Title: From Morningside to Market: Are We Throwing the Baby Out With The Bathwater?
Written By: JaredMilne
Date: Sunday, July 10 at 23:12
 
It seems, then, that we have moved from the Morningside Consensus to what I would refer to as the “Market Consensus”. But, as someone who’s grown up witnessing this transition, and the social changes that have come with it, I’m left to wonder…Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
read more

   

Well written article. I tend to agree with much of it. However, I believe the Trudeau governemnt, although the most socially progressive since Mackenzie King, still did not go far enough when it came to intervention into the man made marketplace. But it was certainly on the right track, minus that sad time in 1974 where Trudeau was bullied into handing over total control of Canadian money creation to the international private bankers. Since bankers and their corporate spouses have extorted total control over the Canadian, and world economy, huge debt has ensued. Money is nothing more than worhtless paper, an idea that should be used to serve humanity and not the other way around. But yes, a truly responsible government, elected by the people, working for the people, and not the banker corporate fascists, should create Canada's money supply, because there would be no debt; create money in proportion only with new projects and/ or investments so as to eliminate inflation; and lastly, dictate to corporations, that if they want to sell their stuff here, THEY MUST BUILD IT HERE! And that they must benefit Canada as a whole! A liveable wage, with environmental responsibility! Key resources and energy grids like oil, hydro, natural gas, and water should belong to the people as a whole and not commodified or privatized, because corporatization of essential resources only creates dependency, which creates slavery.And lastly, certainly higher taxes for corporations, but- some tax breaks, administered simply, and transparently, when corporations act in an ethical fashion! Gone should be the days where parasites sitting atop the wealth pyramid siphon wealth from the rest of us for mere speculation, corruption, theft and fraud! No system can last without a balance! keep an incentive type system- but balance it with responsible government intervention so that people aren't impovershed or enslaved!

   

Dave, part of the problem is that a lot of the language you use-namely words like fascism and slavery-is what turns off a lot of potential allies on the other side. As much as I respect and admire people like Mel Hurtig and David Orchard, it drives me nuts when I hear them accusing their opponents of being un-Canadian quislings and sell-outs. To my mind, it's no better than when Republican hardliners in the U.S. accuse their opponents of being un-American and hating freedom. All it does is perpetuate the same old cycle, where people on the left and the right are often more concerned with demonizing one another and crushing their opponents than actually trying to find some common ground we can act on.

I have a lot of conservative friends who I disagree with, but most of them are at least willing to hear me out when I try and explain where I'm coming from. Many of them can't stand the likes of Kate McMillan, Mark Steyn or Craig Chandler any more than you or I, and if they support Stephen Harper it's not because they think he's going to take the country on a very hard turn to the radical right or further integrate us with the U.S. Not to mention that many of their own ideas have influenced my own-Preston Manning, for instance, has a much more nuanced view of things than a lot of people might otherwise give him credit for. Or take Individualist and Michael Scott-you and I might disagree with them on these points, but from what I've seen they're pretty respectful of other peoples' views.

Part of the problem is that the core ideas of people like Mel and David risks being lost in their rhetoric. When you get right down to it, they're asking just how much Canada can decentralize before we go from a country to a collection of loose provincial fiefdoms, or how much we can integrate with the U.S. and still remain a country. Unfortunately, when they start accusing other people of being un-Canadian sellouts and are in turn accused of being anti-American without their points actually being addressed, that's when we all lose. Mel is at his absolute best when he talks about our extremely rich potential as a country and what we've accomplished, potential that doesn't require us to be harnessed to the U.S. for it to be fully realized-but when he gets into the overheated rhetoric, that's when we run into problems.

I don't know if anyone here remembers Catherine Whelan Costen, but she once told me about how she left the Canadian Action Party because it concentrated so much on negativity and fear. A lot of pundits identified that as one of the main reasons Jack Layton and the NDP have become the Official Opposition-namely, because Layton's affable persona and positive message resonated with a lot of voters. Harper also won in part because of his own efforts to portray Canada as having weathered the recession much better than other countries, and also running more positive ads to put himself in the best light after all the mud he's thrown at Dion and Ignatieff over the years.

That's not to say that you can't criticize governments and their actions, but there are much better ways of doing it. If you were to criticize Trudeau's, Mulroney's or Harper's mismanagement of our money, you could say that they couldn't be trusted to balance a chequebook, much less a budget. That's the sort of funny one-liner that grabs attention without resorting to personal smears.

Unfortunately, when all you can throw is invective without a positive message to balance it, you end up running into problems.

   

If the marketplace is the way to go, then the function of government in this regard is to ensure the so-called "level playing field" that neo-liberal and conservative interests consistently push.
Of course, I mean "level" in all regards. Thus, individual Canucks must be able to enjoy the financial advantages that corporations do - or the benefits to corporations must be scaled down to those afforded individual Canadians. S.L.A.P.P. suits must be outlawed, and government in general should restrict it's function to making sure that individuals "play fair".

I could cite more, but I think these get to the crux.

   

Jared, I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I merely engaged in some sort of mud slinging tirade. I merely described the situation like it is. I've been accused of being 'negative' before, but if telling the truth means I'm negative, then I can live with the label. And the truth is, since we've handed over our money creation to international bankers and adopted FTA and NAFTA, its been downhill ever since. Our government no longer runs things, have not run things in a long time if they ever did, but atleast years ago, our governemt- be it MacKenzie King or St. Laurent, Pearson or Diefenbaker, Pearson or Trudeau- atleast they had a spot in their minds and hearts whereby they tried to put Canada first. Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, and Harper have indeed, sold Canada down the river! Go ahead and call me conspiracy theorist, but I mean, all one has to do is look at when the oil oligopoly collaberates to artificially jack up the price of oil and gas and what does our government do? NOTHING! Because they even claim that they can't do anything about it even though the people wish for action on the issue! So, who's running things here? And this is so basic and on the surface! But instead of facing the reality and opposing it, what do people do? They put their heads in the sand, because, after all, we don't want to be negative. Personally, addrssing the fascist oppression is a POSITIVE action. I don't know, you tell me- what is so good about saying we have fake paper money for corporations, and royal family visitors, and imperial wars, but not health care, education and infrastructure? What's so good about the police fascist supression of free speech at APEC in 1997, Montebello in 2007, and Toronto in 2010? And in both Montebello and Toronto, it has been clearly shown that police agent provocateurs were used to give their robocop bretheren the excuse to attack peaceful protesters. Am I being negative or realistic? How about the c-difficile problem in my neck of the woods, where McGuinty's solution is to spend inflated money on importing an American company to 'clean the hospitals.' Meanwhile, it si the original cutbacks which resulted in dirtier hospitals which resulted in this preventable problem in the first place! But I'll tell you what- you show me a corporation that can put people before profits and act ethically, and I'll give them the kudos they deserve! But I'm afraid that there's just too many sociopaths running these banks and corporations to really care about people. Harsh reality? Sure. negative? Yes. But that does not mean we should ignore it. I'm sure there were many who wished that the likes of Martin Luther King or Gandhi would just quit being so damn negative.And frankly, I'm all too happy to hear what the other side, or even alternative mindsets have to say. I welcome it- force me to re-examine myself. So far, though, the traditional corporate capitalist mantras do not show me anything altruistic. So, please, give me something new! If it truly brings freedom to all, I'll jump onboard- albeit cautiously!

   

Hey you know what? Today was a great day! I woke up, made my beautiful wife a tea,called my grandma,who lived through WW2, had a great conversation as always,rode my stationary bike, went for a skate.Ijust love the lines in the middle of the road whizzing by as I pump my engines(legs)In southern Ontario, the province Ilove so much,it was 30 degrees celcius! What a wonderful day! If I`m being too positive, I`m sorry!

   

Dave: Remember the old bumper sticker "Question Everything!"? Carry on!

   

Thanks mate!

   

Muchg more rational than the "Individualists" of the world who persist in questioning nothing.......

   

I think the biggest screwup was defining a corporation as having the same rights as an individual, while requiring corporations , by law, to act as psychotics, by any shrink's definition.