[CP] The Evolution of Partisanship and Economic Theory in Canada

Day 876, 12:54 • Published in Canada Canada • by Jacobi

The Evolution of Partisanship and Economic Theory in Canada


Everyone loves fancy charts

Canada throughout most its history has had only the rudimentary beginnings of a partisan political system. Parties, either social clubs or vehicles for ambitious politicos, are nebulous affairs with absolutely no ideological commitment. The closest Canada has seen to a political party being partisan was the old Canadian Empire Party, with its decidedly militarist bent. But even then, however, the differences between the CEP and other parties were more optics than anything truly substantial. For the duration of our country's existence then, Canadians have not had a real choice as to the direction that they want their country to go. There have been no butter or margarine decisions to make, because we've never had the opportunity to taste butter.

The lack of ideologies should not give anyone the impression of a lack of opinion, for while our level of sophistication has not allowed for the same ritualized debate seen in real life legislatures, it is certain that there has been little consensus on many of the great issues of the day. And this deficit in belief should not give anyone the impression that Canadian politicians do not use the lessons learned so well in real life on how to denigrate and promote opinions along a partisan divide. It is possible now, on the issue of the Canadian economy, that we may finally see the beginnings of distinct ideologies in Canada, and from there, the creation and division of parties that can truly be said to be partisan.

Reardenomics


Alexander Rearden is Canada's longest serving Finance Minister

Early Canadian economics, in such as a way as could be said that we had a fully functioning national system, can be traced back to one man: Alexander Rearden. Throughout the beginning half of 2009, in the shadow of Canada's first “baby boom,” Alexander Rearden did more than any other man to influence the direction and tenor of the Canadian economic debate. Reardenomics, the name given to the system he advocated, was a blended fusion between a socialist tax system that favored the consumer over the businessman, and a capitalist winner-take-all philosophy towards companies. Taxation was setup to provide the cheapest prices available with the lowest import taxes that the economy could withstand. Companies that were inefficiently managed or run were doomed to failure in such a laissez-faire system where there would be no help on the horizon. Unfortunately for the Canadians of the time period, a system set up to provide the lowest prices possible would lead to high prices for all Canadians as the limited amount of competition allowed those few industry owners who were able to competently run their companies much leeway to set prices (keep in mind that Canadians of last year operated in a less sophisticated global economy with much less gold to be had).

According to this newspaper, on March 9, 2009, the prices of our olden days were a travesty compared to what we enjoy today:


There have always been chicken littles. There hasn't always been progress.

There are few people today who would want to go back to a Reardenomic system and by June of 2009, there were plenty of people who were eager to be convinced that there would be a better way to organize our economy.

The Dean22 Consensus


Dean22 was a wolf in wolf's clothing

Dean22 was elected to Congress during a time when Canadian businesses, in terms of quality and quality, were severely lacking with a growing population. While there was an incredible growth potential in the Canadian economy, especially in exports, establishing a business under the previous system was difficult at best for all but the most versed in erepublik economics. Dean22's system proposed increase profits and profit making abilities of Canadian companies by tying the import tax to amount of foreign businesses operating in Canada and eliminating the VAT in favor of a purely income tax based system. The main objections at the time were typical ones that could be suspected, that the income tax would hurt workers, or that this would primarily enrich business owners, and that it would ruin our economy. The reforms passed, the Dean22 consensus would remain in place for over half a year, and the economy was well positioned for low prices and comparable wages for months to come.

The Arrival of Protectionism


Protectionist policies normally flourish in times of economic upheaval.

A key component of the Dean22 plan was that import taxes were the lever on which the economy would be influenced by the government. Regular checks by the government to ensure that Canadian businesses were not being swamped by foreign exporters, while at the same time ensuring that there was some cap on which prices could rise without getting out of hand. The system worked exactly as advertised, with the number of Q4 and Q5 companies trebling and quadrupling and the profits of companies being able to whether all but the most extreme of crashes while wages remained high and prices low. Canada had, by GDP and quality of living standards, one of the best economies in the world.

The arrival of protectionism in the early parts of 2010 signaled the end of the Consensus. The global depression which had arrived late in 2009 tested and broke the limits to which the taxation plan could maintain both the profits of owners and the wages of citizens. As a reaction to the economic crisis, the Congress built a wall around the Canadian economy to insulate company owners from an influx foreign goods at fire-sale prices, attempting as best they could to weather the storm.

Protectionism was an emergency measure that, in the emergency, served as triage in a hostile climate. Realities being what they were, even the most fervent supporters of the previous economic system could not offer more than feeble protests. Protectionism would carry the day, and the economy, through the next few months.

The Battle Lines Become Clear

Protectionism, as was said, was a stop gap policy intended on saving the farm. In the reality in which it was enacted, it was perhaps the best policy for the time but its role in the present day, after the Hospital Change, after titanium, and in the shadow of V2 is not as secure as the models that came before it. Unlike Reardenomics or the Dean22 Consensus, where there was so little sophistication in economic thinking that the voice of one man would go practically unchallenged to any educated degree, economic knowledge and thinking in Canada is no longer in the domain of the select few. Finally, the battle lines have become clear.

On one side, there is a group of extremely rich business owners, the Republicans of Canadian economics:


If he were an eCanadian, he'd side with Citizen B

Duiveltje, self professed holder of 800 gold, Canadian-cum-Dutchman-cum-American tycoon.

Citizen B, industrial maven of Canada, longest serving Minister of Industries in history.

Petz, owner of thirteen different Canadian companies, long time pro-business Congressman

On the other hand, there is a group of politically powerful populists, the Democrats of Canadian economics:


In between causing EDEN to bow to my whims, I destroy economies.

Jacobi, Speaker of Congress and author of 6 Canadian budgets

Tyler F Durden, Canadian war hero and political patriarch

Each side has an entrenched philosophy of economic theory based off of their experiences and interests . It should come as no surprise that three of Canada's wealthiest favor a taxation system that primarily benefits wealthy businessmen, to make permanent in a boom measures introduced in a depression. These supply siders believe that from the wealth of Canadian businesses will maintain the relative low prices and high wages Canadians now enjoy. Without the wealthy tycoon, an economy of amateurs would collapse wages and quality of life.

It should come as no surprise that a politician like Jacobi would favor a taxation system geared towards greatest amount of wealth to the greatest amount of people. Advocating an economy that uses import taxes as pressure valves on prices, on government influence through taxation over which industries thrive and which are eliminated, essentially constrain the hands of business owners at best, and eliminate the value of hundreds of gold worth of investments at worst.

Partisanship from Economic Maturity

Canadian economic history has oscillated between Reardenomics on the furthest left, a policy of citizens first businesses last, to Supply-Side Protectionism on the furthest right, a policy of supporting the wealthy to support the poor. In the middle, those who hold towards the Consensus model to protect businesses and prices while eliminating industries and businesses that are considered dead weight. There are other permutations to be sure, from Communists to variations on themes, and not all proponents of any one philosophy agree with their colleagues. However, for perhaps the first time there are several economic theories in Canada, promoted by leading citizens and each with internally consistent logic. It is very possible that the next Congressional election in 11 days will be fought between these two factions and for the first time Canadians will have a choice of what they want to spread on their bread. It is also possible that from these diverging viewpoints we may actually see the formation of major differences between parties as one or the other takes up the standard or creates a compromise of two.

It is obvious that I hold a particular belief that the economic theories I have been espousing are in the best interest of Canada going forward. I do not, however, believe that will always be the case. When there is a significant down-turn, recession or depression, I believe that the economic philosophy ascribed to Citizen B, Petz, and the rest may in fact better serve Canada. I just do not think that in times of plenty and prosperity we should, as is done in real life America, reward the rich at the expense of the poor.

I also hold the belief that having competing economic theories, significant differences in philosophies between parties, and non-rudimentary ideologies in fact benefit the political life of Canada. This maturity in our system, years in the making, will allow us to better to confront the issues of the day in a responsible way and will serve to empower and educate Canadians and Canadian leaders. That is, of course, if our classic Canadian aversion to confrontation and the real limitations of our political system don't get in the way first.

John “Jacobi” Carpenter