Slashdot Mirror

As a professional in finance,I've had to wrestle with economists. To a large extent, the profession itself is a fake: the ultimate employer is the Sovereign, who will look askance on anybody saying that it either goofed or that he must get smaller.
start with this in your mind 30 years back, fast forward, and you'll see that macroscopic events in the Economy dept. get ignored, simply because they are in opposition to the academic thought.
I can give you an example: it made the papers in Italy that the European powers that be are starting a study of Abenomics, with a view to applying it here. While as an Italian I can understand the politicians' liking of a mix of runaway deficits, easy money and public investment, this disregards a number of problems:

1.most of the Abenomics tenets are already in place, to no perceived improvement;
2.public spending as a percentage of GDP is way above 50% in most places here, so the actual tax base is shrunk;
3. and last, there's an example that worked that the politicians are emphatically ignoring.

the example is Canada. it exited the 2008 crisis better than Europe, in part because of his proximity to the USA and the free trade it has with that nation, but also because it embraced a reduction in the public sector, and a control/reduction of tax pressure.
Do you believe in that causality? after 25 years tallking with these shamans who are called economist, my opinion is "insufficient data": economy is a dismal science. BUT, it worked. and Europe is studying a failing policy simply because it is similar to what they want to do.

Yeah, we respect the heritage, Canada was a British colony at one point and we made a reasonable agreement to voluntarily respect the crowns authority in exchange for not having to take our independence forcefully. Only *once* in the last 150+ years has the GG *not* done what a Prime Minister asked. See the The 1926 King-Byng Affair

So sure the Queen, or Crown, could interfere in Canadian politics, but *we* allow them that ability and could revoke it at anytime, especially if it was abused. What do you think the crown would do if we decided we weren't going to let them "rule" us anymore? As if we're so incredibly oppressed...

She's our Queen in title only. No one here is going to do what she says unless they want to.

Sorry to taint a vitriolic stereotype-ridden debate with facts, but the fact is part of the reason lobbying isn't as effective in Canada is we enacted stringent campaign finance reform a number of years ago. ...something the USA woefully needs.

From http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada:/

- Only Canadian citizens and permanent residents may make contributions to registered parties, registered electoral district associations, leadership and nomination contestants of registered parties, and all candidates.

- Individual contributions to these political participants are limited to a maximum of $1,000 annually (adjusted for inflation).

- Individuals may also make contributions that do not exceed $1,000 (adjusted for inflation) in total per contest to the leadership contestants of a registered political party. This is an aggregate cap applying to all the contributions given by one individual to all leadership contestants in the same leadership contest.

- Corporations, trade unions, and other unincorporated associations are prohibited from making contributions to registered parties, registered electoral district associations, leadership and nomination contestants of registered parties, and all candidates.

Yes, you read that right ONE THOUSAND BUCKS. Makes it pretty tricky to buy your MP.

  and costs of 'cleaning up' disasters are much higher than costs of preventing them.

And your point being?

If a government wants to, has a political will and the correct structure (read: is not neck deep in taking 'contributions' and generally relying on the corporations for the (re)elections) then nothing at all can stop a government from suing.

Most electoral campaigns in Canada are publicly funded -- http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada

Here's also a nice table from that website:

Public Support as Portion of Total Funding by Political Party (2007)

Bloc Québécois 86%

Green Party of Canada 65%

Liberal Party of Canada 63%

New Democratic Party of Canada 57%

Conservative Party of Canada 37%

Also your second to last paragraph is mostly an incomprehensible rant, try turning off the TV and learn how to paraphrase.

And fuck you too.

One other difference between Canada and most other democracies is that we limit campaign spending, so even if the politicians do raise more money they can't spend it.
Also advertising is regulated.
Hard to do much about promises of jobs especially as that is one of the things that politicians are supposed to be encouraging.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada

You're looking at the wrong law. Now the limits about $1000 (as of 20007) adjusted for inflation (actually currently about $1100) and corporations, unions etc are not allowed to contribute at all. It is in the same paragraph in your link as your $5000 limit.
Interestingly Canada first outlawed corporations making political donations in 1908, unluckily they didn't include a means of enforcing it for over 50 years.
Also of interest is that the Green party gets about the same spending limit as the main 3 parties even though they have never elected a MP.
Another link, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada

We don't need to stuff ballots very often due to coalition governments http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/coalition-governments-canada

This doesn't really work in the case of a majority government. So in that case, we would have to resort to the US solution. I know a bunch of farmers with Enfields and 22s they got from SEARS 40 years ago don't seem like anything that could take over a government but keep in mind that this would be the Canadian government and that L'Arme Secrète is only useful in the case of US or Russian invasion.

Speaking as a Canadian, I'm fairly sure it'll pass. The Liberals are introducing it, and the Conservatives won't vote against it.

A vote against this bill is a vote against the big media companies...and while we have made significant strides in reforming our campaign funding laws up here, lobbyists still have a disproportionate amount of clout with the major political parties in Ottawa.

If you are Canadian, you will send forward your very highly trained and impressively skilled brigade recce troop. They will sneak forward, scout out the woods, and report back on what they found without the enemy (if he is there or not) ever noticing that they were there. If the enemy is in the woods, you will then quickly plan out a brilliant and innovative quick attack

Uh, among other details you have wrong, some of which have been corrected already, where the hell did you get the idea that Senators have no party?

I found this in my first five seconds on Google, if you demand a source. It mentions how many Senators appointed by a PM belong to the PM's party.

And there's one fellow, can't recall his name, who was formerly the lone Canadian Alliance senator - a Mulroney appointee who defected.