Skip to main content

Trevor Tombe: The Liberal Economists

 This is more of a regional post as Trevor is an economist that teaches at UofC in Calgary and comments on local politics. I normally don't have issues with liberal economists. They're generally pretty good on issues. They're liberal in their politics and they agree with all the ends of left-wing politics, but they don't have that hatred of the market that tends to permeate left-wing people in general.

I do run into issues when they're dishonest. This is a larger issue that requires it's own post, but it's sort of the philosophical idea (epistemology) that is working well into our culture. Truth is not a matter of fact, but a matter of political pressure and goals. It's very similar to Marx's view that all society is groups fighting for power and truth is merely a groups power play - nothing more. There is bourgeoisie 'truth' and that truth benefits that group and their power in society. And the same applies to proletariat.

Basically this all manifests as people who can't separate politics from anything because everything is a power play and objective reality (facts as they are) may benefit a competing group.

Exhibit A:


What I find most annoying about this tweet is the last sentence. It doesn't follow from the previous point, without the intention of obfuscating the facts on the ground. "Monetary policy is conducted by the Bank of Canada." Right. The sky is blue. Ducks go quack. 

Government deficits, in and of themselves, don't create inflation. In an ideal scenario, the government issues bonds, private buyers in the market purchases them and it's a regular transition of money from one party to another.

This deficit doesn't work this way. The Bank of Canada purchases the bonds the Federal government issues, and that is an injection of new non-existent cash into the market. That's an inflationary act of monetary policy.

I find this very annoying from someone that knows this and purposely muddies the waters. The distinction being made here is that it's just gas prices, and somehow deficits with Bank of Canada bond purchases are unrelated to inflation. He may be correct about gas prices being the main mover here, (he would never say carbon tax as he's a supporter of this in the power structure), but it just so misleading what he presented. 

Exhibit B:

Trevor Tombe: Rejecting equalization spurns a crucial principle of Confederation

This is another interesting piece because it's just a strawman from the start. It's very clear that the UCP has no intention of fundamentally changing the idea behind equalization.  He rants on this about a desire to abolish it.

I find myself saying to myself, with the characterization of conservatives by liberals in Alberta, "I wish they were what you think they are". Literally. The culture in welfare is so engrained in Canadians - the UCP has no desire to remove provincial governments receiving handouts & welfare. The sacrifice of the strong to the weak is the predominant cultural idea in Canada.

The equalization referendum is about exerting some pressure. Being strong doesn't mean bleeding us to death and definitely empathize with this.

I wish this was on ending equalization. The average Canadian hates Alberta. Atlantic Canada the most. They resent everyone that leaves and heads to Alberta to build a life for themselves. It's that culture of hating the successful. It's about hating the good for being good. And they hate Alberta so much they'll stagnate and bleed it.

If only this was about ending it. 

The ironic part about all this, with asserting autonomy, the so called Alberta Firewall - Quebec does it and everyone bows down. Alberta just brings up the idea of it and mocked, scoffed and hated. 

Anyway,

Trevor put down the power plays and focus on just presenting truth as it is.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Energy Market with Unreliables

 The energy market is going to be something that will be on people's minds for a long time because right now there is very poor policy and ideological views driving us to a crisis. There has been a nice little bull run going on over the last few months, and this may not be the crisis. It's something that may immerge here, but it might be 5-10 years from now. For the longest time I've been a passive index investor , and I still am for a nice chunk of my portfolio, but over the last 18 months I've decided that I'm going to apply my own judgment to the market place and invest accordingly. Over this time I've accumulated a pretty sizeable portfolio of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) companies, in particular upstream and midstream companies. Renewable Energy or Green Energy are Unreliables There is a political push for green energy. It's driven by the moral ideas that green energy is this universally good  energy and all the other reliable energies we use like fossil

Answering COVID19 Conspiratards

  There's a lot to unpack here. "My doctor... vaccinated creates more ammo for the virus to grow stronger and more resistant..." I do admire that his doctor sounds a lot like the anti-vaxx doctors on the internet, but there is much to unpack. Sometimes I don't grasp the past that well, but I'm pretty sure before COVID19 we had vaccines. I think we had a lot of them. Small pox, measles, yearly influenza, etc. The data shows that we aren't being overwhelmed with super measles or seasonal super influenza that is worse and worse each year. It's not to say that it couldn't happen, but with the data we currently possess on vaccines - it isn't happening. Plus, if this were a problem - it isn't a vaccine problem. It would be an immunity problem. Let's just assume we went "all natural" and much of the world was infected with COVID19. Well, most of the world would gain the immune response t-cells and antibodies to fight future infections. A

Efficient Market Hypothesis and Passive Investing

 When it comes to investing in the market, there is a lot of contentious debate about what is best. I have found that people get so wrapped up in defending their strategy that they either overplay the ideas behind the strategy or just outright misrepresent them. I understand wanting one's investment strategy to work best but let us not delude ourselves. "Best" is not something that is easy qualitatively to measure when various investors have different risk tolerances, timelines and goals. The above is no less true when it comes to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (from now on as EMH); both from those for and against the idea of it. I think both (for and against) conceptualize EMH improperly and it takes away from the value it has as an investing strategy. I will add that I have 90% of my investment portfolio invested in passive index funds, which are the products utilized by those that follow EMH and the studies following from it. That's not to say I'm biased towar