Allow me to set partisan politics aside for a moment.
The time has come to honor the man who, more than any other, set into motion the policies that pulled a debt-ridden Canadian government balance sheet out of the red and set us on the road to reducing the national debt.
His policies were responsible for the sustained economic growth we’ve enjoyed and the historically low levels of Canadian unemployment for much of these past 12 years.
He has helped Canadians make Canada prosperous.
As he closes the door to his office for the last time this week, let us all stop and offer a tip ‘o the hat and raise a appreciative glass ,,,,
 |
To US Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan.
Sir – may you enjoy a long and healthy retirement! |
Hi Pedro.
Big subject to get your head aroud on Sunday morning. IMHO I don’t think anything is different today from the 20′ and 30’s other than the the aproach they took to stave off deflation.
The 1966 article is tough to argue with but my contention is if you go back to the early 80’s and the 100 or so new companies that survived the growth of a new industry namely computers and the internet could you have drawn in enough capital to
get the creation of those companies or would a significant portion of those companies never have seen the light of day.
The problem becomes the ability to induce people to take risk. Under the Gold standard you have a orderly growth but is it enough to really induce rapid expansion or do you just maintain the status quo. Because at the end of the day under the Gold standard you can’t take the future into consideration which the current system does for better and worse.
Every thing that is pointed out in the 1966 article is absolutely true however you can never factor in productivety and you can’t factor in the future.
Expansion like the 90’s by its very nature is going to over shoot the mark or the ceiling of what assets are available to grow. It’s the speed of the growth that is the consideration or time.
And the reaction by investors to that limit.
Personally I believe much of the new companies that came from the Tech bubble would never have seen the light of day because they couldn’t draw enough capital to fuel the rapid growth and would therefore fall by the wayside or never start in the first place.
It is truly speculation on my part here regarding the growth of the 90’s. I am going to have to think about this somemore.
In the meantime I have an article that if you really want something to chew on I can e-mail it to you. Read it and then tell me what you think in the interim I will mull over our discussion and we can talk further if you like. The theory of all the folks we are talking about is a great base but lets try and apply that to the real world and see what we come up with.
My huge advocacy of S Harper has been based on my belief in the Economists we have discussed. What can go wrong under the current system is exactly the problem we see in most countries in Europe and Canada under the Liberals.
This is good it is making me go back and look at stuff I haven’t studied or thought much about in years. Probably too immersed in the system as it is.
I hope this is interesting and streching your own opinions too.