Chrétien to step down

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Even as the "Eastern bastards", as it were, sent your company into Chapter 11 and fed you a pink slip? That's where the attitude comes from, you know.

No that remark comes from the attitude: "I'm all right jack, screw you." It has nothing to do with any Eastern Bastard laying off people in Alberta.

Originally posted by Asher
You're the one who brought it up and said we deserved it. You bring it up, expect an earful.

Your comment has nothing to do with my comment.

Originally posted by Asher
You don't think they're justified for leaving the price regulated by the market? Most people wouldn't agree with you that have a clue how economics works...

Well, if you knew anything about economics, you would realize that your comment is completely naive.

In times of high inflation, governments routinely step in to bring prices down (what should be done to bring prices down is extensively debated). No one leaves it to the market.

For example, in 1988 inflation hits about 5 per cent in Ontario (in the rest of the country, it is running at a managable 2-3 per cent). The Bank of Canada jacks up interest rates in an effort to push down prices. The result is a made-in-Canada recession, which would be quickly followed by a global recession.

This, by the way, is a prime example about how the idiots in Ottawa screwed the rest of the country for the sake of Ontario. And those of us in Ontario who were hit by the recession were more than empathetic to the complaints from out west.

Originally posted by Asher
Was it understandable for Albertans to want the market to regulate the market, rather than an outsider step in and strip away profits and drive away foreign investment on top of setting artificial pricecaps to help out people far away?

The market does not regulate itself in times of major upheaval. See: the Great Depression in England 1890s, the Great Depression in the 1930s, the oil crisis and stagflation in the 1970s, the Asian Crisis 1997, and so on.

Edit: of course it was understandable because most Albertans were benefiting from the upheaval created by massive oil price hikes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
No that remark comes from the attitude: "I'm all right jack, screw you." It has nothing to do with any Eastern Bastard laying off people in Alberta.

Not exactly. The reason why they actually said that was because of Trudeau forcing them to sell the oil substantially below market costs, while at the same time literally putting 100s of Alberta businesses out of business at the same time.

They certainly weren't alright by the time they said this, they were hurting and hurting badly. That's why they were mad.

It's like when you're swimming with someone and suddenly the person next to you can't swim anymore and starts sinking, and his solution is to grab onto you and pull you down with him.

Well, if you knew anything about economics, you would realize that your comment is completely naive.

In times of high inflation, governments routinely step in to bring prices down (what should be done to bring prices down is extensively debated). No one leaves it to the market.

You'll be very hard pressed to find an economist who will be enthusiastic of putting artificial price caps on a hot commodity and an attempt to close off your country from outside economy's in that very market.

Find me another example where a non-Liberal government (they clearly don't understand economics ) steps in to "bring the price down" and it helps everyone involved.

The entire's world oil market was pricey at the time, it was a stupid, stupid move to cap the price and discourage foreign investment as well as forcing oil producers to sell to certain people.

The market does not regulate itself in times of major upheaval. See: the Great Depression in England 1890s, the Great Depression in the 1930s, the oil crisis and stagflation in the 1970s, the Asian Crisis 1997, and so on.

The reason why the market didn't regulate itself in the case of Canada in the late 70s and early 80s is only because the government step in, the general consensus among economists (and at the very least the PhDs) was that trudeau's NEP did more harm than good. His heart may have been in the right place but he made a huge mess out of it.

[blackice]

Only to one such as you with no clue what so ever.

more harm than good.

Just in one article in one magazine you continue to use.
Your simply wrong and Alberta today is reaping the benifits of the harm he did.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, I don't need to live through the times to see what happened. In this modern world of ours we keep documents and records of what happen.

I don't need to understand the background, because it's irrelevant. Anyone with an economics degree could have told you what Trudeau was planning was economically unsound and could have predicted it'd lead to economic disaster -- and it did. Whether he meant good by it and thought he was doing everyone a favor is totally irrelevant.

If you don't understand the background, you won't understand the events.

The study of history requires historians to take into account the background of events and how people thought at the time. This is something that amatuer historians routinely forget.

For example, it is easy to question the behaviour of French and British politicians towards Hitler in the 1930s now that we know what Hitler did. But at the time, these politicians were strongly influenced by the fact that millions of their countrymen had died in a war that didn't accomplish anything.

Another example: To understand why the Americans ended up creating the Vietnam War, you need to understand what was happening throughout the world and how Americans viewed the world at that time.

As for the idea that economists could have predicted the results of the NEP, you obviously don't know the old joke that economists have predicted 10 of the last five recessions.

For every economist who predicted doom and gloom, there were other economists who predicted that the country would be better off with the NEP (not that they would admit that now).

There were no obvious answers at that time.

[notyoueither]

Musical interlude...

http://lyrics.lipetsk.ru/search.html?band=Showdown

What do you think? Jean... Johnny?

Or is Johnny the RL name of blackice?

[Asher]

If there's no obvious answers, why was there an obvious need to do something?

Everyone knows the economy works in cycles, the problem would have simply gone away on its own, it was foolish to interfere, especially when the government appeared to be so clueless (or perhaps they didn't care) of the effects on the Alberta oilpatch.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Not exactly. The reason why they actually said that was because of Trudeau forcing them to sell the oil substantially below market costs, while at the same time literally putting 100s of Alberta businesses out of business at the same time.

I can't recall when that phrase first started being heard, but I believe it was in 79 based on personal recollection. You say it was after the NEP was in place. Any links to prove that or is this an assumption.

Originally posted by Asher
You'll be very hard pressed to find an economist who will be enthusiastic of putting artificial price caps on a hot commodity and an attempt to close off your country from outside economy's in that very market.

The general consensus today is that creating price caps doesn't work, but that reflects the swing towards the right and the Chicago School. I can tell you that when I did an economics degree in the 1980s, there was still a lot of argument about it.

Even today, there is disagreement about placing controls on the market place. China has strict control over its currency markets, a policy that has been routinely attacked by economists, businesspeople, politicians in the west. Yet, China was able to survive the Asian crisis with little damage because of these controls.

China also has strict control over its market (although these controls are being reduced) and yet China's economy has boomed for the past 20-odd years.

Things are not as clear cut as you suggest.

Originally posted by Asher
Find me another example where a non-Liberal government (they clearly don't understand economics ) steps in to "bring the price down" and it helps everyone involved.

During the 1970s (in 74 I think), the conservative Ontario government introduced rent controls. Landlords and property developers screamed bloodly murder and predicted the economy would collapse. It did not. Millions of Ontarians benefited from the controls while landlords were still able to make money.

Originally posted by Asher
The reason why the market didn't regulate itself in the case of Canada in the late 70s and early 80s is only because the government step in

Wrong. The oil price hikes during the 70s was caused by OPEC and then by the the chaos in Iran that significantly reduced the supply of oil to the west. This was a global phenomena and it cannot be blamed on PET.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
If there's no obvious answers, why was there an obvious need to do something?

The answer to this question can be found by understanding what was occuring at that time, the stuff that you describe as irrelevant.

You have suggested that you have studied the NEP extensively and implied that you have taken courses about it. I'm surprised you were not taught about the background to the NEP.

Originally posted by Asher
Everyone knows the economy works in cycles, the problem would have simply gone away on its own, it was foolish to interfere, especially when the government appeared to be so clueless (or perhaps they didn't care) of the effects on the Alberta oilpatch.

Everyone knows that everyone doesn't know or agree upon the same thing.

No one in the world leaves the markets alone to work through a cycle.

The U.S. Federal Reserve routinely steps into the market to manage these cycles. When the economy is booming, interest rates are increased to prevent the economy from overheating. With the U.S. economy in a recession, the Feds step in by lowering interest rates in an attempt to spark economic growth.

Central banks throughout the world do the same thing.

Governments try to influence cycles by raising or cutting taxes and spending.

EDIT: Conservatives love to talk about leaving the market place alone. The reality is government always interfere in the marketplace, and every economist would agree that some form of intervention is required (the level of intervention is extensively debated).

[Asher]

Why don't you look at the rent caps the NDP did in BC recently, Tingkai, that failed miserably as well.

And I never said PET caused the problem, he just made it worse.

And what exactly do you mean it reduced the supply of oil to the west? The west is a producer of Oil...

It was a global phenomena, PET simply amplified the problem a great deal with his closed-market price-capped policies.

I feel like I'm repeating myself and still you misunderstand me? I'll say it again.