One last pragmatic consideration. If Sean Fraser spends the next two years negotiating arrangements with cities he can fairly claim will result in a bigger than 15 percent rise in home construction—which is the case in London—then running about advocating we should boost home building by 15 percent might not be such a great idea. Although this is more of a marketing than a policy issue, it seems strange to establish goals below that of your opponent. Poilievre can assert to have the more ambitious plan if, instead, his strategy was clearly to double housing starts in line with the general expert view; this would be made more likely by Liberal policy changes.Of course, none of this seems important. Governments occasionally pass death from old age. Perhaps message also counts more than policies. Conservatives must swing harder, though, if they wish to continue owning the housing file—which seems to have driven them into possible majority government zone.Conservatives must understand that the terrain has evolved. They have dominated thehousing file for a long time. Along with their Ontario counterparts, they seemed eager to even aim for the cross-partisan consensus of doubling house starts. The Conservatives cannot rely on platitudes-based cruise along since the Liberals have awakened. Either go home or consider great ideas. It's well worth looking at how economic policy has changed in Canada over time, especially as the U.S. investigates the direction of its own economic policy. With Parliament back in session, the recent wrapping up of Canada 2020's 2023 Global Progress Action Summit in Montreal (which was attended by almost every progressive anglosphere and Nordic prime minister in recent times), and a looming Canadian federal election that looks like it will be centred on economics issues.
Simultaneously, there is a fierce argument.
raging in the United States on what the new consensus on economic policy is between the socialist Left and the rising "New Right". Speaking about certain fresh concepts in fashion like industrial policy while criticizing the free market policies of a generation past as out of style, white house national security advisor Jake Sullivan stated in an April address that there is a "New Washington Consensus" on economic policy.But precisely what was the "Washington Consensus" word that so many people use to characterize the old free-market-oriented economic policy regime pushed across party lines by the Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton presidencies and beyond? Originally defining the Washington Consensus as a set of ten ideas to direct the Latin American response of the 1980s to the crises of the 1970s, British economist John Williamson also came to define the neoliberal economic policies pushed both domestically as well as internationally by Washington D.C. policymakers.Promoted worldwide in economic planning by many administrations through aid organizations like the World Bank and IMF, this original Washington Consensus helped millions of people escape poverty and stimulate economic mobility. The period under which the Washington Consensus was dominant (called "The Age of Milton Friedman" by Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer) coincided with fast declines in absolute poverty (the share of people living under $1/day fell significantly), major declines in infant mortality together with increases in life expectancy, and educational attainment.
That much has changed since then.
Many of which have persisted under the Biden government, which has even imposed further tariffs on food-can aluminum from Canada, Germany, and China, Donald Trump was elected on an economic agenda rejecting free trade in favor of punitive tariffs and quotas. Like the socialist Left has been ascendant in the Democratic Party, a collection of anti-free market proponents ranging from U.S. senators to strong Washington think institutes has evolved as a very potent new coalition in the GOP. Consequently, the Democratic Party has started to change its position toward free trade. This was especially clear when they made Hillary Clinton, a 2016 presidential contender, stop supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership—the same trade agreement she drafted and dubbed the "gold standard."These two groups indeed seem to be trying to create a "New Washington Consensus." Ten fresh ideas, in my opinion, clearly describe the New Washington Consensus:The Macdonald Commission and the Mulroney government supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Chretien-Martin fiscal reform in the 1990s and fiscal surpluses in the Harper years,
along with more free trade deals along.
the way, all point to Canada as a major exponent of the old Washington Consensus crystallizing in the late 1980s. Now, though, Canada is also quite clearly moving toward a new consensus. Maybe anything akin to a "New Ottawa Consensus"?Since the Liberals came to rule Canada in 2015, there has been a corresponding lack of budgetary discipline. The well-known Trudeau theory—that "budgets balance themselves"—never came to pass Through the COVID-19 epidemic, Canada's deficits have progressively spiraled out of control—not unlike many nations across the world which also lack financial discipline.Along with any hope of developing the capacity of exporting natural gas through the building of a liquified natural gas terminal, the increase in rules has ground the Canadian energy industry to a stop, so preventing any hope for further pipelines both inside Canada and across the U.S. border.
Comments
Post a Comment