October 7, 2016 at 10:11 am #4898
Bad Policy equals Social Collapse
Liberal, Conservative, Green or NDP – Your Poor Policy Making is Collapsing Canada
Maxim Bernier was hoping to be your next Conservative Party Leader by cashing-in on Trump’s successful formula for emotional followers; these candidates were reporting $400k in campaign donations as well. What is worrisome in this, and what is worrisome in most leadership candidates today, is that front-runners for leadership posts very often present the worst possible policies for leading the country.
Canada has sustained 20 years of contraction and collapse trending – at the hands of parties both left and right – while other countries have more than sustained these hard economic times; they’ve even prospered.
In Canada, there is no process for evaluating policy; there are no business cases. Too few real Subject Matter Experts offer pros and cons discussion. Instead, it’s all about “I feel”; or “good people know”; “bad people don’t understand” – messages strewn with emotional rubbish.
Working Canadians represent 50% of us in a shrinking job market; 15% of the labour force are unemployed; of this group, half have unemployment insurance and the other half have no incomes; or they live on support which is at 1/7th the Cost-of-Living in the GTA.
What is so brutally wrong with both conservatives and liberals the same; and why do so many Canadians realize that Ottawa is completely out of touch with the rest of the country?
And – why are we as voters not asking for Business Cases? Nor managing the country with policy that is proven in GDP statistics to have a solid track record elsewhere – before we try it here for the first time? There are 200 other countries with track records covering every policy imaginable but we don’t look to countries with advancing economies and no housing bubbles for advice?
Consider that “a Conservative” is supposed to be the one who asks for essential decision-making data every time that a decision must be made; yet Conservatives and Liberals from both parties in Canada, have lost themselves to emotion. Is it due to the poor training on democracy that they received in our high schools?
The Right and Left groups were never both supposed to put forward policy that did not manage the country responsibly; each was supposed to take a slightly different approach to responsible government policy that managed the country well.
Instead, Canada’s track record proves that our standard practice in major government parties is to convene mostly non-experts to decide best-guess for the nation.
Can you explain Ontario’s multi-billion dollar investments in low-yield, part-time energy sources like Wind & Solar any other way? There is no Engineering merit in the decision – we need energy full-time – not part-time. Germany is experiencing Energy Poverty after making the same mistake – so clearly there was international data available to dissuade Ontario’s energy policy follies. But no-one thought to look abroad for energy policy track-records?
Democratic Reforms in Policy Making
In Canada, top cancer experts have the same vote on policy as retired manufacturing workers – even in healthcare matters. Worse, during our elections, marketing staff switch up policy in a patch-work quilt of guesses at what might win votes. Policy Making here is a thinly disguised amateur circus – and Canadians have suffered greatly by the decisions that have emerged.
Turning around these problem policies is straight forward, but that message is obfuscated by a thousand voices that stand in staunch disagreement – and this is democracy right? Hardly. This is more like an admission that we don’t understand how to make democracy work properly – and whenever there is an education gap like this one – it can be manipulated by special interests too.
Here is how Policy Development is supposed to work: Policy is developed by experts who are qualified to build what Aristotle called a “Right Plan” (Aristotle was also the philosopher who designed our modern education curriculums).
A Right Plan is a comprehensive plan of worthwhile projects that lead to a sustainable society. China did this 25 years ago and look where they are today.
With the Right Planning in place, Right and Left parties take liberal or Conservative approaches to implementing this solid planning, and then we democratic voters choose a management team to implement the Right Plan that experts have completed research and business cases to prove merit-worthiness. That’s how it should work; with long-term planning and confirmed social progress.
Consider the two discussions Tax Spending on Guaranteed Incomes vs Low-Tax Policy:
Option 1: Tax Increases via Guaranteed Incomes
The math says that Canada could generate $630 billion in new export revenue annually via Guaranteed Incomes and policies that renew spending-power. The program would cost $40 billion offset by $7 bill in new export tax revenue (these costs are estimated on the high side). Overall taxes could drop by 9.5% as well – after paying for these Guaranteed Incomes. For this spending, there is a 1500% (15-times) Return on Investment. See table at the bottom of the page…
Other benefits from Guaranteed Incomes and Policy that return spending-power include:
- Considerable building industry Automation productivity & Hitech industry boosts
- Reliance on Immigration falls
- Inequity starts correcting toward 1960s levels
- Homelessness is almost wiped out
- Other programs in housing, onshoring are supported
- Incarceration, Unemployment, and other Social Problems are reduced
Option 2: Reducing Tax – as Maxim suggests, is actually a road to Social Collapse – hardly pragmatic Conservatism.
Social collapse takes time, but “low tax” and uncorrected “Liberte” in Capitalism are actually the time-honoured road to Collapse.
How to recognize Good Policy
A policy calling for lower tax has a very unfavorable Business Case; it was 1985’s “Low Tax” (Reaganomics) policies that landed us in a Global Depression in 2016. Suggesting policy with no promise of Return on Investment, showcases poor planning and a poor education in understanding what are the right policies to spend our tax money on.
For example: you can only pay taxes when have an income. If you have an income by a job (this is 17.5 million of 36 million people – 50% of Canadians), you pay for everyone else and your country collapses under the strain of too few paying for too many.
What does Social Collapse from a lack of responsible government controls look like?
- Inequity increases, salaries drop to slave-wages, or people have no spending power with their incomes
- Incomes become scarce as well, job-loss and homelessness increases
- Incarceration rates increase and social problems like divorce rate risk
- Trickle-down is a proven failure due to business ethics failings and a lack of laws that make business accountable
- Reliance on immigration revenue increases
- Revolutions and war are not far behind as society continues to collapse – unless the Economy is Reset by TE-Mature Policies.
Canada, and most of the G20, hover around Step 5 of this list.
Statistics for a Guaranteed Incomes Business Case indicate that most countries would benefit more by guaranteed incomes that ensure all can continue to support the economy. As long as these new income distributions are not channelled back into housing bubbles and spending power is restored in other ways, the economic turn-around should be pervasive
Country America Germany Canada U.K Australia Export Per Capita (in billions) $5,057 $ 18,316 $ 13,286 $ 7,378 $ 10,446 Exports ($bill) $ 1,510 $ 1,309 $ 411 $ 436 $ 188 Export Increase 665% 184% 253% 456% 322% Opportunity Cost ($bill) $ 8,538 $ 1,096 $ 630 $ 1,553 $ 418 Cost of Living $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,000 Population (million) 324 82 36.5 65 24.2 Labor force (million) 155.4 44.2 19 30.8 12.4 Unemployment 5.0% 4.5% 6.8% 5.0% 6.8% Current Benefits 15% 14% Total Cost ($bill) $ 233 $ 60 $ 40 $ 64.6 $ 30 GDP ($bill) $17,348 $ 3,868 $ 1,785 $ 2,989 $ 1,472 Tax Inc vs GDP 26.9% 40.6% 32.0% 39.0% 25.8% Total Tax Revenues ($bill) $ 4,666 $ 1,570 $ 571 $1,166 $ 379 New Tax ($bill) $ 3,618 $ 1,466 $516 $997 $ 347 Tax Increase -22.45% -6.59% -9.53% -14.45% – 8.5 % Tax Rev New Export (15%) $bill $ 1,280 $ 164 $ 516 $ 233 $ 62 ROI 3663% 1801% 1574% 2405% 1374%
What are Policies that Reset Economies, create Incomes and Renew Spending Power, according to Transition Economics Maturity Models …
Read more about Transition Economics, Maturity Modelling in the new book Transition Economics – The Science of Sustainability
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.