in Dion's latest move and the best thing I can say about Layton is that at least his name doesn't appear in any of the articles I've seen about how his party will be forming a government with the Liberals.
With all due respect to your valid complaints, Harper does have a point about "back-room deals". Immediately after the election, Dion said he wouldn't form a coalition because "the voters have spoken" and they gave Harper's party an increase in seats, so clearly they are happy with him and his policies. That's just as true now as it was then, so either Dion was BSing then or he's BSing now.
While I don't like Harper's social-conservative policies, and I would be really concerned about plutocratic sell-outs like C-61 if he actually had an actual majority to pass them with, the fact remains that Harper is an excellent economist and his handling of the banking mess has been the envy of the world, or of the IMF at least (which ranks Canada's banks as #1 most stable). All Canadians should be proud of how Harper handled the CIBC mess last year, quietly and effectively, so this year CIBC did not go belly-up—unlike a few American banks I could name.
Canada does not have the problems of the USA and does not need Depression-era programs to get going again. Its neighbour and major trading partner has a national hangover from eight years of partying like there's no tomorrow, but *Canada* don't actually have the hangover. The claim that Dion can do a better job than Harper is already doing on the recession recovery is an extraordinary one and would require extraordinary proof—but such proof has not been offered.
The coalition seems to be forming now because it can, not because it should. The coalition is in the best interests of the MP's involved, but not in the best interests of the Canadians they are supposed to serve. I am very disappointed in Dion's latest move and the best thing I can say about Layton is that at least his name doesn't appear in any of the articles I've seen about how his party will be forming a government with the Liberals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 01:33 am (UTC)It is my contention that the "old news" we all heard about Canada's banks being so much better off was misleading and/or wrong.
Take any metric you want for quantitatively comparing the economies of the two countries. For example, look at the relative amounts that various stock markets are down from their peaks. It is roughly the same on both side of the border.
And when you finally do go through the old quotes, make sure you find the one where Harper said something along the lines of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong".
But really, aid for the Canadian auto industry?
I don't suppose you are seeing this for what it is - a sign that the Canadian economy suffers the same problems as the US economy.
What it boils down to, and I know you are not going to like this, is that if you live in Canada, you better hope for the American economy to not collapse.