The Alleged Gap Between Free Trade & Economic Embargoes

A common libertarian attack on conservative foreign policy in North America consists of opposition to our government’s authority to impose economic sanctions on foreign states. Any restrictions on the potential trade partners of free citizens, advocates of this position contend, contradicts our freedom to trade value for value with other individuals while being guided by our own rational self-interest. Although I find the term to be dangerously imprecise, I will proceed by calling this perspective “libertarian isolationism” in the absence of – or in my ignorance of – a more appropriate label.

The core of libertarian isolationism is the relativistic insistence that countries against which we are not currently fighting a (“legitimate”) war are beyond the scope of our rational judgment or of our government’s mandate to interfere with. Besides implicitly equivocating between moral social structures and tyrannical ones, this perspective is tantamount to denying the existence of threats, and therefore enemies, abroad.

Those international actors whose policies are defined by the use of physical force against individuals – any individuals – of the Canadian state must be considered our enemies. This principle applies equally to threats of physical force (e.g. a state that is allied with an enemy, a state whose policy is war with our ally, or a state whose malevolent intentions regarding our country and its citizens can otherwise be established by valid evidence) as it does to actual instances of the initiation of coercion.

The principal fallacy of the isolationist view is that it drops the context of the purpose of government: the protection of individual rights from criminal infringements thereupon by both internal and external sources. A truly consistent policy of free trade forbids permitting violators or would-be violators of the basic condition required for free trade – individual liberty – to grow stronger and better equipped through trade with domestic entities.

We consider it proper to oppose the establishment of trade relationships between domestic business entities and the mafia. Why ought we to exempt foreign gangs who pose any threat whatsoever to our safety from that same standard?

Trading with enemy states represents a blatant violation of the individual rights of our people. It is of paramount importance that we do not allow isolationists to invoke freedom to criticize embargoes when the protection of liberty is the very reason that economic sanctions are justified.

Draft Peter Schiff For Senate

Web-savvy Libertarians in California have launched a nationwide movement to draft a New Haven-born celebrity pundit to take on Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd. Their first big test comes Saturday.

The pundit is Peter Schiff. He has been a fixture bashing the federal bank bailout and stimulus efforts on national TV news (FOXNews, CNBC, CNN) panels because of his early predictions of the Wall Street meltdown. He published a prescient book in 2007 called Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse. “The man who saw it all before everybody saw it,” as Fox anchor Liz Claman introduced him.

Schiff, who now runs a Darien stock brokerage firm, served as an economic adviser to Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose candidacy was elevated by a then-unprecedented grassroots Internet effort. [...]

The campaign has an online “headquarters” and assorted rallying cries, including: “Stop the Bailouts.” “Stop the stimulus!” It has Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter presences, too — even though Schiff insisted in an interview that he has had nothing to do with the effort and would almost definitely not heed a call to actually run. That’s right. Almost definitely.

“Want Peter to run? Pledge! Show him we’ve got his back,” proclaims the home page for an affiliated site coordinating a “Moneybomb” for this Saturday. A “moneybomb” means supporters are hoping to raise an eye-popping pile of pledges in one day to show serious support for a Schiff candidacy — the way a one-day moneybomb propelled Ron Paul’s candidacy a year ago with a record haul.

In some ways the effort mirrors the early drive to find a candidate to challenge Connecticut U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2006, only this time from the right, not the left. In 2006, activists from across the country who supported challenger Ned Lamont poured money and cultivated volunteers through left-leaning national websites like Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. The campaign was national from the start, born at the netroots.*

I'm currently in the process of reading Schiff's 2007 book "Crash-Proof: How To Profit From The Coming Economic Collapse" which was mentioned in the above blurb. So far it has been excellent. I recommend picking it up to anybody who has money in the stock market and has taken a hit or simply wants to hear Alan Greenspan get taken apart. Although Schiff's book does focus on the American economy, its implications for Canada are clear and his discussion of the global economy is helpful as well.

Here's the main video that has been enlisted towards the end of earning money for Schiff's "moneybomb".

When Quebec Is Worried That The Stimulus Is Too Left-Wing ...

A group of Canadian economists have come together to sound the alarm regarding the devastating long-term consequences of recently proposed "stimulus" efforts to jump-start the economy. The website can be found at the following link.

Unsurprisingly, the economists are based out of Alberta, a conservative strong-hold in Canada and ...

Pardon?

They're not out of Alberta?

These economists are out of ... Quebec?!

We economists would like to alert our fellow citizens to the inefficiency involved in increasing public expenditures in order to counter the on-going recession. Under the excuse of a false consensus and the pressure of political considerations, governments ignore the long-term consequences of their interventions.

The massive programs of expenditure and regulation that the federal and Québec government are pushing are essentially meant to satisfy the demands of organized interests.

In the light of economic theory and history, we think that those measures, far from rebooting the economy, will mortgage the taxpayers’ incomes, make producers even more dependent of the state, provide stimulus for protectionism, and set the scene for even worse turmoil in the future.

If their real goal were to promote economic growth, our governments would instead choose to shrink the impediments to investment, work and production, especially by reducing the fiscal and regulatory burden of individuals and businesses.

Well, I'll be damned. As it turns out, many Quebec economists have more common sense than our allegedly conservative Prime Minister. Go figure.

H/t Back Off Government

Meanwhile, On The Road To Recovery ...

Government intervention: making everything worse since 3,000 B.C.



H/t Evil Conservative Radio

Obama: I Don't Understand This Economics Business But I'm Pretty Sure This Is Bush's Fault

US President Barack Obama descended from his well-heated White House today to give the misguided North American masses a shot of wisdom about the economy.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

But don't get him wrong: he loves the American constitution. Just not those nasty parts about property rights and the limited role of the state in the individual's life.

Of course, he's right about tax cuts alone doing little to correct the fundamentals of the economy. Tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts and it is well-covered ground that the Bush administration had a rather difficult time rolling back the spending.

But that isn't the gist of Obama's opinion editorial. Rather, he's looking to throw out the baby with the bath water. He is rejecting capitalism because conservative socialism didn't work. Bush did not govern like a capitalist; he governed like a big government "compassionate conservative" type. Accordingly, the flaws in the Bush method are not the flaws of capitalism. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. The only tonic to the current financial crisis is a return to capitalism.

The Obama plan will replace flawed economics with even more profoundly flawed economics. Boy, the next four years ought to be a hoot.

H/t Kathryn Jean Lopez

Give Me Tax Cuts, Or Give Me Death!

Canadians may cry, Deregulate, Deregulate -- but there is no deregulation. The spending is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding protectionism. Our brethren are already passing stimulus packages in the Senate! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is GM so dear, or Chrysler so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty Allah! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me tax cuts or give me death!

And what has inspired me towards this unconventional call to revolution?

Well, The Globe & Mail, of course:

Moreover, some Conservative militants are incensed that Mr. Harper has abandoned his conservative beliefs to secure Liberal support, after coming within a hair of being toppled over last November's stay-the-course fiscal update.

So grab your pitchforks, fellow Canadians. Our moment has finally come.


For God's sake. Militants, no less!

H/t Damian P.

"With All Due Respect, Mr. President, That Is Not True"

Earlier this month, United States President Barack Obama began peddling his transparently Keynesian 'stimulus package' to the American people. Stimulus economics, he seemed to contend, has achieved universal endorsement among experts and so it would be grossly irresponsible to fail to allow the capable hands of the government to redirect funds from private pockets to public coffers.

Barack Obama on 9 January 2009:

There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.

Unfortunately for the president, several hundred economists beg to differ.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Damn right.

Full page advertisement courtesy of the Cato Institute.

A Word To The Pragmatists From A "So-Called Conservative"

The right-wing blogosphere has witnessed a massive polarization over the question of the proper assessment of Stephen Harper's recent budget. In response to the dissent that many tories have shown over the complete capitulation of the right to the demands of the socialists, many bloggers are meeting dissent with condemnation.

The following entry, found at the Conservative Reporter's blog, provides an excellent example of this trend:

I don’t know about everyone else but I am getting very disgusted with all the so called conservatives who are giving the PM and this budget a hard time. It doesn’t have this, it has too much of that.

Wake up and smell the facts.

What do you think the coalition would have done. The media was on their side, they love iggy, he can do no wrong.

Give this budget a chance to get some results. It is a use it or lose it budget. There are strings attached.

As sorry as I am to 'disgust' you, I cannot help but take issue with the alleged factiness of your position.

The welfare state is built on the assumption of a constantly expanding population, a model which is currently in the process of breaking down in a big way. This means that, within the next however many years, the Baby Boomers will begin to retire and expect the next generation to pay off their debts. But the population has stopped expanding. Add to this the measly little $85 billion deficit that Harper has so bravely incurred to keep himself in the seat of power and we have what is referred to in crass circles as a 'serious fucking problem'.

We are condemning ourselves to financial crisis on a large scale with the short-term thinking that is evident in Harper's 'pragmatic' approach. The Prime Minister has the luxury to do this because he doesn't expect to remain in power long enough to catch the brunt of the long-term consequences. It is, in fact, the citizens of Canada at large who will have to deal with the implications of this budget. And those implications will be profoundly unpleasant.

The global economy's current state of crisis was caused by similar short-term thinking and left-wing economics. "Government intervention in the economy," exclaimed defenders of Bill Clinton who supported increases in subprime lending in the late 1990s, "is the safest bet. Capitalism is fine but it needs a little help from the government to stay on track." Today's defenders of the budget and the bailout economics that it represents assume, even if only implicitly, a similar kind of reasoning.

The root of this problem seems to be the way that many conservatives look at the very purpose of politics. We are told to stand by our Prime Minister while he sells us down the river because it's only temporary. Allow me to remind you that nothing about the government is ever 'just temporary'. Most programs that are touted as nonpermanent stick around for years after their intended sunset and those that do expire on time leave trails of consequences that reverberate for decades down the road. This is especially true of deficits.

Harper is playing clever politics with money that doesn't belong to him. I don't recognize Harper's right - nor anybody else's right - to a minute of my life or a cent of my money. I have supported the Prime Minister in the past because I believed that he had the good sense to fight for economic freedom. This was not an unreasonable belief to hold given the statements that he had made before becoming Prime Minister, particularly regarding the importance of property rights in a free society, the limited role of the government, and the deleterious effects of welfarism on the economy and the state's citizens. But, instead of living by his words, Harper has confirmed the old bromide that politics attracts the power-luster and repels the man of principle.

The budget's conservative defenders have gone out of their way to cite the pragmatic political sense of Harper's decision but they have conspicuously failed to mention or defend the pragmatic financial sense that all budgets should be expected to make. This is because, were they to take their support to its logical extension, they would find themselves defending Keynesianism. As little as many conservatives may know about the economy, they are aware of enough to recognize that this is a bad thing. (Don't believe me? Ask Henry Hazlitt: 'The Failure of the "New Economics": An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies' - PDF)

In a recent article, Andrew Coyne pronounced the Canadian conservative movement dead and I disagreed - to a certain extent, anyway. However, the conservative movement truly is dead if we fail to reclaim the principles that we once defended, foremost among them capitalism. Defending man's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and, accordingly, defending the only economic system that is consonant with those rights (i.e. capitalism), should be what makes a person 'conservative'; these are, in fact, the very principles that we ought to be focused on 'conserving'.

By cowing to the threats of the coalition, Harper has taken capitalism completely off the table as an option for Canada - there is nobody left in power to defend it. So, before sneeringly labeling all of those who reject Harper's pragmatism as "so-called conservatives", please ask yourself precisely what ideas you are effectively preserving in the process of defending the budget.

The answer to that question may surprise you.

Debunking Bailout Economics: Burn, Baby, Burn

It's interesting to note just how many of the recent reactions to announcements that the Big Three could be going under have been limited to wide-eyed 'too big to fail' expressions of Keynesian corporate welfarist sentiment. Advocates of this business-on-a-government-leash model have been waxing apocalyptic on the subject of a future without General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for months now. They insist that the only responsible decision politicians could make would be to increase the money flow from the unwilling pockets of taxpayers to the gaping maw of the struggling auto industry. Take money from the productive, they insist, and give part of it back to the productive and part of it to the chronically unproductive. We can call it a 'stimulus package'!

Bradley Doucet of the Western Standard proposes a slightly different response to the failure of inefficient businesses: burn, baby, burn.

Doucet:

Is it bad for the economy if inefficient, badly run businesses go under? That seems to be the thinking behind fears that the Big Three American automakers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler, might go bankrupt if governments do not bail them out. Millions of jobs would be lost, it is argued, including some half a million here in Canada. The effects would ripple through the economy and depress spending all around. Like the major financial institutions before them, interested parties argue that the Big Three are simply "too big to fail." It would be closer to the truth to say that these dinosaurs are too big and clumsy to survive.

In a free market, if a business goes bankrupt, it is because it was badly run, and competitors were able to be more efficient -- that is to say, those competitors were able to produce the same product or service and offer it at a lower price by keeping their costs in check. Alternately, they were able to offer a better product or service for the same price, or again, some combination of a better product or service and a lower price. When in the worst case scenario, a poorly run business is allowed to go bankrupt and liquidate, the capital and labour that were trapped in the inefficient enterprise are freed up to be reallocated to more efficient uses. More successful competitors can expand, purchasing plants and equipment and also hiring laid off workers.

The transition is never painless, of course. Stockholders take a hit as assets are sold off at a discount. Some assets may be of no real use, representing excess capacity or being out of date or run down, leading to further loss. Not all employees will be able to find work in the same fields, as they may have been superfluous; or they will have to take a pay cut, as their wages may have been inflated by decades of legally-sanctioned union extortion. The thing to notice is that, painful as it is, bankruptcy is just the market's way of correcting itself. Economic players have been acting in disregard of reality, and this has consequences. Bankruptcy is a serious form of market correction, but like all market corrections, when it is necessary, it is necessary.

Bailing out an enterprise that should by all rights be allowed to fail is just an attempt to deny reality. It punishes hardworking taxpayers and efficiently-run businesses for the sins of overpaid union members and inefficiently-run businesses. It also sets up an unhealthy spiral, in which those who act recklessly are not held to account, encouraging them to continue to act recklessly in the future. It is corporate welfare at its worst, even though some of the benefits redound to privileged union members at the expense of all other workers.

This is a truly excellent article, a clear look at the way businesses should work in a capitalist economy as well as the effects that governments have on the economy when they bail out inefficient companies. There's much more of the article than what I quoted so it's definitely worth following the link.

In Response To Stephen Taylor On The Budget

In light of the conservative base's sense of betrayal over the new more or less Liberal budget, Stephen Taylor has replied thusly:

A political party’s first and last job is to get elected. If you thought that the Conservative Party should have held its ground, flipped off the opposition, delivered $30 billion in tax cuts and went out in a blaze of glory then you have the benefit of layering fantasy on a wholly incongruent political landscape where the pragmatists thrive. A political party, in practice, is not much more than a marketing machine to sell ideas to an electorate looking to buy them. However, elections span a meager 36 days and unless a voter is conditioned to think conservatively, they won’t vote Conservative. If a Conservative party does form government — especially a minority government — the long term goal is the same: keep the upper hand, survive when strategically beneficial, and win elections.

Mr. Taylor, a political party's first and last job is to do what is right. What benefit is there in the Conservative Party forming government if their primary concern will always be retaining power at the expense of representing the values that they were elected to defend? The good politician takes chances and defends his principles to the bitter end. The good politician never surrenders his values to the mewing of his critics nor does he sacrifice the liberty of his constituents to keep himself politically viable.

A politician's ability to be 'pragmatic' may win a few converts come election time but it will likely cost him the votes of many former faithfuls who decide to stay home rather than vote for a man who will refuse to represent his views when his back is against the wall. Pragmatism does not win elections, Mr. Taylor, principles do.

We must remember that the goal of politics is not, in fact, to permit competing political parties to jockey for power while trampling over the rights of Canadian citizens who, in turn, prefer to dismiss it all as inevitable given the nature of the system. The goal of politics must be to preserve and protect the rights of Canadian citizens. This budget fails to do that. Hell, it isn't even a step in the right direction.

And that is no fantasy, sir, that is principle.

Mr. Taylor continues:

We can lament the budget delivered by our Conservative Party and complain that it goes against our instincts as conservatives. But yesterday, the Conservative government did it’s [sic] job, it presented a survivable budget in the current political climate. However, the conservative movement failed because it was unsuccessful in creating the conditions of ideological survivability for what should have been a sincerely conservative budget.

I see that we're exempting Stephen Harper and his government from the 'conservative movement' now. As appropriate as that may be after this budget, I will admit that it seems like an odd thing to do. We as citizens are responsible for creating a political climate that is conducive to conservatism but the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is not? We must follow our principles and act according to our standard of the good but the Prime Minister of our country ought to be lauded for represented Liberal principles rather than Conservative ones?

In every walk of life, Mr. Taylor, it is my sincere conviction that one can compromise on price but never on principle. Harper has repeatedly demonstrated that he lives by the very opposite maxim. I will never support a man's actions simply because they are strategically effective.


ALSO:

Searching For Liberty - "... And I always thought the idea of politics was to have an honest plan, and let the voters decide if they approve."

Small Dead Animals - These poll results show where Canadian conservatives stand on the matter.

Catprint In The Mash - Faithful Iggy

Gerry Nicholls - "Coalition Dead But Victorious"

Why Conservatives Must Abandon Anti-Intellectualism & Reclaim The Realm Of The Mind

On one level, I can appreciate why so many North American conservatives have chosen to turn up their noses at academics. Having spent the majority of my adult life dealing with the so-called 'intelligentsia,' I can confirm that they are, to generalize, an impossible group of garrulous and anorchid weasels. The few scholars who are able to scramble out of the pit of evil that is modern day pragmatism do so only to embrace some trendy political philosophy, typically Kantian or some idealistic derivative thereof, that is so entirely divorced from reality that one is left to wonder whether they can still be said to live on earth.

That said, it would be unwise for the right to abandon the realm of philosophy in protest. As a post at The New Clarion points out, just look at the influence one blue-collar man who has read Austrian economics had on the American election:

Just think: one plumber who has read Mises rocked the Obama campaign for days. If one educated American can have such an effect, imagine what would happen if just 5% of Americans read good economics and good philosophy. The welfare state would be seriously challenged. It might even be over.

The author's point is well taken. If 1.65 million (or approximately 5%) of Canadian citizens had read any decent economics or philosophy before the last Canadian election or even during the coalition crisis, is there any chance whatever that the Conservatives could have failed to secure a significantly stronger mandate?

I wrote in a recent post that I couldn't understand why Keynesianism has remained so popular in Canada despite its thorough refutation and the existence of profoundly more rational alternative economic models. After giving it some thought, however, I have concluded that at least some portion of the blame must be laid at the feet of those individuals who choose to base their opinions on floating abstractions and refuse to ground themselves in reality. That criticism is meant for both the left and the right. In fact, perhaps it should apply most to the alleged defenders of capitalism, particularly those currently involved with the US Republican Party, whose arguments in favour of laissez faire economics consists largely of religious hokum and half-understood snatches of Adam Smith.

The solution to our problem is to promote the pursuit of philosophy, not to abandon academia to our enemies. The solution is to reclaim the realm of the mind from the pragmatists, postmodernists, and idealists, not to allow them victory by default. As a commenter at The New Clarion puts it, all you have to do to save the world is think.

H/t Thrutch

Harper Free To Be Conservative Now That Obama Takes The Reigns

What will Canadian politics look like now that the "Bush card" is off the table?

Darcey:

Stephen Harper equals ObamaHitler, Steve Harper is acting just like his good friend Barack Obama, Stephen Harper is walking in lockstep with Barack Obama and so on.

The Canadian left are now going to have to start coming up with new ideas to mock the prime minister and fear-monger Canadians. If Barack Obama was president during our recent federal election the Conservatives would have won a majority simply because Bush Derangement Syndrome wouldn't have had any play

Now that we've shuffled the Bush card back to the bottom of the deck, will the media choose to put the Obama card into play or will they suddenly feel remorse for the harsh treatment they showed the last president and urge unity in a time of crisis and division?

The Wall Street Journal:

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Whatever the case may be, I'm thinking Harper is going to have a lot more room to maneuver when it comes to pursuing a right-wing economic and foreign policy agenda.

Just ask Norman Spector.

You Can't Beat 'Em At Home, Harper, So Stop Trying

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper helped ring in Quebec City's 400th birthday Thursday, a series of opinion surveys suggested his party has lost key support in the province.

The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll finds that a bruising session in Parliament - along with a perceived values gap on the environment - has cost the Tories crucial ground with Quebec voters and urban women.

CTV.

Harper has been so busy bending over backwards to come off as "serious" about the environment that he's stopped hitting the effective Conservative points that got him this gig in the first place. Bluntly, the Conservatives are not going to win an election on the environment. It's a non-starter. They can't promise enough in the way of government intervention to compete with this Carbon Tax Green Shift nonsense. A successful campaign against an environmentalist will have to focus on good conservative economics.

"All right, Canada. You want a Carbon Tax? Well, here's what it's going to cost you."

I thought Harper had identified this as the strongest point of attack with the series of Tory attack ads that were released after the announcement of Dion's Carbon Tax. But Harper has wasted a lot of time pleading his Green bona fides and, of course, it's sounding perfunctory and half-hearted.

Stick to the economy, Mr. Prime Minister. The Canadian electorate has often been characterized as a fiscally conservative liberal. Know your audience and start fighting with your strong hand again.

How To Solve Ontario's Economic Crisis

CTV:

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams says the federal government should do more to help Ontario and Quebec's struggling manufacturing sectors.

"The broad shoulders of Ontario have carried this country for a long, long time," Williams told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

Well, gee. That's a really sweet sentiment, Mr. Williams. But how do you want the federal government to help? Perhaps you note the great injustice of the present equalization scheme which sees Ontario tax-payers sending $20 billion more to Ottawa than they receive back in transfers or services. So is the answer a greater chunk of the equalization pie?

Absolutely not. The difference would just be made up again through cuts to transfer payments. The only real option is the simplest one: decontrol. The suggestion has been put forward by John Tory but has predictably fallen on deaf ears. The moratorium on the minds of businessmen and women in Ontario is - as it has been for years - strangling the province's economy. What sets the present situation apart from the past is that, given our current economic circumstances, business is no longer fully capable of shouldering the weight of governmental interference.

The government's proper role is the protection of its citizens. If the provincial Liberal government is truly interested in protecting the people of Ontario they will cut taxes and, in Tory's own words, immediately ease the regulatory burden on business.

UPDATE: An article by Lorrie Goldstein in today's Ottawa Sun regarding the Ontario recession. Goldstein emphasizes restraint and responsibility in the McGuinty government's actions moving forward. Absent from the article are any tangible policy solutions whatsoever but it still provides a decent contextualization of the present situation.

Fraser Institute: Time For A Flat Tax In Canada

I just read a great Press Release from the Fraser Institute arguing for a flat tax in Canada. Very persuasive.

Sign me up.