Money, and Coincidence. NOT

I recall a very long time ago, one of my teachers, one of the wiser ones sort of threw away the curriculum course book in economics. Liked the guy. Very smart guy. Well he covered the topic of money despite the fact that he was supposed to be teaching Geography. Why?

Well for starters he found learning Economic Geography tied the memory plagued normal geography into a dynamic of interest. Part of this linkage was understanding money.

Originally trade involved barter. In other words trading one quantity of commodity for another adjusted for intrinsic value. The value of a specific coin or bill must either be backed by gold or an agreed marked value. The actual physical price of a coin or money bill is basically nothing. People that assign value to a currency whether its bills, or coins, not governments.

Before you totally nod off, it was important to define the issue by reasserting what you likely already knew. Observe the timing that the Canadian economic performance peaked just before two events. First was the plasticization of money from a combination cotton, special fibre and cellulose or money or certificate paper. Second was the Harper government's effort to eliminate the coin denomination of the penny.

On the one point its a perpetual source of humour to point out that the Harper Conservatives have left Canada penniless. Opposing that funny bone is the serious coincidence. Ever since the penny was eliminated the Canadian economy has declined. Ever since Canadian money was physically changed form a certificate paper into plastic fibre. Ever since the government did those two actions, the value of the Canadian dollar has declined. and the Canadian economy declined.

Certainly, the devaluation of the price of crude per barrel played a significant part. Crude oil prices do hold a significant role in Harper's configuration of the economy. Basically he was playing Alberta economic politics in a Canadian theatre. He accuses both Trudeau and in turn Mulcair as being unqualified to manage the Canadian economy. It should be pointed out acidly that his government has maintained a governmental deficit for at least eighteen years. His frying pan is considerably burnt red to call others to the grill.

The price of oil languishes around the $50 mark. It has done that now for quite a considerable time during the Harper stewardship. Regardless, his government seems stifled by indecision. Another large part of the problem seems to be his very poor selection of Finance Minister, Joe Oliver. Typical of an old style banker, his solution seems to have been not to do anything other than hijack the Canadian Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Plan money to make up the shortfall from oil revenue.

A third problem seems to be his inability to negotiate or work with others. Notoriously a control freak, he seems unable to work well with others and his political style is a Nerf plinth for the pillar of any economic strategy. His solution during an election is to come out swinging blame for the economic situation onto others. Politically this is a normal tactic but that could backfire in Canada. Canadian voters, even the dutiful ones are in the end either politically stupid or definitely uncaring beyond their own front doors.

It is to this last point which sounds like an insult. Its not meant to be. Its an established almost universal philosophy in the smokey backrooms of all political parties in Canada. There are some issues that generate national riots and strikes in other nations but barely pulls a blink from the Canadian constituent. Worse still Canadians tend to stay quiet until some issue tweaks their anger button.

Both those aspects played into a great surprise when the Conservatives called the early election or rather the unnecessarily prolonged election costing the government and in turn, the very same taxpayers excessive amounts of money. In theory this was designed to exploit the economic power of the present manifestation of the Conservative party. Politically speaking its not the amount of money one has in a campaign its how to spend it. The longer a campaign the greater the chance there is to toppling from first place into the basement.

The most recent example of this first place arrogance was the Toronto Mayoralty campaign. In the summer, Olivia Chow, had a huge lead and a lot of campaign money. It was however the guy in third place that eventually one. It was a long terrible campaign.  Any smart politician leading in the summer time before the election should never underestimate how a lead can dissipate quickly when the people returning from the cottages or vacay sit down and try to absorb the issues that have been too long in play. A short campaign would have worked better for Harper. But what has this to do with economy?

It has everything to do with economy. If you need or rely on economic resources to run your own campaign and start losing or any slide of support whatsoever that doesn't lend itself to your ability to handle a national economy. This points to a significant flaw in modern Conservative thinking. They like the amount of money rather than appreciating the quality, the value of money.

And this is what happened to the Canadian dollar. Once the quantity of cash, generated by big oil evaporates, the present Conservative government people are unable to manage. Witness how close this problem emulates the situation in Alberta. Two governments, evolved in the very same part of the world colliding with the reality of the real world.

In some way, the modern Conservatives are sort of duplicating the source of the same problem the far more dynamic Mulroney Conservatives had. Mulroney understood business but not government. His regime introduced a federal sales tax and signed NAFTA. One or the other was good for the economy but combined as a pair worked to underscore an economic downturn. In Harper, tying the economy too tightly to oil, eliminating the penny while plasticizing the paper money bills, combined to a lack of faith in the Canadian dollar value. One choice would benefit until the next election but mixing them altogether created a toxic economic environment. So toxic that Harper, who bragged that he was an economist, seems to be standing on his head to talk about anything such as travel plans, rather than the specific most important issue which is the economy.

A terrible economy will wreck a country faster than any overseas terrorist plot can. Yet he wants Canadians to vote for him based on a fear of terrorism than the original reason that people picked him before, which was economy. He strangely devalued the feel of money. So making a coin or making a paper bill is more expensive, traditionally it adds to the perception of value. At the end of ten years, Harper's tenure hasn't added any value to Canada. Just what is he doing?

Linda launches Conservatives into high orbit

I recall that when the oilsands projects were first approved the environmental assessment ascertained that there was an upper limit of crude production that was both economically sustainable and environmentally sustainable. Construction of the two plants at the time went to that limit. People sort of forget that people, Canadians of First Nations heritage, lived and hunted in that area for countless generations.
... And along comes Linda McQuaig present NDP hopeful for the riding of Toronto Centre in the upper coming federal election. Please endure this elongated campaign. Lots of these little missives are bound to send Conservatives into faux high orbit. They are a desperate lot. McQuaig will never be any part of any government. They are grasping onto straws. Of course a lot of people don't realize that there is a greater chance of an Ice Age next year, than there is of McQuaig winning that particular riding. Is her candidacy a good one. Yes, in every other riding other than Toronto Centre.
... The whole vomiting scandal stems from a comment she made at a panel on power and politics. She pointed out the patently obvious. In order for Canada to meet its global warming targets they may have to close off some oilsand's production. That comment fails to measure out as a mystery. Nor unexpected. It is an option. Marvel that, the world still has options.
... Since the beginnings of the resource extraction the continuing production of oilsands crude exceeded the original limits of those first environmental assessments. Frankly here we are. Canadians discussing at each other angrily in an election to determine the productive capacity of a resource that is constitutionally totally within the provincial power. Alberta determines the oilsands production not Ottawa.
... The dilemma totally falls into the lap of the Alberta government. It aggressively promoted expanded oilsands production past the safe limit predetermined by the original environmental reports. It did this in the face of declining revenues as the easy to reach oil and gas reserves became depleted.
... This woman, only a candidate, not an elected MP, is expressing a concern for the global environment which is in itself perfectly legitimate. There are Conservatives, once good members of the present day manifestation of the Conservative Party who share this deep concern for the global climate effects of fossil extraction and burning.
... Had the Alberta government(s) adhered to the original production limits, this whole discussion would be moot. I remember when Peter Lougheed introduced the Heritage Fund with the goal of creating economic diversity and a hedge fund for the future. That noble legacy has obviously been squandered. The rest of the globe, the rest of Canada, should not suffer for this degree of resource mismanagement.
... Regardless of who comes to power federally or provincially whether right wing or left wing, the reality is that the oilsands production must be reassessed as to its real environmental sustainability. Even after the inevitable banning of the burning fossil fuels, oil as a resource will be of great value, especially those with established infrastructure and distribution channels. To hinge a whole party's policy upon the words of a single unelectable candidate.
... Why unelectable? Why prominent? She's running in Toronto Centre. Even Mulcair's written that one off. Besides, Mulcair wouldn't want her as part of the caucus. She's super intelligent, perceptive and prone to ask awkward questions. So into the rearview mirror, luv ya Linda

Pre-Post election circuit of Canada, now known as Canada

Historical view. Consider governing Canada as sort of like running a sound mixed farm. Needs a lot of fertilizer, needs occasional rotation, plowing in the stubble every few years and the farm hand needs changing every ten years or so because the sheep start laughing.

.....

Trash talking around the federal deselection circuit. So wrong Kathy. Wynne, future former Premier of Ontario, postulated that were he trapped in a time warp at the Cornfudgeration of Canada at Charlottetoon, Stephen Harper would not have constructed the transcontinental railway to British Columbia, now known as British Columbia.

Yes, Harper would have built the railway. From Houston, to as far as downtown Calgary, right beside the Palliser with a double barrel loop at the Stampede grounds. He'd call it the Keystoned and Gatesways Railroad (K&GRR).