- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
E.R. Campbell said:But Jeffrey Simpson gets the basics right. Prime Ministers Abbott, Cameron, Harper and Key, he suggests, believe that:
[o] the state more is an impediment to growth and social progress than an asset;
[o] tax rates are too high; and
[o]the private sector can run most things most efficiently.
I share all those beliefs. As I have said before, I want a smaller, less intrusive, into fundamental rights,* more efficient (cost effective) and better focused government.
I'll be honest, I only really agree with one of these points. The private sector, if anything, is the epitome of efficiency. If there is a profit to be made, they will find a way to do it, and do it well. I do not believe that the private sector should be completely free from government intervention though, and it is actually because of this quality to be so efficient at finding profit. Time and time again the private sector has shown that they will take advantage of the average citizen in order to further these profits -one just has to look at the US 2008 economic crash, and the unregulated sub-prime mortgages the investment bankers were getting lenders to give out to individuals who really couldn't pay the mortgages they received*, which in short led to their financial system crashing. On the other hand, the more regulated banks in Canada performed much better than their unregulated American counterparts** during this period in time***.
I am not saying that everything and anything needs some sort of regulation, nor am I saying all regulations are effective but I think it is wishful thinking that if the private sector was left to its own accord it would be only good news for Canadians, and as such I would make the assertion that government can be more than just an "impediment to growth and social progress"
To note, I do not agree with the second point you make either as I recognize that with more regulation, comes a larger government, hence more taxes are needed to pay for said government. It would be foolish to say I wanted regulation, but wanted lower tax rates at the same time (despite the fact lower taxes does sound nice at times ;D )
* This can also be interpreted as individuals living beyond their means, and I cede that point. Though one cannot ignore the fact human beings aren't always the most intelligent in their decision making processes, and in order to compensate for this a government standard of who actually qualified for such a mortgage would have solved this issue.
** I realize I'm creating a bit of a false dichotomy here, as the banking system and the housing industry is much different here than the American one, and simply applying similar regulations in the US that we have here would be largely ineffective, but I felt that I should bring this point up nonetheless as it does show that more regulations doesn't always equal unwelcome results.
*** Sadly, as I write this I am reading that it seems our own housing industry is actually on the verge of having it's little bubble burst, though I personally believe that this could very well be caused by the unregulated housing market itself (I will be honest though and state I am not on the up and up about this area of the economy, be free to correct me if I am wrong).
Numerous edits due to grammatical errors, and a few amendments to my points.