[Whoaccio]

Well, it would appear the floodgates are open on bailouts before the Big3 auto sector bailout is even complete. Incredible. To date, we have mining, boats,cars, mining and unionized make work projects centering around digging holes and filling them. Truly, we will build the economy of the future. Next, airships, Great difference engines and electric trolley cars to power our colonization of the North! Rule Canadia! Canadia rule the snow! Canadians never will be slaves!

Before someone refers to me as an idealogical extremist for daring to suggest we shouldn't subsidize ships nobody wants to buy, I could accept limited involvement in the economy if it were something more than a crude pantomime of 19th century economic policies that have failed just about every time they are tried. I can accept the ludicrous double speak: wasting money -> 'stimulus,' building otherwise pointless projects -> 'infrastructure,' spending -> 'investing' and propping up failing (or often non existent, see shipping) business -> 'pragmatism.' No, what really gets me is the intense hypocrisy of the entire affair. The NDP-types have, for decades, railed against rampant consumerism, 'American' materialism and valuing throwing the environment under a bus. Now, the first opportunity they get, they expect the 'kitchen table' to subsidize the largest corporations on earth who export 90% of their produce to the 'Great Satan' and artificially induce consumers to consume all manners of environmentally destructive produce.

 

[afransen]

I'd rather colonize Turks and Caicos.

Edit: oh, and I got the impression that they are buying ships for the Armed Forces.

I mostly agree with you, though. I would bankroll some consolidation in the forestry and mining sectors (make some bigger players)-- and provide perhaps some bridge financing if they have reasonable balance sheets but have a hard time raising capital. The auto industry is tough, because we will lose those jobs whether they are competitive in Canada or not if we don't provide some subsidy. It doesn't seem well-advised to let the backbone of our manufacturing industry wither and die. I, for one, would rather see the Big 3 restructure, with government guaranteeing some part of pensions and warranties. Beyond that, infrastructure seems like the best bet. We can only help manufacturing, forestry and minerals suvive this downturn. We can't make them thrive.

 

[spider]

Stimulus

Would Layton et al please be specific about his definition of stimulus, I fear that he means just open the windows up on parliament hill and start shovelling cash out into the streets.

The typical forest products operation is shuttered for lack of markets not cash, and no amount of stimulus/cash will change this situation short of retraining the staff to whittle lawn ornaments from the surplus lumber in the yard. Don't let the NDP read this or they will steal this proposal, at least they will have something specific to babble about instead of stimulus stimulus stimulus.

 

[digi]

I'd rather colonize Turks and Caicos.

Too late, Bermudians colonized it about 400 years ago.

 

[Whoaccio]

I'd rather colonize Turks and Caicos.

To this day, I am upset that we still haven't allowed Turks & Caicos into Confederation. Every few years the idea gets floated around, and it always seems like such an idiot proof plan. We should try to also aquire the Cayman Islands and just about any English speaking Caribbean Island. Could you imagine if Jamaica became a province!?! Comedy gold mine! Throw in some Pacific Islands, too.

Edit: oh, and I got the impression that they are buying ships for the Armed Forces

I wont address the issue of whether or not the CF actually needs new 3 season icebreakers. I personally think it is a bit silly, but whatever. What I don't like is taking otherwise logical spending programs and trying to modify them to work as 'stimulus.' If we do need icebreakers, hold a competitive tendering process and select the best contender. Go international, make sure they get the best bang for buck. By adding in other criteria, like how many unionized Quebecers it will support, everybody looses. The CF looses because they have to sacrifice value, the tax payer looses because they have to foot the bill and the economy looses by mis allocating resources. The only people that win are a small group of well connected wealthy producers.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Before someone refers to me as an idealogical extremist for daring to suggest we shouldn't subsidize ships nobody wants to buy, I could accept limited involvement in the economy if it were something more than a crude pantomime of 19th century economic policies that have failed just about every time they are tried. I can accept the ludicrous double speak: wasting money -> 'stimulus,' building otherwise pointless projects -> 'infrastructure,' spending -> 'investing' and propping up failing (or often non existent, see shipping) business -> 'pragmatism.' No, what really gets me is the intense hypocrisy of the entire affair. The NDP-types have, for decades, railed against rampant consumerism, 'American' materialism and valuing throwing the environment under a bus. Now, the first opportunity they get, they expect the 'kitchen table' to subsidize the largest corporations on earth who export 90% of their produce to the 'Great Satan' and artificially induce consumers to consume all manners of environmentally destructive produce.

The NDP might as well be run by the same brown nose kids who gave a shit about student elections in high school - it's that childish. This sort of 'guilt trip' type of populism is arguably worse than, say, Berlusconi's because at least in the Italian case, empty promises were uttered from a sleazeball media titan who didn't have to pretend to be moralistic or righteous.

 

[lordmandeep]

Wait a second, infrastructure funding has been one of the best ways to stimulate the economy and that is one of only two things a govt can really do during a economic crisis. The other is reduce taxes.

 

[kEiThZ]

Given our procurement processes, the Arctic patrol vessels will probably be stimulus for the next recession.....I'll cite the Sea King replacement as a good example.....It's only going to be about 20 years, few billion dollars and about a half dozen dead aircrew late.

 

[Hydrogen]

Don't forget the Labrador sell-off and replacement.


Kind of pathetic when procuring ships for the military is viewed as part of an economic "stimulus" package during a recession.

 

[kEiThZ]

Don't forget the Labrador sell-off and replacement.


Kind of pathetic when procuring ships for the military is viewed as part of an economic "stimulus" package during a recession.

Yes. The great myth of 'peacekeeping' has hobbled the maintenance of any real defence capability in this country. Sadly, the folks who perpetuate that myth (often partly based on their Anti-American views) often fail to understand the negative impact to our own sovereignty.

As to the ship contract, my buddies who work at ADM (Mat) are baffled as to what these comments mean. There is no way a project like this could be executed within 2-3 years even if it were sole-sourced. On the other hand, it is a good chance to rebuild our shipbuilding capability and strengthen our atrophying defence industrial base. As far as defence projects for stimulus, far better, would be to tackle the defence infrastructure backlog throughout the country and to fast track land vehicles projects and the fixed wing SAR project.

 

[kEiThZ]

He's got a bias but he makes a good point. And it's one I have argued for a while. We need stimulus. But that should not be about buying up automakers or building transit lines, etc. It should be about tackling deferred maintenance.

PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
IDN: 083520168
DATE: 2008.12.17
PAGE: A18
BYLINE: BROCK CARLTON
SECTION: Letter to the Edit
EDITION: Metro
DATELINE:
WORDS: 186
WORD COUNT: 208

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laying the groundwork

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brock Carlton CEO, Federation of Canadian Municipalities Let's be clear: Infrastructure investment can create jobs now. It's the best tool we've got for putting Canadians to work in the short term without courting long-term "structural" deficits. Spending can be ramped up immediately and municipal projects can be started this spring, creating 100,000 jobs and offsetting a severe recession (If You Want Stimulus, Watch Out For The Traps - Dec. 16).

Yes, large-scale projects can take years to reach construction, but there are thousands of small- and medium-sized projects that can put Canadians to work in 2009. The bulk of these are simple-to-plan projects to fix roads, repair bridges, replace water mains and upgrade sewer systems. They aren't sexy, but they are needed and they can boost the economy next year.

The problem is that many of these projects aren't funded by the federal Building Canada Fund. What is needed is a new program that flows money quickly to municipalities so they can start shovel-ready projects this spring. Without that program, Canada will lose time - and jobs - that we just can't afford.

 

[afransen]

My feeling is that if we are going to use the logic that:

-times are bad--transit takes too long to build to help stimulate the economy, so don't spend on it, and
-times are good--labour and materials are expensive, making transit expensive so don't spend on it.

I guess that gives us a bit of a problem then, doesn't it. Maybe the best solution is to have plans drawn up, approvals granted, and funding in a trust for these projects so that they can begin given 6 months notice. Take advantage of lower materials and labour costs while smoothing out the business cycle (in construction, at least). Does this not make sense? A good trigger to use for this would be the Bank of Canada rate:
http://shockminuscontrol.blogspot.com/2008/12/onward-to-zero-bound.html
http://shockminuscontrol.blogspot.com/

It probably should have been obvious since March that we were well into a downturn, even based rather objectively on three consecutive rate cuts by the BoC.

 

[kEiThZ]

Afransen,

While there is some merit to your argument, it does not always have to be true. Unfortunately, both the Liberals and Conservatives failed to craft a national transit strategy that would allow for transit development at a regular pace so that cost and averaged better over time.

When it comes to stimulus, however, subway trains have no leg to stand on. I have written to various ministers proposing the falling:

1) Tackle stuff within federal jurisdiction first (defence infrastructure, ports, airports, federal buildings, heritage buildings, native reservations, etc.). This is just easier. Avoids jurisidictional issues, can be started and finished quickly and wound down quickly when the economy picks up.

2) Take on the 6 billion post-secondary education infrastructure backlog. If there is one public sector that can put in place buildings quick, it's universities. They'll rebuild, refit, re-equip within 2 years. And we'll have a top notch education system.

That's could probably all equal 13 billion right there...the figure that was recommended by the conference board of canada. Any other bailouts of companies should be on top of that. And other levels of government, could of course, follow the same path and run deficits to fund infrastructure as well.

 

[afransen]

You and I both know that what I said stands. It's a recipe for chronic underinvestment in infrastructure.

 

[kEiThZ]

You and I both know that what I said stands. It's a recipe for chronic underinvestment in infrastructure.

How so? I have said that a national transit strategy is needed that allows continuous and stable investments over time as opposed to waiting for recessions to build transit lines. I don't see that as a recipe for chronic under-investment.

Aside from this issue though, when looking at our infrastructure backlog, the most urgent is water treatment and delivery not transit. No use having LRT lines if there isn't clean water to drink. Tackling the water infrastructure issue can be done during a recession much better than transit. Replacing water mains does not require an EA. Aside from those listed above, this would probably be my most preferred investment at the municipal level.